You can have workplaces that schedule 80% of your time in meetings so you have little to no time to do actual work unless you work overtime. The alternative, which is closer to what Naughty Dog sounds like, is you have no real planning or time management, so people are working on the wrong things, working on things that are already scrapped, or working on other people's emergencies (failure to plan) instead of accomplishing your own work. I work in a place with very little management structure, and even though we don't have this crunch problem, I fully understand the workplace he's describing. You go from a place that boasts that it's never had an employee quit to a place that has trouble hiring or retaining anyone of value. It's a slow creep, but you hit an inflection point where it suddenly becomes a very noticeable problem.
Crunch time at Naughty Dog.
- Thread starter Silent_Buddha
- Start date
You can have workplaces that schedule 80% of your time in meetings so you have little to no time to do actual work unless you work overtime. The alternative, which is closer to what Naughty Dog sounds like, is you have no real planning or time management, so people are working on the wrong things, working on things that are already scrapped, or working on other people's emergencies (failure to plan) instead of accomplishing your own work. I work in a place with very little management structure, and even though we don't have this crunch problem, I fully understand the workplace he's describing. You go from a place that boasts that it's never had an employee quit to a place that has trouble hiring or retaining anyone of value. It's a slow creep, but you hit an inflection point where it suddenly becomes a very noticeable problem.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That's exacerbated if you are forced to do new hires rather than experienced hires.
Experienced hires will (generally, not always) have good work ethics and know good workflow practices. In turn that allows you to get more work done per person in a given amount of time. Again, this is speaking in generalities, management can always muck things up no matter how experience and good the workforce is. But because they are experienced they'll be less willing to work long hours and crunch time is less tolerated. You know, life, friends, family, and personal health are kind of important.
New hires are generally inexperienced, have no idea or concept of good workflow and generally take time to get up to speed on projects. However, because they are new to an industry they've dreamed of entering, they are willing to work very long hours to establish themselves and they'll likely think this is just how things are done. They don't have a concept of what does or doesn't contribute to a healthy life. They're likely single and don't have a family yet. Basically all conditions that makes them think it's OK to do extended periods (months) of intense crunch time.
So, if ND (or any other company) gets a reputation for excessive voluntary (but not really voluntary) overtime (crunch time) to that point that experienced people avoid them, they are stuck with new hires or inexperienced hires. So, it becomes a vicious cycle that you bleed experienced talent, have trouble hiring experienced talent and have to rely on new and/or inexperienced talent. Which then leads to more dependency on longer periods of crunch combined with delays in getting a product out.
Basically you get to a point where you need more crunch time in order to try to hit deadlines, but because of the situation you are in, even with longer crunch times you will still be unable to reach those deadlines.
This doesn't just apply to ND, but any company that leans too heavily on crunch time such that your company starts to earn a reputation as an unhealthy place to work.
Regards,
SB
Experienced hires will (generally, not always) have good work ethics and know good workflow practices. In turn that allows you to get more work done per person in a given amount of time. Again, this is speaking in generalities, management can always muck things up no matter how experience and good the workforce is. But because they are experienced they'll be less willing to work long hours and crunch time is less tolerated. You know, life, friends, family, and personal health are kind of important.
New hires are generally inexperienced, have no idea or concept of good workflow and generally take time to get up to speed on projects. However, because they are new to an industry they've dreamed of entering, they are willing to work very long hours to establish themselves and they'll likely think this is just how things are done. They don't have a concept of what does or doesn't contribute to a healthy life. They're likely single and don't have a family yet. Basically all conditions that makes them think it's OK to do extended periods (months) of intense crunch time.
So, if ND (or any other company) gets a reputation for excessive voluntary (but not really voluntary) overtime (crunch time) to that point that experienced people avoid them, they are stuck with new hires or inexperienced hires. So, it becomes a vicious cycle that you bleed experienced talent, have trouble hiring experienced talent and have to rely on new and/or inexperienced talent. Which then leads to more dependency on longer periods of crunch combined with delays in getting a product out.
Basically you get to a point where you need more crunch time in order to try to hit deadlines, but because of the situation you are in, even with longer crunch times you will still be unable to reach those deadlines.
This doesn't just apply to ND, but any company that leans too heavily on crunch time such that your company starts to earn a reputation as an unhealthy place to work.
Regards,
SB
I feel your pain or the pain you felt, what you had to go through dealing with people with dementia is a hell of a thing and not having a stable place to go home to must of been very hard to deal with.
Happy you made it through that part of your life.
I'm not sure what to say; that's a damning statement about exclusives in general.
i'm inclined to believe it to be honest. We've had developers come by and say the same thing over and over; you want it to look and be better, give them more time.
Exactly the market will sort it out, educated people looking for those jobs have a choice to work at whoever they want and if an employer is known to be a bad place they will suffer in the long run.
I just find it strange that he says it would of come out last year if they had more experienced people. So there biggest game they have every released would of been done in two years since the previous game. I'm sure there's lots of devs that would love these experienced people his talking about that can release a game like what I expect The Last of us 2 to be in two years.
Who does he work for now? Would be interested to see who he rates as better and I'm not being snarky I just would be interested in what they release.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
In my 30 plus years in professional employment, across aerospace, defence, security and Government, almost every project had some form of crunch toward the end. Small projects, full of motivated, disciplined people with unchanging goals, yes. But the moment your project introduces creative and/or engineering unknowns, it's basically undeliverable.
This same conversations had been had over and over many times.
This same conversations had been had over and over many times.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Some amount of crunch is to be expected, but how prolonged and extensive crunch time is differs greatly from company to company and even from industry to industry. And as studies show there are levels where Crunch time when managed well doesn't necessarily negatively impact a person's health or work output. But not all industries are good at managing it. AAA and even AA game development don't generally manage it well.
Companies that abuse it the most are the ones that gain a reputation as companies that are undesirable to work for (potentially to the point where they should be avoided if at all possible) if a person values their personal health, relationships and/or family. And these people are generally the people with more experience in a given industry.
Regards,
SB
You must not have read the story. The Last of Us 2 was not made in two years. The Lost Legacy was made in parallel by a different team.
Edit: The game actually went into production in 2014, and the first trailer came out in 2016. Game has been under development for a VERY long time.
@Silent_Buddha I was one of those new hires that didn't know any better and was happy to go along with the flat management structure with no planning or organization to speak of. It worked when we were a small team of 50 and everyone knew what everyone else was doing, and the scope of what we were doing was small. Now ... oh god.
Remains to be seen if last of us 2 will be as good as the first, UC4 didn't live up to it's previous games. Putting too much pressure on your people could be the wrong idea in the long run.
I have little doubt that the game will be very good. Even if it's the best game of all time, it doesn't excuse the poor treatment of employees. People have different boundaries, and I'd expect any great creative pursuit will be very demanding. I don't know what the exact perfect balance would be, but when you stop being able to retain your best talent, you've obviously crossed it.
Link? Metacritic says it's the third higher scoring number in the series.
Well for me it was the best of them in every department. Best combat by a mile that actually had variety in how you could take on different encounters.
Maybe I am reading something wrong, but I don't think it is forced labour. As long as people are compensated properly I see no problem. If they are not happy, they can always quit and look for another job.
I think that in every industry there are companies that are known for extra long hours. Those companies are usually very reputable,offer good monies and folks want to work for them. No one goes there by accident.
Therefore I think there is some bad blood between Mr Cooper and ND, and that is his way of getting back at them.
I think that in every industry there are companies that are known for extra long hours. Those companies are usually very reputable,offer good monies and folks want to work for them. No one goes there by accident.
Therefore I think there is some bad blood between Mr Cooper and ND, and that is his way of getting back at them.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It's technically not forced or required. However, management will expect employees to hit their assigned deadlines. If they consistently miss those deadlines then their employment will be terminated.
Reports from some employees there have stated that depending on your department the only way to reach those deadlines is to do serious crunch time (up to 20+ additional hours per week) over an extended period of time (multiple months). If they don't do that then then will be fired.
Considering that ND is reportedly having trouble retaining and attracting experienced talent that means the work falls onto less experienced people. The result means that while crunch time isn't "required", the only way to reach your deadlines for many teams is to do extended and excessive crunch time. IE - not technically required, but it's required if you want to keep your job.
Again, this isn't just ND. There are other AAA and even AA development houses that experience this. See, EA, for example.
Regards,
SB
It is obviously not for everyone. And working long hours is no secret either. Every person applying for job at this company should ask herself/himself if they are ready to make concessions in order to get experience, money or reputation. If they are not, theres plenty of other work for everyone, especially in the US.
I' ve been personally working 14 hours a day for many years now. But I know why I'm doing this.
I' ve been personally working 14 hours a day for many years now. But I know why I'm doing this.
Last edited:
You are right. People can choose where they work and should leave if the conditions are not to their liking. From a business standpoint it sounds like Naughty Dog cannot retain their talent anymore, which is harmful to the business. There are many industries where employees are replaced easily so employee retention is not an issue. In the case of game dev, if you’re striving to be the best company you can’t just let the best people walk out the door.
Similar threads
- Locked