IGDA Split Over "Crunch Time" Development 99
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."
Crunch Time ALL THE TIME Is Evil... (Score:3, Interesting)
Crunch time rush (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
From a developer's perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is this where we're headed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:From a developer's perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
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 wouldn't be (sometimes a bit indirectly) manufacturing fun, producing someone's creative vision, and generally contributing to that vast pool of noise that entertained me throughout my childhood.
Re:From a developer's perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
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 always a smart idea).
The main problem: Exempt IT (Score:1, Interesting)
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!
Re:From a developer's perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
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.