After years of abrupt layoffs, poor working conditions, and public scandals, many game developers decided that enough was enough. For decades, unions in the video game industry were nearly nonexistent; studios cultivated images of “fun jobs” with perks, hoping to foster loyalty and discourage collective bargaining.
Yet recent waves of layoffs, workplace controversies, and increasing fears about automation have driven a major change.Motivating this new energy are real stories of overwork and insecurity.
At Sega of America in 2023, after an intense period of organizing, over 200 staffers in areas from localization to product development formed the Allied Employees Guild Improving Sega (AEGIS-CWA), the first major games union with a signed contract in the US.
The breakthrough came amidst rising approval of labor unions nationwide, with union favorability reaching a modern peak not seen since the 1960s.
At CD Projekt Red, a streak of layoffs spurred hundreds to unionize, hoping for greater stability and a louder voice in company decisions. Staff at firms like Avalanche Studio Group and ZeniMax Media also joined new unions, sometimes following abrupt restructurings or news of canceled projects.
In March 2024, 600 Activision Blizzard QA workers joined a union, marking the largest game developer unionization in North America.
The Contracts and What Changed: New Rights and Protections
What were these new unions pushing for? At Sega, the contract won by AEGIS-CWA gave workers annual raises, improved benefits, severance guarantees, and minimum AI transparency from management, a crucial concern as fears about job automation run high.
Workers saw their workplace change quickly, and the union’s victory was soon followed by successful organizing at Activision and Blizzard, despite initial company pushback.
Union contracts have brought clear, enforceable rights: minimum pay increases, job protection in the face of layoffs (“recall rights”), and new commitments to hybrid work environments.
For staffers who once faced surprise job losses and crunch periods, this means less anxiety and better planning for their careers. Sega’s victory was described by leaders as proof that better working conditions “are possible even when management takes an initially hostile stance toward worker organizing”.
Similarly, CD Projekt’s new union seeks more transparency and practices that protect workers during company downturns or major changes in direction. Activision Blizzard’s QA teams now enjoy the ability to collectively bargain for better testing conditions and pay, helping stabilize one of the most precarious roles in all of gaming.
CD Projekt (Credit: Wikipedia)
The wider ripple effects are visible: unions are finding growing support among players and the public, who have rallied behind developers calling for fair treatment, especially after years of headlines about studio excess, abusive leads, and project cancellations.
How Unionization Is Shifting Power and Industry Culture
Union victories mean that workers can finally negotiate as equals with management. Teams now have real influence in how layoffs are conducted and what processes determine pay, working hours, or AI use.
Anecdotes of late-night crunch and quiet despair are being replaced with stories about contract bargaining, mutual support, and a new sense of professionalism within teams.
Public support matters, too. When Sega’s union was negotiating its contract, fans were vocal on social media, showing solidarity and helping pressure executives to the table.
The labor wins at Sega, Activision, ZeniMax, and CD Projekt have inspired similar efforts at other studios, including Avalanche, setting off a domino effect across continents.
This movement is remaking the culture of game studios, encouraging more transparency, employee retention, and honest conversation about what creative labor should look like.
Unions often press companies to provide clear information about layoffs, restructuring, or major technology shifts, fostering a sense of security and professionalism that supports creative risk-taking.
At the same time, unionization has provided direct protection against AI-driven job loss. Sega’s new contract includes a mandatory notice if management plans to deploy AI in new areas. This provision, rare in tech before now, signals a growing awareness of automation anxieties.
Industry Impact: What Comes Next for Game Workers and Studios
As more studios organize, both workers and companies are learning to adapt. Unions bring new costs and negotiation cycles, but they also build trust and sometimes help studios retain top talent amid a fiercely competitive hiring market.
Management can no longer unilaterally dictate terms; each side now has a seat at the table, and the power balance has shifted away from the “take it or leave it” status quo.
Gaming’s labor actions often make headlines, creating pressure for studios lagging on pay, benefits, and working conditions.
As workers from different companies join forces through national labor alliances like the Communication Workers of America, industry-wide standards are beginning to form, making it harder for studios to undercut employees or quietly ignore demands.
By 2025, as the industry emerges from a period of chronic layoffs and instability, unionization stands as both a shield and a rallying banner.
Staff at more and more major companies see organized labor as a legitimate pathway to a better, fairer, and more creative profession, and the old skepticism from studio leads is slowly but surely melting away.
The ongoing shift toward live-service games has left studios stretched, with high resource demands and uncertain returns.
Live-service games have become a dominant force, promising sustained profit and player engagement through regular updates, events, and content drops. Fortnite, Destiny 2, Apex Legends, and Genshin Impact set the model, showing that long-term success hinges on communities continuously invested in ever-evolving titles.
However, the promise of reliable revenue has proven elusive for many studios. As more publishers rushed to create “the next Fortnite” or mimic the success of AAA live-service games, industry saturation took hold.
Veteran developer Scott Hartsman notes that releasing a new live game now means directly competing for players’ limited time and attention; unless a title offers something truly unique, it risks being ignored or abandoned.
The result is increasingly fierce competition, with smaller games and studios unable to capture the audience needed for long-term sustainability.
Ongoing Support: High Costs and Staff Burnout
While live-service games offer publishers the chance for ongoing monetization, those benefits come at a steep price. Maintaining these games demands persistent teams, complex scheduling, and a non-stop flow of new content.
This comes with enormous operational costs from server infrastructure to customer support, from frequent bug fixes to major seasonal events.
The biggest issue is labor. Developers and support teams are expected to react to real-time community demands, creating a cycle of crunch and exhaustion. Even well-funded studios find it hard to keep pace; Sony canceled 8 of 12 planned live-service games for PlayStation after reassessing development costs and projected engagement.
Workers often face long hours, rapidly shifting project parameters, and high pressure to deliver recurring updates. Creative teams report losing sight of meaningful progression or work-life boundaries as studio priorities center on live-service retention metrics.
With costs rising, studios sometimes cut corners or downsize teams, which can result in disappointing content drops, slower bug fixes, and declining player satisfaction.
Some publishers exit the live-service space altogether after failing to build a sustainable player base, transforming or shuttering games that don’t justify their ongoing expense. Studios have begun weighing the value of finite, premium experiences against the relentless grind of live-service development.
Industry Response: Strategies for Underperforming Titles
When live-service projects underperform, companies have adopted a variety of strategies, none without consequence. Some studios, like those under Microsoft and Sony, cancel games outright or quietly shift team members to new projects, minimizing public messaging and offering little to players left behind.
Fortnite (Credit: Nintendo)
Publishers phase out support, winding down servers or scaling back updates before stopping development entirely.
Other firms rebrand or pivot their offering, switching from aggressive monetization to more cautious approaches, sometimes converting live-service games into single-purchase titles or sunsetting live elements while preserving offline modes.
The impact on staff is severe. Sudden cancellations or pivots leave developers seeking new roles, and job security remains uncertain even in successful teams, as studios monitor KPIs and adjust staffing to match fluctuating revenues.
Talent retention becomes difficult burnout drives experienced developers to leave for other industries, undermining studio culture and future projects.
Industry analysts predict a more “sane” approach for big publishers going forward: focusing on fewer but higher-quality live-service commitments, investing in premium content, and reducing the number of resource-intensive ongoing titles in development.
The hope is that cutting back will benefit workers, allowing creative teams to regain energy and motivation, while also helping companies avoid the financial drain of underperforming live games.
Conclusion: Rethinking the Always-Online Model
The relentless nature of live-service games has transformed not just player habits, but studio operations and developer well-being.
The industry’s embrace of this model is now showing signs of wear; only a handful of major titles truly succeed, while countless others struggle with cost overruns, burnout, and the looming threat of shutdowns.
Studios and publishers now face hard choices. Will they double down on the promise of endless engagement and recurring revenue, or return to more sustainable, creative models built on quality rather than quantity? For game developers on the front lines, the answer can’t come soon enough.
For all its promise, the live-service era has underscored the deep human and financial costs of non-stop online delivery. As saturation reaches its peak and a string of high-profile failures puts teams at risk, the message is clear: success demands more than updates and engagement charts.
It requires a sustainable approach that values both players and the people behind the games.
The industry now stands at a crossroads. Will future investments favor quality over quantity? Can publishers build resilient business models without breaking the teams that drive them?
The experiences of 2025 suggest it’s time to rethink how “ongoing” should really look before burnout turns a golden goose into a cautionary tale for creative industries everywhere
