NYT on EA Games 651
The New York Times has a story investigating the EA Games accusations that we reported on before. They use the phrase "toiling like galley slaves" to describe EA's programmers, and note that EA has a formal policy of hiring young, naive people who are willing to work long hours for low pay.
most companies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that how most large companies work?
Re:most companies? (Score:5, Funny)
Whose fault (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whose fault (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean...
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?
Reasons to Boycott EA games (Score:3, Interesting)
2.) The classic Electronic Arts as we know it has been gone for a long long time. EA is just a rich marketing force slaving over all the little companies.
3.) EA has a very microsoft-ish marketing tactics. EA has tried hard many times to lock in sports association licenses so that non-EA sports games can't use authentic players. Luckily they failed.
4.) Com
Re:Whose fault (Score:5, Insightful)
It is easy to say that people should not accept a job, or that they can quit. However, if they have a family to support, or have a medical condition and need the money or insurance coverage, not having a job for a few weeks while they find a new one might not be an option.
Re:Whose fault (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's the best they can get then they have no room to complain. It's not like people taking jobs at Home Depot expect any different.
If they CAN get better then take the job and search for a new one while you work at the shitty one.
You gotta do what you gotta do. Complaining about it does nothing.
What makes programing any more special than any other job?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whose fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whose fault (Score:5, Informative)
In economics, "search models suggest that all employers enjoy some monopsony power because workers require time to find better jobs." This article [eh.net] from the Economic History Network encyclopedia goes into more detail, including how the rate of exploitation will be the reciprocal of the elasticity of the labor supply. If the labor supply is elastic (and highly sensitive to wages) there won't be as much exploitation of workers, but if it's largely inelastic (as one might expect from the "naieve young programmer" demographic) then exploitation will be significant.
Re:Whose fault (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a family, you're probably not working at EA Games. Why would your significant other put up with your 7 days-a-week work schedule for below average pay and modest benefits? Like the article said, the company preys on the young and naive. The truth is, most of them could get a better paying job in an area with lower cost of living. But they are so enamoured with being a games programmer, they stick it out.
or have a medical condition and need the money or insurance coverage
If you have a medical condition, you probably aren't up for 80 hour work weeks. So you're probably not working at EA games.
I worked as a programmer in the computer games industry for five years - when I was young. It was a lot of fun, but I am glad I eventually grew up and left. It's really weird when you go into a different field and find it is challenging, fun, pays better and requires fewer hours. The adrenaline rush of being able to enjoy my life with someone else far exceeds the adrenaline rush I got when that last CD-ROM got burned and shipped off to duplication.
Re:Whose fault (Score:3, Insightful)
I beg to differ--there are a number of medical conditions that may require regular and costly upkeep, but don't render the programmer unable to work. Diabetes, for instance, requires regular blood tests and (for Type I diabetics) insulin injections.
Re:Whose fault (Score:4, Insightful)
Sad really.
Re:Whose fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad...or just basic economics? If the job is "cooler" by its very nature it will naturally compete for workers more effectively than a boring job, and be able to attract good workers for lower wages. And it naturally attracts programmers for whom the coolness factor is strongest, because they'll take the largest pay cut just to be a games programmer. That's a pretty basic concept of
Re:Whose fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider a cabinet company who hires young and naive workers. Even if they're putting in lots of hours, the errors they make eat up the lumber which means lower profits for when the product finally does get out the door.
With software, as long as it meets basic functionality and ships on time, it doesn't matter how many unpaid overtime hours or how many electrons were used.
Not all people work long hours because of naivete (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyhow, I don't regret that at all. Now that I'm older, have a daughter and different priorities, I hate that young people are still willing to do that, because it makes me look like a less desirable employee.
The problem with EA, however, is not the way they work their employees with long hours, but the way they deceive people to get them and keep them before turnover finally claims them. If EA said: we're going to pay you $25k/yr base, but work you 100 hours a week, so you'll make $85k with overtime, then there would be no problem. (And, quite possibly, no people accepting jobs there)
Re:most companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:most companies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'm young and willing to work long hours for low pay. Hire me EA. I'd gladly take a pay cut to make games instead of cheesy Java/SQL database apps. Say what you will about EA's hirings, getting into the video game industry and having EA on your resume is well worth the low pay for a little while.
how is that different from other companies (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:how is that different from other companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, you work at mcdonalds/walmart while you goto school, you dont make that your career.
The problem is EA is abusing people who already worked their way up. This is a multiBILLION dollar company paying less than other companies in the same market. Its the black sheep of the entertainment employment.
Re:how is that different from other companies (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So, based on the previous discussions... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how is that different from other companies (Score:3, Interesting)
Doing a job that involves brainwork doesn't make you better- but in some cases it makes your contribution to the company more valuable.
A tech worker who keep an entire office of computers running provides a far larger contribution to their company than a mcdonalds worker who pulls trays out of a fryer when it beeps.
Further, jobs that involve brainwork generally have a higher level of responsibility than those that don't. Getting paid more means that it's your ass when things break.
There are
Re:how is that different from other companies (Score:5, Insightful)
In programming, and IT in general, you need some form of experience before you even go in. Chances are, you've already paid a buttload for training, too. College, certs, something.
That and, as mentioned, because IT work is being considered "white collar" these days, those extra hours you put in mean jack when it comes to your paycheck. I've seen companies bend over backwards to arrange "blue collar" workers' schedules such that they will *not* have to pay overtime.
Re:how is that different from other companies (Score:3, Insightful)
In 2003 Lawrence Probst, the CEO of EA Games pulled down a salary just shy of $697,000 and got a $1.1 million bonus. Source: Mark Logic.
Mr. Probst has been in upper management at EA since at least 1987. Other members of senior management make equally exhorbitant salaries.
As a member of upper management, you do not, generally, perform any of the duties that actual make the company run on a day to day basis. Senior management positions can often be vacated for weeks or even months at a time without having a
Re:how is that different from other companies (Score:4, Informative)
Lou Gerstner ended his time at IBM with $2m of salary plus $1.5m annual bonus plus $12.9m of restricted stock. The year before that he got no stock, but a bonus of $8m was probably some consolation.
Similarly, the CEO of Comcast got $2m salary last year, plus a $6m bonus and $12m in stock options.
In 2001, as Cisco's stock dropped 71% and they lost a billion dollars, their CEO continued to rake in $154m total compensation. Imagine how much he would have gotten if he had done a good job.
If minimum wage had increased by the same percentage as CEO pay in the last 15 years, flipping burgers at McDonalds would be paying $15 an hour.
Re:how is that different from other companies (Score:3, Interesting)
That's irrelevant. The developers here appear to be working the same hours doing things that actually make the company tick and they're making about 10% of what Mr. Probst is if you figure the top devs in this situation pull in a healthy $100k a year.
The point wasn't how much any individual worked, the point was that if you're working outrageous hours to make the company tick, you should get outrageous compensation. Otherwise, I'd have to say you're entirely justified in fighting back. In fact, I'll be hap
Re:how is that different from other companies (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you tell which are these right managers? At one time, executives at Enron appeared to be doing very well. (Now try to live on an "Enron retirement.") The (former) CEO [kansascity.com] and CFO from at least one utility company are on trial for securities violations. I suspect that no one can distinguish the good managers from the bad managers. However, they all get very high salaries.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that good? People often bitch that no one will hire you unless you have some industry experience, and how are you going to get that if no one hires you without it?
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was entering the industry today and had a crack at EA, I'd be first in line to take on those crazy hours for 'low pay'.
Take a close look at what that 'low pay' is. It ain't so low.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow I cannot sympathize too much. If the author actually understood what sweatshop conditions are like, or how galley slaves actually lived, I might sympathize.
One day these guys will win a big "victory" from EA that gives them overtime pay, benefits, etc. That's the day that they get outsourced to India. Then they'll be bitching about how evil the corps are when it's really they themselves who made it advantageous for the corp to do so.
Bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit on a stick, newbie. EA had an operating profit of over $500M USD last year, and spent several hundred million dollars on marketing alone. You want to argue that globalization should fuck workers here? I think it should make life better for workers everywhere.
EA's financial status as of last year. [forbes.com]
Sales $2.82 bil
Profits $.50 bil
Assets $3.34 bil
Market Value $13.28 bil
Employees 4,000
CEO Probst's compensation package [forbes.com]
$1.45M in cash this year, $145M in stock options granted over his career. Stock options may look free, but they damn well aren't-- the difference comes out of the company's profits same as any other compensation.
So, EA games has 3,300 programmers. Hire another 1,650 at $60,000 a pop, and the wages cost you $100M a year. Adjust to ~$150M a year for benefits, and you're still taking up less than one third of EA's operating profits from last year.
Productivity goes up, and it costs you less than the money spent compensating the CEO in the last 10 years.
We can also compare it to EA Games' marketing budget, estimated at >$100M in the last quarter. Cut your marketing budget by 30%, and you can hire enough programmers for them to have normal lives and increase production.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Better yet! Cut marketing by 30% and assume that sales will stay at the same level so they can do more hiring. You should write a book!
Finally, that operating profit will have to be used to continue to grow the business, to war chest against future sales shortfalls, or possibly given to investors as dividends (like Microsoft has been doing). It's not just "free money" that can be used for righting whatever social injustice you think is being done.
These are complicated dynamic systems where you can't just start yanking numbers around as you please. Every dollar you take from one part of the business affects another part of the business, and the NUMEROUS game development companies that went out of business over the last few years is testament to the fact that EA knows how to do something right.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't any market mechanism for reducing the pay of bad CEOs. There usually isn't even any mechanism for firing them. Why? Because they're not in it for the long-term good of the company, they're in it for the short-term profit forecasts. That's a good way to put all of the employe
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some CEOs are more than worth the money. Apple was headed into the dirt until Jobs returned to fix things. He saved the jobs of thousands of people and provided products that have given millions more happiness or at least some semblance of satisfaction.
A CEO is the general of his organization. At a large company, his decisions can have billion dollar consequences and directly affect the livelihood tens of thousands of employees. At that scale, $10million to ensure that it will happen is a small price to pay.
What about the ones who run their companies into the ground?
They should be fired. Company boards that make those decisions deserve to lose their companies.
Or the ones who screw the shareholders?
If they did so breaking the law, they should get jail time.
Or the ones who like to dump toxic waste in vacant lots in the night?
That's illegal, so they should pay fines and go to jail. Why keep constructing these veritable straw men?
Re:Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because all too many companies are headed by CEOs such as these.
You say they should be fired, they should pay fines they should go to jail. I agree. The problem is that they don't!
Far too many are rewarded based upon what they promise, not what they Deliver.
I seem to agree... (Score:3, Insightful)
But if we are willing to pay outrageous prices for the games, then most of the problem is with us right? A few years back I was paying around $30 USD for games. Now I'm paying $50? Someone please tell me how games became $50 dollars?
This story ends up being the old standard. They can charge you what they want because you are willing to pay it. Companies have no desire to price th
And let's talk The Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Specifically:
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Chicken Run (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens when one of the chicken complains about the living condition, maybe by mean of fasting-protest (so that it doesn't grow fat enough in time)? Well, the owner will just find another chicken to replace this naughty one, because there are so many more chicken hatched and ready to grow.
What if this bad chuck told 999 of his mates to do the same? Well, in a farm of 3,000, the owner will simply replace these 1,000 bad apples as long as the rest still grow fast enough, and the 1,000 replacement grow even faster to make up time.
What about the free range chicken? Well, they have found a good owner, who has a consumer market that demands free running healthy lean chicken. With that demand that the owner cannot ignore, he's set to exercise his chicken, offer plenty of land for them to run about and feed them only the approved corns.
Wait, wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Where are the eggs??? That could solve some very important nutrition problems in the cubicle...
Wait, ew, gross... eating your own eggs??
OK That's great, now I don't think I can eat dinner tonight. BTW, do chickens in cages get to leave to go to the bathroom? Because that would be gross if workers couldn't leave a cubicle to do that. But, the way some cubicles smell, maybe you couldn't tell the difference...
Re:Chicken Run (Score:3, Insightful)
As an IT Guru (Score:5, Insightful)
The *ONLY* thing that keeps me from working even more insane hours is to adjust my billing rate - and that is almost a catch-22 - surely to limit my hours but surely to get me replaced in the long run.
I do Oracle financials, database and applicaiton server stuff. Its not just gamers, but "IT" in and of itself.
Part of my issue is the H1-B workers don't have family here or bust there arses off to get enough money to go back home and retire early, so they don't have many qualms about the workfload.
I don't see it as differences of trying to be a lazy american as much as other corp heads see it, i just see it as i'm busting my arse off to have a family life at home.. you know, pay my bills, buy my family dinner, pay my mortgage and have some cash left over to entertain and put my daughter through college.
So please, NYTIMES, keep it up. Do your investigative research even further. Don't pull a fox/cnn/cbs/nbc news report and have it end at that - show the world what gets taken forgranted and show the world that us supposed "white collars" aren't necessarily all living it up high and dry doing nothing but pointing fingers like many assume.
What really disgusts me is that people get treated like this and there is no "thanks". Work late hours and stay in a hotel? non-expensable, have a cell phone or pager they bother you on? don't try and expense it. Get stuck working remote? good luck expensing it. Just isn't what it used to be in taking pride in your workers..
Good luck EA employees - i'm there fighting for ya and WITH YOU!
Re:As an IT Guru (Score:3)
Re:As an IT Guru (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually that is not true. This a flawed argument companies use, that the employee has all the power, they can leave and go else where.
The truth is, the company must follow working conditions set by law. And the laws are made by the people to stop abusive working conditions.
The major problem, is the young generation of today don't look at the long term problems of the working environment. Companies have to give back to the society they take resources from. We (The people) build schools and infrastructure so companies can flourish, not so companies can pillage. We are trying to better ourselves at home, while competing in the global market. When a company starts abusing the efforts they need to be brought out in public so people can discuss and the solutions be proposed.
I find it funny when people think companies have no responsibility to the community they work in. If they dont want to play by the rules, they dont need to be in business. Some other company will step in and fill its role.
Really the wrong view to the problem, its not the employee that has the problem, its the company. And the company needs to address it.
Re:As an IT Guru (Score:4, Insightful)
I've worked with Indian contractors. (Score:5, Insightful)
They work hard to get here and then they work hard here and bank their paychecks.
They do this for 5 - 10 years because they know they'll go home after that and RETIRE and live the good life at home.
They'll have about the same standard of living there that I have here, but their's will cost a LOT less.You don't understand what the Industrial Revolution was about, then. Look up some info about the begining of the Unions. If you think those conditions were "good" then you have a very warped sense of "good".
Re:As an IT Guru (Score:4, Insightful)
What a COLLOSSAL pile of bullshit -- the people coming here as H1Bs, or working in outsourcing in India, are almost always from the upper caste. These people grew up with the silver spoon with servants and large homes and more luxuries than most North Americans (perhaps not via imports like electronics, but local luxuries). Even now in India these people are seeing their wages balloon, yet the poor in India are still getting jack shit.
Keep your your benevolent myth though you fucktwit.
Re:As an IT Guru (Score:5, Interesting)
How exactly did you do that, just curious? Some things I can guess:
A. You moved to a third world country. If you are living in the U.S. you are inherently at a disadvantage because the cost of living WILL price you out of the new global market. Maybe you have forgone health insurance and are living in rural America or maybe a slum?
B. You made the jump from worker to employer or at least self employed. This is the only real way to escape the impending race to the bottom in wages until the U.S. levels with China and India (finding a level is kind of tough when you are competing against a billion plus new workers). An especially good variation is you have jumped to an employer or at least an executive exploiting the cheap labor in China, India and Eastern Europe. Is that why you've been visiting there? That may work until the workers and executives in China an India acquire your skills, expertise and customers at which point you will be expendable to them. Its a key thing American executives are missing in their rush to cheap labor. Eventually those countries are going to figure out they don't need American executives raking in the 7 figure salaries and not doing much for it. They will also have better markets than the U.S. China is already rapidly approaching that. Their workers are seeing expanding prosperity while American real income is declining. China is a better market to enter now and the Chinese are better equipped to tap it than Americans.
C. Maybe you've acquired skills that are still in demand and you skills haven't been overwhelmed with low cost workers that have them. All I can say is hope it last. There aren't many skills you can have someone else can't develop too. When manufacturing workers started losing their jobs to China, IT workers scoffed because they were in the bubble and in demand. Well now their jobs are going their too. So now biotech workers scoff about their skills, well guess what they are going too now. Lawyers and doctors, harder but a lot of non courtroom legal work is going and doctors in India are increasingly marketing a plane ticket and an operation. Maybe you have skills in an area that requires your physical presence in the U.S. well more H-1B's can nail you there too. Any skills you have someone in China and India can acquire too and they will work for a lot less than you.
As other's responding to your post have suggested what you are calling global competition can also be called class warfare. Trade barriers, poor communications and cost of shipping goods(when longshoreman had to load and unload ships) hamstrung capitalists in most of the 20th century. It resulted in rising wages, wider prosperity and expensive labor in the U.S., Western Europe and later Japan. Dropping of trade barrier, ubiquitous cheap communications and container shipping have given them the upper hand again. The end result is they are pushing workers back to where they were at the beginning of the 20th century. 80 hour work weeks for a subsistence wage, no job security(layoff 1/3rd of your workers just to keep the other 2/3rds focused and not demanding more wages or luxuries like health care), age discrimination.
In the U.S. the fact a pro business and anti labor party now completely dominates government is currently dooming American workers to return to where they were in the early 20th century, they just wont be working in factories, they will be in cube farms shackled to computers....... exactly like EA. It doesn't look as bad but in most of the ways its the same. 80 hour work weeks for long periods destroys people mentally, physically and spiritually, whether its at a computer or in a factory, take if from someone who knows. If you are going it for your own business you might survive and prosper. If you are working for some dick who is making 100X what you are and who would just as soon shit on you as look at your life is going to suck.
Re:As an IT Guru (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. Because some people are so poor that they would gladly accept miserable wages, it is obvious that, morally and ethically, everyone has to accept miserable wages.
And it is clear that any dissenter must be classified as a "small-minded whiner".
Thomas-
Quality (Score:5, Insightful)
The Sims 1 and 2, with their gazillion expansion packs. Simcity 4. Sports games (Football, Hockey, Soccer, Basketball edition 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, oh god I must buy the 2005 edition!) Recently, NFSU2, which is (in my opinion) less polished / fun, even if its a sequel. Easy money. These game sells year after year, you only need to add a little content and a 30$ price tag.
Clever business model I guess.
Employers need to measure passion for the job. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe this is just wild speculation. But perhaps managers need to be taught to recognise voluntary additional work as just that, and not to count on it in the future -- especially, not to work it into their business models and work flow charts.
what else is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies have long histories of over using and abusing employees. Its the primary reason unions exist. Would anyone need to collectively bargain if they got good hours, decent and safe working conditions?
Sounds like Arthur Anderson... (Score:2, Insightful)
glad I didn't get that job (Score:3, Interesting)
I was interviewed in Toronto for a position at the Vancouver (Burnaby) studio. I am glad I didn't get that job.
The reason why they recruit young grads is because we are naive. I was naive. Afterall, it was my dream job at the time, an illusion now shattered.
Need for Speed Underground 2 (Score:3, Insightful)
sweatshops (Score:3, Insightful)
can the gamers come together to influence the EA situation?
Re:sweatshops (Score:2)
Has the lot of the average coffee or cocoa grower improved with the Fair Trade movement? No. It has for some, but the odds are like winning the lottery.
Best Quote EVAR!! (Score:5, Funny)
Next, EA will be conducting a survey to determine if employees like to be fed poison, being impaled or imolated...
And this surprises us because... (Score:5, Insightful)
With the -rare- exception, companies will squeeze their employees for the most they will give for the least pay they will take. We wonder why unions are still necessary? Because companies don't look out for employees' interests, they look out for their own.
If a single employee demands better working hours or more pay, he or she is replaceable. If five hundred of them do so, the employer will take notice. If five thousand do, the employer is facing a crisis, especially if these employees raise a large, public, well-founded stink. If you are being mistreated by an employer (tech or otherwise), chances are you aren't the only one. (If you are, perhaps re-examine your definition of "mistreated?") If this is common practice for the employer, your co-workers are probably just as pissed off, and sitting around waiting around for someone to tell them what to do about it.
Maybe you should consider telling them!
Re:And this surprises us because... (Score:5, Insightful)
My own take, when I was a manager at a large company you've heard of, was that I wanted people to work smart rather than merely working hard. Granted, there are rare times when it's necessary to put in more time (late nights, weekends, off hours) to complete a key short-term deliverable, but people working long hours constantly isn't a sign of good management, but rather poor management. Employees who get tired will start making mistakes, and that's expensive (remember that the later a bug is found the more expensive -- by a large margin -- it is to fix.
The other key point here is that hiring (including the salaries of the hiring manager, HR, interviewers, and training) is expensive. In my experience, it takes a while in my line of business (system development) for even a very good new hire to really pay their way. It has also been said that the difference in productivity between a top programmer and a marginal programmer is 100 to 1. If you work from those assumptions, the way to extract the maximum useful output is to hire good people, encourage them to work efficiently, and otherwise treat them well.
I like to say that if someone who reported to me accomplished everything they were expected in a high quality manner to in 10 hours a week I'd have no problem with it. My own experience is that some people like to work in quick bursts, some people really do like to put in a lot of hours, and some people simply work steadily. However they prefer to do so is fine by me. I do have a bit of a problem with people who do the same thing over and over again (often spending a lot of time on it) without trying to find a better way of doing it. I like to say that I'm too lazy to do the same thing twice. Computers don't get upset if they're asked to do the same thing over and over again, and I prefer to move on to something new.
Obviously, there are people who don't see it that way. Rest assured, though, there are companies and managers who do take a reasonable approach to this, and that the whole industry isn't a sweatshop.
So why the US don't follow Canada's steps... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So why the US don't follow Canada's steps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple question, simple answer. The reason is that in America we don't pretend that we are actually running the show instead of companies. If we followed your lead and made it harder for large companies to screw over the IT crowd in the U.S.A., then those companies would say "damn, North America now costs us more, lets just move all our operations over to India or China where we can rape their local IT people any way we want."
You might say "well if our laws haven't driven the companies away, why would the U.S.'s?" Again a simple answer: there is not enough money lost by the Canadian IT regulations to make up for how much it would cost for North American companies to move overseas. (much smaller labor market than the U.S.'s) Now if you locked up the largest labor market in North America with the same regulation, suddenly it WILL be cheaper for them to pick up shop and leave. Some are already doing it just because of the few labor laws we do have (compared to nearly none in India)
The same thing happens in the drug industry. You know why you Canadians are allowed to control the price of drugs? Its because the companies make enough profit in America to make up for the fact that they make much less profit in Canada. I promise that if the U.S. drug market did not fill their coffers as they please, they would tell Canada "You know what, we don't want to give you the drugs so cheaply. Either pay up or we'll bail." Thats why they used their bought and paid for presidential administration to fix the loophole of U.S. people buying Canadian drugs. Its a lot better PR to just keep us Americans away from your cheap drug prices than tell your country "Well, we are going to stop selling drugs over here because the imports to America is killing our gravy train over there."
We get screwed for you. If we don't get screwed, these companies will just go to a continent where the screwing can be much more intense.
A friend works there... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A friend works there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Crunch time (Score:2)
Re:Crunch time (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Crunch time (Score:4, Informative)
Publicity (Score:5, Insightful)
EA is also the only company that literally FILLS it's games with billboards and advertisements.
EA now is becoming notorious with mistreating it's employees.
The problem is that this is a successful business model, and the only way to break it is to stop buying their games.
Possibly offtopic (Score:4, Interesting)
I grew up on Origin & Westwood games so I'll use them as an example.
Wing Commander
Ultima
Crusader
Dune
Command And Conquer
EA chased out two creative minds like Chris Robert and Richard Garriot. Origin and Westwood have now gone the way of the dinosaurs.
Hey but now we have the all the Sims games/expansions we can fit down our throats. Theres no Samurais and ninjas in UO (wtf?), and there a new/redundant sports titled every year. Nothing really creative, but plenty more of the same.
Not to worry, if theres any money to be made from someone not in EA, EA/Vivendi will assimilate them and be sure to repeat the process.
I really hope somebody puts the screws to these publisher's for their behavior. Even if the development and enforcement of a Programmer's Union could lead to increase costs placed on the consumer end.
Somebody has to win one for Colonel Blair and the Avatar.
Definitely offtopic (Score:3, Funny)
n00b. Back in my day, we had to crank our Rapiers and Claymores with a winch. When it got stuck in the snow, we had to get out and push it all the way to Kilrah and back, uphill both ways! We also didn't have any namby-pamby Mark Hamill playing our lead. No, sir!
Man, Origin really did "not suck" before EA bought them. Ultima 9 sealed it for me: EA sucks. It's in the game.
Predictions? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no denying the capitalistic desire to get more for less. Every Walmart shopper knows this desire. Should we even go so far as to say there's nothing wrong with it? Maybe. But we are talking about PEOPLE, not products... employees, not slaves... and we are talking about some pretty abusive and inhumane tactics that clearly involve intentional deception on the part of the employer.
In short, we clearly observe a situation where a company's management is willfully acting in an immoral way and I don't see where it matters one bit that it's a natural desire or that other people are also doing similar things. Wrong is still wrong no matter how frequently it occurs.
But the thing here is now there is an opportunity for the employees to make a change. If a large enough number of people formed a strike, there's no way they could retrain replacements fast enough. It would be huge bad P.R., a relatively newsworthy event and a wake-up call to any new hopefuls.
It's too early to predict an uprising, but I see great potential.
That'd be some story! (Score:3, Funny)
Whew!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's my first reaction: I'm a stockholder, you see. Now my second reaction: shit, that's not very nice... It's interesting to see how your priorities shift and you start rationalizing all sorts of evil when you have a financial interest. I mean, a good liberal like me, and I often find myself rooting for the tobacco companies and saying stuff like "well, it's their own damn fault for taking up smoking".
It's interesting though... we human beings seem to be able to have pretty flexible morals when it's in our own best interest to have them. It's weird , interesting and depressing to see how much your own solid convictions will shift when a buck is at stake. So keep up the good work, EA! Aw fuck, I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic or sincere or a bit of each... oh the moral agony of making double-digit returns.
Re:Whew!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just sounds like you have poor morals.
Labor Unions unappreciated (Score:5, Interesting)
And especially young people who don't have a clue, have no idea that if it wasn't for labor unions, things like 80 hour work weeks and no weekends would be common throughout most industries.
Obviously unions aren't perfect, and like any powerful entity, there are abuses and corruption, but the fact is that for the most part the game industry is not organized and as a result the workers are treated unfairly.
young kids don't know what's impossible - true! (Score:5, Insightful)
From first hand experience I would have to definelty agree with this and say that's the entire reason why they end up working long hours.
At my company we began a huge project not too long ago with other remote sites. It was a great project and great work and we were fortunate enough to have expriened higher level workers with families. However another remote site had only young enthusiastic people who were no older than 25 (that includes their leadership)
During the requirments and design phase, higher managment began cramming way too much onto everyone's plates. Fortunately our leadership knew how to scope and scale back. The other team didn't.
During the end of reqs upper management came down on our site and said, "Everyone's giving us 110% and you guys are only giving us 90%! How dare you!" The response to this from our leadership during that telecon was so classic I'll never forget it.
"We give you only 90% because the other 10% is going to be devoted to workers taking sick days, holidays, and when unforseen bugs crop up. If we were to give you 110% then what we would be saying is that not one single worker is going to get sick, not one single worker is going to take a vacation day, that not one single unforseen bug is going to stop us by more than a few minutes, and that we will be working extra hours. That's as likely to happen logically as it is to give 110%."
Well as the project progressed you can guess what happened. We delivered on time and underbudget to boot with what we agreed to. The other remote site with the attitude, 'Nothing's impossible!'? Well, they're working overtime for no extra pay, have tons of bugs, a few of them have quit now, they're over budget, are not going to make their deliveries, they're in some deep hot water, and for me to quote one of them, "I'm in hell!".
You can be the brightest mind comming out of college but unless you respect the wisdom of elders you're going to get screwed.
Everyone, take note... (Score:4, Insightful)
Eventually, the coders will together and realize that without them, senior management is fucked. And I don't want to hear any shit about exporting the jobs to India or where-ever. The studios making these games can't do it because the quailty would be worse, they'd lose control, etc. etc.
Unfortunately, they are probably already working on a "pre-emptive" outsourcing, so coders better wise-up and organize before it's too late...
Stand your ground (Score:3, Interesting)
How Free Markets Work (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not trying to be patronizing if you understand what I'm going to explain but it is clear that many don't.
1. The *price* of a going employee at EA is a function of the supply of employees and the demand EA has for these employees. With such a high supply of willing programmers who want to break into the games industry, EA can pretty much dictate the price of the employee. Please note that I *'ed price because price does not necessarily mean just a wage. In this case, it also includes working hours and work environment.
2. Many slashdot readers are complaining that you cannot get a fair wage in the games industry despite working so hard, having to know so much, and basically not making what you are owed.
3. Now the point is this: Your skills, your hard work and your knowledge are NOT what constitutes your value. Often they are related but not always. This is not what makes free markets work. The fact is, to make a better wage, get into an industry where the supply for workers is lower than the demand. You can probably find some great paying work doing business sytems. I'm only being slightly cheeky here.
4. Which brings us full circle. A lot of programmers don't WANT to be in anything other than the games industry. This is why there is such an oversupply of talented game programmers compared to other technical talents. How sexy is programming a database after all? The point is, the cost of BEING a games programmer is higher due to supply/demand. If no-one wanted to be in the games industry, you can bet EA would be doing a lot more to attract game programmers with reasonable hours, better pay, better work environment, etc. Mandating that the government (or anyone else) get involved simply tries to cover up the underlying supply/demand issues.
So, the solution to YOU getting paid better, is get out of this industry. They don't NEED another game programmer and every new one reduces the average compensation to each employee. Not only that, it ironically raises the value of employees in every other sector. So if you love game programming, be prepared to bite the bullet: lots of other people love it too.
Mandating that EA treats employees better will have marginally better treatment (though in the long run, manipulating free economics almost always backfires), people will see that you can get into games programming (which they already love) AND be treated well, the supply will go up again, demand is (relatively) stable, and there will just be a bunch of unemployed games programmers.
You see, when we complain about EA, people get scared of going into the industry, free economics works(!) Already a lot of people who may have considered going into this industry might have second thoughts.
The mistake is to think that you should get what you deserve: you don't. You get what you are worth.
Re:How Free Markets Work (Score:5, Insightful)
The mistake is to believe that above sentance is a true and worthwhile premise. Truly free markets result in sweatshops (minimizing costs), and monopolies (minimizing competition), to maximize profits.
Truly free markets do not take into account damage to environment, people, societies and economies. Some government is necessary to counter act the societal ill that is caused by "free markets".
The supply of people that are willing to be abused to provide for themselves and family is reasonably large. The fallacy is that it is "ok" to be abused by your employer. And it is also a fallacy to believe that the only one who should be able to keep the employer from abusing the employee is the employee, and that the only way to keep from being abused is by quitting.
No, just as with many things, there are some things that are wrong, even if there is a pool of people willing to do it. And the way to make it better for them, and for everyone else, and to raise the whole moral value of the pool is with moderate government intervention (like minimum wage, and overtime laws).
If too much government intervention then there is a downturn in the economy, too little government intervention, there is also a downturn in the economy, and tremendous societal costs. The rub is finding the balance.
Re:How Free Markets Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the interesting fact: The United States (along with the rest of the world) doesn't operate on a free market. We tend pretty strongly towards capitalism, but not totally. Just like we tend pretty strongly towards democracy, but not totally. The framers of the Constitution established a system of majority rule with minority rights, since they knew that free-thinking people can't always be trusted to make humane decisions. In a pretty analagous way, the United States government has intervened throughout the years to amend egregious human rights deficiencies (coal miners, Industrial Revolution factory workers, etc.).
This is really a fundamental prerequisite of social systems. A society that doesn't protect its members from extremes is hardly a society at all. It's an element of the social contract that defines the benefit for individuals of working within the society.
The burden of competition should be (and easily can be, as it is in most other professional fields) on the talent of the employees, not on how brutally they'll willing to sacrifice their mental health. It's not a step I would recommend, but hypothetically, if the government were to mandate tomorrow that all employees in this industry aren't allowed to work more than 40 hours a week, then EA would probably stay in business. They'd have to make their organization operate more intelligently, by doing things like retaining experienced workers rather than burning everyone out before they have said experience. The game industry, probably even more so than the rest of the programming industry, responds well to intelligent workers.
Your last statement is a little bit fallacious on a few levels. Firstly, as I hope I've indicated, you only get what you're worth within the confines of social edicts. Secondly, EA is not necessarily paying employees what they're worth or what they deserve. From what I've read, they're taking an approach of paying employees less than they're worth and making a concerted effort to make their employees think that they deserve even less than what they're getting. Economics doesn't justify this kind of psychological abuse.
Owe nothing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the comments I've seen here, to put it quite bluntly, are disgusting. I have seen it said several times now that companies "owe nothing" to those who work for them.
May I have someone's logic on this? These people are working literally every waking hour, in some cases, so that the CEO of the company can be a millionaire or billionaire. Do you mean to say that that CEO owes nothing more to those people who put him where he is then to flip them the finger, pay them the minimum possible, and take his private jet out to his yacht to reap his rewards? Do the stockholders of the company not owe it to these people to insist that they are compensated fairly for making their stock profitable?
Human beings live in a community, NOT in a vacuum. There are some rules to living in a community. It is not my belief that making one of those rules "Take as much as you can get away with and give back as little as you possibly can" is a guideline for a healthy community of any type, small or large. These workers do owe the company they work for to work hard and well, and they have done so, EA has come out with some excellent games. Now EA has a responsibility to make sure that they pay these people back for their hard work.
The concept that a company owes its employees no more than the smallest paycheck they can give them, coupled with a boot out the door as soon as they aren't useful anymore, is sad, and a serious problem. A company (and a country) owes its workers a living wage, the security that their job will not be outsourced or eliminated unless the company is in dire financial peril, and some personal time to enjoy it. We are not talking about some type of freeloaders here, we are talking about people who went through college, have sought out jobs, and are now being told to devote every waking hour to that job or they will be replaced.
I am not talking about "skilled" or "unskilled" workers, I am talking about those who work for a living, period. They are owed a decent existence. Construction workers and waiters are every bit as necessary as CEO's and accountants. Everyone who goes out every day and works deserves not to be in poverty, yet currently a 40-hour a week job at the minimum wage would place a person well below the poverty level. Something is very, very wrong.
Most of the restrictions of living in a community are moral, rather than legal, obligations. If your friend, who has helped you move five times, asks you for help with the same, he cannot take you to court to force you to help him when he asks. But he shouldn't have to. You are under a moral obligation to help.
I have no problem, however, tightening the legal restrictions and requirements on companies, since it seems evident that many will ignore their moral ones.
The more attractive the industry (Score:3, Insightful)
Want to work in film? Crap pay.
Want to be an accountant? Not crap pay.
Want to work for a video game company? Crap pay.
Want to work for an insurance company? Not crap pay.
Want to work for MTV? Reeeeally crap pay.
Any questions?
Students: work an internship! (Score:4, Insightful)
With that in mind, let me say that this whole "EA is using young kids" schtick is one of the three major reasons why I think all computer science students should get out and work an internship or two for a company they might be interested in before graduating.
Why am I saying this, and how does it apply to EA? I have no regrets about working there: the people there were by and large excellent and I learned a lot. However, I also saw EXACTLY what was expected of their new engineers, witnessed the turnover and the new college hires wandering around like zombies with keyboard marks on their faces, and returned to school a much wiser person for my experience. I assure you that I now take an entirely different spin on the "do you have any questions for us?" ending to your standard technical interview.
So, in sum: empower your resume, your outlook on what your degree is preparing you for, and yourself by getting some experience before rushing into a job based on its outer sex appeal. Trust me when I say you will be thankful for it.
Dirty Silver Spoon? (Score:3, Informative)
It's not as bad as some people here think. If you're working 80 hour weeks, I guarantee that you're either volunteering your time, a spineless moron, or in the process of looking for another job/quitting.
This isn't just a problem at EA. This sort of stuff happens everywhere else in the games/IT industry, it's just easy to sling mud at EA because their a large evil corporation. The guys at Id software work the exact same schedules and I can assure you that they're not all millionaires.
There are much shittier jobs to have. This is really a non-issue. Anyone who's thinking of quitting their cushy IT job, try working a 12 hour day on a construction site. When you pull a 14 hour day at EA, you're not mining coal or assembling BBQ's. You get free meals, video game machines abound, a beautiful lounge area. It's not a bad place to be at all for 14 hours a day.
That being said. I work at the Vancouver studio, and I have to say that I'm not really feeling all this EA negativity. I work normal hours (40 - 50 a week), my project is on schedule, and I'm very passionate about the game I'm working on. I may be a special case, but this just isn't seeming to affect me? Any other EAC slashdoters care to comment?
I think that a lot of this negativity is just sensationalism. I programmed games as a hobby many years before I started doing it proffessionaly, and I knew exactly what I was getting myself into. There are a LOT of people who are extremely happy with their jobs in the games industry.
You must be new here (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Since these are being posted, I have a feeling others feel the same way. These discussions most likely get a lot of hits.
Re:No room to complain (Score:5, Insightful)
So what we're really talking about here is about $70K/year in a high-cost-of-living environment for 80 hour weeks in a highly skilled environment. You're right, things could be a lot worse, but they could also be a lot better. My salary's around that, and I only work 40 hours a week.
Re:No room to complain (Score:3, Interesting)
The irony there is that if their worker abuse case is decided in favor of the employees, those options will likely be worthless. But they'll take it. I recently started a job with a local community college; they're starting to offer game creation courses. I was talking with
Re:Oh. My. God. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm supposed to believe that "just go home are a reasonable hour" never occurred to them?
When you get a little older, young grasshopper, you will learn that sometimes you are expected to stay late and just get the job done. If your company expects this to happen every day - it's a crappy company. But unless the entire staff can be persuaded by a colleague to leave at a reasonable hour, any one person is going to see this as a career limiting manouver.
I'm supposed to believe that "it's Friday night, see you on Monday" never occurred to them?
See previous comment.
I'm supposed to believe that "go work somewhere else" never occurred to them?
Grasshopper, you assume that alternative jobs are just waiting to be plucked from the trees. Many aren't long out of college. Without experience, finding a job is considerably harder. Finding the time to conduct a job hunt isn't easy if you're working 80 hours a week. And resigning is an excellent way to ensure you get no unemployment benefits in many countries.
Re:Oh. My. God. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right - sometimes you are expected to stay late and get the job done. And, if you like your job, and you employer is good to you, you are probably willing to sometimes stay late and get the job done.
Of course, you ultimately have the final decision. The big bad company didn't take your car keys away. The worst thing that they can do is fire you.
Anybody who is any good at what they do in the silicon valley could find job that pays $60K without much trouble in the valley.
Anybody who isn't good, well how much sympathy am I supposed to have for a guy who isn't any good, and makes $60 grand a year?
Look I'm not some naive newbie - I've been a well paid software developer in the valley for more than 10 year.
My sincere advice to everybody who feels that they're being overworked is this:
First: stop spending all of your money. Put a little bit away. You'll find that it's a lot easier to stand up for yourself if you aren't worried about where next months rent payment is coming from.
Second: Stop working so damn much. Work 55 hours instead of 60, and see if anyone notices. In all likelyhood, nobody will. If someone does, though, don't make excuses. If they call you out, tell them that you worked nine hours today (or however many you worked), and give them a "what kind of bozo questions somebody for only working 9 hours" look. Do that a couple of times, and they'll leave you alone.
The worst thing that could happen is that you get fired, and if you're complaining about how awful your boss is for making you work so much, maybe, just maybe, having your boss tell you that you aren't allowed to come to work anymore isn't the worst thing than can happen. There's other work out there. Better work. Maybe getting fired would be the kick in the ass that you need to go find it.
P.S.
Rent Office Space again - it isn't as far off as you think.
Re:Surprise Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear the a lot but frankly the people I know that worked in unionized places hated the unions. They could not get promoted even if they did a better job because they where there less than other people that did a crappy job. The hatted paying the dues for basically nothing. My only personal experience with unions has been at trade show. Having to some smuck $200 to watch me plug in an extension cord. Lets not forget about the link between organized crime and the unions.
What people do not seem to get is the reason union membership is going down in the US is many workers do not want to be in a union. The UAW has tried to unionize Honda and has failed and has tried to unionize Walmart and failed. If the majority of workers wanted it then it would happen.
For the people that do not know how a "union shop" works if you work there you MUST join the union. You MUST pay the union DUES. You have no choice in the matter.
What really needs to be done is to enforce the labor laws we have. It is not illegal to require people to work more than 40 hours a week. It is illegal to not pay them overtime. Somehow computer programmers got exempted from this rule. I see this as an issue. I would prefer to fix the laws and enforce the ones we have than to force unions on the workers.
Re:as always with the NYT (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a really interesting way to manage a company (though in
Re:Poor kids (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of business regulation is to block off this sort of thing so that the need to compete with others who are doing it, doesn't force firms to start.
Re:Boo F*cking Hoo. Get out of my industry. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose I could be wrong about your intent. You did ask them to get out of YOUR industry. I don't think you said that because you think YOUR industry is overcrowded. It seemed like frustration that everybody else isn't as good as you. Maybe you know every single employee at EA and have come to the conclusion that you are better (although I assume you come to that same conclusion with everyone you meet).
Maybe I am looking at it in the wrong way tho. Perhaps this is a rant based on pent up rage. Perhaps you have spent so long being better than everybody else that you are starting to get angry that nobody can keep up! Maybe this has been building for so long that some random story about mistreated EA employees was all it took to set you off. If so, then that would mean your rant actually has nothing to do with EA. Must be horrible being better than everyone else.
Whatever relation your rant has with EA and its mistreated employees, if any, I just have one thing to say to you.
GET OVER THE EGO TRIP!
Re:These young whippersnappers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's story largely parallels what seems to happen at EA (though not to the same extent): Optimistic young people come here and eagerly work long hours, then realize they're getting screwed by the system.