IGDA is a pointless body...discuss.

[Brian Beuken]

Since there are a lot of people out there who are members of IGDA but don't actually qualify for entry to the approved sections of TCE. I thought this would be a good place to have some input which could be seen by all.

Recent events at IGDA where Mike Capp's openly pronounced his reluctance to hire people unwilling to work absurd hours, created a major talking point in this and other forums which quite rightly questioned the competancy of IGDA to act as a representative body for developers, especally on the long standing and often heated subject of QoL.

So...I'll open with a poll.
Is IGDA pointless, and open the debate to everyone and anyone regardless of their approval status on this forum.

Of course I vote yes, it is a pointless body. Its done nothing for years and appears unwilling/unable to do anything more than organise a few conferences and arrange for piss ups to drum up support (or subscriptions?)


damn I mistyped not instead of no....argghhh

[Bobz]

Currently, epic fail, so much opportunity to pull its finger out and show some backbone but panders to management and do nothing.

It is a shame, because there is so much potential, local chapters can and do work very well, but those that don't work so well could do with so much more support and a proper frame work should be in place so that a decent standard can be met by all chapters and the money needs to be spent where it can help out most rather than what appears to be the case now where it's used just for annual piss ups for the board.

[dan_olson]

I would like to choose two of the answers.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If IGDA is worthless, is it really worth your time pointing out that it's worthless to everyone?

[Brian Beuken]

Originally Posted by dan_olson
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would like to choose two of the answers.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If IGDA is worthless, is it really worth your time pointing out that it's worthless to everyone?

well i'd really like it not to be, so yes it is worth my time.

[Paul Sinnett]

I don't think it's pointless, it's just not achieving its potential. At all. And I think that the reason for that is a combination of an enormous amount of apathy from developers and a build up dead wood in the organisation. And judging by the recent activity from the board it seems that's where most of the dead wood is.

Partly I think this is due to their election system, which pretty much guarantees this composition - just as it does in politics generally.

[Sairon]

I think the people in charge seem very unrepresentative of the people they claim to represent. I don't know any of them since I'm from the European side of the industry, but just judging from their titles and summary on the IGDA page it's evident that the people least represented are the actual developers in the trenches. Over 50% seem to be business type people, the very people who often are blamed for the bad QoL. In fact there's more people from academia on the board than actual real developers, which I think is just absurd.

The only thing I think looks right about the board is the presence of a game attorney, which I presume could be very helpful if they wanted to actually tackle some real issues.

[Brian Beuken]

Appreciate the vots guys...but....discuss...please say why? This has been left out in an open section so that IGDA members (perhaps board members) can look at it and take the comments on board.

[Paul Sinnett]

I think a more interesting question would be what could we do to improve it. I do think a lot of this falls on the board and its composition. I think one way might be to change the conditions required to be a board member of the IGDA.

Currently you have to be a member for at least two years. And there are no real restrictions on membership. Other than that, all you need is to agree to abide by some bylaws and codes of conduct. And as we have seen, the board members themselves can interpret (and have interpreted) the aims of the IGDA in some perverse ways.

What if board members must also be currently and directly working in video game development? And I don't mean working for a company that makes games. I mean directly working on a game; explicitly, no management or other supporting roles.

I realise this would exclude the majority of the current board, but well that's rather the point isn't it.

I also realise that it would exclude a lot of stakeholders in the game industry who don't directly make games. However, I suggest that is where advisers come in.

Finally, I realise, that given the current apathy among game developers toward IGDA it would be hard to reach a quorum. However, I believe that would change over time, and in the interim members could be appointed from volunteers. It also might be hard to make up the numbers with developers. But I think an incomplete board is preferable to an unrepresentative one.

It would at least grant immunity (by definition) from claims that it doesn't represent the developers.

[Dakkonfire]

They have no power, and those in charge of this powerless entity don't even believe in the mandates that their organization is meant to uphold. How's that?

[Dredge]

Originally Posted by Paul Sinnett
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What if board members must also be currently and directly working in video game development? And I don't mean working for a company that makes games. I mean directly working on a game; explicitly, no management or other supporting roles.

A bit too vicious really. While 'currently and directly working in game development' is good, cutting out management totally is taking it too far. TCE's reasons for no management are quite clear cut. However IGDA as a body also (in theory) has to represent the upper levels. There are many good managers out there who are probably aghast at the recent hubbub as the developers under them. There is no reason to exclude management to that extent.

I think the golden requirement for membership on the board should be 'You must follow IGDA's quality of life policies and will try to implement them at all opportunities'. Or no board for you.

-edit- where there is money, there is power.

[Paul Sinnett]

Originally Posted by Dredge
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A bit too vicious really. While 'currently and directly working in game development' is good, cutting out management totally is taking it too far. TCE's reasons for no management are quite clear cut. However IGDA as a body also (in theory) has to represent the upper levels.

I don't think they need IGDA representing them. They have enough representation and power already. IGDA is intended to be an association of game developers, not managers of game developers. I think managers should be involved as advisers, but not as decision makers; not on the board. They are too good at the board room game to be trusted.

The problem (as has been demonstrated) is a conflict of interest. This was entirely predictable. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I guess I gave business people in the games industry too much credit in thinking that they would be wiser than the profiteers that have ruined the rest of the world economy. (I realise this is more the execs than the managers. But this lust for short term profit, no matter the long term cost, is exactly the same kind of thinking behind the deliberate mismanagement of developer's time proposed as the only way to make good games by the Epic's of this industry.)

Originally Posted by Dredge
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are many good managers out there who are probably aghast at the recent hubbub as the developers under them. There is no reason to exclude management to that extent.I think the golden requirement for membership on the board should be 'You must follow IGDA's quality of life policies and will try to implement them at all opportunities'. Or no board for you.-edit- where there is money, there is power.

I know there are good managers out there but I think the risks outweigh the rewards in allowing them to guide a developer association. Sure, a good manager could do wonders for the board. But a bad manager has, in one informal presentation, tainted the organisation beyond repair in the eyes of most of the developers I've talked to about it. And by his own interpretation he feels he is providing a good quality of life.

Could a board consisting of only developers do better? They could hardly do worse.

[MegaGreenbean]

I think the IGDA does have a point. It's a very convenient platform upon which to do PR work. Whether it started out with that intention or not, that's what it is. This means there is no surprise it doesn't have a motivation to change things or have an opinion on things - it's a nice happy family of dev management, college outreach, student/enthusiasts, service industries like law and outsourcing - all working together to raise profile.

The only frustration with this is that, like real propoganda, it actually acts like a wet cloth over the fire. It's greatest crime, and why people here are and should be pissed off is the name conflation that confuses the representation of games industry workers. It weakens developers by seeming to fulfil the role of a developers association, a guild or union or whatever but then takes the impetus and kills it with inaction, maintaining the status quo and general misunderstanding of why it should do those roles. Also the one thing it does do very well, chapters, is entirely powered by voluntary work and doesn't actually need the IGDA to happen at all (there are many examples of voluntary local organisations creating on-line and offline networking forums).

As many have said already, why bother to talk about this anyway? We know as "typical" developers our money, and more importantly time and effort, going to the IGDA is wasted so we don't join it - many have held subscriptions and given it a try. But as said above the current state of the IGDA is actually an obstruction to real change. And that is worth talking about. All in all I think the IGDA is really now the IGPRA and it makes sense to start thinking about a real IGDA. The big question as always is, what will that actually try to acheive and who will do it?

[Paul Sinnett]

Originally Posted by Greenbean
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

it makes sense to start thinking about a real IGDA

Is that like IGDA but with more guns?

[MegaGreenbean]

Originally Posted by Paul Sinnett
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is that like IGDA but with more guns?

Tut tut.

[Paul Sinnett]

Sorry. I do think it's an important question: try to salvage the IGDA as it is, or rebuild from scratch. It has taken the IGDA the best part of 10 years to reach 16,000 members.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.