Support NeoGAF

[BobLeeSwagger]

- Crunch that happens because a company simply doesn't want to hire the proper amount of people for the job.

This is what got us into this mess in my opinion…

Games were already taking 3+ years to develop WITH crunch.

As a result, studios got the greenlight to hire more people. Once the suits and investors/shareholders realized the manpower needed still wasn’t enough to get games out in less time, it was time to cut on the over-hiring and costs.

If the profits made are only 10-20% of the $200m+ project, where the fuck else are companies getting the rest of the funds for their next big project? Interest rates are high af and investors are smart enough to know the returns aren’t worth it for the time and money needed for these endeavors.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Unfortunately for you the market thinks otherwise, which is a major contributor to huge budgets of modern videogames.

Is that necessarily the case though?

Mario Wonder can be beat in 10 hours and it sold very well.

Activision has been making the single player campaign in CoD shorter and shorter.

It's important to actually analyze whether the market is demanding longer games or if game developers simply think that is the case. People learn the wrong lessons from games all the time. I think the industry at large has learned the wrong lessons from Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead.

Hogwarts Legacy is 26 hours to beat and Elden Ring is 59 hours. Which is the correct length?

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Is that necessarily the case though?

no, of course not. I wanted to make a thread regarding Control supposed budget of 30 million € while Spider-Man was 200 million €. I think we all agree Control was a very well made game. My question is - what did the other 180 million € bought for Spider-Man?

 

[Clear]

Please stop with the pearl clutching about crunch.

If you've ever worked in the industry you know why it happens, and more importantly have a good idea WHERE it happens chronically.

Some crunch I'd argue is virtually unavoidable. Where there are deadlines, and severe (business) repercussions for missing those dates, then crunch is the inevitable outcome of need and ambition colliding with hard reality.

On the other hand, some studios are basically dysfunctional and resort to overworking/over-demanding staff continually in order to cover management shortcomings. In such cases its up to each individual affected by that culture to decide whether the upsides outweigh the downs. Sometimes its worth taking the hit of a tour of duty at such studios in order to have their name on your resume for career development and future prospects. Sometimes its not, obviously, BUT that's up to the individual to decide.

And decide they will. One of the most annoying things for me as a former dev when talking about this topic is the inference that they need the support of end users and commentators within the internet gaming community! This is nonsense. They can assert themselves, they aren't babies or chattel slaves - and all they really need from the market is for them to STFU and buy their games!

Each sale matters way more than a days worth of shit-posting on the internet!

 

[Lucifers Beard]

A lot of games want to be a jack of all trades. Almost everything has an RPG or open world element that just isn't needed.

Give me a game with a few mechanics that are satisfying to play and have a focused journey for the player, rather than these open world bloat fests that let the player make their own journey.

Leave open world games to the actual professionals ie. Rockstar.

 

[mckmas8808]

The way I wrote it? Do I have to spell everything out or can I assume that people on a gaming forum have some base level knowledge.

I specifically cite Jason Schreier and everyone knows he has made a career out of grievance and clickbait, much of that sourced from developers.

He is a parasite gaining financial security in the gaming industry, not acting as the 4th estate but rather by acting as toxic media. I doubt he cares about crunch. He cares about access. He has long complained about a lack of access in the industry. So how does he get additional access? He writes one sided stories that let individuals share their outrage and feelings about a subject without full context from any other sides.

This is well documented and anyone reading the thread knows that going in when he is used as an example.

LOL! Nah man never assume. Especially around these parts. And the way you are talking about Jason is why it was unfair what you wrote. You make it sound as if the articles he wrote about crunch were part of that clickbait grievance. When it's not! It was a legit issue that devs had. They spoke about it.

Crunch will always happen, but some of it was HORRIBLE and in some countries literally illegal.

 

[mckmas8808]

This is what got us into this mess in my opinion…

Games were already taking 3+ years to develop WITH crunch.

As a result, studios got the greenlight to hire more people. Once the suits and investors/shareholders realized the manpower needed still wasn’t enough to get games out in less time, it was time to cut on the over-hiring and costs.

If the profits made are only 10-20% of the $200m+ project, where the fuck else are companies getting the rest of the funds for their next big project? Interest rates are high af and investors are smart enough to know the returns aren’t worth it for the time and money needed for these endeavors.

I think the increasing a interest rates is more of what lead to these lay offs, than publishers thinking hiring more people wasn't the answer. Plus.......why did so many of these publishers think GAAS for everything was the answer?
I wish Jim Ryan could answer this question for me.

Please stop with the pearl clutching about crunch.

If you've ever worked in the industry you know why it happens, and more importantly have a good idea WHERE it happens chronically.

Some crunch I'd argue is virtually unavoidable. Where there are deadlines, and severe (business) repercussions for missing those dates, then crunch is the inevitable outcome of need and ambition colliding with hard reality.

On the other hand, some studios are basically dysfunctional and resort to overworking/over-demanding staff continually in order to cover management shortcomings. In such cases its up to each individual affected by that culture to decide whether the upsides outweigh the downs. Sometimes its worth taking the hit of a tour of duty at such studios in order to have their name on your resume for career development and future prospects. Sometimes its not, obviously, BUT that's up to the individual to decide.

And decide they will. One of the most annoying things for me as a former dev when talking about this topic is the inference that they need the support of end users and commentators within the internet gaming community! This is nonsense. They can assert themselves, they aren't babies or chattel slaves - and all they really need from the market is for them to STFU and buy their games!

Each sale matters way more than a days worth of shit-posting on the internet!

The bolded is just unfair though man. It seems like you are taking the pressure off of those dysfunctional companies and placing it all on the employees. And that's weird. In a functional society, people have the right to complain about a bad work environment. To tell them to shut up with just odd and weird.

Do you enjoy companies getting away with creating a bad work culture?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I think the increasing a interest rates is more of what lead to these lay offs, than publishers thinking hiring more people wasn't the answer. Plus.......why did so many of these publishers think GAAS for everything was the answer?
I wish Jim Ryan could answer this question for me.

You seem to think that Sony is backing off GaaS... spoiler, they aren't.

GaaS is how the vast majority of younger players want to play their games and the industry is adjusting in favor of that, especially as the cost of game development continues to rise.

Not sure why you need to hear that from Jim Ryan.

It's not just interest rates that cause layoffs, it's the lack of growth in PC/Console gaming. It was impossible for people to know just how much gaming growth would slow down post pandemic, but the slow down has been drastic and tied to the overall state of the global economy and the rising cost in general entertainment.

We also have an overabundance of games and an overabundance of cheap games.

No more games could come out for the rest of time and you still couldn't play everything that was made just in the last few years.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

I think the increasing a interest rates is more of what lead to these lay offs, than publishers thinking hiring more people wasn't the answer. Plus.......why did so many of these publishers think GAAS for everything was the answer?
I wish Jim Ryan could answer this question for me.

That still doesn’t answer the question though.

Why are games still taking so long to make even without crunch and additional manpower?

Where is the accountability and what solutions are being made to make development more efficient and cost saving?

 

[rhodesianshepard]

Sony never said this for all PS5 games. Plus they have a vested interest in people buying games on the PS store and not on Steam. 1st party games they get 100% of the money on PSN. On Steam they only get 70%. Plus they get money selling PS controllers, PS Portals, PS+, PSVR2, etc.

Never forget that Sony makes more money from PS gamers on Playstation, than PC gamers buying 2 or 3 PS games on PC a year.

I doubt day 1 games on pc(outside gaas) even happens this generation, honestly. I don't think they have the PC infrastructure to port them over. But I think Sony realizes by next generation, console sales will further decline and it will make financial sense to fully release day 1 on PC. Maybe create their own store front? The pivot to PC is coming, it is just a matter of time.

I, as a Playstation fan, love them because of their studios not so much the brand. I think they have 4-5 of the top 20 studios in the entire industry. By going to PC day 1, the value of their studios goes way up. Which is great for gamers. It means they can sustain higher costs of development

 

[mckmas8808]

You seem to think that Sony is backing off GaaS... spoiler, they aren't.

GaaS is how the vast majority of younger players want to play their games and the industry is adjusting in favor of that, especially as the cost of game development continues to rise.

Not sure why you need to hear that from Jim Ryan.

It's not just interest rates that cause layoffs, it's the lack of growth in PC/Console gaming. It was impossible for people to know just how much gaming growth would slow down post pandemic, but the slow down has been drastic and tied to the overall state of the global economy and the rising cost in general entertainment.

We also have an overabundance of games and an overabundance of cheap games.

No more games could come out for the rest of time and you still couldn't play everything that was made just in the last few years.

Yeah there are too many games. 100% agree. I don't know how we can get that across to Publishers, but we don't need this many games. But it's very very clear that Sony is dialing back on GAAS. They had 12 on their board. I think we are down to 7 or 8 now. Which is what it should have been from the beginning.

And I'd love to Jim Ryan to answer for why he thought 12 GAAS games from Sony was smart to begin with. It was always a dumb goal to have and a waste of resources. Many of us said that day one, so I'm glad Sony is finally coming to their senses.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

That still doesn’t answer the question though.

Why are games still taking so long to make even without crunch and additional manpower?

Where is the accountability and what solutions are being made to make development more efficient and cost saving?

In the age of remote work and lack of crunch, you're paying 2 or 3 people to watch netflix at home rather than 1 person crunching in the office. The quality of the work from that one person is probably better than the 3 people too.

Somewhat of an exaggeration, but it is the reality.

A lot of people abuse WFH.

As someone who has managed staff and fought for more WFH days, you can tell that even among the best employees you can see a drop in production during WFH. There is that inherent desire to relax while at home.

I wouldn't even mind someone watching Netflix during the day if they got their work done on time, but that just isn't what happens. This is why you see Rockstar demanding a 5 day in office routine, because it is easier for managers to keep staff on task while they are in the office and there are fewer distractions for people.

Which is also ironic for some people. I can get way more work done from home than driving into the office, dealing with traffic, and then having a million people walk up to me and then driving home in traffic.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Yeah there are too many games. 100% agree. I don't know how we can get that across to Publishers, but we don't need this many games. But it's very very clear that Sony is dialing back on GAAS. They had 12 on their board. I think we are down to 7 or 8 now. Which is what it should have been from the beginning.

And I'd love to Jim Ryan to answer for why he thought 12 GAAS games from Sony was smart to begin with. It was always a dumb goal to have and a waste of resources. Many of us said that day one, so I'm glad Sony is finally coming to their senses.

Fewer games means fewer developers too and I think that's exactly what we're seeing with these layoffs and canceled games.

Sony is dialing back in general not just on GaaS. You're hyper-focused on GaaS while ignoring that single-player games are getting canceled too.

 

[mckmas8808]

That still doesn’t answer the question though.

Why are games still taking so long to make even without crunch and additional manpower?

Where is the accountability and what solutions are being made to make development more efficient and cost saving?

I'd to know the answer to these questions too. I'm right there with you.

I doubt day 1 games on pc(outside gaas) even happens this generation, honestly. I don't think they have the PC infrastructure to port them over. But I think Sony realizes by next generation, console sales will further decline and it will make financial sense to fully release day 1 on PC. Maybe create their own store front? The pivot to PC is coming, it is just a matter of time.

I, as a Playstation fan, love them because of their studios not so much the brand. I think they have 4-5 of the top 20 studios in the entire industry. By going to PC day 1, the value of their studios goes way up. Which is great for gamers. It means they can sustain higher costs of development

You're assuming that the revenue they get from Day One on PC will not take away from what they'd normally do in the console space. I think that's where you're being a little shortsighted.

There's no evidence that the PS5 generation will be smaller than the PS4 generation. We have many reasons to estimate that the PS5 will sell more than the PS4 actually.

 

[mckmas8808]

Fewer games means fewer developers too and I think that's exactly what we're seeing with these layoffs and canceled games.

Sony is dialing back in general not just on GaaS. You're hyper-focused on GaaS while ignoring that single-player games are getting canceled too.

I guess I'm just waiting to hear announcements or leaks on what SP games have been canceled. We know Sony has been chopping the heads off of their GAAS ambitions lately.

 

[simpatico]

True, but that's a terrible thing to set up as a company and industry. You'll end up losing your best workers over time, just because you are "forcing" them to work 16 hours a week for 2 years straight. This doesn't have to happen like this. Making games doesn't have to be this way.

Will short term crunch happen at times? Yes, but I feel like the type of crunch WE are talking about is the bad kind. The kind that............

- Crunch that doesn't pay people overtime money for extra hours worked
- Crunch that last for 6 months or more straight
- Crunch that lies to the employees on how long it'll take because the execs are horrible in project management
- Crunch that happens because a company simply doesn't want to hire the proper amount of people for the job.

It's the only job where the employees get so bent out of shape about overtime that they try to shoehorn it into a victim-y news story.

 

[rofif]

I don’t care. It’s personal people problems.
If I cared for crunch I would be a hypocrite because materials used for console are probably collected by African kids.
If I choose not to care about that, I won’t even think about caring for first world crunch l

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

I'd to know the answer to these questions too. I'm right there with you.

I love games as much as everyone here.

But as someone that does financial planning & analysis for a living, it’s not hard to see why suits and executives are making the executive decisions to lay people off.

 

[Fake]

In some cases to great results like GTA remastered hehe.

I guess if you use human to control AI behavior those things are almost avoid.

 

[mckmas8808]

It's the only job where the employees get so bent out of shape about overtime that they try to shoehorn it into a victim-y news story.

It's also one of the few sets of employees that engage with their customers in such a direct way on the internet too though. Do you think it's okay for devs to work OT and not get paid an OT rate?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I guess I'm just waiting to hear announcements or leaks on what SP games have been canceled. We know Sony has been chopping the heads off of their GAAS ambitions lately.

The biggest difference is we don't have a specific number of SP games that Sony is working on nor do we hear about most canceled games.

We just heard about a canceled game from EA though.

 

[Clear]

The bolded is just unfair though man. It seems like you are taking the pressure off of those dysfunctional companies and placing it all on the employees. And that's weird. In a functional society, people have the right to complain about a bad work environment. To tell them to shut up with just odd and weird.

Its not my place to speak on situations that I have a less than complete understanding of, let alone intercede.

A big part of my problem is the way these ultra low-resolution arguments and evidences are taken to extremes, because internet discourse always trends that way. Its best exemplified when knuckleheads start demanding boycotts on crunch-heavy studios and publishers! Like, how the fuck is this going to help anyone? More importantly, how is it not apparent this is specifically going to HURT the very same people that are supposed to be victimized?

There's also the very salient counter-point that you cannot state as fact that crunch, even chronic crunch culture, is bad for the end product. Its like the old adage in the movie industry about "happy set, lousy movie." We need to accept that great art often comes out of adversity. Sometimes going through a certain amount of hell in the workplace is justified.

Again, this isn't globally true, but it stands towards my view that low-res argumentation about complex issues is as useful as a chocolate fireguard!

Also, I have to admit to being considerably wary when accepting claims from rando devs airing their grievances on social media. Its an industry and occupation that attracts a variety of personality types and perspectives. So the self-selection aspect of how such messages are broadcast via Twitter or whatever weighs more to me than them simply being an employee of said company.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Do you think it's okay for devs to work OT and not get paid an OT rate?

Welcome to salary life.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

Look, crunch never stopped. So, there's that. But yes, it will continue to get worse. Not really because of lay-offs, but in general because most large companies treat their employees like shit, particularly once they are publicly-traded and then all that matters is the share price and paying out dividends.

People thought crunch stopped because a bunch of hyper-liberal game outlets spent 12 months reporting on it? Like, c'mon. I know people are naive, but come on.

 

[mckmas8808]

Its not my place to speak on situations that I have a less than complete understanding of, let alone intercede.

A big part of my problem is the way these ultra low-resolution arguments and evidences are taken to extremes, because internet discourse always trends that way. Its best exemplified when knuckleheads start demanding boycotts on crunch-heavy studios and publishers! Like, how the fuck is this going to help anyone? More importantly, how is it not apparent this is specifically going to HURT the very same people that are supposed to be victimized?

There's also the very salient counter-point that you cannot state as fact that crunch, even chronic crunch culture, is bad for the end product. Its like the old adage in the movie industry about "happy set, lousy movie." We need to accept that great art often comes out of adversity. Sometimes going through a certain amount of hell in the workplace is justified.

Again, this isn't globally true, but it stands towards my view that low-res argumentation about complex issues is as useful as a chocolate fireguard!

Also, I have to admit to being considerably wary when accepting claims from rando devs airing their grievances on social media. Its an industry and occupation that attracts a variety of personality types and perspectives. So the self-selection aspect of how such messages are broadcast via Twitter or whatever weighs more to me than them simply being an employee of said company.

I agree with most of your post here. But we've also had execs at studios admit that they've had a crunch problem and were looking at ways to clean it up. So I take it that not all claims of bad crunch were lies or over-exaggerations.

I think we all need to realize that chronic crunch (I love that term and I'm stealing it) isn't something that "HAS" to happen. It's just bad project management. Happy set, Lousy movie sounds like something an asshole made up just to justify themselves on being lazy or just plain bad a managing a movie production set and timelines.

Execs get paid lots of money, so I expect them to be better at their jobs. They do need to stop using crunch as a crutch.

 

[mckmas8808]

Welcome to salary life.

Not true. Salary life is negotiated and agreed upon that if I put in more hours, I still won't get higher pay for that extra work. That wasn't happening in gaming. Some people were told they would get "OT Pay" and then never got it. That's messed up and a horrible business practice.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Not true. Salary life is negotiated and agreed upon that if I put in more hours, I still won't get higher pay for that extra work. That wasn't happening in gaming. Some people were told they would get "OT Pay" and then never got it. That's messed up and a horrible business practice.

I could be wrong, but aren’t most game programmers/developers salaried?

If the average yearly pay in the US for this position is close to $100K, no reasonable company would pay that as an hourly rate.

 

[TropicanaTwista]

The problem is there is a concerted effort by people like Schreier to push 'prolonged periods of hard work' as crunch. The term really needs a proper definition. Like 3 consecutive periods of time where an employee is asked to work sixty or more hours a week. Pushing to get something as complex as a video game into production is always going to require a period where all teams overlap and push because the nature of games spawn very severe, interlinked dependencies. This is no different to a lot of other major projects or deadlines that people face. Spare a thought for those doctors and nurses who have to crunch every Friday or Saturday night in the ER when the weekend drunks pile into hospital, and they are required to do extra shifts, or can't leave their patients until handover is complete.

Pretty much this. I've worked in 3 different professions so far in my life and all of them had "crunch" at some point. I'm sure some jobs don't but I feel most careers have some stretches where there is gonna be more work, whether that be do to timing of a project, seasonal or whatever else. I don't like how crunch seems to always get thrown into a negative connotation. Because yes, while all my jobs had some type of crunch, they also had prolonged periods of downtime or less stressful work. If it's something where crunch is happening 90+ percent of the time, then yea that's a problem as people do have lives outside of work, but taking it back to this industry it's probably like a month before a game launches where it probably does suck ass. Really doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

Welcome to salary life.

I do wonder what kind of places you work to believe this is normal. At least in my country is completely illegal to work without getting paid. We even have a cap per week of "extra time" you can willingly take. Anything else would be considered exploitation and you could sue the company.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I do wonder what kind of places you work to believe this is normal. At least in my country is completely illegal to work without getting paid. We even have a cap per week of "extra time" you can willingly take. Anything else would be considered exploitation and you could sue the company.

If you are salaried in America, you don't get overtime pay in almost all cases. You're deemed an exempt employee.

As a salaried employee, you can have a standard work week, but in many cases, especially for hard workers, you'll go over that.

As a salaried employee, I've worked 50-60 hours at times.

 

[rhodesianshepard]

The biggest difference is we don't have a specific number of SP games that Sony is working on nor do we hear about most canceled games.

We just heard about a canceled game from EA though.

I figured if there were any major SP cancelations that it would have been reported, just as Twisted Metal was. The layoffs were mostly PSVR2 and GAAS related studios. For example, If Sucker Punch or Sony Santa Monica cancelled a game, surely there would have been layoffs at those studios. 900 people is a lot, but there SP output should not be affected much by it

And we have a pretty good idea of the amount of SP games in development. Sony should have 7-8 SP games being released by end of 2027. And I can't remember the last time Sony canceled a SP game mid-development. So there is confidence there

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

I do wonder what kind of places you work to believe this is normal. At least in my country is completely illegal to work without getting paid. We even have a cap per week of "extra time" you can willingly take. Anything else would be considered exploitation and you could sue the company.

My position, it’s assumed I work 40 hours a week. There are weeks where I work 30 hours because I get shit done sooner. But in some other weeks, I can put in anywhere from 50-60 hours. Either way, it averages up to 40 hours/week for the whole year if you can plan/schedule accordingly.

I personally keep track of my hours since most salaried people don’t “clock in” and “clock out” when they work.

 

[Clear]

I agree with most of your post here. But we've also had execs at studios admit that they've had a crunch problem and were looking at ways to clean it up. So I take it that not all claims of bad crunch were lies or over-exaggerations.

I think we all need to realize that chronic crunch (I love that term and I'm stealing it) isn't something that "HAS" to happen. It's just bad project management. Happy set, Lousy movie sounds like something an asshole made up just to justify themselves on being lazy or just plain bad a managing a movie production set and timelines.

Execs get paid lots of money, so I expect them to be better at their jobs. They do need to stop using crunch as a crutch.

Its also cultural. People generally aren't locked inside the office, but they will bow to peer-group pressure to overachieve especially when there's an expectation that (relatively) short-term sacrifices will yield massive long-term benefits career-wise.

Personally I always set hard boundaries for what I was prepared to do, and being a contracted employee typically I always knew what my obligations were. Now obviously thats just me, and I was always prepared for the consequences of being "that guy". I didn't walk into the industry back in the 80's with that mindset however, its something I learned over time.

 

[Loomy]

A well managed project will have employees working 40 hours a week(or whatever their contract says) and have the product be completed and delivered on time.
Crunch is a sign of poor project management. It does not need to come back.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I figured if there were any major SP cancelations that it would have been reported, just as Twisted Metal was. The layoffs were mostly PSVR2 and GAAS related studios. For example, If Sucker Punch or Sony Santa Monica cancelled a game, surely there would have been layoffs at those studios. 900 people is a lot, but there SP output should not be affected much by it

And we have a pretty good idea of the amount of SP games in development. Sony should have 7-8 SP games being released by end of 2027. And I can't remember the last time Sony canceled a SP game mid-development. So there is confidence there

This is just more confirmation bias.

How many games is Naughty Dog working on right now? We have no idea. How far along into development are they on their games? We have no idea?

We're counting Twisted Metal as a canceled GaaS game but it wasn't even greenlit, so was it part of the 12 game plan or wasn't it?

Not sure where you're getting 7-8 SP games by the end of 2027. I'm guessing you're taking the investment slides and trying to extrapolate from that, but it doesn't work like that.

 

[Hudo]

A well managed project will have employees working 40 hours a week(or whatever their contract says) and have the product be completed and delivered on time.
Crunch is a sign of poor project management. It does not need to come back.

The truth has been spoken.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

A well managed project will have employees working 40 hours a week(or whatever their contract says) and have the product be completed and delivered on time.
Crunch is a sign of poor project management. It does not need to come back.

This is fantasy and naive. Tell me you've never run a project without telling me you've never run a project.

You should realize that at the offset of a project you know the least amount of information you need in order to complete the project. The idea that the exact number of employees and the exact amount of time needed is what you'll have isn't realistic.

People get sick, people leave the company, key people can go on maternity/paternity leave, things can cause a shift in scope, that might be required for the project based on a shift in market needs.

Do you realize the same game released a year apart from each other could sell wildly different based on the market? If you're building a game and all of a sudden a new gameplay mechanic comes out that makes your gameplay mechanic look archaic, you might have to delay the game or add more crunch into a sprint to change that mechanic because releasing the game as is won't go over well.

 

[Loomy]

This is fantasy and naive. Tell me you've never run a project without telling me you've never run a project.

Hi! I've worked in software development for a hell of a long time now, nice to meet you!

Team capacity is something that the PM or whoever is managing that is always aware of. It's something that should be reviewed and adjusted every quarter. Or whenever there is significant changes to the team - such as layoff, or leads leaving.

Projects timelines are not determined in a vacuum. Spiderman 1 should be used as a baseline when determining timeline for Spiderman 2. You adjust from there based on time savings from tech and assets that carry over, and new tech assets that need to be created.

Here's the problem: Studio pitches a game, publisher says "2.5 years?" Studio says "no no no, around 4...maybe", publisher says "3 years it is"

That timeline/release date is then communicated to leadership. From there, 2 terrible things happen. 1, the games release, and revenue expected to be generated from that game is carved in fucking stone by people who really only cares about quarterly profits. Resource/funding is then allocated for 3 years. Not the 4 years that the game will actually take to make. Studios are then forced to work their employees ragged to meet a deadline that was unrealistic to begin with.

Sometimes, studios do bite off more than they can chew and things go over. In either case, working people so hard they have to sleep at work and don't get to go home and actually have a restful sleep, or go home and look after their newborn baby for a few hours so their spouse can sleep is not the solution.

Crunch, or forcing your staff to overwork - sometimes with no extra pay, is a sign or poor management and does not need to come back

 

[Dorfdad]

12-20 hour games should be the norm now. Most other games are fluff filled shit anyway

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Team capacity is something that the PM or whoever is managing that is always aware of. It's something that should be reviewed and adjusted every quarter. Or whenever there is significant changes to the team - such as layoff, or leads leaving.

Even in your admission, facts change during the course of a project that would cause games to be delayed or require more work hours.

The naive idea that you can commit to 40 hours and commit to being on time at the start of a project reveals that you have no idea what you're talking about and I don't care what element of software engineering you want to claim to have experience in.

There is no way you were involved in project management because there is no way you'd be saying what you're saying.

 

[Loomy]

Even in your admission, facts change during the course of a project that would cause games to be delayed or require more work hours.

Yes. Shit happens. Delay the game. Dont fuck with people's lives.

I've never been a PM, nor do I ever want to. But I don't need to be one to know when a project is being mismanaged.

If at the start of a project you know you have 10 devs working 40 hours a week, and you set your delivery date to only be achievable if those 10 devs work an extra 20 hours a week, then you're a shitty planner.

Shit comes up? Adjust the timeline. Don't fuck with people's lives.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Yes. Shit happens. Delay the game. Dont fuck with people's lives.

I've never been a PM, nor do I ever want to. But I don't need to be one to know when a project is being mismanaged.

If at the start of a project you know you have 10 devs working 40 hours a week, and you set your delivery date to only be achievable if those 10 devs work an extra 20 hours a week, then you're a shitty planner.

Shit comes up? Adjust the timeline. Don't fuck with people's lives.

I love when people say things that reveal the real truth.

 

[Clear]

The truth has been spoken.

In an ideal world, sure. But its just not realistic.

Part of the issue is that modern management strategies like Agile result in continuous deadline targeting throughout the project life cycle. And where there's a deadline there's a need to crunch in order to meet it whenever things fall behind.

 

[Topher]

Seems to me like those who are in or follow the video game industry make a hell of a lot bigger deal about people working overtime than in any other industry. Maybe I'm wrong there, but either way it seems strange to me since plenty of people work overtime and are not in air conditioning or super comfy office chairs.

Having said that, I do think there should be some parameters wrapped around overtime. Agree with this.....

True, but that's a terrible thing to set up as a company and industry. You'll end up losing your best workers over time, just because you are "forcing" them to work 16 hours a week for 2 years straight. This doesn't have to happen like this. Making games doesn't have to be this way.

Will short term crunch happen at times? Yes, but I feel like the type of crunch WE are talking about is the bad kind. The kind that............

- Crunch that doesn't pay people overtime money for extra hours worked
- Crunch that last for 6 months or more straight
- Crunch that lies to the employees on how long it'll take because the execs are horrible in project management
- Crunch that happens because a company simply doesn't want to hire the proper amount of people for the job.

 

[mckmas8808]

Hi! I've worked in software development for a hell of a long time now, nice to meet you!

Team capacity is something that the PM or whoever is managing that is always aware of. It's something that should be reviewed and adjusted every quarter. Or whenever there is significant changes to the team - such as layoff, or leads leaving.

Projects timelines are not determined in a vacuum. Spiderman 1 should be used as a baseline when determining timeline for Spiderman 2. You adjust from there based on time savings from tech and assets that carry over, and new tech assets that need to be created.

Here's the problem: Studio pitches a game, publisher says "2.5 years?" Studio says "no no no, around 4...maybe", publisher says "3 years it is"

That timeline/release date is then communicated to leadership. From there, 2 terrible things happen. 1, the games release, and revenue expected to be generated from that game is carved in fucking stone by people who really only cares about quarterly profits. Resource/funding is then allocated for 3 years. Not the 4 years that the game will actually take to make. Studios are then forced to work their employees ragged to meet a deadline that was unrealistic to begin with.

Sometimes, studios do bite off more than they can chew and things go over. In either case, working people so hard they have to sleep at work and don't get to go home and actually have a restful sleep, or go home and look after their newborn baby for a few hours so their spouse can sleep is not the solution.

Crunch, or forcing your staff to overwork - sometimes with no extra pay, is a sign or poor management and does not need to come back

YEP! The bolded is so true.

Even in your admission, facts change during the course of a project that would cause games to be delayed or require more work hours.

The naive idea that you can commit to 40 hours and commit to being on time at the start of a project reveals that you have no idea what you're talking about and I don't care what element of software engineering you want to claim to have experience in.

There is no way you were involved in project management because there is no way you'd be saying what you're saying.

You say this as if it's impossible to estimate some delays. Like building in an additional 3 months due to unforeseen things can be added in at the start. But even if it goes 3 months pass that additional 3 months.......then why not just delay the game?

It's not like crunch has to happen. And if it does, it doesn't have to be chronic crunch where it happens with every game a dev makes.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

YEP! The bolded is so true.



You say this as if it's impossible to estimate some delays. Like building in an additional 3 months due to unforeseen things can be added in at the start. But even if it goes 3 months pass that additional 3 months.......then why not just delay the game?

It's not like crunch has to happen. And if it does, it doesn't have to be chronic crunch where it happens with every game a dev makes.

3 months with a workforce of 400 people averaging 100K per year is 10 million dollars... That's a massive amount of money and that's just payroll not benefits or other fixed costs and marketing costs. It could also mean paying for additional contractors whose contracts were set to expire, particularly for QA.

Not to mention that it can also result in delays to other projects and that's assuming that it is only 3 months. Just as I mentioned in the OP this is how we're hit with ballooning budgets.

It's clear that you guys don't know what you're talking about, which is fine, but stop peddling a naive narrative.

 

[Hudo]

In an ideal world, sure. But its just not realistic.

Part of the issue is that modern management strategies like Agile result in continuous deadline targeting throughout the project life cycle. And where there's a deadline there's a need to crunch in order to meet it whenever things fall behind.

Modern "strategies" (and I really struggle to call them strategies) like Agile or Scrum are fucking shit in the real world, tho.

 

[mckmas8808]

3 months with a workforce of 400 people averaging 100K per year is 10 million dollars... That's a massive amount of money and that's just payroll not benefits or other fixed costs and marketing costs. It could also mean paying for additional contractors whose contracts were set to expire, particularly for QA.

Not to mention that it can also result in delays to other projects and that's assuming that it is only 3 months. Just as I mentioned in the OP this is how we're hit with ballooning budgets.

It's clear that you guys don't know what you're talking about, which is fine, but stop peddling a naive narrative.

Adding in an additonal 3 months would be for the PMs that don't know how to manage a team at all. It's a built-in buffer. The real question is.........what do Producers really care about?

- The quality of the game
- The quality of work-life balance
- The health quality of their employees
- All of the above
- Or just making profit at all cost

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Adding in an additonal 3 months would be for the PMs that don't know how to manage a team at all. It's a built-in buffer. The real question is.........what do Producers really care about?

- The quality of the game
- The quality of work-life balance
- The health quality of their employees
- All of the above
- Or just making profit at all cost

Here is the thing… If a PM is worrying about that vs. promising their project to be done in x amount of years on this amount of budget, they can’t be crying and getting angry with suits if layoffs start to happen. They’re the ones accountable for ballooning the costs of a project.

 

[WoJ]

Gamers obsession and concern about crunch boggles my mind. All jobs have crunch periods. Only in gaming do the workers and consumers bitch and moan about crunch culture. Welcome to being a grown up with a corporate job.

Probably because so many gamers don't work real jobs and are communists.