Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

IGDA Split Over "Crunch Time" Development 99

Posted by Soulskill
from the plenty-of-time-to-sleep-when-you're-dead dept.
LingNoi writes "Arguments between members of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) have been red hot over recent controversy because of a 'Studio Heads on the Hotseat' panel video (skip to 21:00). The fighting started when IGDA board members (that also happen to be studio executives) which were taking part in the discussions made clear their favor for 'crunch time,' a method of doing overtime on a game to make very tight deadlines. It has been seen as hypocritical that an organization whose goal is to create a better quality of life for developers is led by studio executives who are happy to overwork employees. The IGDA released a response which didn't take sides on the issue."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IGDA Split Over "Crunch Time" Development

Comments Filter:
  • by creimer (824291) on Friday April 10, 2009 @01:33AM (#27528301) Homepage
    I gave up being a video game tester after six years to become a help desk support specialist to make the same kind of money working 40 hours per week instead of 80 hours a week. Now that I have time to enjoy the money I'm making, I'm writing a novel about my misadventures as a video game tester. Unlike the real world, managers in my novel do die for working people to death. :)
    • by Creepy (93888)

      Don't think it's just video games - I had similar hours doing business software. In fact, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel until next year - I have 3 releases with 3 month schedules each over the next 9 months (and boatloads of features going into the area I'm responsible for).

      I've also worked massive amounts of hours at a help desk and got paid overtime since it was hourly and adjusted for inflation it probably would be just short of what I make now, but I wouldn't have that job or the overtim

  • by Renraku (518261) on Friday April 10, 2009 @01:43AM (#27528343) Homepage

    You, as an employer want crunch time?

    What do we get out of it?

    We get to watch you lobby to Congress about how your company can't survive if they have to pay overtime benefits, but you make it clear that if you can't put in the 16 hours a day 6 days a week required to complete the game on time, we'll be shitlisted from the game industry.

    We get to watch your marketing drones take expensive trips and have nice things, while you've reduced the number of fridges in the breakroom to one, to 'encourage people to eat healthy!'..has nothing to do with saving costs, I'm sure.

    We get to watch the higher ups give us unrealistic goals. You want your own engine, you want a whole planet of scenery and stages, you want the latest and the greatest, and you want it to work on a Game Boy Advance. After all, that's what you promised Nintendo when they offered you a bonus to do so. You want it in a month, from Monday of two weeks ago.

    We get to watch you use your corporate cards for lunch everyday, and dinner too during crunch time.

    Then we get that lay-off notice right after the game is launched, with the new 'support' team you hired from a small university in India picking which desks will be theirs, while we're still sitting in them in shock.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      you think that's isolated to GAME companies?

      Companies use exempt/salaried positions to avoid paying overtime. If you want paid overtime, get smart and unionize -- it's what the coal miners did a century ago.

      Instead of people looking at, say, teachers and saying "wow, they have good benefits and job protection because they have a union," American workers say "I work harder than that union guy does, and don't get paid as much so unions SUCK!"

      Wake up -- if other guy is getting a better deal than you, it's bec

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Creepy (93888)

        I have mixed opinions of Unions - while on the one respect, they can negotiate salaries, hours, keep jobs local and whatnot, but they also make it nearly impossible to save a company when it's in trouble due to those same contracts. Let me just sum it up - non-union Toyota is the #1 auto maker right now and financially looking very good [toyota.co.jp]. Former #1 GM is cash strapped and facing bankruptcy. Which do you think has more job security right now?

        Depending on how Unions collect fees, you can absolutely get scre

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by im_thatoneguy (819432)

          Let's be clear. The reason GM is failing is not because of the unions. It's because they made cars nobody wanted to buy.

          When GM was raking in the cash the unions asked for a bigger cut. Now that GM is on the brink of bankruptcy after squandering their billions in profit the unions are accepting concessions.

          If you think UAW unions are strong... take a look at Japanese employment contracts.

          • by Creepy (93888)

            GM's problems are from multiple sources - they pay 7 billion in pensions each year and $60 billion in health care for retirees, for instance (compared to $0 for Asian manufacturers, and that's expected to stay constant for the next 10 years, so that's $70 billion less profit for pensions and God only knows in health care) and are required by UAW contract to pay special incentives to employees laid off or when their plants are shut down making downsizing nearly impossible. GM did have a bit of recession har

    • Just so you know, there are fun software jobs out there that are not in the gaming industry and will let you work (more) reasonable hours. Some of them even use the exact same skill set. Of course, if you get more satisfaction out of "working on a game" than doing something other than work, then be happy you found your dream job.
    • by Stiletto (12066)

      What do we get out of it?

      Umm.. a job writing video games?

      If you don't like it, nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you work there. Go work a nice comfortable 9-5 job writing accounting apps for MegaIndstroCorp.

  • This might sound like a shameless plug for Union. I don't care about that.
    If you didn't need a Union, the companies would already show the respect that the 'common' worker deserves. That is payment of overtime, guaranteed start and finish times - if a worker wants to put in extra, or if the employer requires this, to finish what they are working on, then an ammendment to the Collective Agreement can be worked out.
    No, unions aren't perfect, but as a union worker I don't have to put up with that kind of
  • by TBBle (72184) on Friday April 10, 2009 @02:24AM (#27528519) Homepage

    As they used to say, "The first 90% takes 90% of the effort, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the effort". Crunch time is just the expression of doing that last 90% effort in the last 10% of the schedule.

    Mind you, my current employer states that they'd prefer we to not have to crunch, given the chance. I get a talking to any time I come in and work on the weekend. ^_^

    Then again, I quite like crunch, as long as it's not overly extended. It's a bit of a rush, and it can be fun unless you're the one who's hideously behind on the milestone.

    There are plenty of crunch horror stories though, and everyone is aware that crunch adds bugs, so usually management will look to shift or redefine milestones where possible to avoid it. Or at least my management does. YMMV.

    • As they used to say, "The first 90% takes 90% of the effort, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the effort". Crunch time is just the expression of doing that last 90% effort in the last 10% of the schedule.

      Or figure out what kind of things make that last "10%" take so much longer than it should, and learn to estimate it properly. Including estimated time for expected requirements changes and/or making it clear that estimates will change along with requirements.

      • by TBBle (72184)

        That last 10% is all the unexpected stuff. The stuff you can't schedule, but can merely attempt to estimate what time it'll take.

        I'll pick some random examples.

        Requirements disagreements. Not changes, but when requirements are perfectly clear to all parties, but nonetheless not the _same_ clear vision.

        Greater-than-budgeted for absenteeism. As I already mentioned, losing the whole team for a week due to illness will be devastating to a milestone.

        For that matter, a few low-output days at the wrong time can al

    • by sjames (1099)

      "The first 90% takes 90% of the effort, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the effort".

      That's why you double the estimate. That way, the 1st 90% + the last 90% + the other 20% adds up to the time you've alloted.

  • Crunch time rush (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Friday April 10, 2009 @02:33AM (#27528553) Journal
    I used to love crunch time, it was like a rush. In school I always put off my assignments to the last minute, and when I was working, I always had deadlines that were too short, and it motivated me to work as hard as I could. But of course, there was always a period of being burned out afterwards.

    Then one day I snapped. It seemed so stupid to be in a constant state of panic: it's not like the work actually got done faster. So one day I came up with the bright idea, "why not plan enough time from the beginning to get the job done? Then I won't need to panic at the end!"

    It was hard at first, I had trouble figuring out how long things would take, but after a while I got really good, even when it involved figuring out how some mystery hardware works (ie, it's going to take a LOT longer than you expect). I still get things done just as fast, if not faster, and I am happier and more efficient. In addition I know how long things are going to take, so I can promise things to customers and deliver on the promises. And I have more energy to put towards productive things, not towards stress.
  • As a student at a pretty well-known school with the intent of becoming a video game developer, I definitely put in my share of 40+ hour weeks (60-90 aren't uncommon). But hearing a company's CEO say he won't hire people who aren't constantly willing to put in hours beyond the workweek is definitely disheartening. What happened to the EA legal woes of a few years back? Is the solution to just say "Oh, well we expect it" up front? Hello to the new EULA of being hired? That's a grim future for all of us, if
    • by creimer (824291) on Friday April 10, 2009 @03:07AM (#27528695) Homepage
      Before I left Atari as a lead game tester, I worked 28 days straight because that's what my manager expected from me. The HR person looked the other way on the six-day work week policy. When the manager told me to do this his way or take the highway, I took the highway. I was the third of a dozen senior testers to leave under that manager. Guess what? Manager got promoted and the company tilted towards bankruptcy.
      • by twoallbeefpatties (615632) on Friday April 10, 2009 @08:59AM (#27530139)
        And if I'm not mistaken, burnout is pretty much just as consistent as overtime in the industry at the moment. So there's also a big question of just how much the companies want to retain talent as well. I've known two people in the industry who left jobs at some very prestigious game companies and went to work at unknown, small-time publishers because those jobs just allowed them to see their families more often. Of course, those people were working positions on teams that were persistantly understaffed, so they were in constant crunch time - they'd finish shipping one project out the door and immediately get transferred to another team's crunch to get their product shipped on time. Either way, the, ah, "spiritual" growth of the industry has been kinda stunted lately.
    • by TBBle (72184)

      As opposed to all the other things you don't like in your terms of employment? Frankly, I'm happier with the idea of Epic saying up front "we expect you to work 60 hour weeks" than of ending up somewhere which has a 37.5-hour week on the contract, but then gives you negative performance reviews and references if you fail to be at the office before your boss every Saturday.

      Not to say I'd necessarily take a job at Epic. I don't think they're bad for doing it, I just think they're wrong [igda.org].

    • But hearing a company's CEO say he won't hire people who aren't constantly willing to put in hours beyond the workweek is definitely disheartening.

      In a field that is almost entirely non-unionized, particularly in a recession with high and still rising unemployment, employers treat employees badly because employees have, generally, few protections and little recourse.

      This should not be surprising.

      The job of executives is to make money for their shareholders. The general interest of executives, beyond their j

  • by Dutch Gun (899105) on Friday April 10, 2009 @02:55AM (#27528657)

    In game development, crunches are absolutely inevitable, as are nearly all large-scale project-based projects. There are even some companies that thrive on insane hours as a regular matter of course. I know of at least one company in which everyone regularly puts in 12 to 16 hours a day as a matter of course. They make no apologies for this, and if people go into this voluntarily, more power to them.

    Unfortunately, it's all too tempting for some companies to simply use the "inevitable crunch time" as a way to exploit young and naive workers who are often all too willing to give up their lives - especially early on, with no family to think of - for the sake of a fun career - let's face it... we make games for a living, and it's a fun and challenging job (most of the time). Most people I've met in the game biz understand they could probably make quite a bit more money working outside the industry. And, for the most part, we do it becomes we love games, and want to be part of that process.

    There's a significant difference between a normal "crunch" (which may not even include significantly extended hours - simply an acceleration of development intensity), and a "death march". I've seen extended crunches that have been brutal enough to cause the virtual disintegration of an entire team when a project was finished. Is any one game worth losing experienced employees over? Many companies used to believe that they could afford high turnovers and low morale caused by these crunches. I've watched many of these companies go out of business over the years as well. Obviously, I can't establish firm causation here, but it makes sense to me that the best developers will tend to migrate to where they're treated well, and a game company that can't retain talent will eventually collapse under their own mediocrity.

    Let's face it - it's not as though you can plan every detail of a game from start to finish. Plans will change - you have to remain flexible enough to ensure your game captures that elusive "fun" aspect. But then again, it's not exactly some magical mystery either. Good planning and scheduling can alleviate most crunch-time woes. If you end up in a severe crunch, and your team has been working hard and competently, then it's a failure of management - either by not scheduling enough time or for not cutting unneeded features or project scope aggressively enough. There's really no other way to look at it.

    • by Skreems (598317) on Friday April 10, 2009 @03:06AM (#27528685) Homepage

      And, for the most part, we do it becomes we love games, and want to be part of that process.

      Yep, and that lasts a couple of years until you realize that making games isn't anything like playing them, and that working behind the scenes on a product you used to enjoy has killed your enjoyment of them (not that you have time to play games anymore anyway). Seriously, the whole "games are so much more challenging/fun" thing is nonsense made up by people who want to justify being taken advantage of. Data is data, and moving it around efficiently is an interesting puzzle to solve whether it's polygons or account information.

      Obviously there are some situations where that doesn't apply. If you work in a small shop where you get a voice in the story and gameplay as well, then there's some truth to it. But the large studios have entire teams for that, while the coders get to do the same thing they'd be doing at any other job, only for less pay and with a couple more anime action figures on their desk while they do it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TBBle (72184)

        And, for the most part, we do it becomes we love games, and want to be part of that process.

        Yep, and that lasts a couple of years until you realize that making games isn't anything like playing them, and that working behind the scenes on a product you used to enjoy has killed your enjoyment of them.

        Which usually indicates that you've confused "love games and want to be part of the process" with "love playing games and want to be able to play games for a living". They're not mutually inconsistent, but my criteria for enjoying a game has gone up drastically since I started working in the industry.

        This is not a bad thing.

        And sure, I could be making more money programming in a business environment, or administering systems (and have done exactly that) but then I wouldn't be a video games programmer. I wou

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cliffski (65094)

        If you are an indie, the actuality is closer to the dream.
        A few days ago my job was to listen to sci-fi movie soundtracks and pick the bits I liked best, then give that list to a musician to compose some music. The rest of the day was spent watching Revenge of the sith on one monitor as source material to put together better laser beam effects on the other one.

        Not all days are that cool, but it does happen :D Especially when you choose to do a game that's exactly like the kind you want to play (which is alw

      • by greggman (102198)

        No Data isn't Data.

        It's not about solving the problem of moving the data around. It's about making it fun and/or pretty. That's where the crunch comes from, not from the "moving data around is an interesting puzzle" but the "is it fun yet, why isn't it fun yet, what should we try next" and the "there's 28 more levels to make now that we found out how to make them fun but only have 3 months until our deadline"

        Don't forget, a large game team is 50% artists, 25% designers, 25% engineers.

      • by Dutch Gun (899105)

        Yep, and that lasts a couple of years until you realize that making games isn't anything like playing them, and that working behind the scenes on a product you used to enjoy has killed your enjoyment of them (not that you have time to play games anymore anyway). Seriously, the whole "games are so much more challenging/fun" thing is nonsense made up by people who want to justify being taken advantage of.

        I never had any illusions that programming games wasn't vastly different than playing them - I was doing this as a hobby long before I was doing it professionally. They're both challenging and fun in very different ways. I've also never been taken advantage of. I left companies that didn't treat me well, and found ones that did. But all the experience I've gained has been valuable both to me and to other prospective employers. I've been working in the game industry for over a decade now, and am enjoyin

      • by Sparton (1358159)

        Well done for thinking as if programmers are the only people that make video games, while completely ignoring the creative input of designers, artists, and musicians.

    • by cliffski (65094) on Friday April 10, 2009 @04:53AM (#27529065) Homepage

      Crunch does not work. It just adds bugs at 2am that take 2 days to find.
      I love games too, which is why I left mainstream dev and started up on my own. I work hard, and put a lot of effort in, but I don't 'crunch' any more, because I understand that coding at 2am is a disaster.
      Its tragic than mainstream development has not realised this.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As a developer with over a decade of experience in several studios ranging from a small startup to one of largest developers out there, I can tell you crunch is avoidable. In fact the best project I've worked on was completely devoid of any significant overtime whatsoever (the only overtime was due to some misinterpreted TCRs during finaling). It was quite an eyeopener coming from a 7 days a week, 16 hours minimum a day studio.

      The biggest difference between no overtime and no life, was a highly experien

      • by TBBle (72184)

        In fact the best project I've worked on was completely devoid of any significant overtime whatsoever (the only overtime was due to some misinterpreted TCRs during finaling).

        So no crunch time, except that one bit of crunch time?

        I do admit that one is pretty damn close to zero compared to some of the horror stories that float around the games industry the same way that coffee-cup holder incidents float around support desks.

        As another poster or two have already noted, I think people's idea of crunch (and the companion term, "death march") varies quite wildly.

        My own feeling currently is that if you don't crunch on a project, you get left with a sort of feeling that you could have

    • I'd say that there is a broad range of what can be considered "crunch time", and we need to define our terms.

      Honestly, as a developer, part of me loves a week's worth of crunch time. Just going in until its done, and being that focused. Some people focus a lot better with that kind of a deadline.

      But it has to limited (you have to know when it's over, and it can't last too long. I'd say more than 2-3 weeks is too long), it has to be reasonable (crunching to add a last feature before it goes to QA, or to squa

    • by internerdj (1319281) on Friday April 10, 2009 @09:39AM (#27530553)
      In game development, crunches are absolutely inevitable, as are nearly all large-scale project-based projects. There are even some companies that thrive on insane hours as a regular matter of course. I know of at least one company in which everyone regularly puts in 12 to 16 hours a day as a matter of course. They make no apologies for this, and if people go into this voluntarily, more power to them.
      I've come to the conclusion that such things are not inevitable it is a sign of terrible management. If the company is forcing 12 to 16 hours a day especially at every stage of the cycle, they have several issues.
      1) They don't care about quality. Quality is easy enough to burn without overworking your employees.
      2) They aren't really getting the work they think they are. I'm as productive on a 10 hour day as I am a 16-10 hour day. Work past about 10 hours straight ends up being exponentially harder.
      3) They have a hiring problem. If a company is forcing their employees to do 16 hour days they really are trying to do all the work with half the people they need.
      4) They lose productivity and money from turnover. It costs to lose an employee, it costs to train the new one. I know not everyone is like this but I'm willing to stay in a job with a lower pay rate if I enjoy it. Perpetual crunch-time is not conducive to enjoyment. So at least for some employees it will save money to keep them happy.
      • by Dutch Gun (899105)

        I really should have defined what I meant by "crunch time". I knew it was going to be controversial when I said they were inevitable. But insane death marches are NOT inevitable. I actually agree with you 100%, but I think I need to clarify what I meant a bit.

        By "crunch time", I simply mean an intensity of the development pace, not necessarily horrific hours and weekend work. It's the natural climax to a project, when everyone is excited about getting the game spit-polished and out the door. There have

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by internerdj (1319281)
          Ok, yeah. I agree with you there. Any project will have a ramp up of intensity as the final deadline appears. We have worked a few 20+ hour days at my current job to meet deadlines but those are very infrequent. My direct supervisor is a former special forces aviator: he has a special sensitivity about jobs taking you away from family time and takes extra care to make sure we are properly staffed and scheduled to meet deadlines without burning the midnight oil.

          I've got to say if a manager can't make
      • by tieTYT (989034)

        3) They have a hiring problem. If a company is forcing their employees to do 16 hour days they really are trying to do all the work with half the people they need.

        It doesn't work that way. I suggest you read the Mythical Man Month.

        That being said, I think they most likely do have a hiring problem. How the hell are you supposed to sharpen your saw [codinghorror.com] when you work 80 hour weeks?

        Is the quality of a game and the morale of the team worth sacrificing to deliver the product on its arbitrarily chosen completion date?

        • I have not read it but I am familiar with similar concepts. The problem that most managers have with throwing people at a due date is that they throw new people at an already behind project which is disaster. You can't throw new people on a team that is behind and get anywhere.
      • I think (2) is the critical point for programmers, although I don't know about artists, level designers, marketing etc.

        I'm a development manager at a software company, and we produce fairly technical (scientific) software, but I imagine programming in the gaming industry has some of the same constraints. Diminishing returns on the number of hours put in, and even extra hours becoming counter productive after a point, is an obvious reality for us.

        We still have "crunch time", but it means going from 7.5
  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Friday April 10, 2009 @04:27AM (#27528999)
    will tell you, "crunch time" is like last-minute cramming for exams: it is a terrible way to get things done. Error rates go up dramatically, morale goes down dramatically, it has latent health effects, and leads to shoddy product.

    The reason management likes it, is that they get to put all the burden on the lowly workers, and then blame them if the outcome is less than ideal. In fact, the workers were probably already blamed for making "crunch time" necessary in the first place. If you are an employee in such a place, this should send up a huge red flag that says: your company suffers from very bad management.
    • by l0rd (52169)

      Exactly!

      Which planet do these guys live on, that it's normal to work 16 hours/day without looking for better management alternatives?

      If you're going to work that much you may as well start your own company doing whatever it is you want to do. That way you get 100% say in how things are run & you 100% of the dinero.

      Really strange, these people don't seem to have any lives whatsoever outside work. Kinda sad when you think about it!

    • by JohnFluxx (413620)

      As opposed to non-human engineers?

      • Likely you already know this, but "Human Engineering" is a field of engineering, similar to Mechanical Engineering, that relates to making machines and products suitable for humans to use. So for example mechanical engineers might design a backhoe, but human engineers will likely be called in to design the operator's seat, and the controls, etc.
    • But, but, but the Unreal engine is perfect and bug-free and a work of genius, and doesn't look at all like it was written at 1 in the morning by someone half asleep...
    • "The reason management likes it, is that they get to put all the burden on the lowly workers, and then blame them if the outcome is less than ideal."

      I don't think that's really true. I think most management would want the project to succeed, and they're probably fairly desperate at that stage. They may have convinced themselves that crunch time is necessary, and anyone who doesn't put their whole life into the project is just not trying, but I doubt many of them like it. At least I hope not.

      For a give
      • Quote: "I don't think that's really true. I think most management would want the project to succeed, and they're probably fairly desperate at that stage. They may have convinced themselves that crunch time is necessary, and anyone who doesn't put their whole life into the project is just not trying, but I doubt many of them like it. At least I hope not."

        I think you have missed my point, which is: if things have reached this stage, then the project has already been mismanaged. Sincerity has nothing to do
  • Bravado (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10, 2009 @05:20AM (#27529183)

    The thing that strikes me about the quality of life issues in the game industry is that there is always a struggle against it by people in the industry. While half of the industry is says things like "we need time to see our families" the other side seems to be from the point of "if you really had a passion for this you wouldn't have a family."

    Mike Capps in this panel was a perfect example of this overwhelming bravado that causes so many good people to go outside of the industry for work. He stated pretty clearly that his employees have to prioritize work over family. He even went as far to say that one of the bonuses of having official crunch policies is that it allows his developers to have an excuse to give to their families as to why they never see each other. (Shortly after having divorce as an example of problems that can bring performance down. gee I wonder what happened at home)

    There is a very large percentage of people in the industry who have a problem with seeing overtime and crunch as something to be proud of. Really it is the game industry equivalent of out of shape men at the gym crowding around each other lifting way too much weight and giving themselves hernias.

    I know it is that way because I used to be one of them. I used to be proud of the fact that I was dedicated enough to work 80 hour weeks for months at a time, get swapped onto another team and start the 80 hr weeks again a few months later. Now that I am a little older, haven't been in the game industry for a while, and have a family I realize that it really is not worth it and how stupid I was for putting up with a work environment like that for so long. The fact that those environments still exist in such a large percentage, and even are encouraged to exist, is one of the big reasons why I haven't gone back to the industry.

    • "Really it is the game industry equivalent of out of shape men at the gym crowding around each other lifting way too much weight and giving themselves hernias."

      The sad part is that they're not like out of shape men - the ones pushed hardest are often some of the brightest and 'strongest' workers in an organisation. At crunch time who does a manager put the most pressure on? An employee that they know won't be able to get something done, or the star performer that can save the project if only they'd put m
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Programmers, analysts, and techs are not managers, and we are not doctors. We should be paid by the hour, without exception. This would force management to behave, because it would reveal to them the true cost of a project. Overtime pay is as high as it is because it accurately reflects the additional strain on your workforce.

    Write your congressman and senator - IT should not be exempt from FLSA!

  • Sounds like the typical business of proprietary software to me. Milk your developers for as much copyrightable stuff as possible and give them money in return. When someone is not passionate any more (i.e. has burned out) just take the hard decision and fire them. Once you have accumulated enough intellectual property, you can start using it to push less ruthless companies out of business.
  • It's noteworthy that not too long after this event, Mr. Della Rocca left the IGDA. I haven't had the time to watch the whole video yet since I'm on my way out the door to work, but a few days ago, Della Rocca put a large rant up on his website excoriating members of the IGDA for not wanting to get anything done. Summary at Kotaku: [kotaku.com]

    Sorry for not having the leadership skills to beat the barriers of participation inequality. Less than 1% of the IGDA membership are truly active in driving the org forward. Sor

  • What developers need is a union, like The Animation Guild. [animationguild.org] They represent people doing CGI effects for movies.

    Film productions have crunches, too. What keeps them under control are union contracts. [animationguild.org]

    • "All time worked in excess of 8 hours per day shall be paid at one and one half times the hourly rate."
    • "Time worked on the employee's sixth day of the workweek shall be paid at 1 1/2 times the hourly rate."
    • "Time worked on the employee's seventh day ... shall be paid at twice the hourly rate."
    • "All time wor
    • by Talgrath (1061686)

      This is probably the inevitable for the industry, it's just a question of when; eventually people will realize that while working on a game is a cool idea, putting up with all the bullshit that goes with making a game and getting paid LESS (yes, less) than their counterparts in boring business applications, people will get a union or the game industry will be forced to set more realistic goals.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.

Working...