Desired but Also Undesired: Immigrant Game Workers in Between the Discourse of Labour Shortage and Anti-Immigration in Finland

This work-in-progress study examines the situation of migrant game developers in Finland during a period of immigration policy reform in 2025-2026. Its central argument is that migrant workers occupy a contradictory position: the political and economic discourse frames them as a scarce, elite, highly skilled workforce, while in practice they face precarity and can be treated as replaceable within production pipelines that increasingly rely on insecure labour. The research asks how Finland's shifting immigration regulations are affecting the experiences of migrant game industry workers.

Survey data cited in the study indicates that nearly one-third of the Finnish game industry workforce has a migrant background, with most being senior developers in design, programming, art, and related technical fields, many with multiple prior relocations. Finland's open work permit policy, in place until 2025, had supported job mobility and creative autonomy, allowing developers to take creative risks without jeopardising residency. The new "3/6 Month Unemployment Rule," enacted in 2025, reverses this by allowing authorities to cancel residence permits if workers do not find new employment within three to six months of becoming unemployed. Industry representatives and game company executives warned that this window is too short given the lengthy hiring processes in specialised sectors, and that the rule could weaken competitiveness in the European tech labour market.

Methodologically, the study relies on semi-structured interviews, with 14 completed at the time of presentation, each lasting roughly an hour and conducted in English and Korean. Preliminary observations point to heightened emotional burden and stress among migrant workers both affected and unaffected by the law, and a widespread erosion of trust in Finnish authorities once seen as protectors against exploitative multinational employers. Senior developers, who could compare Finland with countries such as the USA and Singapore, valued Finland's labour protections and worried about their erosion, while junior developers focused on domestic unemployment and limited traineeship opportunities. Senior workers were more optimistic about relocating abroad, whereas junior workers, more vulnerable to the rule, had more concrete relocation plans, and were generally less tied to family or social obligations.