Mark Jacobs doesn't think developers deserve credits

[Dravalen]

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/08/21/mythic-warhammer-credit-complaints/

He admitted that there may have been some people who left the company on less than amicable terms. “In some of the cases that people left, some of them hadn’t done a great job for us,” he said. “Or some left just in a lurch. Do I feel badly for that? No, I don’t feel badly at all. I’m not going to shed a single tear for any of those guys.”
Ultimately, he thought that only people who are working on the game when it launches should get credit for their work. “I’ll worry more about the people who are with me right now, then those who decided that they didn’t like the company or they wanted to take a better job somewhere else,” he said. “I think the credits belong to the people who have been working on this game non-stop, whether they’ve been with us for a week or whether they’ve been with us for three years. If you’re part of the team when we launch, you deserve to be in the credits. No question about it. That, in my estimation, is what the credits are for." To me credits are a very objective thing, you either worked on a project under a position or you didn't. It's not something subjective that you can go "I don't like that guy so he isn't listed". As a professional developer who relies on credits as the main backing of a resume that really pisses me off. If I have to quit a job due to some reason I can't control(family member becoming ill, etc) it shouldn't mean I don't get credit for something I worked on.

[idrisz]

then -> than

stupid typo aside, credit should include everyone that contribute to the project whether they are here or not, that's like saying if someone died during a project their name should be remove from the credit because they are no longer here or he/she shouldn't matter because they are dead already.

[RobotPants]

First! (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=46590)

*edit: curse you, idrisz!!

[Kraaze]

Interesting, are credits really that important as a resume tool? Us non-game programmers just list what projects we've worked on and references and that seems to work out.

[idrisz]

it's very easy for employer to check up someone's credential on sites like mobygame or such.

[WarrenM]

It typically is more of an ego thing than anything else. If a prospective employer wants to verify that you worked on a game you claimed to, it's pretty easy to verify with or without being in the credits.

[Royal Fool]

I think it's more of an accomplishment/recognition thing - I wouldn't have wanted to work on a game for many months and not get any credit to show for it.

I know this has been discussed in the other credits thread though.

And as idrisz says, Mobygames is a good tool to look people up on credits lists.

[Dravalen]

I'm not a huge fan of mobygames, I'm missing from a few things that I am credited on.

[JM]

Some people seem awfully desperate to make this into a big drama.

[Lum]

Interesting, are credits really that important as a resume tool? Us non-game programmers just list what projects we've worked on and references and that seems to work out.

That's how it works in the game industry as well. I haven't been in DAOC's credits since the first expansion after I left, and I still put it on my resume. No one ever pulled out a manual and said "BUT YOU'RE NOT IN THE LIST!!1!" (mainly because all the expansion packs after I left were digital-only, but still).

Warhammer's credit policy is only mildly more offputting than the general industry policy, which is to list people who left mid-project in a "Special thanks to:" section. They're getting crazy bad publicity because someone (no idea who) left, found out they weren't in the credits (and most importantly) is unfamiliar with industry standard practice, and proceeded to raise a stink to every news site that'd listen. Really, what made this story more newsworthy is Mark Jacobs going into more detail about how he felt about the people who left than anything else.

I had more humorous fun with this story here (http://brokentoys.org/2008/08/22/c-is-for-credits-and-thats-good-enough-for-me/).

it's very easy for employer to check up someone's credential on sites like mobygame or such.

Mobygames is WORTHLESS for checking credits. It depends on Random Internet People to type in long credit lists. Half the titles I shipped don't appear on my profile (http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,83298/) (and the ones that do only do so because *I* typed in the credits) and a title I had nothing to do with does.

LinkedIn is the default tool for checking on people's history, at least in my experience.

[Dave Weinstein]

Mobygames works off the official credits.

[Kunikos]

Some people seem awfully desperate to make this into a big drama.

It drives page views and visitors for blogs that make money based on that.

[Lum]

Mobygames works off the official credits.

Mobygames works off people typing in the credits into a web form. Here, look at one of my Game Systems Programmer credits! (http://www.mobygames.com/game/dark-age-of-camelot-catacombs) Oh... wait.

There are no game credits on file for this release of the game. Everything in MobyGames is contributable by users.

Oh well. Guess I just ate cheetos and played Star Wars Galaxies that year.

[KieronGillen]

Mobygames works off the official credits.

Reliant on people...
i) typing them in correctly.
ii) typing them in, full stop.

KG

[idrisz]

some of the older game credits are missing from mobygames which is weird. but overall it's fairly accurate unless your name is very very common.

[JM]

It drives page views and visitors for blogs that make money based on that.

Yet it's hardly the first time it's happened. Am I alone in thinking there's a rather nefarious undertone to all of this?

Course, reading further on Lum's blog made click on a link about Paul Barnett and his hiring/firing idealogies - the comments in response to which made me laugh at how people will blow everything into one big fucking drama.

[Lum]

some of the older game credits are missing from mobygames which is weird. but overall it's fairly accurate unless your name is very very common.

Based on Mobygames I haven't done any work since 2002. I would hazard a guess that is not "fairly accurate".

[Rollory]

I tried to get some corrections to some entries in Mobygames a while back, including some games that aren't even listed. I was told I needed a complete list of credits for everyone involved in the project if I wanted to add in a previously unlisted project. As I didn't have that information handy, I didn't bother any further with it. (It seemed entirely reasonable to me that one could submit a partial list of credits and have it updated/added to later by other people with other information and/or better memories, but no, that's too friendly and useful an attitude)

[chumpface]

i've actually tried to get removed from credits on some games on mobygames that i didnt' work on. they told me they wouldn't do that. (you get credit for games you're just "special thanked" on.)

[Dave Weinstein]

Yep. Full credits for the title for entry for Mobygames, and they go by the official credits.

[idrisz]

i've actually tried to get removed from credits on some games on mobygames that i didnt' work on. they told me they wouldn't do that. (you get credit for games you're just "special thanked" on.)

let me guess?

Hannan Montana or Bratz games??

[StGabe]

While this isn't that big of a deal in the big scheme of things, I do think it's pretty shitty.

Game developers are often expected to work longer hours, for less pay, basically on the principle that they're working on games, so they shouldn't complain. I'll admit that part of the thrill for me is the recognition and the coolness factor of what I do. Given that, I think game companies need to make an effort to make sure that their employees, past and present, get proper recognition wherever possible.

In the past I've actually had the chance to slip in the names of some former employees and employees who had shifted to other projects.

I've seen some other shitty things happen in credits as well. An example was one situation where the actual developer credits got buried behind a mountain of credits from the publisher, most of which were for people who had no involvement or only the vaguest of involvement with the title.

[CalvinGT]

Is it just me or does Mark Jacobs sound like a complete asshole every time he gives an interview?

[Sol Invictus]

Isn't this the giant ego who says he'll forever second guess anyone on the team who's played WoW because their opinions are suddenly rendered invalid after being 'tainted' by the game?

Or that anyone with a differing opinion on his own shouldn't be on the team? Or how he'd much rather prefer to have a talentless hack who only knows how to follow orders over a smart, talented guy who questions bad decisions every once in awhile? Heretics! I will brook no dissent among my ranks!

Oh yeah, this is the guy, or maybe I'm confusing him for some other bigwig at Mythic. Meh.

Also: What's the deal with him sounding like a nerd all the time with all his bullshit Warhammer references?

[MBJ]

Folks,

I guess this is a good time for me to post here after lurking around these parts forever. Let me throw a little light (or gasoline) on the issue:

1) In terms of not giving credit, what I sadly clearly in the MTV interview (and Tracey did point out), is that I was talking about in-game credits. When it comes to giving credit for work done for Mythic, anyone who has worked at Mythic will receive full credit for their work if they or a potential employer call Mythic. I would never condone/support any other policy, period. No cryptic answer, evasion, etc. just their work record at Mythic when they need a reference.

2) Rob (co-founder) and I do believe that the "in-game credits" belong to the people who are with us when the game launches. Hundreds of people have worked on this game who are still with us and we want to reserve the in-game credits for them. We have made some exceptions when people left due to extraordinary circumstances but usually people who leave are not put in the in-game credits. Now, it's also our policy to tell people that when they leave Mythic, they won't receive a in-game credit on WAR. This has been our policy for a long time (not forever of course but prior to EA's acquisition) and it is motivated by simply wanting to reward those that are with us at launch, not by anger, peevishness, etc. If we only omitted the credits of people that pissed us off and gave credit to everyone else I could understand people thinking that they are not in the credits for that reason but this has been our policy for a long time and is not motivated by anything other than keeping the in-game credits for the people who are with us at launch.

3) In terms of me being pissed at a few guys who left, yeap, darn right. When I was talking to MTV, I explained that some people really left us in the lurch in how they quit Mythic (no notice, in the middle of a milestone, etc.) and I was angry at them. What made me even angrier at the moment was the fact that the mystery person didn't bother to contact Rob, myself or anyone else at Mythic but went straight to ShackNews and elsewhere. Even as of this post of mine, I still haven't gotten any communication from the person on this issue and that makes me angrier. If he was so concerned about the credit, why didn't he at least contact us and talk to us about it first? Anybody can call a media site and make a claim of any kind and then, of course, a furor arises. So, I had to deal with an anonymous person who was claiming that he worked on WAR for 3 years, was not getting a credit, was angry and was threatening to sue and also said many other ex-Mythic guys were in the same boat. However, even though I was/am angry at some of them, the fact is that this policy had been around for a lot longer than that and so tying the two together is incorrect.

4) In terms of "something nefarious" as JM suggests, what I find interesting about this issue is both the timing (right when our NDA is lifted and we are getting lots of buzz abut the game) but also the fact that we haven't posted our credits for the game anywhere yet, not even in the beta, as we are still working on them. The anonymous guy also said that many developers had worked on the game for 3 years (or almost 3 years) and were getting the same treatment. Well, there are a few problems there. First, we only got the license a little over 3 years ago (May 2005) and in the beginning, almost nobody was working on the game but me as I did the initial design and the deal wasn't official until GW and Mythic had agreed on a lot of stuff (took almost 2 months). Also, we haven't lost many developers who've been working on WAR in the last few months, especially anybody who's been with the project for three years, and I know that one of the few who have left recently (and who've been on WAR for a very long time) called me and said it wasn't him and another has asked to come back to Mythic. So both the timing and the number of possible people that could have made that call and that claim were very, very few. However, since the guy refused to give us name (worried about hurting his rep in the industry?) but at the same time threatened to sue (which he couldn't do anonymously in this type of case), I thought that made the whole situation even odder.

For what it's worth, the same day I had this interview with MTV, I had a conversation with someone else about the same subject. His take on the matter (and a possible solution) was interesting and we'll looking into implementing it. When we can implement it, I'll congratulate him first and then make a statement about it. When we can pull it off I think it will be seen as a very good idea.

For what it's also worth, the day I gave that interview we had also just released the NDA the day before, the floodgates of WAR opened, I head up to NYC for some interviews about WAR, I hear of the story, I get angry and I'm hit with all sorts of stuff about the credits issue and since I don't even know who is talking about us (and if he is legit) I get angrier. I've never claimed that I am perfect but I am human and with WAR as close to completion as it is, I just wish that person had called me up to talk about the issue first so I could have had a conversation with him (who knows, maybe he would have had a good idea like the other guy had) or at least have known who our accuser was and whether what he claimed was true. Is that so wrong?

Look, I've been an independent developer for decades and I want everyone to get every credit/kudo they've earned for working on the game but what I also want most right now is for the people who are with us when WAR launches to be listed in the in-game credits as the development team. It's not anything more complicated, sinister or petty than that.

Mark

P.S. Sol, no, Paul is the guy who talked about heretics, does the podcasts, etc. all the time and makes Warhammer references, etc. And he's also the guy who's worked his butt off on this game and for Mythic and he's done an amazing job.

[Malderi]

Folks,
*snip*

Thanks for the message, Mark. Personally, I thought it was pretty overblown too. It seems to be standard practice and who knows why it's such a big stink right now. I'm really interested to find out who it is, and what the circumstances/drama surrounds it. The fact that you have a very short list of possible candidates makes it much more interesting.

Looking forward to launch, and a great game. WAAAGH!

[Fugitive]

Man, we never get any credit in either the software or documentation around here. Then again, nobody really cares who wrote Business App V7.2.5. Except the people desperate enough for tech support that they try to do an end-run around first-tier support by finding out who the devs are and getting patched through to them directly...

[rei]

Derek Smart! Derek Smart! Derek Smart!

[MBJ]

Thanks for the message, Mark. Personally, I thought it was pretty overblown too. It seems to be standard practice and who knows why it's such a big stink right now. I'm really interested to find out who it is, and what the circumstances/drama surrounds it. The fact that you have a very short list of possible candidates makes it much more interesting.

Looking forward to launch, and a great game. WAAAGH!

Very, very short list and thanks for the WAAAGH! We're getting sooo close. Had a great night tonight even with all the expected issues, we peaked at almost 30K concurrent players. Not too bad at all for the first night of our Preview Weekend/stress test. If things continue to go this way we may open up our Open Beta a little more. :)

Mark

[Adree]

http://i34.tinypic.com/63t9vo.jpg
Mark

P.S. Sol, no, http://i34.tinypic.com/23hreq0.gif

12345

[Kool Moe Dee]

1) In terms of not giving credit, what I sadly clearly in the MTV interview (and Tracey did point out), is that I was talking about in-game credits. When it comes to giving credit for work done for Mythic, anyone who has worked at Mythic will receive full credit for their work if they or a potential employer call Mythic. I would never condone/support any other policy, period. No cryptic answer, evasion, etc. just their work record at Mythic when they need a reference.

2) Rob (co-founder) and I do believe that the "in-game credits" belong to the people who are with us when the game launches. Hundreds of people have worked on this game who are still with us and we want to reserve the in-game credits for them. We have made some exceptions when people left due to extraordinary circumstances but usually people who leave are not put in the in-game credits. Now, it's also our policy to tell people that when they leave Mythic, they won't receive a in-game credit on WAR. This has been our policy for a long time (not forever of course but prior to EA's acquisition) and it is motivated by simply wanting to reward those that are with us at launch, not by anger, peevishness, etc. If we only omitted the credits of people that pissed us off and gave credit to everyone else I could understand people thinking that they are not in the credits for that reason but this has been our policy for a long time and is not motivated by anything other than keeping the in-game credits for the people who are with us at launch.

Look, I've been an independent developer for decades and I want everyone to get every credit/kudo they've earned for working on the game but what I also want most right now is for the people who are with us when WAR launches to be listed in the in-game credits as the development team. It's not anything more complicated, sinister or petty than that.



Credits are supposed to be a record of who participated in a project, not some kind of "reward."
Saying "we'll acknowledge someone's contribution if somebody asks" is just really crappy and lame.
If you really want to reward those who stuck through the entire project, there are better ways to do so, and ones that they'll actually feel rewarded by. Taking away someone else's credit won't make someone who's currently on the team feel better.
Making exceptions with an unclear credit policy just fuels the fires of suspicion.Why not stick to the IGDA standards for crediting?

[Kool Moe Dee]

Also:


3) In terms of me being pissed at a few guys who left, yeap, darn right. When I was talking to MTV, I explained that some people really left us in the lurch in how they quit Mythic (no notice, in the middle of a milestone, etc.) and I was angry at them. What made me even angrier at the moment was the fact that the mystery person didn't bother to contact Rob, myself or anyone else at Mythic but went straight to ShackNews and elsewhere.


I think you've proven, if nothing else, that it would have been a very short conversation if they had contacted you.

[Bill Dungsroman]

then -> than

Ahahahahahahaha are you fucking kidding me? No offense ids, but your English is Zero Wing bad.

[Chris Nahr]

All I can say is, I would be very suspicious of a company that threatens me with removal from the in-game credits in order to make me stay on until the game's launch. I'd take that as an indication that the working conditions must be pretty terrible if they have to resort to such threats. Permanent crunch mode with lots of unpaid overtime, anyone?

[idrisz]

Ahahahahahahaha are you fucking kidding me? No offense ids, but your English is Zero Wing bad.

Just because I'm bad at something doesn't mean my point wasn't valid.

I don't write for a living!

[steve]

All I can say is, I would be very suspicious of a company that threatens me with removal from the in-game credits in order to make me stay on until the game's launch. I'd take that as an indication that the working conditions must be pretty terrible if they have to resort to such threats. Permanent crunch mode with lots of unpaid overtime, anyone?
Why would anyone stay at a company solely to receive an in-game credit? It's not like HR will eliminate your employment record if you leave.

(Ohmygod, I totally have two in-game credits! I'm twice as famous as I was a year or so ago!)

[StGabe]

Why would anyone stay at a company solely to receive an in-game credit?It's just one of the perks that's easy for a company to give. Some care, some don't. For people who don't care, it's not really an issue. For those who do it's still decent (and costs little) to give some in-game credit (even if it's demoted to the back of the credits or with a lesser title).

Anyway, it seems clear that this issue got blown way out of proportion. However I have to say that the excuse that "this is our stand procedure" doesn't really cut it. For the sake of recruiting future talent I hope Mythic can find a compromise on this issue. Obviously there are other, larger employment considerations, but IMO it still sends the wrong message about how employees. A lot of game developers are pretty sensitive about these sorts of things after having had some bad experiences.

[Chris Nahr]

Why would anyone stay at a company solely to receive an in-game credit?

Why would the company write such a clause in your contract in the first place? Clearly they think it has some effect on people, or else they wouldn't bother to go against the industry standard. And clearly a lot of people care about this clause, or else we wouldn't have this discussion.

[TheJare]

Why would anyone stay at a company solely to receive an in-game credit?

Mark describes crediting the people as a reward. It's a reward because it has some kind of value to the people that receive it. So your question is actually, how much value exactly? Why is it so valuable to them? Those people are invested in the games they make, and care about their games more than just as a job that pays the bills. They (we?) establish a bond with the game, and try to go a bit further than just ticking boxes in feature lists. To them (us?), being properly credited is the recognition of that bond. The more invested in the game you are, the more valuable those credits are for you.

Attaching credits to employment at the end of the project sends the message that the company doesn't reward that bond. Sure, there are other forms of reward (bonuses, promotions, etc) that are more important. Still, I believe that Mythic's policy lessens the value of that reward for those who care about it, because that value comes from participation in the game rather than from loyalty to the company. But anyway, it's not the end of the world. :)

[JM]

Saying "we'll acknowledge someone's contribution if somebody asks" is just really crappy and lame.

No, no it isn't. It's how every other industry bar bloody Hollywood works. Including mine. And you know what? Everyone is cool with that. If the only real reason for people to be in the credits is so you can confirm someone worked on a title, well, human beings can confirm that too. Welcome to everyone else's world of references.

[Menzo]

Guys - don't you understand? Corporations are evil, by definition, and individual people who leak information to Shacknews are righteous defenders of our freedom.

This is how the Internet works. Trying to convince this message board that sometimes people are jerks and companies aren't 100% devilspawn is useless.

[Chris Nahr]

No, no it isn't. It's how every other industry bar bloody Hollywood works. Including mine.

What your industry does is irrelevant. The question whether in-game credits as such are important or not is also irrelevant. The problem is that a company already does in-game credits but then selectively excludes people, regardless of how much they contributed, just based on whether they were employed on release date. That's terrible company policy, from a PR standpoint if nothing else.

It's not even relevant whether individual people deserved to be removed from the credits. You just don't set up such rules that are apparently intended to "punish" individuals. It's stupid and can only hurt the perception of your company.

[Chris Nahr]

This is how the Internet works. Trying to convince this message board that sometimes people are jerks and companies aren't 100% devilspawn is useless.

Well, I guess there's no point in your continuing posting here then, is there?

[Rollory]

Guys - don't you understand? Corporations are evil, by definition, and individual people who leak information to Shacknews are righteous defenders of our freedom.

This is how the Internet works. Trying to convince this message board that sometimes people are jerks and companies aren't 100% devilspawn is useless.

Wow, somebody sure woke up crabby.

[Rollory]

What your industry does is irrelevant. The question whether in-game credits as such are important or not is also irrelevant. The problem is that a company already does in-game credits but then selectively excludes people, regardless of how much they contributed, just based on an whether they were employed on release date. That's terrible company policy, from a PR standpoint if nothing else.

Who's saying they exclude people? Look, credits get done like this, in my experience: at some point near the end of the dev cycle, somebody says "hey, we need to do the credits". And over the course of a few days, somebody puts together a list of everyone at the company and partners/publisher/whatever and figures out what their role was, and that gets slapped together as a graphic or scrolling text or whatever. Then it's stuck into the rest of it, probably replacing a placeholder. Then it's back to the release-time rush with no further thoughts about it - if someone specifically notices "hey you forgot Bob over on team whatsa", then they'll add it, but if Bob or his friend isn't right there to point it out chances are it'll get overlooked. Nobody goes through a list cackling evilly striking names off it. Credits don't magically show up for anyone who has worked in a project without anybody having to do anything. It's something someone has to put together, it's done at a particular time, who is in it reflects the situation at that time. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about this at all if you've ever actually been involved in the process.

Any expectation to the contrary is the most ridiculous wishful thinking. If you leave a company early and want to be in the credits, do like Jacobs suggested and contact them - you still have friends there, right? - and say, hey, I'm proud of the work I did for you guys and it would really make me happy if you could make sure I was credited. If you left on good terms, I can't imagine there being a problem with it.

Why the hell am I of all people the voice of reason on this?

[JM]

What your industry does is irrelevant. The question whether in-game credits as such are important or not is also irrelevant. The problem is that a company already does in-game credits but then selectively excludes people, regardless of how much they contributed, just based on an whether they were employed on release date. That's terrible company policy, from a PR standpoint if nothing else.

You can't say credits aren't important then slag a company off for doing credits the way they want to. Credits being mostly worthless and a thank-you, I can understand a company wanting to make them into a list of people who finished developing the game.

"Regardless of how much they contributed" shows your spin on the matter, given that Mark's already said that some people who've left will be in the credits...

Honestly, mountain out of a molehill. They're credits. They serve no real purpose. Mythic want to use them to thank the people who were there at the end. BIG. FUCKING. DEAL.

[Chris Nahr]

Rollory, your explanation doesn't work here. If the company is really so disorganized and just slaps the credits together haphazardly... then they wouldn't make it an explicit rule to exclude people who aren't present at release date, would they?

[Chris Nahr]

You can't say credits aren't important then slag a company off for doing credits the way they want to.

You honestly don't understand the difference between no credits and selective credits?

Credits being mostly worthless and a thank-you, I can understand a company wanting to make them into a list of people who finished developing the game.

Why is working year 3-4 any more special than working year 1-2 during the game's development? (And if the answer is "excessive crunch time" then my reply is in my very first post in this thread.)

"Regardless of how much they contributed" shows your spin on the matter

No, it shows that I can read. Here's what Mark wrote earlier:

Rob (co-founder) and I do believe that the "in-game credits" belong to the people who are with us when the game launches. Hundreds of people have worked on this game who are still with us and we want to reserve the in-game credits for them. We have made some exceptions when people left due to extraordinary circumstances but usually people who leave are not put in the in-game credits. Now, it's also our policy to tell people that when they leave Mythic, they won't receive a in-game credit on WAR.

That's a blanket policy with no regard to an individual's contribution. Making the occasional special exception for people who worked really hard or whatever doesn't make this policy any more acceptable IMO.

Honestly, mountain out of a molehill. They're credits. They serve no real purpose. Mythic want to use them to thank the people who were there at the end. BIG. FUCKING. DEAL.

Well, Mythic had better hope that all their potential employees think like you do. Somehow I doubt it, though.

[JM]

Chris, you still haven't explained why credits are important. You say that's irrelevant but it's the crux of your argument.

[Tyjenks]

Is there room for me to say I appreciate Mark popping in to clarify his position?

The whole thing does seem to be waaay blown out of proportion. I certainly understand both the desire and need for recognition and with the volume of folks who work on MMORPGs, I would think it a difficult, but not impossible, task. Not being an industry guy, I almost feel my input is moot. However, from a gamer's perspective, it must be hell doing all that is required in wrapping up development, managing the people, the release, the credits, and the buzz. This must all coincide with monitoring tiny eruptions of bad press from 1,000 websites that at any moment could fester into oozing sores of bad press. If someone legitimately deserves credit, they should get it. There will always be different company standards and varying measurements for that recognition.

People getting stiffed sucks. Developers working until their fingers, eyes and ears bleed to complete a project like this and then having to deal with ancillary, anonymous accusations (which may or may not be accurate) also sucks.

[Rollory]

Rollory, your explanation doesn't work here. If the company is really so disorganized and just slaps the credits together haphazardly... then they wouldn't make it an explicit rule to exclude people who aren't present at release date, would they?

...

What exactly is broken in your head?

They put together the credits at release time. The people who are there get included. They don't want to go sifting through HR files to find anyone who might've touched the code in the past three years, as well as providing the minor extra ego boost of seeing one's name in lights to the people woh stick around. Just to make sure the specifics are clear, they explicitly state that if you leave early you probably won't be included.

They aren't excluding anybody. They are failing to include some according to clearly defined criteria with good real-world reasons behind them. Credits do not show up out of nowhere. Somebody has to make them.

I know I'm just repeating myself here but the plain English meaning of my words is simple enough and yet it seems to be going completely over your head. What in this do you not understand?

[peterb]

I can't understand why any serious working software developer would get worked up over this. On my planet, when you work on a project and want a "reward", the best reward is cold, hard cash(*).

I can understand artists or people used to the Hollywood system being a bit put off by it, but that difference is, as someone else pointed out, a difference of industries: game development is not unionized, so there really aren't any mandatory standards here.

If having your name on a credit is so important, then negotiate the standards as part of your employment contract. If you don't, then you've basically left it up to the company to do whatever they want. Mythic has done absolutely nothing wrong here, and the people who are trying to say that they have are just stirring the pot.

*: Or stock options.

[ashileedo]

credits are the easiest, cheapest way to express appreciation to people who've worked on a game or to anybody else who contributed in some way. Hollywood is very stringent about credits b/c of the unions. in game dev, its at the developers discretion. however, the igda guidelines are pretty good baseline and we refer to them when we have some doubt.

it is also, in the grand scheme of stuff that needs to get done to ship a game, near the bottom of the priority list.

[roguefrog]

From my experience, Rollory is right.

Barring credit templates that are submitted by different departments which may or may not be outdated when the developer decides to implement the credits, if you miss the credit census at that specific time, you're pretty much screwed unless you/somebody notices it or the QA department bugs the omitted names, but even then it might already be too late. After the credits are approved by legal devs are usually unwilling to change it.

[roBurky]

The thing about this story that seems strange to me is that WAR is an /MMO/. There may be a moment of launch, but development doesn't stop on an MMO (or shouldn't), and the post-launch work is just as important. Does this mean that people who leave after launch get removed from the credits?

[Angie Gallant]

I'm one of those people who tends to watch game credits nowadays. I can't even tell you how many times I've seen a game's credits list "QA Manager" and then no one else from the dept. Those QA guys work hard, but are very rarely credited outside of a "Special thanks" section, if at all. So since I am QA, I don't expect to be credited. Now I don't think Mythic will do that, they were very good to their QA department, but I'm just saying that's how it is in the industry. I got a credit on Brothers in Arms, I probably won't get one for Warhammer, life will go on.

[KallDrexx]

Hey guess what. Virtually every company has this policy, every. It is rare for a game company to credit people who left a good bit before release. Mythic is not alone here, except that they had enough hype that someone (true or not) decided to start shit about it.

Nothing to see here or argue about.

[Chris Nahr]

So virtually every company ignores the IGDA credit guidelines? And people seriously give as the reason that it's too hard to keep track of their employees and make a little list of their names? (Don't tell anyone but I hear they have so-called "computers" for that kind of job nowadays!)

Fantastic. Hey, if employees are really happy with that bullshit I guess they simply get what they deserve... no argument there!

[JM]

Most employees probably don't give a shit.

[peterb]

So virtually every company ignores the IGDA credit guidelines?

Virtually every company ignores the IGDA.

-peterb
PS: Ironically, virtually every developer ignores the IGDA, too.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Hey guess what. Virtually every company has this policy, every. It is rare for a game company to credit people who left a good bit before release. Mythic is not alone here, except that they had enough hype that someone (true or not) decided to start shit about it.

Nothing to see here or argue about.

Strange, every company I've ever worked for has been remarkably conscientious about crediting people who leave or who have only worked on a project for a portion of the development cycle.

And for everybody who has posted to say that it's not a big deal because no other software developers get to put their names on things...well, you're not only fighting well-established game industry precedent, but you're also essentially saying that public recognition for one's work is bad. WTF?

[Kool Moe Dee]

Virtually every company ignores the IGDA.

-peterb
PS: Ironically, virtually every developer ignores the IGDA, too.

This is all true. However, the credits guidelines are an area where I feel they've done an excellent job, and that should not be ignored.

[Dave Weinstein]

Crediting standards tend to generate a lot of heat inside of companies. Part of the purpose of the IGDA guidelines was to make it easy for people to say "we'll use those".

My take on things:

Pay is for work you did.
Credits are for work that got used in the final product.
Financial Incentives (bonuses, profit sharing, etc) are to encourage people to stay for long periods of time

[Sol Invictus]

P.S. Sol, no, Paul is the guy who talked about heretics, does the podcasts, etc. all the time and makes Warhammer references, etc. And he's also the guy who's worked his butt off on this game and for Mythic and he's done an amazing job.

Well, thanks for clearing things up. The only impressions most of us had to go on were the interviews and coverage that's been popping up all over the place (thanks to Shacknews).

It really does sound like some of the guys who left really left the team in a lurch. For what it's worth, I wouldn't like seeing their credits next to my own if I had to pick up the slack from where they left off.

Apologies for calling you a 'giant ego'. Heh. :)

p.s. I do still think the Warhammer references that Paul makes are nerdy as sin.

[steve]

To them (us?), being properly credited is the recognition of that bond. The more invested in the game you are, the more valuable those credits are for you.
I guess I don't understand how credits become elevated like this; I'm fully invested in what I do but view the work itself solely as the measure of my worth, not a credit... a credit which doesn't account for quality of work, quantity of work, etc. Beyond QOL issues, financial incentives should be a person's only criteria for staying; your name on the credits screen won't put little Johnny through college.

That said, I do think everyone should be credited, within reason.

[Gendal]

This whole issue pisses me off, but only because of why people are making a big deal of this. As I posted before, Capcom ignored the entire original developer, Clover Studios, on the Wii port of Okami. Little to no outrage. Claiming the original assets couldn't be reused is nonsensical since worst case you just fucking retype them with out an offending logo or size issues.

The real story here is some disgruntled ex employee spoke out about his previous employer. Even better, it's right before a gigantic launch that has most everybody in the industry paying attention.

I hate the practice too, but I dislike everybody using Mythic as the scapegoat when shit like the Clover Studio fiasco was a thousand times more irritating to me.

[Lum]

Anyway, it seems clear that this issue got blown way out of proportion. However I have to say that the excuse that "this is our stand procedure" doesn't really cut it. For the sake of recruiting future talent I hope Mythic can find a compromise on this issue. Obviously there are other, larger employment considerations, but IMO it still sends the wrong message about how employees. A lot of game developers are pretty sensitive about these sorts of things after having had some bad experiences.

Except that what you are asking for (ex-employees remaining in the credits) is the exception, not the rule.

[Lum]

Virtually every company ignores the IGDA.

-peterb
PS: Ironically, virtually every developer ignores the IGDA, too.

Yep. AFAIK there isn't an IGDA chapter in the Northern Virginia area (where Mythic is located) and even in Austin which has quite a few development houses, it only recently came out of hibernation thanks to a bunch of people needing to network quickly to find work.

[Kool Moe Dee]

I guess I don't understand how credits become elevated like this; I'm fully invested in what I do but view the work itself solely as the measure of my worth, not a credit... a credit which doesn't account for quality of work, quantity of work, etc. Beyond QOL issues, financial incentives should be a person's only criteria for staying; your name on the credits screen won't put little Johnny through college.

That said, I do think everyone should be credited, within reason.

So would you deny your writers (in your former editing life) their bylines? Or take yourself off the masthead? I'm guessing the answer is probably "no."

[steve]

So would you deny your writers (in your former editing life) their bylines? Or take yourself off the masthead? I'm guessing the answer is probably "no."
The writers, no, because they weren't employees and that was part of the conditions of accepting the assignment, that they would be credited by name in the publication. (That wasn't in writing, but in retrospect probably should have been.) But a lot of smaller pieces done by staff members was done uncredited. And as soon as people left, their names were taken off the masthead.

I totally understand why someone wants public credit for their work, and even said I believe everyone should be credited. But what I don't understand is the idea that getting a credit is a reason to stick with a job they may hate. Money, QOL, sure. Having your name on the in-game credits menu? Really?

[Anti-Bunny]

NEW GAMES JOURNALISM!!!!

[Dave Weinstein]

People value credits. They value recognition.

Taking that away from people who leave is *absolutely* a means of trying to keep people. It is punishment for those who leave, even if they left after their part of that project was done, or if they did work early on that was part of the foundation of the game.

Additionally, game crediting was traditionally done on an ad-hoc basis; one of the producers would do the list. This would have the same studio following different crediting rules depending on the project.

Again, there is a reason that the IGDA Credits Committee spent so much time on those guidelines.

And Steve, if one of your staff was leaving before a major piece of work they had done was scheduled to be published, are you saying that you would give them no credit (no masthead, no by-line)?

[steve]

And Steve, if one of your staff was leaving before a major piece of work they had done was scheduled to be published, are you saying that you would give them no credit (no masthead, no by-line)?
A byline, yes. Removal from the masthead? Considering lead times of magazine, it would probably depend on when they left and how much they contributed during their last days to their final issue. So, I'd consider these things on a case-by-case basis rather than issuing blanket policies one way or the other. (And I always had very mixed feelings about people leaving.)

I am curious, though, how those who value credits feel when they've spent 3-4 years working on something feel about sharing credit with people who bailed a year earlier, or who worked for six months at the end, or whose work they ended up redoing and replacing. Is it as satisfying? Maybe you're just happy to see your name there, I dunno. Like I said, I personally don't care all that much about credits, but I still support everyone being credited.

[StGabe]

Except that what you are asking for (ex-employees remaining in the credits) is the exception, not the rule.

Doesn't matter. As I've already said, using precedent is a poor excuse.

It's one of those things that I think just doesn't come up enough, or early enough in the hiring process, that people discuss it. When it does come up, though, I think there's clearly a right and a wrong answer as far as showing respect for employees. It costs nothing to put an extra credit in a game (and I'm fine with demoting the title) and it's clearly of significant value to some, if not all, developers. Most developers I know are in the field, at least partially, because they like the recognition. That often gets factored into pay and expectations and so making sure that proper recognition gets handed out is an important tit-for-tat.

[StGabe]

I am curious, though, how those who value credits feel when they've spent 3-4 years working on something feel about sharing credit with people who bailed a year earlier, or who worked for six months at the end, or whose work they ended up redoing and replacing. Is it as satisfying?

If we're talking about a demoted credit such as "additional programming" I can't figure out why anyone would care. Also, should a person who worked on a 3-year project for the last 2 years get any more or less consideration than a person who worked on it for the first 2 but then had to leave for whatever reason?

[steve]

If we're talking about a demoted credit such as "additional programming" I can't figure out why anyone would care. Also, should a person who worked on a 3-year project for the last 2 years get any more or less consideration than a person who worked on it for the first 2 but then had to leave for whatever reason?
I think all of those could have unique situations that make it difficult to make blanket statements like, "Anyone that leaves goes into "additional programming." What if that person wrote the engine in 2 years before leaving? What if the person who missed the first year re-wrote the engine that the guy that left wrote, because it was crap?

Consider this hypothetical case: I'm developing prototypes. If those games go into full production, chances are all of my work will be thrown out, and for good reason; I'm not a programmer. I'm copying and pasting and haxx0ring and faking things to get them to work. Let's say one of these games came out next year, and I don't do any additional work; how do I get credited? My contribution might have been key to getting something signed, because a prototype is better than a pitch doc. But at the same time, nothing I did is in the final product. Is that more valuable than "additional whatever?" Or is it less valuable than a full design/writing/programming credit, or whatever it is you're working on during the prototype stage.

You could conceivably do something like this:

Proto Team
Core Development Team
Additional Development Team

Or something like that which separates out people into the different stages of a game's development. Do people get multiple credits if they stick around or their work is used? I have no idea. Maybe some people do it this way, I don't know.

[TheJare]

But what I don't understand is the idea that getting a credit is a reason to stick with a job they may hate.

There's a wide range between being very happy with your job, and hating it. I'd argue that anything that makes someone stay at a job they hate hurts the employer more than the employee, so in that sense rewarding people for staying is a double-edged sword. :)

[StGabe]

I think all of those could have unique situations that make it difficult to make blanket statements like, "Anyone that leaves goes into "additional programming." What if that person wrote the engine in 2 years before leaving? What if the person who missed the first year re-wrote the engine that the guy that left wrote, because it was crap?

Generally I think that anyone who contributed should get some form of credit. By default they should get something like "additional programming" and for exceptional cases, they should keep their full title.

If you have an employee who spends two years writing a crappy engine then that's the company's fault for hiring him in the first place and then keeping him on. It doesn't make sense to have a company-wide policy that will punish other, more deserving cases, just because the company may waste some time.

Prototype development is part of the creative process and should be credited even if not a single bit of it goes into the final product. If a prototype does nothing but prove that a certain idea is really bad then it still served a pretty important role in the process.

[nothings]

Just to make sure the specifics are clear, they explicitly state that if you leave early you probably won't be included.

They aren't excluding anybody. They are failing to include some according to clearly defined criteria with good real-world reasons behind them.

You know, laziness would be a nice, straightforward, sane explanation. I originally figured that maybe was the explanation and the other stuff was spin, but then Mark Jacobs went and explicitly stated all his reasons for it in this thread, and "the difficulty of keeping track" didn't seem to enter into it.

Going back to his original quotes:

If you’re part of the team when we launch, you deserve to be in the credits. No question about it. That, in my estimation, is what the credits are for.That is just a dumb call and as far as I can see his "clarifications" on this thread have in no way contradicted it. (Maybe I missed something, since multiple people seem to have changed their perception of the situation from his posts.)

I wouldn't work for a company that had that policy. That's not what credit is.

(Would you really want to exclude an employee who left the project towards the end because they were pregnant? Ok, so you make exceptions. Do you want to draw a line between people who went to work for a competitor, people who left because they got pregnant, or people who left because their wife got pregnant and they left the industry for a job making more money? They all did the same effing work. That's what credit is.)

[merryprankster]

Why on earth would someone who bails on a project mid-stream expect credit for it. I own a housing development firm and I certainly give no recognition to sub-contractors who bail on my projects part way through.

Now if someone has to leave due to circustances beyond thier control (Illness, etc..) that's fine, but It sounds like these guys just bailed on a project and then wanted recognition for it. Am I the only one who thinks that is just a little crazy.

[Conrad]

If we're talking about a demoted credit such as "additional programming" I can't figure out why anyone would care.

I may have agreed with this earlier in my career, but having experienced this precise situation, it turned out that I cared. It felt like a lack of appreciation for the significant contributions and effort I had given to an ultimately successful product. I didn't care enough to make a fuss or anything, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed.

[Brad Wardell]

Not to throw gas on this but at Stardock, if someone leaves significantly before the game ships giving credit is at our discretion.

I don't think non-developers realize how disruptive it is to a project when someone leaves before it's done. I can say that it really is aggravating to the team in general and to me in particular when someone leaves. Now, at our company, that hasn't happened in years but it has happened and I've seen it happen at partner companies and it's very disruptive.

[Kool Moe Dee]

I totally understand why someone wants public credit for their work, and even said I believe everyone should be credited. But what I don't understand is the idea that getting a credit is a reason to stick with a job they may hate. Money, QOL, sure. Having your name on the in-game credits menu? Really?

I don't think it's a reason to stick around, so we're in agreement there. I think it's crappy behavior on the part of the company to remove credit.

I am curious, though, how those who value credits feel when they've spent 3-4 years working on something feel about sharing credit with people who bailed a year earlier, or who worked for six months at the end, or whose work they ended up redoing and replacing. Is it as satisfying? Maybe you're just happy to see your name there, I dunno. Like I said, I personally don't care all that much about credits, but I still support everyone being credited.

In general, people want to be credited for the work that they have done. Unless there is a really extreme case, developers do not generally begrudge other developers their credit. I've been on projects where people in key positions have been fired or have left the company, and never heard anyone (even people that didn't like them at all) voice any concern about them being credited for their work.

Why on earth would someone who bails on a project mid-stream expect credit for it. I own a housing development firm and I certainly give no recognition to sub-contractors who bail on my projects part way through.


Games/movies/music/creative works != housing.

[Kool Moe Dee]

I don't think non-developers realize how disruptive it is to a project when someone leaves before it's done. I can say that it really is aggravating to the team in general and to me in particular when someone leaves. Now, at our company, that hasn't happened in years but it has happened and I've seen it happen at partner companies and it's very disruptive.

No one is saying that it isn't disruptive, and I've had to deal with the fallout from those kinds of moves as well. However, unless you explicitly signed up your employees to a project-based contract, bitching about them leaving (pursuing personal opportunities, or moving on to something they find more appealing) is pretty precious. People have their own personal plans for their lives, and you shouldn't be surprised if your company isn't part of the long-term plan.

In general, employees will show at least as much loyalty to a company as they get in return. Companies that fail to go to bat for their employees, or to treat them like human beings, will reap the rewards of their behavior.

[merryprankster]

Games/movies/music/creative works != housing.


Principles are principles. If you sign on for something I feel it is important to see it through, whether your building a home or a game is irrelevent.

[nothings]

If you sign on for something I feel it is important to see it through
Most game developers are salaried employees who are not hired for any particular period of time nor for any particular project.

[Conrad]

In general, employees will show at least as much loyalty to a company as they get in return. Companies that fail to go to bat for their employees, or to treat them like human beings, will reap the rewards of their behavior.

Nailed it.


If you sign on for something I feel it is important to see it through, whether your building a home or a game is irrelevent.

It's a nice concept, but hardly an iron-clad "principle".

[peterb]

In general, employees will show at least as much loyalty to a company as they get in return. Companies that fail to go to bat for their employees, or to treat them like human beings, will reap the rewards of their behavior.

Yeah. We call those rewards "cash!"

But seriously, the issue here is that I think there is fundamental disagreement that "not listing an ex-employee in the credits of a product" is the same thing as "not treating employees like human beings."

If a place on the credits is so very important to a developer, then the developer should negotiate that into her or his contract when hired. If the developer doesn't do that, then I guess it wasn't as important as some people, post-facto, claim.

As a working developer, the most important thing for me is that people buy the product. It would never occur to me to get snitty about not having my name in a manual somewhere because it just doesn't matter to me. I appreciate that it matters to some people, which is why I'm saying that if it matters that much to get credit after they leave, make it a condition of employment. We can all agree that it is generally in a company's best interests to provide a professional, congenial, and productive work environment. Providing credits to current employees certainly qualifies as one such way to do so. But I think claiming that as part of doing that you're required to extend non-negotiated privileges to workers who quit is, quite frankly, an extraordinary claim. To excoriate companies for not doing anything they're not required to for ex-employees is just silly.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Principles are principles. If you sign on for something I feel it is important to see it through, whether your building a home or a game is irrelevent.

My new favorite example (taken from another forum) for pointing out why this is ridiculous is that, by your standards, Heath Ledger's name would be removed from the credits of The Dark Knight because he failed to "see it through."

[Matthew Gallant]

I don't think non-developers realize how disruptive it is to a project when someone leaves before it's done.Well, I expect that if your safeguard against that is leaving someone off the credits, the non-non-developer is not realizing how disruptive it is either.

If someone is going to give me a 30+% raise in a lower cost of living area and you don't even want to give me an idea of what I'll be doing post-ship, just a 10% counter-offer, you can have my credit. Credits don't get matched in my 401(k), pal.

[Brad Wardell]

No one is saying that it isn't disruptive, and I've had to deal with the fallout from those kinds of moves as well. However, unless you explicitly signed up your employees to a project-based contract, bitching about them leaving (pursuing personal opportunities, or moving on to something they find more appealing) is pretty precious. People have their own personal plans for their lives, and you shouldn't be surprised if your company isn't part of the long-term plan.

In general, employees will show at least as much loyalty to a company as they get in return. Companies that fail to go to bat for their employees, or to treat them like human beings, will reap the rewards of their behavior.

That's fine. As long as they don't bitch about getting "sufficient" credit.

After all, to use your logic, unless they explicitly signed an agreement to have their name in the credits, them bitching about not being in the credits is something they shouldn't be surprised about.

In general, a company will show at least as much loyalty to an employee as they get in return. Employees who fail to stay around to finish a project will reap the rewards of that behavior.

[Brad Wardell]

Well, I expect that if your safeguard against that is leaving someone off the credits, the non-non-developer is not realizing how disruptive it is either.

If someone is going to give me a 30+% raise in a lower cost of living area and you don't even want to give me an idea of what I'll be doing post-ship, just a 10% counter-offer, you can have my credit. Credits don't get matched in my 401(k), pal.

I'm with you on that. That's the point though - if someone leaves a project for some reason, the people remaining who see it through have every right to use their own discretion on what's shown.

Companies, in my experience, very rarely get particularly involved over who shows up in the credits. Where I work, it's the teams themselves that put that information together.

There is *generally* an unspoken rule in game development - you stay until the game is complete. They aren't legally obligated to stay. People can go anytime they choose to. But at the same time, I find it pretty hypocritical if someone who leaves a game mid-development to complain about not being in the credits. It's not just evil corporate suits that get annoyed when someone leaves mid-project, it's usually the team itself that gets pissed off the most.

[Miramon]

Unwritten rule or not, I think it's pretty shabby to exclude someone from a credit when there are a myriad of possible circumstances that could come up to make it impossible or imprudent to stay on to the end. I hate being left in the lurch by team members as much as anyone else, but you can hardly resent someone moving on to a much better job, or who has to leave for health reasons or to take care of a family member or whatever.

I think Turbine chose some arbitrary cut-off date for LOTRO credits which excluded some of the original designers who had already left, but at least they didn't choose the ship date, they chose a date by which the game was substantially complete but still had, I think, half a year to go before ship, and they chose it retroactively, so everyone who was still there to hear the announcement knew they would be on the credit list.

[TheJare]

In general, a company will show at least as much loyalty to an employee as they get in return.

So the credits act as a sort of severance package that the employee pays the company if he leaves? That's an interesting take. Is that quid pro quo philosophy applied in all HR policies? it's usually the team itself that gets pissed off the most.

That's definitely not my experience. The team may be unhappy about the disruption, but they are rarely angry AT the person.

[Conrad]

There is *generally* an unspoken rule in game development - you stay until the game is complete.

In my experience, the general understanding is more "leaving before the game is complete may be considered a dick move". There are many factors that influence what's considered an "acceptable" departure.

e.g.
- How close the project is to completion.
- How close the project is to a major milestone.
- The usefulness of that team member to the project.
- Project outlook and team morale.
- The team member's new position or company.
- How much notice the team member gives.
- How well-liked the team member was in the first place.

... and so on.

[Brad Wardell]

I am curious, though, how those who value credits feel when they've spent 3-4 years working on something feel about sharing credit with people who bailed a year earlier, or who worked for six months at the end, or whose work they ended up redoing and replacing. Is it as satisfying? Maybe you're just happy to see your name there, I dunno. Like I said, I personally don't care all that much about credits, but I still support everyone being credited.

That's exactly the thing. Making a game isn't something one just whips out. Years are spent on them and it's not like the credits are granulated enough that they can make a distinction between someone who spent 4 years on the project - including the last 4 months of massive crunch time and then the guy who was on the game for say 6 months and left for whatever reason.

I'm not saying someone shouldn't get credit, but it should be at the discretion of the TEAM.

[Brad Wardell]

Unwritten rule or not, I think it's pretty shabby to exclude someone from a credit when there are a myriad of possible circumstances that could come up to make it impossible or imprudent to stay on to the end. I hate being left in the lurch by team members as much as anyone else, but you can hardly resent someone moving on to a much better job, or who has to leave for health reasons or to take care of a family member or whatever.


I didn't say someone should be excluded. I said it should be at the discretion of the team who finished it to decide what credit, if any, the person who left should get.

There's people in the Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar credits who left 2 years prior. It's on a case by case basis.

[Brad Wardell]

So the credits act as a sort of severance package that the employee pays the company if he leaves? That's an interesting take. Is that quid pro quo philosophy applied in all HR policies?
.

No, I was simply wording the previous person's response to fit the reverse.

Original:
In general, employees will show at least as much loyalty to a company as they get in return. Companies that fail to go to bat for their employees, or to treat them like human beings, will reap the rewards of their behavior.

That is, if someone is going to take the view that developers don't owe companies loyalty then isn't the reverse true as well?

[Brad Wardell]

Re people staying on until the game is done.

It's a nice concept, but hardly an iron-clad "principle".

And neither is listing former employees in the credits.

It's done on a case by case basis.

As you said:

In my experience, the general understanding is more "leaving before the game is complete may be considered a dick move". There are many factors that influence what's considered an "acceptable" departure.

e.g.
- How close the project is to completion.
- How close the project is to a major milestone.
- The usefulness of that team member to the project.
- Project outlook and team morale.
- The team member's new position or company.
- How much notice the team member gives.
- How well-liked the team member was in the first place.


There's no hard and fast rule. But there's definitely not an "iron-clad" understanding that somenoe should be listed in the credits simply because at some point of the project they were involved.

[Miramon]

That is, if someone is going to take the view that developers don't owe companies loyalty then isn't the reverse true as well?

Kind of. But....

I think loyalty must start with the company leadership and with management. They are the people in the position of authority, relative wealth, and relative power. The relationship between management and workers is far from symmetrical.

I doubt most game company employees make enough money to save on; at least at Turbine most of my colleagues were living hand to mouth on very tight budgets. I was more or less working for the love of it, losing about $10K-$15K a year after my pathetic salary for the privilege of making a game, but I could afford it, where some other people couldn't.

In this kind of circumstance, it's unreasonable to expect employee loyalty, when another $10,000 a year may make all the difference to a family.

So anyhow, if a company bends over backwards to be solicitous to its workers, does its utmost to make the workplace friendly and supportive, pays its employees as much as the enterprise can afford, well, then, perhaps some loyalty is indicated from the employees as well. However, I doubt this is a universal situation in any industry, much less in the generally amateurishly run game industry.

[Conrad]

But there's definitely not an "iron-clad" understanding that someone should be listed in the credits simply because at some point of the project they were involved.

I agree with this. My apologies if I implied otherwise.

That said, I don't think credits should be treated as a bonus or reward. They should be a general account of who contributed what, to the extent that's possible anyway. So while leaving early in dick-move fashion might not earn you the benefit of the doubt, if it doesn't negate your contribution, it shouldn't diminish your credit.

[peterb]

I doubt most game company employees make enough money to save on; at least at Turbine most of my colleagues were living hand to mouth on very tight budgets. I was more or less working for the love of it, losing about $10K-$15K a year after my pathetic salary for the privilege of making a game, but I could afford it, where some other people couldn't.

I am not in any way criticizing you here, but as a professional software developer I have to say: that is completely insane.

I guess my perspective on this is very simple: professionals are paid. The best professionals are paid more. Working "for the love of it" sounds very well and fine, but I can't help but suspect the fact that the industry is, as you say, amateurishly run has something to do with people being willing to accept less than what their work should be worth, in dollars, because of the perceived cool value of games.

(Recognizing that the very concept of "what their work should be worth" is sort of slippery when there are tons of people lined up because it's cool, yadda yadda. I'm just saying.)

Put another way: if your experience is common, then the real travesty here is that people are talking about something as trivial as game credits when they should be focused on their financial bottom line.

[merryprankster]

Kind of. But....

I think loyalty must start with the company leadership and with management. They are the people in the position of authority, relative wealth, and relative power. The relationship between management and workers is far from symmetrical.

So anyhow, if a company bends over backwards to be solicitous to its workers, does its utmost to make the workplace friendly and supportive, pays its employees as much as the enterprise can afford, well, then, perhaps some loyalty is indicated from the employees as well. However, I doubt this is a universal situation in any industry, much less in the generally amateurishly run game industry.

I agree, It is certainly up to management to inspire loyalty from the staff. Though I don't think that creating a positive work environment excuses executives from properly compensating thier staff (though that seems to be the way many, many companies operate).

[Angie Gallant]

Yeah, unless you have been at a company for years and have become a part of the company identity, there's definitely the threat that you might be replaced at any moment with a single guy who is just out of college and will gleefully take next to no pay and work 18 hours a day to "pay his dues." It makes a lot of people scared to demand raises and willing to tolerate lower reviews than they ought, because a crap job in the game industry is still better to them than no job in the game industry.

[steve]

In this kind of circumstance, it's unreasonable to expect employee loyalty, when another $10,000 a year may make all the difference to a family.
And then we had the situation in the Flagship thread where people were picking apart things like company picnics, when the reality is that a game company's burn rate is mostly based on what it pays its employees. That additional $10K a year would be awesome, but you'd probably lose 1/5 people because game budgets, while higher than they used to be, aren't as extravagant as people think.

Yeah, unless you have been at a company for years and have become a part of the company identity, there's definitely the threat that you might be replaced at any moment with a single guy who is just out of college and will gleefully take next to no pay and work 18 hours a day to "pay his dues."
Isn't this true for most entry-level, non-union work?

[Angie Gallant]

I'm not necessarily talking about entry-level guys here. I've known skilled workers who have been with the same company for several years who are still silenced by these fears because they have seen it happen to their peers.

[steve]

I'm not necessarily talking about entry-level guys here. I've known skilled workers who have been with the same company for several years who are still silenced by these fears because they have seen it happen to their peers.
Fair enough. But are there any non-union jobs where people have no fear of being replaced by younger, cheaper labor?

If you assume regular cost-of-living increases, people can become incredibly expensive in a very short amount of time. But are they making themselves more valuable at the same rate? While we'd love to think experience is the most important quality for an employee to possess, the reality is that most projects can't be staffed exclusively by senior people due to costs. So I think it's critical to make yourself more valuable.

For example, I'm not in a technical position. While I could sit around waiting for tasks, I've learned enough Flash to prototype some UIs. Now I'm scripting and doing some content engineering/designing. Though I can't do any of these things as well as actual designers or engineers, I feel like I'm doing more to justify my existence.

[roguefrog]

If the guys work contributed to the product that shipped, credit him. I don't really care if the guy left on year 25 of Duke Nukem Forever's 250 year dev cycle, if they're still using his code he should be credited.

This apparent need to show granularity between the people in the credits to the point of omitting people because their contribution barely registers compared to the core people is what is wrong.

[Angie Gallant]

At the same time, do you want to spend time creating more work for yourself if you feel like the company isn't interested in investing in you? It's a problem on both sides. I've seen guys work themselves into oblivion on projects because they were terrified of being replaced, just to get replaced by a younger single guy anyway. And that sent the message loud and clear to everyone else on their team that it doesn't matter what they do, they are disposable. You keep costs down, but you also kill morale which kills any idea of loyalty.

Obviously this is a balancing act for everyone involved. And you do get the numbnuts that thinks that if he just warms his seat every day for long enough he's gonna luck his way into the position he actually wants instead of the one he applied for. I'm just saying it's hard to feel loyalty to a company, enough to pass up other opportunities elsewhere in order to finish a product, when you suspect they don't feel any loyalty towards you.

[Kyle Wilson]

There's no hard and fast rule. But there's definitely not an "iron-clad" understanding that somenoe should be listed in the credits simply because at some point of the project they were involved.

Unless you ask the IGDA (http://www.igda.org/credit/). The closest thing there is to a standard in this industry is

Any person, contractor or employee, who has contributed to the production of the game for at least 30 days of a 12-month or greater project must be credited. For projects shorter than 12 months, any person who has contributed during 10% of the project's total time in development must also be credited.

That rule is obviously subject to debate. But problems arise when there isn't any rule, and executives start including some developers while denying others who put in more time on the project.

As the IGDA says,

Credits are to reflect the role served, not the condition in which the role was served. In addition, rather than reflect how well a person performed his or her role, credits should reflect only the position held on the team.

The function of credits isn't to punish or reward. It's to indicate, according to some fixed standard, who contributed time to the production of a product. Excluding people who quit and leave the team in a bind is as nonsensical as excluding programmers who stayed for the entire project but wrote bad code. God knows there have been times when I wanted to tell someone, "You created more work for other people than you accomplished yourself, and we're leaving you out of the credits because your net contribution to this project is negative." But there's no place for that kind of behavior in a civilized industry.

Nothing Mark Jacobs says makes me want to work at Mythic even a little bit.

[MBJ]

Well, thanks for clearing things up. The only impressions most of us had to go on were the interviews and coverage that's been popping up all over the place (thanks to Shacknews).

It really does sound like some of the guys who left really left the team in a lurch. For what it's worth, I wouldn't like seeing their credits next to my own if I had to pick up the slack from where they left off.

Apologies for calling you a 'giant ego'. Heh. :)

p.s. I do still think the Warhammer references that Paul makes are nerdy as sin.

No problem at all, I've been called worse this week. :)

In terms of Paul, he's really a fascinating guy and a good friend. Old school MUDer like me (he created Terris) and he truly loves the GW IP. Some devs pretend to like an IP when they sign a license deal "This is the game we've always wanted to do!!!!" but Paul really, really does love the IP without being slavishly devoted to keeping it 100% pure, a rare combination. After I signed the deal with GW, he left his home in England to come to work with us on the game and he's been at Mythic ever since.

Mark

[steve]

At the same time, do you want to spend time creating more work for yourself if you feel like the company isn't interested in investing in you?
I see it more as making myself a more well-rounded employee for my existing or future employer. It's not like my UI or scripting experience will be useless elsewhere. It's resume material.

I think that a lot of people in the game industry have a skewed perspective because few have been in other fields. This makes their perspective of how things are, and how they should be, rather unique.

I've laid people off, and been privy to the financials that forced the company down that path. I'm loyal to a fault, feeling that a company shows me loyalty by continuing to employ me and give me a paycheck; everything beyond that is gravy. (I've never asked for a raise in my life.) So maybe people like me are part of the problem, I don't know.

[Angie Gallant]

I shake my righteous fist at you and your contentment!

[steve]

I keep forgetting to use my angry message board tone.

Fuck every company.

[Dave Weinstein]

Look, if it came down to "we lay off these people before the project is over, or we go out of business", companies would lay off those employees. Hell, this is still an industry where getting layed off as the reward for shipping a title isn't uncommon.

And if that's the case, then it is unreasonable to condemn employees for leaving before the project is over if they need to.

I stated my rule of thumb above; payment is for work, credits are for work that was used in the final product.

Games are a glamour industry, and in fact, the work practices of the industry are based off of that fact. Credit issues go hand in hand with that.

[Crater]

I think Turbine chose some arbitrary cut-off date for LOTRO credits which excluded some of the original designers who had already left, but at least they didn't choose the ship date, they chose a date by which the game was substantially complete but still had, I think, half a year to go before ship, and they chose it retroactively, so everyone who was still there to hear the announcement knew they would be on the credit list.

I'm surprised you forgot the drama! Internally, the management at Turbine initially announced a plan similar to the plan proposed by Mythic. The plan was just to include people within that time window. But when a game takes 4+ years to release, is that really fair? Quite a few people (including myself) got worked up over it. In short, the internal debate mirrored that of this thread.

IMHO, a pretty reasonable compromise was reached - Those inside the window were given their full titles in the game credits, and the rest of the former employees were listed with "Additional" art/engineering/sound.

The best argument I heard came from one of the art leads, who said "For all the hard work and late nights that people put in here, it's the least we can do to add someone's name to a text file. It's good karma, and it doesn't cost us anything".


There is *generally* an unspoken rule in game development - you stay until the game is complete. They aren't legally obligated to stay. People can go anytime they choose to. But at the same time, I find it pretty hypocritical if someone who leaves a game mid-development to complain about not being in the credits. It's not just evil corporate suits that get annoyed when someone leaves mid-project, it's usually the team itself that gets pissed off the most.

I think most people agree that you should stay until the project is done, but four years is a long time. Especially if the timeframe of a project changes. If you sign up for a project and are told it is shipping in two years, what happens when it's pushed out a year? And then another year? You've put in a good faith effort, but the situation has changed.

The people that are there when the game went gold deserve to be listed in the credits. But I don't see how it harms the existing staff if other contributors to the game are listed. After the changes to the credits at Turbine, I was asked "Isn't the credit scroll going to take forever?" To which my response was "Yes, but those with their name in the credits will look at them, and they won't care how long it takes".

And that's the part I don't get, at least from the management side. It costs so little to put someone's name in the credits, and it earns a lot of goodwill. The argument against is typically along of the lines of "They left, so they don't deserve a mention". It seems punitive, rather than acknowledging the contributions that were made.

[Miramon]

I am not in any way criticizing you here, but as a professional software developer I have to say: that is completely insane.
You are absolutely right; it is insane. Anyone with half-decent C++ or Java skills can make more money in their second year out of college working for Fidelity or someplace like that than a master of quaternions and multithreading working for a game company. Of course there are exceptions -- I'm sure lead engineers at EA or Konami or other major studios make at least adequate money in return for the incredible hours -- but the rank and file appears to be working for a pittance, despite often possessing superior engineering and art skills compared to average professionals in other commercial fields.

(Low designer salaries may be only fair, considering that most game designer skills are more or less irrelevant to other industries anyway -- saying this as a former designer :))

The industry is evidently diseased, not only for that reason, but numerous others, including pervasive NIH syndrome, low quality development practices, terrible project management and "production", some bizarre idea that crunching is a way of life, and a perverted value chain that seems to short many studios from receiving a fair share of profits, such as they are, and which no doubt leads to many of these other problems indirectly.

So considering how poor the pay is, how likely layoffs and studio failures are, how low the quality of life is in general, you'd think the least a studio could do is to list all the workers on the credits (a list that costs them nothing after all) so long as they weren't actively baneful to the project, i.e. so long as they weren't actually fired.

[Sol Invictus]

No problem at all, I've been called worse this week. :)

In terms of Paul, he's really a fascinating guy and a good friend. Old school MUDer like me (he created Terris) and he truly loves the GW IP. Some devs pretend to like an IP when they sign a license deal "This is the game we've always wanted to do!!!!" but Paul really, really does love the IP without being slavishly devoted to keeping it 100% pure, a rare combination. After I signed the deal with GW, he left his home in England to come to work with us on the game and he's been at Mythic ever since.

Mark

I am humbled by your words.

Regarding Paul, when I saw the interviews and such I really thought he was simply putting it on to cater to the Warhammer base, but based on what you've said about the guy, and looking back at some of the videos, I can believe that he really is as genuinely into the game as he seems. That's really cool, actually. It's not common to see that sort of thing.

Count me as being a bit jaded, I suppose. I've known (and still know) many people who prop up the game they're working on as if it was the best thing in the world, but it hardly ever reflects on what they really feel about the game. Sometimes, they'll insist they enjoy it and expect others to do so, but it comes off as self-deception or denial, especially when the game or the setting isn't anywhere one would describe as 'good'. They'll talk it up to whoever they're trying to hawk it to, but they won't even spend an hour playing the game themselves.

[Harkonis]

Definitely put me in the camp of 'no big deal'.

Like Rollory mentioned, you put together the list of who's around at launch and that's that. People that come onboard and help post launch might work just as hard, but you don't add them to the credits with a patch every time.

I just dont' really see the issue.

Glad Mark popped in though, I thought that showed some class.

[Miramon]

. People that come onboard and help post launch might work just as hard, but you don't add them to the credits with a patch every time.
Well, actually I think you do for an MMO Live Team.

[Lum]

Well, actually I think you do for an MMO Live Team.

No. They generally get refreshed when an expansion comes out.

[JM]

Regarding Paul - Sol, if you haven't read RPS' interviews with him you should do. Some very interesting stuff in there.

[MBJ]

I am humbled by your words.

Regarding Paul, when I saw the interviews and such I really thought he was simply putting it on to cater to the Warhammer base, but based on what you've said about the guy, and looking back at some of the videos, I can believe that he really is as genuinely into the game as he seems. That's really cool, actually. It's not common to see that sort of thing.

Count me as being a bit jaded, I suppose. I've known (and still know) many people who prop up the game they're working on as if it was the best thing in the world, but it hardly ever reflects on what they really feel about the game. Sometimes, they'll insist they enjoy it and expect others to do so, but it comes off as self-deception or denial, especially when the game or the setting isn't anywhere one would describe as 'good'. They'll talk it up to whoever they're trying to hawk it to, but they won't even spend an hour playing the game themselves.

QFT. I've been pretty lucky in some ways when it comes to making games. Only on a couple of occasions I had to get gigs on games that I knew weren't going to be really successful no matter what we did. But if it's that or put people out of work, you take the gig and do the best job you can. However, I always told the publisher/licensor that I thought that they were making a mistake so my conscience was clear.

Mark

[KieronGillen]

Regarding Paul - Sol, if you haven't read RPS' interviews with him you should do. Some very interesting stuff in there.

Which reminds me that I should transcribe the next part.

KG

[Brad Wardell]

If the guys work contributed to the product that shipped, credit him. I don't really care if the guy left on year 25 of Duke Nukem Forever's 250 year dev cycle, if they're still using his code he should be credited.

This apparent need to show granularity between the people in the credits to the point of omitting people because their contribution barely registers compared to the core people is what is wrong.

Being the bastard that I am, I would say that anyone who thinks it's okay to leave a project midway through for purely financial reasons is someone that I would tell not to apply at my company - ever.

I'm perfectly happy to tell people - up front - that if they leave a project before it's done then it's at the discretion of the team if they get mentioned in the credits. They still might get mentioned depending on their level of contribution, but it'll be up to us. If that's a problem for them, it's best they save themselves and us heartache and don't take a job with us in the first place. We have little patience for job hoppers.

[Dave Weinstein]

Being the bastard that I am, I would say that anyone who thinks it's okay to leave a project midway through for purely financial reasons is someone that I would tell not to apply at my company - ever.

So, does that mean you would never layoff an employee before a project was completed?

[Jab2565]

This is an interesting topic, right now my opinion is biased as someone who is trying to get in and has succeeded in getting credit mentions in a few games. For me, if the person's contribution to the title is used in the full game in any way I think you should include the person in the credits, perhaps just in the special thanks section. I think the line needs to be drawn of what are acceptable ways of leaving a project, leaving for a better paying job won't be high on any manager's list.

[Harkonis]

So, does that mean you would never layoff an employee before a project was completed?

That's a bit of a loaded question. If someone isn't performing, you really shouldn't have them onboard anyway so there's nothing wrong with letting them go.

[steve]

So, does that mean you would never layoff an employee before a project was completed?
He does specify leaving for "purely financial reasons," so a more fair version of your question is, "would you never layoff an employee so the game could make more money?" Because "purely financial reasons" from a small company perspective is often a choice between laying some people off or making payroll.

The greed argument is probably more relevant to the big publishers, who may still be profitable but not quite profitable enough.

[Dave Weinstein]

That's a bit of a loaded question. If someone isn't performing, you really shouldn't have them onboard anyway so there's nothing wrong with letting them go.

That is why I said "layoff" and not "fire".

You fire people for not performing. You lay them off because you can't afford their work.

[Dave Weinstein]

He does specify leaving for "purely financial reasons," so a more fair version of your question is, "would you never layoff an employee so the game could make more money?" Because "purely financial reasons" from a small company perspective is often a choice between laying some people off or making payroll.

The greed argument is probably more relevant to the big publishers, who may still be profitable but not quite profitable enough.

Purely financial reasons include "because if I don't make more money, we can't meet our expenses". For both companies and individuals.

The greed argument is much more "if you leave before the project is over, you are a traitor, but after the project is over we can pink slip the entire team to save money", which still happens far too often.

If it is valid for companies to do things "because it is business", then they need to stop taking it "personal" if employees do the same things for the same reasons.

And withholding credit is punishment; it is clearly designed to punish people for having the temerity to leave before the project ships. But if the act is only punishable when the employee does it, and not when the employer does it, I'd call that hypocrisy.

[Dave Weinstein]

Oh, and one more case that I almost forgot.

Laying people off because you don't need their skills on any of the projects you have in production; they've done what they needed to do on their current project, and you don't have anything for them to do, even though the project isn't over yet.

It certainly happens. It's the advanced placement version of laying people off after ship.

[corsair]

I'm surprised you forgot the drama! Internally, the management at Turbine initially announced a plan similar to the plan proposed by Mythic. The plan was just to include people within that time window. But when a game takes 4+ years to release, is that really fair? Quite a few people (including myself) got worked up over it. In short, the internal debate mirrored that of this thread.

IMHO, a pretty reasonable compromise was reached - Those inside the window were given their full titles in the game credits, and the rest of the former employees were listed with "Additional" art/engineering/sound.

The best argument I heard came from one of the art leads, who said "For all the hard work and late nights that people put in here, it's the least we can do to add someone's name to a text file. It's good karma, and it doesn't cost us anything".



I think most people agree that you should stay until the project is done, but four years is a long time. Especially if the timeframe of a project changes. If you sign up for a project and are told it is shipping in two years, what happens when it's pushed out a year? And then another year? You've put in a good faith effort, but the situation has changed.

The people that are there when the game went gold deserve to be listed in the credits. But I don't see how it harms the existing staff if other contributors to the game are listed. After the changes to the credits at Turbine, I was asked "Isn't the credit scroll going to take forever?" To which my response was "Yes, but those with their name in the credits will look at them, and they won't care how long it takes".

And that's the part I don't get, at least from the management side. It costs so little to put someone's name in the credits, and it earns a lot of goodwill. The argument against is typically along of the lines of "They left, so they don't deserve a mention". It seems punitive, rather than acknowledging the contributions that were made.

All excellent points. People who worked on projects were always crushed if they somehow got overlooked, and considering the sometimes abusive hours put in, acknowledging those contributions is pretty smart goodwill.

People who get hired and leave three months into the project are at the mercy of management. People who have been working for years for the company or even just on the project in question deserve a little more consideration. Opportunities do not always neatly coincide with project completions, and companies are often all too willing to dump people without warning or ceremony upon a project being completed.

I was involved in one of the more asinine denials of credit. The designer of one particular game for Interplay had completed his design - the game was itself was near completetion, but I was asked to add something to try and punch up the play a bit. I did maybe 10% of the final design. However, in the meantime, the designer got into some kind of argument with management and left on bad terms. They absolutely refused to give him any credit on the game. I felt extremely uncomfortable being listed as the sole designer - it just seemed like a lie to take full credit for something that maybe rated an "Additional Design" credit. So, I kept my name off - NO designer was listed for the game.

Though I did list the whole scenario in the Wikipedia entry many years later, so the designer finally got credit of sorts.

The whole thing is a two-way street. Screw over a developer by constant job-hopping or not delivering, and you'll get a reputation. At the same time, petulantly deny credit as a game producer enough times, and you'll get a reputation, too - who wants to work for a tyrant? There are good reasons to deny credit, but there are also dubious reasons (not passing judgment on the various cases mentioned beyond the specific one I mentioned).

[corsair]

Purely financial reasons include "because if I don't make more money, we can't meet our expenses". For both companies and individuals.

The greed argument is much more "if you leave before the project is over, you are a traitor, but after the project is over we can pink slip the entire team to save money", which still happens far too often.

If it is valid for companies to do things "because it is business", then they need to stop taking it "personal" if employees do the same things for the same reasons.

And withholding credit is punishment; it is clearly designed to punish people for having the temerity to leave before the project ships. But if the act is only punishable when the employee does it, and not when the employer does it, I'd call that hypocrisy.

Absolutely to all of that, and that extends beyond the software business, where employers expect you to be honest and loyal, but will lie to your face in saying your job is secure just to stop you from seeking employment on your terms rather than their convenience.

[Aeon221]

Being the bastard that I am, I would say that anyone who thinks it's okay to leave a project midway through for purely financial reasons is someone that I would tell not to apply at my company - ever.

I'm perfectly happy to tell people - up front - that if they leave a project before it's done then it's at the discretion of the team if they get mentioned in the credits. They still might get mentioned depending on their level of contribution, but it'll be up to us. If that's a problem for them, it's best they save themselves and us heartache and don't take a job with us in the first place. We have little patience for job hoppers.

It's terrifying that I can totally see you pointing to a team member and saying "I find your lack of faith disturbing." And meaning it.

Can you really truly honestly blame someone for wanting to live the dream of the Jeffersons and "move on up"?

[Miramon]

Being the bastard that I am, I would say that anyone who thinks it's okay to leave a project midway through for purely financial reasons is someone that I would tell not to apply at my company - ever.

"Purely financial reasons" are often the most important reasons there can be. Such reasons must not be deprecated in a capitalist society where so many benefits and losses can be translated into dollar equivalent quantities.

Much of quality of life is dependent on money in our society, as in most others. Surely it is wrong to resent a person's desire to improve their life? Since the employee was able to get a raise elsewhere, presumably that means the employee was underpaid in the current position, or else perhaps they deserved a promotion. If the employee in fact wasn't that competent, and some other employer made a mistake in offering them more money, well then you weren't losing anyone who was all that important anyway.

It's almost certainly the case that the terms of employment stated explicitly that either party is entitled to terminate the employment arrangement at any time. The employer and the employee both signed this document which stated very clearly that neither side had any persisting obligation to one another. If you as the employer write this kind of offer letter, or if you've ever laid anyone off (as opposed to firing them for poor performance) then I really think there is little basis for resentment.

That all being said, it does seem rather abjectly pathetic for someone to reapply to a company they left under such circumstances, so inconsistent as it may be with my above arguments, I must admit I wouldn't have much sympathy for them either if I was the hiring manager.....

[Dean]

Something that seems overlooked in the discussion is that in theater and movies, productions companies are formed specifically for a particular project and then dissolved after the project, so without a particular place to call afterwards, there is no way to check on employment other than checking the credits.

So saying, "If someone needs employment confirmed, they can just call the company and we will confirm" is fine until your company no longer exists.

The entertainment industry is volatile, companies come and go, and credits are a means to keep a record of employment despite that volatility. The movie industry recognizes that and the game industry should recognize that.

And saying that this discussion is moot because it originates from a disgruntled employee is beside the point. It's a topic that should be discussed, and that's why it has legs.

[Dave Weinstein]

Actually, because of the lack of crediting standards in the Game Industry, and because it is unfortunately common for people to be under-credited or uncredited for actual work, it actually is easier for people to lie on resumes by claiming to have worked on titles they didn't have anything to do with.

And if they happened to be at the right company at the right time; well, in these litigous times the company is almost certainly going to only confirm dates of employment.

[checker]

if they're still using his code he should be credited.I agree with this. I would even broaden it to "using his or her contribution", even though that's harder to quantify, but certainly, as a minimum bar, if you have an asset in the shipping game you get a credit. There are plenty of people who left Spore during its >5 year development, and even though I stayed through ship and was there much longer than most people, I think those people who left deserve credits. I think the idea that you have to stay through ship or you didn't provide value is one of the things wrong with our industry, especially as disciplines get more specialized and development cycles get longer.

We put the people who left in a section called "Development Past", but with titles. I just checked mobygames for the CC and they didn't preserve that section heading, so those people all get full peer credit, which is fine with me; if you have to err on one side or the other (no credit) then this is the right side.

As Dave says, standards for credits would help a lot here.

Chris

[beloved one]

Being the bastard that I am, I would say that anyone who thinks it's okay to leave a project midway through for purely financial reasons is someone that I would tell not to apply at my company - ever.

How about the shoe being on the other foot -- plenty of people are let go for purely financial reasons. To be cute, they technically fall under your broad umbrella of people that "leave a project midway through for purely financial reasons".

Employee turnover (for financial reasons) is a fact of life, for both the employer and the employee. If one person is completely irreplaceable and nobody else has any clue how he is making things work, either your project is tiny or you are managing the work wrong.

[Dave Weinstein]

As Dave says, standards for credits would help a lot here.

IGDA Game Crediting Guide (http://www.igda.org/wiki/IGDA_Credits_and_Awards_Committee#Game_Crediting_G uide.2C_Draft_8-5_Beta.2C_April_2007)

[TheJare]

You fire people for not performing.

Not exactly. You fire people for not performing up to a certain standard that you set. That standard is based on:

- your personal experience, what you have found that is reasonable to expect.

- your other staff and how well they are currently performing.

- the likely performance of available replacements for that role.

I don't understand how Brad is implying that employees shouldn't have a similar set of criteria for evaluating if they should leave (i.e. "fire" their current employer) - and that criteria definitely includes financial compensation. If I fire someone, I understand that they are not going to be happy, but I hope that they won't take it personally. In the same vein, if someone leaves my company for a better opportunity, I won't be happy and it will suck, but I don't find it reasonable to liberally apply insulting labels like "job hopper".

PS: yeah, there are additional considerations for firing someone, like budget, morale, loyalty, personal considerations, etc. And yeah, there are also "eternally unsatisfied job hoppers" that will misrepresent their commitment to their employer, just like there are "eternally in crisis sweatshop" companies that will misrepresent their commitment to their employees. If you (as an employer or as an employee) are running into these often, you should look at fixing what's wrong with your own methods rather than thinking of ways to punish their sins. They should really be the exception.

[corsair]

And saying that this discussion is moot because it originates from a disgruntled employee is beside the point. It's a topic that should be discussed, and that's why it has legs.

There's also the whole company's stock usage of the "disgruntled employee" description as a pejorative. If the company is denying credit, then that sounds like a "disgruntled employer" and now the pejorative is on the other foot, and yet, how many times have you heard that? Ever?

Yes, I have seen wackos making a fuss and they are the type to constantly be "disgruntled", but when it is used in relationship to every single employee/employer dispute, it becomes an intellectually dishonest tactic by companies to immediately put the employee on the defensive and attempt to stigmatize him as the problem rather than themselves (and again, I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone here, and am talking about employer/employees in general).

[Qenan]

If it is valid for companies to do things "because it is business", then they need to stop taking it "personal" if employees do the same things for the same reasons.

Amen.

[Brad Wardell]

How about the shoe being on the other foot -- plenty of people are let go for purely financial reasons. To be cute, they technically fall under your broad umbrella of people that "leave a project midway through for purely financial reasons".

Employee turnover (for financial reasons) is a fact of life, for both the employer and the employee. If one person is completely irreplaceable and nobody else has any clue how he is making things work, either your project is tiny or you are managing the work wrong.

If we had to lay someone off for financial reasons, we would most likely include them in the credits.

I've included people in the credits who left on their own years before.

See Mike Duffy:
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,145948/

He left Stardock in 1998 and he's on credits in games all the way into 2003 for Stardock (as well as Business Tycoon and Corporate Machien which were developed by us but published by others). That's because he wrote the foundation of the engine we used through the first Galactic Civilizations.

So even though he left (wasn't laid off, left) we still listed him in the credits (all those other credits on that page are a different Mike Duffy). So all of his Moby Games credits are from games he wasn't part of as an employee.

Like I said, it's about discretion. If I'm counting on someone to devleop a particle effects system for a game and he leaves a year before the game ships without the particle effects system being done but we still use 80% of his code to finish the particle effects, guess what? I'm probably not going to favor listing him in the credits and neither would much of the team in that instance. Part of that is "punishment" and part of it is a matter of balance - the guy who busts his butt for 3 years on game, stays through the launch and aftermath is not going to be terribly sympathetic to the guy who left right when it was getting tough, without even finishing his portion fo the game simply because he got a job offering $10K when he was already making $80k per year.

We have virtually no turn-over where I work. We screen for job hoppers to begin with. If the guy has had 5 jobs in 5 years, we won't hire them.

[StGabe]

If we had to lay someone off for financial reasons, we would most likely include them in the credits.

I don't think you're really responding to the criticism offered here. The criticism is that you "take it personal" when someone leaves your company based on a "business decision" and yet reserve the right to make similar decisions for your company based on "business decisions".

Like I said, it's about discretion.

But when you say discretion you really mean that you reserve the right to be personally punitive when in fact it should be completely impersonal. Credit people for what they do. Whether you like them or not is completely besides the point.

Also be aware that the philosophy you are describing for your company, to an audience of game developers, is pretty off-putting to potential future employees. I think half the point is that a lot of game developers end up feeling that employee/employer relationships are unequal. Employers hold a lot of the cards. Taking employee "business decisions" personally but assuming that it's ok for the employer to make "business decisions" is a good example. Having arbitrary and punitive criteria for crediting employees is another. Game developers frequently put a lot more into their work than would be expected in any other type of software development, and do it for less money. The least they deserve to expect in return is equal respect and the benefit of the doubt whenever it comes to giving recognition.

[JZigish]

If we had to lay someone off for financial reasons, we would most likely include them in the credits.
...
We have virtually no turn-over where I work. We screen for job hoppers to begin with. If the guy has had 5 jobs in 5 years, we won't hire them.

I think using discretion and individual choice in credits makes sense for a smaller studio with low turnover. We're kind of the same at the place I work, and leaving the company is generally a choice made for specific reasons, and not just a desire to make more money. Several of the people who left for purely financial reasons have come back when they realized there was more to what makes a good job than financial compensation. And, I don't think we've ever actually laid someone off.

The most common reason people leave is that they can't afford to raise a family with one earner in a large house in california, but I don't consider that to be a "purely financial reason". One of these days we need to open up a second studio somewher affordable...

[JM]

Actually, because of the lack of crediting standards in the Game Industry, and because it is unfortunately common for people to be under-credited or uncredited for actual work, it actually is easier for people to lie on resumes by claiming to have worked on titles they didn't have anything to do with.

And if they happened to be at the right company at the right time; well, in these litigous times the company is almost certainly going to only confirm dates of employment.

I don't understand the second paragraph. It sounds like you're trying to shoot down the "It's the whole point of checking references to find out if he's telling the truth" rebuttal to your first paragraph.

Virtually every other industry survives without credits when it comes to fact-checking employee resumes.

[steve]

The greed argument is much more "if you leave before the project is over, you are a traitor, but after the project is over we can pink slip the entire team to save money", which still happens far too often.
I think pink slipping a team is more likely to happen when the alternative is shutting down the entire studio, and I doubt people laid off would be left out of credits versus those who voluntarily leave, save weird examples like Clover and Okami. Mixing individuals and teams is muddying the issue, though.

If it is valid for companies to do things "because it is business", then they need to stop taking it "personal" if employees do the same things for the same reasons.
That's probably the best, most concise way to put the issue. The question is are credits a personal issue or a business one? For those who say it's cool to be credited, it sounds personal; for those who say they're important to their long-term career prospects, it sounds like business.

[Dave Weinstein]

I think pink slipping a team is more likely to happen when the alternative is shutting down the entire studio, and I doubt people laid off would be left out of credits versus those who voluntarily leave, save weird examples like Clover and Okami. Mixing individuals and teams is muddying the issue, though.

No, I don't think so.

It goes to the "unwritten rule" trying to skew things in the companies interests. If the company needs to let you go for financial reasons, then that is acceptable. If you leave the company for financial reasons, that is betrayal of the project and the team.

If an opportunity for you arises at a bad time for the company, you are expected to defer to the companies interests. But the company is free to lay you off after you've shipped that project, even if it is adverse to your interests.

There are two issues here.

One is the use of crediting as a means of punishing former employees. I think this is wrong, period.

The second is the propriety of leaving before the project completes. I've already discussed how this is skewed towards the companies interests, but there is another issue. The company has chosen to offer jobs on an at-will basis (as a general rule). It is explicitly stated that either party can terminate the relationship at any time, and every employee handbook I've ever had has stated at the top "This Is Not An Employment Contract".

So, I would suggest, if companies want employment to be other than at-will, they should do it above board -- through the use of employment contracts, rather than saying one thing and meaning another.

[steve]

It goes to the "unwritten rule" trying to skew things in the companies interests. If the company needs to let you go for financial reasons, then that is acceptable. If you leave the company for financial reasons, that is betrayal of the project and the team.
A company has everyone at the company to consider; an individual only has their own needs. Layoffs may be required to save the jobs of those who aren't laid off, while someone leaving a critical role at a critical time can have an enormous negative impact on those who remain.

I dunno, I've worked for a couple of incredibly shitty companies that screwed people out of salaries, bonuses, benefits, etc., but I don't have this "they're always out to screw you!" attitude that a lot of people use to rationalize a lot of shitty and selfish behavior. Bottom line: I'm free to go at any time, and they're free to get rid of me at any time. If they think I'm good, it's in their best interest to do what it takes to keep me, and if I dig my job, it's in my best interest to do what I can to continue justifying my existence. I don't see the imbalance.

One is the use of crediting as a means of punishing former employees. I think this is wrong, period.
I agree, though I'd hate to make blanket policies and would rather take these things on case-by-case basis. The guy who leaves because he wanted to move closer to his family, fine. The guy who walks out the door saying, "Fuck you all, I'm getting a Porsche now!" Not so much.

But I still don't understand why the in-game credit matters so much to people.

[Dave Weinstein]

A company has everyone at the company to consider; an individual only has their own needs. Layoffs may be required to save the jobs of those who aren't laid off, while someone leaving a critical role at a critical time can have an enormous negative impact on those who remain.

Being laid off at a critical time can have enormous negative impact on the employee (bankruptcy, loss of housing, collapse of marriage, loss of health care).

Both parties are capable of hurting each other, no doubt. But you are arguing that it is ok for the company to consider the needs of the company over the individual, but not for the individual to consider their needs over the needs of the company.

My contention is that what is fair for one, is fair for the other.

Bottom line: I'm free to go at any time, and they're free to get rid of me at any time. If they think I'm good, it's in their best interest to do what it takes to keep me, and if I dig my job, it's in my best interest to do what I can to continue justifying my existence. I don't see the imbalance.

The "unwritten rule" referenced earlier in this thread, and brought out explicitly by Brad, where it is considered unacceptable for the employee to leave before the product ships.

But I still don't understand why the in-game credit matters so much to people.

And that may be the big one. If you don't care about something, it cannot be used as a threat against you. But there are people who do care, and as we've seen in this thread, de-crediting is explicitly used as a punishment for those people who have the temerity to not place the interests of the company over the interests of their family.

Come to think of it, that is the QoL issue in a nutshell as well.

[nothings]

But I still don't understand why the in-game credit matters so much to people.

It's possible to not care overall about whether in-game-credits exist or not but to care that if they exist they not be incomplete.

One of the things that our society generally frowns on is taking credit for other people's work. (Consider, for example, the consequences of a student doing this in school, despite the fact the student is paying the school for the education.)

To me, detailed but mildly selective credits are like lying by omission; regardless of the intent of the credits-authors, the credits are wrong. They misleadingly imply that all the work was done by a list of people when those people didn't do all the work. The work done by departed employees is implicitly credited to non-departed employees by the statement "this work was created by these people". My point isn't that it affects the "disenfranchised" developers' resumes or anything; it's just inherently morally wrong to handle make the wrong statement in the first place. Credits describe who did what, who is responsible for the things that exist. If you're not willing to delete their contribution (and its consequences) from the project, don't "delete" their name from the credits. Credits for contributions.

As to the details of people leaving a company, it just seems totally unrealistic to me to think that "good people" only leave right after projects finish.

First, something like a two-week window between 3-year projects is just not a large enough window for people to actually find good opportunities. Plus, if your company offers profit sharing or royalties, which normally aren't given to employees who leave the company, you're binding your employees in a totally unfair straitjacket, expecting that if they want to leave, they should see a project through to the end but then leave without sharing in the wealth they helped create.

About the only time people have good opportunities right at the end of a project is if there's another project starting up right at that instant outside their current company. The #1 way that happens: because a bunch of people all jump ship at the same time. I imagine at least some of the people here mad about people leaving in the middle of projects would also be mad in this scenario.

So now we have a situation where the only time you find it acceptable for an employee to leave is unrealistically restrictive on the employee's options. This is unfair. And not just because this is you taking it personally when the employee makes choices for the employee's good when you're willing to make choices for the "greater good" which can shaft some employees. It's unfair because the employee has no real opportunity to leave for their own betterment without you being punitive.

To make that not be unfair, your company needs to be offering somebody something really amazing, something that smaller companies (who I think are the ones most hurt by employee departures and most representing negative opinions here) just don't offer: stable lifetime employment (guarantee your company never goes out of business, since they have no realistic opportunity to leave without being perceived as a 'bad guy'), appropriate opportunities for advances given their skills and personalities (something a small company will never have), a financial arc appropriate to the lifestyle they want to lead (which varies from person to person, whether that be having a family or owning a Porsche), never having to work on a game they don't believe in, and perfect management (the perception of mismanagement will also vary from person to person).

Guess what? No companies offer all that. Welcome to the modern era of fluid employment.

[steve]

Both parties are capable of hurting each other, no doubt. But you are arguing that it is ok for the company to consider the needs of the company over the individual, but not for the individual to consider their needs over the needs of the company.
Actually, I don't believe that at all. Perhaps I wasn't being clear, but I was arguing for it being an equal scenario, whereas I mostly see people bitching about evil companies. I was just pointing out that a company may not be evil, and your leaving can have a big impact on the project and on those remaining. And that makes this credit situation more complex, I think.

Though as I've said multiple times, I'd credit everyone, the irony being that in crediting everyone, you're diminishing the value of individual credits.

[Dave Weinstein]

Actually, I don't believe that at all. Perhaps I wasn't being clear, but I was arguing for it being an equal scenario, whereas I mostly see people bitching about evil companies. I was just pointing out that a company may not be evil, and your leaving can have a big impact on the project and on those remaining. And that makes this credit situation more complex, I think.

I almost agree with you.

If we take away the "unwritten rule" (and its enforcement, although I should note that I've known cases where I've heard people lament that "no one should leave in the middle of a project" while at the same time people who reported to them were trying to entice me to leave in the middle of a project and come to their company), then it's even.

Where I disagree with you is the notion that credits should anyway be involved. If both parties are free to make business decisions (and I think they should be), then crediting should not be used as a weapon. Period.

Though as I've said multiple times, I'd credit everyone, the irony being that in crediting everyone, you're diminishing the value of individual credits.

I agree with the first, strongly disagree with the second. Crediting everyone for what they did doesn't diminish the value of the credits. Implicit in that notion is that it is a zero-sum game.

Someone being credited for their work on a title does not in any way take away from my being credited for my work on the title.

[Qmanol]

Though as I've said multiple times, I'd credit everyone, the irony being that in crediting everyone, you're diminishing the value of individual credits.

This is the attitude that confuses me somewhat, and I see it expressed by multiple people through the thread - the idea of a credit as gift or perk. To me, it seems that credits are supposed to be an accurate record of contributors to a project. Using them as a reward subverts their purpose as a description of reality, and makes them worthless to me, the end-user.

[steve]

Where I disagree with you is the notion that credits should anyway be involved. If both parties are free to make business decisions (and I think they should be), then crediting should not be used as a weapon. Period.
I don't think they should be used as a weapon, but I don't think you can make any blanket statements like, "everyone should be credited, even if they leave." I think you'd need to look at some on a case-by-case basis.

(I'm pretty sure everyone gets credited, whether they leave or not, at my current company.)

Someone being credited for their work on a title does not in any way take away from my being credited for my work on the title.
I agree, but I'd think that the people who view a credit as some kind of reward would prefer there be fewer of them.

[Dave Weinstein]

I don't think they should be used as a weapon, but I don't think you can make any blanket statements like, "everyone should be credited, even if they leave." I think you'd need to look at some on a case-by-case basis.

Why? Having a uniform crediting standard avoids any politics and gives people an expectation of what will happen. The IGDA Crediting Guidelines are very specific; something I greatly appreciate.

I agree, but I'd think that the people who view a credit as some kind of reward would prefer there be fewer of them.

Why? As long as the crediting standards are uniform and fairly administered, someone elses credit isn't a threat, it is a description.

[steve]

This is the attitude that confuses me somewhat, and I see it expressed by multiple people through the thread - the idea of a credit as gift or perk. To me, it seems that credits are supposed to be an accurate record of contributors to a project. Using them as a reward subverts their purpose as a description of reality, and makes them worthless to me, the end-user.
I'm not sure when credits were given value, but yeah, I think if you view them solely as a record of contributors and stop thinking of them as rewards, this becomes a total non-issue; everyone gets on the credit list.

There's a lot of behind-the-scenes craziness in Hollywood over credits, but it's not the end credit scroll; it's what appears on posters, or in the opening credits.

[Kool Moe Dee]

I agree, but I'd think that the people who view a credit as some kind of reward would prefer there be fewer of them.

It's a personal reward to see your name in lights -- whether or not someone else's is likewise is usually of vastly less importance to people. (And as I mentioned earlier, nobody I've ever talked credits with would begrudge someone else their credit, even in cases where they hated the person in question.) In short, I don't know who these people you're talking about are.

Credits may be personally rewarding (everybody likes to see their name in lights), but they should not be used by companies as a reward -- they're a factual statement of one's role on a project.

[Dave Weinstein]

Also, let's be honest. Pretty much the only people who read the credits either worked on the game, know someone who worked on the game, or are recruiters.

[TheJare]

the irony being that in crediting everyone, you're diminishing the value of individual credits.

Not really, no, if credit is an acknowledgment of contribution, then comprehensive credits means accurate credits, which makes them more valuable in fact. Anyone who likes to take credit for a coworker's work will instantly fire up all my alarm bells: what else will he take that doesn't belong to him? Thankfully that has absolutely not been the norm in my career.. 2 or 3 cases in 20 years, and they got a pretty bad rep for trying. In my first game, I credited the guy who came up with the original concept for the game, even if the final product didn't resemble his concept that much. I always felt that his contribution was still significant.

Now, when you add details about the importance and areas of contribution, things can get more hairy, especially if people have worked on multiple areas and held multiple responsabilities, or if the project has been a rollercoaster of human and management problems. In these cases, you can just keep it simple.

[Miramon]

Though as I've said multiple times, I'd credit everyone, the irony being that in crediting everyone, you're diminishing the value of individual credits.

I don't think individual credits have a value that can be diminished in that way.

For my own part, I would think the larger the credit list, the more honor, such as it is, accrues to all the people listed, since a large list suggests more total work and perhaps therefore (one would hope) more total value in the final product.

[Miramon]

Also, let's be honest. Pretty much the only people who read the credits either worked on the game, know someone who worked on the game, or are recruiters.
Except for some JRPG for which you have to wait for 10 minutes of unskippable credits before you can save the "cleared game".... But of course that's a good time for a bathroom break.

So yeah, that's pretty much true, I think.

[steve]

It's a personal reward to see your name in lights -- whether or not someone else's is likewise is usually of vastly less importance to people. (And as I mentioned earlier, nobody I've ever talked credits with would begrudge someone else their credit, even in cases where they hated the person in question.) In short, I don't know who these people you're talking about are.
I've seen a fair amount of bitching from developers about publishers getting in the credits, with particularly animosity directed at marketing folk.

[Brad Wardell]

Re Discretion.

I don't think you're really responding to the criticism offered here. The criticism is that you "take it personal" when someone leaves your company based on a "business decision" and yet reserve the right to make similar decisions for your company based on "business decisions".

But when you say discretion you really mean that you reserve the right to be personally punitive when in fact it should be completely impersonal. Credit people for what they do. Whether you like them or not is completely besides the point.

Also be aware that the philosophy you are describing for your company, to an audience of game developers, is pretty off-putting to potential future employees. I think half the point is that a lot of game developers end up feeling that employee/employer relationships are unequal. Employers hold a lot of the cards. Taking employee "business decisions" personally but assuming that it's ok for the employer to make "business decisions" is a good example. Having arbitrary and punitive criteria for crediting employees is another. Game developers frequently put a lot more into their work than would be expected in any other type of software development, and do it for less money. The least they deserve to expect in return is equal respect and the benefit of the doubt whenever it comes to giving recognition.

I don't take it personally if someone leaves. As a business, we certainly want to use every means available to discourage people from job hopping in the middle of a project. The primary motivation isn't about punishment. It is primarily about having some reasonable threshold of what constitutes materially helping the project to completion. People who leave before it's done greatly increase the odds that their work won't meet that threshold to get the kind of credit they may want.

I'm speaking in hypotheticals here since we've never not included someone in the credits. But I can imagine many instances where we would decide not to put someone in there too.

I guess you could say my position is against the generic "put everyone who remotely had anything to do with the game in there no matter when or how they left" view. I'm a big believer in having discretion on this kind of thing. That's probably why I started a company in the first place.

And let me be as candid as possible: Anyone who thinks job hopping in the middle of a project is acceptable is not someone I'd want to work with. So discouraging would-be employees who disagree with my views on this issue isn't a bug, it's a feature. :)

[Miramon]

I've seen a fair amount of bitching from developers about publishers getting in the credits, with particularly animosity directed at marketing folk.
Developers often have a hostile relationship with publishers, just like authors or musicians, so that's not surprising. Who wants to credit people are screwing you out of most of the profit and who are obviously not fulfilling their obligation to market your game properly?

That last sentence describes how many studios feel about their publishers, regardless of whether it's true or not. It was certainly true of Turbine with respect to Microsoft, anyway. I don't think I ever talked to anyone who had the slightest respect for the MS project and program management people who oversaw Asheron's Call 1 and 2. The crowing over one guy's career failure after he left Microsoft was noteworthy not only in its vitriol, but in that his future career was tracked by people at Turbine in the first place....

[Dave Weinstein]

And let me be as candid as possible: Anyone who thinks job hopping in the middle of a project is acceptable is not someone I'd want to work with.

So, to that end, do you do employment contracts with your employees, limiting the flexibility on both sides? If not, why not?

[Brad Wardell]

So, to that end, do you do employment contracts with your employees, limiting the flexibility on both sides? If not, why not?

I don't do employment contracts because I feel employees should have the right to leave whenever they want.

[StGabe]

And let me be as candid as possible: Anyone who thinks job hopping in the middle of a project is acceptable is not someone I'd want to work with. So discouraging would-be employees who disagree with my views on this issue isn't a bug, it's a feature. :)


I still think you're skirting the issue and not really responding to the criticism being offered.

For example, what you mention above is a very poor facsimile of the reality of an employee/employer relationship. Realistically you have an employer who is juggling a lot of variables (deadlines, publisher relationships, employee performance, etc.) and a developer who is juggling a lot of variables (quality of life, job satisfaction, house payments, etc.). When the two parties agree to a working relationship, both should be acting in good faith to try and keep the other happy. That said, for many reasons, it won't always happen.

An employer may really want to keep employees happy but due to business realities, may not be able to do so. An employee may really want to see a project through but may find that some external factor prevents them from doing so (a new baby, a need to move home to take care of family, running out of money, etc.) or may find that no matter the employers good intentions, it's just not working out.

You can't expect more from your employees than they are reasonably able to expect out of you. If you want an expectation of a longer term working relationship, you need to spell that out in something stronger than offer of at-will employment.

And in fact, I think employers frequently abuse employees goodwill in this regard. Employees tend to be the ones who get screwed by at-will employment far more than employers. 2 weeks notice, for example, is a very employer-centric expectation. Unless the employer offers a guaranteed severance package, employees really shouldn't have to offer guaranteed notice. Personally I always give at least 2 weeks if not more, but only because I'm nice, not because I think that employers have any right to expect it by default.

[StGabe]

I guess you could say my position is against the generic "put everyone who remotely had anything to do with the game in there no matter when or how they left" view. I'm a big believer in having discretion on this kind of thing. That's probably why I started a company in the first place.


First of all, I don't think we're saying that it should be "everyone who remotely had anything to do with the game" but rather that there should be some sort of standard practice (such as the IGDA regs) that say just how much is enough. After that, there's no reason, other than a need to express petty spite, not to include someone in the credits if they've surpassed some good definition of a significant contribution.

[Brad Wardell]

I still think you're skirting the issue and not really responding to the criticism being offered.

For example, what you mention above is a very poor facsimile of the reality of an employee/employer relationship. Realistically you have an employer who is juggling a lot of variables (deadlines, publisher relationships, employee performance, etc.) and a developer who is juggling a lot of variables (quality of life, job satisfaction, house payments, etc.). When the two parties agree to a working relationship, both should be acting in good faith to try and keep the other happy. That said, for many reasons, it won't always happen.

An employer may really want to keep employees happy but due to business realities, may not be able to do so. An employee may really want to see a project through but may find that some external factor prevents them from doing so (a new baby, a need to move home to take care of family, running out of money, etc.) or may find that no matter the employers good intentions, it's just not working out.

You can't expect more from your employees than they are reasonably able to expect out of you. If you want an expectation of a longer term working relationship, you need to spell that out in something stronger than offer of at-will employment.

And in fact, I think employers frequently abuse employees goodwill in this regard. Employees tend to be the ones who get screwed by at-will employment far more than employers. 2 weeks notice, for example, is a very employer-centric expectation. Unless the employer offers a guaranteed severance package, employees really shouldn't have to offer guaranteed notice. Personally I always give at least 2 weeks if not more, but only because I'm nice, not because I think that employers have any right to expect it by default.


I'm not skirting any issue. To me, it's a simple issue:

If you're not around when the credits are being added, you are, by definition not around when the credits are being added.

Someone else is going to thus be deciding what credit, if any, you're going to get in a given game.

The rest is just philosophy.

[Brad Wardell]

First of all, I don't think we're saying that it should be "everyone who remotely had anything to do with the game" but rather that there should be some sort of standard practice (such as the IGDA regs) that say just how much is enough. After that, there's no reason, other than a need to express petty spite, not to include someone in the credits if they've surpassed some good definition of a significant contribution.

As an employer, why should I, or my team, give up their discretion on how the credits are handled.

I fully understand that you think that there should be some uniform, standard guideline such as from the IGDA on credits.

But what is the incentive for me to accept those guidelines when having discretion over the credits seems to work out pretty well?

I'm an employer, therefore, I'm on the employer's side. I also eat babies.

[Sol Invictus]

I'm an employer, therefore, I'm on the employer's side. I also eat babies.

Now there's a company I can support. A company whose boss eats babies. I like a bit of charbroiled Congolese babies (the ones used to mine for Sony Playstation rare metals) with mash potatoes on the side myself.

[StGabe]

As an employer, why should I, or my team, give up their discretion on how the credits are handled.

Offering respect to your employees by indicating that you are willing to forgo a right to petty spite in order to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to recognition.

Look at it this way: as an employer you regularly review your employees to make sure that they are offering work that is up to your expectations. As employees we are regularly reviewing YOU. When something like this comes up, we are expecting YOU to match our expectations: offering ample recognition without caveats and not using things like credits as a potential punitive measure.

What's your incentive to offer a competitive wage? What's your incentive not to work every employee as many hours as possible? It's the same thing. As I've admitted up-thread that credits are certainly less important than other QOL issues, but they are absolutely in the same category and your handling of them is indicative of the respect you offer to employees in general.

[StGabe]

I mean it says a lot that your first reaction to the notion of someone leaving mid-project is to blame the employee. A good employer (and I've known plenty like this, they do exist) realizes that the first question that should come to mind when a valued employee leaves is: what didn't we do, that we could have, to keep them?

P.S. just as an employee who is fired should not just blame their employer but rather should evaluate their own job performance and see if they could have done better / kept their job.

[Matthew Gallant]

I don't do employment contracts because I feel employees should have the right to leave whenever they want.
If only there were some way to allow for that in the contract.

[Aeon221]

As an employer, why should I, or my team, give up their discretion on how the credits are handled.

I fully understand that you think that there should be some uniform, standard guideline such as from the IGDA on credits.

But what is the incentive for me to accept those guidelines when having discretion over the credits seems to work out pretty well?

I'm an employer, therefore, I'm on the employer's side. I also eat babies.

So I guess that's the Sin in Sins of a Solar Empire?

If you're crediting everyone, you personally aren't doing anything that these folks seriously disagree with. It's a list, and it is functional. The real issue seems to be people losing credit for petty reasons when they've done a lot of work. It seems just plain wrong to not credit the sources you use to create something; whether it's a porno or a term paper or a video game, the people who helped deserve a mention.

To me, it isn't so important that you select employees that are dedicated to your mindset and such. That just seems like good policy, and it definitely seems to make for better games.

editx2: http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/322137 Oh ho! These aren't the patch notes I was looking for!

[Sol Invictus]

What happens at QT3 should stay here, Aeon.

[JM]

What happens at QT3 should stay here, Aeon.

Draginol is Brad.

[Sol Invictus]

Oh. I didn't even click to read the thread. I thought was just some thread made with the intent of rabble rousing (e.g. "See? Brad's an asshole because he doesn't want to credit people in his games!").

[Equis]

Brad linked to Qt3 first.

I agree with the employer side of things. Not surprising, since I'm currently in that position. Credit listing is up to the company's discretion. There are a million and one reason why someone had to leave their current position, and their contribution is left to be ascertained by the production management. Any blanket rule wouldn't really be helpful as everyone has to evaluated individually for their involvement. The only thing we can do is be sure that we're responsibly managing the team AND the production, not individual egos.

Either way, a lot of times, it's the relationship between the management the employee that counts. If anything, it's very hard to stop disgruntled ex-employees from finding fault with anything about the company.

(e.g. "See? Brad's an asshole because he doesn't want to credit people in his games!").

No one is saying that. You'd know if you read the link.

[TheJare]

their contribution is left to be ascertained by the production management

Nobody's going to disagree with that - someone has to build the credits and figure out who did who, and that's the project managers. This whole discussion begun with Mark Jacobs' "we only credit those that are still employed at launch" assertion, which is pretty specific in the way it is designed to ignore the contributions of a number of people.

[StGabe]

There are a million and one reason why someone had to leave their current position, and their contribution is left to be ascertained by the production management. Any blanket rule wouldn't really be helpful as everyone has to evaluated individually for their involvement.

Why should it matter why they left unless, as discussed, your only reason for wanting discretion is to "punish" people instead of accurately recording credit? Furthermore, you make it sound like it's quite a bit of work to figure out who qualifies. Ok, so why not just use a simple, single source for figuring that (i.e. the IGDA rules)?

[Equis]

Why should it matter why they left unless, as discussed, your only reason for wanting discretion is to "punish" people instead of accurately recording credit?


I did not say "punish" and for my part, I've been accused of over-crediting certain people based on their contribution and under-crediting others. I cannot speak for Jacobs or why he insists what he insists. Nor do I agree fully.

I'm just saying a blanket rule wouldn't be as helpful as you might think.


Furthermore, you make it sound like it's quite a bit of work to figure out who qualifies. Ok, so why not just use a simple, single source for figuring that (i.e. the IGDA rules)?

It is. Office politics and all that such. Just because you're listed as a developer, doesn't mean you actually did a lot of valuable coding. There are plenty of instances where a guy who's hired to do a job, doesn't do a very good one, takes a long time in not doing so, draws a salary and causes more problems that required other people to fix.

The converse is also true, where a guy you bring on to do one thing ends up doing a ton of other things that may or may not affect the production in a critical way, but is listed only as one thing because of other credit conventions.

I'm saying that no one knows this but the guys in production and its up to the company's discretion on how to use the credits as a reward/punishment mechanism. The result in the relationship between the company management and their employees, not the consumer as a whole.

[Problematique]

Who's Mark Jacobs?

*google search after this post*

[Thoro]

Might I suggest a new thread be made to discuss the general issue of credits in games? The thread's veered rather sharply away from the issue of Mark Jacobs' policy in particular, and since he's been in here to defend his position and nobody really protested it, I'd think it better to let the rather personal nature of this thread's title sink away into obscurity.

[Johan A]

And let me be as candid as possible: Anyone who thinks job hopping in the middle of a project is acceptable is not someone I'd want to work with. So discouraging would-be employees who disagree with my views on this issue isn't a bug, it's a feature. :)


I agree.. leaving in the middle of a project isn't something I view as positive. But what is far worse is the people who leave during the end crunch.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Might I suggest a new thread be made to discuss the general issue of credits in games? The thread's veered rather sharply away from the issue of Mark Jacobs' policy in particular, and since he's been in here to defend his position and nobody really protested it, I'd think it better to let the rather personal nature of this thread's title sink away into obscurity.

No, there were actually a number of questions posed to him that went unanswered. He only responded to Sol Invictus' fawning.

[corsair]

Either way, a lot of times, it's the relationship between the management the employee that counts. If anything, it's very hard to stop disgruntled ex-employees from finding fault with anything about the company.


It's the other way around. It's about ex-employees not being given credit on a project because the company is disgruntled because the employee left. The employee wasn't necessarily disgruntled at all until the denial of credit as petty revenge by the company.

There are of course instances where it makes sense such as non-performance, and work that was eventually not included, but I listed a specific instance where credit was denied where the work was completed and 90% of it used (the other 10% was done by me) and the original designer was denied credit because management was angry with him. It left the odd position of me being potentially listed as the sole designer on something I largely didn't design. Seemed so dishonest that I was embarrassed to claim such, so it ended up an orphan (no designer was listed).

[Dean]

IGDA weighs in on the discussion in today's IGDA newsletter (you all read those, right?):

Dear Members and friends,

Mythic recently announced that only developers currently employed with the studio will be recognized in Warhammer Online's credits. FYI:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19931

This policy is disrespectful of the effort of the game developers who worked on the game, and misleads both consumers and game industry peers. Unfortunately, Mythic's stance is not unusual; according to a survey conducted by the IGDA Writers Special Interest Group, 35% of respondents "don't ever" or "only sometimes" receive official credit for their work, and almost every game developer I know can provide anecdotal evidence of credit policies that vary by studio, and in some cases by individual title. The lack of accurate, fair, and consistent credit standards in the industry poses a serious problem for every game developer; by refusing to acknowledge their contributions, studio management limits the professional recognition and opportunity for development that _every_ contributor deserves.

Some people claim that providing complete credit information opens their staff up to contact by unsolicited recruiters, or encourages people to leave their job before a game is complete. These reasons are simple window dressing for policies that are arbitrary, unfair, and in some cases even vindictive, and they simply don't hold up. Recruiters have many ways of discovering talent, and, more importantly, a valued employee will not leave a good job simply because a recruiter initiates unsolicited contact. It's an unfortunate fact that people leave jobs frequently, especially in the games industry; why refuse to recognize a contributor because, through circumstances they may not be able to control, they've changed employers? And frankly, if being mentioned in credits is the only reason a person remains with a company, are they really someone you want to stay? Other people claim that credits aren't important because "nobody reads them anyway"; the number of people who read a game's credits is irrelevant. Even if only one person reads the credits of a game, integrity demands that all work be accurately and honestly represented.

Because fair and accurate crediting is important to the careers of game developers, the IGDA has a Credit Standards Committee, with draft guidelines available at:
http://www.igda.org/credit/

I strongly encourage you to read the beta proposal, which emphasizes inclusive credit standards. Provide comments, share the proposal with colleagues and management, and join me in calling for the industry-wide adoption of crediting policies that recognize the efforts and accomplishments of _all_ people who contributed to a game.

PS: Related commentary by designers David Jaffe and Menveer Heir:
http://designrampage.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-letter-to-mark-jacobs.html
http://criminalcrackdown.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-name-in-lights.html


- Jen MacLean
Chairperson, IGDA
VP Business Development, 38 Studios

[Dave Weinstein]

It is. Office politics and all that such. Just because you're listed as a developer, doesn't mean you actually did a lot of valuable coding. There are plenty of instances where a guy who's hired to do a job, doesn't do a very good one, takes a long time in not doing so, draws a salary and causes more problems that required other people to fix.

The IGDA standards credit by role for just this reason. If you paid them to work on a project in a given role for the minimum amount of time, they get a credit. If they weren't worth it, why are you paying them?

The converse is also true, where a guy you bring on to do one thing ends up doing a ton of other things that may or may not affect the production in a critical way, but is listed only as one thing because of other credit conventions.

Which is why the IGDA standards have specific rules for multiple crediting. You have read the IGDA Guidelines, right?

I'm saying that no one knows this but the guys in production and its up to the company's discretion on how to use the credits as a reward/punishment mechanism.

And that is the crux of the argument. You are arguing that credits are an appropriate means of reward/punishment; many of us are arguing that credits are a statement of fact. You want to reward people, use cash.

[MBJ]

IGDA weighs in on the discussion in today's IGDA newsletter (you all read those, right?):

Wow, I'm kind of surprised that Jen and the IGDA wouldn't even bother to talk to me about the policy and I'm even more surprised that she/it describes it as "an announcement" when it's been a very long-standing policy and we didn't announce anything but simply responded to what was said about us. Somehow I don't think that's quite fair either and I'm also quite disappointed in her and the IGDA for not bothering to talk to me at all. I and Mythic have taken some heat on this, and I totally get it but to call us out and not at least talk to us about things is, quite frankly, bs.

Mark

[Miramon]

Wow, I'm kind of surprised that Jen and the IGDA wouldn't even bother to talk to me about the policy and I'm even more surprised that she/it describes it as "an announcement" when it's been a very long-standing policy and we didn't announce anything but simply responded to what was said about us. Somehow I don't think that's quite fair either and I'm also quite disappointed in her and the IGDA for not bothering to talk to me at all. I and Mythic have taken some heat on this, and I totally get it but to call us out and not at least talk to us about things is, quite frankly, bs.

Mark
Heh, I've been to exactly one GDC, and just read the newsletter apart from that, but it's obvious even so that IGDA is just as subject to politics and personality conflicts as any other similar organization, if not more so. So much as I agree that they should have spoken to you first, I'm not totally shocked either. I do agree with their policy on this subject, despite the impolitic announcement.

[Brad Wardell]

Offering respect to your employees by indicating that you are willing to forgo a right to petty spite in order to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to recognition.

Look at it this way: as an employer you regularly review your employees to make sure that they are offering work that is up to your expectations. As employees we are regularly reviewing YOU. When something like this comes up, we are expecting YOU to match our expectations: offering ample recognition without caveats and not using things like credits as a potential punitive measure.

What's your incentive to offer a competitive wage? What's your incentive not to work every employee as many hours as possible? It's the same thing. As I've admitted up-thread that credits are certainly less important than other QOL issues, but they are absolutely in the same category and your handling of them is indicative of the respect you offer to employees in general.

The incentive is always the same for businesses - to attract employees of quality.

That said, I don't consider employees who job hop during projects to be quality employees and would prefer they stay away in the first place.

What you call "petty spite" I call respecting the people who saw it through.

Discretion means a heck of a lot of flexibility. You have some lead network coder who leaves half-way through with his part unfinished, the rest of the team has every right to decide whether that person is listed under "Network Development Leads" or "Additional Programming" or not at all based on their judgment of the contribution that person made to the project.

As I keep trying (and failing) to emphasize is that someone who leaves before the credits are in is obviously not there to influence how they should be listed in the credits.

[Brad Wardell]

Nobody's going to disagree with that - someone has to build the credits and figure out who did who, and that's the project managers. This whole discussion begun with Mark Jacobs' "we only credit those that are still employed at launch" assertion, which is pretty specific in the way it is designed to ignore the contributions of a number of people.

Yea but that's a lot less interesting! :) I mean, very very few people I know would agree in a blanket policy of not crediting someone simply because they weren't there when the game shipped.

As I mentioned earlier, in *practice* we have always listed everyone we can in credits (including external beta testers, children of employees who helped "play test", etc.). We've even listed people who left 5 years prior whose work is still in the game.

BUT from a philosohpical point of view, I am against any blanket rule - whether from the IGDA or someone else that tells me or my team how credits must be handled.

[Brad Wardell]

IGDA weighs in on the discussion in today's IGDA newsletter (you all read those, right?):

How many divisions does the IGDA have?

[Dave Weinstein]

Discretion means a heck of a lot of flexibility. You have some lead network coder who leaves half-way through with his part unfinished, the rest of the team has every right to decide whether that person is listed under "Network Development Leads" or "Additional Programming" or not at all based on their judgment of the contribution that person made to the project.

Per IGDA Guidelines:

If they were on the project for greater than 5% of its length or 30 days (whichever is lower), they must be credited.

If they were a lead for less than 50% of the length of the project, that can be optionally omitted from the crediting. In this case, "Lead Programmer" -> "Programmer".

If they were a non-lead who worked for less than 40% of the development cycle (or 8 months, whichever is lower), the credit can be downgraded to "Additional", in this case, "Additional Programming."

What you are basically arguing for is politicized crediting (person A left for reasons the team finds tolerable, person B left for reasons they don't, therefore even if the work contributed was identical, person A gets credit and person B does not). I find that extremely distasteful. I've also seen it do lasting damage to development studios.

[Dave Weinstein]

BUT from a philosohpical point of view, I am against any blanket rule - whether from the IGDA or someone else that tells me or my team how credits must be handled.

I must have missed where the IGDA was capable of compelling you to accept the IGDA Crediting Guidelines.

[StGabe]

Wow, I'm kind of surprised that Jen and the IGDA wouldn't even bother to talk to me about the policy and I'm even more surprised that she/it describes it as "an announcement" when it's been a very long-standing policy and we didn't announce anything but simply responded to what was said about us. Somehow I don't think that's quite fair either and I'm also quite disappointed in her and the IGDA for not bothering to talk to me at all. I and Mythic have taken some heat on this, and I totally get it but to call us out and not at least talk to us about things is, quite frankly, bs.


While the verb "announced" may not have been the best word choice, it was still essentially correct and they provide a link with a quote from you on your stance. As for not talking to you, it shouldn't be that surprising that the IGDA is more interested in pushing the interests of employees and than employers. You were certainly apprised of their credits standards and could have contacted them.

I mean you had a clear out here: change your policy. I commented up-thread that whether other companies do this or not, it's still an unfair/unjustified practice and you only stood to to get some bad press out to your pool of potential future employees over this. I'm sure had you contacted the IGDA they'd have loved to have done an interview with you about why you decided to change your policy (and possibly still would).

Your reply just sounds a bit "woe is me" when you have/had clear options. No one cares if it's you or your employees who are disgruntled -- taking people who significantly contributed to a project out of the credits is arbitrary and dishonest.

[Kraaze]

That said, I don't consider employees who job hop during projects to be quality employees and would prefer they stay away in the first place.


How are you defining "Job hop" here? Someone who changes employment excessively or someone who changes it at all?

I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but your posts in this thread are giving the impression that you consider an employee's commitment to the success of their employer to be the paramount concern in their life. That's a scary and worrisome attitude in an employer, since such a belief in an employer can quickly lead to treating employees very very poorly if the employer is under financial pressure.

I never job hop but if I found myself out of work tomorrow I'd have reservations about applying at your company.

[StGabe]

That said, I don't consider employees who job hop during projects to be quality employees and would prefer they stay away in the first place.

As I commented above, you are greatly misrepresenting the reality of the relationship between employees and employer here. If a qualified individual leaves you need to ask yourself what you could have done to keep them, not merely blame them. Almost no one joins game projects intending to leave midway but just as you regularly review employees, employees are regularly reviewing you. If you aren't competitive, they're just as justified in "firing" you as you are justified in firing them if they don't match expectations.

Now you're invoking your team to bolster your case but that doesn't really make sense. You have a bunch of game developers telling you what expectations they want and consider to be respectful. Just as with other job perks like, say, salary and sick days this is a thing that should be determined in advance with clear rules that no one disputes. Reserving the right to choose credits at your discretion isn't really that different from reserving the right to discretion over whether to pay someone for their remaining vacation days when they leave. You might be pissed at them for leaving and not want to pay them, but that doesn't make it justified.

[MBJ]

While the verb "announced" may not have been the best word choice, it was still essentially correct and they provide a link with a quote from you on your stance. As for not talking to you, it shouldn't be that surprising that the IGDA is more interested in pushing the interests of employees and than employers. You were certainly apprised of their credits standards and could have contacted them.

I mean you had a clear out here: change your policy. I commented up-thread that whether other companies do this or not, it's still an unfair/unjustified practice and you only stood to to get some bad press out to your pool of potential future employees over this. I'm sure had you contacted the IGDA they'd have loved to have done an interview with you about why you decided to change your policy (and possibly still would).

Your reply just sounds a bit "woe is me" when you have/had clear options. No one cares if it's you or your employees who are disgruntled -- taking people who significantly contributed to a project out of the credits is arbitrary and dishonest.

LOL, no, not woe is me but if the IGDA, or anyone else for that matter, is going to act as a standard bearer, then I think the least that they can do is act fairly themselves. Not giving me a chance to talk to them about it before they go and berate us, is just not fair. If they reach out and I refuse to talk to them, ignore them, tell them to stuff it, etc., then they have every right to go after me full guns. It is their job to reach out to me, if they are going to criticize me or Mythic not the other way around. If sadly Mythic and our policy is the story, it is not our job to force them to "fact check" but rather it is their job to do so.

Again, it's not the IGDA stance that I have a problem with but if I am being accused of having a double-standard or acting badly, then I they needed to be sure that what they are saying is correct and that they have all the facts. Again, I'm not criticizing their policy, but for their failure to make sure everything was as it seems, just as any journalist, writer, etc. would. It isn't anything more complicated than that.

Mark

[StGabe]

Again, it's not the IGDA stance that I have a problem with but if I am being accused of having a double-standard or acting badly, then I they needed to be sure that what they are saying is correct and that they have all the facts.

What did they say that was incorrect other than slightly poor word choice with "announce"? As for getting all the facts, they were responding to a quote which was quite clear on the matter. Did you not make that quote? Did you in fact change your policy after that quote was made or is it still exactly as stated?

If they did start a dialog with you, what would you clarify? Is it just that you'd have been more likely to change your stance if you knew there'd be more bad press? I don't see where you're coming from here. Your only clarification seems to be that you feel that this was brought up by "disgruntled employees" and should be ignored because of that. However, as has been stated, I don't think anyone cares who was disgruntled in this case. What is more relevant (from the employee/developer side of things) is why a game company would feel justified in using arbitrary standards for their credits and/or wield credits removal as a punitive measure against employees.

[MBJ]

What did they say that was incorrect other than slightly poor word choice with "announce"? As for getting all the facts, they were responding to a quote which was quite clear on the matter. Did you not make that quote? Did you in fact change your policy after that quote was made or is it still exactly as stated?

If they did start a dialog with you, what would you clarify? Is it just that you'd have been more likely to change your stance if you knew there'd be more bad press? I don't see where you're coming from here. Your only clarification seems to be that you feel that this was brought up by "disgruntled employees" and should be ignored because of that. However, as has been stated, I don't think anyone cares who was disgruntled in this case. What is more relevant (from the employee/developer side of things) is why a game company would feel justified in using arbitrary standards for their credits and/or wield credits removal as a punitive measure against employees.

You will see, you will see. Sorry, can't resist the bad pun especially since I'm being made out to be like Darth Vader here. :)

And we are not being arbitrary nor punitive. Our standard is simple and clear and is no more arbitrary than the standards used in other industries or policies by some other developers. As has been pointed out here, there is no industry standard (yet), other developers do worse and some people just don't care. I'm not saying that is a reason for doing it but the fact remains that saying that you receive in-game credits only if you are here for launch is no more arbitrary than saying we credit everybody. Whether it is fair or not is another matter but I have never used the credits punitively and would not.

Mark

[Dravalen]

Again, it's not the IGDA stance that I have a problem with but if I am being accused of having a double-standard or acting badly, then I they needed to be sure that what they are saying is correct and that they have all the facts.

If they aren't getting their facts correct then you should correct them as such.

However as it is you're catching a ton of flack for your comments on more than a few developer centric sites. From the sounds of what I'm hearing elsewhere there is indeed a double standard when it comes to who is credited. If a person was hired for a position and worked for a decent time in that position they should be credited, period.

[SwampIrish]

Somehow I don't think that's quite fair either and I'm also quite disappointed in her and the IGDA for not bothering to talk to me at all.



That's the same thing you said about the people who dimed you out.

[StGabe]

I'm not saying that is a reason for doing it but the fact remains that saying that you receive in-game credits only if you are here for launch is no more arbitrary than saying we credit everybody. Whether it is fair or not is another matter but I have never used the credits punitively and would not.

Ok, true. If everyone is aware, at hire, that this is the policy then at least you're not being arbitrary. However I'd say that the policy itself has no purpose except to be punitive and I'd say that the criticism you're receiving for it is valid (and matters of "disgruntled employees" are irrelevant).

[Rollory]

How are you defining "Job hop" here? Someone who changes employment excessively or someone who changes it at all?

I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but your posts in this thread are giving the impression that you consider an employee's commitment to the success of their employer to be the paramount concern in their life. That's a scary and worrisome attitude in an employer, since such a belief in an employer can quickly lead to treating employees very very poorly if the employer is under financial pressure.

I never job hop but if I found myself out of work tomorrow I'd have reservations about applying at your company.

In addition to agreeing with this, I should note that there very likely is _no_ time when someone is not "in the middle of a project". As one winds down another winds up; as some tasks get completed new ones get planned out and assigned. One might conclude that at Stardock it is never a good time to leave and that if you do you're guaranteed to make enemies - which is indeed not a very promising attitude.

In most of the IT industry two weeks is considered sufficient warning time that no serious harm is done to the overall effort and indeed someone leaving under those conditions will be gladly rehired later if they wish to return (this has happened _often_ at my current place). Why would gaming be different?

[TheTrunkDr]

Ok, true. If everyone is aware, at hire, that this is the policy then at least you're not being arbitrary. However I'd say that the policy itself has no purpose except to be punitive and I'd say that the criticism you're receiving for it is valid (and matters of "disgruntled employees" are irrelevant).
Absolutely agree. If people are aware of it, then sure, it's not arbitrary but that doesn't make it fair. The issue you're being berated for the policy itself. You stated it publicly and others have responded to it. I'm not sure what you would like to get out of a dialog with the IGDA or what you can do to further enlighten them about Mythic's policy. As you said it's very simple and I think we all get it, we just don't think it's particularly good or just. Considering you're alienating your talent pool in a very small and incredibly incestuous industry you might want to rethink it and publicly state that you've reconsidered it.

I'm curious, you've said that the purpose this policy is not to be punitive, well what is the purpose of the policy then? By your policy someone who was hired a week before ship and spent little time on the project would get a credit while someone who might have worked on it for years but has left would be left out. Credits aren't a snapshot of current employees, they're a record of those who worked on the project.

[beloved one]

I should note that there very likely is _no_ time when someone is not "in the middle of a project".

Just basically a QFT on this, it was exactly my impression on reading the "middle of a project" statement. I can't imagine being employed as a dev, and not being involved in some project... as a business dev, generally speaking I'm involved a few in some form or another at all times.

I guess gaming development is much more prone to stops and starts, but it's a very strange thing to read.

[Brad Wardell]

How are you defining "Job hop" here? Someone who changes employment excessively or someone who changes it at all?

I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but your posts in this thread are giving the impression that you consider an employee's commitment to the success of their employer to be the paramount concern in their life. That's a scary and worrisome attitude in an employer, since such a belief in an employer can quickly lead to treating employees very very poorly if the employer is under financial pressure.

I never job hop but if I found myself out of work tomorrow I'd have reservations about applying at your company.

Job hopping to me, are people who typically never stay at a job long enough to complete what they start.

As I've mentioned in this thread, we've never not credited someone who left the company.

[Brad Wardell]

As I commented above, you are greatly misrepresenting the reality of the relationship between employees and employer here. If a qualified individual leaves you need to ask yourself what you could have done to keep them, not merely blame them. Almost no one joins game projects intending to leave midway but just as you regularly review employees, employees are regularly reviewing you. If you aren't competitive, they're just as justified in "firing" you as you are justified in firing them if they don't match expectations.

Now you're invoking your team to bolster your case but that doesn't really make sense. You have a bunch of game developers telling you what expectations they want and consider to be respectful. Just as with other job perks like, say, salary and sick days this is a thing that should be determined in advance with clear rules that no one disputes. Reserving the right to choose credits at your discretion isn't really that different from reserving the right to discretion over whether to pay someone for their remaining vacation days when they leave. You might be pissed at them for leaving and not want to pay them, but that doesn't make it justified.

Perhaps you should start a union or something for game developers.

Life is full of "shoulds".

You keep assuming that what to display in credits is based on being "pissed" or some personal issue. It's not. It's a matter of fairness to all involved. And that's something that's handled on a case by case basis.

[Miramon]

Job hopping to me, are people who typically never stay at a job long enough to complete what they start.

I wouldn't want to hire that kind of person either. I doubt anyone here is really arguing that someone with let us say 7 years experience and 7 jobs is a very desirable employee.

But some things you've posted seem to have conflated "job hopping" as a career pattern with simply leaving a job for more money, which is completely different. If you see someone with a 7 year resume with 2 jobs, 3 and 4 years, say, obviously they're not a "job hopper".

But then you offer them a job for $60k, and after two years they quit for another at $75k, maybe without even looking as some recruiter found the guy. That's not job hopping. It's not a betrayal of the team. It's simply common sense.

[Matt Perkins]

I'm with TrunkDr:
you've said that the purpose this policy is not to be punitive, well what is the purpose of the policy then?

I can't say I agree with the policy Mythic takes on crediting people, but I'd love to hear more than, "well, that's just the way we do it."

How does it make sense to have this policy if the policy isn't geared towards punishing people... If it is, then it does make sense to me and I take it back. :p

Also,
the fact remains that saying that you receive in-game credits only if you are here for launch is no more arbitrary than saying we credit everybody.
This doesn't cover the point. It may not be arbitrary to say you only get in game credits if you are there for the launch of the game, but the point isn't whether the decision you've made is arbitrary or not.

The point is, why leave people out if not to punish them. What other reason makes sense?

[Kraaze]

I wouldn't want to hire that kind of person either. I doubt anyone here is really arguing that someone with let us say 7 years experience and 7 jobs is a very desirable employee.

But some things you've posted seem to have conflated "job hopping" as a career pattern with simply leaving a job for more money, which is completely different. If you see someone with a 7 year resume with 2 jobs, 3 and 4 years, say, obviously they're not a "job hopper".

But then you offer them a job for $60k, and after two years they quit for another at $75k, maybe without even looking as some recruiter found the guy. That's not job hopping. It's not a betrayal of the team. It's simply common sense.

Yeah, I think you've nailed it Miramon. I would be leery of wanting someone on one of my project teams that had a history of switching jobs that often. I would wonder what kind of performance record they were trying to outrun.

However leaving a team mid project for a higher paying opportunity elsewhere is not job hopping if it's not done repeatedly. That I think is where Brad stuck his foot in his mouth, he made it sound like he considered anyone who left mid project to be a bit of a traitor.

[StGabe]

You keep assuming that what to display in credits is based on being "pissed" or some personal issue. It's not. It's a matter of fairness to all involved. And that's something that's handled on a case by case basis.

We keep coming back to that because:

1) You keep using examples where it's clear that the only reasons you don't want to give people credit are personal. In your own words, you don't like anyone who would leave a project midway and think you don't have to give them credits because of it.

2) You haven't really given any other reasonable argument for not just adhering to something like the IGDA standards which would allow you to have a consistent system for credits that was developed by game developers with, the desires of game developers in need. It's not clear what the issue of "fairness to all involved" is if game developers are telling you that your system seems unfair.

3) Game credits are considered by most to be a factual accounting of who contributed to a project. They aren't a reward or punishment. On this basis, it is dishonest to reserve the right to put up credits that are missing certain contributions.

4) It doesn't matter if you haven't done this but merely "reserve the right to". You aren't setting consistent and fair standard for your employees.

[Qenan]

Not to mention 5) pointing out that you can do whatever you want as an employer (no duh!) doesn't exactly advance the conversation. I think you have gotten hints that it just makes you sound like an employer one might not want to work for -- probably not fair or true, but you aren't achieving a positive tone.

[StGabe]

Perhaps you should start a union or something for game developers.

To an extent it exists. Word gets out about different companies, how they treat their employees, and even small things like this affect how a company is perceived in the community of experienced developers. That's one of the points I've been trying to make: this is a chance for companies to show where they stand on an (admittedly lesser) issue that is important to its employees and potential future employees.

[Miramon]

3) Game credits are considered by most to read them to be a simple accounting of who contributed to a project. They aren't a reward or punishment. On this base, it is dishonest to reserve the right to put up credits that are missing certain contributions.
Though I generally agree with you, to be fair, if an employer doesn't agree with your "by most", then it's certainly not dishonest for them to manage credits differently.

I happen to think that credits should indeed be a simple listing of all contributors over the entire game lifetime, but it's not dishonest for someone else to disagree with me.

[StGabe]

Though I generally agree with you, to be fair, if an employer doesn't agree with your "by most", then it's certainly not dishonest for them to manage credits differently.

I disagree. If a person thinks that stealing is "ok", it doesn't make stealing "honest" it just makes it internally consistent. Usage defines the meaning here.

As someone pointed out previously, by removing someone who has significantly contributed to a project, not only are you removing the public record of their involvement but you are actually inflating the public record of other people in the credits by implying that they did more than was actually the case. Now that might not matter if the general understanding of credits was, "this is just an honor roll of valued employees". However that's not the case.

[Kraaze]

I think there's room for subjective criteria in game credits though. Let's take a hypothetical where someone was on a project for say 40% of its length. This person was a constant source of problems because they didn't get along with anyone and produced shoddy work that others had to keep re-doing. If that person finally got fired because they couldn't shape up their act would it not be "honest" or "just" to remove them from the credits?

I'm with you that subjective judgments, applied only by managers, could lead to credit inclusion being used punitively but I don't think a lack of inflexible standards means that such will always be the case.

[Dave Weinstein]

I think there's room for subjective criteria in game credits though. Let's take a hypothetical where someone was on a project for say 40% of its length. This person was a constant source of problems because they didn't get along with anyone and produced shoddy work that others had to keep re-doing. If that person finally got fired because they couldn't shape up their act would it not be "honest" or "just" to remove them from the credits?

No.

It assumes that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, that they did during their employment that in any way contributed to the product. This, I find highly unlikely.

If they weren't worth a credit, why were they worth a salary? And if they were on the project so long as to get a full credit but still contribute "nothing", well, your studio has bigger issues than who gets a credit, because you are letting deadwood stay on far too long.

[Kraaze]

No.

It assumes that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, that they did during their employment that in any way contributed to the product. This, I find highly unlikely.

If they weren't worth a credit, why were they worth a salary? And if they were on the project so long as to get a full credit but still contribute "nothing", well, your studio has bigger issues than who gets a credit, because you are letting deadwood stay on far too long.

I've known a few people who were net-zero or net-negative contributors to a team. The amount of work they created for others who were covering for their weaknesses outweighed any accomplishments that they may have had in the project.

Such people don't last a long time, but it's hard in our modern legal climate to just fire someone the day you realize they are worthless. It takes time to build a paper trail showing they have been coached, have had goals set that aren't being met, etc. Especially if such a person happens to be a protected minority.

[Dave Weinstein]

Such people don't last a long time, but it's hard in our modern legal climate to just fire someone the day you realize they are worthless. It takes time to build a paper trail showing they have been coached, have had goals set that aren't being met, etc. Especially if such a person happens to be a protected minority.

This assumes that the problem didn't show in the probationary period.

And even then, your problem has only shifted to indicate that your hiring practices have issues.

[peterb]

So will having a "no credits if you leave in the middle of the project" made explicit at hiring time keep all the job-hopping complainers from interviewing with me? Because if so, I have some edits to make to my help wanted ads.

I mean, we don't list any credits at all, but I'm more than willing to add a line warning that we'll take them away if you leave if it saves me from wasting time even interviewing these losers.

[Kyle Wilson]

I mean, we don't list any credits at all, but I'm more than willing to add a line warning that we'll take them away if you leave if it saves me from wasting time even interviewing these losers.

Please do. There are plenty of other employers who treat their employees fairly and with respect.

[Kraaze]

This assumes that the problem didn't show in the probationary period.

And even then, your problem has only shifted to indicate that your hiring practices have issues.

Fair enough, but I'm not aware of any perfect system for hiring that doesn't occasionally let a stinker through.

[Dave Weinstein]

Fair enough, but I'm not aware of any perfect system for hiring that doesn't occasionally let a stinker through.

Sure. But that is the problem, not the crediting system. Contorting the crediting system to handle a corner case caused by a problem in hiring is not the solution.

[Alex Handy]

FWIW, the first thing I look at in all manuals is the names of the dev team in the back. With 90% of companies skimping on manual paper and going all black and white with them, it's a crime when they don't put any credits in the back. They only take up 2 or 3 pages. 5 if it's an EA game.

[Kyle Wilson]

Now you're invoking your team to bolster your case but that doesn't really make sense. You have a bunch of game developers telling you what expectations they want and consider to be respectful.

Indeed. I find it curious that all the managers here cite fairness to their employees as a reason for excluding people who leave, when as far as I can tell all the actual developers in this thread disagree and would prefer to credit everyone who works on a game.

[Dave Weinstein]

With the size of modern game teams, and the move to small manuals, if they listed the full credits in the printed manual, you'd end up with 15 pages of credits and the epilepsy warning.

[Brad Wardell]

Indeed. I find it curious that all the managers here cite fairness to their employees as a reason for excluding people who leave, when as far as I can tell all the actual developers in this thread disagree and would prefer to credit everyone who works on a game.

Or arguably actual developers who might leave a project midway with a lot of unfinished elements because a competitor offered them $10k more a year.

I'm a developer, I've been developing games for 20 years in one form or other and my opinion hasn't changed on this just because I'm a manager now.

I also find it disengenous on how giving people DISCRETION over where people go in the credits is the same as having some dark evil policy.

People seem to keep ignoring that as a practical matter, we've never excluded anyone from the credits. But I also believe we should have discretion over how the credits are being handled as opposed to just going with some blanket policy.

[Dave Weinstein]

Maby because the "discretion" model has shown itself to be prone to politics, favoritism, and has caused a great deal of bad blood in the past.

You may not have seen that personally, but that doesn't mean that those who have are wrong when they want a clear, transparent, and well understood standard set of rules for crediting.

[Brad Wardell]

Maby because the "discretion" model has shown itself to be prone to politics, favoritism, and has caused a great deal of bad blood in the past.

You may not have seen that personally, but that doesn't mean that those who have are wrong when they want a clear, transparent, and well understood standard set of rules for crediting.

Or maybe they just like to argue about the topic as I do. :)

If someone wants to point to actual exmaples where credits have been ruined by politics, favortism, etc, then let's hear it.

[TheTrunkDr]

Or arguably actual developers who might leave a project midway with a lot of unfinished elements because a competitor offered them $10k more a year.

I'm a developer, I've been developing games for 20 years in one form or other and my opinion hasn't changed on this just because I'm a manager now.

I also find it disengenous on how giving people DISCRETION over where people go in the credits is the same as having some dark evil policy.

People seem to keep ignoring that as a practical matter, we've never excluded anyone from the credits. But I also believe we should have discretion over how the credits are being handled as opposed to just going with some blanket policy.
DISCRETION is subjective, disavowing someone's work is dishonest, plain and simple. You can easily craft a policy where some fixed amount of work is required and once that is reached the person is credited regardless of what else happens. Why is this such an issue? Credits cost the company nothing and refusing them only hurts the (former) employee. Despite the myth including someone that you may feel doesn't "deserve" a credit doesn't devalue others' work or contributions in anyway.

[Brad Wardell]

DISCRETION is subjective, disavowing someone's work is dishonest, plain and simple. You can easily craft a policy where some fixed amount of work is required and once that is reached the person is credited regardless of what else happens. Why is this such an issue? Credits cost the company nothing and refusing them only hurts the (former) employee. Despite the myth including someone that you may feel doesn't "deserve" a credit doesn't devalue others' work or contributions in anyway.

I disagree. I don't see it as being "dishonest". I believe in the judgment of people overall versus policies.

But like I said, I am very comfortable with the idea of people who would leave with their stuff unfinished staying as far away from where I work as possible. :)

[StGabe]

I also find it disengenous on how giving people DISCRETION over where people go in the credits is the same as having some dark evil policy.

That's simply not good management. Set clear, concise, fair criteria and have done with it. I already gave a good example: you might want to have discretion over whether you are required to pay unused vacation time to an employee who leaves but that doesn't mean it's justified.

People seem to keep ignoring that as a practical matter, we've never excluded anyone from the credits.

Because it's irrelevant. Just as with ALL other aspects of business, it is always better to create a measurable set of guidelines ahead of time so that everyone is clear. There is NO reason other than a need to vent personal feelings, that such a set of guidelines would not suffice.

But I also believe we should have discretion over how the credits are being handled as opposed to just going with some blanket policy.

And what's wrong with setting up a fair and consistent "blanket" policy in advance. You keep saying "blanket policy" like it's a bad thing. What is your policy for sick days? Vacation days? Work hours? Aren't the minimum expectations for these all "blanket policies" or do you feel you need discretion with them as well?

[Dean]

Or maybe they just like to argue about the topic as I do. :)

If someone wants to point to actual exmaples where credits have been ruined by politics, favortism, etc, then let's hear it.

It was called the Hollywood Blacklist. It was during the McCarthy era. People did work, but other people were credited for it. It was not considered a good thing.

See the movie The Front. It's pretty good.

[Conrad]

I also find it disengenous on how giving people DISCRETION over where people go in the credits is the same as having some dark evil policy.

If your policy of "discretion" exists to justify and enable dishonest crediting practices, that's not too far off.


Or arguably actual developers who might leave a project midway with a lot of unfinished elements because a competitor offered them $10k more a year.

I don't have to try very hard to read that as an insult. Was that your intention?

[Rollory]

People seem to keep ignoring that as a practical matter, we've never excluded anyone from the credits.

Don't you also like to brag about how Stardock has had zero turnover in the past X many years? I am not sure you are in a strong position to be making this argument.

Or arguably actual developers who might leave a project midway with a lot of unfinished elements because a competitor offered them $10k more a year.

But as was discussed just upthread there is NEVER a time when there will not be unfinished elements. And of course it is wise and good for them to go somewhere where they are paid better, assuming the work conditions are otherwise generally equivalent. How can you argue otherwise?

[Crater]

I disagree. I don't see it as being "dishonest". I believe in the judgment of people overall versus policies.


But that's the problem! You seem like a reasonable guy (I know most people here appreciate your anti-DRM policy), and I don't think anyone's questioning your good intentions. The problem is that when the guy writing your particle system sleeps with your wife, your judgment might not be as rock solid as it is now.

[Brad Wardell]

That's simply not good management. Set clear, concise, fair criteria and have done with it. I already gave a good example: you might want to have discretion over whether you are required to pay unused vacation time to an employee who leaves but that doesn't mean it's justified.



Because it's irrelevant. Just as with ALL other aspects of business, it is always better to create a measurable set of guidelines ahead of time so that everyone is clear. There is NO reason other than a need to vent personal feelings, that such a set of guidelines would not suffice.



And what's wrong with setting up a fair and consistent "blanket" policy in advance. You keep saying "blanket policy" like it's a bad thing. What is your policy for sick days? Vacation days? Work hours? Aren't the minimum expectations for these all "blanket policies" or do you feel you need discretion with them as well?


We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

My only blanket policy is that I don't support blanket policies.

Companies that treat their employees disrespectully suffer the old fashioned way - quality people don't want to work for them.

[Brad Wardell]

But that's the problem! You seem like a reasonable guy (I know most people here appreciate your anti-DRM policy), and I don't think anyone's questioning your good intentions. The problem is that when the guy writing your particle system sleeps with your wife, your judgment might not be as rock solid as it is now.

Oh the particle guy would end up in the credits still, it would simply be listed as "In memory of.." ;)

[beloved one]

Oh the particle guy would end up in the credits still, it would simply be listed as "In memory of.." ;)

http://www.arcticnightfall.com/ninjascroll/characters/images/kagero.jpg
possible depiction of missus Wardell

[TheTrunkDr]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

My only blanket policy is that I don't support blanket policies.

Companies that treat their employees disrespectully suffer the old fashioned way - quality people don't want to work for them.
You realize, your company is favouring a system that enables that disrespect. Your "discretion" is really just you being subjective about what should be an objective matter. How does that not fuel disrespect?

[Brad Wardell]

You realize, your company is favouring a system that enables that disrespect. Your "discretion" is really just you being subjective about what should be an objective matter. How does that not fuel disrespect?

Favoring a system that allows for abuse provides opportunities for those who don't abuse it. Companies that abuse their employees almost always suffer in the long-run.

Moreover, it also helps discourage employees whose default position is to distrust companies. I don't want people who look at employers as their adversary.

[Dave Weinstein]

Moreover, it also helps discourage employees whose default position is to distrust companies. I don't want people who look at employers as their adversary.

Nor should people look at their employers as their friend.

Companies have interests.

Employees have interests.

When those interests align, it makes sense for them to work together.

When those interests fall out of alignment, it makes sense for the relationship to end.

[corsair]

Indeed. I find it curious that all the managers here cite fairness to their employees as a reason for excluding people who leave, when as far as I can tell all the actual developers in this thread disagree and would prefer to credit everyone who works on a game.

If someone had left a project for whatever reason, I would often ask (if I didn't know myself) their coworkers if they felt enough of their work survived to warrent inclusion in the credits. If someone had to rework code, design, art or text to the point the original work was unrecognizable, they would not be included. But it was never a punitive thing, and the lead people I had working with me on a project were invariably reasonable people - it was usually someone who couldn't handle the work assigned and it was over-written that didn't get credit, and that was precious few times. Usually people who left a project but otherwise had contributed in a competent fashion were given credit.

So, in my experience, your statement isn't quite correct, but also never ever saw a team wanting to deny credit solely because someone left a project. That was only uppermost management, and I only noted it actually happen once once in eight years at Interplay, and never at New World.

[Sol Invictus]

No one is saying that. You'd know if you read the link.
Well, I know that now. I'm going to put away my "jump to conclusions" mat.