The original SOPA/PIPA proposals were overkill. While they addressed the real issue of piracy, they did so in a way that is not tailored to the needs of small content creators, and instead allows big content creators to overreact to perceived IP violations. The net real effect of these measures would be to have a chilling effect on any content sharing, instead of just illegal content sharing. Therefore, it is the position of the IGDA to oppose the SOPA/PIPA proposals.

We are glad to see both the House and Senate have decided to postpone votes on the bills so their significant flaws can be addressed. We are hopeful that the revised versions will provide a more reasonable approach to fighting piracy, but caution everyone to continue following this issue to ensure the final versions better balance both sides of the issue.

IGDA Board of Directors

This year we have made some changes to the IGDA Board, and to the nomination process for election to the IGDA’s Board of Directors. The changes were made based on feedback from board members, previous board candidates, IGDA members, as well as various suggestions and proposals that have been provided over the past few years. The key changes we have made this year are as follows:

The Nomination Committee: This year’s Nomination Committee is comprised of 4 former Board Chairs. These are individuals who span the history of the IGDA going back all the way to one of the org’s earliest board members. As a group, they have already dedicated a tremendous amount of time and energy to the IGDA, and as a result of their board experience, and their ability to reflect back on their service they are perfectly suited for this role. This group knows better than anyone else exactly what the org needs from Board members, and the types of traits to look for in candidates. The nomination committee is: Jen MacLean, Kathy (Schoback) Astromoff, Matt Toschlog and Annie Van Bebber.

The nomination committee will review all nominees, and will provide to the Board for ratification, a final slate of candidates to be put forward to the membership for election. That final slate of candidates will be no more than double the number of seats open for election. This year we have 2 seats open for election, so the final slate they provide will be no more than 4 candidates.

We are confident that these changes should help us build a stronger IGDA serving our members, and the industry going forward.

- The IGDA Board of Directors

Amazon is still reserving the right to pay developers just 20% of their minimum list price at any time, without notification or advance approval. Additionally, Amazon is still unilaterally preventing developers from ever making an exclusive promotional deal with another marketplace.

In summary, Amazon’s terms still enable it to steeply discount a game developer’s content without permission — a tactic Amazon could easily use to force game developers to absorb the cost for Amazon to compete with other appstores.

We are not impressed with Amazon’s recent gesture, nor is this matter the result of a misunderstanding. We believe that Amazon’s terms, as they currently stand, represent a threat to game developers.

We encourage everyone to join the conversation. Please make your feelings known directly to Amazon and through your network, blogs and websites.

Two weeks ago, Amazon launched its own Android Appstore. We know that many developers have been eagerly looking forward to that launch in hopes that it would represent a great new revenue opportunity and a fresh take on downloadable game merchandising. The IGDA applauds Amazon’s efforts to build a more dynamic app marketplace. However, the IGDA has significant concerns about Amazon’s current Appstore distribution terms and the negative impact they may have on the game development community, and we urge developers to educate themselves on the pros and cons of submitting content to Amazon.

Many journalists have noted the unusual nature of Amazon’s current store terms, but little has been said about the potential implications of those terms. In brief: Amazon reserves the right to control the price of your games, as well as the right to pay you “the greater of 70% of the purchase price or 20% of the List Price.” While many other retailers, both physical and digital, also exert control over the price of products in their markets, we are not aware of any other retailer having a formal policy of paying a supplier just 20% of the supplier’s minimum list price without the supplier’s permission.

Furthermore, Amazon dictates that developers cannot set their list price above the lowest list price “available or previously available on any Similar Service.” In other words, if you want to sell your content anywhere else, you cannot prevent Amazon from slashing the price of your game by setting a high list price. And if you ever conduct even a temporary price promotion in another market, you must permanently lower your list price in Amazon’s market.

These Amazon policies could have far reaching effects on game developers. The IGDA has identified five potentially problematic scenarios in particular:

1) Amazon steeply discounts a large chunk of its Appstore catalog (imagine: “our top 100-rated games are all 75% off!”). Some developers will probably win in this scenario, but some developers — most likely, those near the bottom of the list — will lose, not gaining enough sales to offset the loss in revenue per sale. Amazon benefits the most, because it captures all the customer goodwill generated by such a promotion.

2) By requiring all developers to guarantee Amazon a minimum list price that matches the lowest price on any other market, Amazon has presented developers with a stark choice: abandon Amazon’s market or agree never to give another distributor an exclusive promotional window.

3) Other digital markets that compete with Amazon (both existing markets and markets yet-to-be-created) may feel compelled to duplicate Amazon’s terms, and perhaps even adopt more severe terms in an effort to compete effectively with Amazon. In essence, we’re looking at a slippery slope in which a developer’s “minimum list price” ceases to be a meaningful thing.

4) Amazon steeply discounts (or makes entirely free) a game that has a well-defined, well-connected niche audience. The members of that niche audience snap up the game during the promotional period, robbing the game’s developer of a significant percentage of its total potential revenue from its core audience.

5) Amazon steeply discounts (or makes entirely free) a hit game at a time when the game is already selling extremely well. This sort of promotional activity may attract consumers away from competing markets and into Amazon’s arms. But it might actually represent a net loss for the developer, which was already doing quite well and didn’t need to firesale its game at that moment in time.

The IGDA’s bottom line is simple: under Amazon’s current terms, Amazon has little incentive not to use a developer’s content as a weapon with which to capture marketshare from competing app stores.

The IGDA does not have the power or inclination to dictate how others conduct their business. However, the IGDA is permitted to express its views on business practices that affect the developer community, and it is the firm opinion of the IGDA that:

1) A developer’s permission should be required by any retailer seeking to pay less than the standard percentage of a developer’s minimum list price. This could be automated and even “opt-out” with a reasonable period of notice, but ultimately, a developer’s permission should still be required.

2) Developers should have the freedom to set a minimum list price of whatever amount they see fit, without regard to pricing in other app stores.

The IGDA has formally communicated its views to Amazon, and while Amazon has been very willing to engage with the IGDA, it has thus far expressed zero willingness to adjust its distribution terms. We believe that the people currently running Amazon’s Appstore may have the best of intentions and a desire to make their development partners successful, in general. The problem, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, is that things tend to change when a marketplace achieves any degree of dominance. The terms of Amazon’s distribution agreement give it significant flexibility to behave in a manner that may harmful to individual developers in the long run. Any goodwill that Amazon shows developers today may evaporate the minute Amazon’s Appstore becomes so big that Android developers have no choice but to distribute their content via the store. It would be foolish to assume that because Amazon’s Appstore is small today, it will not become the Walmart of the Android ecosystem tomorrow.

If Amazon responds to this open letter, it will likely invoke the success of games that have already been promoted in its Appstore; for example, games that have been featured as Amazon’s free app of the day. The company may claim that the success of those games is proof that Amazon’s model works. The IGDA believes that this argument is a red herring. Amazon does not need the terms it has established for itself in order to give away a free app every day. Nor does it need the powers it has granted itself to execute a wide variety of price promotions. Other digital games platforms, such as Xbox LIVE Arcade and Steam, manage to run effective promotions very frequently without employing these terms.

Amazon may further argue that its success depends on the success of its development partners, and therefore, that it would never abuse the terms of its distribution agreement. Given that Amazon can (and currently does) function perfectly well without these terms in other markets, it is unclear why game developers should take a leap of faith on Amazon’s behalf. Such leaps are rarely rewarded once a retailer achieves dominance.

We respect Amazon’s right to stay the course, but as part of our mission to educate developers, we feel that it is imperative to inform the community of the significant potential downside to Amazon’s current Appstore terms. If you feel similarly, we urge you to communicate your feelings on this matter directly with Amazon.

Sincerely,

The IGDA Board of Directors

Update 4/19: IGDA responds to Amazon’s Clarification

Since we did not meet quorum, the election was declared void and the Board this morning selected the new board members. As is custom, we decided to select the top five vote getters for the five available seats. Since one of the seats was only for a one year term (vacated by Gordon Bellamy upon taking the Executive Director position), the person with the fifth highest vote count was selected to that seat.

Selected to the four available 3-year seats:

• Brian Robbins, Founder, Riptide Games Total Votes: 549
• Feargus Urquhart, CEO, Obsidian Entertainment Total Votes: 532
• Dustin Clingman, CEO, ZeeGee Games Total Votes: 517
• Cordy Rierson, Director, University Talent Development, Microsoft Game Studios Total Votes: 480

Selected to the one available 1-year seat:

• Scott Berfield, Executive Producer, Center for Serious Play, University of Washington, Bothell Total Votes: 476

And the remaining vote count:

• Grant Shonkwiler, Game Designer, AMI Entertainment Network Inc Total Votes: 467
• Corvus Elrod, Semionaut & Narrative Designer, Zakelro Story Studio Total Votes: 408
• Michael Lubker, Producer & Business Development Manager, Paper Child Studios Total Votes: 401
• Glen A. Schofield, CEO, Sledgehammer Games Total Votes: 307
• John Vignocchi, Director of Development, Disney Interactive Total Votes: 249
• Jeff Goodsill, Vice President and General Manager, Tencent Boston Total Votes: 237
• Darion Lowenstein, Development Director, Electronic Arts Total Votes: 229

Congratulations to our new Board members, and thank you to Tim, Mark, and Tom, our outgoing Board members!

During the past week we have been speaking with representatives at THQ about this, looking to see what can be done, and how we can help prevent this from happening in the future. Our hope is to help everyone understand the series of decisions and actions that leads to end of project crunches and through that help everyone, from management down to developers, to avoid these mistakes in the future.

Our conversations with THQ have been positive and are ongoing. For now they have asked us to pass along this statement:

As with all other entertainment businesses, the craft of making videogames is largely dependent upon deadlines and production schedules. As a result, some “crunch” time as a title approaches its launch date is often inevitable within the industry, and this holds especially true for top-tier, AAA games like Homefront. However, THQ is committed to working hand-in-hand with our teams throughout the entire development cycle to manage schedules and formulate clear expectations so that as a launch date approaches we can minimize overtime and maintain a good quality of life for our team. Making games is fun—and we always want it to feel that way for our incredibly talented pool of artists and developers—so we strive to create an energetic, familial day-to-day work environment that keeps our team happy, inspired and invested, even in the face of the stress and hard work associated with an approaching deadline.

As we are all aware, Quality of Life has long been one of the most controversial and challenging aspects of life as a game developer. Many people have different views on what constitutes good Quality of Life or bad Quality of Life and how companies should treat their workers. The IGDA has been at the forefront of many of these issues and it is part of our mission to work to improve Quality of Life for developers.

In 2004 we published a 90 page white paper outlining Quality of Life in the game industry (linked to http://www.igda.org/quality-life-white-paper-info). This paper not only gave a state of the industry but it also made best practices recommendations for studios to help alleviate stress and allow for a more balanced life.

Since the publishing of that paper we continued to work to further promote good Quality of Life in the game industry.

In 2009 the IGDA adopted a Code of Ethics to address this and other professional concerns. We assert as an organization that this standard of ethical behavior is critical for the development, health, and happiness to which all game developers aspire.

To achieve a greater standard of working practice, the IGDA emphasizes education and communication as core pillars of professional growth and maturity. Developers that communicate arrive on saner and more efficient practices that ensure healthier developers and better games. The health and professional growth of game developers will always be of the highest concern to the IGDA.

Toward the pursuit of safe and sane working practices, the IGDA:

• Emphasizes leadership training and effective management;
• Regularly surveys developers to ascertain average industry health and well-being;
• Encourages individuals to know their legal rights in their regions;
• Promotes communication and information exchange between developers;
• Supports developers and studios in their pursuit of effective working practices.

Unfortunately Quality of Life is not a resolved issue, and it is something that we are continuously working to improve for all game developers. Our role thus far has primarily been in the form of education and awareness. We believe that when everyone from management down is educated and aware of the impact poor Quality of Life has they will make the choices that are in everyone’s best interest.

While education and awareness are important, what else would you like to see the IGDA do? How would you like to see us approach this issue and try to effect this change in our industry? Let us know in the comments below or email me at brian – at – igda.org.

Brian Robbins
Chair, IGDA Board of Directors

Brian Robbins
Chair, IGDA Board of Directors

I’m looking forward to serving as Secretary. My role-specific duties include making sure that meeting minutes are taken and that they’re approved to be posted to the website for the public to see. I serve on the Executive Committee (along with the Chair, Vice Chair, and Treasurer) and also the Marketing and Communications Committee (MarComm). I’m also charged with ensuring that our records are in order.

The current slate of officers is:

Brian Robbins – Chair
Jane Pinckard – Vice Chair
Tom Buscaglia – Treasurer
Darius Kazemi – Secretary
Tobi Saulnier – Chair Emeritus

As always I can be contacted at darius@igda.org if you have any questions!

In the past year I have seen first hand the amount of passion, energy and dedication that Gordon brings to his work with the IGDA, and as Acting Executive Director I am confident that he will help lead us through the changes we as an organization have to make to better serve our members, and the industry as a whole.

Gordon’s background makes him very well suited for this role. In addition to his time working with MTV Networks, EA, THQ and Z-AXIS he was also previously the Executive Director for AIAS. This broad base of experience means Gordon has a solid understanding of many different facets of the industry from publishing, to development to broader industry awareness.

For my own part, I am very excited to step into this new role of serving our organization. I have been volunteering for the IGDA since 2000. I was chair of the Online Games SIG, co-founded the Casual Games SIG, and I have written and edited numerous white papers along the way. I have also helped lead local chapters in Colorado and Ottawa, and participated with the NYC chapter when I lived there. I was appointed to a two year term on the Board in October 2009 and have served as Secretary since March of this year. I am also on the Board of the IGDA Foundation.

As a developer I have been working in the casual game space since 1999 (long before we called it casual games!) and last year I founded my own indie iPhone and next-gen mobile studio.

I have always believed in the core mission and values of the IGDA, and I love working with all the other people in the industry helping turn these things into a reality. We are an organization built upon the work of volunteers who give immeasurable contributions for the good of the industry. These volunteers are the true heart and soul of the IGDA and their contributions are what makes the IGDA a reality.

For the past several months the IGDA Board has been enacting several changes which will have a long-lasting effects on how we serve our members. Much of this was started in the spring when we established several new committees to focus on specific areas. In addition to their focus, these committees also include many non-board members, with a special emphasis on ensuring international representation as well.

You should expect to see more changes like this from us in the coming months as we continue to transition to a structure that can better serve all of our members. We have some very exciting things happening and I look forward to working with all of you to continue improving the craft of game development, and the lives of game developers.

You can email Gordon at gordon – at – igda.org or myself at brian – at – igda.org

–
Brian Robbins
Chair, IGDA Board of Directors