adminGame development unionisation has gained momentum after decades in which organised labour was often treated as unrealistic or unwelcome in the industry. But high-profile disputes over dismissals and studio closures are raising a difficult question: can workers build lasting collective power when efforts to organise may appear to offer little protection during a crisis?
Image credit: IWGB Game Workers Union
Game development unionisation faces a crucial test
Two major unionisation stories have put labour rights in the spotlight at the start of 2026. Neither centres on the United States, which is often viewed as one of the least union-friendly major regions for game development. Instead, the cases involve the United Kingdom and Canada, and both have prompted disagreement about whether union activity played a role in job losses.
In the UK, legal and political challenges continue over Rockstar Games’ dismissal of 31 workers last October. The company denies that the dismissals were retaliation for union organising and says the employees were let go for leaking information about upcoming games.
In Canada, Ubisoft closed its Halifax studio, affecting 71 staff members. The studio had recently formed the first union within Ubisoft’s North American businesses. Ubisoft says the closure is part of its ongoing restructuring and is unrelated to the union.
Rockstar layoffs have attracted public criticism, including protests and discussion in Parliament. | Image credit: Ross Greer/Scottish Greens
Why the investigations matter
The unions involved—IWGB in the UK and CWA in Canada—are seeking further scrutiny of the circumstances behind the job losses. IWGB has directly accused Rockstar of union-busting. Both companies deny that union activity caused their respective decisions.
Establishing whether an employer acted illegally can be difficult. However, investigations and employment tribunals can help clarify what happened. Internal communications, public statements and information from potential whistleblowers may all become relevant evidence. The outcomes of these cases should not be assumed before the relevant processes are complete.
Even if Ubisoft’s decision was driven by its wider restructuring, the timing may still affect how workers view organising. Employees could conclude that union membership did not protect colleagues from losing their jobs—or worry that organising might have contributed to the outcome. In the Rockstar case, any remedy may come only after a lengthy legal process. That prospect can be daunting in an industry where layoffs have been frequent.
“The problem is not the idea of unions, but the piecemeal, last-minute way they have often been organised in the games business.”
Why late-stage organising can be vulnerable
Unionisation efforts sometimes begin only when employees see warning signs of layoffs, closures or restructuring. At that stage, a union may be able to advocate for fair treatment, but it cannot necessarily prevent a struggling company from changing its operations or closing a studio.
Some organising campaigns also involve only a small group within one company. If membership is limited to a subset of employees—often those in less secure roles—the union may have less influence in negotiations. Broader participation, including support from more senior staff, can help build stronger collective representation. Workers considering organising may benefit from learning about their legal rights and speaking with a relevant union before a crisis develops.
The union at Ubisoft Halifax existed for only a short time before the studio closed. | Image credit: Ubisoft Workers of Canada
What stronger organisation could offer
Growing awareness of workplace issues has helped bring labour organisation into wider discussions across the games industry. Reports of mishandled harassment and abuse have raised questions about how well internal processes protect employees. Disputes over return-to-office requirements after COVID have also sharpened debate about working conditions and employee consultation.
Recent industry-wide layoffs have drawn attention to differences in job security and labour protections between countries. Unions cannot guarantee that no jobs will be lost, particularly during a difficult economic period. They can, however, give employees a collective voice in discussions about workplace policies, compensation and the handling of redundancies.
Collective representation may also encourage companies to consider the long-term consequences of staffing decisions. More stable employment practices can support workers and help companies avoid relying too heavily on speculative growth. That does not mean growth should stop; rather, sustainable planning can benefit employees, employers and the quality of the games being made.
The future of game development unionisation
Building a union takes time, and small or newly formed groups may face significant challenges. If early, high-profile campaigns appear to end in job losses without meaningful support for workers, employees elsewhere may become more reluctant to organise. That could slow broader adoption, regardless of the eventual legal findings in these cases.
For game development unionisation to deliver lasting benefits, workers need opportunities to understand its potential well before a workplace reaches a crisis point. Stronger participation across roles and seniority levels can improve a union’s ability to represent employees. The current disputes remain unresolved, but they underline why the timing, breadth and preparation of organising efforts matter.
