"I was working for Codemasters at a new studio of theirs, managing a team of programmers," explains one developer who wants to stay anonymous. "We were originally set up to work on new projects, but predictably ended up doing work on a game called Operation Flashpoint 2 (recently released) that was in death march."

This developer and his team of programmers spent months on the project – for some, it was three months, and for others up to six — before being reassigned to a new project. But another six months down the line, Operation Flashpoint 2 was again in need of extra hands, and this developer was pulled back onto the project – "dropping everything on the current project and bringing my team with me," he recalls.

The developer himself left Codemasters before Operation Flashpoint 2 shipped – and once it did, he was surprised to find no one from his team received credit on the game, despite the fact that by the project's end some of them had spent some 18 months working on it. There was "very little appreciation at the time or since," he says.

"OFP2 was a seriously broken project, with two or three restarts, and a very high turnover of staff," he reflects. "Looking through the credits list it was disturbing to see how many people had been left out, presumably because they either weren't part of the core team who finished it or had left the company before it shipped."

[UPDATE 12/17: Codemasters says its crediting is reserved for "Those that are with a team through the successful completion of a game, or those that completed their contribution to a specific element of a game," but notes it has a "Thanks to..." section for "those who may have not have been on the project at its completion but whose work the team felt contributed significantly to the final game."

The company also says it rectifies errors and accidental credit oversights with title updates to its games. Our anonymous developer says that to date his team is listed simply with a reference to their studio, without his or any other individual names included.]

But the frustrated developer's story is not unique, nor is there any one studio or publisher that bears the brunt of these kinds of complaints. It seems in this case, the lack of credit on the final project was something of a penalty for developers who left either the company or the struggling project mid-cycle – and the anonymous developer says this is an all-too common slight that often happens whether leaving the project was a staffer's choice or not.

And it gets more complex. Just as common as a studio's failure to assign credit is the use of game crediting as leverage – a way to get more work out of developers for less pay, or to force a designer with a particular specialty to stay on a project when there's another one at his studio on which he'd rather work. The fact that in most cases, credits aren't agreed on until a project's end means there's plenty of room for bargaining and bullying.

For example, rather than promote someone at the "Associate" level to "Lead," with the appropriate title and increase in salary, a studio may ask an employee to assume the workload and responsibilities of a Lead with either the implication or explicit promise of appearing in the credits that way.

These credit-based pseudo-promotions save money at studios – who get someone doing the work of, say, a Lead Producer while only paying for an Associate Producer – but it also can tangle the final product: Too much of this and it's easy to see how key roles in video game development are assumed by people who are overworked or even unqualified. It also causes long-term, wider-ranging damage: If your title and salary don't really matter because everyone's pushing for that credit, what does your job role really mean, and why aspire to further qualifications and real career growth?

Even worse, this is something of an under-the-table practice – with nothing to protect a developer whose studio might go back on its word for any number of reasons when it's time to write up the credits. That's happened more than once to pseudonymous developer and blogger Spitfire, who joined a project as a mid-level artist but had assumed a Lead role by the time the game shipped.

But the credits didn't reflect his additional responsibility – and when he asked for an explanation, "I was simply told that I wasn't really a Lead on the game. Mind you, there was no real reason not to give me proper credit. [Neither] my salary, bonuses, nor any other form of compensation were based on title. It was simply an intentional and painful slight."

Another time, at the same studio but on a different project, despite clear responsibilities as a Lead, Spitfire says, "my name was just thrown in with the rest of the artists in my discipline. Again, I went and pressed the issue, and I was told that it was too late... The manuals had already gone to print, and we were about to press a submission disk. No one would even answer whose fault it was for the lack of a proper credit… the complete lack of concern by everyone involved above me was a real shocker and actually hurt."

It's more than an issue of what label appears next to your name in the small print, adds Spitfire: "When you're working 80+ hours getting that baby to market, sacrificing time with your family, your personal life, loved ones, etc., just to ship the product, and then you don't get the right credit? It's beyond enraging. It literally shows that your employer doesn't care about you."

Stories like these are endless. A survey by the International Game Developers Association, the trade group that represents those who make games, conducted a survey that found 35 percent of respondents say they "don't ever" or "only sometimes" receive official credit for the work they've done.

But so fraught is the issue that it often goes uncontested. It's only the rare high-profile example that makes it into the realm of public controversy – Last year, Mythic Entertainment drew fire for its decision to credit only current staffers on Warhammer Online, and at the time sources told Shacknews that Mythic "made sure not to include anyone who was not in the office the day of the credit list creation."

The outcry in the developer community sparked a debate between Mythic and the IGDA, who called the lack of proper Warhammer credits "disrespectful." At issue was the most popular reason studios say they withhold credits: They're afraid developers will feel free to ditch a project whenever they like, if they don't have the incentive of crediting to make them stick around. Studios also claim that revealing a full list of their staffers exposes them to unsolicited recruiters and poachers, and they're afraid to lose people.

But the IGDA says that's just a cop-out: Chairperson Jennifer MacLean said in a statement on the Warhammer controversy that these reasons are "arbitrary, unfair and in some cases even vindictive... they simply don't hold up." The IGDA established a crediting standards committee in 2007, aiming first to evaluate the scope of the problem and then to develop a universal standard for roles, titles and the way individuals must be credited.

It has since published draft guidelines and a standards proposal in beta – but none of these are yet final, and few of the developers I spoke to for this article were aware of the status of these initiatives, speaking to the enormous challenge the issue poses.

But why does it matter to gamers whether a developer is listed at a game's end as "Lead" or "Manager""?

According to the developers we spoke to, it matters a lot: "By not crediting, we undermine the individual's contribution," says the anonymous former Codemasters employee. "Accordingly, these developers feel less emotional and creative involvement in future projects. This helps lead to big teams of disenfranchised people, and a corresponding reduction in the character, charm and personality of the finished game."

In other words, good games are made by invested, creative people. Yet another anonymous developer – notice a trend here? — says the lack of consistent crediting is "just another point towards the general feeling of 'it's the game industry - we shouldn't expect it to be a mature, professional place.' It affects how people behave at work, and how people behave at work affects what goes into the game (sometimes in surprising ways)."

It also helps ensure the game industry stays insular, rather than diversifying with talent from other disciplines, he says: "A talented, up-and-coming artist isn't going to want to choose the game industry, for example, if he knows he's going to get dicked around and disrespected."

So why don't more developers speak up? It's a vicious cycle, my sources say: People who feel less like individual contributors and more like interchangeable machinery cogs that their employer can swap around at any minute don't want to risk rocking the boat. Especially in today's economy, people are just happy to have a job in the industry of their choosing. So the culture of silence continues, and perpetuates the destructive idea that gaming is only a stepchild to more formalized media industries.

With the IGDA hard at work on standards, a solution may be on the horizon. In the meantime, remember: Video games are made by human beings, and whether you like their work or not, it's important for consumers, the final audience, to remember that— because those who employ them often don't.

[ Leigh Alexander is news director for Gamasutra, author of the Sexy Videogameland blog, and freelances reviews and criticism to a variety of outlets. Her monthly column at Kotaku deals with cultural issues surrounding games and gamers. She can be reached at leighalexander1 AT gmail DOT com.]

This has been an ongoing problem in this industry for many years. I spent three years on WAR and I, including many other people who spent just as much if not close to the same amount of time, will NOT be credited in the game. I was told they made SURE to not include anyone in the list who was not at the office the day of the credit list creation. This is wrong on many levels and should not go unnoticed.

Executive Producer:

Hannes Seifert

Producer:

Marin Gazzari

Hannes Seifert

Jurie Horneman

Associate Producer:

Kirsten Kennedy

Monika Sange

Lead Programmer:

Thaddaeus Frogley

Programmers:

Andreas Varga

Mark Wesley

Christian Bazant

Adrian Garrett

Andrew Howe

Peter Melchart

Uwe Pachler

Christian Schmutzer

Gareth White

Bjoern Drabeck

Lead Level Designer:

Gunter Hager

Level Designers:

Georg Gschwend

Jurie Horneman

Attila Malárik

James McLoughlin

Klaus Riech

Peter Saghegyi

Ngoc Nguyen

Lead Artist:

Leander Schock

Technical Artists:

Stefan Kubicek

Terence Kuederle

Level and Environment Artists:

Michal Drimalka

Daniel Edwards

Paul Ellinor

Maximillian Froemter

Alexander Hager

Guenter Hochecker

Ian Maude

John O'Malley

Oliver Reischl

Character Artists:

Julian Kenning

Ulrich Radhuber

Lead Animator:

Reinhard Schmid

Animators:

Roger Barnett

Steven Manship

Concept Artist:

Christian Koppold

Lead Audio & Video Engineer:

Tobias Kraze

Sound Designers:

Darren Lambourne

Dominik Mayr

Steven Blezy

Video Editor:

Bernhard List



Lead Tester:

Peter Ehardt

Testers:

Melissa Lumbroso

Simon Belton

Michael Borras

Helmut Hutterer

Sameer Malik

Joseph Sewell

Bryan Thompson

Kala Truman

Kieran Gaynor

Andrea Schmoll

Markus Igel



Localization:

Tobias Kraze

Bernhard List



Managing Directors:

Hannes Seifert

Niki Laber

Technical Director:

Tobias Sicheritz

Production Director:

Thomas Schweitzer

Creative Director:

Marin Gazzari



Administration & Finance Manager:

Dana Zajic

HR Manager:

Michaela Gazzari

Operations Manager:

Martin Filipp



Technics:

Chris Soukup

Thomas Zajic

Gernot Unger

Marco Pietsch

Peter Krakhofer

Markus Skrivan

Internal Tools Development:

Philipp Rettenbacher

Thomas Passauer

Martin Porocnik

Support:

David Huettner (Character Artist)

Donald Kirkland (Game Designer)

Sebastian Harras (Level Designer/Artist)

Jeff Wong (Animator)

Helmut Hutterer (Tester)

Gill Frank (Animator)

Kerstin Knesewicz (Management Assistent)

Kaweh Kazemi (Producer)

Petra Gregorowitsch (Management Assistant)

Melanie Friedl (Receptionist)

Additional Art:

RABCAT Computer Graphics GmbH

tidbit-images

Rockstar Vienna's missing credits for Manhunt 2 [Intelligent Artifice, via Gamasutra]

I guess it was just a matter of time before EA's uber-popular Sims franchise started expanding outside the computer and game screens. But EA wouldn't be satisfied with stickers or action figures, oh no. They are going straight to the top by issuing a Sims credit card.

Currently on The Sims' website, you can vote for one of four designs. Not that I really want a Sims credit card or even care for The Sims in general, but in the interest of crackerjack reporting, I voted so I could see the results. Design number three seems to be the front runner with design number four making a close second.

There are no details yet on what the terms of the card will be, but the site promises "exciting rewards and offers for The Sims player community." Whatever these exciting rewards are, I hope they are tangible items and not some exclusive in-game super toilet so your Sims can pee faster. Did you ever notice how long it takes those little bastards to go to the can? Flynn De Marco

[Thanks, knukleur]