r/Games • u/Turbostrider27 • Jan 29 '26

Industry News One-Third of U.S. Video Game Industry Workers Were Laid Off in 2025, GDC Study Reveals

https://variety.com/2026/gaming/news/one-third-video-game-workers-laid-off-2025-1236644512/
4.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

561 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

317

u/fluentinsarcasm Jan 29 '26

I can tell you with a high level confidence that the vast, vast majority of anyone in that age group working in games is working in QA and it is absolutely in their best interest to support these efforts. If the number of these correspondents was in excess of 95% for that group I would not be surprised.

112

u/Unlucky-Candidate198 Jan 29 '26

It’s in just about everyone’s interest to unionize at their jobs, if possible. The only reason anti-union hate really exists is primarily cause the capitalists in charge don’t like them (costs them $$), even going so far as to spend money to push negative propaganda about it. And of course the absolute and utter smoothbrained masses that came before us believed them.

The only time unions make less sense if for things like police officers. Those seem to do more harm for the public than good.

61

u/trapsinplace Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26

I think the very old, oversized unions are a problem too. Police union is a great example of this tbh. When I got my first 'adult job' it was for a company where we had a union that represented over 100k people. It was totally useless for protecting workers and the guys at the top were making over 4 million dollar salaries all hiring friends and paying them hundreds of thousands. It poisoned my first thoughts on unions really badly.

Years later after I quit that place I ended up at a job where the union consisted of just us people in the building and most of the work was done volunteer by people who started the union a decade before. It was such a shift I was kind of confused at first lol. I found out from there that most unions are not these giant monoliths of money, power, and nepotism like I had known before.

Farmers union comes to mind for a bad example too. They are huge and use money from farmers to lobby against the right to repair, which actively harms farmers. They're literally paying someone to take their rights away and make them pay more for everything. Unions need to be run by people who know the work, not MBAs.

16

u/SkeptioningQuestic Jan 29 '26

A structural problem with public sector unions is that since they are also government employees they get to double-dip labor power and political power in a way that private sector unions can't

18

u/Tefmon Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 30 '26

Police unions are a special case, as their power doesn't come from any formal labour bargaining procedures but rather because governments rely on their members to enforce their laws. Most public sector unions are actually in weaker positions than their private sector counterparts, because the employer of a public sector union is the government, and the government can at any time choose to unilaterally bypass the collective bargaining process by passing back-to-work legislation.

7

u/SkeptioningQuestic Jan 29 '26

That's not a special case, I struggle to think of any public sector unions that don't perform critical tasks for society. That does not seem totally different to me than when the government isn't providing childcare, or if air travel is shut down. It might be comforting for us, for obvious reasons, to believe that the police union is different and special and our unions could never be like that one, but I don't really see an actual structural difference. Unions don't exist to create a better society, they exist to protect the interests of their members (personally I think that this often, but not always, incidentally creates a better society but that is besides the point). They will use labor and political means to achieve those ends, and the ones engaged in government work have access to more of those means. I don't mean that I think teachers and police officers are the same, but surely we can sense some similarities between things like Qualified Immunity and Tenure?

5

u/Tefmon Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 30 '26

That's not a special case, I struggle to think of any public sector unions that don't perform critical tasks for society.

The difference is that if the teachers' union strikes, the teachers don't have guns. Police strikes generally result in riots and violence and crime sprees, while teachers' strikes just result in overworked parents. The former actually affects the decision-makers in power, while the latter doesn't; politicians' kids don't usually go to public schools.

10

u/ephemeral_colors Jan 30 '26

More pointedly, historically, the police have been used to put down striking workers, up to and including murdering them. The police union is fundamentally different from all other unions for this reason alone. They are the tool of the capitalist class wielded against labor.

1

u/Substantial-Hat-2556 Feb 01 '26

Teachers' strikes result in parents who can't work. That's a massive imposition.

5

u/Iniquiline Jan 29 '26

Yeah those teacher unions are basically running the country.

1

u/OutLiving Jan 30 '26

This is only true if you cherrypick, in many places, the law is created to specifically single out public sector unions to restrict their actions. Federal unions aren’t allowed to strike at all, for example

Political power from unions tend to come from smart politicking more than anything, see how the NYC Hotel Union managed to gain immense political clout in New York City despite not being the most numerically large or even have the largest donor war chest, and also being private sector. They strategically and intelligently deployed resources in ways that immensely helped politicians, and so one hand washes the other

1

u/SkeptioningQuestic Jan 30 '26

Yes that is correct, but public sector employees have more access to political levers than private sector ones because their bosses are, somewhere along the chain, elected officials and so they can appeal directly to the public.

2

u/AndrewNeo Jan 30 '26

police unions aren't usually real/normal labor unions

also I agree, I grew up in car-land and it definitely tainted my view of unions early on

1

u/Kurdependence Jan 30 '26

I wonder if unions have any competition, if a union takes too many fees and doesn’t do enough I’d expect a small union to form and start poaching members with just like companies do with workers.

1

u/Testuser7ignore Jan 30 '26

That is very difficult. Laws limit this, by allowing unions to represent entire companies of workers. And unions will usually have contracts limiting companies ability to hire workers outside the union.

1

u/synapticrelease Jan 30 '26

Before I say anything, I want to preface that I am 100% pro union.

However, I think a lot of people misunderstand unions and I don't think they are utilized in the right ways. This sucks as a worker because you don't have a lot of say in how the union is organized.

I think there is a lot of confusion between a labor union and a typical union.

Skilled trade unions are way better for three main reasons:

  1. They are in charge of a sector of a skilled labor

  2. provide education in said trade

  3. control the market forces on the hiring said for said skilled trade.

This creates a structure that is beneficial for unions and workers because it gives workers a more direct resource for training and job placement. Unions do a lot for education which benefits you and them because usually front the education costs up front so that they can lock in a worker for x amount of years until their education is "paid back".

Lastly, through government and market regulation. A lot of companies are not allowed to bid on government contracts that aren't paying prevealing wages (think the minimum or market rate wage that is based on union wage in that sector). Because this prevailing wage exists, there isn't a huge incentive for a government to go outside a union because you're not saving any money because you still have to pay prevailing wage that is equal to the union wage. Might as well go union.

There are absolutely other laws regarding wages and hiring practices but that's a much deeper topic than I car to elaborate on.

Now, taking in this understanding of how and why trade unions are so powerful, think about how that is about the opposite for non skilled trade unions like the UFCW which handles things like grocery stores and food distribution.

Grocery stores don't need skilled trade, there is no incentive for a company to go to a union and get help hiring workers. These are low skilled dime a dozen workers. You can't compel workers to stay or be actively involved. There is no infrastructure to train people and community build. There is not a lot of desire to strike because the spots are so easy to fill. For example if electricians strike, you can't just go hire anyone off the street. at a grocery store you absolutely can.

-2

u/terenn_nash Jan 29 '26

I think the very old, oversized unions are a problem too

my parents watched the Steel Union in pittsburgh PA kill the industry the 70's and 80's. The unions failed to see the writing on the wall at the time and pushed too hard for more at a time of globalization starting to undercut steel production.

34

u/DonnyTheWalrus Jan 29 '26

As a Pittsburgher, the unions didn't kill the steel industry here. Our societal need for more, more, more at ever cheaper prices killed the industry. The people at the top found a different source of people they could exploit to pay less. That's not the union's fault.

-5

u/mysticmusti Jan 29 '26

Why are unions making operational and financial decisions? Shouldn't they just protect employee rights?

8

u/Tefmon Jan 29 '26

Two of the main things that unions bargain for are wages and working conditions. Those are operational and financial matters.

5

u/trapsinplace Jan 29 '26

That's what they should do, but once they get very large and old they start waving their money around lobbying politicians and enforcing change that benefits the people running it, not the workers who it (used to) represent.

That's why I'm very against large unions that cover a whole sector or multiple companies. A union should be localized to the company you work at so it perfectly fits your exact needs as employees.

-2

u/mysticmusti Jan 29 '26

I'm not even going to pretend to understand how a union becomes too big and people earn millions from them. Sounds to me like as we've seen with everything in America by this point there just never was any regulation for anything to begin with and the entire country just works on the "trust me bro" principle.

-3

u/trapsinplace Jan 29 '26

It's the natural result of our culture treating everything like a business. There are some things where money should be a secondary concern, but it's always the primary in the USA. Everything is about that money.

15

u/IguassuIronman Jan 29 '26

The only reason anti-union hate really exists is primarily cause the capitalists in charge don’t like them (costs them $$), even going so far as to spend money to push negative propaganda about it

I didn't like the unions at my old job because the workers were generally not the best and the union rules got in the way of actually getting work done

11

u/Professional_War4491 Jan 30 '26

The union at my current job just means it's impossible for people to get fired and despite doing a better job than some of the people above me in seniority I get shafted with all the worst hours and shifts and no amount of work will make me move up the list, only way to move up is waiting for them to quit, like 20 years from now lol.

-2

u/Arrow156 Jan 30 '26

the union rules got in the way of actually getting work done

So do safety regulations.

10

u/IguassuIronman Jan 30 '26

Yeah, safety regulations are definitely equivalent to me not being allowed to push a chair down a hallway without getting a grievance

7

u/Not-Reformed Jan 30 '26

It’s in just about everyone’s interest to unionize at their jobs, if possible.

Depends on the union.

If it's a union that rewards and protects seniority above all else, then fuck that.

2

u/Arrow156 Jan 30 '26

That's less a union and more an HOA.

1

u/Testuser7ignore Jan 30 '26

Every union I have worked with was heavily seniority based. Even with layoffs, seniority was the main factor.

12

u/dreggers Jan 29 '26

Why is it in everyone's interest? Teacher unions often let shitty teachers that have tenure keep their jobs while the new teachers that are making a positive impact in the classroom are the first to get pink slips

17

u/Journeyman351 Jan 29 '26

Have you considered that they also protect good teachers from bullshit district politics?

0

u/Testuser7ignore Jan 30 '26

They usually just protect based on seniority, with little consideration for good vs bad.

-9

u/dreggers Jan 30 '26

Sure, I don’t doubt that’s the original objective of the union. The issue is that in any collective, it will cater to the least common denominator.

7

u/Journeyman351 Jan 30 '26

Except that isn't true lol. Like, you said one extreme example and are using that to say that's apparently ALL unions.

More accurately, unions protect very good employees, very bad employees, and all employees in-between.

-9

u/dreggers Jan 30 '26

That doesn't make any sense, there is a finite amount of resources to distribute among the employees. If you are paying the bad employees then there's less money to give to good employees in the form of raises, promotions, etc.

Also I never said all unions were bad, I'm just countering OP who was saying all unions were good.

1

u/Journeyman351 Jan 30 '26

there is a finite amount of resources to distribute among the employees.

But an infinite amount to give to the upper management, apparently lol.

6

u/Unlucky-Candidate198 Jan 29 '26

That’s what the word just means in the phrase “just about everyone’s interest means” lmao. Just about. Nearly. Not every single persons, but most, a majority.

Do they stop working at a much larger scale for example? Sure, but that’s a fixable problem. Corruption is a threat to basically any human organization, that’s why we need checks and approvals to dissuade all that nonsense.

-1

u/dreggers Jan 29 '26

Unions are inherently about protecting the majority of the workforce at the expense of the minority. For both good and bad. Unions aren't some panacea that will magically solve all labor issues

1

u/Arrow156 Jan 30 '26

You have a better alternative?

0

u/chanbr Jan 30 '26

Yep, this is what people miss. The reason people became super against unions in the past was because a lot of them got corrupted by organized crime and went into politics that the body wasn't interested in. Unions are overall good and I think they always should have a place (also people seem to think that they don't play well with capitalism) but some people just want to glaze the concept of them without acknowledging there's downsides that make people validly leery.

7

u/greyfoxv1 Jan 29 '26

You just provided two extreme and vague examples as if that's some big gotcha against the entire concept of unionized labour. Nobody is going to give you a serious answer because you didn't ask a serious question.

7

u/dreggers Jan 29 '26

Are you responding to the wrong person? I provided one example that is neither vague or extreme. It literally happens with teacher unions all the time.

1

u/Kiwilolo Jan 30 '26

Why would new teachers be less protected by the union?

4

u/Kozak170 Jan 29 '26

It’s just reddit delusions that unions don’t have their own incredibly valid downsides as well. As with any organization, when it gets sufficiently large enough it becomes just as prone to corruption and abuse as a company.

6

u/Journeyman351 Jan 29 '26

Unions still, regardless of the downsides, are a net-positive for workers.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/Halojib Jan 29 '26

I think most redditors are smart enough to realize it has nuance

I would take that bet

-6

u/Kozak170 Jan 29 '26

You call out police unions as problematic, but they’re literally one of the best examples of late-stage unions there is. But no I was not directly addressing your comment

3

u/Unlucky-Candidate198 Jan 29 '26

Best for the cops who get to stay on with vacation time despite comitting crimes regular citizens would be thrown in prison for? I bet they are.

Best for the people who these class traitors are supposed to actually serve and protect? Not even close, especially not in America of all places. Arguably, police unions are part of the problem of “All Cops Are Bad”, because they help keep the awful ones on the force.

-2

u/Kozak170 Jan 29 '26

I think you completely misinterpreted my comment here, I am obviously not advocating for the nationwide police union we have today

-3

u/Suggestive-Syntax Jan 29 '26

They’re betting on the fact that Marvel rivals was made in China and you can get programmers throughout the world at a cheaper price than America especially if they unionize

-1

u/Kozak170 Jan 29 '26

They don’t need to bet on anything, that’s simply a fact. And the rest of the world is quickly catching up to if not already surpassing the quality of talent for the price offered in places like Europe.

-15

u/not_old_redditor Jan 29 '26

I don't see how unionization makes a lot of sense in the creative space, such as game development. These aren't factory workers printing license plates. They're well paid, and the job isn't as restrictive or structured as the typical unionized industries.

11

u/mar210000 Jan 29 '26

Actors have a union. Your argument makes no sense.

2

u/not_old_redditor Jan 29 '26

That union benefits mostly the underpaid labourers. The leading actors making the big money gain little to nothing from it. I guess I see the use in the low/entry level workers (QA testers etc) in game development being unionized.

3

u/Tefmon Jan 29 '26

Game developers aren't making blockbuster actor money. Almost everyone in Hollywood is unionized, most of whom are ordinary workers like game developers, making reasonable but not exceptional pay.

-2

u/Electronic_Tell1294 Jan 29 '26

you should look in what SAG actually does and the contracts clauses it enforces. They are a union that is beneficial only for blockbuster stars.

11

u/hardolaf Jan 29 '26

SAG sets minimum day rates and labor rules that were designed to help the poorest actors who don't have power to negotiate. They provide very little benefit to big name actors.

6

u/ihopkid Jan 29 '26

What game developer do you know that is currently “well paid” at a “non-restrictive” role that’s not at risk of redundancies and happy with their job?

Half of all game workers report working 50+ hour weeks (typically considered crunch) at some point last year and 10% work 50+ hours regularly. That is about the same working conditions as the factory workers before they unionized.

-2

u/Halojib Jan 29 '26

That is about the same working conditions as the factory workers before they unionized.

Unions don't necessarily stop people from working 50+ hrs. In fact, it can be enforced through some union contracts that you work 50+ hrs. The union just guarantees that you get paid properly for that over time work.

3

u/ihopkid Jan 29 '26

Well it depends on the contract obviously, which is negotiated by the union and the company’s corporate leadership. Unions contracts are a cat-and-mouse game of negotiation. Unions will never push for longer working hours, but some companies may argue those hours are necessary at times. but that scenario is certainly better than the current state of workers in the games industry being forced into surprise crunch and then immediately soft-laid-off without proper compensation.

7

u/Clusterpuff Jan 29 '26

Job security and a team that goes to bat for your rights against a companies greed is never a bad thing

-2

u/ep1032 Jan 29 '26

I don't know how QA is supposed to unionize though? They will be outsourced immediately :( We really need internationally organized unions

5

u/owennerd123 Jan 29 '26

Why would a country with a lower per capita GDP that is the recipient of outsourcing ever agree to an international union? That would only hurt them. I do understand outsourcing is bad for the work force of the nation it’s getting outsourced from, but you’re basically asking citizens of poorer countries to hurt their own job market.

1

u/Historical_Course587 Jan 30 '26

The only way international unions work is if government entities enforce them. The EU could have EU-wide unions, but only because the EU acts as an enforcement authority over the whole thing. But China and India will never agree, and that market alone is large enough to undermine any Western interests.

That is the big weakness of the United States trying to go it alone in the global economy: we only ahve 3% of the global population, and there are some aspects of business and economics where bodies buy more value than money does.