I feel the guy, a lot of the problems he mentions stem from 4 things:
1. Production really doesn't like giving buffers (that are a NECESSITY because literally a feature is NEVER done in the amount of time the original estimation is done in) since they usually have to make sure that the whole scope fits into the limited timeframe that the project is given. What I always taught people in my team is to always double their estimations, but never actually say they're doubled. I.e. if you think it will take X to handle a feature, say 2X, and then if the feature is important it will also get some 0.5X buffer. What often happens is that people give their original estimations, the feature is not done in that timeframe (of course) because of all the problems that popped up during development. And the reason why it's important to hide the fact that your estimation is doubled is because a lot of producers and production managers when learn that fact try to push the feature to be handled in the 1X time instead of the 2X time.
2. I will be honest, I have seen only a couple of Creative Directors who are ACTUALLY good at their job. Most of them are just good at talking (which is how they got their job in the first place, I suppose), but are actually too chaotic and don't really hold any sort of vision that would help to direct the little amount of iterations an AAA production usually has. It's not uncommon for a project to be in a "creative searching" during the first half of its production and then hastily trying to actually do and finish and connect everything together in the second half. I had friends at CDPR who were VERY disappointed by the process games like Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk that they worked on had. Which is - the game is an ethereal mess with no direction and a lot of vague ambition and ideas that don't have a plan to how get implemented/polished, it stays in that state for a very long time, and then oh shit it's time to crunch and finish the project and actually make decisions (which also leads to a lot of features that were worked on being cut because there was no understanding how to fit them into the bigger picture in the first place).
3. A lot of projects that are completed in such way actually get high metacritic scores and good sales, validating their approach. Companies like to say 'oh we will change our work/life balance to the better, we will work on our processes, etc', but 95% of the time unless the game becomes a critical and sales failure, things don't actually change.
4. I have 10 years in the industry, and there's actually a VERY small amount of developers with that mileage. Due to an INCREDIBLY high churn, there's a disproportionate amount of people with less than 5 years of experience, alongside a considerable number of people who stubbornly survived and got past 20+ years and stay. But in comparison to those two groups, there's a VERY little amount of people with this middle range of 5-20 years. The reason this matters is because people leave, new people come in, and they don't have enough people who would teach them this kind of stuff, so in the end people are making the same mistakes over and over again, leave game dev, new people come in, the cycle continues.
