The recent “Rockstar Spouse” incident has, not surprisingly, caused some discussion about the IGDA and their role within the game development industry. Drew Sikora said, via Twitter, “Wake up people. Game devs who blame the IGDA for doing nothing blame themselves for doing nothing. Get it? Now do something.”

This 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.