> This argument would be stronger if the game industry didn't also feature a large number of insanely well paid executives.
But why would a surplus of developers need to correlate with a surplus of executives?
If anything it makes more sense to see a larger rift between workers and executives/investors because the costs for developers have been driven down by competition among them.
I may concede that overall it could be better with a union, but lets not pretend this will mean all current game devs will make more money. You will have less game devs who will be making more money (narrowing the gap to execs in the industry) while others get driven away from the profession.
But why would a surplus of developers need to correlate with a surplus of executives?
If anything it makes more sense to see a larger rift between workers and executives/investors because the costs for developers have been driven down by competition among them.
I may concede that overall it could be better with a union, but lets not pretend this will mean all current game devs will make more money. You will have less game devs who will be making more money (narrowing the gap to execs in the industry) while others get driven away from the profession.