Crunch time at Naughty Dog.

The argument shouldn't be for people to accept life is shit and working it away is all anyone's entitled to. It should be everyone everywhere should have a decent QOL without having to sacrifice everything for a pay-cheque, and that includes the Asians, and the Africans after them.

Many Asian countries have better working conditions than the US, in terms of statutory sick pay, the amount of paid leave and a lower maximum amount of hours etc - not to mention healthcare.

But I think this is getting away from what is a problem that has a clearly identifiable locus: large scale, multi-year, complex projects and it's always projects that involve a creative element or engineering element - or both. And I include software engineering. As I've posted before I've been engaged in a lot of such projects and crunch at the end has been involved in every one. It's the nature of the beast.

While I fully agree people shouldn't be expected to work more, I do feel there is a degree of wanting to be gardener but not wanting to be outside. Or wanting work with car engines but not wanting to get grease on their hands. Some jobs just come with downside for some people. If you're not a fan of crunch, then the best thing to do is avoid jobs with crunch. Lots of people code in wearingly predicable 9 to 5, Mon to Fri jobs. They just avoid those big projects which have the scope to go off the rails.

So I retreat to my position of unless somebody can solve the unforeseeable problem in large complex projects issue, it is what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Many Asian countries have better working conditions than the US, in terms of statutory sick pay, the amount of paid leave and a lower maximum amount of hours etc - not to mention healthcare.

But I think this is getting away from what is a problem that has a clearly identifiable locus: large scale, multi-year, complex projects and it's always projects that involve a creative element or engineering element - or both. And I include software engineering. As I've posted before I've been engaged in a lot of such projects and crunch at the end has been involved in every one. It's the nature of the beast.

While I fully agree people shouldn't be expected to work more, I do feel there is a degree of wanting to be gardener but not wanting to be outside. Or wanting work with car engines but not wanting to get grease on their hands. Some jobs just come with downside for some people. If you're not a fan of crunch, then the best thing to do is avoid jobs with crunch. Lots of people code in wearingly predicable 9 to 5, Mon to Fri jobs. They just avoid those big projects which have the scope to go off the rails.

So I retreat to my position of unless somebody can solve the unforeseeable problem in large complex projects issue, it is what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Are you arguing 'If you dont want to be abused in your job just work somewhere else where the job doesnt require you to be abused'???? No, that's how companies have devised workflows and how your expected to accept it, nothing to do with "that's just how things are". Never use that in any situation. Its terrible.

I dont care how used to it you are or how you think projects are managed, if they are managed where huge worker exploitation and turnover are just a thing, then its badly managed period. And yes we can apply this to a number of industries on a macro scale.

This is why in the olden days black lung of coal miners was such a huge issue. You can be working a dirty job that no one else would want to do, that doesnt make it inherent in the design of the job to take advantage of the worker. That's merely a symptom of a situation where its easy to be exploited as a statistic by higher ups who see you as nothing but cheap labor that can be replaced.

I'm not saying that development doesnt inevitably have stumbles and roadblocks that lead to issues and protracted development. But we're talking in a thread where according to Jason, even in an industry with normalized crunch times, Naughty Dog's is particularly awful. There is no way to argue that this is just a situation that is inherent in design of making games.
 
Last edited:
This is why in the olden days black lung of coal miners was such a huge issue. You can be working a dirty job that no one else would want to do, that doesnt make it inherent in the design of the job to take advantage of the worker. That's merely a symptom of a situation where its easy to be exploited as a statistic by higher ups who see you as nothing but cheap labor that can be replaced.

Are you comparing coal miners to software developers?
That isn't a fair comparison at all, coal miners probably had no choice in what job they did and is a ridiculous comparison.
 
Are you comparing coal miners to software developers?
That isn't a fair comparison at all, coal miners probably had no choice in what job they did and is a ridiculous comparison.

Its not ridiculous if you actually listen to what i'm saying. It doesnt matter if your a low level employee at a job that has schedules, deadlines or "makes you get your hands dirty". That's no excuse for outright exploitative behavior in the workplace, nor is an excuse to treat said workers as expendable cogs to put out a product or get results at all cost.
 
Many Asian countries have better working conditions than the US, in terms of statutory sick pay, the amount of paid leave and a lower maximum amount of hours etc - not to mention healthcare.

But I think this is getting away from what is a problem that has a clearly identifiable locus: large scale, multi-year, complex projects and it's always projects that involve a creative element or engineering element - or both. And I include software engineering. As I've posted before I've been engaged in a lot of such projects and crunch at the end has been involved in every one. It's the nature of the beast.

While I fully agree people shouldn't be expected to work more, I do feel there is a degree of wanting to be gardener but not wanting to be outside. Or wanting work with car engines but not wanting to get grease on their hands. Some jobs just come with downside for some people. If you're not a fan of crunch, then the best thing to do is avoid jobs with crunch. Lots of people code in wearingly predicable 9 to 5, Mon to Fri jobs. They just avoid those big projects which have the scope to go off the rails.

So I retreat to my position of unless somebody can solve the unforeseeable problem in large complex projects issue, it is what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Crunch time would not have existed if there werent pressuring deadlines. If crunch times exist at the end of the project, the employees should at least be offered extra compensation plus the corresponding amount of time as days off to cool off. And that should be substantial. Seeing it as normal because it's the "nature of the job" doesnt have much meaning. Humans are humans and based on l human biology, mental health and limited life span it is a serious cost. Regardless if people chose the specific job or not, it doesn't make it normal. It is "normal" in terms only of how common the phenomenon is in the current socioeconomic system.
 
Its not ridiculous if you actually listen to what i'm saying. It doesnt matter if your a low level employee at a job that has schedules, deadlines or "makes you get your hands dirty". That's no excuse for outright exploitative behavior in the workplace, nor is an excuse to treat said workers as expendable cogs to put out a product or get results at all cost.

It's not relevant because someone working in a coal mine doesn't have a choice didn't go to university to get his dream job of being a coal miner or have any options such as a software developer does.

You cannot compare a job where someone has no choice but to do it for survival to one where there's a choice.

When people compare software development with jobs that people do because they have no choice because they have to just to survive it makes my ass twitch.

I really try and stay out of these threads and I should and I apologise, I've had my say and I will try and not get involved or derail threads like this again.
 
It's not relevant because someone working in a coal mine doesn't have a choice didn't go to university to get his dream job of being a coal miner or have any options such as a software developer does.

If someone has a particular talent or something they are interested in, and they go to school to learn that job, actually land the job and THEN are exploited....your saying that that means that they dont deserve better or the workplace environment isnt bad because they went into that profession?

And your saying "its different from coal miners because they were forced into it"....

So your argument is that there are times when workers can be exploited and not raise a fuss because you have personally decided that there are jobs that exploitation is just inherent in their design...

Absolute silliness.
 
When people compare software development with jobs that people do because they have no choice because they have to just to survive it makes my ass twitch.
Well, some say that the coal miners got what they deserve because they weren't "smart enough" to get their asses out of their "bad situation". These sick opinions do exist, especially with the current trend of "mindfulness", "dream manifestation", motivational speakers teaching that you can be whatever you want unless you dont want it enough and the propaganda of capitalism where the rich and "successful" market their selves as the epitome of fulfillment and that you always get what you deserve. Silly arguments really.
There is also the counter argument that any one else like designers, artists and software developers should take the blame because they chose it and thus are never subject of exploitation or bad working conditions.

The truth is everyone can be exploited in variable levels and forms depending on the nature of the job and the socioeconomic situations.
 
So your argument is that there are times when workers can be exploited and not raise a fuss because you have personally decided that there are jobs that exploitation is just

No not at all. Being exploited is always wrong but when you have a choice in what career you want to do and that career is notorious for having crunch don't act surprised especially if you then get a job by a dev that's known to have bad crunch.

Yes conditions should be improved but if it's so horrible why choose to work for these people and it will sort itself out because game developers have a choice and it shows by the high turnover at a place like Naughty Dog.

I also have an issue where sitting in an air conditioned office is compared to real hardship. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved it's just the hyperbole around it grates me.
 
Well, some say that the coal miners got what they deserve because they weren't "smart enough" to get their asses out of their "bad situation".

Who ever says that is an idiot and doesn't have a clue and probably is some first world idiot that hasn't had a day of true hardship in his life.
 
I also have an issue where sitting in an air conditioned office is compared to real hardship. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved it's just the hyperbole around it grates me.

I think hyperbole is a serious problem with a lot of present discourse. Listen to the histrionic way in which an awful lot of people choose to speak about subjects.

When people mean "I think my working day should be decreased by 1 hour" but they say "these long days are killing me" there's a disconnect between what's being said and the observable reality. Ordinarily, that's fine. People abbreviate. But there seems to be some sort of breakdown across society as to what is collectively accepted to be an emotive abbreviation, and what is a matter of fact statement.

There is rampant pride. I think because people are able to hop on Wikipedia and pretend that thing they just read (and will forget even quicker) is the same as true knowledge.

There is an unwillingness to extend charity and accept that the person you're talking to means well. I think because that makes it impossible to just dismiss people and stroke your own ego.

I think this is why we so often see people talking at or past each other: we have this ugly fake knowledge permeating so many of us and, because people know, deep down, that they're clutching an empty sack, they're hostile the moment anyone might wish to take a peek. And the bright, flashing, dramatic language is the initial defense mechanism, like a rattlesnake.

Personally, I've worked office jobs, ranging from 30 to 48 hours a week, depending on the role. Sometimes it was more when there were big projects being implemented. I'm now a carer for the elderly, and my current working week is 30 hours. Prior to my current employer, I worked a 48 hour week, but regularly picked up extra shifts, for glorious 72 hour working weeks.

So my sympathy is somewhat limited when I hear someone complain that they had to sit, and think, and write some code for 10 extra hours a week for a couple of months a year, whilst they listen to music, sip on their iced latte, and don't have to worry about whether there's someone dying in the room next door. I've been there, done that, and it wasn't that difficult. Any difficulty was handsomely compensated. Honestly, if I could go back and do that period of my life differently, it would just be to get rid of my then-girlfriend, who was much more of a headache than an elongated working week ever could've been.

That being said, the previous care home I worked at had a culture of expecting people to pick up extra shifts, and I was foolish enough to get suckered in. And it took its toll on my health.

The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle. The answer to this problem isn't screw Naughty Dog, neither is it screw their employees.

It's easy to say that all responsibility lay at the feet of the studio, because some of it does, and they're going to keep bleeding talent if they don't make their crunch culture more tolerable.

But I've worked in offices with people who have gone from school, to college, to university, to the office. And some of those people complained about their conditions with an almost enviable naivete, and a lack of awareness that they can, at any moment, just leave for somewhere better.
 
No not at all. Being exploited is always wrong but when you have a choice in what career you want to do and that career is notorious for having crunch don't act surprised especially if you then get a job by a dev that's known to have bad crunch.

Yes conditions should be improved but if it's so horrible why choose to work for these people and it will sort itself out because game developers have a choice and it shows by the high turnover at a place like Naughty Dog.

I also have an issue where sitting in an air conditioned office is compared to real hardship. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved it's just the hyperbole around it grates me.

Relativity thinking is necessary. "Why choose to work for these people"?, because people need jobs to live and we are in an industry where unfortunately crunch is a huge issue regardless of where you go, which is why game unionization and such is necessary industry wide.

I bring up relative compassion because your arguing that people being exploited relatively less than people in 'real' socially dismal conditions means that they should have nothing to complain about.

Indeed the poster above me stating someone who has to work 10 more hours a work week is not sympathetic bcause they arent in a life or death situation and "i did it so everyone else should have to and not complain", just denies realities of everyone's different circumstances and how they take stress and situations that are hoisted upon them.

Its simply lack of empathy. And is a big reason why we are where we are when it comes to people suffering unjustly. Lack of empathy or seeing things from other perspectives.
 
Indeed the poster above me stating someone who has to work 10 more hours a work week is not sympathetic bcause they arent in a life or death situation and "i did it so everyone else should have to and not complain", just denies realities of everyone's different circumstances and how they take stress and situations that are hoisted upon them.

Is English your first language?
 
Im just taking what i assumed was your implication at face value. No need for that

No, it was an honest question, because "So my sympathy is somewhat limited" is an easily parsed phrase that doesn't mean I have no sympathy for a person. If your first language were not to be English, I'd understand why such a phrase might get lost in translation.

Since that's not the case, how did

So my sympathy is somewhat limited...

leading to

That being said, the previous care home I worked at had a culture of expecting people to pick up extra shifts... And it took its toll on my health.

concluding in

The answer to this problem isn't screw Naughty Dog, neither is it screw their employees.

possibly warrant your retort that

Its simply lack of empathy. And is a big reason why we are where we are when it comes to people suffering unjustly. Lack of empathy or seeing things from other perspectives.

?

Firstly, what face value can there possibly be in assumed implications? If you took what I said at face value, you wouldn't have to assume anything or look for implications. Heck, I'd prefer you to take what I said at face value, because I was quite deliberate with my choice of words, and you've had to disregard most of them in order to insult me.

Secondly, I love the irony that you've just completely talked past me, specifically in reference to the post in which I stated:

I think this is why we so often see people talking at or past each other

Lastly, empathy and sympathy are my bread and butter. I've stood there, been scratched, punched, spat at, and called every name under the sun by people with dementia (and a few without.) I've been punched in the back of the head whilst changing a shitted up nappy. I've had to buy new shoes because someone decided to piss in them (well, in one, but just you try buying a single shoe.)

I take it all on the chin, and treat them with nothing but love, respect, and understanding. I've never even raised my voice. So it's actually quite an insult to be misrepresented and then spoken of as lacking empathy or sympathy. Maybe you didn't mean to be so insulting, but nonetheless, you were.
 
Are you arguing 'If you dont want to be abused in your job just work somewhere else where the job doesnt require you to be abused'???? No, that's how companies have devised workflows and how your expected to accept it, nothing to do with "that's just how things are". Never use that in any situation. Its terrible.

You equate crunch = abuse. When I was younger I equated crunch = heaps of paid overtime and the absolute opposite of abuse. Not everybody thinks the way you do, some people are quite happy with this. For some, this hugely appeals. It did for me. It's no longer my thing so I don't even look at jobs that involve this work/life balance shift.

Crunch time would not have existed if there werent pressuring deadlines. If crunch times exist at the end of the project, the employees should at least be offered extra compensation plus the corresponding amount of time as days off to cool off.

You need a deadline, and it has to be real otherwise it's difficult to schedule stages nd work out if you're on target or not. The games industry is a business, there are more games than there are people to buy them which is why some games fail and why some companies fail. Sometimes things just don't work to plan for any number of reasons. It's why games don't ship on time, or ship broken, why TV shows and movies don't always get released on time. Why new hardware don't always release when you think it will.

I've seen many, many devs say they're taking a month or more off at a the end of a large project but this largely comes down to labour laws, and inherent flexibility of those, in your country. In the UK, the number of hours you are required to work is regulated pro-rata by hours per week but there exists flexibility to crunch a period then do little/no work. My typical work week is 36 hours, which is 7.2 hours a day (Mon-Fri) but I have colleagues who do four 9 hours days. Others do crunch for weeks then no work for weeks. Others do their regular hours and at crunch take paid overtime.

There are good employers out there and many countries have law which protects workers. But even so if you go into a job that is predicated on delivering a massive, complex project, you should be going into that job with your eyes open that crunch may be required. That requirement should be in your contract. You should know what you're getting into before you start.
 
The main point is this: There is no job that justifies exploitation or taking advantage of workers. Period.

There are hard jobs, there are jobs which have inconveniences, and there are jobs that require sacrifices. But people, especially on the lower end of the food chain are not disposable labor for the sake of profit and the lifestyles of upper management. And our society has yet to really grapple with this, although we are starting to see the cracks.

I dont think there should be anyone who actually disagrees with this.
 
I dont think there should be anyone who actually disagrees with this.
I don't disagree that jobs should be free of exploitation but I strongly disagree that all crunch is exploitation. As I said above, when I was younger it was a way for me to boost by monthly income 300% and when I was younger, had more energy, more time and far less money, this was massively appealing. Similarly working longer for short periods and less other periods is just part of what has become a common work/life flexibility offered by many employers in many countries.

For many, this arrangement entirely works for them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's actually a hard call. Maybe these creative jobs are actually exploitation on a level no-one really appreciates, like a gambling addiction. Technically, anyone gambling has a choice not to, so it's their free will if they gamble their lives away. Perhaps working your life away is a psychological addiction as much as a conscious choice, and creative types are having their psychology exploited by people who say, "that's just the way they are"?
 
@DSoup Heaps of paid overtime for crunch? Lol. Salaried employees aren't getting shit if their hours double in a week. Edit: For example, my company tracks hours but for counting hours against certain projects to apply for tax breaks for the government. If you work overtime the reporting tool won't even let you enter your overtime hours. It maxes out at 40 hours per work week. In the salaried world that's actually very typical, because you do not get paid by the hour and can't earn extra pay for overtime.

For people bringing up the dream job argument, I'd say landing your "dream job" isn't a free pass for your employer to take advantage of you. They can't just demand that you burn yourself out and say, "Hey, you said this was your dream job when you applied." Burnout is real and has long term health consequences.

That said, there is some reasonable expectation of crunch in pretty much all jobs. There is no way most businesses can provide a perfectly even workload at all times of the year. You might be at a business where sales massively increase at quarter end because your customers tend to spend the remainder of their budgets at quarter ends, or year ends. People will move on to other things if it becomes unreasonable and actions aren't taken to minimize the damage to themselves.

I think the real problem is if you have a significant portion of your workforce that is burning out, of which employees leaving is a good indicator, and you do nothing to address it. The story around Naughty Dog is that they've lost 60-70% of the employees that worked on Uncharted 4. Naughty Dog did not make Uncharted 4, the employees did. If you swap out 60% of the company, then the company is the same in name only. Companies should protect the talent that got them there, and if they don't see mass exodus as a sign of weakness then they're accepting their own eventual demise. There's no way a top end place, in any industry, can easily handle that kind of attrition. I'm sure they can get good people, but if you're Naughty Dog you want the best people.

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that Naughty Dog can stipulate that their employees will have crunch periods when they hire them, but that's not an excuse for the company to not take action to improve working conditions. Companies should always be learning from their mistakes and taking measures to protect their employees and prevent attrition. That goes for any company in any industry.

@eastmen brought up Valve, and the interesting thing there is they are a private company and they can sit on a project as long as they want with little to no pressure to release anything because they have Steam money coming in. The shareholder has thrown a huge wrench into business practices because shareholders care about business quarters, which are not particularly compatible with how games are made - years of development with no revenue and then a period of massive revenue for one or two quarters.
 
Back
Top