With how expensive marketing is... can “crunch” time really be avoided as a release date draws in? Help me understand

[LordofPwn]

you could wait to market a game until it's done. you can market a game without a release date and then when the game is done and a release date is scheduled you can then update the marketing. You can't fully avoid crunch if there are deadlines because sometimes shit breaks not just the game but the software and tools used to help create said game.

 

[Pirateluigi]

Proper planning and mitigation strategies will of course prevent a lot of crunch. It's more of a factor of the management at these companies not wanting to do that. Culture is a major factor and unpaid overtime and 80 hour weeks aren't just seen as normal, they are at times glorified. Until the culture changes, crunch will always be an issue.

 

[Calamari41]

If you are properly managing your project, problems that would cause delays are visible well before you would need to enter emergency pre-release crunch time. Obviously there could be some kind of disaster at the last minute that throws everything in disarray, but as someone said before, the fact that this seems to be the norm at almost every developer indicates that the problem is more systemic than "oh boy everyone, our server got fried and we lost a month of work. Say goodbye to your families for the next X amount of weeks."

I don't know the inside story of Wind Waker, but I'm confident in guessing that they didn't realize a month before that they weren't going to make their hopeful release date. They realized it early, and changed the scope of the project (took out some dungeons) in order to get the product out the door as soon as they could. That's not to say that the game didn't see any crunch, but it saw a heck of a lot less than if they had shipped the game at the same time with three more dungeons in it.

The long and short of it is that if you are heading up projects and you find yourself always requiring your team to work 80+ hour weeks at the tail end in order to get the product out the door, you are either having completely unrealistic completion dates forced on your from above, or you are a bad project manager.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

I've never seen a software development project going without some sort of crunch at some point, for a few couple days or for some weeks. Quake was finished on a 'death march' going on in id Software, so it is nothing new either.

Managing this stuff is very difficult, so, sadly crunch is more or less a fact of life. That being said, prolonged crunch going for months or years is beyond fucked up, and we as consumers shouldnt be rewarding companies that engage in these kind of exploitative practices.

 

[NinjaScooter]

you could wait to market a game until it's done. you can market a game without a release date and then when the game is done and a release date is scheduled you can then update the marketing. You can't fully avoid crunch if there are deadlines because sometimes shit breaks not just the game but the software and tools used to help create said game.

Click to shrink...

Just because there isn't a public release date doesn't mean there aren't internal milestones and schedules (including release dates) developers are driving to. That's not how this works. You can't budget for a game "until it's done".

 

[kaf]

The thing I'll never understand is marketing material 2~3 years before the game is on heavy production.

Sometimes I feel like the project is barely on paper but, there are teasers, trailers, pre orders, DLCs, Bonuses, Collectors Editions, and people on forums buzzing around, and "OMG Where is gaem?".

If I was a dev on a situation like that I would go mental.

Click to shrink...

While I'm not sure about 2-3 years behind (I don't think this is typically the case anymore, at least not if the schedule hasn't hit any major snags) - it's the concept of a market cycle. You start slow, and escalate to a high peak. This is essentially where the most number of people who would know about the game and have interest in buying that game. Based on numbers, if you miss that deadline - you're losing a good number of potential customers. Sometimes, you see the release date is 'moved up', and this is usually the result of better than expected mind share.

 

[BAD]

Legislate with high fines or jail for management so they don't consider it "a cost of doing business".
But it's basically the only way to make companies behave in situations like this.

Click to shrink...

I kind of think this may be truly necessary. People shouldn't be doing long term overtime just because they are afraid to say no and lose their jobs.

 

[LordofPwn]

Just because there isn't a public release date doesn't mean there aren't internal milestones and schedules (including release dates) developers are driving to. That's not how this works. You can't budget for a game "until it's done".

Click to shrink...

you must have missed the last part of my post. if there's deadlines crunch can't be completely avoided. I wasn't stating this is how you should do it. I work in post, I'm very aware time is money. even if you plan for the worst case scenario something unforeseen could still pop up.

 

[machinaea]

Proper planning and mitigation strategies will of course prevent a lot of crunch. It's more of a factor of the management at these companies not wanting to do that. Culture is a major factor and unpaid overtime and 80 hour weeks aren't just seen as normal, they are at times glorified. Until the culture changes, crunch will always be an issue.

Click to shrink...

That part about "not wanting to do that" is absolutely not true, at least for any recent, active game company nor in any company I have ever worked at, in fact the pressure put on project and production management is immense and expectations on the quality and accuracy of it is nigh-impossible (mostly with the expecation coming from a set budget and deadline for something that requires immense effort, time and resources to plan anything to any reasonable degree of confidence).

The reality is "planning" a game production is an extremely difficult task where you face literally thousands of unknowns in which in the only way to know for certain is to proceed and learn from i. But sharing years of worth of experiences on what it means is a bit difficult of a task, so I'll just leave with a comment of saying that the "lack of planning" or "poor planning" isn't really a reasonable simplification nor the reality in many studios, despite the games industry has a whole still have a lot of work to learn and improve it's production management practices (which it has, and there are great leaders and studios that are able to manage their work better and better with each passing development cycle).

 

[IronicSonic]

I agree a better project management seems to mitigate a lot of issues but I do think investors can push to add or change things that could alter a lot the original planning.

Also, you always can delay marketing push and announce titles when they are ready (beta or similar)

 

[-girgosz-]

I'm gonna go with lowering your marketing budget. The way how AAA games industry heavily rely on marketing is daunting.


Shit happens, it's not that easy.

Click to shrink...

Great. More "DOA, sending this game to die, I didn't even know this was out, should have actually marketed the game" comments coming if this happens. Oh and more medium-budget flops.

 

[Lemstar]

you remember yesterday when someone suggested that Blood, Sweat, and Pixels should be recommended reading for people posting in these threads

yeah

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Put it in your budget to have six months of time to just polish the game after going gold.

It's not cost-effective to crush your employees with constant crunch.

Game studios should basically be run like socialist ones.

 

[808s & Villainy]

The existence of crunch comes from poor project management somewhere in the chain.

Time, people, quality/scope

Something has to give somewhere. If you are unsure of the time, for example, don't commit to it. Publishers are unlikely to bite on that however, but crunch is not an absolute regardless of release date planning.

Click to shrink...

This seems like a naive at best, ignorant at worst, take on crunch. Significant crunch can be attributed to poor management, but there is no magical way to predict how long a project will take when it's years out. Add to the fact that if the release date has to be fixed, even foreseeing problems early on and adjusting the scope won't fully alleviate those issues. Some amount of crunch (I'm not talking months, more on the order of days or weeks at most) is somewhat standard when developing big software projects. It's not always because managers are shitty, it's just a result of the complexity and unforeseen problems that can arise

 

[SweetVermouth]

"We have 18 months left to finish this game but we already know we'll have to do crunch time before the game comes out"
"If you already know over 1 year in advance why not delay the game?"
"No"

 

[catboy]

This seems like a naive at best, ignorant at worst, take on crunch. Significant crunch can be attributed to poor management, but there is no magical way to predict how long a project will take when it's years out. Add to the fact that if the release date has to be fixed, even foreseeing problems early on and adjusting the scope won't fully alleviate those issues. Some amount of crunch (I'm not talking months, more on the order of days or weeks at most) is somewhat standard when developing big software projects. It's not always because managers are shitty, it's just a result of the complexity and unforeseen problems that can arise

Click to shrink...

Also, for the people saying "crunch is inevitable!!!!", "crunch" is not referring to having to work late a few weeks before the release date or E3 demo - it's about extended (as in months) of consecutive overtime. And that doesn't happen with "unforeseen tasks and workload", that comes from poor project management.

Click to shrink...

Extended periods of crunch is absolutely a management failure

 

[methodiczero]

Crunch, in most cases, is all about poor project planning and mismanagement. Of course, there are hiccups that will pup up during the dev process that will need the team to re calibrate and maybe have to work a late night or 2, but the aspect of CRUNCH is all on the production and management side. I have managed plenty of projects that have gone all the way though dev without having a crunch. we did have a few late nights and some Ot that was done, but it was never "Okay...... this is officially "crunch time"..... everyone be prepared.

 

[808s & Villainy]

Extended periods of crunch is absolutely a management failure

Click to shrink...

That was literally one of the first things I stated. And unlike what o k stated, "crunch" can be anything from days/weeks to months. Reserving it for only the most ridiculous of lengths is changing the meaning for no reason

 

[Pirateluigi]

That part about "not wanting to do that" is absolutely not true, at least for any recent, active game company nor in any company I have ever worked at, in fact the pressure put on project and production management is immense and expectations on the quality and accuracy of it is nigh-impossible (mostly with the expecation coming from a set budget and deadline for something that requires immense effort, time and resources to plan anything to any reasonable degree of confidence).

The reality is "planning" a game production is an extremely difficult task where you face literally thousands of unknowns in which in the only way to know for certain is to proceed and learn from i. But sharing years of worth of experiences on what it means is a bit difficult of a task, so I'll just leave with a comment of saying that the "lack of planning" or "poor planning" isn't really a reasonable simplification nor the reality in many studios, despite the games industry has a whole still have a lot of work to learn and improve it's production management practices (which it has, and there are great leaders and studios that are able to manage their work better and better with each passing development cycle).

Click to shrink...

You may have misunderstood my point... it's that management is putting themselves into these situations by pushing unreasonable deadlines and promoting a culture of crunch. I've been in project management for a long time and the things you see in the games industry are nigh on unheard of elsewhere. And it's not because games are inherently more complex than other projects, it comes down to fundamental failing from management.

Edited to add: Good PM skills wont prevent the need for crunch on every single project, but if it's a common occurrence, which we know it is for some developers, that is a problem.

 

[Sloane Ranger]

Sometimes a project, even a well planned one, will need some unforseen extra time before the deadline.

The issue is perpetual crunch that lasts months. That's preventable. It's not like marketing needs to commit to hard date from the start.

Click to shrink...

Actually, there are many marketing elements which have to be locked in, and can not be cancelled without losing a lot of money. There is always a balance that has to occur between expected launch date and when you "go to market" with planning, negotiating, and buying specific marketing elements ... from special units in TV to in person events. The key is tight, honest and fair communication between product and marketing ... its not a one side is completely fungible situation ;)

 

[Jannyish]

It's actually pretty easy... Don't tell anyone about a release date until your game is 95% done and you can be almost 100% certain you will hit the release date.

Do not, I don't know, announce a highly anticipated game like eg FF7 Remake in 2015, drop two trailers in total and then don't show it again for 3 years and still counting because you clearly announced it too early. Those dollars that went into those trailers are wasted already cause by now everyone is just like "yeah I guess it will happen... In 2035". The generated hype turned into scorn for SE's inability to not tease big releases way too early.

That said if you plan announce a game only when it is almost done, chances are if things go smoothly, developers will finish early. But you need a certain amount of time for marketing (except for shadow drops, but imo that only works with free to play games), so that means you will have to wait a few more months until the game actually generates any revenue. Which means you'll have to have the financial means to do that.

Also I understand why only very few companies work that way. I work in marketing and usually higher ups want things out asap, which means there will be a higher mistake rate, but they usually don't get it because they don't even know what their employees, in this case developers are doing or that a marketing campaign isn't completed overnight... They only see the results, and even as a marketing consultant if you express concerns about a deadline they propose, it's not unlikely to get a reply like "I don't care how you make it work, I only care about the end result."

So really, the solution is easy. Getting there, not so much.

 

[Oneself]

It's a bit of a puzzle really, it could definitely be planned differently, maybe by looking at how the music industry works. Most of the time, an album is complete months before release. They don't start the huge marketing machines before that.

 

[ASaiyan]

Uh I think the whole existence of crunch comes from unforeseen tasks and workload

Click to shrink...

I think the number one problem with today's industry (finance, workload, monetization schemes, etc.) is that modern video games have simply gotten too big – be it in scope, scale, technology, or, most commonly, all of the above at the same time. And, as "backwards" as it may sound, I think the only sustainable solution is to cutback.

You can make your huge open-world game, but it doesn't have to look absurdly pretty at the same time (see: Bethesda). Or, you can make a cutting-edge, motion-captured narrative that is only 6 hours long and goes through a bunch of linear corridors. Cut bloated budgets, cut inhuman work-hours, and cut out the massive stock plunges when your billion-dollar project doesn't move the eleventy-billion copies you need to sell just to make a reasonable return.

You can still make exceptional games with "less", as all the twenty-five year old classics show us; and consumers will indeed accept "less" if you just give them a good reason to ('member Undertale?). The video game industry just needs to stop promising the moon.

 

[Deleted member 7450]

While I'm not sure about 2-3 years behind (I don't think this is typically the case anymore, at least not if the schedule hasn't hit any major snags) - it's the concept of a market cycle. You start slow, and escalate to a high peak. This is essentially where the most number of people who would know about the game and have interest in buying that game. Based on numbers, if you miss that deadline - you're losing a good number of potential customers. Sometimes, you see the release date is 'moved up', and this is usually the result of better than expected mind share.

Click to shrink...

See, that I can sort of understand, but the business part is what gets me, how is that sustainable?

It is really needed that amount of marketing beforehand? Like, how the money flows on that model?

 

[hibikase]

Uh I think the whole existence of crunch comes from unforeseen tasks and workload

Click to shrink...

It does, but when you're in crunch mode half of the time there is a fundamental management problem in there.

 

[Nome]

On the subject of marketing, the landscape is changing quite a bit.
Traditional marketing (TV, print, billboards, etc.) is still the same mess, but digital is quite different.
For GaaS especially, marketing is about user acquisition, which is an ongoing process, and tends to go through different channels. It also means that you're not necessarily looking to blow your budget on a big launch day, but it's a continual spend.

 

[Alandring]

And never announce/market the launch date before you are positive you will hit it.
Games doesn't really need two years of marketing before they drop.

Click to shrink...

Definitely and I will add: don't announce a game before it's nearly finished (6-9 months).

I'm gonna go with lowering your marketing budget. The way how AAA games industry heavily rely on marketing is daunting.

Click to shrink...

ResetEra: this game bombed because it hadn't enough marketing.
Also ResetEra: lower the marketing budget.

 

[kaf]

It is really needed that amount of marketing beforehand? Like, how the money flows on that model?

Click to shrink...

It depends on the type of game - for a big blockbuster like say God of War? There's a sweet point where the returns that you get more than cover the amount invested + development budget. It's all about getting attention - I'm sure there were instances here where you see people go 'Oh, I didn't even realize this came out!' - and that's what they're hoping to avoid.

It's also a reason why you tend to see more sequels or established franchises versus new IP for bigger games. The publisher has already spent x amount of money getting attention for the first, or previous games - so you're now spending less to get the attention of people already aware + new players.

The landscape is different when you look at mobile and f2p - where you tend to see maybe 2 weeks ahead of launch and a flood of ads. But with those games, you're not trying to convince people to spend 60$ on a game, you're just trying to get them to play a free game and stick around enough that they may spend a bit of money. So in those cases, it's about retention - so you're likely to see ads here and there, but it's not going to be a huge marketing campaign like a traditional console game.

 

[TyrantGuardian]

What y'all are calling "bad management" is actually perfect management. You drive your workers into crunch, you barely compensate them for it and you avoid making further hires in order to keep profit margins ever growing. There is nothing accidental about this, it is working exactly as intended. This is why workers need to unionize and laws need to be reformed.

 

[MatrixMan.exe]

Plan your projects better?

Click to shrink...

It's not that simple. Things will always creep up on developers even if they have planned well. Development is just like that.

You can mitigate crunch as much as possible but on a large scale AAA project it's almost an inevitability. Just gotta make sure to treat staff well with food, time in lieu/extra pay/bonuses and generally pleasant working conditions.

 

[1000% H]

Uh I think the whole existence of crunch comes from unforeseen tasks and workload

Click to shrink...

Yeah, but it happens all the time so it's not unforeseen anymore. You might not know exactly what it'll be, but it's a safe bet that something will happen.

 

[Violet]

"Crunch" is basically inevitable. A modern AAA videogame is going to have some sort of accelerated dev period where shit has to get done fast.

What's not inevitable is extended fuck you and your family and the clique you claim crunch where John Q Activision puts your family in a Saw-style trap that will only unlock if you manage to patch in advanced FOV options before the end of the week. That is flatly a result of poor management, and probably a lack of empathy too.

 

[GarrettInk]

Plan your projects better?

Click to shrink...

Damn, you just solved all project management issues in one go!

 

[AppleKid]

Plan your projects better?

Click to shrink...

First post nails it.

If you are designing your master schedule at the start of development and then failing to revisit it and adjust frequently as the game progresses then that's on you. Obviously some situations can happen that you cannot plan for without padding and crunch may be deemed the best alternative to meet the original deadline, but you are just asking if it is possible not to compromise marketing costs without resorting to crunch. The answer is "Yes, it is possible"

My "armchair expert" alter-ego feels the best marketing strategy would be to sprinkle little bits of promotion throughout development and then save your big push for when you know with certainty the game can go gold without delay or crunch. But, I have no experience in game development so my opinion is meaningless (shrug)

 

[Leo-Tyrant]

Every industry has unforeseen tasks and workload and delays. It happens at my company too, which is bigger than almost any video game company, but we don't force people to do 80 hour weeks as our launch dates loom closer.

I wonder how many game developers and managers have training in project management. Honest question. I would love to be a fly on the wall of their cross-functional meetings with marketing.

Click to shrink...

I have wondered about this for years. Yes, AAA games are very complicated, multi-cultural, multi-team projects, but so are most of other big projects in other industries.

Industries where crunch or delays are not enforced/tolerated.

I have seen post mortem samples of AAA, AA and Indie games where it was really just bad project management, with obvious gaps in one or more of the triple restriction areas. I'm personally friend of some very skilled Indie devs that excel in Creative Design, Game Design, Programming, Audio Design, etc, but have encountered fundamental management setbacks with corresponding high impact to their scope and delivery dates (and cost-expected revenue, plus having no life for months).

I work in a similar industry and project management and best practices are fundamental to deliver the required quality, on time, with a very motivated (no OT, other bennefits) team. Just as skilled programmers, creatives, UX and other resources are mandatory/expected, a very strong PM layer should be fundamental.

 

[Deleted member 7450]

(...)

Click to shrink...

Oh, I feel like that is sort of common knowledge, I should've edited/added a perspective to my previous question 😅

From a development standpoint, I mean, like, uh... isn't there, or doesn't that create, a pressure to meet the "demands of the marketing"?

Shouldn't the money be put in "buying time for development" instead of potential sales/attention?
To potentially avoid the "Marketing says we need this yesterday! Crunch time!"

 

[eathdemon]

crunch is a failure by management. yes there are a ton of unknowns, and game dev is hard, but building in buffers can help. like if thing x is estaated to be 3 weeks of work, add a 4th just in case. if they finish in 3 move to next thing, if it takes the 4th week oh well you not behind b/c of the buffer you built in. at this point planners should assume something is going to go wrong, or manny somethings, and build that buffer in.

 

[kaf]

From a development standpoint, I mean, like, uh... isn't there, or doesn't that create, a pressure to meet the "demands of the marketing"?

Shouldn't the money be put in "buying time for development" instead of potential sales/attention?
To potentially avoid the "Marketing says we need this yesterday! Crunch time!"

Click to shrink...

There's typically forecasting to help prevent this - i.e we should be at this stage of development when marketing starts. But when marketing starts, it's hard to just stop it - so you gotta make sure you hit those deadlines. Or there can be adjustments to the message marketing sends - but by and large they are typically two separate pools of money, so it's not usually a case of siphoning money from one department to help another when there are projects that could also benefit from that money.

 

[Myself]

Uh I think the whole existence of crunch comes from unforeseen tasks and workload

Click to shrink...

No no no. It comes from unforeseen things that the management then say MUST be in and done without moving the date.

Experienced developers are good at estimating and understanding risk and then communicating that to their management teams. They are good at adjusting as they go along and communicating that to management. This gives management the opportunity to adjust the plan and feature set as things go. The issue then comes when the management says "OK, some nasty thing has reared its head, so you just need to work at nights and weekends to get that and your original work done." As opposed to "OK, let's adjust the plan, based on priorities".

It's even more insane these days with patches where dropped features could be added soon after. It's unlikely that every feature initially planned for a project is priority 1. If it is, then someone has made some bad decisions and/or not staffed correctly.

IMO and experience, crunch times are almost always caused by bad and inflexible planning and management.

 

[dodo]

You legislate against it. That's the only way it makes sense for these big companies to give a fuck.

Click to shrink...

This exactly. The solution is not going to come from playing ball within current corporate structure. We didn't get weekends by asking nicely and "planning better"

 

[Myself]

I've never seen a software development project going without some sort of crunch at some point, for a few couple days or for some weeks. Quake was finished on a 'death march' going on in id Software, so it is nothing new either.

Managing this stuff is very difficult, so, sadly crunch is more or less a fact of life. That being said, prolonged crunch going for months or years is beyond fucked up, and we as consumers shouldnt be rewarding companies that engage in these kind of exploitative practices.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure a day or two of overtime would be considered crunch, although I would still ask the question, "why was this tightness in times not found earlier" - and I bet the answer lies in a failure for someone not to communicate a problem they are having. Doing a final build and someone then discovering a last minute game killing bug is completely different to someone saying last minute that the rendering optimisation has taken them a month longer than they estimated. The former can't be helped (as much) but the latter is a failure of the developer to communicate and the management to track.

 

[weepninnybong]

I went to a GDC talk years ago as I was just getting into production and it was titled "how to avoid crunch" or something like that. I thought "great, this will be excellent information for me". For background, I was working as an external producer for a medium sized publisher. The talk was being given by the owner of the studio that used to do those Buzz quiz games on the PS2. Long story short, the advice that I could remember was:

- Buffer 2 weeks into all milestone deliveries.
- Ban use of the internet for employees to ensure productivity.
- Enforce a culture of working a solid 8 straight hours (with scheduled breaks) and they will never have to work more than that.

There were a few more after that as well that I can't remember. At least for my role, they were completely impractical and all involved having my own studio.

 

[Deleted member 7450]

There's typically forecasting to help prevent this - i.e we should be at this stage of development when marketing starts. But when marketing starts, it's hard to just stop it - so you gotta make sure you hit those deadlines. Or there can be adjustments to the message marketing sends - but by and large they are typically two separate pools of money, so it's not usually a case of siphoning money from one department to help another when there are projects that could also benefit from that money.

Click to shrink...

But like, for example, games announced on a big show like E3.

Often you see project yeaaars away from launch, but already media buzz, attention and sometimes, money already flowing, pre orders and all that.

Also often, development troubles, missed deadlines, features likely to not be available at launch, etc. And yet, trailers, teasers, articles, previews, general buzz, as if things are going smoothly when in reality, it might not be, it might explode on everyone's faces at the end.

That is when my noodles hurt, doing that is expensive right? Even without money being siphoned (which I didn't think it was 😅), wouldn't it inevitably make the development "harder"? As in huge budgets but overworked people?

 

[weepninnybong]

Tell the studio heads to stop listening to marketing and point to Apex :p

But seriously. Another way is to set the launch date to half a year after you "expect to finish" it and use that for polish etc..

Click to shrink...

That is such a short sighted solution. Sure, if every project was over estimated by 25% on costs and time, then sure, you might alleviate crunch, but you'll bankrupt yourself paying for all that overhead on polish etc. Plus that "extra" polish time will just become the new definition of beta and we'll just be back where we started.

 

[kaf]

But like, for example, games announced on a big show like E3.

Often you see project yeaaars away from launch, but already media buzz, attention and sometimes, money already flowing, pre orders and all that.

Also often, development troubles, missed deadlines, features likely to not be available at launch, etc. And yet, trailers, teasers, articles, previews, general buzz, as if things are going smoothly when in reality, it might not be, it might explode on everyone's faces at the end.

That is when my noodles hurt, doing that is expensive right? Even without money being siphoned (which I didn't think it was 😅), wouldn't it inevitably make the development "harder"? As in huge budgets but overworked people?

Click to shrink...

Unless there's a date that's set, the marketing campaign really hasn't started. Once that date has been set - that's when things are typically expected to be in a state where the game needs to be ready to go within several months to a year.

I'm not really familiar with any games that have that much attention or buzz ahead of the curve. I'm sure it happens but that might be proportional to the time spent on development.

 

[tyfon]

That is such a short sighted solution. Sure, if every project was over estimated by 25% on costs and time, then sure, you might alleviate crunch, but you'll bankrupt yourself paying for all that overhead on polish etc. Plus that "extra" polish time will just become the new definition of beta and we'll just be back where we started.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, the best is probably just to not announce a date until you are sure you can make it (with some margin).

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Uh I think the whole existence of crunch comes from unforeseen tasks and workload

Click to shrink...

Literally everyone who works on a project basis deals with unforeseen factors. But some of us in other industries can still deal with them and still have time to see our families

 

[Prototype Viktor]

some day some Publisher will have their entire marketing budget projecting the game name onto the full moon and the legal fee's that follow

 

[smash_robot]

I don't know about games development specifically, but I've been in software dev a long time. Some extra work a week or two before release is normal and goes with the territory.

Saying this, release dates aren't just pulled out of thin air - the end date is typically guided by estimates from the development team itself. The problem is that even when developers think they are being super conservative they are always wrong because when they are given a deadline the work has a tendency to expand to fill that time.

 

[Chopchop]

Crunch is a symptom of unrealistic planning. While unforeseen tasks will always appear in any large project, crunch shouldn't be considered the go-to response to them, even though it often is.

Sometimes it does happen, even with the best planning. I imagine a good company would investigate what happened in a project post-production and then try to adjust their future project planning to avoid or reduce crunch in the future. If your company routinely forces your workers to work crunch hours for months before release on every single project, then something is seriously fucked with your project planning.

In an ideal world, when planning a timeline for a project, every department gives a realistic deadline, then project management adds a period of buffer time to accommodate any unforeseen tasks that will appear. This probably never, ever happens in reality.

The problem is that when planning a project, there is pressure to shorten deadlines in an attempt to look better, or to avoid looking bad. Team leads feel like they need to give optimistic estimates to make their teams look good. Departments may be afraid to give truly realistic deadlines, because their superiors may not understand the nuances of their job and instead misinterpret realistic deadlines as a sign of incompetence. Marketing types will always want shorter deadlines because that's a selling point that can be waved to the customers. Budget and accounting types will always want shorter deadlines because that means less money spent on salaries, so they will always try to pressure you to trim your estimates as much as possible.

Finally, a lot of higher-up leaders seem to think that forcing their teams to follow arbitrarily shorter deadlines is "good leadership" instead of just being an asshole, so they will often take your realistically given deadline and then go "Okay. I know you said you need this much time. So.... can you do that in half the time because of insert complete bullshit reason here? :DDDDDDDD"

So workers get fucked and forced into crunch, and leaders get to pat themselves on the back for releasing a product - however flawed - in less time than estimated. It's a fundamentally flawed system that is completely avoidable if it was only more okay to accept that doing shit takes time.