Posts Tagged ‘igda’
IGDA Elections – Mike Worth
Thursday, February 18th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
UPDATE – Mr. Worth got back with a series of detailed replies to the questions, below.
Mr. Worth lists as one of his greatest strengths his, “almost limitless energy, and passionate enthusiasm.” It shows in his statement. From what he says, he’s been right in the middle of most of the success Philadelphia has had in the game dev arena recently, including Philly’s recent game dev tax credits and last year’s GameX conference. He’s also an Emmy winner and successful entrepreneur.
Questions for Mr. Worth:
You mention that one of your three priorities while on the board would be “Webinars, articles, and blogs to help educate professional game developers…” Isn’t the IGDA already doing this? What do you propose to add or change?
I’m glad you asked that question! Let me take these three categories one at a time, with my proposed solutions at the end of everything.
Articles: Okay, I’m going to be a bit harsh here. Go to the IGDA website, and click on the “articles” link on the lower left. Here, here’s the link:
Now, look at all the articles, and find the most recent one. The most recent article posted on the IGDA website, in any of the categories, is May 2007. That stinks. Clearly, we can do better than this. I want us to do better than this. The articles are a great idea, and there are so many benefits to the IGDA doing it!
- People do much of their industry research on the web, so putting articles on there is a great way to A) benefit industry pros, and B) provide great exposure to the IGDA!
- By linking to Gamasutra and Gamedev.net articles (for example), and cross-connecting back to us, we create a web of useful information, supporting and being supported by our industry trade sites.
Webinars: Joshua Caulfield and Joseph Sapp are doing a great job of driving the webinars, and they are a total success so far. However, there will probably need to be a dedicated webinar manager/producer going forward, so I can envision that being a need to fulfill. Additionally, I’d like to expand the webinars to include some point/counterpoint discussions about industry topics, post-mortems (especially programming postmortems), and “Chapter Highlights” webinars.
Blogs: I know that we have two blogs running right now, the IGDA Board Blog and Staf Blog. Those are providing useful information to the IGDA members about how the leadership is progressing the IGDA’s mission. However, in terms of professional development blogs, I have not seen any. However, I have seen an RSS feed that feeds all the posts from all the SIG’s, so I’m operating under the assumption that the SIG’s posts are the blog posts. In this case, I have not seen very many blog posts posted on the SIG’s (Programming and Visual Arts have no posted public blogposts). Now, it could be that many of the SIG’s have private mailing lists; and that’s totally fair and a good way to disseminate info. In that case, I’d like to more proactively advertise the SIG’s to members, to encourage the members to join up and receive valuable content.
Having said that, I believe that our Special Interest Groups are a highlight of our association. They consist of passionate people, and their forums have high-quality content. I’m particularly impressed with the quality of posts and information on the Tools SIG, for example. I’d like to have more of that! So, without further ado, two solutions I propose:
- One solution I have is for each SIG to commit to writing and posting one article a month about their discipline. This article would then be cross-posted on the IGDA article area, and also on the SIG’s page. This would guarantee more exposure of the SIG’s, promote inter-SIG awareness, and generate more content and information to benefit the members.
- Second, I propose more “cross-pollination” articles and posts, involving two or more SIG’s. For example, Robin Arnott (chair of the Audio SIG) is reaching out to the Writer’s SIG and Localization SIG, to do articles/podcasts on Dialogue in Games. Brilliant! Incorporate several aspects of the game design into one blended article. I want to help the IGDA create more of that!
You also mention, “High-value “GDC Quality” lecture and panel discussions”. Where would these take place? Can you elaborate any more on this idea?
This idea came out after seeing a great IGDA New Jersey lecture (shout out to Coray Seifert for putting together a fantastic meeting). Marty Stoltz (Big Huge Games) and Richard Rouse (Kaos Studios) presented a very high-value, very functionally beneficial lecture on borrowing cinematic techniques and incorporating them into gameplay. I have rarely seen such a great lecture outside of a major conference, and I want to make that type of lecture the norm. So, to answer the first part, I would want to see these GDC quality presentations take place in two areas. First, at local chapter meetings, which means we need active support and buy-in from the local game development people who can offer these great sessions. Two, as “sub-tracks” at larger industry events. For example, so many of us are at E3, it would be great to have an IGDA afternoon, where presenters from multiple areas do industry-to-industry sessions.
Regarding your second points, here’s my elaboration on my idea/vision:
- Focus on making these presentations valuable to individuals with 3-10 years of professional experience (either independent or part of a larger studio). I think we need to excite and bring in that demographic of members to help the IGDA grow and flourish. I want people with that level of experience to gain value from the IGDA, and this is one area we can give this to them.
- Get IGDA buy-in/excitement from established studios and experienced members at those studios, so that they are willing to put together these presentations. Often, studios are a little leery about exposing too much proprietary information; if the studios, and individuals in the studios believe in the IGDA’s mission, they’ll be more likely to contribute with presentations.
- Merging of talented presenters into cross-geographic sessions at larger industry events. i.e. get an Austin and San Fran dev programming duo to talk about specific techniques of physics programming, compare/contrast, all that.
Your third priority listed is, “Industry mentoring for people just entering the industry, including how to interview for a game industry job and choosing your career focus.” How do you propose doing this?
I think a great route is to do the following. First, reach out to existing studios around each chapter, and get a list of people willing to mentor. For those of us in Philly, Grant Shonkwiler (incoming Philly IGDA chair) is a great example. He blogs about how to design games, how to make your portfolio pop, etc. Second, go and visit the local universities that are positing that they want to graduate game developers. Now we have our pairings. (Of course, a non-student who wants to break in from a different industry can contact the local chapter to get a mentor).
Then, (and this is the important part), you have the IGDA create clear documentation as to how the mentorship works (number of times a month they meet, what resources and exercises the protégé should implement, etc). The appropriate SIG should also be providing documentation and suggestions of what to help a protégé with, skillsets to learn, possible career routes, etc. All this is centralized on the IGDA website. If the protégé doesn’t adhere to these guidelines, the mentor does not have to continue the program with that individual. This will help mitigate “wasteful mentoring” meetings with people that are not willing to take charge of their careers (see point below).
Funny enough, the IGDA already has a great program in motion, which covers a lot of this. (http://archives.igda.org/women/gmo.html) So, why are we not using this to its full effect? I think that we need to get more SIG’s to cross-pollinate and collaborate, especially on a large initiative like this. And, we need to publicize this much, much more effectively.
You note that you think the biggest issue game devs face today is a lack of mentoring/coaching, brought about by the rapidly changing business environment. Can you explain why this would be a bigger concern than Quality of Life or the high turnover caused by recent economic conditions?
I think that these three aspects you mentioned actually influence and are influenced by one another. When a game developer chooses to “go pro”, I feel that they should have the ablitiy to learn all the appropriate career management skills necessary for them to A) self-evaluate, and decide what types of games they work best on, B) what studios are a good fit for their specific skills, and C) how to research those studios to see if their lifestyle needs fit the studio’s work requirements. I think that if a game developer gets caught in a work environment that’s a bad fit, then that may have been a result of him/her not knowing what to look for in a potential employer, how to find out the lifestyle in that studio at the job interview, and how to confidently choose or choose not to work at a particular studio. Game developers are the lifeblood of our industry, and the more empowered they are to drive their own careers, choose which studios to pursue that fit their lifestyle and creative passions, then the happier work environment they will create for themselves.
And that’s the statement I want to come back to; I want to empower game developers, empower them creatively, as craftsmen, and as business people (either driving their own careers, or driving a studio they’ve help found). I think the IGDA can be the single greatest resource to empower professional game developers, not just students breaking in, but industry pros with 3+ years of experience, who find themselves having to navigate our rapidly changing industry environment.
This ties into your observation of the importance of addressing he high turnover rates in our industry. I think that the effects of that turnover can be mitigated on an individual level, if that individual has strong career management skills developed through coaching and mentoring. For example, if a game developer has a good strategy to develop his own game with a team of 5-10 people, pitch to publishers, and ship on a premium download channel (Wiiware, XBLA), then he or she can weather a layoff by creating games on their own steam. These skills are completely teachable, and can give the game professional the flexibility to move into and out of jobs, as the industry changes, while still making games they love, and building their career.
Since the game industry has always been marked by tons of ambitious but unskilled people trying to break in, how would you propose to manage the IGDA’s members and resources in mentoring new developers? There seems to be the potential that we could spread ourselves very thin, possibly on people who will not have a future in this industry regardless of their mentoring.
Hoo, boy, you asked a good question there! I understand exactly what you’re saying, and now I have to be a bit cruel. The truth is, this is a very hard industry in which to succeed, and one must be truly excellent at what you do. Oftentimes, people try to enter this industry, and don’t have “what it takes” to succeed.
But, here’s a truth that I believe in, and, in fact, Scott, your awesome post about that concept artist who worked for 5 years to get his craft in shape (link here: http://www.macguffingames.com/2010/practice-trumps-talent/) talks just about that.
My best friend (Avish Parashar, www.motivationalsmartass.com), is a success coach, and he talks a lot about what it takes to be successful in any industry. It’s a harsh truth, but it needs to be said (because I agree with it).
You have to be willing to do what others in your field are unwilling to do, to be unforgettable in your field, knowing that life will probably not ask you to do what others are unwilling to do.
Weird Zen koan, but what it means is: How badly do you want this? Are you willing to get up at 5:30 AM every day and write music for an hour before going to your day job? (I did this for 2 years while breaking into TV). Are you willing to work for free on nights and weekends for 10 months to polish and re-polish your game for a pitch to Sony?
I believe that 80% of the time, when someone is “ambitious but unskilled”, then they are not “putting in the time” to be absolutely amazing at what they do. People who train themselves to be amazing at what they do get hired. In fact, there are only two things we need to do to be successful in any career:
- Be unforgettably amazing at what we do.
- Ask a whole lot of people to hire us.
If a person fails, it’s because they either:
- Don’t know how to achieve points 1 and 2, or
- They are unwilling to “suck it up” and put the time in to do points 1 and 2.
Mentoring should only help people learn how to achieve points 1 and 2. “Putting in the Flight Time” is the responsibility of the protégé.
So, it comes down to: how do we manage a coaching/mentoring program so that people who want “easy solutions” aren’t bleeding our members dry? Well, I have several ideas:
- First, we create core documentation and skill-building documents,exercises, and projects that people who are “breaking in” must read and implement before they can sign up for a mentor-partner. This will ensure that the people are willing to take charge of their career, and aren’t just looking for an easy way in. Darius Kazemi’s networking blogposts are a great resource for those types of drills/documents, and I have a bunch of articles and resources I will provide as well.
- Mentor meetings have mandatory “homework” in between meetings. If the protégé/mentored doesn’t do the homework (sketching three background terrains, calling 5 game companies, etc.), they don’t get their next meeting. Period. Mentors are giving their time, and they deserve the courtesy of having their students actually take and implement their advice.
- Protégés must give back to the community. Examples could be volunteering to set up/break down IGDA chapter events, promoting IGDA events/content on their facebook and twitter, etc.
If these three ideas are implemented in a mentoring program, I think we will drastically reduce the “waste of mentoring resources”, as well as separate the people who are willing to do what it takes to build their career in this industry, from the people who are “ambitious but unskilled.”
I’m glad you asked that question! Let me take these three categories one at a time, with my proposed solutions at the end of everything.
Articles: Okay, I’m going to be a bit harsh here. Go to the IGDA website, and click on the “articles” link on the lower left. Here, here’s the link:
http://www.igda.org/articles
Now, look at all the articles, and find the most recent one. The most recent article posted on the IGDA website, in any of the categories, is May 2007. That stinks. Clearly, we can do better than this. I want us to do better than this. The articles are a great idea, and there are so many benefits to the IGDA doing it!
- People do much of their industry research on the web, so putting articles on there is a great way to A) benefit industry pros, and B) provide great exposure to the IGDA!
- By linking to Gamasutra and Gamedev.net articles (for example), and cross-connecting back to us, we create a web of useful information, supporting and being supported by our industry trade sites.
IGDA Elections – Paul Skiera
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
Mr. Skiera’s statement strikes a somewhat apocalyptic tone, starting with the definitive statement that, “Traditional education is broken and cannot be fixed using 20th century instructional practices.” His statement hammers on that single nail – his purpose if elected would be to “ensure [the] IGDA and our members are the cornerstone partners working with the researchers, policy makers and educators to transform education in the 21st century.”
Mr. Skiera has not posted his Q&A answers as of the publication of this profile.
Questions for Mr. Skiera:
- Why run now?
- Will you be posting your Q&A?
- Given the mission of the IGDA, “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,” how do you justify making it a goal of the IGDA to effect a major revision to the American educational system? Would you attempt to revise the IGDA’s mission?
- Your statement seems to imply changing the American educational institutions. Even if this were the mission of the IGDA, would this be a worthy goal for an organization that bills itself as international?
- What do you see as the immediate concerns of “rank and file” developers, and where would these fit into your priorities?
- What do you think the IGDA’s role in the industry-wide Quality of Life discussions should be?
- Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? If yes, what will you do to begin changing this? If no, why not?
IGDA Elections – Coray Seifert
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
UPDATE – Mr. Seifert got back to me with answers to my questions – they are inline below.
Mr. Seifert’s statement is easily the peppiest of the bunch so far; it is informal, conversational, passionate – and at times hyperbolic. His main goal is specific and limited – he wants to set up elected regional coordinators to mentor the heads of local chapters. Past that, he would like to see an IGDA-related awards program.
Mr. Seifert is the only current board member running for another term.
Questions for Mr. Seifert:
Please tell us specifically how you have helped the IGDA become more transparent in your role as Secretary.
I would say there were two main initiatives that I drove to make the IGDA a more transparent org.
The first and most lightweight initiative was encouraging other board members to blog and tweet progress reports on their various projects and initiatives. I think we had some good success with our blog and twitter over the past year, but there is still a ton of room to grow in this department. Hopefully, whoever takes over for me as secretary (2 terms is enough for me!) will take this to the next level.
The second and vastly more important initiative was to get some actual informational content in the meeting minutes. While this sounds simple, there are a ton of legal implications in revealing too much information in meeting minutes, as it exposes the board members involved in those minutes to legal risk, should their individual opinions go against an employer, distributor, investor, etc.
That said, I think the compromise that we ended up with is a good archetype that I hope the IGDA will continue to follow. In each release of the meeting minutes, we have the summary of motions and procedural (aka unreadable, cryptic stuff) at the top of the document, and then we break down some of the action items, recommendations, and resolutions and provide as much information as possible at the bottom. While it is definitely more work, it is extremely valuable for IGDA members to understand the motivations and processes behind the decisions that shape the org. I hope that we can continue to follow this meeting notes format in the future.
Please tell us specifically what the Programs & Membership committee, along with you as its chair, has done to better the IGDA during your term.
When I took over the P&M Committee in 2007, things were in a pretty rough state. We had realized that our current chapter setup was pretty rough. Traditionally, anyone could wave a flag and say “Hey! I’m an IGDA Chapter!” which meant that those chapters had no liability insurance (if someone slices their hand open at an IGDA meeting, they could have sued the chapter coordinator PERSONALLY), there was no way for the IGDA to directly support the chapters financially, and there was a whole legal mess that, quite honestly, I still don’t fully understand 
I was elected chair amidst a pretty intense debate over whether to adopt a chartering system that would resolve these issues. Unfortunately, the previous board member running the chapters had proposed some pretty heavy-handed stuff and basically told the chapters “Hey, you’re doing this now!” which our hard-working, passionate chapter coordinators (including me at the time) did not appreciate. So, I worked with the coordinators for the bulk of 2007 to find a compromise that both allayed the existing issues with the chapter system and also gave the chapter enough latitude to stay functional.
The result was a successful deployment of the chapter chartering system that provides chapters with liability insurance, structures for formal elections, and perhaps most importantly, allows each chapter to have a bank account and mechanism for the IGDA to directly support them.
Similarly, we extended a similar chartering system to the SIGs, and opened some funds for the SIGs to work on special projects. Since the SIGs were much more simple to get set up (little to no physical/geographical concerns), we were able to get them direct funding much faster. Some of the projects that were funded by that program include the Global Games Jam (IGDA Education SIG) and the Writers Quarterly (Writers SIG) as well as a bunch of other really awesome programs.
The major issue we ran into with the Chapter and SIG chartering program is that the IGDA basically ran out of funds for non-essential programs when the economy hit the tank in 2009. While I fought hard to try to keep some funds available for this program, unfortunately we weren’t able to fund grants in 2009 or this year, yet.
That said, I think we’ve done a great job of setting the table for the chapters and SIGs and I look forward to returning my focus there if elected this year!
Do you really think that professional game developers are treated like calculators?
I think that – in the worst cases – yes, game developers can be looked at in the same way that a factory might look at a robot; they are a resource that can be used, exhausted, worn down, and then replaced with a newer model. To be clear, I feel this is the WRONG way to run a game development business, but it still persists in a few dark corners of our industry. I hope that as we learn more about how to make great games as an industry and as long as entities like the IGDA continue to fight the good fight and against poor Quality of Life, we’ll get to a place where these situations are cautionary tales of old, not the current state of affairs.
To clarify, my current employer, Kaos Studios, is wicked awesome about Quality of Life. Look, no place is perfect, but by and large the management team at Kaos does a great job of balancing the needs of the project with the needs of the individual and they treat their people like artisans of their craft – the way it should be! It’s an awesome place to work and I am definitely NOT referring to them with the above sentiments.
You note the efforts of the Quality of Life group, the SIGs, and the local chapters as contributing to “the IGDA [providing] a voice to help the individual game developer…” Do you feel the IGDA is doing a good job of this right now? What, if anything, do you think can be improved about this?
I do think that the IGDA is doing a good job of this, but I think we have a long way to go to fully realize our potential as the voice of the game development industry. I think, as Darius has pointed out, that strong chapters are a big component of this, as detailed in my statement. I think the work of Judy Tyrer and the Quality of Life SIG is also extremely important and is an initiative that we should continue to support and evolve (more whitepapers! more best practices! more articles!). The bottom line is that while the IGDA has done a great job advocating on behalf of the game development community, there is so much more we can be doing!
What do you think of the IGDA’s current elections process? Is there anything you would like to change?
I think you should run the elections, Scott
Seriously though, this is exactly what the IGDA Elections need. Commentary and dissection of the candidate statements. For example, reading Tim Langdell’s candidacy statement a few years back, I was pretty impressed! The dude seemed like he had been around for a while, and had some experience working with the AIAS, so I voted for him. If someone had dug into his background, like you’re doing now, I think we would have found out that he probably wasn’t the right guy for the board.
Specifically, I think there are 2 important tweaks that we can make to the election process for next year:
1. Make things more centralized and concise: There is a ton of information out there now, which is great. Now we just need to get all of that information onto the page where you vote. If you go to the voting page, you just see a list of names, while the information on the candidates is on other pages or other sites entirely (like this one). We should have a central repository for all available information about each candidate right where you’re about to vote, and it should be in concise, readable format.
2. Get the bigs involved. While blogs like these 100% must be involved in the election process, to provide independent critiques and discourse on the elections, we need to get the big dogs involved. Gamasutra, in my opinion, should be the CNN of the elections. They should have exclusive interviews with candidates, their own analysis of the candidate statements, and we should try to tightly integrate them with the entire election process, both as a way of making sure the voting body has as much information as possible, and as a method of making sure that as many people as possible know about the elections.
What do you think the IGDA’s role in the industry-wide Quality of Life discussions should be?
I think our role should be to continue to drive home the idea that good Quality of Life = Good Games. Providing decision makers in our industry with the information that they need to make the right decisions about quality of life is absolutely essential, and the IGDA is uniquely positioned to be the voice of the game developer in this discussion.
I think we need to continue to drive home this message, not only on a national level with press releases and statements, but on a local chapter level. From what I’ve seen, the people who are involved with the IGDA are the people who advocate good quality of life, and who are the people who truly believe that good quality of life can be used to create hit games.
Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? If yes, what will you do to begin changing this? If no, why not?
I find myself conflicted on the issue. A few years back while working at Large Animal Games, a 10-person independent studio, the owners signed up the studio for the IGDA Studio Affiliate program. As an employee of that studio, it felt great to be working for an employer that believed in the causes that I did. It made me feel like I was truly appreciated and that I was working at a place that did things the right way.
So, in and of itself, the studio affiliate program is a great initiative. However, I understand the concern. If we are beholden to the affiliate studios that support the IGDA, we become the voice of the studios, not the game developers.
The solution to this problem is to increase the value of the IGDA to every game developer out there, to the point where studio memberships are a small fraction of the overall membership. Whether through better chapters, stronger SIGs, more advocacy programs, it should be a no-brainer for every game developer in the industry to be a member of the IGDA. While we’re not there yet, I am confident that if we stick to our core mission, continue to evolve our programs, and keep working to make the IGDA stronger every day, every week, and every year, we’ll get there!
IGDA Elections – Ian Schreiber
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
UPDATE – Mr. Schreiber got back with answers to my questions, and I’ve inserted them below.
EDIT – I removed the line, “Additionally, wouldn’t your goal to advocate for individual developers possibly exacerbate financial woes for the IGDA?” from the last question in this profile – that was a cut and paste error on my part.
Mr. Schreiber comes to us with a wide breadth of experience – programming, academia, and design – and he notes that as one of his major strengths. Currently he teaches and freelances.
Under the time question, Mr. Schreiber notes that he has “not much” (much like everyone else), but that he does have practice juggling a hectic schedule.
There isn’t a lot to pick at in his statement and Q&A, since the majority of his outlined goals stay outlined. He does talk a good bit about the communications and problem solving he would bring to the table, and notes that often solving issues in a short time with little money requires “willingness to get to the heart of the matter and find alternate solutions.”
In his profile, he notes his email address again and his Twitter handle, and urges us to ask him questions. Well, here we go.
Why run now?
Well, I ran last year too, so it’s not like I am choosing this year specifically. I started running for Board when I felt I had reached a point where I could make real contributions, and I will continue until I reach a point where I feel I cannot. Additionally, this year I was nominated by at least one other person (in previous years we were expected to “nominate” ourselves), so I took that as an extra vote of confidence.
You note that you’ve been involved with a number of SIGs and committees, but for the most part not in what capacity. Can you elaborate on your involvement with these groups?
Great point — the people in those SIGs know what I did, but of course anyone who was not actively part of them would have no way of knowing.
For the Education SIG, I’m active on the mailing list, which in practice means being an industry voice that is available for any professors looking for information for their classes or curriculum. I was also one of many contributors to the 2008 Curriculum Framework, an Ed SIG project to provide a starting set of guidelines for the creation of game-related educational programs. In particular, aside from the general proofreading common to all contributors, I provided the first draft of section 2.1 (new to the 2008 version) and proposed some new topics under the Game Design section. I’ve also contributed some of my course syllabi to the IGDA Curriculum Knowledge Base. I’ve attended and presented at the Education Summit at GDC since 2007. And of course, I evangelize the IGDA and the Education SIG to any game educator I meet who hasn’t already heard of them.
For the Sex and Games SIG, primarily my role has been forum moderator, which mostly means keeping the board clear of spam (as you might imagine, we get our fair share of this). I also provided occasional content for the blog, back when the SIG was younger.
Credit Standards Committee might sound a bit different from my other endeavors, but I’ve attended the Credits Roundtable at GDC since 2006 and have been a member of the committee ever since. It’s a subject dear to me, given that I was uncredited on the first three games I worked on (the online card games Chron X, Star Trek:ConQuest Online, and WWE With Authority — I joined the company after initial release and worked on expansions and updates). Mostly I have offered comments when new revisions of the Standards are sent around.
You mention as a goal you’d like to “[increase the] IGDA’s role as a voice and advocate for individual developers, not just corporate studios.” Can you speak to how you’d go about leading this effort?
This ties in with some other questions you ask about QoL and whether individual or studio rights come first (see below), and I will answer those specific questions in the other sections.
Other than that, I want the IGDA to position itself as the first place that developers think of when looking for an advocate. If some scandal breaks about credits or QoL or other issues important to developers, the IGDA should be releasing a clear statement of its position in a timely manner. It should also be a place for unified community discussion, and eventually action. While we do have forums and SIGs and local chapters, I think we can do a better job bringing these resources to developers and providing a safe and open forum so that developers can take positive steps together.
One of your other goals is, “Supporting more ongoing events like the Members Only Webinars and Global Game Jam that add value to developers’ lives.” What kinds of events do you envision here?
The blessing and curse of the IGDA is that it is largely a volunteer organization. The curse is that most people don’t have the time or inclination to actually volunteer for much. The blessing is that every now and then, one person comes up with a really awesome idea AND the energy to get the ball rolling on it.
I use the word “support” in that statement deliberately. This is not about the Board coming up with a Great Idea for an initiative. It is about encouraging members to find their own initiatives, and then provide total and ongoing support for those who do so. So, I see the IGDA more as a conduit than a source. I see its role as providing a way for people to promote their initiatives (through emailings and the IGDA newsletter and website), seek help (someone who has an idea but needs a partner to supply skills they personally lack), and share resources (perhaps someone with web space or a hosting company can provide discounted rates for IGDA initiatives) — these kinds of things, to get people the help they need to take their own volunteer projects further, and get them promoted.
So honestly, I’m not envisioning any specific kinds of events — rather, I’m envisioning that the incredibly creative and talented people in this industry have THEIR visions, and I want to help bring those out into the open for the benefit of everyone.
You say that “the IGDA should be front and center” in any discussions about alternate employment arrangements, such as a Hollywood style contractor system or unionization. Do you see this as a role where the IGDA advocates for one side or another, a more neutral informational role, or something else altogether?
A long time ago, I was confused about this. After all, the IGDA seems to straddle both worlds (individual developer and studio), as evidenced by a number of studio heads on the Board and also studio memberships. What happens when the needs of the individual conflict with the needs of the studio — where does IGDA stand?
It turns out that the Articles of Incorporation are very clear on this, as I was informed when I originally asked. The IGDA is not a trade organization; that is, it was founded very specifically to assist individual developers and not development companies. So, I see the IGDA as advocating for the individual, as per its stated mission.
What do you think the IGDA’s role in the industry-wide Quality of Life discussions should be?
Given my previous answer, this should be obvious: it should come down solidly in support of safe and sane work practices, and as a front-line advocate for the rights of developers. I think GameWatch.org was a great start, as a potential place where employees could anonymously report the working conditions at their studio (good or bad), and I think it is a shame that this was less of an IGDA initiative than an Erin Hoffman initiative. I would love to see the IGDA take more steps in this direction.
The thing that really kills me here is that there is a large body of documentation already showing that excessive crunch is detrimental not just to the individuals but to the company as well, so this really should be an area where developers and studios have aligned interests. But it seems like some studios still do not understand this, and in these cases the IGDA needs to advocate for the individual developers.
Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? If yes, what will you do to begin changing this? If no, why not?
The IGDA is admittedly in a difficult position here. On the one hand, it’s a great revenue source at a time when everyone is struggling financially, and it provides a fairly low-cost benefit that employers can offer to their staff as one more part of a competitive benefits package. On the other hand, it makes it difficult for the IGDA to act decisively in situations where developer advocacy necessarily means alienating the studios that they work for. As an example, if some day the IGDA evolved into a union-like organization, how would studios feel about paying union dues so that their own employees could go on strike?
So, this is a conflict of interest. On the other hand, as I noted before, most of the time it is minor. Studios and individual developers usually want the same thing: to make great games that ship on time and on budget and make lots of money.
In the short term, studio memberships and sponsorships are likely not going away (at least, I do not feel comfortable promising otherwise). Long term, I would like to see the IGDA offer individual developers sufficient value that they are willing and able to pay their own dues, and seek alternate revenue sources that are not conflicts of interest, in order to wean itself off of studio-based income without experiencing a devastating revenue shortfall. First steps I see are to identify those other revenue sources and act on them.
IGDA Elections – Charles Schultz
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
UPDATE – Mr. Schultz’s answers below.
Mr. Schultz comes from a long background of mobile development, management, and Quality Assurance. He has worked, amongst other places, for Motorola and RiM. He’s also taught, wrote books, and he notes a couple times that he holds 16 patents (most look to be related to music and/or mobile devices).
His stated goals are to Engage, Encourage, and Envision – engage more small studios and individials in the mobile and social media areas, to encourage “responsible gaming across all genres and platforms” for both game players and designers, and envision the ways the industry will develop in order to help prepare educators to teach for it.
Mr. Schultz doesn’t say how much time he’d commit to the board, but notes that he has had a long history of non-job activities – most of which he lists in other parts of the profile – and says he would make the IGDA his top priority amongst them.
Questions for Mr. Schultz:
Why run now?
My unique set of experiences and skills – development, testing, music, communication, education and innovation – seem relevant to the current period we are in with the emerging prominence of mobile and social games and being in an in-between period with respect to game console and technology cycles. I have served at the local level for a number of years and would like to contribute to the industry as a whole.
You note that you would like to have the IGDA identify more with “responsible” gaming. The IGDA’s description of its charter value of Expression notes, “We oppose any effort that would treat games differently from other forms of art and creative expression.” Historically, calls in other media to behave responsibly have been associated with censorship, such as with the Production Code and the Comic Code Authority. Can you explain further what you mean by more responsible gaming?
I am not calling for censorship here. What I do expect, as we do from other artistic bodies such as the movie and music industries, is that the IGDA can do its part to encourage and enable the creation of games that have positive benefits to communities, society and individuals. The Games for Health movement is a good example of this.
Additionally, the IGDA should promote responsibility on the part of the individual gamer. In-game cheating and stealing, hacking games and crashing servers, excessive and obsessive game playing to the detriment of work and family can all be explicitly discouraged. This message can be peer-driven at the chapter level and promoted at national and local events like GDC and the LA Games Conference.
Also, game developers should be more responsible to provide games that are not prone to hacks, cheats, etc. which become detrimental to other player and ultimately spoil the reputation (and income) of the game, studio and publisher. This is bad for the industry as a whole. Better SV&V and software development techniques can be introduced to reduce these occurrences, and we can utilize subject matter experts to provide information and training for game development professionals by sponsoring conference tracks, webinars, etc.
You note in your statement that you are, “a proven innovator with 16 US patents, able to work with the board to anticipate possible futures and how we will get there,” and that you would use this to help the IGDA prepare educators and companies for the future of gaming. This seems like an extremely ambitious project; can you explain how you would want to tackle such a thing with the limited time and money of the IGDA?
To me this is not ambitious – it requires the application of a few proven techniques that I have used in the past, along with the participation of subject matter experts. My role would be to gather information from the right experts, include them in the process of generating results from the tools and methods at my disposal, rank the results and then provide the findings and directions to the industry at large. The Board and the IGDA in general would certainly be instrumental in contributing the right expertise to arrive at the best conclusions and courses of actions to take, including educating artists, developers, technology and tool providers, and educators as a whole through vehicles such as webinars, instructional videos, courseware and white papers – all of which I have developed in the past.
What do you think the IGDA’s role in the industry-wide Quality of Life discussions should be?
My initial instinct is that each individual decides for themselves what conditions and hours they are willing to accept in return for the salary and benefits they receive. Still, this must be done within the framework of labor laws. Having said that, there do seem to be extreme forms of dedication that are implicitly required for workers to participate and remain employed in some game shops. Once the expectations have been set for a game, it does become a matter of survival for a studio to deliver the goods on time and budget in order to remain in business – leaving the dilemma of working more and continuing to have a job in the industry versus being out of work for a period and possibly ending up back in the same situation with your next employer. In order to break the inertia, perhaps some studios could promote and brand themselves as “fair work” shops – kind of like the “fair trade” coffee brands. This could become a recruiting tool to attract top talent which would force other companies to follow suit or risk having a depleted pool of talent left for their projects. Some consumers may also support those shops in the same way, by favoring or paying a little more for games produced by those shops.
Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? If yes, what will you do to begin changing this? If no, why not?
I have not studied this matter to decide for myself whether the present situation is bad or good. Simply depending on studios or any other entity for funding can be benign if the sponsor is not using it as a lever to gain an advantage in the industry or cause the watchdogs to look the other way. Those would be the kinds of problems I would want the board to address rather than “who” is funding things.
To me this is not ambitious – it requires the application of a few proven techniques that I have used in the past, along with the participation of subject matter experts. My role would be to gather information from the right experts, include them in the process of generating results from the tools and methods at my disposal, rank the results and then provide the findings and directions to the industry at large. The Board and the IGDA in general would certainly be instrumental in contributing the right expertise to arrive at the best conclusions and courses of actions to take, including educating artists, developers, technology and tool providers, and educators as a whole through vehicles such as webinars, instructional videos, courseware and white papers – all of which I have developed in the past.
IGDA Elections – Ron Schaffner
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
UPDATE – Answers from Mr. Schaffner below.
First off, I can say that this Ron Schaffner is NOT the same one that hunts for Bigfoot. I’ve looked at pictures, and they’re two different people. Trust me on this.
Mr. Schaffner’s statement is relatively short and concise, but isn’t followed up by any Q&A answers. His goals are to create more programs helping out-of-work game devs, the encouragement of indie development, and the continued global expansion of the IGDA.
He makes a point to mention that he is inspired by the IGDA’s Code of Ethics (which can be found here), and promises to follow it if elected.
Questions for Mr. Schaffner:
Will you be posting your Q&A answers?
If you don’t have these answers in your Q&A, can you elaborate on how you plan to effect your three goals above?
Thank you for doing this! Regarding my Q&A answers, I did submit them earlier this month; I have since requested Joshua and Joseph to post them, which I expect will be done shortly.
Why run now?
A current IGDA Board member approached me, telling me that he would nominate me to run. Prior to that conversation, I honestly did not think about running. I am currently on the board of my local Little League organization, and contribute in support of my children and the local community. When thinking about being part of the IGDA Board, I remembered the shock that I felt last year over the event that eventually saw one Board member resign. I thought about if I can contribute to IGDA as a Board member, putting the organization ahead of my personal interests. I concluded that I could work with the new and existing Board members to continue to grow IGDA’s impact to our industry. I then decided to accept the nomination.
What do you think the IGDA’s role in the industry-wide Quality of Life discussions should be?
First off, as a business owner myself, as well as an employee at a large organization, I can relate to both sides of the issue. In my company, my personal attitude is against forcing or putting employees into a position to give up all else for their job, to meet a project deadline. When such situations arise, our colleagues typically take pride in delivering on-time and at the highest quality, and put in the incredible effort to deliver. However, when this becomes the norm, it is a situation of abuse by the employer. We have no labor union or any other strong voice in our industry. IGDA must remain involved and at the forefront of such discussions.
Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? If yes, what will you do to begin changing this? If no, why not?
I can understand concern around an organization accepting money for sponsorships, but believe that IGDA is structured to minimize or prevent any inproprieties from taking place. IGDA helps individual members, providing growth and educational opportunities, which in turn, also benefits the studios, whether they sponsor or not.
IGDA Elections – Jane Pinckard
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
UPDATE – Ms. Pinckard came by and answered the questions below.
I’d encourage you to read Ms. Pinckard’s statement – it is both concise and to the point. The three things she identifies that she’d like furthered are Education, Diversity, and Partnerships – and she talks with some specificity about all three.
Ms. Pinckard is, frankly, all over the web. You can find her on seasons 1-3 of the 1UP show, her blog GameGirlAdvance, and in various and sundry interviews and whatnot. I’d encourage people to look at those, too – it’s far too much for me to do anything more than give some of it a cursory examination.
Questions for Ms. Pinckard:
Why run now?
While I’ve always supported the IGDA, there seems to be a sea change happening in the organization, with a lot of opportunity for expansion and pursuing new directions. It’s like the start of a whole new administration – with room for some new ideas and new ways of approaching solutions to problems. I think that candidates who get in the door now would be able to have the chance to contribute a lot to the structure of a stronger, more expansive IGDA.
You mention partnerships with organizations like the MacArthur Foundation. What sort of partnerships do you envision, and to what end?
In cases where the goals of the IGDA are aligned with other groups it makes sense for the two to seek ways to collaborate. The MacArthur Foundation has made digital and interactive literacy in education a priority. We can possibly partner with them to roll out programs in schools or to advise on initiatives in the educational sector. I envision something like a smaller task force changed with building these sorts of relationships.
Do you have any specific ideas for how to “activate the network of members to more effectively match up qualified workers with positions”?
I’ve been participating in the Women in Games SIG’s game mentor online program. It’s a very direct way of communicating and motivating young women and students who are thinking about pursuing games as a career. But there’s so much more we could do. The networking available at IGDA on a national level is largely untapped, I think – and could be a very valuable resource for education as well as for recruitment. We could focus on creating more networking events; alternatively, we can create events like the Leadership Forum with an emphasis on managing a game development career to match up the skills to what is currently needed in the market. And in order to get that data, we could commission a Skill Survey among hiring studios so each year we have a very clear idea of what skills employers are looking for.
How do you plan fpr the IGDA to increase diversity in game development?
The Women in Games SIG has already done a lot, just by its existence, in promoting the idea of women in game development as well as supporting the women who are working (and aspiring!) game developers. We can go further in recognizing and highlighting the accomplishments of women; and what about having an event for people of color in games? But I think when I say “diversity” I also mean it in very broad terms – I would love to see crossover from other disciplines, and perhaps we could set up a presence at film conferences, digital arts and media events, and web 2.0 events to share knowledge. So many people outside of our industry are interested in and curious about games – we could create a lot of goodwill and positive press by reaching out proactively to these people. And if we can fold in some of them to our industry, so much the better.
What do you think the IGDA’s role in the industry-wide Quality of Life discussions should be?
The IGDA needs to take a leadership role here, and it can — we’ve got the white papers and the research and the passionate, committed people to backing it up. The problem is that it’s not enough to simply make statements supporting the QoL initiative – we have to actively show that it’s in employers’ best interests to reform production practices, and to support them by teaching them how. There are some studios that do not crunch (or crunch rarely). What are they doing differently? How do they manage? Let’s collect best practices here and actively campaign employers to adopt them by showing them that in the long run, they are also the beneficiaries as they will see greater performance and greater employee retention. In my view longterm changes to QoL issues won’t happen without getting both employees and employers to the table. It won’t be easy – it’s going to take a long time to turn around a system so embedded in our development culture.
Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? If yes, what will you do to begin changing this? If no, why not?
As you all no doubt know, the IGDA took a real hit last year and raising funds is one of the priorities of the organization, and studios are an important revenue stream. But part of my goal as board member is to explore alternative revenue sources: grants or donations for specific programs, research and whitepapers offered for purchase, more events that are of value outside the IGDA membership. We can also launch a campaign to increase membership and explore ways to offer events or services that are exclusive to IGDA members.
IGDA Elections – Ed Magnin
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
UPDATE – Mr. Magnin stopped by and answered the questions I asked, as well as offered a couple corrections. Apologies for misreading his website – I confused older GameBoy Color games for DS games.
Mr. Magnin is a long time industry vet who started in 1979 and has continued to still make games until at least recently – his company Magnin and Associates last had a DS game in 2000 and a couple iPhone games / apps since. He’s also been teaching for the last 12 years according to his statement (and linkedIn profile) at a couple different institutions. The website also has a section with a lot of useful information for people trying to get into the game industry, although some of it is rather dated.
He also mentions that he has, “Prior board experience includes the Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, JCS of San Diego, and the IGDA Foundation.” The first one looks like it was for one year in 1979, according to his linkedIn profile. I can’t manage to track down what JCS of San Diego is – it is neither listed in his linkedIn profile nor can find anything I can link to him via some quick searching. I’m also unable to link his name to the IGDA Foundation via the Foundation website (side note – the fact that the IGDA Foundation website doesn’t list its current or past trustees is unhelpful). I’m not trying to insinuate that Mr. Magnin hasn’t been involved with these non-profits, but it definitely gives me a few follow-up questions.
As with many other candidates’ statements, Mr. Magnin doesn’t directly answer the question of how much time he’s committing to the board, but instead assures us that he will find the time.
Questions for Mr. Magnin:
- Why run now?
- Can you please elaborate on your role with the IGDA Foundation, and the period of time when it occurred?
- Can you tell us what JCS San Diego is, and how and when you were associated with it?
- In the final part of the Q&A, you didn’t answer the question as to how you would accomplish your goals – namely, being the voice of reason to publishers in the Quality of Life discussion. Can you tell us how you’d go about doing that?
- Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? If yes, what will you do to begin changing this? If no, why not?
UPDATE – Mr. Magnin’s replies:
I will try to answer your questions but first a couple of corrections:
Our first DS game was definitely after 2000. The DS wasn’t announced until late 2004 and released in 2005. Vegas Casino was released in 2006 or 2007. A second DS game Gravity Zero racing was completed last year and approved by Nintendo but held up in a dispute with the publisher. We also have 2 published iPhone apps, plus an additional free version of one.
I didn’t try to avoid the time commitment question. I feel it is up to the new board to create policies that al the board members agree to adhere to. I can promise to meet or exceed whatever commitments the new board agrees on.
Now to your questions:
Why run now? I am at a time in my career where I like to see young people get their break. I have enjoyed teaching and working with the IGDA Foundation and thought it was time to help even more.
Can you please elaborate on your role with the IGDA Foundation, and the period of time when it occurred? I have been on the foundation for the past year. I met with other board members in person at the last GDC and we are in touch via email and online polls as needed.
Can you tell us what JCS San Diego is, and how and when you were associated with it? Jewish Community Services of San Diego provides a variety of services through out San Diego County. The Board would oversee and approve new programs and help raise funds.
How would I accomplish my goals (especially in the Quality of Life Issues)? I think we need to education publishers that many current practices are actually counter-productive and work against their continued success. We need to educate our work-force what are good and what are questionable practices. We need to start identifying practices that we don’t like and speak up on behalf of our members.
Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? In an ideal world it would be nice to have a lot more studios be affiliated with the IGDA and actually be affiliated system wide, not just a one or two locations. While it would be better if we weren’t dependent on the studios, at some point either they or the individual members or both have to support the organization. At the point where studios start threatening to withdraw their support, then we need to remember that our first loyalty is to our individual members. The studio memberships are just a way for the studios to provide company-paid memberships for their developers.
Thanks again for the chance to make a couple of corrections and answer your very well thought out questions.
IGDA Elections – Michael Lubker
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
Mr. Lubker is the coordinator of the IGDA’s Indies SIG, a member of the Austin chapter, and contributes to several other SIGs. His statement strikes an unabashedly populist tone, saying that he hopes to represent small and indie developers, and to make the IGDA more active in responding to Quality of Life issues.
Questions for Mr. Lubker:
- One of your stated goals is, “Reorganized chapter leadership structure – a board structure containing a caucus of Pros, Students, and Indies from the local area. Encourage participation from indie and student members.” Can you explain this proposal more in depth, and make a case for why it needs to happen?
- Regarding the above initiative – my understanding of how chapters are organized right now makes me think that this would be a very invasive departure from the IGDA’s usual processes. At least in the Boston chapter, the relationship is one of equals; wouldn’t the local chapters perhaps balk at this kind of top-down restructuring?
- The list of efforts you plan to champion includes at least 16 different objectives. Do you think it is realistic that you can make headway on that many things during your term?
- If you were forced to pick one of the efforts you’d like to see succeed, which one would it be? Why?
- What, in your opinion, does the Indies SIG offer that indies can’t find in other indie communities such as the Indiegamer forums or TIGSource?
- Regarding Quality of Life, you say, “The IGDA should get the lawyers it needs to combat the situation and implement the wall of fame suggested by some members.” Can you detail what these lawyers would do, and where the funds would be found to pay for them?
- Given the number and scope of your objectives and the fact that you cite two weeks as the upper timeframe for responding to IGDA issues, can you to be more specific on how much time you would be able to spend on board activities? It seems like accomplishing objectives of this scope may require a lot of time.
IGDA Elections – Genevieve Lord
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
If you’re coming to this post without having seen the lead-in, you can find that post here. It links to all the other assessments I’ve posted. You can also find my disclaimer there – I’m on the Boston IGDA chapter’s board and support the candidacy of Darius Kazemi.
Ms. Lord’s goal, from her statement, is to increase the diversity of the industry and its content, and she couches this in terms of a WoW analogy – she wants to be the groups healer. Her work experience encompasses a great deal of production and management, along with her academic experience in her current job at the Director of the Montreal branch of Champlain College.
A bit of digging turned up the postmortem to Myst IV on GamaSutra, which Ms. Lord produced. There are also numerous other hits out on Google with various interviews she’s conducted.
Ms. Lord is one of the co-founders of the Positive Impact Games SIG, “a fairly new group informing the public on the positive aspects of many of the traditional games”.
As with a number of other candidates, there is no firm answer to how much time Ms. Lord plans to apply to being on the board. She assures us that she can manage her time well, and that the amount of time isn’t an issue when it involves something she loves.
Questions for Ms. Lord:
- Why run now?
- You mention in your statement and in the Q&A that you feel lack of diversity is the biggest problem facing developers today. It could be argued, though, that this is a problem facing the medium or industry overall, as opposed to the developers. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing developers right now?
- In the first Q&A question, where you note lack of diversity as the central issue, you don’t say how the IGDA should be involved with resolving this issue. Can you give us some specifics for how you’d like to approach this?
- In the final question of the Q&A, you say, “Any projects that do not cause our existing member’s community and/or new members to be involved within a specific period should be considered as not useful to them and therefore not worth the time investment.“ Can you give us some more detail on this idea? How long is long enough? Also, how will you ascertain if the idea is really not useful, as opposed to just poorly publicized or implemented?
- Please tell us a bit more about the Positive Impact Games SIG. You say in your statement that, “Until now, we have focused on insuring thought provoking presentations at major events such as GDC and MIGS.” What is the overall plan for the SIG to influence our industry, and what are the next steps?
- What do you think the IGDA’s role in the industry-wide Quality of Life discussions should be?
- Do you think the IGDA’s dependence on studio sponsorships for money is a bad thing? If yes, what will you do to begin changing this? If no, why not?