?

Log in

No account? Create an account
EA: The Human Story - ea_spouse Page 2 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
ea_spouse

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

EA: The Human Story [Nov. 10th, 2004|12:01 am]
ea_spouse
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?

Right?


===

This article is offered under the Creative Commons deed. Please feel free to redistribute/link.
linkReply

Comments:
Page 2 of 87
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] >>
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 07:45 pm (UTC)
Being a consumer, I can only suggest that other consumers, as well as me, should have an EA boycott. (Assuming it doesn't affect the employees)
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ea_spouse
2004-11-10 08:51 pm (UTC)
I doubt it would hurt the employees, but I also don't know how effective it could be (though of course I appreciate the sentiment). EA gets most of its money from essentially non-gamers... people who purchase games based on licensed material (Madden, James Bond, Lord of the Rings) and may not necessarily play a lot of other games. That crowd is huge and hard to reach.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
(Deleted comment)
Boycott? - (Anonymous) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 07:51 pm (UTC)

if you dont like a job

quit. tell your boss: "X has to stop and Y has to change or I leave"

in all likelyhood you end up leaving.

always have money saved up so that you can make decisions like these.

absolutely nothing will ever make EA change their mind about pay per unit of work except refusal to work for that pay.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ea_spouse
2004-11-10 08:54 pm (UTC)

Re: if you dont like a job

Certainly. But before we high tail it out of here it is both of our intentions that as many people as possible know about what EA does before they get lured in. At an interview, my SO was actually told "because we're a big company we don't have to crunch like other companies do". And there is extreme pressure not to leave mid-project not only because you inconvenience your teammates but because you lose the title on your resume -- and in an industry where hiring puts a lot of emphasis on the number of shipped titles, that can be devastating. Couple this with EA's continued assurances that things will get better, and few people leave -- though certainly a number have during the course of this project. Nevertheless, it means that EA's pattern works: hire people by lying to them about what the conditions will be, keep them for the space of one project, then start anew with a fresh deceived crop the next time around. Their turnover rate is astronomical, but with the industry currently in a contraction period, people are hard up for jobs and set up to take the bait. Bottom line: what they are doing is illegal as well as unethical, and something needs to be done, more than allowing the cycle to continue.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 07:58 pm (UTC)

I worked for them for a year...

And hated most of the time I was there. They under pay as far as I'm concerned, Schap gives you these little xmas bonus's and thinks that covers it. Their ethics are questionable, and as far as overtime is concerned, I agree its bullshit. Why do I have to work all these crazy hours for mistakes made on the scheduling/design side? I understand its the norm, but I agree it needs to stop! Games make more than movies, in that light the grunts are way under paid! The company I work for now, I still work crunch hours (not as bad as what she's talking about tho) I accept it to a certain degree, but more hours doesnt neccesarily equate to more/better work. I find that when I'm fresh I accomplish so much more, and I do it quicker. When the hours get long, my mind wanders more and I am less productive. My heart goes out to the author of this letter, and if your looking for a better job, in the industry, for a good company , then respond to this ...
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 08:12 pm (UTC)

Re: I worked for them for a year...

Welcome to the standard business practice of the United States, especially when talking about companies who have a presence on the stock market.

You can thank greedy investors who are never, ever satisfied with profits generated: "Oh, you beat your earnings forecast by a measily 2%? Obviously your company sucks, I'm taking my money elsewhere."

In the end, this rampant drive to satisfy the investors, coupled with the ridiculous demands of management for 6-7 figure salaries for a skillset that wouldn't get them past stockboy at McDonalds, is what destroys the american worker.

It's a shame, really, and in the end it will lead to Bad Things(tm). Thankfully, it is becoming a little easier to leave the country and work in places that still value their employees health, productivity, and morale.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-11 11:53 pm (UTC)
It's Electronic Arts (EA Games is a brand) but, yes, it's the one on the marshes (Redwood Shores). And yes the company spends more money on attractive buildings and a labyrinth on-site (no shit) than actually being nice to its employees.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dreamstooloud
2004-11-10 08:37 pm (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that EA is really nothing more than a licensing warehouse. they'll always be able to recruit naive talent to slave away, and they'll always be able to sell units given their licenses. thus alienating talent is not a big problem for them.

a company like that might make a lot of money, but it's still not a good company. it's like a movie studio which only makes movies starring pop music idols. they might get rich, but they'll never produce the next Matrix, any more than EA could ever bring the next Grand Theft Auto.

it's weird that licensing is such a craze in the industry, when the things that gamers go nuts for are San Andreas</a> and Halo 2.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 09:03 pm (UTC)

Time will definately tell...

The good thing about this is that EA will never retain any real talent for any significant period of time, and because of this their games will continue to be made by the studios that they buy. Innovation withing your company and your refusal to be bought are the only things that can help sink this behemoth.

Don't get me wrong. The sports games are great, and the people that work on them deserve all the kudos in the world. The problem is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry will keep buying them, and that's what keeps EA in business.

I've worked in that shiny building by the marsh, and been with the company for 3 years now. The problem is complete incompetance on the part of managers and producers, and the overall corporations lack of interest in doing anything about it.

Anyone who spends any significant amount of time with EALA's EPs like Mark Skaggs or Ricky G will notice very quickly that they are not only undeserving of their position, but have no problem letting the burden of game development be carried on the backs of the people below them. Normally this would be ok, but since they fuck around for 75% of the project, the team has to spend 6 months before Christmas making up for their incompetence. The lack of intelligence stems further though. Anyone who spends 30 minutes with Harvard Bonin can attest to this.

Take my advice. Do not go to work here. If you work here, find the quickest way to go somewhere else, and don't be ashamed of letting everyone you know how manipulative and soul-less EA is.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
From: ea_spouse
2004-11-10 10:36 pm (UTC)
I just read your post, and you're right, the two posts are echoes of each other. I am very curious as to how the Vivendi suit is shaping up.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: harold3
2004-11-10 09:00 pm (UTC)
Sadly the crunch time trend isn't exclusive to the game industry. Developers are constantly doing massive overtime projects. I used to have a cot in my old office for catching one or two hours of sleep at night. They even provided showers and a laundry.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-11 05:40 pm (UTC)

Not everywhere

Fortunately, it's also not all that pervasive a practice in other parts of software industry. I work for a big corporation (for past 3 years), and the only times I have done any overtime has been when I have felt I need to step up, to fix some nasty bug or such ("won't leave before it works" attitude someone else earlier mentioned); I have never been ordered to do it. In a good team with motivated
professionals you do not have to ask: people will offer to, if they feel it would help.
Although the company has its own share of problems, slave treatment is not one of them.


And yet, I also worked for another company (Quark) that was similar shithole as EA sounds like. I left when they started incorporating slavery practices, from having timecards to track actual time spent at work (and mandating 50 hours a week), and let them know that's bullshit. I feel bad for people who are still there -- there's lots of abused talent over there too, just like there may be at EA.


All I can say is that anyone in that situation should try to get out ASAP: not all companies in game industry are that bad, not to mention companies outside.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
[User Picture]From: crushdmb
2004-11-10 09:03 pm (UTC)
This, sadly, isn't just with EA. I have a friend who used to work for Atari and they did the exact same crap to him.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-12 05:25 am (UTC)
This also isn't just specific to the game industry. I worked for a business app developer that tried the same kinds of things, although not nearly to that extent. I feel sorry for those people that are in that position. I can say however that if enough people in that position get together and work together in stopping those sorts of work practices it can be stopped. Also remember that if all the programmers say "No" to those sorts of conditions and resign / lose their jobs as a result the company will have to hire new programmers and it takes quite a while for those new programmers to get up to scratch on the software. That downtime equates directly to altered deadlines - companies can't afford that kind of negative publicity and will revise their work practices rather than allow it to happen to often. Unfortunately it is easier to say that than to put it into practice because once in that position of having work many of us need that work.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 09:07 pm (UTC)

Time Will Definately Tell

The good thing about this is that EA will never retain any real talent for any significant period of time, and because of this their games will continue to be made by the studios that they buy. Innovation withing your company and your refusal to be bought are the only things that can help sink this behemoth.

Don't get me wrong. The sports games are great, and the people that work on them deserve all the kudos in the world. The problem is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry will keep buying them, and that's what keeps EA in business.

I've worked in that shiny building by the marsh, and been with the company for 3 years now. The problem is complete incompetance on the part of managers and producers, and the overall corporations lack of interest in doing anything about it.

Anyone who spends any significant amount of time with EALA's EPs like Mark Skaggs or Ricky G will notice very quickly that they are not only undeserving of their position, but have no problem letting the burden of game development be carried on the backs of the people below them. Normally this would be ok, but since they fuck around for 75% of the project, the team has to spend 6 months before Christmas making up for their incompetence. The lack of intelligence stems further though. Anyone who spends 30 minutes with Harvard Bonin can attest to this.

Take my advice. Do not go to work here. If you work here, find the quickest way to go somewhere else, and don't be ashamed of letting everyone you know how manipulative and soul-less EA is.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-11 06:27 pm (UTC)

Re: Time Will Definately Tell

Mark Skaggs? OMG what a punk. I have worked for him in a galaxy far far away - would never do so again; I wondered what ever happend to him. No wonder EA is so fucked up. Well, if he has a position of authority and the universe is at all sane, it won't take long. His best attribute is that he is evil; sounds like EA is exploiting that fully.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 09:07 pm (UTC)
I think I have a pretty good idea of where you are located. My husband works there as well. Send me an email, will ya? bob_jamison@graffiti.net (not my real regular email; who knows who might be seeing this? And that big brother feel alone is enough to be concerned about.)
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-11 03:50 pm (UTC)

I'm no longer going to buy from EA

Two things:

1. You have to quit that job now. It's not only unreasonable, but slave labour.

2. I will never buy another game from EA again. End of Story. Did you hear that EA. I will not support companies that practice slave labour!!!

40 hours a week is the standard. Unless you get more than a million a year, you have to quit now!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
From: flcodemonkey
2004-11-10 09:10 pm (UTC)
I was offered a position with EA in Altamonte Springs, FL to work on the sports games. Since I've been around the block a couple of times (15 years of software development experience), I pushed hard for specifics on expected working hours during the offer negotiation. When pushed they admitted that 50+ hrs/week is close to the norm, and 60-70 is frequent "close to release time". The pay they offered was not even close to justify that sort of commitment, regardless of the promised "bonuses and incentives". I am glad I turned them down. Fresh college grads do not know enough to plan ahead, and feel bad quitting (especially in this job market). There is a tramendous amount of pressure to keep your job these days, considering the fairly low demand for software people and the offshoring supply glut.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 09:38 pm (UTC)

College graduates are perfect for these jobs

Not only are they usually single, but they go into the job with the illusion that it's all fun and games. They soon find out that they no longer have a life outside of work. I too was once close to accepting a job offer from EA/Tiburon, but all my research into the insanity of working at EA kept me away. I now make 2x as much as I would have, doing 1/2 the work and I still get home before my wife does. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
Tiburon - (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Tiburon - (Anonymous) Expand
[User Picture]From: waffen
2004-11-10 09:13 pm (UTC)
Great post!

This is exactly the reason I decided to leave the game industry.

Fortunately, for the 12 years I worked in the industry I avoided EA like the plague, and the worst crunch I went through (9 months of 16 hour days), the company actually put my wife up in a hotel across the street so that we could spend time together.

I was only half joking when I went around asking my fellow engineers if they'd be willing to join a union..
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: flipzagging
2004-11-11 07:16 pm (UTC)
Why is that even a half joke?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 09:24 pm (UTC)

You ain't kiddin!

I worked for an "independent" game company for 2 years doing contract work for EA. Our company got sucked into the swirling vortex of s*** that EA developers live in on two consecutive projects. Not only did we have constant crunch for roughly 18 months, EA also insisted (at the end of both projects) that our entire team come down and work 14 hour days 7 days a week for 6 weerks to finish the first project. (The team only had to go down there for a month the second time).

EA talks a great game, and they have some very cool, very talented people there. But to anyone who is considering a job there or has an SO looking to work for them...don't. Stay indy, stay small, do your own thing. If you go work for EA your soul will be used to power their money furnaces and will, within two years, be nothing more than a greasy black residue adorning the walls of their fancy building.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-11 12:34 am (UTC)

Re: You ain't kiddin!

Heuristic? Or have they done this to more than one group?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
From: shinkuirochou
2004-11-10 09:32 pm (UTC)
Wow. All I can say is, thank God I decided against being a video game concept artist. I really feel sorry for the workers at EA and I hope vast measures are taken to change the way things are currently running there. When they start to open their eyes and ears towards the physical, emotional, and mental damage they're putting upon their laborers, and (Oh God, don't say it, not in America!) get sued or get strikes (hard to hire scabs in an industry where incredible knowledge is needed) or get the Union on their ass, MAYBE these poor people can finally get the type of pay, hours, and treatment they deserve. I wonder if Blizzard or Square-Enix or any of these other large corporations do such things to their workers?
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ea_spouse
2004-11-10 09:33 pm (UTC)
I have a friend who works for Blizzard, and from what I've heard, they work their people hard, but ethically. They also require an almost insane devotion to Blizzard products and the brand -- kind of cult-like. But a good company.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
The answer is Yes! - (Anonymous) Expand
From: (Anonymous)
2004-11-10 09:43 pm (UTC)

There are needles in the haystack...

That's a horrible story. I too work in the game industry, but thankfully my company is very reasonable with overtime (for my dept anyway). I think in the 2 years I've been hare I've done about 5-8 hours of over time total, and the studio producers avoid it as much as possible. They've even proved as of late that they family friendly and fought for me when I thought about leaving to make my place in the studio better.

They are out there. I hope you find one soon. No one should have to put their job before family.

Good luck.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: atharan
2004-11-11 08:20 pm (UTC)

Re: There are needles in the haystack...

Where the hell do YOU work??
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
Page 2 of 87
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] >>