-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Want AAA Games? Embrace Crunch, Reject Unions!
- Thread starter Deleted member 8196
- Start date
half of the issue is studios try turning devs in to managers, and those are two very different skill sets. a large part of the issue is not a clear vision of what they want their gsme too be, just read jasson's reporting on anthem, and just bad project management from having people be managers who their skills dont line up.
Listen to what you are asking.
Just to take Zelda as an example, Nintendo already did shrink the scope of Zelda twice before with Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, gamers complained how there aren't enough dungeons and the games were "unfinished" Those complaints persist to this day regarding those games and they didn't sell as well as OOT and the crunch was likely just as bad.
We are living in a time when people want bigger and better games. Even if the vast majority of consumers never complete the games that still doesn't matter. They still demand bigger and better. This isn't likely to change for a long time.
It is never that simple as just shrinking the games down and increasing the dev time, especially now during HD-4K dev era for a anticipated release. Just by increasing the dev time is alone likely to lead to a worse outcome because just by keeping the lights on at a studio and paying everyone during a project by a extra year or two is going to balloon the cost significantly for a given project. So if a single game underperforms it is going to be a DISASTER for the studio. AAA games already take 3-5 years to make and adding one or two years on top is going to be bad no matter what.
Oh and of course you would still get the complaints from gamers that games take forever to come out and are smaller now than they were previously on top of all this. If you delay a game it needs to sell more to turn in a profit.
Regardless of his fucked up stances on a few other things, as an outsider looking in it seems like he makes a few good points. Its hard to unionize and apply pressure when your bosses can replace you and outsource for close to nothing or cheaper. I'm sure young kids would work for peanuts if they could have their name in the credits for the next COD or whatever have you.
Kill AAA then? Come on lol look at how the market eats that shit up it ain't going anywhere.
Kill AAA then? Come on lol look at how the market eats that shit up it ain't going anywhere.
Well yeah, this is true. I've had to crunch like crazy in certain jobs which have nothing to do with video games. But I was paid for all the overtime at least.
It's not true. My work tries the same anti union scare tactics and then spends thousands of dollars training us to act like were all replaceable. Like if every person in my department went on strike (around 200 people) it would cause trouble for the tens of thousands of people. The entire system would grind to a halt in a handful of weeks and our customer (who is very important) wouldnt be able to do anth work due to us not working.
Same thing would happen if gorilla games went on strike. Sure you "can" replace all of those employees but the cost of training a thousand people on how to use the decimal engine and get them producing satisfactory results would cause an incredible amount of fiscal strain on sony, not only for the bad pr and cost of training but the delay of the game itself would mess us there financials.
This is all in my (not so smart) opinion.
As a developer, I don't see crunch ever going away.
I'm not in the games business anymore, but even in software design outside of games, crunch is a thing. You'll have a fixed date that cannot be moved (sometimes government imposed in my current software development field) and to meet that date, long hours must be worked.
If or when unions become a thing for game developers, the crunch is going to still happen, it's just going to be moved overseas to nations without unions. You can already see so much outsourcing in games just watching the credits of many AAA games. I don't doubt publishers will seek to offload more development overseas while it keeps core teams in the US (if it even decides to do that).
I don't like crunch, but I knew it came with the job and I signed onto it by accepting the salary I make and the benefits package that came with it. There's certainly less of it in the medical software field than the games industry, but we still experience it whenever the department of health and human services makes new rules.
There's also something to be said for non-unionized game developers. Let's be honest, game developers are some of the most passionate people I know. Many of them put in hours and hours above and beyond compensation because they're just that passionate about a project. My guess is there are plenty of game developers coming out of school that have the drive I used to have, and just want to be working in the industry no matter how much the pay sucks and the hours are long and the company's name is EA.
I'm not in the games business anymore, but even in software design outside of games, crunch is a thing. You'll have a fixed date that cannot be moved (sometimes government imposed in my current software development field) and to meet that date, long hours must be worked.
If or when unions become a thing for game developers, the crunch is going to still happen, it's just going to be moved overseas to nations without unions. You can already see so much outsourcing in games just watching the credits of many AAA games. I don't doubt publishers will seek to offload more development overseas while it keeps core teams in the US (if it even decides to do that).
I don't like crunch, but I knew it came with the job and I signed onto it by accepting the salary I make and the benefits package that came with it. There's certainly less of it in the medical software field than the games industry, but we still experience it whenever the department of health and human services makes new rules.
There's also something to be said for non-unionized game developers. Let's be honest, game developers are some of the most passionate people I know. Many of them put in hours and hours above and beyond compensation because they're just that passionate about a project. My guess is there are plenty of game developers coming out of school that have the drive I used to have, and just want to be working in the industry no matter how much the pay sucks and the hours are long and the company's name is EA.
I expected this to go a different direction because of his experience with GOW2, but that makes sense. Reminded me about LIFE AFTER PI (Official) :(
And I'm ok with this too. Some of my best games aren't AAA, though I appreciate the God of Wars, and TLOU stuff. I have games I come back to over and over that are indie, and small, maybe even considered ugly graphically.
Being able to outsource digital project pieces really hurts demand for talent in the tech industry. Though sometimes trying to get cheap work on games end up screwing the project, like the Final Fantasy XIV situation. They rebounded with A Real Reborn though.
But Indies crunch too. AAA games can be made without crunch and I don't think we even need unions(I am still in favour of them) for that.
What has to change is the work culture of the entire studio managment included. DICE and Insomniac have apparently little to no crunch
and I wish, we would get more articles focussing on how these and maybe other studios achived that.
How do we kill AAA games, though? Look at the sales of some of Sony's AAA games this generation... They aren't going away. As long as there is demand and as long as the games keep selling the way that they do, devs will go through hell and back for the accolades and the rewards.
I love AAA games, and I'd gladly give them up if the people who made them could go home to their families instead of being away 4 months at a time - I just don't see it happening. How many of the people buying these games actually know what goes into making them? I'd argue not even 5 %, and it's fucking sad.
I don't have the solution, and I'd be happy if the game industry somehow unionizes, but how do we actually get there?
Edit: I don't want to sound like a defeatist, I am genuinely asking, how do we make it happen?
I love AAA games, and I'd gladly give them up if the people who made them could go home to their families instead of being away 4 months at a time - I just don't see it happening. How many of the people buying these games actually know what goes into making them? I'd argue not even 5 %, and it's fucking sad.
I don't have the solution, and I'd be happy if the game industry somehow unionizes, but how do we actually get there?
Edit: I don't want to sound like a defeatist, I am genuinely asking, how do we make it happen?
Games honestly just gotten too fucking big the last 10 years. There's so many RPG's and open world games available on PS4 that have 70,80,90,130,160,180 hours of content. More is not always better.
Even in ERA, despite this thread might makes you think otherwise, AAA still dominates discussions here.
There was a poll about AAA or indie a while back and AAA wins by landslide.
If that's the choice? I can live without AAA games.
But it's not the choice and there are examples that prove you can have both such as Nintendo and, if I'm remembering correctly, Insomniac.
But it's not the choice and there are examples that prove you can have both such as Nintendo and, if I'm remembering correctly, Insomniac.
For all the people who think developers should be unionized and that crunch shouldn't be a thing, if a publisher like Sony decided to go this route and started scaling back investment into things like AAA single-player third-person narrative games, I can't imagine a situation where a large portion of this forum doesn't change its tune really fucking quick.
So this, basically.
So this, basically.
All you need is better project management. There needs to be better training practices within studios to build better management skills for leads. It's absolutely doable to run a company without crunch, but most studios aren't willing to invest in the resources required to train and end up with team leads and managers that lack the proper skills to efficiently run their projects.
I can definitely live with less AAA's coming out in a year, or them taking longer.
Still want those devs employed, but they don't need to ruin their lives just to push out another sequel for arbitrary deadlines
Still want those devs employed, but they don't need to ruin their lives just to push out another sequel for arbitrary deadlines
From my experience, Swedish AAA studios crunch just as much as American ones.
I'd say indie devs have an even tougher time. But the reward is greater on the back of success (and risk greater on the back of failure).
You also need to convince the creative leads that they no longer have free reign to iterate and try stuff as much as they like, and how it's a good thing that their freedom is being limited.
The issue is much less black and white than non-devs make it seem. It's hard enough to design games that are fun to begin with, even without the restrictions that were necessary to eliminate crunch.
Swedish system is more generous with maternity leaves, health insurance and overall benefits that can make a difference
Doesn't affect crunch really. Unless you have a kid. And US AAA studios have very generous benefits usually.
Ha!
I'll tell my boss you said that and gauge his reaction. He pretty much considers himself a Steve Jobs type, so I'm sure this will go over well... 🤣
I realize this is a video game forum and so this is topical, but I don't feel like I see this same emphasis on workers' rights in other areas of my life and I wonder why that is.
I'm thinking about people like roofers, construction workers, and carpet installers who work long hours and suffer debilitating injuries later in life.
By all means I want game developers to have happy lives and good working conditions but I can't help but feel like they're getting a disproportionate amount of attention. It's not a zero sum game, but I hope we all consider other workers we encounter in our lives and not just game developers.
I'm thinking about people like roofers, construction workers, and carpet installers who work long hours and suffer debilitating injuries later in life.
By all means I want game developers to have happy lives and good working conditions but I can't help but feel like they're getting a disproportionate amount of attention. It's not a zero sum game, but I hope we all consider other workers we encounter in our lives and not just game developers.
It doesn't happen because of bad management. It happens because they know they can get away with it. Unions are absolutely necessary.
I think that's a common sentiment with a lot of older developers and I can understand. I think the way things are now, yeah, you can't have AAA without crunch. For that to work we need a lot of changes in the way we produce, market and consume things and I don't see that happening. What might happen is for the whole system to fall apart because it's unsustainable. Then maybe we'll see changes.
Unions are more complicated, the argument that once studios start to unionize, publishers will just start to seek developers in countries without unions is true, it will likely happen. Not everyone is replaceable though and it could go the same way as movies. Hollywood is all unionized and it's still creating local jobs. So, this is hard to predict, there are a lot of variables there.
Unions are more complicated, the argument that once studios start to unionize, publishers will just start to seek developers in countries without unions is true, it will likely happen. Not everyone is replaceable though and it could go the same way as movies. Hollywood is all unionized and it's still creating local jobs. So, this is hard to predict, there are a lot of variables there.
Everybody who has a smartphone has supported a product that is a result of horrible working conditions. So everyone on ERA. I suspect that the large amount of users here who are saying that we need to kill AAA games will turn around and buy the next Naughty Dog game or the next Smash game.
Unions won't change the fact that it's hard to make a new game, figure out the fun, iterate on the design, all the while building cutting-edge tech. It's not something that's easy to plan, it doesn't matter how trained or awesome the team leads or managers are. Completely gutting what the creative leadership can do to a game, just for the sake of protecting the schedule and planning, will result in games that aren't fun and will turn out unsuccessful. Or very predictable me-too games that don't innovate. Both cases have the potential to bankrupt a studio and then unions won't help either.
This. Game development is very complicated, it's a mix of software development with artistic creation but more more iterative than other artistic mediums like movies. You might have everything planned out and then, during development, find out that a core mechanic of your game don't work well and redesign a big part of it. Maybe you have to change the art style and redo a lot of assets. You may have problems with the technology, be asked by the publisher to move the project to another console you weren't considering or something like that. Bad management is the culprit in a lot of cases but not always.
This could be said for any product that has a long development cycle and involves design risks and cutting edge tech. In other industries unions put pressure on companies to factor in those issues and plan the budget accordingly. Crunch in a small indie studio might be an unfortunate side effect, but in a big AAA studio it's a form of systemic exploitation planned for and taken for granted at the very start of a project.
Then let AAA gaming die.
If the AAA industry can only exist due to awful working conditions then it means is not sustainable and should die.
If the AAA industry can only exist due to awful working conditions then it means is not sustainable and should die.
I'm really curious to read Keighly's Final Hours on HLA. If that game was actually made by 50 people with little to no crunch, that's nuts.
How would you factor in this risk into the budget of a game? If you want to eliminate crunch, the risk has to be "budgeted" by potentially having extremely long dev cycles. Even with crunch, major AAA cycles are pushing 4-5 years. If you want 6-7 year cycles, not only will the cost be unsustainable, but you also run the very real risk that the game is so aged by the time it comes out that it looks/plays like yesterday's news, or other, faster devs will steal your lunch by finishing a competing game earlier.
And I don't think that there are many other products with comparable complexity as a major AAA game, if any.
Lol at people saying they don't need AAA games.
The most anticipated game for this year is Cyberpunk, their studio is the current face of game development crunch.
The most anticipated game for this year is Cyberpunk, their studio is the current face of game development crunch.
OP made me click on a Jaffe video. I feel so violated.
The allure of the grift is too strong.
Unions are there to protect workers from bad working conditions, not to make games easier to make. The whole point of unions is so devs have a way to fight back for their rights. Even things like credits in the game can beneficiate from unionizing