Considering the gap in quality between naughty dog games and others it could be argued that the boxing analogy is rather accurate. If you look at another dev infamous for bad crunch, Rockstar, theres a similar gap between the software they put out and all other competitors of the genre.
Crunch time at Naughty Dog.
- Thread starter Silent_Buddha
- Start date
You also need to take into account the development time differences between Rockstar games with other devs. Also factor in the number of people working on it, a bit over 1000 for the GTA V title.
Rockstar San Diego
2014 [+0 Years] = Red Dead Revolver
2010 [+6 Years ]= Red Dead Redemption
2018 [+8 Years] = Red Dead Redemption 2
Rockstar North
2004 [+0 Years]= GTA San Andreas
2008 [+4 Years] = GTA IV
2013 [+5 Years] = GTA V
Then a separate group Rockstar Toronto doing the PC ports.
Rockstar San Diego
2014 [+0 Years] = Red Dead Revolver
2010 [+6 Years ]= Red Dead Redemption
2018 [+8 Years] = Red Dead Redemption 2
Rockstar North
2004 [+0 Years]= GTA San Andreas
2008 [+4 Years] = GTA IV
2013 [+5 Years] = GTA V
Then a separate group Rockstar Toronto doing the PC ports.
Also a factor. ND doesn't have such long development times or such a large staff though.
Garrett Weaving
Newcomer
Silent_Buddha
Legend
3-6 months of crunch time on a project? Honest question as I don't know. I had always through that crunch time was something like 1-2 months maybe up to 3?
Yes, the first page deals with the developers. Crunch time isn't "required" from the software developers but not participating in extended hours and weekend hours leads to negative performance reviews (impacting pay and advancement in the company) and possibly being fired.
So, crunch time for the software developers is "optional" but if you don't do it, expect to be paid less and expect to be fired at some point (as those negative performance reviews for not participating in crunch time piles up).
------------------------------
Also, things like this aren't limited to the software industry or gaming industry. Someone I know works at a concrete plant where I live. We're going through a MASSIVE housing boom right now due to people flocking to my city from CA and other other areas so everyone at the company is having to work overtime (10-14 hours a day) all the time. And it's been like that for going on 3 years now even with multiple competing concrete plants opening up due to the boom.
That doesn't make it a good thing, however, just because it happens at other places.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Sigfried1977
Legend
True, but the way these articles are usually worded makes it sound like these poor schmucks had to dig out minerals with their fingernails in some mines in Africa 24/7. Or work in concrete plants.
The thing I love most about that strip under this context, is that feudal times were filled with revolts from the serfs that resulted in little temporary re-shuffling of their living conditions.
The feudal society only really completely reshaped itself when the bourgeoisie started exerting enough pressure on it, a class that rose from within the serfs, that found creative ways to work within the bounds of its system and still find feaseable ways to be highly productive for society while also improving living quality for themselves.
And when they did demand political change, it wasn't because they stomped the ground with angry feet and raises their pitchforks saying it wasn't fair. They negotiated successfully because they had built leverage.
They had made themselves necessary enough for their system, that the system had no choice but to try to meet their needs.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yes, but it required enough of them saying we've had enough and change needs to happen before change happened. If enough of them had instead said, they were willing to continue laboring under the prevailing conditions, then nothing would have changed. Just like it didn't for tens or hundreds of years (depending on the country).
Basically the same as the programmers at these companies. They are necessary enough that the companies couldn't operate without them. However, there are enough programmers (whether already employed or yet to be employed) willing to labour under those conditions that there isn't enough pressure to change things.
And under threat of bad performance reviews and potential firing, people within the company will be dis-incentivized to raise their voices for change as they'll just get replaced with someone outside the company willing to work under those conditions and/or someone outside the company who doesn't understand that they'll be expected to work under those conditions. And the cycle repeats.
This is exacerbated by people wanting to be in the gaming industry and thus willing to make sacrifices in order to be in the gaming industry. So, first they sacrifice earning potential (versus other more lucrative programming fields) and then after they get their foot in the door, sacrificing their time and life outside of work.
Obviously some people thrive under those conditions, but many don't. Otherwise, at least in the US, there wouldn't be a standardized 40 hour work week.
Interestingly enough, a friend of mine who was in the software development field back in the mid-2000's quit his job at a lucrative development house and instead took a job as a welder at a company specializing in hydraulics.
He got tired of how crunch time (which was "optional" but really wasn't) was ruining his prospects of having a life outside of work combined with internal politics at the company. So, he took a pay cut to be able to just work and at the same time have a life outside of work.
Hard labour + life outside of work in this case was preferential to working in air conditioned comfort. That said, most people will suffer to make more money rather than have a better life.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Enough of them saying that is enough with pitchforks and torches happened all the time, as I mentioned, and lead to superficial temporary ammenities. Footnotes in modern history books. Real changes only happened when they were demanded by individuals that managed to aquire actual bargaining power, successful merchants, skilled workers, bankers etc.
Bingo. They are getting what they bargained for. Remind me what is the problem then?
Love that story. Reminds me of when I quit advertising for a year to work on a fishing boat. It was great for me. Made me feel manlier and tougher than Photoshop till 4AM ever did. More power to that guy, and to whoever is considering doing the same.
Actions like that speak louder than a thousand tweets and articles on the internet. Vote with your money, your time, and your feet. These are the most poserful political tools.
Last edited:
Unfortunately this is valid probably for every big company involved with big projects, huge sums of money and big investors.
This is not the price of wanting great single player experiences. This is the price of competition, risk, debt and pressure in our economy.
This is also not necessary a phenomenon that happens during the final stages of a project. Hiring contracts can be very tight for the employee.
For example some hiring contracts can be 3 or 5 year old commitment with penalties if the employee decides to leave earlier. During that period anything you produce inside or outside the company is owned by the company (so you d better not show anything original even as a hobby outside the company), long hour shifts are expected and quite often unpaid.
Both big budget movies and games have such phenomenons.
These phenomenons steal a lot of energy, passion, life-expectancy, time, physical and mental health, social and family life from big talents working in the industry.
It is how things are and it shouldn't. But this is common practice in a very competitive industry so it becomes a necessary norm by each individual company. If money and competition werent a problem we would have had an industry where the creative talents would have been free to express their creativity in more ways and in more humane conditions. This is also one of the reasons why few companies risk originality. The result is a movie and game industry that rely on the same repetitive formulas and quite often we see large budgets with huge inconsistencies in quality in the same movie or game (i.e amazing CG in some scenes and curiously very bad quality CG in others). Profit determines if, how and when things are done.
Sometimes of course we do get some special gems. While some gems can be commercial successes (see Spider-verse), others can be a total work of art that may not be suitable for commercial success, either because they took their time or because they target a smaller marker or for a combination of reasons. Regardless they are a work of art that deserved to be produced even for a niche. The latter of course is a dying art because they cannot be supported by money and along with them also more humane working conditions. It makes someone wonder if the superb work behind the direction of Spider verse would have been appreciated as much if it was an original movie instead of a Spider Man movie.
The employee has to choose between following a dream in the industry and forget a normal life or forget his/her passion for more normal living conditions. It is a price that often has to be paid.
In general, unless you are working in a small company with small projects, the needs of the company are completely disconnected from the needs of the employees instead of being aligned. Therefore if you choose your personal needs you are excluded from the corporate culture/society of the company.
Last edited:
Do you have any basis to state that there are penalties for quitting a job? In most places it would not be legal to do such things.
It depends by the company. It can hold a portion of your pay as redeemable when the contract term ends, or bonuses from your projects as redeemable after the contract ends or you are not allowed any bonuses until after the term, or it may interpret "knowledge and skills" provided to you by the company as estimated training costs. It depends how it is stated in the contract.
I feel for those people who don't have a choice and are stuck due to variety of reasons(really specific interest like games where market is small, visa/work permit issues, debt/family issues etc). I wish no one would have to work so much that they loose social/mental/physical health and don't have enough free time to live meaningful life. It's fine to not have life if it's conscious decision. Perhaps the project is so interesting it's worth sacrifice, perhaps pay is so good that it makes sense to overwork for a while and then take longer time off etc.
SW engineering is weird job in a sense that just doing the work 8h day is not enough. There is always big changes brewing and using more than 8hours a day is pretty much mandatory if one wants to have safety in case the current job/technology suddenly becomes obsolete. Who remembers symbian or html before html5 anymore? And now all the rage is ai enhanced FooBar's. What's next, who knows?
SW engineering is weird job in a sense that just doing the work 8h day is not enough. There is always big changes brewing and using more than 8hours a day is pretty much mandatory if one wants to have safety in case the current job/technology suddenly becomes obsolete. Who remembers symbian or html before html5 anymore? And now all the rage is ai enhanced FooBar's. What's next, who knows?
When I was a consultant, the one project mandated 14 to 16 hour work days. After 1 week I explained to them how it was an huge waste of time. It was as bad as zombie parents of a newborn child. The pattern I saw by everyone involved from various skill levels of Dev 2, Dev 3, Dev 4, Senior Devs, and Lead Developers was as follows:
They still pushed on with the crunch time. They were stupidly amazed that progress after 1, 2, and 3 months were further behind the original plans with normal hours even when no major surprises arose that would explain schedule push.
- last 4 hours of the day making erratic changes trying to get things to work
- first 1 hour of the next day seeing where things stand
- next 4 hours trying to unfuck the last 4 hour of changes the night before.
They still pushed on with the crunch time. They were stupidly amazed that progress after 1, 2, and 3 months were further behind the original plans with normal hours even when no major surprises arose that would explain schedule push.
Not getting bonuses can not be labeled as "penalties". Do you have any actual example where employees have had to reimburse their employer for training costs? It seems it might be legal in certain countries, but you have to have a special contract for that to be valid.
You dont understand the point. The contracts are carefully worded and structured to avoid legal issues. There is no difference in practice between holding an employees compensation until the term of the contract ends (which if unfulfilled the company keeps it) and demanding the employee to pay from his pocket, except in the legality and the structure under which the employee is penalized.
I think it would be good to have a real example rather than a contract.
As an example, my old contract stated if I left the company for a similar role with 12 miles and months then they could stop/sue me.
Good luck with that in court.
Training is a similar one, I think it would be depending on circumstances (like join company, get training then leave within a few months for no good reason)...also you could take a company to employment tribunal if the reason you had to leave was so bad.
Last edited:
I have a mental diarrhea to contribute here....
Everywhere I worked they usually ask who wants to do the crunch when we're behind, and then force a few more if needed. I have seen every type of employees:
1. Some always say yes, but not very productive, they like the over time pay, some are procrastinating. The bosses love them. It's not normal to have employees who hope to do overtime, while everybody else is working hard and efficiently to avoid it. Overtime costs a lot to the project.
2. Some often say no because they have children. Everybody respect them, the bosses understand. I have never seen this to be a problem.
3. Some always say no because this or that reason of zen shit and balanced life, despite accepting a job specifically saying crunches are expected. They fuck over everyone else who will do much more overtime because of these fragile snowflakes. The team wasn't planned that way. They don't get hired elsewhere because we know each other, we often get calls from friends "this guy applied here, he worked for you? How was he?“ and we answer honestly. He fucked us up. It has nothing to do with the boss, it's the coworkers who hope to never work with him again.
4. Some say no because they accepted the job on that condition, or because of long commute, etc... Everybody respects that. When you apply you have to be honest about this. They plan accordingly. This works for programmers, not so much for artists. I did that for my current job, they accepted my terms, I accepted their job.
5. Those saying yes out of attachment to the project. The ones who hope for a good result, they understand why we got behind schedule. It sucks, but they take one for the team. The youngs hope it will help them have something kickass on their demo reel, the older ones have a genuine attachment to the team who are their friends, and an attachment to the project.
6. Some say no because of previous burnouts, this I have seen often. And it's a mixed bag. When you're young you don't know your limits.
Crunches of a few weeks is fine, or a couple months. I have never seen a crunch that works for a year without messing up the project even more and causing mass burnouts. It's impossible.
Artists usually can do a lot of overtime and still deliver, that's why it's often abused in the VFX industry. Programmers not so much, you brain just stops working without enough sleep.
I have seen studios making overtime the normal pipeline and burn their employees, nobody stays there more than a year. Those companies get a bad reputation that spreads and end up in a downward spiral.
Saying always yes to a boss is a recipe for a burnout. But saying no when there's a real problem that affects the entire pipeline is a recipe for being put on the shitty projects, not the award winning stuff. And if you're fresh out of school, don't act like a fragile snowflake or you'll be unemployable.
If you want to change labor laws, call your lobbyists and give them a lot of money. I don't know, how does it work in your country?
Everywhere I worked they usually ask who wants to do the crunch when we're behind, and then force a few more if needed. I have seen every type of employees:
1. Some always say yes, but not very productive, they like the over time pay, some are procrastinating. The bosses love them. It's not normal to have employees who hope to do overtime, while everybody else is working hard and efficiently to avoid it. Overtime costs a lot to the project.
2. Some often say no because they have children. Everybody respect them, the bosses understand. I have never seen this to be a problem.
3. Some always say no because this or that reason of zen shit and balanced life, despite accepting a job specifically saying crunches are expected. They fuck over everyone else who will do much more overtime because of these fragile snowflakes. The team wasn't planned that way. They don't get hired elsewhere because we know each other, we often get calls from friends "this guy applied here, he worked for you? How was he?“ and we answer honestly. He fucked us up. It has nothing to do with the boss, it's the coworkers who hope to never work with him again.
4. Some say no because they accepted the job on that condition, or because of long commute, etc... Everybody respects that. When you apply you have to be honest about this. They plan accordingly. This works for programmers, not so much for artists. I did that for my current job, they accepted my terms, I accepted their job.
5. Those saying yes out of attachment to the project. The ones who hope for a good result, they understand why we got behind schedule. It sucks, but they take one for the team. The youngs hope it will help them have something kickass on their demo reel, the older ones have a genuine attachment to the team who are their friends, and an attachment to the project.
6. Some say no because of previous burnouts, this I have seen often. And it's a mixed bag. When you're young you don't know your limits.
Crunches of a few weeks is fine, or a couple months. I have never seen a crunch that works for a year without messing up the project even more and causing mass burnouts. It's impossible.
Artists usually can do a lot of overtime and still deliver, that's why it's often abused in the VFX industry. Programmers not so much, you brain just stops working without enough sleep.
I have seen studios making overtime the normal pipeline and burn their employees, nobody stays there more than a year. Those companies get a bad reputation that spreads and end up in a downward spiral.
Saying always yes to a boss is a recipe for a burnout. But saying no when there's a real problem that affects the entire pipeline is a recipe for being put on the shitty projects, not the award winning stuff. And if you're fresh out of school, don't act like a fragile snowflake or you'll be unemployable.
If you want to change labor laws, call your lobbyists and give them a lot of money. I don't know, how does it work in your country?
Similar threads
- Locked