Um. If you work in a restaurant, you can't stop working to sit at a table and eat a meal (unless it's lunchtime!). If you work in a garage, you can't take one of the cars for a test-drive. So why should a game developer be able to stop working to play games?



Yes, playing games may help to improve your skills - but it's not what you're being paid to do.

Hehe! I experienced something like this a few years ago in a company I used to work for. Prior to getting into the game industry, I read countless job descriptions that required a love for games. Shortly after my entry into the industry during one of my yearly reviews, I was told there was one area of concern that I need to address. That was..."You play too much games."



Now, as a designer during that time, that comment surprised me. I thought I needed to be current with all the different gaming trends, be familiar with all the new gameplay ideas, etc. in order to do my job to the best of my ability.



Granted, I do understand there are valid reasons why this no gaming policy at work might go in effect, but I know it can be damaging to the development of a game. Developers can learn from current success or failures outside of their own projects. If they can experience firsthand what makes a game fun or not, they can use that knowledge and avoid similiar mistakes or use it to inspire their work in order to push what has already been done.



Fortunately for me, I've chosen to stay away from the big companies and work for a smaller company who allows their developers the freedom to do "R&D" during work hours. In fact, I get links from my boss to check out a game and see what I think! If there is a good balance between time spent playing other games and developing your own project, it can benefit both the developer, employer, and the game that's in development.

I've worked at game companies in 3 different countries so far, and each country's cultures varies. Every company also has it's own unique culture too. Regardless, you will usually be able to identify a few people that will play too many games while working (or web browsing).



Company policies are formed to try to prevent abuses. Europe in particular relative to North America, it is notoriously difficult to fire someone for under-performance. It has to be well documented for a long period of time with several warnings and action improvement plans, and it can be very frustrating for other co-workers who get the impression these people are skating by and not pulling their weight. This usually negatively affects a team's morale, especially when there is a lot of work to be done.



However, the unwritten rule is if someone is a good performer and does their job, checking out games for genuine research purposes (or for fun during breaks) is usually fine in moderation and nobody is bothered by it.



Last company I was with, the studio would purchase virtually every game that came out (even by request) and managed a library system so people could perform research on site or check them out to play them at home. We also had a lounge area with all the consoles to play games away from the team spaces. Weekly, we'd have a show and tell with beer and snacks where someone would evangelize a cool game or two and pick out a few things that could benefit the project in development. But even there we had problems with certain people playing games excessively. Most everyone else was fine though.



Basically, I don't believe any blanket policy can truly work either way. Really just common sense and talk to people on the team that are playing too many games so things don't get out of hand.



One studio I was at, we had a guy that was very slow on his work and always had an excuse for why things didn't get completed on time. But people noticed his excessive browser behavior, so we had every right to ask IT to track his internet usage. In the end we discovered he was spending an excess of 35 active hours per week browsing WoW related sites. He was warned and all of those sites were blocked. He also worked the minimum required hours each week.

I understand where you are coming from. It is true though that some people take advantage of certain offerings and allow it to just be play time, rather than actually thinking and researching. You should document things as your playing, get a lined note book and start righting what works and what's not.



I'll also throw in that you don't have to just look at games to find out how to develop fun, well designed games. You find the more unique and clever ideas that work when you look elsewhere and bring them in to your expertise.



All companies should allow research like this.

If I remember correctly, the developers of Shadow Complex said that they spent some time researching the classics in the genre like Super Metroid and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night while designing their game to try to learn what works and what doesn't work. I'm all in favor of stuff like this - playing very specific games with a specific goal in mind. However, just letting people game on company time with minimal supervision seems like a recipe for slacking off.

Well, I am a bit surprised that you guys found this subject of interest. I am also pleasantly surprised by the fact that I am characterized as naive, because I am actually forcing myself to be like that. It is the only way, at least for me, to stay in touch with the essential core of "having fun".



I am working in this industry because I want to show people that they can have fun as "humans" not necessarily "consumers". And I know that the gaming industry tends to take itself too seriously sometimes. Maybe it should start playing more?



Thank you all for taking me seriously! :)

Being able to openly throw work away for gaming time on the company dollar is likely an unhealthy idea. However, gaming companies SHOULD encourage their workers to game within reason. Even if it's only setting one day a month as a game day, where everyone in the studio can dive into games with each other, the dip in creative juices will enliven everyone, refresh peoples' perspectives and improve team cohesion.

Fun and productivity are not mutually exclusive, and it's often cheaper for a company to provide it (and other intangibles like flexible working) than to try to hang onto its personnel using just salary and monetary incentives. Fun even affects company directors VPs, which is why small, privately held companies are often more fun, I think.



I think the trick is to wrap this all in something company-oriented. Put money behind a bar occasionally, but make it clear that you should socialize with company people, even if your other half or best friend comes along. Encourage banter or stupid games in the office, but make it clear that it must be limited like a tea or cigarette break would be, and not disturb others who are working to much.



Similarly, a games company should let everyone who contributes to the game they are making have some allowance for the time they spend (at home or at work) playing games, so long as they can do a brief write-up of what they are learning, for themselves and for the company. That way the company encourage its people to analyse why a game is good (or not) rather than just play, and can also build up a library of knowledge, and a staff of knowledgeable people. You are also allowing them to play on company time a bit, which they think is cool! And no-one will feel they are carrying the bloke who plays 50 hours of WoW every week.



All it takes is for a manager to think "you may have put 5h less than everyone else in the team this week, but you put in 5 good game analyses too so that's fine"! Do no games companies do this?

It is in the best interest for development companies to have it's staff test the current WIP, not just the testers. It has been known in the past (when QA was done to the point of finding a pin in a hay stack) that some major bugs have been picked up by staff not in the test group. I remember hearing about a receptionist having a play on the current test version of a game and asked what most testers and programmers would even think to look at. I think it was something about why can't I pickup that thing there and use it to trigger that trap there?



There has been other cases like this where someone has asked a question about something in the currenty test version that has added something new to the project and to the way games are played.



I'm not suggesting staff can just stop work and play, but it they get to that point with their productivity has dropped due to hitting that mental wall, then sometime away from what they're doing and something to help relax maybe a benefit to them, staff moral and maybe even encarage some new concepts into the project.



Just my thoughts.

If my company gains ground, my staff will be compelled to play games.



From my own perspective, I believe that playing a game in a game company can be likening to reading a novel in a newspaper company, which can boost editorial. The reward may not be obvious at first, but there a lot of things that make some game so cool, but the inspirations came from another game the staff played.



You will be surprised that some of the executives that are compelling staff with strict office game playing policy, sometime obsessed with some games in their office secretly behind closed doors.



I know few execs (not a game company) that always played Zuma most of the time, but if they see any of their staff doing the same, trouble will start and they sometime joke about it among themselves in the club.



I once attended a *TOT lectures conducted by HEALTHQUAL and they used games (Solitaire, Sudoku etc.) strategically during the training to the extent that some of the participants confessed that these is the first training that they attended without sleeping during lectures. Likewise in the company where most of the staff usually sleeps during work-hours, introducing games wisely can reduce the problem.



Sometimes looking at your competitor's game can make you improve your own game that is similar to the competitor and out sale your competitor. Zuma and Bejewel for example.



Abuse of gaming in workplace has always been the management defense to stop staff from playing games, but I believe it can be checkmated and they know, (just like Dan Felder says "one day a month as a game day) but they just don’t want it.



All I can say is that any game company that is not allowing their staff to play game may be losing some of the inspirations that can come from looking at another game from a different perspective.



*Training Of Trainers.

Game designers and developers should be treated like any professionals. You should be free to schedule your time as you see necessary as long as you meet your professional commitments (e.g. milestones, deadlines, meetings).

I think there are 2 different types of game playing that should be separated for this discussion.



1. Casual play - This is the kind where you are playing for fun and relaxation. You can still do hardcore playing, but the primary focus isn't really on studying the game.



2. Game study - This is where you're *actually* researching and studying a particular mechanic or graphic and having fun or completing a level is just a byproduct.



The worry, I think, is that most game playing at work would fall into category 1, but under the guise of "learning" or "studying", which is really just an excuse. If you're playing more than on your standard break times/lunch hour, it would definitely impact your work output in a negative way.



If you're actually researching a game, you can do 90% of that on youtube just watching videos of other people playing the game. If you need to get a really good look at an asset or repeat a behavior to pick apart just what the devs did, then sure, fire up the game and take a good look. But if you start looking for coins or going for headshots or whatever, you've stopped the productive part.



I love games. I play games constantly. In my spare time. I don't expect a company to pay me and sit and play games unless I'm doing testing, in which case, I'm not playing, I'm trying to break the thing or verify something.

Let's also consider if this was approved and encouraged at work. How much is too much? How much is enough? Is everyone entitled to the same amount of game playing? After all, any designer, any artist, any programmer could benefit consciously or unconsciously from the play.



So, let's make it mandatory in our hypothetical situation. Everyone in the company has to spend 2 hours every day playing games. You don't get to, you have to. Because we see the tremendous benefits it gives to your perspective along with relaxation and bonding benefits.



Everyone works 5.5 hours per day (giving 30 minutes for lunch) and plays for 2 hours.



Ok, if you have a company of 30 employees you are losing 300 man hours of productivity per week!



There is no way you can compete as a game developer with that kind of time loss. The balance between time vs quality vs budget gets all unbalanced. Either your quality takes a massive hit, or your budget inflates to the point that your revenue even on a good seller wouldn't cover the costs (because you'd have to hire another 10 developers to make up the loss of time to create the same quality in the same time frame).



Sorry, Sebastian, it doesn't work. Work 40 hours (and work while you're at work), have good management and production staff to keep you out of a crunch culture, and you'll have plenty of time away from the office for game playing / social life / etc. If you want that fun gaming/bonding experience at work, then just have everyone stay after hours, but understanding you're all sacrificing your personal time for the sake of the fun and bonding.

I agree with Rich Levine.