This is also an important point that people tend to overlook when talking about video game production - there's so much outsourcing to countries with lower wages and poor working conditions.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Amy Hennig worked 10.5 years of 80+ hour weeks at Naughty Dog, says AAA not worth it
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
This is also an important point that people tend to overlook when talking about video game production - there's so much outsourcing to countries with lower wages and poor working conditions.
Fushichou187
Member
Thanks for posting this! The audio on this panel can be real rough at times, but overall it's a great listen.
That doesn't mean it wouldn't help.
Probably because they haven't realised just how much it could/would help them.
Obliterator
Member
I can't even imagine, and I fully believe the part where she talks about people having to check into places to get well after a game would release or divorces happening.
In my last job there would be stretches where I would work 65+ hour weeks consecutively and I legit almost had a nervous breakdown the last Holiday season.
The industry really needs to try to get its crunch and labor issues in check.
In my last job there would be stretches where I would work 65+ hour weeks consecutively and I legit almost had a nervous breakdown the last Holiday season.
The industry really needs to try to get its crunch and labor issues in check.
There's so, so much research on how consistently working more than 40 hours a week leads to lower productivity (according to some articles the sweet spot is even below that, at around 32), it's not even funny. But then I very much doubt there's a high tech industry as insular and completely devoid of any connection to research as the game industry. Much like the audience they cultured it's all about graphics tech and absolutely nothing else. (even then when I was working at a graphics tech faculty they were continuously exasperated at the industry's attitude towards working together with universities)
Yup. Even Kickstarter games. It is really easy to underestimate the scope of a project.
I found the article here:
Mods, Maxis And Forward Motion: Cities Skylines Interview
think I may have found the wrong article but that was the only one I found that was talking about Crunch
Yep. Agree with that. I think the problem is when publishers try to pull deadlines earlier to keep stakeholders happy, and/or refuse to budge when it looks like it's unrealistic, and the development team suffer trying to meet that.
There's another big developer who thinks this, too. I can't remember who. It's not CDPR. But someone like that. They only ever have short bursts of crunch right before release.
Perhaps Remedy?
Thanks.
What i'm say is that games are too big in scope.
Jesus that sounds awful. I've occasionally had to work ~50 hour weeks (I'm an engineer for a govt contractor) and that already feels like too much. Can't imagine 80. I hope some of these AAA devs pay overtime, but I have a feeling a lot of these companies are just exploiting people who are super passionate about what they're doing.
That's like saying to a professional athlete not to push himself to the brink of exhaustion to be the best possible athlete. A year of extra time would just be a year of more 80 hour work weeks.
No matter what you do, there will be people who are drawn to this type of work output even if they complain about it.
I was one of them until I chose not to be. Amy was one of them until she chose not to be. There are extreme people out there that will kill themselves if you let them.
Personally, I could do my current job for 80 hours a week. Not because it's fun, but because I love sitting there and tinkering with my project for hours upon hours until it's perfect... even when it adversely affects my health.
Plenty of people do this because it's just who they are. These are the people who excel most in life and create huge companies that draw other people like them like Naughty Dog.
There are other company leaders that respect more balanced lifestyle oriented folks. And they recruit others like them to join their ranks.
Theres always a choice as far as how much you're willing to sacrifice.
Van Gough probably spend 100,000 hours perfecting his craft. And Naughty Dog is like a Van Gough in the video game industry.
Except your example of a smaller game still had a huge staff and, I'm willing to bet, they were underpayed. You are saying they are too big in scope because you consider $60 to be too expensive.
Games are already so expensive that they have to sell insane numbers to be considered successful. Developers are trying to squeeze every penny they can with microtransactions, DLC, collectors editions, etc, just to make ends meet.
A year of development would be insanely expensive. Imagine 150 people averaging around 6 figures for a year and you're adding $15 million to the budget before even factoring in benefits and operational costs like utilities, equipment, rent, etc.
More realistic than extending development time would be scaling back a game's features and length. But like is mentioned in the article, devs can't put out 8 hour games with no mp anymore without huge backlash.
What magical world is this?
It is.
Sure, things can always go wrong with a project and people will have to stay at work late for a while to sort out the problem, also when nearing the end of a project you may feel the need to stay in longer to polish up on it, but if you're continuously crunching all the damn time and several months/years in advance of when the project is due, then something has gone horribly wrong with the management and scheduling.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Where's that. Opt-out clauses for EU working-hours limitations have been common in contracts for years now; think I first saw that in 1999 or thereabouts.
Feral Gingy
Banned
Video games were a mistake.
Seriously though something needs to be done to make sure developers can take care of themselves and have a life too.
When did I say $60 is expensive? I'm saying nothing is wrong with the $60 price point(an in some cases I'm wonder if games should be $70 or $80 depending on the amount of content which we aready kinda have with day one DLC and micro transactions). If someone want to make a short game with a lack of features charge appropriately for it. Every game shouldn't be made with $60 price point in mind.
The bigger point is that with this rush to add more and more to a game; I'm wondering if even worth it if players don't even use though features.
Actually, that last one does come free if you spend less hours on the first two.
But is it going to result in your best work? I don't think it will. As a programmer I have days when I am just banging my head at a problem all day without getting results but solve it easily the next day because I have had a good night's sleep and time to mull it over. Getting at it with a fresh brain often helps more than just putting in more hours.
I understand working more close to release but I would still never work for 80 hours for several weeks. It sounds like a good way to lose your mind.
The Albatross
Member
The videogame industry is fucked up. Not only are the hours and demands of the job ridiculous, but the pay is way, way lower than the same position with the same experience in other areas of the tech sector.
I'm a software developer with about 10 years of experience, there have been a handful of weeks in my working life where I've put in serious hours like that on the job. In 5 years at my curent employer, I've never worked a weekend, and very, very rarely put in more than 40 hours. Every 4 or 5 months I have to stay late, till midnight or 2am for a major release, but most of it is just ensuring everything releases fine, and then they give me comp time for it (e.g., I leave early the following Friday or something). And, on top of that, developers in videogames get paid much less than other software developers.
It's just ridiculous. I think game developers are taken advantage of because they have a passion for what they do. There is the common stereotype of the starving artist; maybe that is reason enough to not consider games art.
I'm a software developer with about 10 years of experience, there have been a handful of weeks in my working life where I've put in serious hours like that on the job. In 5 years at my curent employer, I've never worked a weekend, and very, very rarely put in more than 40 hours. Every 4 or 5 months I have to stay late, till midnight or 2am for a major release, but most of it is just ensuring everything releases fine, and then they give me comp time for it (e.g., I leave early the following Friday or something). And, on top of that, developers in videogames get paid much less than other software developers.
It's just ridiculous. I think game developers are taken advantage of because they have a passion for what they do. There is the common stereotype of the starving artist; maybe that is reason enough to not consider games art.
charlequin
Banned
I mean, I think you've probably gotten an outlier perspective here? It's still a game company and has many of the issues associated with that but the positive reports about their overall workplace culture and quality-of-life have been widespread and consistent.
Right-to-work affects whether employees can be forced to join a union but doesn't change anything at all about the Federal legal protections for organizing activity.
It's not anything remotely like that at all, actually.
yellow submarine
Member
If you're Van Gough level, you get paid Van Gough level. Don't confuse that with working long hours as an above average developer.
Go on...
I don't really think it had anything to do with money. Money is a poor incentive for this type of work ethic. Being able to work 80 hour weeks for a decade and live to tell the tale has to come from somewhere deeper than a financial drive.
I don't think Van Gough was sitting there, tinkering with his artwork and perfecting his technique because he wanted to get models and bottles. I think he actually got more out of his work than that. He felt compelled to do it even if it torchered him.
Yep. I don't work in game development, but I do know a great deal about 80 hour work weeks.
Capable project managers make a tremendous difference, but in my experience, upper management is clueless about this unless they are educated, experienced project managers themselves.
inpHilltr8r
Member
Treyarch and Epic were infamous for it, I'll admit that may have change in recent years. A lot has. I mean, Riot has gone from one extreme to the other, and I suspect is actually dragging other LA studios into better practices.
Many are. It's the law. Unfortunately certain douche-bags carved out some very explicit exceptions in CA that a lot of us fall into.
My bad, I read your "not every game should be made for a $60 price point" to mean you wanted smaller games at cheaper prices, which is generally how people who don't want to stick to $60 price points use that argument.
As a consumer myself, I can't say I really want to pay more than $60 for a game, but I have on several occasions. I paid $150 for elite dangerous, and given what they were doing in development, I didn't feel ripped off at the time.
I'll say this about games budgeting - the rise of digital distribution has been a godsend for small developers. Self publishing is great, and can really help keep a lean team profitable. For a long while in the game industry, that really wasn't possible.
That seems like a reasonable argument, but if it is correct, then why do you think the problem hasn't been solved through the market?
Presumably *some* companies would not crunch and put out products of comparable quality (or even better quality if crunch is a net loss in productivity). It would be significantly more attractive for people to work at such companies, so they should be able to attract more elite talent, further raising the quality of their games and their competitiveness. I understand that it takes time for these processes to happen when there are entrenched misconceptions, but it seems like we have been hearing about these issues in the games industry for many years.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
The change in overtime rules that go into effect on December 1st should help a lot of developers. Right now they could be making just $24k a year and being worked those kind of hours while on salary. Now they'll have to be paid a minimum of $48k a year to be salaried, otherwise they'll get overtime for anything over 38 hours a week.
HerbertBirdsfoot
Member
There are many, many software development jobs where you can get paid well and work normal business hours.
Lots of those jobs have somewhat interesting work and some challenges but allow you to go home before 6 to your friends, family, hobbies, and life responsibilities.
You aren't creating something awesome and great, but the job satisfaction is still there because you are doing something that is useful to someone. Even if it's for a bank or insurance company or something that sounds boring.
Lots of those jobs have somewhat interesting work and some challenges but allow you to go home before 6 to your friends, family, hobbies, and life responsibilities.
You aren't creating something awesome and great, but the job satisfaction is still there because you are doing something that is useful to someone. Even if it's for a bank or insurance company or something that sounds boring.
How do you mean? Obviously, in the case of crunch time, the exigence is a looming deadline, but I find the athlete comparison pretty apt. It's a super competitive field. People crunch because they feel like they have to put out super human efforts to complete these jobs.
Hari Seldon
Member
I'm not against unions, but they usually only work in a situation where you cannot easily just close down shop and move it to another city for nothing more than the cost of moving vans. You need some type of geographical lock (like a shipping port, schools, etc.) or some hugely expensive ass factory to actually make a union work.
I think the model proposed would be something akin to the unions seen in the film industry. But those unions were built long ago, would creating a union like that be feasible in today's climate? Particularly with the tech workforce that is being pumped out globally?
DancingNalwood
Member
This is so ingrained in the culture that at university the students already expect to work 60+ hours a week when they leave. I'd worked these kind of hours for two years when I was younger and by the end I was a broken mess and I had no one to help because my relationships were down the drain. But it's seen as weak or not being a team player if you refuse.
NoPiece
Member
There are no developers at any major studio in the US only making 30k.
Hollywood unions survive because there is specific named talent (actors/writers/directors) at the top tier unions that can't be replaced. There is then a halo effect that gives some power to the trade unions. Everyone in software development is replaceable, so unionizing would just shift jobs to non-union locations. Even in Hollywood, the unions have been decimated by shifting production out of California, and out of the US.
Hari Seldon
Member
Yeah you don't need much experience to see this anecdotally. Think of how much work you can get done on a friday when you want to leave early. I swear I can squeeze in like 12 hours of shit into 4 hours on a friday.
The Albatross
Member
I think we need to stop looking at the game development industry as a specific sector and compare it directly to other software development, and in that case, the market has generally solved this. There are more companies now paying rewarding salaries with good benefits that do not expect that kind of working environment, and they produce higher quality software with fewer bugs and it sells better.
The game development sector of software development has a culture problem. It's insular in hiring; largely hiring people who are passionate about games, and the culture of crunch gets instilled in developers. Most of the managers in game development come out of those development environments, and they double-down on the concept of crunch.
This is one reason why I'm usually happy to see non-gaming companies invest in the gaming sector, because it's going to be one of the only opportunities to break the crunch culture. When Amazon, Facebook, and other tech companies that have a work life balance start producing games, and when they produce high quality games that sell well, it'll be a shakeup to the traditional, siloed game development culture.
I also think that as independent publishing becomes easier and software distribution stops being controlled by a handful of publishers, suppliers, and sellers, we're going to see the model move towards more reasonable software development. The publisher->developer relationship in the game sector encouraged that deadline-driven system, as big publishing houses farmed out their development work and encouraged developers to produce as much as possible on as tight a deadline as possible, and use the developers' passion for creating against them. The publisher model has already been rejected by thousands of developers, and it's only going to become more common.
Hari Seldon
Member
Yeah I doubt it. You can pump out fantastic games anywhere in the world. There is no huge infrastructure startup cost at all. The Film Industry still has a union because for historic reasons that geographical location has huge cache. There is nothing like that in the games industry.
I'm assuming they mean Sony Santa Monica, who is also ridiculously notorious for deathmarching.
Mind, I don't know how they work in 2016.
I've heard stories like this for years, and combined with how pitiful games journalism tends to be and how often we hear about sexism problems, I find the entire mainstream video game industry inexcusably deplorable to make a career in.
I love video games, but when I heard that you have to work these kinds of hours for years just to finish a game and risk being left unemployed when people on the internet don't rate your game a metacritic >85, I dismissed it as a fulfilling career choice.
I am so sorry to the people who work like this.
Yet we as consumers are feeding this. People demand maximum content and graphics, and as dev time gets longer and teams get bigger, they still need to work even longer to be competitive in this marketplace of $60 games.
Chuck Norris
Banned
Hopefully she got paid for all the hours.
I'm glad I don't work in game development. I work in an industry where 12+ hours a day are normalised. Fortunately weekend work isn't. It's hard enough doing 60 hours
I'm glad I don't work in game development. I work in an industry where 12+ hours a day are normalised. Fortunately weekend work isn't. It's hard enough doing 60 hours
Woo-Fu
Banned
So what is it about AAA game development that turns project managers into idiots? If your people have to work 80+ hour weeks indefinitely to finish a project on time your project plan is shit.
See, I don't think it has anything to do with AAA game development, or poor project management. I think it has everything to do with working people like slaves simply because you can and they will.
See, I don't think it has anything to do with AAA game development, or poor project management. I think it has everything to do with working people like slaves simply because you can and they will.