Longtime Head of Game Devs Group Bows Out with GDC Rant
Longtime Head of Game Devs Group Bows Out with GDC Rant
April 2, 2009
As GamePolitics reported last month, Jason Della Rocca, executive director of the International Game Developers Association, announced that he would leave the organization at the conclusion of last week's Game Developers Conference.
With GDC now over, Jason has moved on.
Yesterday was his last official day with IGDA and Jason took the opportunity to post his final GDC rant on his Reality Panic blog. His comments seem to betray a certain amount of pent-up frustration with the game development community:
Serving the IGDA for the past 9 years has been extremely rewarding and challenging. I helped to get a lot done, but somehow feel that I failed the community.
Sorry for not having the leadership skills to beat the barriers of participation inequality. Less than 1% of the IGDA membership are truly active in driving the org forward... Sorry for not overcoming your general apathy and laziness.
Sorry for not doing a better job of roping in all the snipers from the sidelines. Turns out you are all pretty damn good at bitching and complaining and being critical. But then you don’t actually do anything about it and you don’t get involved...
Sorry for not getting you to be more serious about the profession of game development... This is a real art and science. We need to be way more deliberate and control the path the profession takes as it evolves into the future.
Most of all, sorry for not doing more to help you realize your power! ...You are all having a massive impact on society. You are transforming the world day-by-day without even realizing it.
Oh well, f* you, it’s not my job anymore!
Sorry.
What's next for JDR? He told GamePolitics via e-mail:
I'll be doing my own thing. Short version is that I'll primarily be doing economic development consulting for international governments working to build their local game development cluster/industry.
GP: Jason is a great guy and we wish him the best, going forward.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Heh, nice way to vent some frustrations and leaving them behind. =) Best of luck, chap!
I have to say: good for him. Even after reading some gaming forums, I can begin to relate to 'snipers from the sidelines' who continually bitch and whine without offering any practical or decent suggestions over an issue. In his capacity, I can imagine that certainly builds up a hell of a lot of frustration.
Yep, I feel for him. Although I am not a paying member (probably will be as soon as I actually start a practical career in game development) I still try to be active i nthe development community.
Also, as a chapter president for the ECA, I understand the frustration of having a lot of members and few actually wanting to do anything. I have been asking for more help in my chapter for months now and don't get any response. Drives me nuts.
I hope his new endeavor is more rewarding for him and I am greatful for what he has done for game development.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
That's the problem with having lots and lots of cool benefits to draw in the crowd. They want the benefits, but that's as far as it goes.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
I feel you Zack. As one of the three heads of the Baltimore/DC chapter, it's all I can do to try and get members. I've gone up to everyone I know who's a gamer and asked them to join the ECA, but none if any so far has told me they've joined. And I've said to people on more than one occasion that organizing gamers is a lot like herding cats. This month's meeting in fact is all about drumming up membership in our area, and we're required to bring at least one other person with us. On one hand, it's kind of cool because it gives me the feeling like we're in something like the French Resistance. But on the other hand I feel with the tools we have at our disposal and the growing awareness of the ECA, we shouldn't even have to be acting like some underground group.
Well when it comes to hearding cats you have to give them something shiney.
With nerd/geek cats like those of us who frequent Game Politics it takes a target to get movement. Such as a proposed law, current event, or individual.
My personal experience with leadership is you have to do 50% of what it takes to accomplish the goal for all involved to get any sort of initiative. For example, typing up a letter about said issue you want addressed by the local legislature and then emailing it to everyone who has shown interest in addressing his/her representative about said issue.
I feel for you EZK. Cat herding is no easy task.
"Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."
Heh. I got to meet the guy at an IGDA meeting a while back and was impressed with him, and now only more so.
I admit I am more part of the problem then solution though.
Here! Here!
That there is one unhappy bunny (well, was, probably much happier now it's not his job anymore)
Can certainly see where he was coming from.
I see his point and I agree, but you also ahve to look at the industry he represented. Game Developers are in general a pretty shy, non-social bunch. Aside from a few stand-outs most people in this industry don't interact well with others and don't much care to. They just want to sit in an office and do the thing they have a passion for. They often leave public appearances and announcements to HR and PR people and prefer to not step into the limelight themselves.
That being said the fact that developers are that way does tend to hurt them.
While I can understand his frustration, leaving off with a "Oh well, f* you, it’s not my job anymore!" is really a bad attitude and could hurt his future job prospects if employers happen to read that.
Meh, I sincerely doubt that a line like that is going to hurt anything, considering the position he is leaving. Any employer would know that its difficult being in a leadership position, particularly in the gaming industry.
Besides, that line was awesome.
No it won't. A line like that in the context it was made would only come back to haunt him if the IGDA and developers in general were collectively offended by it.
He was awell respected leader and friend to too many people for something like this to haunt him. His credentials and history more than counteract any possible ill will such a statement would have.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Not to mention that he was absolutely right. Anyone who thinks he would be hurt by that is either
a) Not in the game industry
b) Part of the problem
Christopher White cwhite@profoundgames.com
How do you make make game devlopment "mo better?" more refined design implementation and process,a better guild feel to the profession, more standardization in control options or options in general or design implementation and process. Not to mention better credits for everyone involved in a project..... text dose not cost so damn much you know....
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Christopher White cwhite@profoundgames.com
This problem of people not getting involved is hardly limited to game politics. Politics in general has become, to the average person in this country, the equivalent of a YouTube video. If what you have to say is over 30 seconds long, people move on.
Even worse, today if someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't matter if you have facts to back you up, or that they are only parroting what someone else told them, they will just keep saying what they have to say. This is because it's easier to repeat something than to look it up, and if you have an agenda such as good ol' Jacky boy, you know that there are a lot of people hearing what you are saying that will repeat it rather than look it up.
Which brings us back to the core of Jason's angst. You have people out there like Jack getting disbarred and people in the game community laughing at him and making fun of him but they are only doing so to each other. Jack is yelling as loud as he can to anyone who will listen and we're chuckling to ourselves. The problem is that he's far from the only one and they are yelling to people who don't play games.
So, what Jason is saying in his last line is that we don't get it.
The joke is on us
"Less than 1% of the IGDA membership are truly active in driving the org forward"
That is a vague statement. Forward how? Fighting people who don't like games or label them murder simulators? Maybe less than 1% actually work on games that have drawn the ire of the knee jerks?
It would be nice if we could get a clarification on what "driving the org forward" means.