The recent “Rockstar Spouse” incident has, not surprisingly, caused some discussion about the IGDA and their role within the game development industry. Drew Sikora posted via Twitter
“Wake up people. Game devs who blame the IGDA for doing nothing blame themselves for doing nothing. Get it? Now do something.”
which instigated a series of replies, including my own. But since Twitter is a really poor medium for discussion (especially as the number of participants, and thus @replies, grows), Drew elected to expand his argument via a blog post, which he published earlier today.
As it turns out, Drew and I seem to agree on the critical issue, which is that the onus is on the individual developers to take responsibility for the quality of their own work life. Where we differ is our opinion of the IGDA and its role in that process.
The IGDA is not — and never has been — an agent of change within the industry. The organization is about communication: enabling networking between peers, or advocating on the industry’s behalf. But they’re not a regulatory organization: they have no authority to alter how a studio or publisher runs itself. While some would call this a failing of the organization, I feel instead that it is simply their ideal state. In this sense they are impotent, and impotent they should remain. I don’t really feel like the industry has reached a point where it needs a governing body.
That the Rockstar developers are beset with the trials of long, thankless hours is unfortunate, but they allowed themselves to put in that position. It’s naive to think that, as an individual game developer in a studio, you can hunker down and focus on your isolated area of responsibility, letting all the other goings-on in the company pass you by. When you do that, you become complicit in your own misfortunes: you become the faceless cog in the machine. We, all of us, need to take charge and be proactive. When schedules get changed, or features get piled on, when it starts to become apparent that something might be wrong, ask the hard questions. If you don’t think you can ship when the new release date is pinned down, say so, and say why.
Yes, it might be hard. It might be scary. You might feel that speaking up puts your job on the line, and maybe it does. If so, talk to your peers beforehand — a unified front is more effective than a single man or woman. It’s likely to be especially risky in today’s economy, but it is what needs to be done in order for this industry to outgrow these exploitations. You need to convince your bosses, who need to convince their bosses, who need to convince the VPs, who need to convince the publishers, and so on. It’s not the IGDA’s job, it’s yours. If we want to grow up, we can’t expect to run crying home to mother every time a bully says something hurtful about our pocket protectors.
Which brings me back to the original topic, and where Drew and I disagree. He says:
“So unless you’re ready to start from scratch and form your own organization to simply create a more complex problem out there, or you really think we’re all better off acting as individuals (look how that’s turning out) I suggest you get involved with the IGDA by becoming a member. Do it simply to support all the other members actively working and using the monetary resources you provide to continue to improve standards and reach out to more areas of the industry with their advocacy. Or, if you support the idea of the IGDA but feel there are parts of it that need to change, roll up your sleeves and join a SIG or request the formation of your own to address a certain issue.”
Unlike Drew, I do believe that an individual acting alone (or in concert with peers, but not necessarily via a third-party organization) can catalyze change in game development. But I choose not to renew my long-lapsed membership because I do not believe in the IGDA as an aid to that end.
I don’t believe that the SIGs and chapter meetings bring about any more good than the individuals participating in them could do on their own. Having seen no evidence that the IGDA has ever successfully been engaged to mediate a debate, I’ve no faith they could do that effectively, either. Nor do I see anything going on in any given local chapter that couldn’t occur were that chapter their own, independent interest group. Indeed, each chapter is so unique they may as well be. True, we must recognize the IGDA for their work on standards for QoL, crediting, and such… but a standard is only as reliable when it is accepted widely enough — and from what I can tell, much of the IGDA’s standards are accepted by virtue of being common sense.
In the end, I simply see a dearth of evidence sustaining the notion that the IGDA can act as a force-multiplier for the individual actions and opinions of its constituents. That’s not something I want my time, my money or (most importantly) my name associated with.
Discussion
You can follow this discussion by subscribing to the comments feed.
Unless one of those you talk to are are a career ladder climber and grass on you.
Deep down, everybody who gets into this situation knows these things already, its just that the practical concerns stop them from organising. You may issue as many a “call-to-arms” as you wish, you arent going to incense overworked employees to overthrow their taskmasters.
First, “career ladder climbers” will always be a problem. You shouldn’t let that stop you from from taking action.
Second, one needs to be on the lookout for the warning signs that can lead to extreme crunch and other offensive working conditions. For example, you can’t really fix crunch by being reactive to it — once you’re crunching, a number of potential solutions are no longer nearly as viable, if they remain viable at all. You need to work towards enabling effective development methodologies beforehand, so you can better detect changes that could lead to crunch. You need to act in a preventative capacity.
Finally, I am in no way suggesting that anybody should be attempting to “overthrow their taskmasters.” Improving the exploitative practices of the industry isn’t going to happen via some kind of revolution, it’s going to happen through reasoned communication between all concerned parties. The earlier in development you broach the subject of potential problems and start discussing options, the more options you have. If you wait until you’re in the weeds, well, then you might only have the two worst options: suck it up, or quit. And you’re right: if you let yourself get to that point, practical concerns all but eliminate “quit,” leaving you suffering.
You know you bring up a good point Josh, which is that a lot of the positive impacts of the IGDA aren’t widely noted in the industry. Next time I talk to some of my friends in the org and on the board I’ll bring this up.
The real issue here is that while the IGDA is influencing a lot of individuals and companies (both in and out of the org) in a positive way, of course that’s never the kind of news that makes headlines like the plight of R* San Diego.
You may also want to look into the impact former Executive Director Jason Della Rocca made on a lot of issues back towards the start of the decade – he routinely took on stuff like Jack Thompson, and Thompson has even struck back at him in quotes. The IGDA back then took much more action on litigation as well.
Things have been a bit rough with Jason stepping down, a new Ex. Director being selected, and the org switching over to a professional management agency – but you have to admit the health program is a step towards more tangible benefits to members.
You make some interesting points about how developers need to look after themselves which I fully agree with.
But it’s often a catch 22 situation.
The people who would have the most sway are those who are the most respected. Usually the senior developers who’ve been in the industry some time and probably worked at the company for a few years As they’ll be the older members of the team, they’ll have picked up the kind of things people do as they get older (wife, house, children) so while they would probably have the most impact, they also have the most to lose.
And with the constant (more so these days) studio closure and dynamic nature of our industry, some people are probably thinking “it might be rough – all the time – but I know I can at least pay the bills on time”.
Whether constant crunch is a factor in leading to a less stable company (I would personally say it is) probably doesn’t factor when they’re tired, stressed and working long hours.
I don’t know enough to about US labour laws (but the more I know the less I wish I did) to make a solid judgement but I feel it’s here when the IGDA (or other body) should be placed. To support those that are fighting for a better life and for more respectable working hours.
There would be more official support for people trying to make a stand in the EU (which is why I would be very disappointed to hear of a case like this in the UK) so for once the IGDA being a US centric organisation is actually a good thing.
I’ve been more impressed this time around with the IGDA’s response (from various board member) so I’m waiting to see where they go next, but it hasn’t changed my opinions as to why I won’t join. Their offers to mediate between the workers and the managers seems like an excellent start and I’m just hoping someone takes them up on the offer.
Thanks for the post it was a very interesting read.