[ERP]

"If it's a good game, then it will sell - if it's a bad game, then it won't."

It's not quite that simple the reason dates are so important is because budgets is based on sales expectations. Ignoring the obvious quarterly variation in sales, often games are presold to major chains with significant penalties if dates are missed. Slipping a game is a major decision.

IMO part of the issue is process, companies don't cancel enough product early enough. The industry has to accept that it's difficult to predict the quality of a product from a design and a schedule and can stuff earlier in the process. We're getting into my what's wrong with development rant, but too much money is tied up in too few products, teams get too big too quickly, investments reach levels where cancellation is too expensive to be easy and bad games get dragged through development, then fail to make money.

There are cultural issues at play aswell, no one wants to work for a company that cans a lot of product, because cancellation is equated with failure. Most dev groups in large companies don't have control over staffing and as a result cost. Big companies should be throwing a lot of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, you can fund a lot of 2-5 person startups for the ammount it costs to fund one team of 50. I'm not saying you develop with 2-5 people, but you put the core in place verify the idea, then ramp up the staffing as appropriate.

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by ERP

IMO part of the issue is process, companies don't cancel enough product early enough. The industry has to accept that it's difficult to predict the quality of a product from a design and a schedule and can stuff earlier in the process. We're getting into my what's wrong with development rant, but too much money is tied up in too few products, teams get too big too quickly, investments reach levels where cancellation is too expensive to be easy and bad games get dragged through development, then fail to make money.

What would a solution be? More time spent in preproduction?

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by ERP

"If it's a good game, then it will sell - if it's a bad game, then it won't."

It's not quite that simple the reason dates are so important is because budgets is based on sales expectations. Ignoring the obvious quarterly variation in sales, often games are presold to major chains with significant penalties if dates are missed. Slipping a game is a major decision.

IMO part of the issue is process, companies don't cancel enough product early enough. The industry has to accept that it's difficult to predict the quality of a product from a design and a schedule and can stuff earlier in the process. We're getting into my what's wrong with development rant, but too much money is tied up in too few products, teams get too big too quickly, investments reach levels where cancellation is too expensive to be easy and bad games get dragged through development, then fail to make money.

There are cultural issues at play aswell, no one wants to work for a company that cans a lot of product, because cancellation is equated with failure. Most dev groups in large companies don't have control over staffing and as a result cost. Big companies should be throwing a lot of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, you can fund a lot of 2-5 person startups for the ammount it costs to fund one team of 50. I'm not saying you develop with 2-5 people, but you put the core in place verify the idea, then ramp up the staffing as appropriate.

Cancelling games early isn't exactly an answer either. For example with the original X-com game, it was a trainwreck just weeks prior to release. Had it been cancelled early with some product manager thinking, you know, I don't think this game is going to make deadline in the shape it's in, and it's virtually unplayable as it is now, we'd never have gotten this classic to play nor would it have spawned a bit of a lasting franchise.

However, it was allowed to continue and they somehow shoehorned in enough fixes in time that it released relatively bug free and mostly playable. Though even the dev admits it shipped still in a rough shape with unintended effects.

It's just the way how product developement works. Everything is a gamble. Some things are less of a gamble, some things are more of a gamble.

How a dev. performs can only hurt their chances, not improve them. Some game's that were released weren't going to succeed no matter how on time it was or how bug free it was or how polished it was, for example.

On the other hand, bad dev practices or unrealistic developement time cycles can hurt a product. One of my favorite examples is Hellgate: London. Brilliant game once most of the bugs were fixed and balance issues were resolved. Absolutely sunk due to the shape of the game it was forced to be released in (dev studio ran out of money to continue developement). Incompetant devs? Not enough funding? Bad management? Who knows, but it's a case of a good game ruined by releasing in a shape unfit for release.

Anyway, point being. You'll never be able to get rid of the inherent risk of releasing any form of entertainment product. All you can do is not sabotage your own efforts.

Regards,
SB

[Silent_Buddha]

One thing that's also interesting is comparing work hours between different countries.

In Japan for example it is absolutely normal for me to work 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week. It's quite normal and many companies expect that of their employees. My co-workers there were always a bit amazed when I told them back in the US I only work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day.

The flip side of that however, is that they also have more frequent short vacations or holiday days off. Lots and lots of holidays in Japan. And 10-12 hours wasn't a mandatory number of hours to work, but the majority of workers will opt to work the extra hours. 6 days a week however was mandatory. Also to compensate a bit for longer work days and work weeks, if the business isn't busy, the workers are allowed longer breaks. But on a normal business day it's still just 2 - 15 min breaks with a lunch break.

Regards,
SB

[obonicus]

Was that with overtime, the 10-12?

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by obonicus

Was that with overtime, the 10-12?

I'm not entirely sure if they got time and a half overtime, but they were paid for the extra hours. I was one of the rare workers that opted to just work 8 hours. In the industry I was in, there wasn't an option for working late. So getting those 10-12 hour days (majority of workers) meant coming in 2-4 hours early. Also, those that put in the long days were also, not surprisingly, the ones that got the biggest bonuses (paid every 3 months).

The office workers however would generally stay about an hour later than the rest of the workers. But interestingly enough, even after working on the clock for 10-12 hours, most of those workers would then stay that additional hour after clocking out to chat with the officer workers.

And when things got really busy, the workers would ask to work on Sunday and get in a 7 day work week.

Regards,
SB

[ERP]

Cancelling games early isn't exactly an answer either. For example with the original X-com game, it was a trainwreck just weeks prior to release. Had it been cancelled early with some product manager thinking, you know, I don't think this game is going to make deadline in the shape it's in, and it's virtually unplayable as it is now, we'd never have gotten this classic to play nor would it have spawned a bit of a lasting franchise.

Sure there are exceptions, the game I referenced earlier that went Alpha 5 times sold millions of copies on the PC, that doesn't make it a model to emulate.

What I mean by cancelling games earlier is fail fast, a company like EA could trivially have 5 or 10 small teams start projects (somewhat riskier ones) have them run 3 months to prove out the core concepts and demonstrate the potential, can or shelve all but the one or two that standout. The hard part here is actually changing the culture so that developers accept having titles cancelled as a normal part of the process.

The problem with the current model is if as commonly happens you throw 20-50 people at a project from day one it'll be at least 6 months, and more likely just before ship before you even ge a solid feel for what's being produced, and cancelling it is too expensive to consider. This is where you get into the desperate scambling to save the invested dollars (not the game) that more often than not leads to the extended stints of stupid hours.

I've cancelled 2 or 3 games over the years and generally without exception in hindsight the decision could have and should have been made months earlier.

[RobertR1]

Originally Posted by ERP

the hard part here is actually changing the culture so that developers accept having titles cancelled as a normal part of the process.

There seems to be a fair bit of bravado in the development industry. From "we dont' cancel our projects!" to "we burn the midnight oil till the last day" type stories seem to be heralded where as good business sense is often sidelined.

It should be understandable that this faction of entertainment industry would have a lot of failures. It's not unconventional by any means as it's the norm in other arenas such as movies and television. Why keep feeding money pits for the sake of chest thumping when you can better allocate those resources (time/money/personnel) to other projects?

[AlStrong]

hrm... I'd have thought stage-gate models would have caught things early enough, or maybe it's much harder in this industry :s

[Richard]

Anecdotally, I'm amazed there's people that want to work in the gaming industry. I had a shot at it when I was young (was too young, in both senses of the word) but in a way I'm glad fate pushed me in the other direction.

I personally know a programmer who works in the industry (the casual one, most of "his" games are published by strike that a big casual games publisher) while I work as a programmer on the "casual-gaming" equivalent of software house. In fact, scratch that, I work in a relatively small place. Yet, I make more money that he does and work less hours. I have a 9-5 schedule while he stays in the office usually up to dinner, sometimes beyond that. He has worked saturdays on occasion but only after the project manager asked very nicely and all team members agreed.

While I'd probably enjoy my work more if it was games I don't think the moderate difference in motivation is worth the huge discrepancy in pay/hours/chance of mental breakdown. Evidently I don't know how AAA devs are, other countries, etc. etc. etc.

[ERP]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

hrm... I'd have thought stage-gate models would have caught things early enough, or maybe it's much harder in this industry :s

If I showed you what most games look like 6 months into development, you'd be shocked. It's one of the reasons I bemoaned the passing of E3, as much as I hated the distraction it was at least a forcing function for games to be presentable.

There are a lot of efforts to quantify development, but because of the nature of games, playability, the constant itterative adjustments etc, most of the games development I've been involved in I could have made every milestone on the development schedule and still missed the ship date by a good 6 months. Milestones or gates used badly are a really good day for project management to lie to themselves.

On the "bad project management" front.

I once worked on a project where asset creation was very well quantified by historic data, the design called for 350 new assets, I pointed out that from the historical data, the staffing and the timeline, we couldn't possibly ship more than 50. I fought that battle up to the month we shipped because design and production didn't want to cut "too early", we shipped with about 50 new assets, and a mad scramble to fix the design given the "new" constraint.

People who build games care too much, they get emotionally attached to features, when push comes to shove, they make bad decisions like lets cut part of all of the features rather than implementing the right subset of features well.

[Sxotty]

I have seen data suggesting the 10*4 work weeks are actually quite decent for an employee.

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Sxotty

I have seen data suggesting the 10*4 work weeks are actually quite decent for an employee.

I actually like the alternating 12*3 - 12*4 work weeks. I've only had those hours at one job I worked, but it was great when I was young.

Regards,
SB

[obonicus]

There's lots of different Epics, though. A lot of the more unpleasant gruntwork might be assigned to Titan Studios or People Can Fly or wherever.

[specwarGP2]

These guys must get paid really well if they continue to work under such horrid conditions.

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by specwarGP2

These guys must get paid really well if they continue to work under such horrid conditions.

Could also be just that some people get used to doing something and there's a comfort level of doing what you're familiar with even if there's a possibility of better pay/working conditions at another place.

Also, in the current economic climate, unless you are one of the top programmers and have a decent nest egg saved up, then leaving for another job could be a bit risky.

And then there's always the fact, that they may have faith that the game they are working on might turn out to be the "next big thing."

Not to mention not ALL companies are horrible. While I'm sure quite a few are really bad, I'm sure for most it runs the gamut from bad to good with everything in between.

Human nature being what it is though, we tend to focus only on the extremes.

Regards,
SB

[joker454]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

Could also be just that some people get used to doing something and there's a comfort level of doing what you're familiar with even if there's a possibility of better pay/working conditions at another place.

Yeah, plus some people really don't care, notably young single males. When I first got started way back in the early 90's, my first gig was literally "welcome aboard, we're on crunch, 6 days at 12 hours, and Sundays for 5 hours". Sounds horrific, but truth be told at the time I had just moved to the USA and was new to games so I was thrilled to be in the biz. And woohoo, they were giving me free food! I was largely penniless back then so the free food perk was bad ass. Fast forward many years and one wife later and, well, my tolerances and priorities have changed dramatically. But I don't doubt that a lot of the new young single males entering the biz tolerate crunch because they feel just like I did when I first started.

I think by and large even though the industry has matured, the development side of the biz is still a young mans game. There is a "gaming life expectancy", I believe the figure was around 10 years after which one gets burned out and exits the industry. I personally know of at least 3 co-workers over the years that got divorces because of game biz hours. It's just not compatible with being older, especially if one has a female in their life.

Originally Posted by NRP

Well I hope after reading this thread people will stop with the whole "lazy devs" nonsense.

Haha, yeah right

[whome0]

Its all they think of they can do so must keep doing it. Current worldwide (gaming) economy situation does not encourage to make a radical steps.

[NRP]

Well I hope after reading this thread people will stop with the whole "lazy devs" nonsense.

[Cheezdoodles]

Um, this situation is pretty much the same for everybody who has a job that has deadlines and has a salary high enough so you dont get paid overtime. Not really something particularly special, lots of industries that has similar working conditions.

[obonicus]

It's not the norm in software development, though -- not that people don't work heavy hours, but rather it seems since every game has a crunch period, then the majority of these games are poorly planned and probably mismanaged.

[assen]

Originally Posted by obonicus

It's not the norm in software development, though -- not that people don't work heavy hours, but rather it seems since every game has a crunch period, then the majority of these games are poorly planned and probably mismanaged.

This is similar to the "lazy developers" mantra, but in the "incompetent managers" form.

And just as I take seriously "Cell/PS3 is easy" only from proven PS3 developers, I accept "game companies crunch, because games are mismanaged" only from proven studios who don't crunch and who make money from their games. (I know studios that don't crunch, that exist purely as a side project of a bigger entity - be it someone's hobby, someone's bad investment, someone's money laundering scheme.)

The crunch I've seen around me happens because of the combination of two factors:

- first, the business model is broken; publishers simply don't pay enough for a game to be comfortably produced without a strain; sales for most categories except the very top of the ladder go down, art budgets go up, the expectations keep going up (try making a FPS without online MP, saved films, coop, Horde mode etc., for example)

- second, most people in a game studio would rather go one additional day to work 12 hours, than see the studio go down in flames. See: young, single males without a life, in joker454's post above. Nobody signs up for years of crunch; it always is just this milestone, which is just a few weeks away.

The one studio I've heard of that doesn't crunch, and kicks everybody out of the door every day at 17:30, is Neversoft; the legend went that they shipped every year their Tony Hawk on the 30th of September to the factory, took one month of vacation, did one month of preproduction, and on the 30th of November pitched the new Tony Hawk to Activision. This is probably why Activision chose them to take care of the golden goose aka Guitar Hero.

[joker454]

Originally Posted by assen

The one studio I've heard of that doesn't crunch, and kicks everybody out of the door every day at 17:30, is Neversoft; the legend went that they shipped every year their Tony Hawk on the 30th of September to the factory, took one month of vacation, did one month of preproduction, and on the 30th of November pitched the new Tony Hawk to Activision. This is probably why Activision chose them to take care of the golden goose aka Guitar Hero.

Do you know if that's a recent change? I was last over at Neversoft in 2007 talking with some of the people there, and at the time they had was was called "hardcore hours" where the last week of every month was 9am to 9pm. The idea was to distribute crunch over the course of the project instead of all at once. Here's a quick article I found on that:

http://altgames.vox.com/library/post...eversleep.html

So they effectively have 12 weeks of crunch per year, just spread out.

[ban25]

Originally Posted by obonicus

It's not the norm in software development, though -- not that people don't work heavy hours, but rather it seems since every game has a crunch period, then the majority of these games are poorly planned and probably mismanaged.

You obviously don't work in the valley.

[obonicus]

Originally Posted by ban25

I would say it's very presumptuous to assume that people are doing something terribly wrong if they slip 6 months on a 3-4 year project. Most major game projects are using Agile these days, which admittedly has plenty of its own problems. Before that, studios used XP, Gant charts in MS Project, you name it.

Using buzzwords doesn't help anyone if you can't do it right. And yes, a delay of 6 months on a 3-4 year project is a big deal in other areas of software development. (Assuming not a renegotiation, of course.) I'm not sure why game development would be the exception. It means someone along the way screwed up. I understand that the scope is much more fluid with game development, but that's clearly part of the problem. You have stories of putting bodies to work on a project before anyone even has a clear idea of what the project is. How the hell does anyone mitigate risk in a situation like that?

Originally Posted by ban25

You obviously don't work in the valley.

Obviously not. Working in the valley means bush-league project management? It may be a revelation, but other areas actually get software development down to a process. And in fact, the studios that can deliver software reliably have remarkably high reputations.