Ex-PlayStation Boss Says Game Subscription Turns Developers Into 'Wage Slaves' (gamesindustry.biz) 34
Former Sony Worldwide Studios chairman Shawn Layden criticized subscription gaming services like Xbox Game Pass, arguing that developers working under such models become "wage slaves." Speaking in a recent industry discussion, Layden contended that subscription services prevent developers from traditional profit-sharing arrangements.
"They're not creating value, putting it in the marketplace, hoping it explodes, and profit sharing, and overages, and all that nice stuff," Layden said. "It's just, 'You pay me X dollars an hour, I built you a game, here, go put it on your servers.'" He called the model uninspiring for game developers.
"They're not creating value, putting it in the marketplace, hoping it explodes, and profit sharing, and overages, and all that nice stuff," Layden said. "It's just, 'You pay me X dollars an hour, I built you a game, here, go put it on your servers.'" He called the model uninspiring for game developers.
Not a new situation (Score:5, Interesting)
further reinforcing how detached and out of the loop company leadership is, Shawn fails to recognize that "wage slavery", which he has aligned with workers being not included in the profitable outcome of their efforts, has been the norm for a very, very long time. I might even say the dominant force for as long as I can remember. Shawn doesn't seem to know his industry or the people who work in it very well, or his speakings are betraying a more likely scenario; he is reminiscing for the days when he could get people to work 80 hour weeks under a mere PROMISE of a profit sharing benefit while the new model would emphasize work life balance.
the reality is this shift isn't just like, market based, its generational. he's going to find it harder and harder to exploit workers like he did in the past.
The land of skins and microtransactions (Score:2)
The doom loop of modern software products - emphasis *products*
- Build product, release, let your customers beta test it .... and call it a major release
- Wait 2 years, change colors, fonts, move a few buttons and maybe fix one or two bugs
- Delay, delay, delay
- Wait 2 years, change colors, fonts, move a few buttons, maybe add a feature or two....and call it a major release
- Repeat endlessly while the user's business needs are increasingly not met by any new features
Then games:
- Same game year after year, ev
Re: (Score:2)
W
an easy fix (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had to read TFA twice to figure out what they're saying about subscription services, but Spotify is exactly the example they bring up as what they (rightly imo) DON'T want to happen.
Their point is that artists can make money on live shows, but for games that's not a thing. (and i guess in this case he's talking about what are traditionally buy 2 play games not f2p with micro-transactions).
Also note he's not speaking from the POV of Sony there, he's speaking from the POV of a game developer / studio head
Great article (Score:2)
Boo hoo. (Score:2, Informative)
Welcome to how the rest of the world lives.
Every company I have ever worked for is, "We pay you $X, you work on project Y." I've never received part of the profits from the sales of my work. Unless you count my salary.
Re: Boo hoo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Boo hoo. (Score:2)
And you are happy about that, and therefore will speak out in favor of it for others?
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing inherently wrong with selling your time for money. It's a concept as old as employment itself. Employees have never had an expectation that, in addition to being paid a wage for their time, they would also be given a share of the company that hired them.
The plus side is, if you're not a shareholder, the company doesn't have a rationale to require unpaid labor.
Re: (Score:2)
Employees have never had an expectation that, in addition to being paid a wage for their time, they would also be given a share of the company that hired them.
They should. We all should. Don't be a class traitor.
The plus side is, if you're not a shareholder, the company doesn't have a rationale to require unpaid labor.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHaHahhahahahAHAHHAHAHAHHA
Work for a better company (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be a race through a pile of shit for a bucket of mud as a reward. Demand better. If that doesn't work, create the better option.
Re:Boo hoo. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's capitalism. You don't own the means of production, you ARE the means and the bosses own you.
You get paid though. Which is nice. Until the bosses screw up and have to make "hard decisions."
Re: (Score:2)
you ARE the means and the bosses own you.
Two weeks notice. Then bye, bye.
I've worked on projects where the customer awards contracts based on who is on the project. Needless to say, this is a well informed customer, familiar with the players involved. If too many key people up and leave, the contract could get pulled and awarded to wherever these people moved to.
Bosses are the "expendable" in this scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "employment" and the concept extends way beyond capitalism. You exchange your time for money. Why is that bad?
Re: (Score:1)
Who said it was bad?
There are many cases where people who are mostly useless are paid a great deal more for their time than those that are.
Execs, Directors, Presidents, Mr !0%; all those who say they work "hard" at doing little more than keeping up appearances and being professional whatever the fcuk that is supposed to mean. The only thing they are working hard at is doing as little for as much as they can.
"Working hard" is working on an oil rig or a 12 hour night shift for a nurse.
And that situation is a
Re: (Score:3)
Who said it was bad?
Well, toxonix, who I replied to, said this: "you ARE the means and the bosses own you." That does not sound like a "good" thing.
There are many cases where people who are mostly useless are paid a great deal more for their time than those that are.
And yet, there are no successful companies of any size, that do not have execs, directors, or presidents. If you were correct, we'd expect to see at least *some* companies that make it without such roles.
we are working to generate and preserve capital for a few of the most selfish, greedy and ruthless amongst us
There certainly are companies like this, but there is a wide spectrum of employee treatment in corporations in the US and elsewhere. It's not universally bad. Every company has its
Re: (Score:1)
Capitalism is good at cars and cornflakes. Consumer goods and services.
In my experience it's not good at public services, national infrastructure and security. It has a place to serve and supply them.
I accept that the motivator of capitalism is greed, in that respect it has a similar nature to cancer. Cancer's break out in our bodies all the time, and if we are healthy and lucky our immune system zaps them, keeps them regulated. If it doesn't cancer consumes the host. But cancer's arise from our bodies repa
Re: (Score:2)
it's not good at public services, national infrastructure and security
And yet, the US and other western nations, have public services, national infrastructure, and security that are superior to that of any nation that does not use capitalism as its primary economic model. How do you explain that paradox?
I accept that the motivator of capitalism is greed
I do not accept that greed is what motivates capitalism. Not all desire for self-improvement, is greed. The difference between wanting more (better life, better stuff) and greed, is boundaries. How far does this desire go? Are there limits? If a person wants a better life and
Re: (Score:1)
it's not good at public services, national infrastructure and security
And yet, the US and other western nations, have public services, national infrastructure, and security that are superior to that of any nation that does not use capitalism as its primary economic model. How do you explain that paradox?
These are not privately owned. You do know what capitalism is? They are privately serviced and supplied to the state, by a capitalist who rinses them for as much as they can with the help of bent politicians taking a bribe. I can bore you with lots of references to greedy corruption stories if you like.
I accept that the motivator of capitalism is greed
I do not accept that greed is what motivates capitalism. Not all desire for self-improvement, is greed. The difference between wanting more (better life, better stuff) and greed, is boundaries. How far does this desire go? Are there limits? If a person wants a better life and more wealth for themselves, everybody else be damned, that's greed. If a person wants a better life and more wealth for themselves, but remain a good citizen and care for others, that's not greed. That's healthy capitalism.
I agree with your last statement.
Capitalism and self improvement are different things.
Capitalism is an economic system. Capitalist companies are greedy for profits, through growth, market domination, reducing costs etc... If "greed" sounds like a ugly word, that's because it is. We have an instinctive aversion to it. A pope made it a deadly sin.
You can improve yourself morally, physically, spiritually independent of politics and economics. Wealth rarely improves anyone, makes them arrogant, entitled and more selfish, and rarely happier in
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalist companies are greedy for profits, through growth, market domination, reducing costs etc.
As with individual people, not all companies are greedy.
Most people want to improve their lot, they want more money and to be able to do more things. That's not greed, unless they want those things above all else. Those who set boundaries and prioritize their families and human relationships and community involvement, are not greedy, they have a healthy wish for self-improvement.
Companies are the same. Some want those things you mentioned at all cost, employees and customers be damned. This is greed. Others
Re: (Score:1)
You don't like the word greed.
Our language is great I am glad we share it. A word is like the tip of an iceberg. You have been triggered by the word greed.
One definition of greed is "an intense desire"
It's ok to be a little greedy, it's ok to be a little selfish. I have an intense desire to avoid hungry tigers. I am just too selfish to stop breathing to reduce CO2 levels. These are features of survival. And it's ok to desire to improve one's lot.
What we see in "bad" capitalist greed is a perversion of surv
Re: (Score:2)
I checked all the online dictionaries I could find, none of them lists your definition of greed. Here is a sample:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... [wiktionary.org] A selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth, food, or other possessions
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com] a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] an insatiable desire for material gain (be it food, money, land, or animate/inanimate posse
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding.
What a bunch of entitled pricks.
If they want ownership privs, they should start their own company.
I had someone like that working for me once. Retail store position. As he told it, he was "running the place". The reality was that he sat behind a desk and took money from customers and sometimes made change. When he demanded a raise, I took his keys and told him he could go home.
Re: (Score:1)
Modern capitalism. The workers must bear the market risk, not management or capital.
Game Studio, Movie Studio-- Same Practices (Score:3)
Your set designer for a major blockbuster makes an hourly wage. At the end of production, that wage ends. Unionized workers have been able to negotiate "residuals" so that when their work gets reused (re-runs, streaming, etc.), they get another paycheck. The higher-demand movie stars can negotiate "points" or portions of gross or net revenue.
It should be the same for game development. Even if we suspend our disdain for the studio itself, who's the equivalent of the movie star who gets "gross points" (a share of revenue before expenses) or even just "net points" (a share of profits)? Wouldn't the star be the designers, voice actors, etc. all working together?
Here's my proposal for the gaming industry--
1. Studio contracts with an organization to pay defined revenue share to trust (X% of all sales, subscriptions to, and microtransactions within...).
2. A trust account created for the project.
3. Points assigned to eligible contributors.
4. Studio remits revenue with reports.
5. Trust audits and allocates funds per points.
6. Payments distributed to contributors on schedule.
It doesn't have to be a LOT of money, but someone who contributes to a dozen blockbuster games throughout a career SHOULD get something beyond a wage-- especially when employment in the industry is known to be unstable/unreliable.
No mention of Playstation Plus?? (Score:2)
Seriously? They mention Xbox Game Pass but no mention of Sony's own subscription model, Playstation Plus? what the heck?
Wage slave? (Score:2)
What does that mean?
A slave doesn't get paid. Employees get paid. So how is getting paid for the hours you work, slavery?