This article synthesizes qualitative evidence from ethnographies within video game development companies. A best-fit framework synthesis was conducted, combining the strengths of framework and thematic analysis to interpret the results of 55 ethnographic studies. The analysis revealed that the field of video game development is dominated by technologists and publishers with economic and cultural capitals determining the positions within the field. Within every studio cultural, economic, and social capitals significantly influence developers’ experiences, with persistent issues of job precarity, extended working hours, and underrepresentation of marginalized groups. Developers often face limited creative freedom and significant control which affects their work dynamics and inclusion efforts. Despite these challenges, some studies highlighted peripheral areas where diversity is actively sought and valued. The findings underscore the need for targeted interventions at multiple ecological levels to foster a more inclusive and diverse video game development industry.
AshJ. (2010). Architectures of affect: Anticipating and manipulating the event in processes of videogame design and testing. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(4), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1068/d9309
2.
AshJ. (2015). Theorizing studio space: Spheres and atmospheres in a video game design studio. In FariasI.WilkieA. (Eds.), Studio studies: Operations, topologies & displacements (pp. 91–104). Routledge.
3.
ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. (2021). ATLAS.ti Windows (versión 9.1.7) [Qualitative data analysis software]. https://atlasti.com
4.
BaileyE. N.MiyataK.YoshidaT. (2021). Gender composition of teams and studios in video game development. Games and Culture, 16(1), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412019868381
BanksJ.HumphreysS. (2008). The labour of user co-creators: Emergent social network markets?Convergence, 14(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856508094660
8.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
9.
BourdieuP. (1987). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
10.
BourdieuP. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford University Press.
11.
BourdieuP. (1990a). In other words. essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford University Press.
12.
BourdieuP. (1990b). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
13.
BourdieuP. (1993). The field of cultural production. Columbia University Press.
14.
BourdieuP. (2002). Masculine domination. Stanford University Press.
15.
BourdieuP.ChamboredonJ.PasseronJ. (1991). The craft of sociology: Epistemological preliminaries. De Gruyter.
16.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. The University of Chicago Press.
17.
BrowneP. (2015). Jumping the Gap: Indie Labour and the Imagined Indie Community [Master Thesis, Concordia University].
18.
BulutE. (2014). Creativity and it´s Discontents: A Case Study of Precarious Playbour in the Video Game Industry [Doctoral Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign].
19.
BulutE. (2015a). Glamor above, precarity below: Immaterial labor in the video game industry. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 32(3), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2015.1047880
20.
BulutE. (2015b). Playboring in the tester pit: The convergence of precarity and the degradation of fun in video game testing. Television & New Media, 16(3), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476414525241
BulutE. (2021). White masculinity, creative desires, and production ideology in video game development. Games and Culture, 16(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412020939873
23.
CohendetP.SimonL. (2007). Playing across the playground: Paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.460
24.
CohendetP.SimonL. (2016). Always playable: Recombining routines for creative efficiency at Ubisoft Montreal’s video game studio. Organization Science, 27(3), 614–632. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1062
ConsalvoM. (2008). Crunched by passion: Women game developers and workplace challenges. In KafaiY. B.HeeterC.DennerJ.SunJ. Y. (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New perspectives on gender and gaming (pp. 177–192). MIT Press.
DonovanT. (2010). Replay: The history of video games. Yellow Ant.
32.
DuboisL.-E.WeststarJ. (2022). Games-as-a-service: Conflicted identities on the new front-line of video game development. New Media & Society, 24(10), 2332–2353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821995815
33.
FarmerC. (2021). Arrested (game) development: Labour and lifestyles of independent video game creators in Cape Town. Social Dynamics, 47(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2021.1999632
FlemmingK.NoyesJ. (2021). Qualitative evidence synthesis: where are we at?International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993276
36.
FoustJ. (2024). The habitus of misogyny: Bourdieu and the institutionalization of sexist abuse in the video games industry. Media, Culture & Society, 46(4), 762–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231219383
37.
GestwickiP.McNelyB. (2012, October 18-20). A case study of a five-step design thinking process in educational museum game design [Conference session]. Meaningful Play, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. https://meaningfulplay.msu.edu/2012/program.php?presentation=37&type=paper
38.
GidleyD.PalmerM. (2022). The impact of video game prototyping in an accelerator as viewed via spatial, temporal, and product scales. International Journal of Innovation, 10(3), 410–433. https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v10i3.20745
39.
GidleyD.PalmerM.GharibA. (2023). Suffering, recovery and participant experience in a video game development accelerator. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 12(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-07-2022-0023
40.
GohK.ClaussR. (2018). The role of space and time in balancing conflicting pressures through routine dynamics. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 114067. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.172
41.
GómezC. (2014). Colombia in the global videogame industry: More than an emerging industry in more than an emerging country (MIB) [Master Thesis, Universidad EAFIT].
42.
GómezC.González-PérezM. A. (2015). Internationalization of Video-Game Studios from Emerging Markets: A Colombian Case Study Based on an Activity-Based View. In NewburryW.Gonzalez-PerezM. A. (Eds.), International Business in Latin America. The AIB-LAT Book Series (pp. 140–165). Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
GrandadamD.CohendetP.SimonL. (2013). Places, spaces and the dynamics of creativity: The video game industry in Montreal. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1701–1714. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.699191
44.
GrantM. J.BoothA. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
JohnsonR. S. (2010). The digital Illusio: gender, work and culture in digital game production [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa]. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.0cwut566
47.
JohnsonR. S. (2013). Toward greater production diversity: Examining social boundaries at a video game studio. Games and Culture, 8(3), 136–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412013481848
48.
JohnsonR. (2014). Hiding in plain sight: Reproducing masculine culture at a video game studio. Communication, Culture & Critique, 7(4), 578–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12023
49.
JohnsonR. (2018). Technomasculinity and its influence in video game production. In TaylorN.VoorheesG. (Eds.), Masculinities in play (pp. 249–262). Palgrave Macmillan.
50.
JørgensenK. (2019). Newcomers in a global industry: Challenges of a Norwegian game company. Games and Culture, 14(6), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017723265
KeoghB. (2015). Between triple-A, indie, casual, and DIY. In OakleyK.O’ConnorJ. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to the cultural industries (pp. 152–162). Routledge.
KeoghB. (2023). The videogame industry does not exist: Why we should think beyond commercial game production. The MIT Press.
55.
KerrA. (2017). Global games production: Circulation and policy in the networked era. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
56.
KolevaB.TolmieP.BrundellP.BenfordS.EgglestoneS. (2015). From front-end to back-end and everything in-between: Work practice in game development. In Proceedings of the 2015 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play (pp. 141–150). https://doi.org/10.1145/2793107.2793131
LiuA. (2004). The laws of cool: Knowledge work and the culture of information. University of Chicago Press.
60.
NieborgD. B. (2011). Triple—A: The political economy of the blockbuster video game. [PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands].
61.
NowotnyH. (1981). Women in public life in Austria. In EpsteinC. F.CoserR. L. (Eds.), Access to power: Cross-national studies of women and elites (pp. 147–156). George Allen & Unwin.
62.
NoyesJ.BoothA.CargoM.FlemmingK.GarsideR.HannesK.HardenA.HarrisJ.LewinS.PantojaT.ThomasJ. (2018). Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series—paper 1: Introduction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 97, 35–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.025
63.
O'DonnellC. (2008). The work/play of the interactive new economy: video game development in the United States and India. [Doctoral Dissertation. Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute].
64.
O'DonnellC. (2009). The everyday lives of video game developers: Experimentally understanding underlying systems/structures. In CarlsonR. (Ed.), Games as transformative works (Vol. 2). Special Issue Transformative Works and Cultures. https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.2009.073
65.
O'DonnellC. (2011). Games are not convergence: The lost promise of digital production and convergence. Convergence, 17(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856511405766
66.
O'DonnellC. (2012). This is not a software industry. In ZackariassonP.WilsonT. L. (Eds.), The video game industry. Formation, present state, and future (pp. 17–33). Routledge.
67.
O'DonnellC. (2014). Developeŕs Dilemma. The secret world of videogame creators. The MIT Press.
68.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
69.
ParkerF.PerksM. E. (2021). Streaming ambivalence: Livestreaming and indie game development. Convergence, 27(6), 1735–1752. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211027809
PepplerK.KafaiY. (2007, September 24-28). What Videogame Making Can Teach Us About Literacy and Learning: Alternative Pathways into Participatory Culture [Conference session]. DiGRA International Conference: Situated Play, Tokyo, Japan http://www.digra.org/digital-library/forums/4-situated-play/
72.
PepplerK.KafaiY. (2010). Gaming fluencies: Pathways into a participatory culture in a community design studio. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/ijlm_a_00032
73.
RoesselL.ŠvelchJ. (2021). 10. Who creates microtransactions: The production context of video game monetization. In SotamaaO.SvelchJ. (Eds.), Game production studies (pp. 197–216). Amsterdam University Press.
SotamaaO.SvelchJ. (2021). Game production studies. Amsterdam University Press.
79.
SotamaaO.TyniH.MyöhänenT. (2024). Even if the algorithm is a terrible workmate, you just need to learn to live with it’: Perceptions of data analytics among game industry professionals. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 27(4), 558–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494231168568
80.
StoetzlerM.Yuval-DavisN. (2002). Standpoint theory situated knowledge and the situated imagination. Feminist Theory, 3(3), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/146470002762492024
81.
StoneA. (1995). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. The MIT Press.
82.
StyhreA. (2020). Indie video game development work. innovation in the creative economy. Palgrave Macmillan.
83.
StyhreA.Remneland-WikhamnB. (2021). The video game as agencement and the image of new gaming experiences: The work of indie video game developers. Culture and Organization, 27(6), 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2021.1919893
84.
TranM.BiddleR. (2008, November 3-5). Collaboration in serious game development: a case study. [Conference session]. FuturePlay Academic Games Conference, Toronto Ontario, Canada. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1496984.1496993
TschangF. T.SzczcypulaJ. (2006). Idea creation, constructivism and evolution as key characteristics in the videogame artifact design process. European Management Journal, 24(4), 270–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2006.05.003
87.
VangJ.TschangF. T. (2013). Unpacking the spatial organization of the US videogames industry: Lessons for research on experience industry clusters. In SunboJ.SørensenF. (Eds.), Handbook on the experience economy (pp. 405–423). Edward Elgar.
88.
WacquantL. (2018). A concise genealogy and anatomy of habitus. In MedvetzT.SallazJ. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of pierre bourdieu (pp. 528–536). Oxford University Press.
WestecottE.SteinS.CherylH.KashfiaR. (2019, August 6-10). In Situ: Researching corporate diversity initiatives with game developers. [Conference session]. DiGRA International Conference: Game, Play and the Emerging Ludo-Mix, Kyoto, Japan. http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/2793/
91.
WhitsonJ. R. (2018). Voodoo software and boundary objects in game development: How developers collaborate and conflict with game engines and art tools. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2315–2332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817715020
92.
WhitsonJ. R. (2020). What can we learn from studio studies ethnographies? A “messy” account of game development materiality, learning, and expertise. Games and Culture, 15(3), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412018783320
93.
WoodwardK. (2018). The relevance of bourdieús concepts for studying the intersections of poverty, race, and culture. In MedvetzT.SallazJ. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of pierre bourdieu (pp. 629–644). Oxford University Press.
Yuval-DavisN. (2016). Power, intersectionality and the politics of belonging. In HarcourtW. (Ed.), The palgrave handbook of gender and development (pp. 367–381). Palgrave Macmillan.
97.
ZackariassonP.StyhreA.WilsonT. (2006a). Phronesis and creativity: Knowledge work in video game development. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(4), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00400.x
98.
ZackariassonP.WalfiszM.WilsonT. L. (2006b). Management of creativity in video game development: A case study. Services Marketing Quarterly, 27(4), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J396v27n04_05
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
