作者：Marie-Josée Legault, Johanna Weststar

很多人都认为在电子游戏产业工作是件非常酷的事。也就是在这里创造游戏并获得薪酬。的确，电子游戏产业是一个非常新锐且有趣的领域，你能在此创造各种类型的游戏，但事实上，这里也隐藏着不为人知的阴暗面。

这一阴暗面有时候还会遮掩光的存在，举个例子来说吧，就像Erin Hoffman发表的有关“EA_Spouse”（游戏邦注：指责艺电迫使员工超时加班的内容）的著名邮件。此外，根据Rockstar以及38 Studios员工配偶的控诉，关于《黑色洛城》制作过程中高压工作的调查，国际游戏开发者协（IGDA）对于KAOS Studios的新闻报道，IGDA的“生活质量调查”以及各种调研小组会议，博客和论坛，我们反复看到了这一产业中所存在的工作条件问题。

当你与个体游戏开发者谈论其工作条件与所面对的风险时，阴暗面将再次出现。这些开发者总是会说，他们面临着漫长的工作时间，没有任何酬劳而无尽地工作着，工作与生活难以达到平衡，肌肉和骨骼的病症不断，而最终只能创造出一些不被认可的IP，甚至不够资格进行各种贷款，缺少竞争力，还必须签订各种保密协议，甚至从未遇到过任何培训机会。

关于这种情况，大多数开发者都可以滔滔不绝地说出一大堆实例，例如有名开发者说道：“我平均一天工作10个小时。甚至有一天还持续工作了16个小时，我们总是需要通宵工作。如果有人先行离开了，便会遭受惩罚。”

通常情况下，任何人的工作意志都是取决于他对这份工作的热情，但是事实上这种热情却是被操纵着的。“如果一个项目非常有趣，人们便能够忍受一切。他们将会愿意投入大量时间去完成这份工作。并带着‘这将会成为一款非常出色的游戏’的想法。而公司便会利用这一点去迫使员工做更多事。”管理者非常清楚这种操纵。有个高管曾表示：“我从未说过‘你不得不这么做，’”他也承认自己使用了一些微妙的战术：

通常情况下，当你与整个团队共进退时，你可以通过留下来工作而向他们证明你的斗志与诚意。不过在其它项目中，随着项目的不断扩展，开发成员们的精力总是会被燃烧殆尽，他们甚至只能在工作室里睡觉。

这些不合理的策略，加上员工所感受到的工作进程的压力，都是促成他们不得不加班的主要原因。其中一名开发者说道：“没有任何建筑能够束缚我的身体，但是来自社会上的影响以及同事的压力却会压得我喘不来气，即作为团队中的一员，我们必须始终确保自己的工作进度能够赶上整体的进度。”

电子游戏开发者是否对能对这些挑战做出回应？

根据在加拿大蒙特利尔与一些游戏开发者的碰面，来自2009年IGDA的调查数据以及社交网站上的各种拉票活动，我们可以发现越来越多不满现状的员工们开始说出自己的看法，并以各种方式进行反抗——不管是个人还是团体。

如果员工不满意当前的工作条件，他们能够采取一些个人行动。最简单的便是辞职，然后找到一份条件较好的新工作。“不喜欢就离开”也适用于游戏产业中。有位开发者便说道：“比起让一家大公司去改变做法，创建自己的公司并接受承包工作或许更加简单。”也有位开发者表示，比起控诉对方公司，“重新找份工作才是更有价值且更廉价的做法。我们的工作生涯中不就是一直重复着被解雇与被聘用的过程吗？”

也有些人表现出了打不倒的韧性而在这种工作环境下继续忍耐着，这便成为了游戏产业中的一大传奇。这便意味着那些不能在这种条件下生存，或各种抱怨的人并不适合游戏产业。

其他电子游戏开发者也会利用这一产业的流动性优势，特别是处于热点区域（游戏邦注：即设有许多工作室的区域）的开发者们。在这里，优秀的开发者将被竞争公司所挖角，而剩下的开发者只能继续寻找伯乐。一名开发者表示：“雇主们也一直在等待着我们给予他们机会。是的，我们的确接到了许多招聘电话。”另外一名开发者也补充道：“这里有许多猎头。并且这一行业中也不乏窃取公司商业机密的员工。”

但是这种态度并不能长期解决任何问题。如果你不喜欢自己的工作大可辞职，你的老板也能够继续雇佣新员工。但是如果雇主不能改变政策去解决这些问题，他们将始终面临着频繁的人员流动问题。虽然你可以找到一份更好的工作，但是要知道，即使再出色的工作室也仍执行着相同的政策，所以你有可能只是再次趟进一个相同的工作环境中，甚至更加糟糕。你也可以选择永远离开游戏产业，但是这是最最糟糕的选择，因为你喜欢制作游戏。但是如果你足够优秀，能够被一些优秀的公司所看重，或能够与对方进行协商，那便再好不过了。但却不是所有开发者都有这种好运。

从整体上来看，永久的人员流动并不能带给游戏产业正面的帮助。让已经掌握了公司内部特定技能和知识的员工流入其它公司，而自己还要培养新员工，真的不划算。较高的人员流动率也将阻碍游戏产业的稳定与发展。这便导致那些支持现状的人能够继续留在这一领域，而反抗之人则被残酷地逐出去——最终导致游戏产业将只存在单一的思想，并停滞不前，因为没有人能够以不同的角度想出新事物。

所以开发者还需要做些什么？

有些员工会选择怠工，并且程度有轻（如将一些办公文具带回家）有重（如故意摧毁装备）。在白领阶层或知识工作领域，怠工还表现为将重要的或机密信息给竞争公司或媒体。这么做其实非常危险，因为有可能威胁到该员工的声誉，更严重的是公司有可能对他发起控告（因为电子游戏产业中存在着保密协议）。但是这种做法并不常见，特别是对于那些还想留在这个产业的开发者来说，他们根本不会轻易尝试这一方法。

游戏产业中存在的一种独特怠工形式便是撒播“复活节彩蛋”，特别是为了从工作中获得信誉。在游戏产业中，明确某一知识产权以及每款游戏参与者的信誉是件非常棘手的事。

因为信誉并不存在明确的标准，所以个体开发者总是不得不从头开始出价。他们的成功主要是基于自己的技能或特定的背景。而散播游戏玩法中的编码特征便成为开发者或团队引人注意的关键。

这么做将让人们好奇所谓的信誉问题，但是搜索复活节彩蛋并解译这些代码对于铁杆粉丝来说却非常有趣。不过这么做只能应对一种挑战，而非所有挑战。

有些开发者会在不喜欢自己的工作环境时发出抱怨。也就是与管理人员进行交流。我们访问过的一些开发者表示，他们的工作室设定了一些正式的政策，让管理者能够听取员工的意见。也有些参考了“开放式”政策。例如：“管理者必须挪出30%左右的时间去回答员工们的咨询。”

我们的受访者表达了自己对于交流机制的看法，如开展全员大会或执行开放式政策等。有些人认为公司高管和HR主管能够主动进行这种一对一交谈。而有一名开发者说道：“这种做法能够让我看到自己所做出的贡献。并推动着我更有自信地去吸引高管们的注意。”有些女性员工也表示，通过这种做法，她们能够更好地平衡家庭与工作间关系。

而对于HR在帮助员工方面，许多人的态度则较为消极。有人说：“有时候，HR会认为自己没有义务去帮助你，因为他们也属于公司的员工。”还有人认为HR其实是与公司串通在一起，“因为很多人，特别是HR们总会有种‘你知道什么’的态度。”

但是开放式政策和其它交流机制在整个产业中并不常见，与其它工作领域一样，这里的成功也是取决于管理者或团队领导的参与。2010年，网络上出现了一篇点击率超高的博文，也就是来自Insomniac Games的Mike Acton所分享的如何成为一名优秀的管理者文章。他写道：

一对一：这是我的工作中最重要的环节之一。每2周我会花至少半个小时的时间去满足20多号人的需求。当然了，这样算起来应该是大把的时间了。但是这种花费却是最值得的。并不存在一种万全的“版式”能够适用于任何一名员工。有时候我所面对的是技术询问和反馈，有时候是个人问题，也有时候是关于每日的开发投入。但不管问题是什么，我都希望每个员工能够在此将自己内心所想的告诉我，而我也会尽力去帮助他们，就像专家那样。

Acton还说道，这种一对一交谈其实还不够：“我们可以创建一种开放式政策。除此之外我还需要主动获取各种反馈。我不能等待员工自己来找我诉说问题或请求建议。我需要使用自己所拥有的各种工具去摸索所有员工的想法。这便是我的工作职责。”

从中我们可以看到，成功的交流机制需要管理者与雇员间相互信任与付出。所以实现这一机制并不简单，当然了，相互矛盾就更不可能实现这一目标了。为了有效地实现这一机制，雇员们应该合理地说出自己的看法，而雇主则需要切实去思考他们的所有观点。

我们可以感觉到，电子游戏产业中的错误总是在不断重复着，即不管是管理者还是团队领导者都不能从自己的错误中吸取教训。在2009年IGDA的“生活质量调查”中，开发者们回答了管理人员是否要求他们必须投入更多于游戏中这一问题。有四分之一的开发者表示没有，而超过四分之一的开发者持“中立”，即他们不能做出明确的判断。只有12%的开发者坚决认为管理人员严重干预了员工对于工作的投入。

如果抱怨或建议能够被接受并换来积极的解决方法，那么说出自己的想法（也就是交流机制）比选择离开或怠工有效得多。对于不只是存在于一个人身上的问题，交流也比辞职更有用！

如果管理人员能够听取来自员工的问题，并想办法解决这一问题，他们便也能够为了所有员工的利益而改变政策，或至少衡量自己过去的决策能否解决员工的问题。我们的受访者表示，改变其实并不简单，也很难快速实现，但如果是大多数员工们所遇到的问题，或者说是一些敏感问题，那么改变就是必须的。还有一名开发者补充道：“所以管理人员需要尝试着事先对员工们做出回应，并且是面向所有员工。”

根据那些说出了抱怨的受访者，我们发现从整体上来看，其工作条件仍然带有争议。也就是，即使说了内心的不满也不能保证问题得到彻底的解决。管理人员也许能够满足一名员工的利益要求，但却不是所有员工。这便是所谓的“乱用药”，也许这对于那些想要尽快平息问题的管理者来说是有用的，但却不是一种完全保障的做法，也会引起许多不公平的结果。我们将在下文中做出更详细的讨论。还有一名开发者说道：

如果能够与管理者私下见面，并讨论薪资或绩效问题，或者向HR说出自己的看法自然是件皆大欢喜之事。而如果你或者配偶不得已使用博客去阐述工作上所受到的糟糕待遇，希望以此推动公司去解决问题的话，事情也就不会那么乐观了。其实这说的就是环境上的问题。问题就摆在那里，而公司希望你能够当面对他们述说，但是这么做将让你很难把握立场，而如果你选择将此公开，这则是公司所不愿意看到的。也就是如果你对外说出这些情况将有可能损害该公司的名誉，特别是当它还是一家上市公司。

感到不满的员工们还可以对雇主发起诉讼。但是通常情况下雇主所拥有的资源比雇员们多得多，并且有时候法律也不足以支持有些员工们的抱怨。不过如果执行得当的话，法律诉讼其实更有效，并且员工们所需承担的负担也较少。这同样也能够解决更大群组所面临的问题，并更有可能推动系统的永久性改变。电子游戏产业中便出现过一些成功的诉讼案件，特别是关于无偿加班。

就像程序员和图像设计师便曾对一些公司发起多次诉讼请求并取得了成功，这些公司包括索尼（Wilson vs. Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc.），Electronic Arts（Hasty vs. Electronic Arts, Inc.; Kirschenbaum v. Electronic Arts, Inc）以及Vivendi（Aitken vs Vivendi Universal Games）。这些和解金超过了3900万美元，并为1200多名员工带来帮助。这些诉讼案件的解决也将推动雇主们更加全面地解决无偿加工的问题。

电子游戏开发者也可以采取一些集体行动。

游戏产业拥有一个非营利专业协会，也就是国际游戏开发者协会（IGDA）。根据该协会在其网页上的描述，IGDA的宗旨是：“通过维系游戏开发者与同行间的关系，促进专业开发并解决任何可能影响开发者社区的问题而推动他们的事业与生活的发展。”

这一协会非常重要，因为高科技劳动力市场（游戏邦注：如新媒体和电子游戏开发市场）具有较高的流动性，并且对于雇员在培训方面的投资也总是非常低；所以专业协会便在此扮演着非常重要的角色，即能够帮助其成员在区域劳动力市场中更有效地找到工作，并帮助他们完善技能，提高个人的协商立场。

根据UC Davis（游戏邦注：加利福尼亚大学戴维斯分校）的副教授Chris Benner，专业协会或公会正逐渐在一些高科技领域发挥作用（如系统管理员协会，HTML编者协会，硅谷网页协会等等）。

Benner在2003年发表的一篇文章中引用了Kynn Bartlett（游戏邦注：HTML编者协会的创始人兼会长）的一段话：“‘协会’这一词是源自中世纪时期的协会。我们所喜欢的协会模式便是分享一些理念等。我们始终牢记，‘协会’这一词也是关于分享一些能够帮助所有人获取成功的信息。”

但是当代的一些协会，以及IGDA的影响力都不如合法公会。更重要的是，IGDA不能完全决定技术工人的标准，它也不能像其它专业协会（如医生或律师）或同业公会的学徒制度那样，通过认证或测试而决定或限制成员进入产业。除此之外它还不能代表自己的成员执行制作标准的限制条件或为工作条件进行谈判。

近年来，IGDA似乎对一些直接的集体行动更感兴趣。它为成员们制定了健康与福利计划，并支持一些关键领域的特殊利益集团。生活质量特殊兴趣小组则成立了一个诉怨委员为，以“管理来自IGDA成员有关违背IGDA标准的雇主政策的抱怨。”

这些委员会包括：信誉和知识产权委员会，反专属条款委员会，生活质量委员会。IGDA曾在许多场合发表一些新闻稿去督促被控告的工作室解决过度加班问题以及糟糕的工作条件，并表明将对员工的反馈进行更深入的调查（这些公司包括KAOS Studios，Rockstar San Diego，Team Bondi等）。

IGDA所面临的挑战便是它对于志愿者的依赖，并缺少实权去执行制裁。IGDA可以表现出它的不满，而许多工作室便会对这一来自同行的压力及其负面新闻做出回应。毕竟工作室们总是希望能够吸引更多优秀的成员加入其中。但是如果没人搭理IGDA该怎么办？所以该协会必须努力掌握更多权利才行。

游戏社区中的人们还可以使用另一种集体行动，也就是“揭发内幕”，或在网络上发起动员。最早的例子便是1998年12月出现的匿名虚拟联盟“Ubifree”。该群组描述了法国育碧的工作条件，并呼吁世界各地育碧的雇员们加入其中。小小的倡议很快便汇聚了大量支持信息，并且这些信息都是对于糟糕工作条件的谴责。

几个月后，育碧的管理人员便表示将就这一问题进行完善，并呼吁该群组关闭其网站。一种完善做法便是在一些委员会中添加雇员代表；但是这些代表并未拥有任何决策权。最近，随着育碧2.0网站的问世，我们也再次看到有关育碧工作条件的指责（即来自蒙特利尔育碧分部一名员工的抱怨）。

在游戏产业中非常有名的一个成功案例便是“EA Spouse”事件。2004年11月，一名开发者的未婚妻（也就是Erin Hoffman）在LiveJournal上发表了一篇博客以职责艺电洛杉矶工作室“漫无天日”的加班情况。与“Ubifree”的活动一样，她的文章也得到了来自游戏玩家与艺电和其它工作室旗下开发者的积极评论。从而组建起抵抗艺电过分加班情况的活动。最终，艺电不得不终止周日加班的规定，并采取五天工作制政策。

除此之外还存在其它揭秘事件，如“Rockstar Spouse”，“38 Studios Spouse”以及调查记者Andrew McMillen所写的一系列有关Team Bondi工作室的文章。每个事件都获得了大量支持的评论，并在游戏社区和媒体上得到了广泛的共鸣。但是这些事件所带来的影响都不如“EA Spouse”。

这便引起了我们有关这些行动效能问题的讨论。有人认为“EA_spouse”成功推动改变是因为一些综合因素：因为这是首个揭发了无偿加班的例子，所以让包括业内人士，以及那些认为游戏产业中的工作多气派多出色的业外人士倍感震惊。这篇文章也引起了员工对艺电发起联合诉讼。当然了，这些“EA_spouse”的丈夫们属于原告。IGDA也在2004年公开了其首份“生活质量”白皮书。这便意味着那段时期，有关员工工作条件问题引起了巨大的关注。

最近的“Occupy”运动更是动员了更多人对于员工工作条件的关注，并且不需要任何正式的领导。的确，缺少明确的领导者或代言人的运动更加民主化，但是大多数社交运动都需要领导人去汇聚，扩展追随者，并开导他们的种种不满情绪。

尾随着“EA_spouse”，Erin Hoffman作为“生活质量”运动的领导者和发言人站了出来，但这类型活动却始终缺少稳定且正式的领导关系。在过去几年里，Hoffman的自制产业监管网站Gamewatch只察觉到少数的一些活动。而只有几名执行董事的IGDA也正处于转变阶段，并且只有来自一些委员会的少量活动。所以可以说，这种对抗势力正在逐渐减弱。

而最近，Rockstar员工的妻子对于Rockstar圣地亚哥工作室要求员工无偿加班行为的控诉虽然与Erin Hoffman的请愿是一致的，但是这次事件的反响却不及“EA_spouse”。Rockstar员工在20天后以Code Monkey的名称在发出控诉的员工妻子的博文中做出了如下评论——这也说明了这次行动的脆弱性，并且让管理人员可以通过承诺改善条件而轻易地平息这些员工的愤怒：

Rockstar管理层已经面向圣地亚哥工作室员工发出了公告，即所有员工在完成产品制作后将拥有宽裕的休息时间。对于在公开场合描述我所敬重的这份工作的消极面，我感到十分内疚，特别是还看到一些引用我的语句而进行断章取义描述的内容。我并不认为我所说属于“咒骂”内容。

我认为我们的担忧已经得到了一定的回应，这才是真正的有用的结果。我想公司应该回应道，对于这一项目的长时间加班在圣地亚哥工作室是是史无前例的。公司对我们承诺，这并不是其本意，而我也相信了他们的说法。我认为我们都能够度过难关，我们能够获得应有的休息时间，我也相信在之后不会再发生这种情况。

我想在此对Rockstar表示道歉，希望我所阐述的所有言论不会对公司中的任何人带来消极影响。

在这种情况下，管理人员能够通过道歉，奖励与追究责任（总是会有所偏离）去解决问题。但是我们却不清楚他们的这种改变是否能够长时间解决开发过程与作决策过程中所存在的问题。有关育碧的行动也很快被管理人员草率的解决方法平息下去。

网上的自发行为虽然非常活跃，但因为它只能短时间吸引一些媒体的关注，并收集来自支持者的匿名信件，所以不能创造出长期的效果。就像Paul Hyman于2008年5月13日在Gamasutra发表的一篇文章《Quality of Life: Does Anyone Still Give a Damn?》。

所以电子游戏开发者应该做些什么？他们自己想要怎么做？

他们可以发起一些行动，并组成合法的联盟或公会。但这也具有很大的挑战，因为很多人都怀疑游戏产业以及其它高科技产业的公会都不具有真正的功效。不过也存在一些支持的声音。

2005年3月，在Gamasutra上一篇有关公会的文章中，Paul Hyman引用了Tom Buscaglia律师的话说道：“我只是不确定在此是否存在一种有效的做法。”在同一篇文章中，Erin Hoffman又再次引用道：“唯一能让发行商掏腰包的方法便是组建联盟，我想这也是最佳解决方法。”

2009年IGDA的“生活质量调查”也证实了他们并非独自在行动。以下图表是开发者对两个联盟问题的回应。

结果比人们所预期的要积极得多，但也仍存在许多与游戏开发工作相对立的传统联盟运动特性。

电子游戏开发者的高流动率便是阻碍北美市场联合化的一大元素，因为稳定的交涉模式必须是以“企业为基础”。也就是个体联盟或地方联盟是以工作室为基础，所以关于集体协议的一切优势都是基于成员们与工作室的持续雇佣关系。所以这种模式并不适合流动率较高的产业，即员工从一个产业转向另一个产业，或从一间工作室转到另一间工作室；如果员工并不想长时间待在一间工作室，他便没有必要为了工作条件而抗争。这也是为什么会有人说公会将提高一间工作室的制作成本，并大大压缩它们的竞争力的主要原因。

流动率也会给典型的公会付费结构（游戏邦注：基于工龄和长期服务）带来挑战。许多人认为公会是与注重技术才能的精英系统相对立的。

强调工龄与识别绩效，与开发者将自己当成是高成就者，即愿意不断学习，迎接挑战，并基于成就而继续进步等是截然不同的。在这种环境下，名誉和技能是推动成功的关键元素，时间变得不再重要。就像是Rockstar圣地亚哥工作室所颁发的“安慰奖”。

有些人在员工妻子所发表的文章下评论道，如果在极端的工作条件下能够创造出一款真正吸引人的好游戏，那么之前的付出边都是有价值的。有人将其称为是通向未来的“黄金门票”。他们陷入了一种与名誉维系在一起的非正式奖惩系统中。他们认为只要自己同意加班，便能在未来获得奖励与报酬，但同时也受到了职业可能会停滞不前的威胁。

所以公会是一种可行的选择吗？也许传统模式并没有多大用处，但是其它模式可能会更有效。

在整个产业中进行多雇主认证与谈判过程也许能够解决上述所有阻碍公会发展的问题。也就是独立开发者不应该加入以工作室为单位的公会，而是加入能够代表整个产业所有电子游戏开发者的单一联盟（全国性或全球性），如IGDA。这种联盟与电子游戏雇主协会间的协议将基于整个产业去设定标准，从而避免了工作室之间可能会出现的竞争问题。

在别处还有一些诸如此类的系统发挥着功效。例如，欧洲国家便以其集中的产业关系系统而出名，即最低标准是产业中的联盟与雇主协会共同协商的。北美的汽车行业便盛行“模式谈判”，即在所有主要的汽车制造商中使用标准模式，从而确保所有人的地位都是平等的。而在过去10度年间，电影和电视产业中的联盟也是遵循着相同的系统。

我们可以在1980年联合国科教文组织（UNESCO）所提议的“Status of the Artist”中找到相关立法选择。关于这种立法形式在加拿大的联邦法院管辖权内便非常适用。在加拿大的魁北克便存在能够代表录音和电影设计师等专业身份及其工作条件的相关法案（RSQ c. S-32.1）。这是美国电影产业早前所采用的，能够伴随着电影设计师更有保障地面对各种雇主的执行系统。

基于这种系统，设计师可以从国家的健康与安全计划中获得保障，并与雇主共同协商收益的分配。除此之外，该法案还为了尊重专业地位而涵盖了欣赏价值。这一系统推动了雇佣合同的最低标准，但同时也让设计师可以为了更大的需求或名誉去追求更好的条件。同样地，在电影和电视产业的公会中，个人协商或“规模以上的协议”也是一种长期的产业惯例。

根据2009年IGDA“生活质量调查”，在2506名接受调查的开发者中，有64.2%的人表示不了解当地的劳动法，63.4%的人认为法律难以有效地解决他们对于雇主的不满。从物质元素来看，开发者们并不缺乏足够的动机去推动集体行动，但是他们现在所采取的个人和集体方法却似乎难以解决产业中所存在的系统问题。

联盟虽然是一种有效的方法，但是如果开发者们不能系统了解联盟模式，并明确他们当前所需要的联盟，那么这种方法便不可能取得成功。也许很多人都会将联盟理解为一种民主制度，不过事实上，联盟的性质很大程度还是取决于成员们的行动。同时，开发者还将依赖于雇主的善意，并凭借游戏（自己所参与）的成功去提高声誉与个人的谈判能力。我们也将在网上看到下一篇有关雇员工作条件的爆炸性文章的出现。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Are Game Developers Standing Up for Their Rights?

by Marie-Josée Legault, Johanna Weststar

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.

So, what else do developers do?

Some engage in sabotage. This is another thing that all employees do. Sabotage can range from minor (you take some of the office stationery home) to more serious (you vandalize equipment). In white collar or knowledge work, a serious form of sabotage is leaking important or confidential information to competitors or the press. This is very risky because this can threaten the employee’s reputation — and the employee can often rightfully be sued, because of all the NDAs in the video game industry. This is not a common, nor very fruitful action for dissatisfied developers who want to remain in the industry.

A unique form of sabotage particular to the game industry is to drop an “Easter egg.” This is used specifically to gain credit for work. The acknowledgement of intellectual property rights and the proper crediting of the people involved in each game is a sticky issue in the game industry.

With crediting largely unregulated, individual developers often have to bargain from scratch. Their success is highly dependent on their individual skills or their specific context. The practice of dropping these coded signatures within the gameplay became a way for developers or teams to make their mark.

This did have an effect in drawing attention to the issue of crediting, and the search for Easter eggs and decoding their meaning is great fun for hardcore fans. But, it is only one response to one challenge, and not as common, nor as easy, as it once was.

Some developers complain or make suggestions when they don’t like something about their working conditions. This is called having “employee voice.” Some of the developers that we interviewed said that their studios had formal policies for managers to listen to employees. Some referred to “open door” policies. One was more specific: “Managers, for instance, have to allow a certain amount…30 percent or so… of their time, or more, to answer employees’ queries in general.”

Our interviewees were mixed as to the extent and intent of employee voice mechanisms, like general meetings and open-door policies. Some thought that many senior and HR managers are open to such one-to-one discussions. As one developer said, “It’s important to have a voice, otherwise you don’t really feel that you’re… You know, you’re just there, you’re not contributing. I’d say for the most part, if I feel strongly… I could take the effort to bring it to the attention of the upper management.” As well, some women in particular reported gratitude for specific arrangements they received regarding work-family balance.

Others had mixed feelings toward the role of HR in helping employees. One said, “Sometimes they feel like they are not necessarily there to help you, because they are employees of the company.” Another intimated that HR is complicit in perpetuating the negative norms of the company — “Because a lot of people, even in HR, have a kind of ‘well, you know how it goes’ way.”

Open door policies and other mechanisms of employee voice are not a universal norm in the industry and, like other workplaces, success often depends on the manager or team lead involved. In a 2010 blog post that was widely and favorably received on the web, Insomniac Games’ Mike Acton shared his tips on how to be a good manager. He wrote:

One-on-ones: This is probably one of the most important aspects of my job. I do my best to meet with 20-something people for at least a half-hour, at least once every two weeks. For sure, that’s a lot of time. But no time is better spent than this. It’s an opportunity to listen. Every person is different. There is no “format” for these that works for everyone. Sometimes it’s about technical advice and feedback. Sometimes it’s about personal issues. Sometimes it’s about the day-to-day struggles of development. But whatever it is, it’s always about letting each person simply tell me what’s on their mind and doing my best to help them, as best I can, grow as professionals.

Acton goes on to say that even these one-on-ones aren’t enough: “It’s fine to have an ‘open door policy’. But more than that, it’s necessary that I constantly seek feedback. I can’t just wait for someone to come to me with a problem or suggestion. I need to use every tool at my disposal to figure out what’s on people’s minds. That’s absolutely part of my responsibility.”

This shows that successful employee voice requires trust and commitment on both sides of the managerial divide. This is not always easily built, and is definitely not built within times of conflict. For successful voice, employees must speak up with legitimate and reasonable concerns and employers must take their comments into real consideration.

There is a real sense in the video game industry that mistakes are repeated time and again; that managers, leads and development teams themselves do not learn from their mistakes despite the post-mortems. In the 2009 IGDA Quality of Life survey, developers were asked if management seeks their input and acts on it. One quarter said no. Over one-quarter were “neutral”; they couldn’t decide. Only 12 percent strongly agreed that management sought and acted upon employee input.

Voice is a superior option than quitting or sabotage if the complaints or suggestions are received and produce positive results. Exercising employee voice also has more potential than employee exit (quitting) for the problem to be addressed for more than just one person.

When managers hear of a problem from an employee and act to resolve it for that employee, they may also permanently change policy for all employees, or at least consider their past decisions to maintain equity of treatment. Some of our interviewees did say that changes don’t come easily and swiftly, but they do come if the issue is supported by a mass of employees or is particularly sensitive. “So there is an attempt to proactively respond to people, but in the aggregate,” said one.

On the whole, according to those of our interview respondents who had voiced grievances, the workplace offered an ongoing discussion. That said, voicing your grievance is not a guarantee of it being addressed. And managers can cut side deals with individuals that do not benefit anyone else. This is called arbitrary treatment, and though it can have great outcomes for “superstars” or others management wants to appease, it is never guaranteed, and can create a lot of inequity. As we will discuss more below, the context of voice also matters. As one developer said:

They are really happy when you are in a meeting with your manager, privately talking about your salary and your performance, and you’re having a say with HR. I think they are not so happy if you would go out and say, start a blog, or talking about how you or your spouse was very abused of their job — and that forces them, a little more, to deal with the problem. So, having your say is contextual. Like you can have it, but they probably would rather have you talking directly to them, which doesn’t give you very much ground to stand on. The public way could be dangerous for them, and they don’t like it at all… So, it’s not cool with them if you’re saying publicly things that contradict… That can potentially damage the corporate line, especially if it’s a publicly traded company, or something like that.

Another action that dissatisfied employees can take is to sue their employer. But employers have a lot more resources than employees, and sometimes the law might not be strong enough to support some employee complaints. Sometimes legal action can be more successful and less of a burden when done collectively. This also solves the problem for a larger group and is more likely to ensure permanent changes to the system. There have been some successful class action lawsuits in the video game industry — especially over unpaid overtime.

Programmers and graphic artists have launched and won a number of suits of this nature against Sony (Wilson v. Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc.), Electronic Arts (Hasty v. Electronic Arts, Inc.; Kirschenbaum v. Electronic Arts, Inc) and Vivendi (Aitken vs. Vivendi Universal Games). These settlements totaled more than $39 million, and affected over 1200 employees. The settlements also resulted in the reclassification of many employees to be below the pay and responsibility grade that would make them exempt from receiving overtime pay.

Video game developers have other options for collective action as well.

The industry has a non-profit professional association in the International Game Developers Association (IGDA). According to its webpage, the IGDA mission is: “To advance the careers and enhance the lives of game developers by connecting members with their peers, promoting professional development, and advocating on issues that affect the developer community.”

This is important, because high-tech labor markets such as new media and video game development have high mobility and limited employer investment in training; therefore, professional associations play an important role in improving their members’ opportunities for finding employment in the regional labour market, helping them to improve their skills, and improving their individual negotiating positions.

According to the work of Chris Benner, Associate Professor at UC Davis, professional associations or guilds are seeing a resurgence in high-tech sectors (i.e., System Administrators’ Guild, HTML Writers’ Guild, Silicon Valley Web Guild).

In a 2003 article, Benner cites the words of Kynn Bartlett, founder and then president of the HTML Writers’ Guild. “The term ‘guild’ was chosen to look back at the older, medieval-type guilds. What we liked from that model was the notion of sharing knowledge — that building web design was something of a craft… [The term 'guild'] keeps in mind the main purpose… sharing information to make everyone successful.”

However, these contemporary guilds and the IGDA do not have the same leverage as legal unions. Most importantly, the IGDA lacks the ability to exercise monopoly control over access to skilled labor. It does not regulate and restrict entry into the industry through certification and exams like other professional associations (i.e., doctors and lawyers) or like the apprenticeship systems of the craft unions. It also cannot enforce restrictions on production standards or bargain working conditions on behalf of its members.

In recent years, the IGDA has shown some interest in more direct collective action. It offers a pooled health and benefits plan for members and supports volunteer special interest groups (SIGs) on key topic areas. The Quality of Life SIG advertises a grievance committee to “manage complaints from IGDA members about employer policies that are in contravention to IGDA standards.”

Examples of committees that set standards are: crediting and intellectual property committee, anti-exclusive clauses committee, and quality of life committee. On a number of occasions, the IGDA has published press releases encouraging accused studios to curb excessive overtime and other poor working conditions and indicating their intention to further investigate employee claims (i.e., KAOS Studios, Rockstar San Diego, Team Bondi).

The challenges faced by the IGDA are its reliance on volunteers and its lack of real power to impose sanctions. The IGDA can say that it is displeased, and many studios will respond to this negative “peer pressure” and the bad press it garners. After all, studios are trying to attract the best people to work for them. But there is no fallout if the IGDA is ignored. The organization must grow more powerful for that to be the case.

Another form of collective action that people in the game community have used is “whistleblowing,” or mobilizing over the internet. One of the first cases was the emergence of the anonymous virtual union “Ubifree” in December of 1998. The group described working conditions at Ubisoft in France, and sent a call for Ubisoft employees around the world to join the union. The small initiative harvested a wealth of supportive messages, many of them denouncing the working conditions.

After only a few months, Ubisoft management announced some improvements and the anonymous group closed down the website/union. One improvement was the addition of an employee representative in a few committees; however, this representative was never granted any decision-making power. Recently, the Ubifree 2.0 site has also been launched, with what appears to be one person’s account of the working conditions of Ubisoft Montreal.

A more successful episode known to all in the industry was the “EA Spouse” affair. In November 2004, the fiancée of a developer (later revealed to be Erin Hoffman) used her LiveJournal blog to denounce an abusive situation of constant crunch time in Electronic Arts’ Los Angeles studio. Similar to the Ubifree movement, her post received thousands of comments from gaming fans and beleaguered developers at EA and other studios. This rallied a movement against EA in particular and crunch time in general. EA later banned work on Sundays and adopted a policy favoring five working days a week.

Other tell-alls or exposés have followed, such as Rockstar Spouse, 38 Studios Spouse, and a series of articles by investigative journalist Andrew McMillen about Team Bondi studio. Each received a large number of supportive or appreciative comments and were discussed widely across the game community and in the press. But none reached the notoriety or impact of EA Spouse.

This raises the question of the efficacy of these actions. It could be argued that the success of EA_spouse in motivating change was due to a confluence of factors: It was the first instance of whistleblowing about unpaid overtime and crunch, so it was incredibly cathartic to those in the industry and a real shock for those outside the industry who thought the industry was a hallmark of the new, decent, knowledge economy jobs. The timing of the post also occurred in conjunction with a class action lawsuit against EA. We now know, of course, that EA_spouse’s husband was a lead plaintiff in that case. The IGDA published its first Quality of Life white paper in 2004 as well. All this means that there was a considerable amount of energy devoted to the issue of crunch at that time.

The recent Occupy movement was amazing in its ability to raise consciousness and mobilize a large population without any formal leadership. Indeed, the lack of identified leaders and spokespeople was heralded as a central feature in the grassroots and democratic ideals of the movement. However, most social movements require leadership to collect, magnify and channel the dissatisfaction of its followers.

In the wake of EA_spouse, Erin Hoffman emerged as a leader and spokeswoman for the Quality of Life movement — but additional, ongoing, formalized leadership is lacking. Hoffman’s self-regulating industry watchdog website Gamewatch has seen only sporadic activity over the years. At the level of the IGDA, the association has been in transition, with a number of executive directors; there is uneven output from the various committees. Arguably, the energy has ebbed.

The more recent outcry against crunch and unpaid overtime at Rockstar San Diego by the “Wives of Rockstar” was essentially identical to Erin Hoffman’s plea, but received comparatively less attention than EA_spouse. A Rockstar employee posted a comment under the name Code Monkey 20 days after the Wives’ original post. It is illustrative of the fragility of the movement, and the ability of management to appease disgruntled workers with the promise of better things to come:

…R* management have informed its San Diego employees that everyone will be given a generous and extended break after the product conclusion. Maybe I feel a bit guilty about venting in a public place about any negative aspect of a job I still adore, especially now that I’ve read a few press snippets that have taken quotes of my writings slightly out of context. I don’t think anything I ever said was “damning.”

Since no one else has, I’ll say that I feel our concerns have been responded to one way or another, and it has been favorable. I think it should also be said that the long mandatory working hours for this project, at least for my own tenure, are unprecedented at San Diego in particular. They’ve told us that it certainly wasn’t their intention to extend working hours in such a manner, and I believe them. I think we’ll all pull through just fine, we’ll get our time off, and I don’t see this situation happening again anytime soon.

My apologies go to Rockstar for not anticipating that anything I said here could possibly have a negative impact of some kind.

In this case management apologized, gave a one-time reward, and deflected blame. It is unknown whether lasting changes were made to the problems in the development process and decision-making hierarchy that were credited with creating the “death march” by these developers. The Ubifree movement was also quickly silenced with only cursory appeasements from management.

Spontaneous action on the internet is invigorating, but if all it does is create a short-term media buzz and collect anonymous missives of support, there is not much lasting momentum. As Paul Hyman asked in his May 13, 2008 Gamastura Feature, “Quality of Life: Does Anyone Still Give a Damn?”

So what should video game developers do? What do they want to do?

An additional action is possible, and that is the formation of a legal union or guild. This seems like a very large challenge, because most assume that the perception of unions in the game industry and in other high-tech industries is negative. But some prominent voices are in favor.

In a March, 2005 Gamasutra article on unionization, Paul Hyman quoted attorney Tom Buscaglia as saying, “I’m just not sure there’s a way around it.” In the same article, Erin Hoffman was quoted, saying, “…the only thing that will get publishers to budge is unionization, which I believe to be the best solution.”

And the 2009 IGDA Quality of Life Survey shows that they are not alone. The following graphs show developer responses to two questions on unionization.

These results are more positive than some would have anticipated, but there are still a number of features of the traditional union movement that seem antithetical to the work of game development.

High mobility among video game developers is a powerful deterrent to unionization in North America because the certification and bargaining model is “enterprise-based.” This means that individual unions or union locals of the same parent union are formed on a studio-by-studio basis, so all the negotiated advantages held in a collective agreement are linked to the ongoing employment relationship at that studio. This model does not fit a highly mobile industry where workers move from project to project and studio to studio; it is not worth it to fight for individual conditions at one studio if you do not intend to stay. It is also the reason people say that unions will increase production costs at one studio and make them uncompetitive compared to the guy down the street.

Mobility also poses challenges to typical union pay structures, which are based on seniority and long term service. Many see unions as anti-creative and antithetical to the meritocracy system that anchors excellence in technology-based industries.

Seniority is seen in direct contrast to the recognition of merit and to developers’ self-perceptions as high achievers who continually learn, enjoy challenging assignments, and advance based on accomplishment. In this environment, reputation and skills are a driving factor to success, not necessarily time on the job. This was actually the consolation prize in the Rockstar San Diego case.

Several comments in the “Wives” online thread consoled the beleaguered team, saying that the boost to their reputations from delivering an amazing game under extreme conditions would be worth it in the end. One called it a “golden ticket” on their future resumes. They are trapped in an informal reward and punishment system linked to building a desired reputation. They are promised future benefits and rewards if they consent to overtime, but are threatened with a professional stall-out if not.

So, are unions not a viable alternative? Perhaps not in their traditional form, but other models are possible.

An industry-wide, multi-employer certification and negotiation process can address many of the above obstacles to unionization. This means that individual developers would not join a union or a union local at their studio; similar to the scope of the IGDA, they would join a single union representing video game developers across the industry — nationally or even internationally. The agreements bargained between this union and an association of video game employers would set the standards across the industry and therefore remove the issue of studios competing against each other.

Other systems like this are in effect elsewhere. European countries are known for their centralized industrial relations systems, where most minimum standards are negotiated between unions and employer associations at the industry level. The auto sector in North America regularly engages in “pattern bargaining,” where a standard template is applied across the main auto manufacturers so that none are disadvantaged with respect to the other. Unions in the film and television industries have been working under similar systems for decades.

A further legislative option can be found in Status of the Artist legislation that stems from a 1980 UNESCO recommendation. A form of this legislation is in place at the federal jurisdiction in Canada. A variant, An act respecting the professional status and conditions of engagement of performing, recording and film artists (RSQ c. S-32.1) exists in the province of Québec, Canada. This system for the performing trades allows for social insurance plans that follow you throughout your multiple employers and is an early adopter of the principle of portable rights as is used in the U.S. film industry.

Under this system, artists can also benefit from the state’s health and security plan, and co-regulate the sharing out of incomes drawn royalties and residuals. Moreover, the act’s provisions for respecting professional status can cover the appreciation of merit. This system promotes a minimum standard hiring contract, but allows for better conditions should the artist be more in demand or more prestigious. Similarly, individual negotiations or “above-scale deals” are a long-time industry practice in the motion picture and television unions.

In the 2009 IGDA Quality of Life survey, 64.2 percent of the 2,506 developers who responded were poorly informed about the labor laws where they live, and 63.4 percent said that they did not feel the laws would protect them sufficiently should a grievance arise with their employer. In material terms, developers are not void of motives for collective action, and yet their current individual and collective means seem unable to fix systemic problems in the industry.

Unionization is an option, but it will not be successful without a dramatic increase in knowledge among developers about what options are available in terms of union models and a greater understanding on the part of existing unions about what developers need. Maybe it is trite to think that as democratic institutions, unions are what their members make them. In the meantime, developers will rely on the good will of their employers and the success of their games as they build their reputations and individual bargaining power. And we will all wait for the next powder keg to be posted online.(source:gamasutra)