Activision: Moving From Sucking All The Fun Out Of Development To Actually Killing Your Dog

Pretty much everyone I know is talking about Activision’s incredible achievement of taking the studio that made them over a billion dollars into a back room and shooting it in the head.

Today West and Zampella, the two studio heads unceremoniously escorted out of the studio they created by, apparently, rented goons, had their say, through the filter of lawyers. Except… well… it wasn’t that filtered.

Activision conducted the investigation in a manner to maximize the inconvenience and anxiety it would cause West and Zampella. On little notice, Activision insisted on conducting interviews over the President’s Day holiday weekend; West and Zampella were interrogated for over six hours in a windowless conference room; Activision investigators brought other Infinity Ward employees to tears in their questioning and accusations and threatened West and Zampella with “insubordination” if they attempted to console them; Activision’s outside counsel demanded that West and Zampella surrender their personal computers, phones, and communication devices to Activison for review by Activision’s outside counsel and, when West and Zampella asserted their legally protected privacy rights, Activisions counsel said that doing so constituted further acts of insubordination.

If Activision’s executives, on-staff lawyers and rented goons wanted to, say, LARP being the caricature of the most brutal power-mad clueless management possible, this would be a really good way to do it.

Except that – they really did that. (You know, assuming that West and Zampella, through their lawyers, aren’t outright lying. Which I kind of doubt. Too much detail and all that.) Let that sink in a moment. Activision took one of the linchpins of their company, the studio that produced one of the best selling games of all time, and strongarmed them like a bunch of Mafia punks shaking down the local grocer for protection money. This is how they rewarded people who earned them over a billion dollars.

I’ve already said in a column for MMORPG.com how this affair shows the dysfunctional nature of the relationship between publishers and developers, and how setting them up as mutual antagonists ensures that no one is effective. I wrote this before the documents that West and Zampella filed came out. At that time, I was willing to assume that Activision wasn’t evil, merely part of – and a key component in – a system that was failing.

I’m not willing to make that assumption any more. That sort of fascist hardball isn’t done by people with a moral compass. And given the lack of ethics that sort of conduct broadcasts, it makes it easier for me to believe West and Zampella’s core argument – that Activision’s hostile takeover of Infinity Ward (and that’s what it is, with an efficiency that would make the expropriators of Yukos Oil blush) was motivated simply by a desire to not pay the makers of Modern Warfare the money they were owed. Apparently, Activision decided it was cheaper to destroy the studio and entangle its founders in legal tar. Something they anticipated in their 10-K SEC filing:

The Company is concluding an internal human resources inquiry into breaches of contract and insubordination by two senior employees at Infinity Ward. This matter is expected to involve the departure of key personnel and litigation. At present, the Company does not expect this matter to have a material impact on the Company.

Which, it is important to note, was written and filed before West and Zampella were fired.

Bobby Kotick, Activision’s CEO, a man with no interest in games save as methods of exploiting profit, who began his career as someone who rented out nightclubs, and couldn’t understand why anyone would go to them, is already on record as saying:

 

“The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.”

 

“We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression.”

The games Activision Blizzard didn’t pick up, he said, “don’t have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises.”

Surprisingly, this does not engender a lot of loyalty among people who, you know, don’t see gaming as a packaged good created by frightened line workers so that it can be exploited on a yearly basis. So I guess that would explain the whole lawyers, goons, and lack of money thing.

And this is where the recession comes in – it works in Kotick’s and Activision’s favor, at least until now. When jobs are scarce and companies closing their doors regularly (EA laying off workers the day Activision shot Infinity Ward in the head, coincidentally enough), you don’t have the luxury, often, of having the courage of your convictions.

Yet, I have to believe that given two founders, who while everyone would admit are wildly egotistical, still have every reason to be and have worked for the interests of their team members, unceremoniously ejected and replaced by “packaged goods” functionaries so that the studio could be overseen by a “business unit” – at some point, the people in the trenches have to realize that no amount of job security is worth that.

Or maybe we really are just packaged goods, waiting to be exploited on a yearly basis.

For more notes on the situation see Dave Taylor and Jake Simpson. I’m sure there will be more. I can’t think of any developer who isn’t violently outraged at how this is developing.

  • Mox

    The owners change, and with them the priorities change. Specifically, whenever a developer begins to grow by getting a good income off some good games and wisely investing in expansion, they begin to look more and more like money-making vehicles and less like creative studios. What started as people pooling their resources to create works they could be proud of – expressions of their own creativity – becomes valuable, and in doing so attracts the attention of people who want to make money.

    Publishers have a habit of “breaking” developers. They pull, hard, on the projects they want and in doing so force the whole studio to concentrate on the one task. That’s very risky for the developer, and leads directly to a dependence on the beneficience of the publisher. While the developer can afford to maintain its independence, it’s sitting pretty. Once it begins to lean on only one project, it’s ripe for the picking. Very soon after one of those big-deal all-or-nothing games, the studio will sell to the publisher, because it can’t afford to run fallow waiting on an income stream that will probably never come from that just-released title.

    My apologies; this is turning into something of an essay.

  • http://www.psychochild.org/ Brian ‘Psychochild’ Green

    Re: Game Industry Unions

    There are no game industry unions that I am aware of, just as there are few unions for programmers. There’s a perception that unions would make things equal, thus letting bad developers keep their jobs and preventing good developers from excelling. There’s a lot of misinformation and FUD about what unions are.

    The best we have is the IDGA, a trade association. Unfortunately, they can exert no real pressure besides giving a “tut, tut!” when things look bad.

    I grew up with my father in a union (the UAW, in fact; he was on a vending machine assembly line). Being in a union is definitely not all roses, but if you look at the history of unions you can see that unions have usually arisen when the situation got excessively exploitative. We’ll see if they get bad enough to motivate people. Although, I think looking at how Hollywood does unions (like the Screen Actors Guild, etc.) is probably the way to go.

  • sinij

    I simply do not understand how industry with such abysmal employee treatment track record still attracts talent.

  • Guy

    Many career decisions are made based on what would be or sound cool. Certainly the game industry would filter for this type of person; anyone else that was more straightforwardly ambitious for money, power or status would to go to more obvious and conventionally desired professions (business, medicine, what have you, not that these can’t have other reasons for going into them).

  • Queso

    sinij :
    I simply do not understand how industry with such abysmal employee treatment track record still attracts talent.

    Because being able to make Video Games would be awesome.

  • http://www.wolfsheadonline.com/ Wolfshead

    Bravo Scott for having the courage to take a stand against this kind of despicable corporate behavior.

    The problem with the video game industry is that because it’s still in its infancy the workers are susceptible horrible working conditions (unpaid overtime, 16 hour days and working weekends) and unhealthy and unequal business relationships.

    Every bad company deserves a union. Unions rarely are formed when working conditions are exemplary and fair.

    With this kind of irresponsible behavior on the part of Activision it is only a matter of time before the workers in the video game industry become unionized. As a conservative I’m not crazy about unions but in an industry like this they are sorely needed and the sooner the better as far as I’m concerned.

    On a MMO related note, I hope this unfortunate incident will give every employee and executive at Blizzard pause and reflect on the lack of ethics of the draconian company they are associated with.

  • Vetarnias

    About unions: The problemI have noticed with unions is two-fold.

    First, they haven’t really evolved since the past half-century at least. They’re more or less still run the same way, while everything else around them has changed (which is why you can successfully still make the claim that they’re infested by the mob). They still seem to be under the grip of an industrial blue-collar mythos that was true enough when they were founded (as Guy noted on the previous page), but now if you are an unskilled worker and attempt unionization, the shop is likely not just to close, but to move overseas. The service industry is a different matter, but the Walmart example speaks volumes: the company succeeded not just in remaining union-free, but also in stymying further attempts at unionization. The message is clear: try to improve your lot with a union, and you’ll be out of a job, and in this sector, the grass isn’t greener elsewhere. The reason for getting unionized in the first place is no longer there for these traditional centers of support.

    Second, it’s that the unions themselves have become quite cowardly, so the only remnant of their original purpose can be found in sectors they have so thoroughly unionized that they have developed a sense of entitlement that has little regard for the state of the economy (to wit: the auto industry). Otherwise, they go where it’s safe. That’s why government bureaucrats are unionized (the state can hardly break its own labor laws), even though their working conditions are usually good enough for their rank-and-file members. When did a union take a risk of late? And when they do, it’s useless. We’ve seen it, again, with Walmart; I even remember a union “declaring war” on it, asking for a boycott, etc. But there was no dent in its profits, and no massive unionization drive at the company. It was words, just words. Because, in the end, do they want to spread knowledge that a store was closed because of the union, if the only tangible result is to prevent, out of fear of job loss, workers at other places (more accessible from a union standpoint) from attempting to unionize? Unions follow the “path of least resistance”, I’ve heard it called, and I think it was from leaked internal Walmart documents.

    What does that mean for programmers? I don’t know, since I’m not one. Perhaps they should try to unionize, but the timing is awful.

  • http://www.mmomiansthrope.wordpress.com Dblade

    What’s so ironic about this is that Activision was formed initially in order to give game developers credit for their games when Atari’s policy was not to allow it. Very sad to see that name becoming worse than Atari was.

  • Angelworks

    @Vetarnias There was a time when theaters wouldn’t play films unless they had the AFL-CIO logo (or some other union) on them (which every film I’ve seen even recently still had) for a lot of the same reasons – its not uncommon for a big name like Lions Gate to pay an independent company to make a film, and some big producers like Disney buy these companies out too (like Pixar), and if you don’t have a firm contract in place you’ll get some of the stuff that is rampant in the game industry.

    If you don’t make sure you have a contract in writing with your employer – in an at will state like California – you are at the mercy of the court literally when someone backstabs you, and sadly state labor laws lack severely because they aren’t as powerful as a real contract and many rules are rarely enforced. And that contract should be agreed upon by all the interested parties – which is all collective bargaining is.

    It sounds like the studio owners had a contract of sorts that Blizzard/Activision may have violated, but the poor employees who worked there are out of luck. Unions might slow things down, but one thing is it would at least be fair when it comes to pay and employee/company responsibilities – none of this work 12 hour a day (including weekends) stints to turn out a game on some arbitrary date only to get fired afterwords crap. Yes I know all about crunch time – which is fine (and should be allowed – and justly compensated – at time and a half), but when all your hours are crunch time – its pointless – there is a point where you need to hire extra talent and cut into your profits.

    And on organized crime – all the unions I’ve belonged to – I’ve never been strong armed into anything. I’m currently a member of AFT (American Federation of Teachers) and there are some nice benefits from that. While they do exist, I think one could claim there are more connections to real corporations and organized crime than there are real connections to modern day unions and organized crime. Do a google search on sub prime lending and crime families…

  • Guy

    @Vetarnias: So which is it, are unions wimpy, or mob-infested? I think with regards to the latter your views are being shaped more by stereotypes than reality. As for being weak, there’s very good reason for that in the US: starting in the 70′s corporations *and* government started an assault on unions (the government part was through corporation-favouring policies due to anti-union ideology). And that assault was successful. The unions didn’t decide to become weak, or decide to give up early when forming anew; corporations and government-backed corporate interests fought them, hard, in order to weaken them. They’ve gotten very good at it, and anti-union ideology has spread far and wide, to the extent that I hear people reflexively say “yeah, it’s the unions that are the problem” without giving it much thought, without really understanding the history or what’s going on.

    Not that unions are always perfect, of course. But neither are government or corporations. Point is the employees need a balance against the power of the other two when that balance weighs too much against them.

    At least with Walmart, the heads of the company try to encourage government health care and whatnot to improve, so that they are less under pressure to not be such dicks with their own employees. That is, at least they are being purely self-interested, and not just following some kind of nonsensical anti-socialist ideology. But if Walmart’s vast number of employees were unionized, they could improve their standing in society and chip away a bit at the growing inequality in the US. After all, it’s not the US’s duty to ensure Walmart is the most successful retailer, is it? … or is it?

  • http://dsob.wordpress.com geldonyetich

    Most of the backlash in the U.S. against unions has to do with their being conceived by many as being somewhat criminal organizations skimming off the top on exchange for leaning on employers.

    This whole Activision Blizzard vs Infinity Ward fiasco is interesting because, in hiring rent-a-cops to browbeat their own employees, they’ve actually brought things down to that level.

    At that point, they’re sort of asking for it if industry unionization occurs. It was very poorly handled all around if this is how restructuring is done.

  • EpicSquirt

    So does CoD4:MW2 have a dedicated server or not? ;-)

    Some notes:

    1. Working 16h a day will only get you killed. Maybe your heart will just stop beating, maybe a clean coder will kill you after looking at your code.
    2. Unions and work councils are a good thing if the right people get elected and if the people who got get ongoing support. Most employed lemmings just run away at the first sign of conflict though.
    3. Publishers suck in general. So do shopping malls. Corner shops are dead in regards of games.
    4. Welcome to globalisation and the taste of the masses.
    5. If my boss would treat me like that, I would leave the place and come back with a Russian mob to kill him. That should be repeated with every ahole out there. Some people don’t know respect but they understand fear.

  • Brask Mumei

    I don’t see why some are surprised that we are giving the IW CEOs the benefit of the doubt. It is pretty hard to imagine the sort of insubordination that would trigger firing the heads of a studio that just released MW2. I’d let them keep calling me all the silly names they want, I’d be too busy making money hats to take it personally.

    The usual tactic is to feed them rope and wait until they release a critical and/or financial failure, and THEN sack them.

    Getting rid of them to save the royalities doesn’t seem that sensible either, any savings must be pitted against the risks that you’ll pay anyways post lawsuit.

    I think the real purpose is much simpler. By this one scuffle here they have just instantly put all of their other studios, which didn’t make a billion dollars, in line. I’d say their only worry with this lawsuit is the threat to the MW brand. Any settlement costs and lawyer fees will be charged to Activision’s internal advertising budget. Think of all the meetings that will go smoother now that developers know they can, and will, be fired at whim, regardless of their success?

    Meritocracy is likely seen as a dangerous corrosive element to the proper command structure to the modern Activision execs. This, as has been noted, is properly ironic consider Activision was created specifically to create an atmosphere where superstars could be turned into celebrities.

  • JuJutsu

    “5. If my boss would treat me like that, I would leave the place and come back with a Russian mob to kill him. That should be repeated with every ahole out there. Some people don’t know respect but they understand fear.”

    C’mon, anything more than a knee-capping is a disprortionate response. ;)

  • http://blessingofkings.blogspot.com Rohan

    I wonder what circumstances would cause people to side with Activision?

    Suppose the two IW CEOs were planning to jump ship to another publisher and take a significant number of the best IW talent with them, effectively gutting the studio.

    Would Activisions actions, pre-emptively firing them and restructuring bonuses to prevent the studio from being gutted, be acceptable?

  • Zuzax

    The more I read the different write-ups, the more I agree with the notion that it’s less about the money (but hey if Kotick can save $36 mil, it’s gravy to him) and more about removing West and Zampella’s autonomy and creative control.

    With them out of the way, the franchise can be more efficiently milked to death without any of that awkward “quality” or “integrity” getting in the way.

    I wonder if anyone under West and Zampella were due for a big payout as well? Activision may soon learn that it’s hard to motivate an independently wealthy employee with fear.

  • http://wowpanda.blogspot.com/ wowpanda

    This is unbelievable. This is physical intimation and deserve a law suit (if what claimed is true).

    I wish all the software engineers just leave Activation and form their own company.

    Not sure about unions though. Most story I heard about unions are not good (teachers unions are the worst). I think unions will kill most small companies (I work for small companies). I do hope the big bad companies get unions, then fail so they can make room for smaller ones.

  • Vetarnias

    @Guy

    I don’t think that unions are mob-infested, for the most part, but I have heard a specific example of a local union in the construction sector that is widely known as the black sheep of its larger union. We had a municipal election last year that was rife with allegations of corruption and collusion among contracting firms, that concluded with the incumbent getting re-elected in a three-way race (which wasn’t helped by resignation of the deputy leader of the opposition, when it was revealed he had talked with one of the involved contractors on a few occasions, which he first denied). The provincial government refused to hold a public inquiry, which makes you wonder what they have to hide, but what does it say when the leader of a large union, which happens to represent construction workers through one of its subsidiaries, states publicly that he doesn’t want an inquiry?

    The reason why the charge, usually by employers, of mob infiltration of unions still works today is because of unions’ refusal to evolve in other areas. The blue-collar mystique that provided them with their initial base of support is unfortunately gone, and you’re left with examples where unionization has been driven to excess (I mentioned the auto industry). It makes you wonder if unions still think this is 1956.

    You seem to infer that I oppose unionization, while the exact opposite is true. My concern, though, is that unions have become used to taking the easy road, where they won’t be opposed, and otherwise choose their battles where they will be the most rewarding, but not for the employees themselves. Walmart and McDonalds make attractive targets because you can make a plethora of points about what’s wrong with corporate culture in the US if unions can’t make inroads there, and warn about the evils of globalization in general — and perhaps, too, because unions drool over the number of employees those companies have, and rather fancy their all paying union dues one day.

    I know this, because I once worked in a place that closed when we brought in the union. Did the union express outrage in a press release, or exhort customers to boycott the company? Not in the least. The last contact I had with them gave me the notion that they just wanted to bury the whole thing, as we were just 20 employees, and they presumably didn’t want to sow fear in the minds of potential union members. Even that I could have forgiven, but I later came upon a union newsletter, published almost six months after the place closed, that mentioned how our place and its 20 members had joined the union. Which was utter bullshit, since the place closed after we filed for union accreditation but before that was confirmed (such is the nature of red tape that one can find oneself represented by a union at a workplace that doesn’t exist anymore). Neither of us ever paid union dues apart from the initial membership fee when we signed the cards, but the union hypocritically chose to trumpet our joining them, while it elected to keep the whole closure a secret. I hope this clarifies matters regarding my ambivalent take on unions.

  • Viz

    @Guy

    Well now hold on, because if that were the case you’d think the government would at least be able to push back against its own public employeee unions. A successful campaign against unions doesn’t seem to square with the fact that the public sector is arguably where unions in the US are most heavily entrenched, given that industrial unions have been crippled by the decline of American manufacturing.

  • Makaze

    The government can’t reign in its own unions both because they provide essential services that cannot stand the interruption of a strike and because the entire Democratic portion of our government is so in the unions pockets that they’d block any attempt to do so.

    The biggest problem with unions is that they don’t respond to market pressures. Putting lugnuts on a wheel or any other blue collar job for the most part are simply not economically worth a salary and benefits to buy a house, a car, put 2 kids through college, a pension, and lifetime healthcare. That can be chalked up to advances in technology and globalization, robots and 3rd world workers can do the same or a better job far cheaper. By refusing to acknowledge this and bend to market pressure unions inevitably force a company to close shop or move overseas. Government unions are immune to these two things as they can’t be moved overseas and they can’t close shop.

    But back to the Activision/IW spat. I think we all know that any drop in sales from this incident is going to be an undetectable bump in the road for Activision. But will there be a chilling effect on new developer talent signing with them? Given the choice between EA and Activision and otherwise equal contracts wouldn’t any sane studio sign with EA? Perhaps even signing a marginally worse contract with EA? Same thing goes for individual talent, although no ones job is safe in this industry an Activision job just feels a bit less safe than most.

  • Vetarnias

    I’m not sure the Democrats are “so in the unions’ pockets”, especially in your political system, where you have just two parties with chances of winning the election, and the other one is run by people so hostile to your cause that you’d rally to the other side as a matter of necessity, i.e., the lesser of two evils. And I think the Democrats are aware of this, and would just sooner pay lip service to unions than offer them anything tangible.

    However, I agree with your view of government employees. Job security assured, because the government can’t go overseas to lower its costs. Also, since the services they offer are usually essential, they’re in a good position to blackmail the government. What do they risk? Public outcry? It can affect governments, but it can’t affect them. Public-sector unions are frequently the object of scorn and ridicule, but I have yet to see one government successfully put them down, especially if they happen to represent employees who can claim the moral high ground (see: nurses, teachers).

    Activision: Nothing will happen.

  • Guy

    @Viz:

    A government doesn’t have to fight its own unions in order to be able to lend a hend, or stand by inactive, in corporate efforts to break unions. A politician wants funding from companies, and so helps them. A politician doesn’t want the employees they work with to be pissed off at him, so they help them too (and keeping things nice helps in order to get family and friends jobs in government). I assure you, politicians can be hypocritical.

    @Vetarnias:

    Sorry to hear that, sounds like that sucked. I was part of a very ineffective union once, and probably will never be again due to my profession. It’s definitely useless when they can’t actually help you.

  • Hatch

    Viz :
    @Guy
    the public sector is arguably where unions in the US are most heavily entrenched, given that industrial unions have crippled every industry they’ve touched.

    fixt

  • Brask Mumei

    The biggest problem with unions is that they don’t respond to market pressures. Putting lugnuts on a wheel or any other blue collar job for the most part are simply not economically worth a salary and benefits to buy a house, a car, put 2 kids through college, a pension, and lifetime healthcare. That can be chalked up to advances in technology and globalization, robots and 3rd world workers can do the same or a better job far cheaper.

    I don’t get it.

    Your argument, if I understand it, is that because technology and globalization have made things cheaper to produce, workers shouldn’t expect to be able to enjoy as high a standard of living?

    If lugnut affixation has become cheaper, the freed up labour should *increase* the benefits to the working class, not decrease them.

    If we invent a star trek replicator that produces anything for free, does everyone then starve because there is no work for them to do?

  • Iconic

    “Your “Activision Blizzard isn’t so much earning the scorn of the gaming world for lying as they are being blatantly honest in their ridiculously heavy-handed corporate dealings.” is worrying as i take it to imply that it is seen to be fine to do what they want, as long as they keep it quiet.”

    I think it just means that every corporation acts this way if they’re run with the aim of making money (and most corporations exist for that purpose only). The difference between Kotick and a lot of other CEOs is that he just says what he’s doing and why instead of sugar coating it.

    I think he figures that his blunt honestly and confidence will get him traction with shareholders, and gamers are ultimately not going to hold him accountable, because in the end, all they care about is whether the games are worth the money.

  • Iconic

    Brask Mumei :

    The biggest problem with unions is that they don’t respond to market pressures. Putting lugnuts on a wheel or any other blue collar job for the most part are simply not economically worth a salary and benefits to buy a house, a car, put 2 kids through college, a pension, and lifetime healthcare. That can be chalked up to advances in technology and globalization, robots and 3rd world workers can do the same or a better job far cheaper.

    I don’t get it.
    Your argument, if I understand it, is that because technology and globalization have made things cheaper to produce, workers shouldn’t expect to be able to enjoy as high a standard of living?
    If lugnut affixation has become cheaper, the freed up labour should *increase* the benefits to the working class, not decrease them.
    If we invent a star trek replicator that produces anything for free, does everyone then starve because there is no work for them to do?

    If they can build or repair replicators, then they live like kings, and if not, they subsist on welfare.

    Isn’t that the narrative of the modern world? 10% of the population has 95% of the wealth, and the rest of us are just living in the matrix, powering the great machines.

  • http://wowpanda.blogspot.com/ wowpanda

    Iconic :

    Brask Mumei :

    The biggest problem with unions is that they don’t respond to market pressures. Putting lugnuts on a wheel or any other blue collar job for the most part are simply not economically worth a salary and benefits to buy a house, a car, put 2 kids through college, a pension, and lifetime healthcare. That can be chalked up to advances in technology and globalization, robots and 3rd world workers can do the same or a better job far cheaper.

    I don’t get it.
    Your argument, if I understand it, is that because technology and globalization have made things cheaper to produce, workers shouldn’t expect to be able to enjoy as high a standard of living?
    If lugnut affixation has become cheaper, the freed up labour should *increase* the benefits to the working class, not decrease them.
    If we invent a star trek replicator that produces anything for free, does everyone then starve because there is no work for them to do?

    If they can build or repair replicators, then they live like kings, and if not, they subsist on welfare.
    Isn’t that the narrative of the modern world? 10% of the population has 95% of the wealth, and the rest of us are just living in the matrix, powering the great machines.

    Iconic, Brask Mumei, you guys need to go back to college and learn your 101. Productivity is the key. Before mass production, only the super rich can own car/watches, now almost everyone has car/watches. Do you want to live in a world where wages are high but only the super rich can afford anything?

    In a free economy, productivity goes up, cost goes down, that is how ordinary people (the 90% of us) can afford stuff.

    Of course you can also choose to live in North Korea, where everyone make the same amount of money, so there is no poor people, but all of them are worse off than the poorest people in America.

  • http://www.antipwn.com/blog/ IainC

    Wowpanda tells people that they are clueless. Ironyometers around the world explode.

    So how about those Infinity Ward guys eh?

  • http://wowpanda.blogspot.com/ wowpanda

    There are exceptions for everything. If people treat others badly, most likely their business will suffer (even though might not be obvious in the short term).

    And there will always be people who prefer to break their back on a farm field and union up against modern machinery, because efficient machines “cost jobs”.

  • Wyrm

    IainC :

    Wyrm :
    bob will eventually get what’s coming to him…

    You mean huge piles of cash?

    well, y’know, it’s just a matter of time until someone goes POSTAL…

  • http://dsob.wordpress.com geldonyetich

    well, y’know, it’s just a matter of time until someone goes POSTAL…

    As if a guy who sends security guards to browbeat his employees wasn’t paranoid enough.

  • Tremayne

    geldonyetich :

    well, y’know, it’s just a matter of time until someone goes POSTAL…

    As if a guy who sends security guards to browbeat his employees wasn’t paranoid enough.

    Y’know – maybe Bobby should be VERY afraid. All these stories about computer games turning kids into violent psychotics … and here he is pissing off the people who MAKE these games … :D

  • http://www.popehat.com Patrick

    JuJutsu :

    RickAl :

    JHB :If they have the cash and inclination for a prolonged lawsuit, West and Zampella will probably prevail. Juries love to punish corporations who practice pre-meditated thuggery.

    Jury? It’s a civil case there is no jury.

    “The right to trial by jury in a civil case is addressed by the 7th Amendment, which provides: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

    The Seventh Amendment hasn’t been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, as against the states (that’s the subject of a similar dispute concerning the Second Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago). There isn’t a federal constitutional right to a jury trial in a state court.

    Of course, California’s constitution and statutes do preserve that right under state law, so you’re correct on the main point, just for the wrong reasons.

  • Hinenuitepo

    As to the OP:
    OR maybe, just maybe, the IW guys were planning a coup to illegally take their business and profits elsewhere and Activision stopped them just in time.

    I’m not saying I think that’s the case, I just think the automatic negative bandwagoning here is a bit silly, and definitely a bit premature and predjudicial.

  • http://dsob.wordpress.com geldonyetich

    As to the OP:
    OR maybe, just maybe, the IW guys were planning a coup to illegally take their business and profits elsewhere and Activision stopped them just in time.

    I’d be surprised if it worked that way.

    IW guys: “Surprise! We took the IP you own elsewhere!”
    Activision: “Oh nos! We were too late!”

  • Makaze

    Brask Mumei :
    I don’t get it.
    Your argument, if I understand it, is that because technology and globalization have made things cheaper to produce, workers shouldn’t expect to be able to enjoy as high a standard of living?
    If lugnut affixation has become cheaper, the freed up labour should *increase* the benefits to the working class, not decrease them.

    You’re equating lugnut fixers with all workers which is simply not the case. It’s true that technology and globalization (through quickly spreading technology to formerly inefficient production centers) have made the world more efficient and increased the total amount of goods produced thus lowering prices for a given good or equivalent. But they’ve also drastically decreased the value of certain goods, skills, and services at times far far more rapidly than the decrease in the general price of goods. Lugnut attachers being among them.

    Additionally in many markets price does not decrease, rather quality increases. The relative cost of say a television set or car has remained fairly stable since they reached mainstream adoption, however their quality in virtually all ways has improved dramatically. Lugnut attacher union members don’t want a 1950s era TV set which has depreciated in value commiserate to their skills, they want a big flatscreen.

    But in a completely frictionless free market all of that would work itself out. Lugnut attachers upon realizing that their wages are no longer sufficient would move on to other fields, more lucrative fields and everyone would be happy. But reality is not frictionless, there are significant costs to changing careers assuming it’s even possible. The new jobs freed up by technology and cheap foreign labor tend to be ones that require training, skill, and knowledge. Let’s face it, your average lugnut attacher simply isn’t cut out for it. And then we come to unions who make the problem worse by tying still valuable workers to those with outdated and economically nonviable skills thus dragging the whole industry down.

  • Wyrm

    “Let’s face it, your average lugnut attacher simply isn’t cut out for it. And then we come to unions who make the problem worse by tying still valuable workers to those with outdated and economically nonviable skills thus dragging the whole industry down.”

    I say let them all starve to death!

    If your skills become obsolete and you can’t change them overnight you are worthless to the markets and to the free societies of the world.

    I’m sure Cato, Mises, Economic Freedom and all the other think tanks agree with me.

  • Guy

    Well, at least all the think tanks who’s real goal is to help pass policies that favour the super-rich, by creating intellectually dishonest justifications and theories to make it sound like it’s the right thing to do for everyone’s sake. Such a good return on investment for the super-rich to create and support these organization, after all propaganda mills are just people in a room making shit up and going to social gatherings. That’s cheap for a billionaire to support out-of-pocket! And you get all those precious votes out of it…

  • Makaze

    Wyrm :
    I say let them all starve to death!
    If your skills become obsolete and you can’t change them overnight you are worthless to the markets and to the free societies of the world.

    Nah, unskilled or marginally skilled labor still has some value. A lugnut attacher is not worthless, just not worth as much as they used to be. The problem is in refusing to adapt to the new reality since reality will never adapt to you. A job that provided a middle class existence 20 years ago should not necessarily provide that today, just as some that provide it today should not 20 years from now.

    Letting them starve to death is simply not an option. Letting them live without a car, air conditioning, television, Nikes, and 21st century medicine is however since it accurately reflects their contribution towards society.

  • http://dsob.wordpress.com geldonyetich

    Even better to recognize the inherent value in a lugnut attacher as a human being who might happen to want a car, air condition, television, ect.

    It’s a popular sentiment amongst the “greed is good” crowd that if your neighbor is no use to you, it’s better to let him starve than support him.

    However, there’s a word for a society that is unable to find a role for its citizens: completely dysfunctional.

    A society unsupported tends to carry ramifications even for the super rich. At the very least, the value of all their hoarded dollars is considerably less. At the worst, society is the very thing that propped them up into their prominent positions in the first place, and its obliteration results in their being utterly decimated as surely as a foreign invader seizing all their assets.

    Greed is not good. Greed has never been good. Yet, we’ve built up a body of bad habits that can be summed up under one label: neoconservatives. It just goes to show that you can be a blithering idiot no matter how rich you are.

  • Makaze

    Firstly I don’t recognize any intrinsic value in human beings. Why would I? We’re just really smart and technologically sophisticated animals, nothing special.

    But assuming for the moment that I did believe that then why is said American lugnut attacher more deserving of the amenities of an industrialized middle class lifestyle than say someone in SE Asia or Africa with equivalent education and job skills? By the all humans are intrinsically equally valuable rational he’s not. So if we’re going to prop him up and provide him with all of those things then why not them too?

    And unless said propping up is coming from the government then eventually the company grossly overpaying him is going wise up and ship his job overseas or shut down. He’ll then have no job at all rather than one paying him what he’s worth.
    Like it or not globalization has pulled the massive numbers of cheap 3rd world laborers into our economy. Compared with them Lugnut attacher is not the bottom of the totem pole and lacking a TV, AC, and car is not the worst situation someone can be in. When they joined in the bar got a whole lot lower.

    All that being said I agree there is a lot of scientific evidence pointing to the emergence of negative properties in societies with heavy income imbalances. And not just limited to the poor but spread fairly evenly across all income strata. High end income in this country is out of control and not healthy for society or the economy in the long run.

    Individualistic and short term greed at the cost of society and humanity is bad, attempting to maximize the (technological) long term progress that humanity achieves is good. That takes money and so sometimes amassing that money is a good thing even if people aren’t doing it with that goal in mind but rather merely being selfish.

    Of course none of that changes the fact that people are living longer, technology is advancing faster, and so more and more people are for larger and larger parts of their lives going to have essentially useless skill sets. This problem is only going to get worse. I don’t have a palatable solution to it although acknowledging it rather than pretending it doesn’t exist and naively pretending that we can afford to give everyone regardless of economic contribution a middle class lifestyle is the first step.

  • http://dsob.wordpress.com geldonyetich

    Firstly I don’t recognize any intrinsic value in human beings. Why would I? We’re just really smart and technologically sophisticated animals, nothing special.

    My reasons is simple. Because manpower is a resource, and only a fool throws resources to the wind.

    But we’re more or less on the same page here:

    Individualistic and short term greed at the cost of society and humanity is bad, attempting to maximize the (technological) long term progress that humanity achieves is good.

    The main difference is that I don’t see “having essentially useless skill sets” as be an insurmountable hurdle. Truth be told, educating workers has always been something done more on the job than in schools anyway.

  • Makaze

    It’s not an insurmountable hurdle but it’s certainly a large one. Using a fictional lugnut attacher again let’s say he’s 50, with a 1960s high school education, he’s never done anything else professionally but attach lugnuts, and for the sake of argument he’s not that bright even for a lugnut attacher. There may be bright lugnut attachers out there but there are also not so bright ones. He is not going to be readily re-trainable due to all of the above factors which is a problem but as you mention not an insurmountable one.

    The real issue comes in that he’s been getting annual pay raises and full health care coverage for the past 30 years. Starting over in a new career as a spacenut attacher as a trainee means his compensation level may be halved or more. This is a reflection of his inexperience with spacenuts and the general devaluation in manual labor that was not proprely reflected in his previous salary. He and his lugnut union find this unacceptable (the lugnut union doubly so since then they’d lose dues to the spacenut union) as he won’t be able to afford all those nice things he’s become accustomed to. So instead they typically decide to drag the entire company down with them in an attempt to deny the inevitable. He gets paid his salary for a few more years while the company ships overseas or folds thus damaging the economy.

    Manpower is a resource but not a free one. We’re approaching, a point though not there yet, when a unit of plain old uneducated manpower is worth less in economic production than the expenditures it takes to sustain (due to popular or mandated minimum standards). What happens then?

  • Vetarnias

    How amazing it is, when discussing with Americans, that “full health care coverage” is always mentioned as an unaffordable luxury, when pretty much the rest of the developed world has government-run health care systems, offering free or extremely affordable coverage. Yes, even Britain, that commie pinko nation formerly home to Charles Dickens.

  • Brask Mumei

    So, when he was putting on lugnuts ineffiiciently, we had enough production capacity to give him a car, AC, and health care.

    We then move to space lugnuts, which allow one man to do the work of 10. So, we can fire 9 lugnut manufatcurers and, note this, keep our production capacity the same. So, in the space lugnut world we have the same production as the lugnut world. So why are we crying that we couldn’t afford to give the ex-lugnut attachers the same products they had before?

    Greater efficiency, at some point, means that we *have* to work less. Usually, having less work to do is a good thing. Except when economists show up and explain that, because we had a bumper crop this year, the farm hands will have to starve.

    (We’ve been working around this problem by inventing endless hierarchies of paper shuffling to provide make-work so we can all feel like we are contributing. The popularity of television, I believe, is largely an outlet of populace which didn’t know anything better to do with their new free time)

  • http://dsob.wordpress.com geldonyetich

    When you have technology enough to have one man to do the work of 10, you could ditch the other nine, or you could employ all ten and produce 10 times the space lugnuts.

    If the market will not require 10 times the space lugnuts. That’s fine because you’re supposed to innovate and advance the state of society beyond mere lugnuts.

    The real trouble with firing the 9 lugnut workers (whether via technology or hiring 9 lugnut workers overseas that will do the same work for the price of 1) is that those 9 lugnut workers are also your customers.

    When they leave your workplace, they become patrons of the people who are the patrons of people who eventually are buying your lugnuts. Your market shrinks. You are now engaged in a self-destructive cycle that is undermining your entire economy.

    People who are in the business of making money simply so it will accumulate in a big, beautiful pile have really no long term vision as to what money really is in the bigger scheme of things. If money represents a medium in which people can be incentivized to act, then the more you’re accumulated, the more you’ve failed to prove people incentive to act.

  • Makaze

    @Vetarnias
    Full employer provided health care coverage. If you’re going to provide it via a tax sponsored government program then that’s a whole different story. The cost is distributed evenly thus marginally increasing the cost of all workers as opposed to representing a massive chunk of a given workers individual compensation. I also happen to think that we should be providing free a reasonable level of basic, preventative, and emergency care to all citizens. The problem is that they all want the best no matter the costs which is simply not sustainable in the long run.

    @Brask Mumei
    When installing lugnuts 30+ years ago he was getting a car, AC, and healthcare from 30+ years ago. The quality and value of all of those items has gone up significantly since then yet his work has not.

    Because lugnuts do not equal spacenuts. Whatever the new product is it takes both and wingnuts and a computer to monitor them. the resources that were previously going to pay 10 lugnut guys being reallocated to pay other guys in order to make a better product. Greater efficiency does not always mean working less, often instead it leads to better outcomes for the same input.

    At the same time both average and minimal standards of living should go up over time as some amount of efficiency increases go towards increased production and therefore price decreases. But there are two factors fighting that. First is that the relative value of lugnut workers due to technological improvements is going down faster than the general price drop. Second is the influx of cheap global labor further decreases the value of lugnut workers.

  • http://dsob.wordpress.com geldonyetich

    Wish I could edit the last message. Ah, but spam filtering bots tend to interpret the act of editing as high treason.

    Anywho, the thing is that the undermining philosophy of the United States that permeates the majority of its citizens is that everybody is taught that the goal is to be Rich and/or Famous.

    We’re not taught to regard a dollar as a means to vote for the things we should have in society. We’re taught that a dollar will get us the things we want from society.

    So we get people who end up making a lot of money blowing that on hookers and coke completely ignorant that what they’re doing is creating a society where women become prostitutes and cocaine is in demand.

    The bottom line is, if this is capitalism, then we’re doing it wrong.

  • http://[email protected] ODO WOW

    Just let me know when Jason West and Vince Zampella start their new business so I may buy some of their new stock.

  • Viz

    @Guy
    I’m aware of that and it’s not what I mean. What I mean is that the existence of a successful ideological campaign against unions from the government posits both the capability and willingness to dismantle unions. If so, those politicians should be both more willing and more able to destroy unions in their own house, i.e. the public sector.

    Neither of the subsequent arguments you give makes much sense to me. Unionization is hardly a requirement for nepotism; you don’t HAVE to abuse an employee just because there’s no union. In fact, unless the unions themselves are in bed with anti-union politicians they could only be an obstruction to such plans. And the idea that it’s just about receiving money from companies implies that the unions, which are fundamentally political organizations, don’t also have the ability to buy politicians. If so, that means they were extremely weak to begin with. That doesn’t square with the history as I know it, so I’m not sure I understand where you’re coming from.