It is cool to work in the video game industry. You get paid work on games, right? This image of the video game industry as a cool, hip, fun place where you get to make cutting edge titles has some truth, but it also hides a dark side.
The dark side sometimes shadows the light -- like when Erin Hoffman made her now famous post as ea_spouse. And it appeared again with the allegations of Rockstar Spouse, 38 Studios Spouse, the investigative journalism of Andrew McMillen about the making of L.A. Noire, the IGDA press release about KAOS Studios, through IGDA reports about quality of life, and through conference panels, blogs and forums.
The dark side also emerges when you talk to individual game developers about their working conditions and the risks that they face. Developers say that they face challenges with sustained long working hours ("crunch"), unlimited and unpaid overtime, poor work-life balance, high incidence of musculoskeletal disorders and burnout, unacknowledged intellectual property rights, limited crediting standards, non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, and limited or unsupported training opportunities.
Most developers have stories of long hours: "[I work] an average 10 hours a day; there's days I would put 16 hours in, there's days where people stay overnight. It can get really hectic -- I mean, I was chastised for leaving," said one.
Another explained that the willingness to work is related to the passion for the job, but that this is manipulated. "That's pretty much what seals the deal. If a project is interesting enough, people would put up with anything. They will work crazy hours if they love the project... So people will go, 'Oh yeah, it's going to be a great game.' So they use that -- a company uses that to make people do more work than they should do..." Managers seem completely conscious of this manipulation. One lead said, "I never had to say 'you have to stay,'" but acknowledged that he uses a more subtle tactic:
But usually it's just, I think if your team and you get along, you can phrase it in a way that makes them understand that it would be really, really great if you could stay, and it will be greatly appreciated. But in other projects, people are tired, the project been extended and crunching for ages and then people are close to burn out, you know, some people are just... They practically sleep at the office, so...
These guilt-based tactics and veiled threats to career progression work, and also avoid the legal pitfalls of forced overtime. "I've never had a place that could physically chain me in the building, but the influence of the social and sort of -- not just social in the terms of peer pressure, it's like, also, you know that you have your career in their hands and if you... as a team player, that's going to ensure your progress within the company," explained one developer.
Are video game developers doing anything about these challenges?
Interviews with video game developers in Montreal, Canada, some sneak-peek data from the 2009 IGDA survey, and a canvassing of the social web show that disgruntled workers are speaking out and resisting in a variety of ways, both as individuals and in groups.
There are a number of individual actions that all employees can do if they are unhappy with their work situation. The easiest thing to do is quit and find a better situation somewhere else. The attitude of "if you don't like it, leave" is something that is heard often in the game industry. "In a sense it may be easier to go and start up your own company and do contract work... than it is to try to get a big company to change its ways," said one developer. In the face of a dispute, one developer said that rather than suing the company or going to the "labor people," "It's probably more worthwhile and cheaper just to find another job in the industry. We get fired and get hired at another place all the time."
Some people convey a sense of toughness or machismo about "surviving" an epic crunch, and these episodes become part of the lore of the industry. "I was there when..." This means that those who do not survive or who complain are sometimes considered as those who can't take it -- "this industry is not for you."
Other video game developers take personal advantage of the mobility of the industry -- particularly in regional hot spots or clusters where a lot of studios exist. Here, good developers can be head hunted away from competitors and dissatisfied developers can look for greener pastures. "Employers are waiting in line at my door," said one. "Yeah, we get a lot of calls," said another, adding that "There's a lot of headhunters. There's a lot of employee-pilfering... even inside here."
But this attitude doesn't fix any problems for the long term. If you don't like your work and you quit, your employer just hires someone else. Turnover has to be pretty bad before an employer will change their policies to fix it. You might be able to find a better job in the industry, but most studios operate the same way, so you are probably just getting into the same environment all over again. It could also be worse -- and then you are out of the frying pan and into the fire. You could leave the industry forever, but that sucks, because you like making games. If you are awesome enough to be headhunted or negotiate a personal deal, good for you. But that doesn't help anyone else.
Perpetual turnover also doesn't help the industry as a whole. It is expensive and wasteful to let people with learned studio-specific knowledge continually walk out the door, only to have to reorient the newcomers. High mobility hinders the industry's ability to mature and stabilize. This also creates the conditions where supporters of the status quo succeed and those with diverging opinions are chased out -- this can lead to groupthink and stagnation because no one can see a different way of doing things.
|
For more information about Quality of Life in the video game industry also have a look at http://gameqol.org
You can download and comment on a new report co-authored by me and Marie-Joseé Legault
about the 2009 Quality of Life survey that was administered by the IGDA.
This site is also an archive of the Quality of Life related stories that pop up online and in the news.
The impression that this is fun and games, overriding practical consideration, is a pervasive viewpoint held by all but the most savvy of non-developers that the serious game community works with.
Can you clarify the distinction between commercial and 'serious' games?
EA did not ban work on Sundays after EA_Spouse. Was that only at EALA? Certainly at EARS Sunday became the new Monday many times after EA_Spouse. I'm curious where this information came from?
Thanks for your inquiry. Unfortunately I don't have a satisfactory answer for you. Over the years we reviewed and gathered a lot of information from published sources, news sources and social media. I have trolled through my material and I am coming up short with a specific reference for this information. The trouble with online sources is that they often vanish and I am afraid we did not practice our due diligence with saving a copy of this one.
I would be interested to put this out to the community to see if anyone has more information about EA's response to EA Spouse or to the law suits that occurred in the same time period. I do have this link: http://www.joystiq.com/2004/12/02/ea-responds-to-disgruntled-spouse-in-le aked-em
ail/
From comments below @Samuel Burnstein it seems like any policy adjustments that might have been made were short lived.
Thanks for reading!
Then again its why I dropped out of MBA business school and have been self employed most of my life. Its also why I eat free range and organic foods, I'm nutty that way, I think quality of life matters, for everyone and everything.
Great article by the way.
A sock seamstress in China circa 1800, making 5 socks an hour could expect to be earning less than one tenth the European average income. Today the same role, using a machine to make 50,000 socks per hour still pays one tenth the European average income. All the efficiency and productivity gains have been consolidated to the elite. That is why the 1% pay such a huge portion of the taxes - because they have all the money.
edit: Executives/marketing are usually much more the culprit, but I wouldn't exactly put executives in an envious position work wise despite how their job generally comes off.
The answer is for independants to avoid entangling themselves in debt and a lifestyle that requires a certain cash flow that ends up being a faustian bargain chaining them to their fulltime jobs and trading their tomorrows for a little of todays comfort.
Last time I went looking for employment (I am now retired) I stipulated a maximum of 8 hours per day. It cost me two job interviews, but the third was happy, and that was where I found employment. If you are being coerced into working longer, be strong and say no. If you lose your job sue for wrongful dismissal citing the crunch culture. You will likely win.
With that in mind, I don't think the industry as a whole is bad. I think it's just that there are some parts that are very very bad and give it all a bad name. I have never worked unreasonable overtime as a developer. The worst was fairly isolated as there was a major bug found really late in alpha.
I'm generally not in favor of unions for skilled labor. The companies that treat their labor the best will get the most skill and produce the best results. The market rewards treating skilled employees well. It's not like unskilled labor where you are treated more like a commodity.
This compared to another gig at a much smaller studio, where I was working 12-14 hour days regularly, had horrible pay, would often be yelled at by producers, and where there were a number of walking HR and contract violations (such as being payed days or even weeks late), and which is a company which will probably never get called on it.
crunch." So almost half of the 3000+ people who answered that survey do not crunch. That is a great news story about the industry! (note, not all the respondents were in core dev though).
The important message is this article (I hope) is bigger than crunch and OT. In all workplaces employees need to have an effective means to voice their opinions and concerns and have a hope of seeing them addressed.
@Dimitri Del Castillo - I totally agree with you. Game devs need a way to influence their workplace to make it better for them - quitting is a bad solution to long-term problems. The question is...what other solutions are out there and which ones work or might work?
Want a recent case study - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/184395/THQ_denied_quick_bankruptcy_sale_in_wa
ke_of_creditor_complaints.php#.UO8a9m_7IaY
The executives who drove this company into the ground have literally made a fortune off the company and now the developers are the ones paying the price. AGAIN. And this has been OBVIOUS for 5 years. It has to stop.
There is a dire shortage of potential employees in my home city and everybody keeps acting like they have no clue why.
Last year, I went to a job interview that lasted for an hour and a half. I talked to three guys at the same time: one did his best to convince me they didn't need me, another was openly hostile, and the last one spent the entire time contradicting all of my opinions just to prove he knew better. They basically spent an hour and a half trying to make me feel bad about myself. They seemed disappointed when I eventually declined to take a test.
Fortunately, the situation is actually improving. Roughly half of the workplaces in this city (or at least half of those that I'm aware of) are decent. The job I have now is the most balanced and most creative ever, which is a bit ironic, because this is a porting company that doesn't make games of its own.
--This attitude needs to die. If the industry is to progress in any way, shape or form, this sort of machismo needs to go. There is nothing macho about making video games, or crunching to make a video game (Nor should there be). Crunch doesn't build camaraderie at all, crunch just simply destroys lives.
1. Do we work OT?
- If we do? Then go to next question:
2. Why do we work OT?
- Did we underestimate: Workload, Time, Difficulties or Plannnign needed.
- Or, did we even negotiated the price totally wrong? Meaning we got underpaid and we pay the price?
3. How do we cope with planning?
- Do we keep the scope fixed or do we keep adding tasks?
- If we change scope do we adjust dates? Or dates are fixed and we keep adding to the scope?
Overtime should be treated as a instrument. The instrument gives an indication if something is wrong, in this particular case: Overtime. Overtime should be a serious indication that something is wrong.
Overtime will always be there, but should be treated as something you want to eliminate or minimize. If OT is used regularly and often then something is clearly wrong. Either the planning, budget, scope or knowledge, has clearly failed.