#new studios

[askagamedev]

What forces cause game dev to crunch harder than most other forms of software development?

When I started writing, I had one answer to this question. The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized that I don't think think we actually do crunch harder than other forms of software development. Sure, we work a ton of hours during crunch time - I've got too many battle scars of my own to ever deny that. But I think that you're taking too narrow a view of "form of software development" and should instead consider "maturity of product". Here's what I mean.

Consider the kind of software development that doesn't crunch. It's usually the old, established, boring software - banking, inventory, web development, often long time services that have been running for a long time with long-term established clients. These are very well-known quantities, with well-understood requirements. The urgency of delivering new features is not super high, because those clients are likely deeply engaged within the ecosystem already. It costs too much for them to take their business elsewhere, so they'll probably continue to do business with you.

Compare this to a tech startup that lacks this kind of long-term product service. They have no long-term established clients with a strong business relationship. In such a case, I would expect to see a ragtag group of developers crunching all the time no matter what kind of software they're trying to build in order to get a viable product and establish a userbase/clientele. Startups expect to hustle as much as they can in hopes of securing funding, launching the product, and hoping to get rich along the way.

If you consider the game industry, we have both - the long term, long-running established games usually crunch less because things are known quantities for them. They know who their customers are, they know what they're making, and they're pretty good at making it. Building regular content updates to a long-running game is really minimally crunchy. Conversely, new games and new products - especially the first title from new studios - necessitate spending a lot of time figuring out what they are trying to be and who they are for, which often necessitates startup-like crunch conditions to get it done on schedule.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

[alfheimr]

mithrun 🌞

[lylahammar]

STUDIO TRIGGER????? YOU DID THIS FOR US?

[lunarr-stuff]

*distant screams of agony*

[ciearcab]

how do you live?

[yellodisney]

[animations-daily]

YEAR OF THE DRAGON 🐉 Spirited Away ‣ 千と千尋の神隠し

[kosalus]

did the bicep meme with shadowlach

[tepkunset]

Marvel Studios is an American film and television production company. Marvel Comics is an American comic book publisher.

As of the current date, the official BDS Movement has called for a Boycott of Marvel Studios upcoming Captain America film that features a zionist Israeli character who supports apartheid. There has been zero mention of Marvel Comics - or anything else Marvel - in either of their two statements I can currently find mentioning "Marvel" on their website, unless something is missing from that tag.

April 27, 2023: "Palestinians call for widespread boycotts of Marvel’s 2024 film, Captain America: New World Order, unless it drops Sabra/Ruth Bat-Seraph, its “superhero” that personifies the apartheid state of Israel. ... We encourage creative, peaceful protests to challenge Marvel Studios’ – and its owner Disney’s – complicity in anti-Palestinian racism, Israeli propaganda, and the glorification of settler-colonial violence against Indigenous people. ... We urge conscientious audiences worldwide to join us in boycotting Captain America: New World Order, and standing up for freedom, justice and equality."

November 23, 2023: "Marvel’s next Captain America film features Sabra/Ruth Bat-Seraph, a “superhero” personifying apartheid Israel. The character’s backstory includes working for the genocidal Israeli government and its occupation forces. By reviving this racist character in any form, Marvel is promoting Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. It is complicit in anti-Palestinian racism, Israeli propaganda, and glorifying settler-colonial violence. Tell Marvel you won’t buy its toys, clothes or accessories."

It is my understanding that the only way a boycott will work is if it's organized and targeted - thus the reason for BDS in the first place. The demand was that Marvel Studios remove the Israeli character from the film. Since the demand has not been met, then the boycott remains in place. But boycotting some random comic book writer's work and some comic book shop that makes pennies, with nothing to do with the MCU, is not what is being organized at this time.

The character in question hasn't even been featured in comics in 10 years - though of course she never should have been created in the first place. But Marvel Studios is choosing to pull her out of nowhere, when they have thousands and thousands of characters they could adapt instead. Please boycott Captain America: Brave New World (formerly titled New World Order) set to come out February, 2025, even if you're a Sam Wilson fan.

[iww-gnv]

Production workers at Walt Disney Animation Studios have voted to unionize under the Animation Guild, the union announced Wednesday on X. Production coordinators, managers and supervisors at Disney Animation are poised to be represented by Local 839 IATSE, a branch of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. Sixty-three of the 68 workers who participated in the election voted in favor of union representation, according to the National Labor Relations Board. “Congratulations to the production workers at Disney Feature Animation!” the Animation Guild posted on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. “With 96% voter turnout, 93% voted yes!!! Let’s celebrate!”

[linvaniin]

dream eater's waltz

[reasonsforhope]

Federal regulators on Tuesday [April 23, 2024] enacted a nationwide ban on new noncompete agreements, which keep millions of Americans — from minimum-wage earners to CEOs — from switching jobs within their industries.

The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday afternoon voted 3-to-2 to approve the new rule, which will ban noncompetes for all workers when the regulations take effect in 120 days [So, the ban starts in early September, 2024!]. For senior executives, existing noncompetes can remain in force. For all other employees, existing noncompetes are not enforceable.

[That's right: if you're currently under a noncompete agreement, it's completely invalid as of September 2024! You're free!!]

The antitrust and consumer protection agency heard from thousands of people who said they had been harmed by noncompetes, illustrating how the agreements are "robbing people of their economic liberty," FTC Chair Lina Khan said. 

The FTC commissioners voted along party lines, with its two Republicans arguing the agency lacked the jurisdiction to enact the rule and that such moves should be made in Congress...

Why it matters

The new rule could impact tens of millions of workers, said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist and president of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. 

"For nonunion workers, the only leverage they have is their ability to quit their job," Shierholz told CBS MoneyWatch. "Noncompetes don't just stop you from taking a job — they stop you from starting your own business."

Since proposing the new rule, the FTC has received more than 26,000 public comments on the regulations. The final rule adopted "would generally prevent most employers from using noncompete clauses," the FTC said in a statement.

The agency's action comes more than two years after President Biden directed the agency to "curtail the unfair use" of noncompetes, under which employees effectively sign away future work opportunities in their industry as a condition of keeping their current job. The president's executive order urged the FTC to target such labor restrictions and others that improperly constrain employees from seeking work.

"The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy," Khan said in a statement making the case for axing noncompetes. "Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand."

Real-life consequences

In laying out its rationale for banishing noncompetes from the labor landscape, the FTC offered real-life examples of how the agreements can hurt workers.

In one case, a single father earned about $11 an hour as a security guard for a Florida firm, but resigned a few weeks after taking the job when his child care fell through. Months later, he took a job as a security guard at a bank, making nearly $15 an hour. But the bank terminated his employment after receiving a letter from the man's prior employer stating he had signed a two-year noncompete.

In another example, a factory manager at a textile company saw his paycheck dry up after the 2008 financial crisis. A rival textile company offered him a better job and a big raise, but his noncompete blocked him from taking it, according to the FTC. A subsequent legal battle took three years, wiping out his savings. 

-via CBS Moneywatch, April 24, 2024

--

Note:

A lot of people think that noncompete agreements are only a white-collar issue, but they absolutely affect blue-collar workers too, as you can see from the security guard anecdote.

In fact, one in six food and service workers are bound by noncompete agreements. That's right - one in six food workers can't leave Burger King to work for Wendy's [hypothetical example], in the name of "trade secrets." (x, x, x)

Noncompete agreements also restrict workers in industries from tech and video games to neighborhood yoga studios. "The White House estimates that tens of millions of workers are subject to noncompete agreements, even in states like California where they're banned." (x, x, x)

The FTC estimates that the ban will lead to "the creation of 8,500 new businesses annually, an average annual pay increase of $524 for workers, lower health care costs, and as many as 29,000 more patents each year for the next decade." (x)

Clearer explanation of noncompete agreements below the cut.

Noncompete agreements can restrict workers from leaving for a better job or starting their own business.

Noncompetes often effectively coerce workers into staying in jobs they want to leave, and even force them to leave a profession or relocate.

Noncompetes can prevent workers from accepting higher-paying jobs, and even curtail the pay of workers not subject to them directly.

Of the more than 26,000 comments received by the FTC, more than 25,000 supported banning noncompetes. 

[keydekyie]

Leap

[tycutiovevo]

victini variants! based these on different rabbit breeds, and the last on hares and jackrabbits! which is your favorite?

[nintala-scribble]

Metroid Fusion is my favorite horror movie

[yellodisney]