Today is Labor Daybor! (The Labor Movement and Video Games)

[MadJackalope]

I was playing Bioshock Infinite earlier this year and had progressed through the story to the point where you're interacting a lot with the Vox Populi and it just started falling apart for me. I think there's a lot of cool historical stuff that Ken Levine was trying to pull from but I think it also tends to fall flat and become very 1 dimensional. Specifically as it applies to the Vox Populi it reminded me of something I once read that basically went "There is no true leftist political force in America, because without a serious critique of capitalism there is no leftist politics, only liberalism". 

Now this post isn't meant to be overly political or anything but I do find it interesting to discuss. Video games have a lot of issues with sexism, racism, etc but they do tend to fall into a generally more "liberal" category than I think a lot of Americans would self identify with. This is true in the same way that Hollywood is known to lean liberal but is still mired in the kinds of exploitation and discrimination that runs counter to that. Video games tend to lean "liberal" in a lot of ways but very rarely do I see an authentically leftist politic expressed in the medium. There is very rarely an even very realistic portrayal of labor movements and such in games. Ken Levine was certainly familiar with this stuff though, as he worked in Boston, and the Haymarket Massacre was important to the history of the region and was also one of the inciting events for the creation of Labor Day and yet I think the Vox Populi's rhetoric is pretty thin and almost automatically dismissed by the protagonist. Booker is a liberal, not a revolutionary (despite fucking up every single cop he can find. He's not exactly Gandhi you know?). 

So why is this like this? I think there are a number of reasons. 

1) Video games rose to prominence in a period of deregulation and destruction of the Labor Movement. It's actually pretty surprising when you go back and see how broad the mainstream support for the Labor Movement was back in the late 19th century and early 20th. Video games really started hitting in the 80s when the Labor Movement was starting to gasp it's last breath. 

2) Video games have largely been made by non-unionized workers. Video games used to take highly specialized skills that required so much background and education that there was no real need for a union. Also while the ideal of "workers owning the means of production" is very difficult in a factory setting, it's relatively easier in video games where many people do already have the tools needed to make a game of their own. 

3) Video games are historical tied as an industry to Venture Capitalism and the tech industry, and therefore often trace their organization and cultural roots to software development companies. Now of course there are some anarcho-capitalist types out there in Silicon Valley but it's still a pretty standard moderate American republicanism overall. 

Once again don't want to sound like I'm getting too political I just thought it was interesting to think about and discuss. A lot of the issues that we are talking about in video game circles focus on gender identity etc, but I don't often see those discussions connected very well to a larger leftist/anarchist/green/socialist/etc rhetoric. I think that certainly skews the conversation in a very particular way and I'd be curious to see if anyone knows any games that deal with these issues in a serious way?

 

[Merus]

This is an interesting topic! I have absolutely nothing I can contribute.

 

Not every country has seen the labor movement dismantled in the way that it has in the US and the UK, but thinking of games from countries with a strong labour movement, I'm not sure I detect any particularly strong differences in philosophy. Most of the games that attempt to depict the 'real' world tend to be American, British or Japanese. I can't really think of a lot of games outside of these countries that have room to express their views on work. Michel Ancel's games are high fantasy and science fantasy, and while there's a non-violent resistance movement in Beyond Good and Evil, Jade is a freelance photographer with, it seems, no real job stability. I think the closest Australian-made games have gotten to depicting the real world are Destroy All Humans!, where you play as an alien mostly oblivious to human society, Ninja Pizza Girl, where you're an entry-level employee with no union protection, and early versions of what became The Bureau, where you play as a government agent because of course the government's going to try and take care of alien threats.

[syntheticgerbil]

Hey MadJackalope who I know the real identity of , I really like what you're saying here and it is definitely in the spirit. Thinking of the last game company I worked at, I was given stuff to do on Labor Day weekend both Labor Days in the two years I was there. The second one had the strongly suggested option to float to a time when we were less busy so that stuff could get done for the ultimately bad games we worked that didn't specifically have a release day anyone was clamoring for outside of the shareholders. It always just grosses me out to think of the industry the way you described and it's really unfortunate there are no Unions and things like unpaid internships (often leading to actual published work) and copious amounts overtime with little thanks are still so rampant.

[Gatazhk]

Great topic!  From what I hear about working conditions in the video game industry, some sort of union seems to make a ton of sense.

 

Something like the Screenwriters Guild?

 

www.wga.org

[Bjorn]

It's interesting that you draw the correlation between when video games started and the weakening of labor's power in the US, though the odd thing is that creatives/labor were quite abused even very early on (the whole thing with Atari not giving credit, the ridiculous work schedules that led to stuff like E.T.).  And into modern day, we still hear horror stories about people being ridiculously overworked.  The video game industry historically has all of the kinds of pressure one would expect to lead towards some kind of unionization, and yet nothing of the kind has happened. 

 

Thematically though, you do see basic capitalism being proselytized through most games.  A very American "work hard and you'll be rewarded" kind of mentality when it comes to how work or business is portrayed. 

[SuperBiasedMan]

Thematically though, you do see basic capitalism being proselytized through most games.  A very American "work hard and you'll be rewarded" kind of mentality when it comes to how work or business is portrayed. 

 

I think this is also filled out in the actual play too though, players expect to be rewarded for their work and mastery. If that's not what happens then the game is frustrating or poorly designed to them. The whole concept of gamification is based on a capitalist sense of proportional reward.

[clyde]

I'm very interested in economic systems being expressed in computer-games. At first I was looking for games that would show alternatives to capitalist systems, but after looking around I realized what I was missing was games with capitalist systems. I had assumed that capitalism was the default economic system in games, but in actuality, economic systems in games are typically a central power allocating labor based on one person's decisions (the player). Thus far the best critique of capitalism comes from games that attempt to mimic it. The two I've been most impressed with are Wabash Cannonball and La Havre, both are board-games ported to the iphone with AI opponents.

I got some recommendations for Victoria 2 but I have only spent an hour or so trying to learn how to play it. From what I can tell, you adjust the skills of the labor centrally by adjusting tax-breaks while having to deal with market forces outside of your national borders. Another game to keep your eye on is Offworld Trading Company whose victory-conditions look to be based on the inevitable monopolies of pure capitalist systems. I've only read about that one, it's currently in an expensive early-access.

[prettyunsmart]

I'm pretty sure that this has been linked before, but this article in Jacobin is a pretty interesting look at labor issues in the games industry. It points out how some of the biggest obstacles to improving labor conditions in the industry is the giant pool of young workers who want nothing more than to make a game, and subsequently are willing to accept low wages, long hours, and little to no job security. 

 

Also, Jackalope, there's no need to say that you don't want to get too political. This is a political issue, but pretty much everything worth talking about is. I believe talking about labor and class issues in games is important, but I'd be skeptical of saying that we need to talk about these in the place of women's/LGBT issues. It's been a common move in leftist political movements to tell women that their concerns would be dealt with after class issues had been sorted it. We don't want to make the same mistake here.

[SecretAsianMan]

I think this is also filled out in the actual play too though, players expect to be rewarded for their work and mastery. If that's not what happens then the game is frustrating or poorly designed to them. The whole concept of gamification is based on a capitalist sense of proportional reward.

 

Actually I feel like in a lot of games the opposite is true.  While a lack of reward can lead to frustration I don't think a lot of players want proportional rewards.  I can think of a bunch of games that are played with the least amount of effort required to gain the greatest return.  People want the quickest and surest path to success.  This is not a universal desire of course but it's a fairly common one from what I've seen.  I have some examples but this is mostly off topic so I won't get into it.

[sclpls]

I was playing Bioshock Infinite earlier this year and had progressed through the story to the point where you're interacting a lot with the Vox Populi and it just started falling apart for me. I think there's a lot of cool historical stuff that Ken Levine was trying to pull from but I think it also tends to fall flat and become very 1 dimensional. Specifically as it applies to the Vox Populi it reminded me of something I once read that basically went "There is no true leftist political force in America, because without a serious critique of capitalism there is no leftist politics, only liberalism". 

 

 

I was recently rereading Italo Calvino's diary from when he was travelling through America in 1960 (during the Kennedy-Nixon election), and he observed  that despite the Italian unions having all the right political critiques of capitalism they had less to show for it than the unions in San Francisco. That's neither here nor there, but that quote reminded me of that passage.

 

You are on the nose as far as the video game industry sharing that Hollywood style liberalism. It's a sort of focus-tested-to-death style world view with vaguely spiritual ideas about good and evil where people are capable of individual feats of greatness and the cast has a sort of bland multiculturalism.

 

I think the reason you don't see labor issues discussed as much as say, feminist issues is just a question of power blocs. As you stated, we're living in the era of deregulation, and American labor laws and the regulation of those laws are basically stacked against unions.There are a lot of industries that in other decades probably would unionize, but it is nearly impossible to do so now. The chances of prevailing are so low, and the risks of workers losing their jobs are so high that no one risks it. There was some hope among labor groups that when there was Democratic control of the WH and both chambers of congress that there would be a chance of passing laws implementing card check systems for organizing unions. That didn't happen, Democrats focused their energy on other issues like passing a stimulus bill and healthcare, and when Republicans took back the House in 2010 the ship for that sailed.

 

As such labor doesn't have much of a voice in any conversation. Women, by contrast, have been very successful using social media to organize and give voice to their concerns. Often if politicians and companies do things to alienate them they do so at their potential peril. By contrast, politicians and companies can have anti-labor views and practices without any real consequence. So people discuss labor issues less frequently as a result.

 

That being said, I do think labor issues get discussed in outlets. Crytek was rightly criticized last month when it came to light that some staff had gone two months (!) without pay. Game journalists do have to be more cautious with those kinds of allegations however because they can potentially come back to harm their sources, and they need to make sure the allegations are factual less they risk liability. By contrast, accusations of sexist representations fits more comfortably within the realm of subjective critique, and therefore doesn't require the same sorts of caution to expose.

 

I think a final issue, and one that I think you are alluding to, is certain American cultural dispositions. Polls show that lots of Americans don't know anyone that is a union member, and that has an impact on how people think about issues. Americans also have much fuzzier views of class differences compared to many other people. That's another reason labor issues are perhaps discussed less frequently, and represented so poorly in games and other media.

 

I can't think of any games off the top of my head that get labor right, but I've often thought while sending another XCOM squad to their doom that they really ought to organize considering the types of risks they are taking. I don't think I've ever paid them after the initial trivial fee!

[syntheticgerbil]

That being said, I do think labor issues get discussed in outlets. Crytek was rightly criticized last month when it came to light that some staff had gone two months (!) without pay. Game journalists do have to be more cautious with those kinds of allegations however because they can potentially come back to harm their sources, and they need to make sure the allegations are factual less they risk liability. By contrast, accusations of sexist representations fits more comfortably within the realm of subjective critique, and therefore doesn't require the same sorts of caution to expose.

That's the thing, we always hear about this stuff over and over again. Nothing really makes an impact no matter what bad news we hear. Just some people cry foul on Facebook or the comments section and a few other developers take great pride in their 90 hour work weeks because they are so filled with imagination, passion, and creativity they must show it off. Gamers buy the games, don't give a shit, cycle continues.

 

I feel like the only way something like that situation would turn around is if everyone had the gall to just get together, say fuck the stupid Crytek game and just not go to work until pay AND working conditions change. It's a fucking multimillion dollar company, they almost all are it seems. It's like paying people is the last on some of these scumlord owner's minds. But no, game developer Stockholm Syndrome is apparently more important. I think most of this took place here in Austin as well. I suppose the attitude at most game developer get togethers are a bunch of meek and desperate people, but Christ, if your paycheck doesn't arrive in two weeks, tell your boss you aren't going to work. If you get fired, file for unemployment. Of course they were all probably paid contract and going to an office, using work computers, and basically acting like full time workers, just without the benefits so they could easily be let go later and never collect unemployment.

 

Whenever I hear bullshit about working in games, I just hear Remo in my head saying, "Videeeeoooooo gaaaaaames!" Makes me feel better.

[MadJackalope]

This is an interesting topic! I have absolutely nothing I can contribute.

 

Not every country has seen the labor movement dismantled in the way that it has in the US and the UK, but thinking of games from countries with a strong labour movement, I'm not sure I detect any particularly strong differences in philosophy. Most of the games that attempt to depict the 'real' world tend to be American, British or Japanese. I can't really think of a lot of games outside of these countries that have room to express their views on work. Michel Ancel's games are high fantasy and science fantasy, and while there's a non-violent resistance movement in Beyond Good and Evil, Jade is a freelance photographer with, it seems, no real job stability. I think the closest Australian-made games have gotten to depicting the real world are Destroy All Humans!, where you play as an alien mostly oblivious to human society, Ninja Pizza Girl, where you're an entry-level employee with no union protection, and early versions of what became The Bureau, where you play as a government agent because of course the government's going to try and take care of alien threats.

I had totally forgotten about Beyond Good and Evil but that's a really great example. Also Michel is French and there's a stronger tradition of those kinds of movements in French culture so it's not too surprising. 

 

Great topic!  From what I hear about working conditions in the video game industry, some sort of union seems to make a ton of sense.

 

Something like the Screenwriters Guild?

 

www.wga.org

I think some of the issue is that there is an oversupply of labor in the game's market so as a result, creating a union is pretty hard these days. Who would join? Only people who want to get into the industry. I doubt many veterans would join, and that's a bit of a problem. Though it's funny to point out that Reagan was actually the President of SAG (Screen Actors Guild). That's some real irony right there for you. If SAG wasn't already a deeply invested part of Hollywood at this point, I doubt it would be created today. And while I love the freedom of the internet and youtube I also worry that we're seeing an eroding of creative people's ability to negotiate. I've got an article in the hopper I'm working on that subject right now.  

 

It's interesting that you draw the correlation between when video games started and the weakening of labor's power in the US, though the odd thing is that creatives/labor were quite abused even very early on (the whole thing with Atari not giving credit, the ridiculous work schedules that led to stuff like E.T.).  And into modern day, we still hear horror stories about people being ridiculously overworked.  The video game industry historically has all of the kinds of pressure one would expect to lead towards some kind of unionization, and yet nothing of the kind has happened. 

 

Thematically though, you do see basic capitalism being proselytized through most games.  A very American "work hard and you'll be rewarded" kind of mentality when it comes to how work or business is portrayed. 

 

I think this is also filled out in the actual play too though, players expect to be rewarded for their work and mastery. If that's not what happens then the game is frustrating or poorly designed to them. The whole concept of gamification is based on a capitalist sense of proportional reward.

I think the desire for action and reward is not inherently opposed to the heart of a labor movement. In fact I think labor movements are very much about re-establishing the balance of meritocracy by recognizing the ways that capital creates an uneven playing field. But certainly that "chase the cheese" part of our hind brain is the thing which both inspires gamification and capitalism's popularity. "There are no poor Americans, merely temporarily embarrassed millionaires" har har

I do think there probably is an inherent challenge depicting that imbalance because frustration is an enemy to engagement, but I do think it's possible. I wonder if the recent crop of super hard games are perhaps an avenue towards discussing these kinds of issues. So much depends on the luck of birth in Rogue-like games after all. 

You would think the crime genre would also be a good place to examine power structures, but I think many of those games end up playing towards the power fantasy. 

 

I'm very interested in economic systems being expressed in computer-games. At first I was looking for games that would show alternatives to capitalist systems, but after looking around I realized what I was missing was games with capitalist systems. I had assumed that capitalism was the default economic system in games, but in actuality, economic systems in games are typically a central power allocating labor based on one person's decisions (the player). Thus far the best critique of capitalism comes from games that attempt to mimic it. The two I've been most impressed with are Wabash Cannonball and La Havre, both are board-games ported to the iphone with AI opponents.

I got some recommendations for Victoria 2 but I have only spent an hour or so trying to learn how to play it. From what I can tell, you adjust the skills of the labor centrally by adjusting tax-breaks while having to deal with market forces outside of your national borders. Another game to keep your eye on is Offworld Trading Company whose victory-conditions look to be based on the inevitable monopolies of pure capitalist systems. I've only read about that one, it's currently in an expensive early-access.

Ah yeah board games are a really good place for this. Strategy games like Civ too. I don't know much about Wabash Cannonball, could you talk about that a little more?

 

I'm pretty sure that this has been linked before, but this article in Jacobin is a pretty interesting look at labor issues in the games industry. It points out how some of the biggest obstacles to improving labor conditions in the industry is the giant pool of young workers who want nothing more than to make a game, and subsequently are willing to accept low wages, long hours, and little to no job security. 

 

Also, Jackalope, there's no need to say that you don't want to get too political. This is a political issue, but pretty much everything worth talking about is. I believe talking about labor and class issues in games is important, but I'd be skeptical of saying that we need to talk about these in the place of women's/LGBT issues. It's been a common move in leftist political movements to tell women that their concerns would be dealt with after class issues had been sorted it. We don't want to make the same mistake here.

Excellent points. Yeah, the reason for saying I didn't want to get too political is I didn't want to scare people off by seeming too radical. I do essentially identify as an anarchist, but I'm pretty pragmatic about the whole thing. To me the fundamental thing isn't politics, it's being good to your fellow human beings. Part of that is recognizing the effects of power in society but I also differ from a lot of other people because I'm more in the Tolstoyian vein of things. Change for society comes from within the self rather than from the violent overthrow of the powers that be. 

And also yes, I was a little worried that I would sound like I was minimizing feminist issues (as I'm also aware of those problems you mentioned). Not my intention in the least. I do get a little frustrated though because a lot of the video game feminist movement centers around upper class white female demographics, and this "gentrification" of the feminist movement is something that has been discussed a lot in feminist circles, especially by women of color in the Third Wave. I think this is one reason intersectionality and Kyriarchy are important concepts to keep in mind. This is especially a problem since "video games feminism" is not only isolated from a larger critique of power structures, but also from mainstream feminist work in general. Anyway the point of this post was not to diminish that, rather it was to enlarge the scope of criticism and discussion. The misogyny stuff is the most glaring and gross example of these unbalanced power structures in video game culture. I think issues of class are also worth discussing too, and I think binding all these things under a common theme of resisting coercion and hierarchy is important. 

 

[MadJackalope]

That's the thing, we always hear about this stuff over and over again. Nothing really makes an impact no matter what bad news we hear. Just some people cry foul on Facebook or the comments section and a few other developers take great pride in their 90 hour work weeks because they are so filled with imagination, passion, and creativity they must show it off. Gamers buy the games, don't give a shit, cycle continues.

 

I feel like the only way something like that situation would turn around is if everyone had the gall to just get together, say fuck the stupid Crytek game and just not go to work until pay AND working conditions change. It's a fucking multimillion dollar company, they almost all are it seems. It's like paying people is the last on some of these scumlord owner's minds. But no, game developer Stockholm Syndrome is apparently more important. I think most of this took place here in Austin as well. I suppose the attitude at most game developer get togethers are a bunch of meek and desperate people, but Christ, if your paycheck doesn't arrive in two weeks, tell your boss you aren't going to work. If you get fired, file for unemployment. Of course they were all probably paid contract and going to an office, using work computers, and basically acting like full time workers, just without the benefits so they could easily be let go later and never collect unemployment.

 

Whenever I hear bullshit about working in games, I just hear Remo in my head saying, "Videeeeoooooo gaaaaaames!" Makes me feel better.

I think the conditions in the industry have so much to do with the fact that it's a dream for people. But then again the same is true of film, and film does have it's fair share of problems, but the major studios do not. I think some of that has to do with the youth of the industry, and also the single minded focus of many people who get into games. 

[clyde]

In Wabash Cannonball also known as "Chicago Express", you use your capital to buy controlling-shares of railroad-companies. If you own shares then you can decide where the railroad is built. After each round, players recieve a payout that is profit from each railroad divided by the portion of shares owned. So for example: if I own two shares if the green railroad and only one other player owns a share, the I would get 2/3 of that railroad's profit which I can then use to outbid other players for additional shares.

It is a game though. One thing I don't like about it is that the advantages of the monopoly aren't expressed clearly in the game because it ends too soon. I'd like it if I had the option to grind the other players out of business using the capital I've accumulated. Instead, a winner is declared when it is obvious who will be able to do so.

[brkl]

There's a game like that. Can't remember what it's called.

[clyde]

I think it would make the game less fun (I don't think Monopoly is fun), but it would be a more powerful rhetoric (like Monopoly).

I love the idea of choosing "fun" mode or "rhetoric" mode at the beginning of the game.

[shammack]

I think the conditions in the industry have so much to do with the fact that it's a dream for people. But then again the same is true of film, and film does have it's fair share of problems, but the major studios do not. I think some of that has to do with the youth of the industry, and also the single minded focus of many people who get into games. 

 

Yeah, game developers are basically expendable because people who want to do it are a dime a dozen. If there's something you're not willing to put up with, there's always someone younger and more naïve who will, so you have no leverage to say no. (Of course, once they actually get in, that spirit will be crushed quickly, but by then they're in the same situation.)

 

When I was in film school, there was a huge amount of focus on teaching us the union regulations and how big a deal it is if you require your crew to work even a few minutes longer than the scheduled work day. It was pretty jarring to go from that to an industry where people act like it's some kind of badge of honor to work 80-hour weeks with no additional compensation, and if you don't think that's a good deal, you just look like the lazy one.

[MadJackalope]

In Wabash Cannonball also known as "Chicago Express", you use your capital to buy controlling-shares of railroad-companies. If you own shares then you can decide where the railroad is built. After each round, players recieve a payout that is profit from each railroad divided by the portion of shares owned. So for example: if I own two shares if the green railroad and only one other player owns a share, the I would get 2/3 of that railroad's profit which I can then use to outbid other players for additional shares.

It is a game though. One thing I don't like about it is that the advantages of the monopoly aren't expressed clearly in the game because it ends too soon. I'd like it if I had the option to grind the other players out of business using the capital I've accumulated. Instead, a winner is declared when it is obvious who will be able to do so.

 

 

There's a game like that. Can't remember what it's called.

 

 

I think it would make the game less fun (I don't think Monopoly is fun), but it would be a more powerful rhetoric (like Monopoly).

I love the idea of choosing "fun" mode or "rhetoric" mode at the beginning of the game.

You know I remember reading a story that Monopoly was actually created as a critique of monopolies. Kind of a 1930s satire of them in game form. 

Ah yes, the wiki article confirms this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)#Early_history

The game originally came from a game called "The Landlord Game" which was meant to illustrate the ideas of Henry George, the founder of Georgism which is kind of like the modern day "free market socialists" you see crowding around the Universal Basic Income proposals in Europe and Canada. 

 

Yeah, game developers are basically expendable because people who want to do it are a dime a dozen. If there's something you're not willing to put up with, there's always someone younger and more naïve who will, so you have no leverage to say no. (Of course, once they actually get in, that spirit will be crushed quickly, but by then they're in the same situation.)

 

When I was in film school, there was a huge amount of focus on teaching us the union regulations and how big a deal it is if you require your crew to work even a few minutes longer than the scheduled work day. It was pretty jarring to go from that to an industry where people act like it's some kind of badge of honor to work 80-hour weeks with no additional compensation, and if you don't think that's a good deal, you just look like the lazy one.

You know that's another thing I've noticed. There's a huge influence of industry in the education of game makers. In my experience a large chunk of people in the industry are not from normal academic backgrounds, they're usually from technical colleges which have good ties within the industry. A lot of those colleges are not really academic institutions in the traditional sense, they're often for profit, and some of them can be pretty shady like the famous The Art Institutes which are often times not even properly accredited and have been sued recently by the government for misrepresenting their services. Places like Full Sail have slightly better reps and while the programs are more rigorous I've not seen a lot of people happy with their experience at them (especially considering the cost)

We're just now getting some serious programs at normal accredited universities, like the NYU Game Lab, or USC's Cinematic Arts program. That for profit education connection is probably a good deal to blame for that lack of knowledge about unions etc, because it's not in the interest of Full Sail to teach their students how to stand up for themselves because their pockets are being lined by the naivety of students who won't stand up for themselves. 

Also so far a large part of the conversation has focused on how there is a problem with labor in the games industry but I actually think this is a much greater problem with games as narrative expression. I don't want to seem unempathetic, since I do have huge problems with the way the games industry is run but I also think it's falling a bit short. After all, according to the latest Gamasutra poll, the median salary for game devs is 70k, and I've heard in Europe its in the range of 100k. Median salary in America is like 25k. Game devs are, compared to the population at large, very, very, well off. And also those numbers are probably skewed a little bit because the Gamasutra is probably not taking into account all the freelancers and part time people who are exploited by the industry but even so, game devs are generally better off than the average person.

The issue to me is not so much that the games industry doesn't have a strong labor movement. In many ways it doesn't really need one, it's high enough skilled jobs that devs generally have decent bargaining power. They aren't getting their full market worth, but arguing that they aren't getting their full market worth is ACTUALLY upholding a system of capitalism, not rebuking it. The problem is that because everyone is generally pretty well off, the voice of working class, or labor movements are often misrepresented or under represented. The games industry is inherently bourgeoisie and consumerist. (after all the core of the "gamer" culture comes from those who could afford super expensive console systems back in the day). 

Now I said inherently but I don't actually think it's really inherent, I just think it's very strongly tied to the current way the medium is represented, understood, and the way the industry is focused. And I'm not even arguing against capital per se, so much as the lack of recognition of the unbalanced systems which capital creates. What I'd like to see, even more than fairer working conditions for devs, is authentic expressions in the medium that critique capitalism and acknowledge the thorny issues that wealth, property, etc pose. 

I think more and more devs are starting to realize this too, because as globalization and outsourcing continue to rise, many of their bargaining powers are being eroded and so  the problems of the common man are becoming more relevant to their experience. 

Also I can think of one dev who is involved in the kind of anti-capital thinking we've discussed here. Jason Rohrer really practices what he preaches about indie games. I don't know if I'd ever go as extreme as him but he's an admirable guy.