Personally, I feel that game prices are too high. Patient gaming is where I’m at.
Besides all of that, I don’t have the time for all of these games maybe cut down the scope of the game, go back to linear, 10-20 hour games and if its an open world don’t make it a huge empty sandbox with most of it being unused or with a boring game loop. If a game publisher decides to jack up prices then I expect top notch quality with no fluff included anywhere and that it works day one the fact that I have to mention that is sad, then and only then to me such a high price would be justified which has not been the case for some games in recent years. Finally, if a full priced game incorporates f2p monetization and battle passes, then to me its price increase is not justified in my book.
Man I have no idea what will happen now. Will he diminish the amount of dicks in our salad or dress it up better? His pay must be insane to be putting up with the current state of blizzard.
You know what, I’ll bite. For this to work though, let’s agree on two things. First, the game they’re selling shouldn’t be a hot pile of garbage on day one. Second, I don’t want to even catch a whiff of microtransactions or subscription based models. If we can nail those down, I would be fine with a price increase. As it stands, the sticker price is just the cost of entry in the vast majority of games. They are still bringing in cash well after the initial purchase.
Different people have different priorities. Sure, pay and benefits is a factor that just about everyone considers. The difference lies in the weight that factor holds for them compared to other factors such as a genuine enjoyment from their work, wishing to avoid taking from the strike fund, or any other factor that matters to them.
For most people, the consideration works out in favor of a strike. In a large enough population, though, it won’t for some people. 95%+ is really good. Let’s take it and not alienate those that didn’t vote for it. That leads to attrition of the union.
Thanks for the genuine reply. I thought union members trust their union to manage the strike fund well and decide when an actual strike is necessary, but that’s apparently not the case.
Because they can’t just strike whenever they’re slightly upset. Strikes are the weapon you use when the negotiations go nowhere and all other options are off the table. And a strike won’t work with people who aren’t fully committed to lay down the work to fight for a cause. So you’d vote against a strike when you don’t think that the cause is so important that it warrants a strike.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted for asking a simple question.
Could be a number of things. Some people are begrudgingly in unions. They kind of need to be in the union to get the job, but they might not like the idea of organized labor.
Some people might be tight on cash and might also need their regular wages at the moment.
I understand why you’re getting down voted, so I’ll explain a bit: although union members are able to leverage protest for a variety of reasons, that’s usually the last thing anyone wants to do. Negotiations are always the first step so that actors or whomever can still get paid, since while on strike that’s not paid labor.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne