Log in

No account? Create an account
ea_spouse [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

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

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.

From: (Anonymous)
2004-12-06 10:50 am (UTC)

Re: you too can be a big publisher

It is easy to look at the p.r. letters and offers of the individuals at the top and make assumptions for the company on the whole, but it is important to remember that though the higher levels of management may be clueless as to the needs of next generation development, the employees who staff the teams that lead the studios future development (Tools and Libraries, Central Technologies) are not clueless. No matter what anyone may say about EA, the fact of the matter is that the studios all look to their Central Technologies group to guide them, and the individuals in those groups are some of the smartest, innovative individuals in the field.

These people realize the demands for next generation titles as well as the pressure put on the teams, and they are working to develop tools and pipelines that will help teams create the volume of content they need to without having to double and triple their resources. Their entire job is to make things smoother for all the teams through the utilization of knowledge of future technologies. Addressing the issue of solid tools and pipelines will alleviate much of the pressure for game teams, and EA is wise to have a group at each studio to handle this.

This falls apart when the high level management creates sweeping changes to the design, and takes the control of game development from the hands of the team. If this did not happen, tools would not remain in a state of flux, and game teams would be able to continue their prescribed path.

In the end, the truth that EA needs to realize is that once the design is created, it needs to stay it's course and only minor gameplay needs to be altered. Even if the high concept design may be mediocre, the tweaking of gameplay to perfection can bring a mediocre design to perfection. Given the current state of flux of all the design, as well as the inability of any director level management to commit to an asset (art, programming, sound, etc) as finished, there is no possible way for a game team to complete a project on time and expect good reviews.

There were numerous meetings about pre-production for the new generation of games from EA. The plans set forth by EA for this phase of development are sound and quite necessary. However, pre-production is only worthwhile if the team is allowed to execute on the plan it has developed. Experience with EA shows that high level management has little trust in the choices of the game teams, thus the constant change of game design in the midst of the project, creating chaos for the game team and oftentimes, a shoddy product.

EA needs to put faith in the talent it invests in.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: bwingb
2004-12-06 03:39 pm (UTC)

Re: you too can be a big publisher

Hi There- From what I understand, this is always a problem in environments where you get an executive board of directors on one end and a highly specialized team of talent on another.

While business people like to consider themselves creative, I find time and again that their aptitudes and business conditioning do not allow them to grasp the basics of the creative process as it applies to development of a creative product. They wish they were creative, but the majority of them simply aren't equipped with the basics.

Somehow, they think that a grasp on trends and the 'latest look' enables them to meddle with production. But this is equivalent to a parent sitting in on a bunch of preschoolers' playtime and 'showing them how it's done'. Those kids already know what they are doing; they are pre-programmed by higher forces to have intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of preschool psychological processes. When an adult steps in and 'directs', there is a kind of violation taking place which becomes counterproductive, and ultimately will undermine the childrens' development.

And if you balk at my analogy, please consider I am coming from a perspective which has a very high regard for children and play- I think we as a society need to learn to back off and let nature do it's thing. Sure- step in and provide some initial guidance, but then for heaven's sake, show some restraint and have enough faith in your guidance that you can let it manifest of it's own due course while using a tremendous amount of restraint in terms of meddling and undermining. You will have much better results if you are a competent leader who knows how to motivate without meddling.

This is why I find it so appalling that people are being treated like human refuse here. It goes headfirst against the very _laws_ of creative psychology- morale is SUCH A HUGE PART of people finding that place where things just click into place creatively. Once you destroy the morale of your people by underestimating and riding them into the ground, you are doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what needs to be done in terms of finding economy and progress in your manpower.

For God's sake, people! WISE UP!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-12-07 06:18 am (UTC)

Re: you too can be a big publisher

I hear you but I don't believe central tools is going to develop any tool to circumvent what assures to be large levels, high-poly count models and vast terrain on the next-gen of consoles. And if they are, they must be visiting Hogwarts on a regular basis. The simple fact is levels will get so big and complex there will be a tremdous volume of work to create.

Additionally, with the larger poly counts invovled, many artists may simply not be scalable in migrating to denser environments. Unless these worlds will be populated by cloned geometry, which I doubt, teams will either need to be especially senior (they are not, the studios is pushing into universities), or they will be larger.

They will be larger. EA has already stumbled with Rising Sun, the game was rail thin in breadth of game environment. It's not an area of expertise in the studio. Again, Jak is not a game that EA has the capability to develope. Scripted, linear FPS titles is the niche.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2004-12-07 04:13 pm (UTC)

Re: you too can be a big publisher

What is it that you imagine Tools and Libraries is doing at the EA studios then? You'd be surprised what can be achieved when a few individuals put their collective minds towards the issue of massive datasets, and all the other issues surrounding next generation development. There are already major efforts to address all these issues happening within every EA development studio, and the solutions are beginning to work within their control groups. Also, if you haven't noticed, both Jak and Daxter and Ratchet and Clank make extensive usage of "cloned" geometry. Any game that does massive streaming levels instances geometry. As for artists not scaling to denser environments, show me a game artist that doesn't scale with tech, and I'll show you a game artist that isn't going to last long in the business. This isn't something that only happens at EA, this is the case at any company making a next generation title. Remember, EA's weakness does not come from it's developers; it comes from it's upper management's inability to lead, trust and commit.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)