Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts • Hacker News Board

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#321

Post by throw3141592 » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 1:14 AM UTC

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #199

martin-t wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this argument with some regularity and i don't think it would work the way you expect. Have you gamed it out in your head? 1) A lot of people would immediately stop contributing to open source. In fact i ahead have because ML is being used to launder my work to use it without resourcing my licenses. Same with any other area where people share their work for free. It would all be monetized by those with access…

1) I contribute to open source because I want the thing to exist. I use open licenses because I don't want anybody to use the law to deny anybody else access to it. If we gut the parts of the law by which others would deny access, I no longer have to worry about licensing, but my original motivated is untouched. 2) what do you mean "scooped up"? What's to stop a small platform from providing the same content that a l…

1) So you are perfectly happy with somebody else taking over, taking your code, giving it a different name, or not even that, spending a bit of money on advertisement to get more users than you, adding features to drag over your users, then taking development private and enshittifying it? EEE?

You have to understand in this world, advertising and network effects are much stronger than building a good product.

2) Again, advertising, cost of storage, having a better (meaning more addiction inducing) algorithm, etc.

3) You said it yourself, people have to create something first (which will be stolen or as you phrase it, unrestricted) so they can prove themselves so that anybody pays them to produce the next thing. Or would you pay a random guy with no credentials and no portfolio claiming he can create what you want?

Or what if somebody creates something really good but it's a one off. He changes hobbies, has children, has to care for an elderly parent, ... and doesn't have time to create more. Should he not get paid for the value of his existing work?

Your take basically means people will only get paid as long as more value can be extracted from them and then they're no longer economically viable so screw them.

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#322

Post by tkel » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 1:47 AM UTC

tbrockman wrote: post #31

metadat wrote: post #2

This makes me sad, R* has made some of my most favorite games, especially Red Dead Redemption 2. They make so much money, why can't they play nice and treat their employees like human beings? I don't recall reports of Valve (Steam, also super profitable) stooping. Is Rockstar a genetic relative of GAFA, because this is more like what I've come to expect from Amazon.

Valve is a "flat" organization, where your compensation is determined based on peer review. Rockstar, and owner Take-Two (largely owned by institutional investors--well known for their historical championing of workers rights and fondness of unions), both seem to have your typical corporate hierarchies, where executives are fairly and correctly compensated for being more productive than over 200 software engineers co…

If you think one person can be as productive as 200, you're sniffing glue, my friend.

Executives make more money because they are the only ones with the power to set wages. Workers do not have the power to set wages.

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#323

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 2:04 AM UTC

throw3141592 wrote: post #321

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I contribute to open source because I want the thing to exist. I use open licenses because I don't want anybody to use the law to deny anybody else access to it. If we gut the parts of the law by which others would deny access, I no longer have to worry about licensing, but my original motivated is untouched. 2) what do you mean "scooped up"? What's to stop a small platform from providing the same content that a l…

1) So you are perfectly happy with somebody else taking over, taking your code, giving it a different name, or not even that, spending a bit of money on advertisement to get more users than you, adding features to drag over your users, then taking development private and enshittifying it? EEE? You have to understand in this world, advertising and network effects are much stronger than building a good product. 2) Agai…

1&2) its not my code, its just code that I wrote. The enshittification problem goes away if anybody can fork it and make a less enshittified version. We could have--brace yourself for this radical concept--competition over who could make a better thing. All the bad things you're saying will happen if we don't assert ownership over data are in fact only happening because we assert ownership over data.

Somebody else owning the solution to our problems is why we tolerate such abuse. Otherwise we could cut out the abuse parts and solve the problem directly.

3) I was unspecific about how much money they'd get ahead of time versus upon completion because I figure that ought to be a case-by-case thing.

The idea that people should be able to live well based on having done good work in the past is a good one. Let's make that happen, but why should it have anything to do with property? If I build a particularly strong bridge which surpasses expectations re: longevity shouldn't I get the same retroactive compensation as somebody who wrote a particularly good book? If I publish freely the cure for a disease, should society not reward me to a greater extent than if I sold the patent to a company that will decline to act on the discovery because it's more profitable to treat that disease than to cure it?

The things you seem to want from intellectual property are important, but pushing the concept of property beyond what is natural for it is a harmful way to achieve them.

A) its not working particularly well for the artists

B) its not working at all for workers outside that domain

C) it has all kinds of really awful side effects which are far more harmful than whatever good we can reasonably expect it (property) to do.

When IP was invented to justify the church's right to prevent the wrong kind of bible from being printed we didn't have the ability to implement the alternatives that are available to us today. The best we could do is play-by-the-rules-or-we'll-take-your-printer. We have new capabilities now, let's solve these problems head on instead of leaning on ideas from the 1600's to do so.

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#324

Post by KittenInABox » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 2:16 AM UTC

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #263

KittenInABox wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think employees are actually entitled to some of those things, like not being made uncomfortable purely because they are a minority or a female. I would find the opposite position to be an exceptionally strange take: that it is entitled to not want to work at a place that puts you in uncomfortable positions for your sex or your race. I don't have an opinion on Valve or allegations Valve is doing that. I just find i…

Being uncomfortable has no equivalence to racism, which you are trying to assert. Assume a white guy voluntarily takes a job working in a wig shop that only sells black women's hair care products. He's going to be uncomfortable at some point. Does he have a right to not be uncomfortable? Should the company culture change, should they stop selling wigs and ditch their customers until he becomes comfortable? No. The ea…

What kind of "uncomfortable for women and minorities" if not racism or sexism?

Also wait does this mean Valve is white males-oriented culture and that minorities/women should expect to be made uncomfortable by lieu of being hired there? I think that's an even weirder take!

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#325

Post by abtinf » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 2:25 AM UTC

worldfoodgood wrote: post #38

elephanlemon wrote: post #8

As a kid I always lamented that every studio seemed to sell out as soon as they had the chance. Valve is basically the only one that didn’t… clearly it’s paid off very well for Gabe and the employees. Wish more people would resist the payday and keep what’s theirs.

Valve makes a significant amount of their money from the gambling they've attached to their games, and profits immensely from the culture of farming loot boxes to gamble on for skins and such. They also take an absurd cut of developer income and saddle devs with costs that they don't always want. (Selling on Steam? Valve takes 30% and forces you to moderate the forums on your listing page that you cannot opt out of.)…

> but it's important to remember that ... as well

Hello LLM.

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#326

Post by russelg » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 2:29 AM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #278

mrguyorama wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, when you asked Nintendo to manufacture you a run of cartridges, you paid for them whether they sold or not. You took that risk. Nintendo took zero risks per game , they took the risk in the physical hardware. Legacy game distribution also never took the risk. Retailers were able to return unsold inventory. There were court cases about this when companies tried to go around Nintendo's cartridge building services t…

Steam can also take away things from games you "bought", like GTA getting replaced with a lower quality remaster and different sound track.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame Steam for a decision Rockstar made. The final decision lies with the publisher as to what game actually ships. If they want to remove their old listings and replace them with a worse offering, that's on them.

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#327

Post by rayiner » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 3:20 AM UTC

stego-tech wrote: post #45

rayiner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That’s not a Union thing, that’s a system thing. Anyone fiercely on either extreme of the spectrum is missing the forest for the trees and proudly waving their willful ignorance of the dynamics of power. In an ideal scenario, Unions and Shareholders would cooperate to achieve suitable outcomes for both parties; in reality, the amount of power needed to even get a Union off the ground and keep it sustained against the…

> Instead, focus on building a better game and fairer set of rules, and recognize Unions are part of that.

I’d prefer a more European system. But faced with a choice between American-style unions with their mob roots and silicon valley, I’ll choose the latter.

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#328

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 3:49 AM UTC

nevon wrote: post #246

annexrichmond wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware of any resources for how to combat colleagues aiming to start a union? I am personally opposed to being part of a union.

I have a simple solution for you: don't join a union if you don't want to be part of one.

That option isn't always available, at least in the US. Unless you live in a right-to-work state, you may be forced to join the union as a condition of employment.

Somehow this is seen as "more progressive."

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#329

Post by tbrockman » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 4:12 AM UTC

tkel wrote: post #322

tbrockman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valve is a "flat" organization, where your compensation is determined based on peer review. Rockstar, and owner Take-Two (largely owned by institutional investors--well known for their historical championing of workers rights and fondness of unions), both seem to have your typical corporate hierarchies, where executives are fairly and correctly compensated for being more productive than over 200 software engineers co…

If you think one person can be as productive as 200, you're sniffing glue, my friend. Executives make more money because they are the only ones with the power to set wages. Workers do not have the power to set wages.

Oh, I don't, I was being very sarcastic, but I appreciate that your response was so measured under the assumption that I was serious, haha.

Re: Rockstar employee shares account of the company's union-busting efforts

#330

Post by throw3141592 » Sat, Nov 08, 2025, 5:26 AM UTC

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #323

throw3141592 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) So you are perfectly happy with somebody else taking over, taking your code, giving it a different name, or not even that, spending a bit of money on advertisement to get more users than you, adding features to drag over your users, then taking development private and enshittifying it? EEE? You have to understand in this world, advertising and network effects are much stronger than building a good product. 2) Agai…

1&2) its not my code, its just code that I wrote. The enshittification problem goes away if anybody can fork it and make a less enshittified version. We could have--brace yourself for this radical concept--competition over who could make a better thing. All the bad things you're saying will happen if we don't assert ownership over data are in fact only happening because we assert ownership over data. Somebody else ow…

1) Nobody can fork it if it gets closed source extensions, gains users, then becomes closed source. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Better product does not matter, advertising and network effects do.

Think about this: with IP you have strictly more options than without. You can literally release under public domain if you want to. People generally don't.

Having strictly more options is always better _by definition_. You're literally saying people will be better off if you take away their choice. Stop and think, man.

2) Don't ignore a point you don't like. Tell me how a small creator can compete with a big corporation. Take into account marketshare and network effects.

3) You were unspecific because you can't control it and you know it. With IP the artist can decide if the money offered is good enough for permission to use his work. Without IP you shift the decision how much to pay entirely to the people with money, artists have 0 say. They can only say "please" and "thank you".

A) How now? I don't see creators giving away their work for free under public domain, citing it's better for them.

B) Ok, let's come up with a system which rewards creators, builders, workers in other professions.

C) Like what?

So what are those alternatives except "give away your work for free and hope to get paid next time"? Because this one is already possible today and creators don't use it because it would suck for them.