Support NeoGAF

[digoutyoursoul]

Long hours, trolled by dickhead fanboys, nitpickers, missing family.

Doesn't sound too good to be honest

 

[gamingPotato7]

Man, fuck that. I'm sorry, but I despise crunch, I despise these pratices. I am a developer, working as an independent contractor, and want to develop games, but I will never, in all of my life, will ever subject myself to any of this. And if, God help me, have a company of my own and have employees working for me, I will never subject them to this. I held Naughty Dog in high regard for their technical expertise, and Amy Henning for her work in the Legacy of Kain series. I couldn't be more sorry for her, for what she lived and what she witnessed all those years, and I couldn't hate Naughty Dog more now. What a fucking disgrace, I didn't have any idea, like sure I can understand crunch time in the last, what, 2 months, of a game development cycle, but this? This is slavery, exploration, this is inhumane... Sorry for the outburst.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

I "get" crunch time at certain times (sure as hell doesn't mean I like it), but this is straight absurd. I could never handle that stress.

 

[Nirolak]

Are you suggesting Bethesda were disappointed with their sales or that they're uniquely unambitious?

Unambitious. They're a private company and have way less pressure to perform at major bottom line impacting levels.

 

[SolVanderlyn]

(disclaimer - I worked with Amy on Uncharted 3)
She also would be at the mo-cap stage on many days, and ND games have months of capture sessions for everything from cut scenes to set pieces to navigation mechanics. So imagine spending a full work day directing, improvising, and writing with actors on set, and *then* returning for all the email, reviews, meetings, planning, etc that you didn't get to while on set.

So two jobs then. Sounds awful.

I don't know why or how this industry developed such a toxic work culture. Are there any essays or articles on this out there? Not on the toxicity itself, but rather on how it developed.

 

[joey_bone_bomb]

Why would you do this to yourself?

Work in another industry. I make network infrastructure code and leave every day at 3:30pm, never work overtime, and never work weekends.

Yeah, but I know who Amy Hennig is, and have experienced some of her works, and so have millions of others.
Different goals and priorities.

 

[mieumieu]

Wait until you guys know about crunch culture in Japan and China. It is not new to have the team work 80-90 hour week during long period crunch. But at least in China they earn so much more and with big bonus that it is somewhat worth it.

I am a developer in an outsourcing studio, and only had 60 hour week before. Even that I can barely stand it if it is for many weeks. I now mostly have 45 hour week which is OK. We dont earn as much as those in the MMO mobile game business but I honestly dont care. Still good enough pay without hurting health and life.

But I guess the next time people say naughty dog games are ’properly budgeted', they should be rightfully criticized for their ignorance.

 

[Kieli]

I fundamentally disagree with her statement that you can't make a 10-hr Uncharted with no frills.

I can't remember the last time someone told me they wanted multiplayer in Uncharted, as good or bad as the mode ultimately ended up being.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Why do they need to sell as much as UC1 though? What I can infer from her sentence is that big budget games with only single player mode isn't viable in this day and age and both of the games I mentioned have high production values.

Their budget is much smaller then UC1, you can see that with their marketing budget.

Of course linear single player experience without multiplayer are still profitable, but not on the budget of games like UC1.

The only exception I can think of big budget linear single player game this generation is Wolfenstein The New Order. I don't think that's just a coincidence that this type of experience are getting rare on the AAA spectrum.

I fundamentally disagree with her statement that you can't make a 10-hr Uncharted with no frills.

I can't remember the last time someone told me they wanted multiplayer in Uncharted, as good or bad as the mode ultimately ended up being.

The problem isn't even specifically wanting the multiplayer component of Uncharted, it's just the perceive value that it brings to the table for the consumer.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Crunch, again, is a huge industry problem not enough people talk about. It comes up once in a while and people have a little chat about it but that's not enough. There needs to be constant attention and a constant dialog if anything is ever going to change.

They need to just unionize already. The slave labor that they put people through would just not be tolerated in most other industries. Worst of all there's no reason for it in a post-digital distribution world.

 

[cheesekao]

Their budget is much smaller then UC1, you can see that with their marketing budget.

Of course linear single player experience without multiplayer are still profitable, but not on the budget of games like UC1.

The only exception I can think of big budget linear single player game this generation is Wolfenstein The New Order. I don't think that's just a coincidence that this type of experience are getting rare on the AAA spectrum.

Relatively speaking, their budgets probably aren't are high but that doesn't make them not high budget in the general sense as the game themselves show it. Uncharted 1 cost like 20 million which is already on the lower end of the AAA budget scale.

 

[WolvenOne]

Yeeeeeaaaah, AAA doesn't really seem sustainable to me, in the long term. Not only is the industry burnout rate real, (and kinda horrific,) but the financial risk just keeps getting higher. The industry either needs to step back and offer less in a big budget release, or they need to figure out how to create the same games with less time and money.

Or, bring back the mid-budget title, and release fewer triple-A games altogether.

 

[Boombloxer]

Why do they need to sell as much as UC1 though? What I can infer from her sentence is that big budget games with only single player mode isn't viable in this day and age and both of the games I mentioned have high production values.

Because this is a business, and the financial implications of an AAA title not hitting expectations is very real for the company and employees. And she's right, the largest games in the world are all multiplayer, so single-player only titles are much more risky. See: Every Uncharted after 1.

That's partly a result of people wanting bigger and better graphics. I've always thought Nintendo's approach was the most sensible but people seem to lose their minds any time some rumor about the NX not being very powerful pops up, so obviously lots of people disagree.

A crazy amount of studios have closed up in the last 10 years and the decrease in new IPs this generation alone is staggering. 10 years from now there are going to be a handful of non-indie games left lol

Not really. Graphics are the most obvious thing to spot, but it's actually less important than creative gameplay, meta game and multiplayer systems.

Hell, for all the shade NeoGAF can throw about mobile gaming, because those companies tend to have more influence from the general-software side they also have tended to have better work balance than old-school gaming companies.

Not really. Hit games require attention scaled to the success of the product.

yes you can, in fact I beg of you to go back and do these games.

PLEASE stop the bloat madness, every fucking game I play these days overstays its welcome.

please more games like Resident Evil REmake and less "300 hours to complete 100% with a guide, 600 hours without it" open world games.

Take a look at sales charts and it's pretty easy to understand why REmake, etc don't hit the sales numbers they used to. The Witcher and DA:I, AC, GTA, etc all set standards for open world games. GTA is the king, but AC used to push 10M units on a regular basis.

I actually disagree with this. It's certainly fulfilling from the creation of the game, but it's not financially rewarding doing so. From my experience, I feel software engineers in game development to be some of the smartest people in their field. The average game programmer is easily better than the average developer in another industry. I think it's a combination of it being a highly sought after industry which allows companies to only pick the best, and the complexity of the problems that are being solved. I say that even knowing other people in other industries at big companies in the Silicon Valley. These people could easily get a job doing software development at any non game company and make more money. You don't get into the game industry because of money; you do it because you love the work.

ding ding
That said, the financial rewards depend on the success of the title.

Pixar had to kill themselves to make Toy Story 2. They learned from that experience and changed for the better. Similarly, we are aiming to make our development practices sustainable going forwards.

In Creativity Inc, Pixar basically laid out the case for this, and how they sorta fixed it. It's a good read.

Suffering in life is inevitable and we are all going to die some day. So life is really all about what you are choosing to let kill you. What suffering brings you greater long term happiness?

Some people suffer due to their families, others suffer due to lack of family. Some suffer due to their jobs, others suffer due to a lack of work. Some suffer from too much free time, others suffer from working 80 hours a week at Naughty Dog.

"Poor devs..."

Give me a fucking break. There's no need to feel sorry for these people. It was their own choice to work at AAA developer that is being whipped by a greedy publisher.

Want to avoid crunch? Make your own indie game. Problem solved.

And this is the "I don't get it section". Stunning ignorance.

I'm still heading for that path and going to have mine! I don't see anyone else out here making the moves so I got to be the one to change things and I can't live with never seeing my ideas coming into fruition.

So long as you are aware of the odds, go for it. Just keep in mind that most people aren't working on a genre-changing game.

No one else in the company could handle doing the first half or the second half of what you wrote down?

Another fairly clueless post. Hint: When you're a game director, you delegate what you can to your team, because there's certain things you can't--so deciding how the set-pieces will come together with the actors and your writing in a 2 year planned campaign that will cost millions is very much a director's responsibility.

What are the turnover rates in this industry like, are dev's fully aware of the work load/ conditions prior to employment, and is the pay sustainable?

Depends on your field, company and title. Once you're 2-3 years in, you basically know what you're getting into. Pay being sustainable is again, part of the three mentioned earlier.

 

[cheesekao]

Because this is a business, and the financial implications of an AAA title not hitting expectations is very real for the company and employees. And she's right, the largest games in the world are all multiplayer, so single-player only titles are much more risky. See: Every Uncharted after 1.

You're not answering my question. I mentioned two SP only games that have high production values and have sold well and even exceeded expectations which contradicts her statement. I admit that their budgets may possibly be on the lower end of the AAA scale but they're still AAA regardless but with the rising costs of everything these days I wouldn't be surprised if their budgets are similar to that of UC 1(20 million).

 

[dk2399]

This is an another example of a larger issue of how nearly every male dominated industry starts out like this. Most guys have a suck it up and fall in line attitude and are willing to make "sacrifices" like this because they thinks that what men are suppose to do. I've experienced it myself and witnessed it many times with others in different industries.

You literally cant get through to them on why things should change. The only time some guys show self reflection is when women are introduced to the same brutal conditions. All of a sudden the "suck it up" thrown at a female co worker will be met by a "hey, dont be an ass" from a few guys that all of a sudden agree that its too hot and that they should have AC.

Some guys try to defend their hypocrisy with the same tired line about men and women being different, others admit they are being hypocrites but just cant help it. Frustratingly many men just dont show the same level of empathy towards other guys like they do for women. If they did the gaming industry wouldn't be like this

Sadly for people like Amy Hennig, the industry wont change until way more women join. The good news is that there is an upward trajectory of women joining her profession.

Now, if we could only get more women into Iron working, boiler makers, and mining. Maybe some attention can brought to the harsh labor practices there...

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Relatively speaking, their budgets probably aren't are high but that doesn't make them not high budget in the general sense as the game themselves show it. Uncharted 1 cost like 20 million which is already on the lower end of the AAA budget scale.

Uncharted 1 cost 20 million a decade ago, budget expended between then and don't represent the same thing now.

I'm sure it was quite a lot at the time.

You're not answering my question. I mentioned two SP only games that have high production values and have sold well and even exceeded expectations which contradicts her statement. I admit that their budgets may possibly be on the lower end of the AAA scale but they're still AAA regardless but with the rising costs of everything these days I wouldn't be surprised if their budgets are similar to that of UC 1(20 million).

High production values are not a good meter to gauge the budget of a game in my opinion. Kingdom Come Délivrance for exemple looks really good but the budget is less than 10 million if I recall correctly.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Uncharted 1 cost 20 million a decade ago, budget expended between then and don't represent the same thing now.

I'm sure it was quite a lot at the time.

I think it was a low number even for that time.

 

[Monocle]

The industry needs to fix its toxic work culture.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

I think it was a low number even for that time.

It was pretty high for the time. At least not on the lower scale.

 

[CharminUltra]

Love you, Amy. Preach it!

 

[Boombloxer]

You're not answering my question. I mentioned two SP only games that have high production values and have sold well and even exceeded expectations which contradicts her statement. I admit that their budgets may possibly be on the lower end of the AAA scale but they're still AAA regardless but with the rising costs of everything these days I wouldn't be surprised if their budgets are similar to that of UC 1(20 million).

Except their expectations were already lowered because they were single player games. High production values sunk into linear content is the minority. Campaign + multiplayer is the clear option. So yes, to make your money back and provide coin for the talented folks making your game, any project has to justify the money spent. $20M is on the low side, and doesn't include marketing. Because of this, it's simply more risky to spend heavily there; even Uncharted doesn't have just a campaign anymore.

Second, high production values are only a part of AAA titles, not the whole ball of wax. Looking great isn't the only thing that means high quality, and you need higher sales with each installment to justify continuing the series. Fairly simple concept of what the team can make that can hit the largest amount of players that resonates.

Single-player only is a smaller market, and shrinking.

 

[RustyNails]

The industry needs to fix its toxic work culture.

Squeenix developers are probably sleeping under their desks trying to finish FF XV as we speak. The question is how many angry fanboys you want vs overworked employees.

 

[Interficium]

Squeenix developers are probably sleeping under their desks trying to finish FF XV as we speak. The question is how many angry fanboys you want vs overworked employees.

Thread should be an invaluable cross-referencing resource for when I see posts complaining that X game didn't provide hundreds of hours of unique bespoke content and is thus "a ripoff" made by those elusive "lazy devs"

 

[StrongBlackVine]

It was pretty high for the time. At least not on the lower scale.

Possibly, but still super cheaper compared to games like God Of War, Heavy Rain, and Gran Turismo 5 that released just a few years later.

I'm shocked at how cheap Gears Of War 1 and 2 were to make.

 

[besada]

I've seen a couple of people saying this isn't a consumer problem, but of course it is. The game you're buying is being made by broken, burned out people, and you wonder why it's bug ridden and devoid of originality? Because consumers demand constantly new experiences, publishers push developers into unreasonable schedules, and keep doing it, until those people are so blasted from crunch that they lose all sense of perspective and produce games that we then have to suffer through. The schedules are directly responsible for garbage like day one patches and bugs lingering forever because teams are already crunching for the next project.

For purely selfish reasons, gamers should demand more reasonable working hours for developers, because unhappy, tired, emotionally distraught people make shitty products.

 

[ZeezbruhTV]

And yet some games still release as train wrecks, see Halo 5 or Destiny.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

People need to understand why Naughty Dog can pull off what they pull off. Majority of it is talent, but I've heard they crunch hard. I'm sure this is the case for a lot of other developers too.

Hilarious! Naughty Dog only could make impressive games because they enslave their developers?

There are other successful developers out there with much better working conditions.

 

[jrDev]

The moment I am working 12 hours a day and 7 days a week, I will be actively looking for another job (if I have time :-/)...

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I've seen a couple of people saying this isn't a consumer problem, but of course it is. The game you're buying is being made by broken, burned out people, and you wonder why it's bug ridden and devoid of originality? Because consumers demand constantly new experiences, publishers push developers into unreasonable schedules, and keep doing it, until those people are so blasted from crunch that they lose all sense of perspective and produce games that we then have to suffer through. The schedules are directly responsible for garbage like day one patches and bugs lingering forever because teams are already crunching for the next project.

For purely selfish reasons, gamers should demand more reasonable working hours for developers, because unhappy, tired, emotionally distraught people make shitty products.

I would be perfectly fine with games taking longer to produce and I never get bent out of shape over delays.

I don't see how consumers can make a difference though. It's not like these stories are commonplace. Maybe if more developers spoke out(and not with anonymity or once they switched jobs) there would be more awareness of the problem.

 

[Yagharek]

I've seen a couple of people saying this isn't a consumer problem, but of course it is. The game you're buying is being made by broken, burned out people, and you wonder why it's bug ridden and devoid of originality? Because consumers demand constantly new experiences, publishers push developers into unreasonable schedules, and keep doing it, until those people are so blasted from crunch that they lose all sense of perspective and produce games that we then have to suffer through. The schedules are directly responsible for garbage like day one patches and bugs lingering forever because teams are already crunching for the next project.

For purely selfish reasons, gamers should demand more reasonable working hours for developers, because unhappy, tired, emotionally distraught people make shitty products.

It is indirectly possible for customers to support an ethical model.

Buy games that work reliably. But this means buying games that don't get rushed out the door because they are projects that are planned sensibly and staff are treated like humans.

Studios/publishers like to have their big games out frequently, but what if the Assassins Creeds and CoDs and Fifa and BF games all came out once every 3-5 years. Each year or alternating year they might be able to have some substantial expansions or transfer market patches etc. R* might not be perfect but they do know how to maintain substantial income from a single title and this might be a useful model to adapt.

Then we might see a healthier environment for the "B-tier" (read: smaller and more diverse) sector come back and the expectation for these games would be similarly aligned to humane working hours.

I like to enjoy games I buy but not at the expense of someone's sanity, family or health.

 

[patchday]

Could you imagine putting in all of that time and effort only to have gamers whine and complain about the finished product? I'd want to kill my customers.

even worse- most game devs do not get adequate bonuses either especially if the title flops or just breaks even

The moment I am working 12 hours a day and 7 days a week, I will be actively looking for another job (if I have time :-/)...

yeah once you fall into that trap its hard to have the energy to look around.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Possibly, but still super cheaper compared to games like God Of War, Heavy Rain, and Gran Turismo 5 that released just a few years later.

I'm shocked at how cheap Gears Of War 1 and 2 were to make.

Heavy Rain development cost was 16.7 million, the rest was marketing which I don't think was included for Uncharted 1. GOW3 and GT5 were sequels from Sony's biggest IP's which explain the bigger budget.

Heavy Rain, Uncharted 1 and Heavenly Sword were all new IPs from Sony and they all have approximately the same budget.

 

[Melchiah]

Guerrilla posted this interview of one of their Senior Environment Artists,Tiffany Vongerichten, on their FB page, which mentions the difference of working conditions in Europe and USA.

https://www.guerrilla-games.com/read/guerrilla-spotlight-tiffany-vongerichten

Ultimately, what made you decide to take the leap?

Basically, once I started looking at different companies in Europe, I found that a lot of them didn’t make the kind of games I wanted to work on – there were a lot of sports games, handhelds games, that sort of thing. And I definitely wanted to work at a triple-A studio, because that’s the quality level I’d worked so hard to achieve. Guerrilla was a good match for my portfolio. I’d been working on the PlayStation platform for many years already, so the transition was easy for me.

What is Amsterdam like?

It’s a really expat-friendly city. Amsterdam is like a mix between Seattle and New York, where you have the manageable size of Seattle and the forthright energy of New York. It’s also a great hub for traveling, with quick and inexpensive connections to the rest of Europe. In general, I like the work/life balance in the Netherlands – you actually have free time to do things. And everyone here can speak English, so that helps a lot.

...

In general, what’s the atmosphere at Guerrilla like?

I feel like it’s pretty laid-back compared to the situation in the US, which is usually very hierarchical. Here it’s more about how everyone has their own role, rather than a position above or below you. It makes things a lot more comfortable for everyone, especially when offering suggestions or constructive criticism.

 

[charlequin]

Why do they need to sell as much as UC1 though?

Because UC1 didn't sell all that well (later Uncharted games put up far, far higher numbers) and even games with 2008-era budgets needed to do better than that in general to be profitable.

Ratchet and Clank doesn't even come close to a high-production-values title in 2016 -- you can tell because they sold it for $40 at launch.

I can't remember the last time someone told me they wanted multiplayer in Uncharted

Do you remember when the sales of a fairly marginal shooter franchise exploded at the same time that multiplayer was added?

 

[zenbot]

Because consumers demand constantly new experiences...

Consumers make all kinds of crazy demands in every industry, though, and not all industries are completely toxic.

The toxicity of games development is particularly baffling when software developers are in such high demand everywhere else. Maybe artists and designers don't have as many options, but you would have to think that a developer at Naughty Dog could walk out and into the loving arms of any of a million billion software shops.

 

[soultron]

ND, to me, has always seemed like a place where you as a developer should know what you'll be required to put in (in terms of crunch) and the output (some of the best looking games) of that. Talk to any other devs who worked there or know someone who does (or just go on glassdoor) and you will hear that crunch is a thing there. But, again, given the output, how would anyone expect that without the requisite input? If ND didn't have top tier talent who also wasn't willing to crunch as they do, I'm sure UC4 would have been a quarter of the game it was, in all respects.

Sidenote: I work in the industry and have applied at ND in the past, so what Henning has said doesn't really surprise me. Saying this, however, there are bound to be lots of devs who draw the line and would rather play the output of a studio like ND than take part in making something there. That's fine.

 

[potatohead]

I don't get it. I realize some overtime is sometimes needed but 80 hours a week every week? Why not just hire another person and split the workload at that point? Crazy hours like that sound mega expensive on top of everything else that comes with it.

I work 80 hrs a week but that's not abnormal for my profession plus I probably get way more money and benefits than a developer of a videogame

 

[neoemonk]

Could you imagine putting in all of that time and effort only to have gamers whine and complain about the finished product? I'd want to kill my customers.

No Man's Sky?

 

[xch1n]

That said, the financial rewards depend on the success of the title.

There were a few things that I had shades of disagreement on, but this one is very clearly false today. Unless you're very high in the studio (and it better be a studio with some seriously generous contractual terms) the rewards scale to an absurdly small degree. The days of individual studio members doing very well for themselves after a hit game are long long gone in AAA. That money mostly goes the publisher these days.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

These high production value games don't come out of thin air.

They come at huge sacrifices and this was a 1st party company, which has looser deadlines.

Gamers want better graphics and realism--that comes at a price.

Defense Force for everything.

 

[Arion]

For purely selfish reasons, gamers should demand more reasonable working hours for developers, because unhappy, tired, emotionally distraught people make shitty products.

You say that but Naughty Dog, despite the insane work schedule, still output relatively bug free quality games that have great critical and commercial success.

 

[Shengar]

Defense Force for everything.

If you followed up the discussion, he/she wasn't defending the practice at all. Just merely stating the fact.

 

[Messofanego]

I just did a seven day stint which is 64 hours and I'm tired. She is amazing for doing more than that for that long. AAA development shouldn't be that damaging.

Gaming industry needs equivalent of Working Time Directive. And publishers, chillax on the milestones and rush to release dates, or announcing release dates so far before.

 

[Turrican3]

I've seen a couple of people saying this isn't a consumer problem, but of course it is. The game you're buying is being made by broken, burned out people, and you wonder why it's bug ridden and devoid of originality? Because consumers demand constantly new experiences, publishers push developers into unreasonable schedules, and keep doing it, until those people are so blasted from crunch that they lose all sense of perspective and produce games that we then have to suffer through. The schedules are directly responsible for garbage like day one patches and bugs lingering forever because teams are already crunching for the next project.

I respectfully disagree.

Firstly, I don't really think there is *that* big of a demand for new experiences (assuming "new" means original here), and I believe this generation with its 2 billion and a half remasters and the depressing collapse of the amount of new AAA IPs is quite telling.

Secondly, when the market keeps buying stuff despite it being clearly broken at launch (heck, maybe even after a day-one patch), because deadlines can't be missed and your game MUST be out for the most lucrative season of the year, of course publishers aren't going to feel any pressure to act differently.

Mind you, crunch *is* an issue, and I believe it should be solved ASAP.
What I mean is that I'm not really sure we should blame it for the lack of polishing and originality in an absurdly high quantity of AAA releases nowadays (and for quite a long time being to be honest, broadband and consoles getting huge builtin storage brought a lot of bad practices to this industry if you ask me)

 

[spekkeh]

80+ wtf

I feel homicidal after working over 40.

It helps when you love your craft.

I love my craft too. I love my kids more.

 

[OléGunner]

Crunch stories always seem like horror tales.
I recommend this excellent piece by Kotaku's Jason Schrier about crunch across the industry.

http://kotaku.com/crunch-time-why-game-developers-work-such-insane-hours-1704744577

For purely selfish reasons, gamers should demand more reasonable working hours for developers, because unhappy, tired, emotionally distraught people make shitty products.

I don't see how this will ever happen as the vast majority of gamers are mainstream folks who don't read message boards, websites etc.

These guys don't know the sacrifices that are put into their favourite games nor care for that matter and they make up the most revenue for AAA games.

Such a shame.

 

[spekkeh]

I don't see how this will ever happen as the vast majority of gamers are mainstream folks who don't read message boards, websites etc.

These guys don't know the sacrifices that are put into their favourite games nor care for that matter and they make up the most revenue for AAA games.

Such a shame.

The vast majority of gamers are also not the problem though. They buy a game like No Man's Sky and are perfectly happy with the experience.

 

[oudy79]

What about her salary?

 

[Kawika]

I really don't understand the anti union sentiment in game development. If I were a young creative starting out, games would be the last field I would choose. Not saying shooting on location isn't hard or when your production company has to lay you off because your project got cancelled; it sucks but most people who work in television and film have way better work life balance than game development.

On a personal note, I am older so I play less games and multiplayer isn't a demand I make of every game. I think most games are bloated and I would like to see the return of shorter single player games. I buy most of my games on steam so I know the people are getting the money and there is no trade in.

Indies and multiplayer games can fill the gaps between these AAA releases and I would feel good if we could move to a more sustainable industry where people can actually live their lives.

If a game developer said we are limiting our employees to a 40-50 hr work week I would probably be more likely to throw support their way. I would rather wait longer for a product and know I am not enjoying the benefit of someone's misery.

I used to be jealous of people working in games and now when I am home before 5pm mostly everyday and I get to see my kids grow I never regret a minute of it.

 

[Tango101]

The software biz in general is brutal for this type of shit (not just games). I worked 2 years for a smaller/medium world renown software shop that constantly required 60+ hour minimum weeks. The sad part is most of the developers considered this the norm and wouldn't complain this. Their job became their life and nothing else mattered. There was no balance what so ever. I would show up at 8am and leave hopefully around 8pm. So many of the people I met lived unhealthy lifestyles (no physical activity, ate whatever crap food,no social life. Just work). On the odd night that you got them outside and off their computers, they wouldn't know how to act or talk about (besides work). It was very sad.

I was eventually laid off after I refused to put in anything more then 40 hours. The co-founder said that because I didn't have a family that 40 was the absolute bare minimum and that this reflected poorly on me. It's been a month since I worked there and Im slowly gaining my sanity back.

Anyways, I would agree with Amy. This crazy commitment to your job simply isn't worth it. There's so much more to life then work.