|EA: The Human Story
||[Nov. 10th, 2004|12:01 am]
My significant other works for Electronic Arts, and I'm what you might call a disgruntled spouse.|
EA's bright and shiny new corporate trademark is "Challenge Everything." Where this applies is not exactly clear. Churning out one licensed football game after another doesn't sound like challenging much of anything to me; it sounds like a money farm. To any EA executive that happens to read this, I have a good challenge for you: how about safe and sane labor practices for the people on whose backs you walk for your millions?
I am retaining some anonymity here because I have no illusions about what the consequences would be for my family if I was explicit. However, I also feel no impetus to shy away from sharing our story, because I know that it is too common to stick out among those of the thousands of engineers, artists, and designers that EA employs.
Our adventures with Electronic Arts began less than a year ago. The small game studio that my partner worked for collapsed as a result of foul play on the part of a big publisher -- another common story. Electronic Arts offered a job, the salary was right and the benefits were good, so my SO took it. I remember that they asked him in one of the interviews: "how do you feel about working long hours?" It's just a part of the game industry -- few studios can avoid a crunch as deadlines loom, so we thought nothing of it. When asked for specifics about what "working long hours" meant, the interviewers coughed and glossed on to the next question; now we know why.
Within weeks production had accelerated into a 'mild' crunch: eight hours six days a week. Not bad. Months remained until any real crunch would start, and the team was told that this "pre-crunch" was to prevent a big crunch toward the end; at this point any other need for a crunch seemed unlikely, as the project was dead on schedule. I don't know how many of the developers bought EA's explanation for the extended hours; we were new and naive so we did. The producers even set a deadline; they gave a specific date for the end of the crunch, which was still months away from the title's shipping date, so it seemed safe. That date came and went. And went, and went. When the next news came it was not about a reprieve; it was another acceleration: twelve hours six days a week, 9am to 10pm.
Weeks passed. Again the producers had given a termination date on this crunch that again they failed. Throughout this period the project remained on schedule. The long hours started to take its toll on the team; people grew irritable and some started to get ill. People dropped out in droves for a couple of days at a time, but then the team seemed to reach equilibrium again and they plowed ahead. The managers stopped even talking about a day when the hours would go back to normal.
Now, it seems, is the "real" crunch, the one that the producers of this title so wisely prepared their team for by running them into the ground ahead of time. The current mandatory hours are 9am to 10pm -- seven days a week -- with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behavior (at 6:30pm). This averages out to an eighty-five hour work week. Complaints that these once more extended hours combined with the team's existing fatigue would result in a greater number of mistakes made and an even greater amount of wasted energy were ignored.
The stress is taking its toll. After a certain number of hours spent working the eyes start to lose focus; after a certain number of weeks with only one day off fatigue starts to accrue and accumulate exponentially. There is a reason why there are two days in a weekend -- bad things happen to one's physical, emotional, and mental health if these days are cut short. The team is rapidly beginning to introduce as many flaws as they are removing.
And the kicker: for the honor of this treatment EA salaried employees receive a) no overtime; b) no compensation time! ('comp' time is the equalization of time off for overtime -- any hours spent during a crunch accrue into days off after the product has shipped); c) no additional sick or vacation leave. The time just goes away. Additionally, EA recently announced that, although in the past they have offered essentially a type of comp time in the form of a few weeks off at the end of a project, they no longer wish to do this, and employees shouldn't expect it. Further, since the production of various games is scattered, there was a concern on the part of the employees that developers would leave one crunch only to join another. EA's response was that they would attempt to minimize this, but would make no guarantees. This is unthinkable; they are pushing the team to individual physical health limits, and literally giving them nothing for it. Comp time is a staple in this industry, but EA as a corporation wishes to "minimize" this reprieve. One would think that the proper way to minimize comp time is to avoid crunch, but this brutal crunch has been on for months, and nary a whisper about any compensation leave, nor indeed of any end of this treatment.
This crunch also differs from crunch time in a smaller studio in that it was not an emergency effort to save a project from failure. Every step of the way, the project remained on schedule. Crunching neither accelerated this nor slowed it down; its effect on the actual product was not measurable. The extended hours were deliberate and planned; the management knew what they were doing as they did it. The love of my life comes home late at night complaining of a headache that will not go away and a chronically upset stomach, and my happy supportive smile is running out.
No one works in the game industry unless they love what they do. No one on that team is interested in producing an inferior product. My heart bleeds for this team precisely BECAUSE they are brilliant, talented individuals out to create something great. They are and were more than willing to work hard for the success of the title. But that good will has only been met with abuse. Amazingly, Electronic Arts was listed #91 on Fortune magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For" in 2003.
EA's attitude toward this -- which is actually a part of company policy, it now appears -- has been (in an anonymous quotation that I've heard repeated by multiple managers), "If they don't like it, they can work someplace else." Put up or shut up and leave: this is the core of EA's Human Resources policy. The concept of ethics or compassion or even intelligence with regard to getting the most out of one's workforce never enters the equation: if they don't want to sacrifice their lives and their health and their talent so that a multibillion dollar corporation can continue its Godzilla-stomp through the game industry, they can work someplace else.
But can they?
The EA Mambo, paired with other giants such as Vivendi, Sony, and Microsoft, is rapidly either crushing or absorbing the vast majority of the business in game development. A few standalone studios that made their fortunes in previous eras -- Blizzard, Bioware, and Id come to mind -- manage to still survive, but 2004 saw the collapse of dozens of small game studios, no longer able to acquire contracts in the face of rapid and massive consolidation of game publishing companies. This is an epidemic hardly unfamiliar to anyone working in the industry. Though, of course, it is always the option of talent to go outside the industry, perhaps venturing into the booming commercial software development arena. (Read my tired attempt at sarcasm.)
To put some of this in perspective, I myself consider some figures. If EA truly believes that it needs to push its employees this hard -- I actually believe that they don't, and that it is a skewed operations perspective alone that results in the severity of their crunching, coupled with a certain expected amount of the inefficiency involved in running an enterprise as large as theirs -- the solution therefore should be to hire more engineers, or artists, or designers, as the case may be. Never should it be an option to punish one's workforce with ninety hour weeks; in any other industry the company in question would find itself sued out of business so fast its stock wouldn't even have time to tank. In its first weekend, Madden 2005 grossed $65 million. EA's annual revenue is approximately $2.5 billion. This company is not strapped for cash; their labor practices are inexcusable.
The interesting thing about this is an assumption that most of the employees seem to be operating under. Whenever the subject of hours come up, inevitably, it seems, someone mentions 'exemption'. They refer to a California law that supposedly exempts businesses from having to pay overtime to certain 'specialty' employees, including software programmers. This is Senate Bill 88. However, Senate Bill 88 specifically does not apply to the entertainment industry -- television, motion picture, and theater industries are specifically mentioned. Further, even in software, there is a pay minimum on the exemption: those exempt must be paid at least $90,000 annually. I can assure you that the majority of EA employees are in fact not in this pay bracket; ergo, these practices are not only unethical, they are illegal.
I look at our situation and I ask 'us': why do you stay? And the answer is that in all likelihood we won't; and in all likelihood if we had known that this would be the result of working for EA, we would have stayed far away in the first place. But all along the way there were deceptions, there were promises, there were assurances -- there was a big fancy office building with an expensive fish tank -- all of which in the end look like an elaborate scheme to keep a crop of employees on the project just long enough to get it shipped. And then if they need to, they hire in a new batch, fresh and ready to hear more promises that will not be kept; EA's turnover rate in engineering is approximately 50%. This is how EA works. So now we know, now we can move on, right? That seems to be what happens to everyone else. But it's not enough. Because in the end, regardless of what happens with our particular situation, this kind of "business" isn't right, and people need to know about it, which is why I write this today.
If I could get EA CEO Larry Probst on the phone, there are a few things I would ask him. "What's your salary?" would be merely a point of curiosity. The main thing I want to know is, Larry: you do realize what you're doing to your people, right? And you do realize that they ARE people, with physical limits, emotional lives, and families, right? Voices and talents and senses of humor and all that? That when you keep our husbands and wives and children in the office for ninety hours a week, sending them home exhausted and numb and frustrated with their lives, it's not just them you're hurting, but everyone around them, everyone who loves them? When you make your profit calculations and your cost analyses, you know that a great measure of that cost is being paid in raw human dignity, right?
This article is offered under the Creative Commons deed. Please feel free to redistribute/link.
2004-11-19 07:42 pm (UTC)
Wall Street Journal article
I got access through my school library account:
Workers at EA Claim
They Are Owed Overtime
By NICK WINGFIELD and ROBERT A. GUTH
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 19, 2004; Page A6
Working at Electronic Arts Inc. isn't nearly as much fun as playing its games, according to some discontented workers, who are stepping up their criticism of labor practices at the industry's biggest game publisher.
A former Electronic Arts employee, Jamie Kirschenbaum, filed suit in July in California Superior Court in San Mateo, Calif., against the company for failing to pay overtime to the workers who produce the snazzy effects and eye-popping graphics inside the company's games. The suit was only recently disclosed by the company in a regulatory filing. Unlike most Silicon Valley engineers, who are not eligible for overtime, these "image production workers," as they are identified in the suit, might be considered neither professionals nor managers under state law, and therefore eligible for the extra pay.
The complaints over labor practices reflect the growing pains of an industry that in a few short years has shifted from a gaggle of small entrepreneurial companies to a $15 billion global business dominated by a few large corporations. In essence, these disgruntled workers argue that, far from the hip, creative image Electronic Arts conveys, work inside the company more resembles a fast-moving, round-the-clock auto assembly line.
Last week Joe Straitiff, a 33-year-old former Electronic Arts software engineer, posted a message on the Internet describing the pressures of completing games at Electronic Arts, which he said included 70-hour weeks for months on end.
"Everyone was extremely tense, exhausted and tired of feeling like they always had to come in," Mr. Straitiff said in an interview. He said he was fired recently because of repeated conflicts, mostly over long hours, with his supervisor.
Electronic Arts declined to comment specifically on Mr. Straitiff's complaints and on the pending litigation against the company. In a statement the company said it offers benefits and a work environment that are competitive with others in the industry. "As the industry leader, EA generates a lot of attention on issues common to all game developers," the statement said. "Everyone who works in a game studio knows that the hard work that comes with finalizing games isn't unique to EA."
A recent outpouring of online complaints led one group of game programmers, the International Game Developers Association, in San Francisco, to issue an open letter this week encouraging game companies to more seriously tackle quality-of-life issues at their companies. "Despite the continued success of the games industry, the immaturity of current business and production practices is severely crippling the industry," the nonprofit association said in the letter.
Of course, deadlines are hardly unique to the game business. There is scant proof that game production is worse than the pressures of the broader technology industry. But game-worker complaints may reflect a unique aspect of the game business. Game creators once were given free reign over the direction of games and were treated as rock stars.
As the industry has grown, so has management control over creators. Game making is a risky business, with production costs reaching $20 million for some games.
To limit risk, game makers are increasingly keeping a tighter leash on their creators, with strict production processes and tight deadlines to keep games on schedule.
Write to Nick Wingfield at firstname.lastname@example.org and Robert A. Guth at email@example.com
Facts about videogame maker Electronic Arts:
• 5100 full-time employees
• 32 new titles launched last year
• 27 titles earned $27 million or more
• $3 billion net revenue in 2004
Source: the company
2004-11-20 01:31 am (UTC)
Re: Wall Street Journal article
I'm happy to see this story covered by any mainstream media outlet, but I have a few issues with their story and how they implicitly characterize us.
Thanks for covering the EA lawsuit - it is important to game developers such as myself that this story spread as much as possible. However, I would like to dispute a few points in your article.
1) EA stated that "Everyone who works in a game studio knows that the hard work that comes with finalizing games isn't unique to EA."
This is true, but fails to acknowledge the complaint or the core problem - simply because bad labor practices are widespread does not make them right, and this doesn’t only apply to EA. It is not uncommon or unacceptable to "crunch" to finish a game, but when teams are working a majority of the project's length in overtime that hardly counts as "finalizing" the project.
I don't think any of us expect crunch time to go away entirely - what we are disputing is an increasing reliance on it. In our opinion, this is a critical failure of planning, resource allocation and human resource management, which also happens to adversely affect our quality of life.
2) You state "There is scant proof that game production is worse than the pressures of the broader technology industry. But game-worker complaints may reflect a unique aspect of the game business. Game creators once were given free reign over the direction of games and were treated as rock stars."
I believe there are significant differences between game development and other technological jobs. This is primarily a creative entertainment industry while many other technology jobs are not. Additionally, games jobs don't compensate well compared to other technology jobs, and people sacrifice much larger paychecks for the opportunity to work on something they love. Finally, there are still plenty of game creators that are treated like rock stars, they just comprise a much smaller percentage of the industry these days. No one expects free reign, and you almost imply that we're complaining that we didn't get our bowl of green M&M's.
3) You write "As the industry has grown, so has management control over creators” and “s. To limit risk, game makers are increasingly keeping a tighter leash on their creators, with strict production processes and tight deadlines to keep games on schedule."
Management control has grown, but is it having the opposite effect you describe. Management is not keeping a tighter leash on developers - these days we're the ones that usually want to finish the games and limit their scopes, not them. Today's game producers don't see their job so much to finish the game, but to get as much out of the team as possible. This usually involves lots of "feature creep," where unscheduled features are continually added without adjusting the game's schedule or hiring additional employees.
Your statement that there are "strict production processes" is also entirely false – a vast majority of companies employ no one with any managerial training whatsoeer. At many companies, "Producer" is a position one can ascend to from the Quality Assurance department, a department which requires no college or highschool degree. Other commerical software companies such as Adobe have professionally-trained managers to oversee their schedules, and their products are typically narrower in scope than your average game. "Strict production processes," in many ways, are precisely what we are asking for.
While the games we make are constantly adapting to new technology, the management and resource allocation procedures are right out of the stone age, based on logging more hours rather than planning and working smarter. However, the work schedule has driven much of the game’s experienced staff away from the industry - there is no retention of knowledge, compounding the problem.
2004-11-24 11:27 pm (UTC)
Re: Wall Street Journal article
Great letter! The focus has to be on how the management has taken the concept of a temporary crunch time and made it the norm on which to base scheduling. My analogy is clocking a sprinter and using that to predict how long a marathon should take. However ridiculous that sounds, it is precisely the 'spreadsheet logic' used to manage the projects that drive people to post here. This is not a new dynamic that pits worker goals against that of their employer, it probably started sometime right after lunch on the first day an employee was hired.
2004-11-20 01:32 am (UTC)
Re: Wall Street Journal article
Hollywood has strict production processes now, in part because of the appearance of unions as a result of their previous exploitation. My industry is too smart and creative to need to resort to unions, I think, and our employers should be able to adopt new management practices that eliminate the reliance on overtime. None of us really want to unionize, but we'll take it over the current norm, should our concerns remain unaddressed.
Thanks for your time,
Game Designer and IGDA Member
2004-11-20 01:41 am (UTC)
Re: Wall Street Journal article
Great letter -- are you going to send it to them?
2004-11-20 01:42 am (UTC)
Re: Wall Street Journal article
Yeah, it's already been sent - I'm guessing it's too long for them to run, but I had to make my case.
2004-11-20 05:12 pm (UTC)
Re: Wall Street Journal article
I agree, thank you for posting that. The man was in a terrible hurry to get something into the paper, apparently. He only contacted me about two days ago asking for an interview... then within about an hour retracted his request unless I would give my name. Apparently time was more important than accuracy or research -- he also characterized the IGDA as "a group of game programmers", which is a drastic oversimplification of what that organization is. It is a bit of a wake-up call as regards to how totally uninformed most business people are about the game industry, I suppose.
2004-11-22 08:36 pm (UTC)
Re: Wall Street Journal article
-3 billion net revenue in 2004
-5100 full time employees
Interesting mathematical fact:
3,000,000,000 / 5,100 = $588,235 per employee per year
How does this compare to your salary?
2004-12-21 10:33 pm (UTC)
Re: Wall Street Journal article
Actually, you need to re-calculate your figures.
The $3 Billion is /after/ you take out what they already pay to the 5,100 employees. Net profit is the icing you have left after you've paid all of your expenses.
So, it's really much greater than the $588,235 per employee per year figure. We would need to add the total sum of salary/wages paid to the $3 Billion and then divide by number of employees.
It's great if you're an investor or shareholder, but the need for action is undenyable.