As a software developer in non-gaming, I have very little crunch, almost none at all.
We have monthly (minor) and bi-yearly (major) releases. There are deadlines for all of these releases of course, so the feature deadline for the December release might be... November 20th or something, the bug deadline might be December 1st, or something. Sure, on Nov 20 and Dec 1st, sometimes we're scrambling to just get these last minute features or bugs submitted so they can be verified and released that month... But it's not 'crunch' it's just you might be frantically trying to get something in that you told someone you'd do... But if you have to wait till the next month... really doesn't matter. IF you have a major feature miss and that becomes a trend, sure, you'll get some heat for that, but as long as you have good reasons and have credibility, it's fine and expected sometimes.
We're a billion dollar company that makes life-saving, important products that do things like put astronauts in orbit, designs synthetic valves for a failing heart, makes the system that your automated car runs on, makes your smartphone work, and a million other less important things. ... And we don't have crunch.
If our company can do it, then a company that makes videogames can do it too. Most just don't want to. It's part of their culture and they don't know how to get rid of it.
Crunch will always result in a worse product. It will always result in developer burnout and exodus. It will always result in lost revenue. If you're a successful gaming company, if you eliminate or mediate crunch you will become more successful. No game companies are successful because of their crunch, they're successful inspite of their crunch.
I would also have less of a problem with crunch if game developers weren't underpaid. I'd have less of a problem with if it game developers had better benefits, but more PTO, had more work:life balance, had more job security... I'd say, "Well, sure crunch is a thing, but they're making more money than general software development, have great benefits, and rock solid job security..." But, instead, it's the opposite. They make 20% less than similarly experienced developers... This isn't some small number, it's $20,000, $30,000, or $40,000+ less per year than a similarly experience engineer. Their benefits are okay but not better than the rest of the industry. And, in this time when software developers have an insane amount of job security, you're hearing stories about TellTale laying off their whole team with no notice and no severance. So, in this circumstance, crunch just isn't appropriate. It's clearly not working if the industry has these problems.
For every "Rockstar Games" multi-million seller blockbuster company making billions a year, there's probably 10 or 20 companies shuttering their doors because they think they have to follow the Rockstar model. They don't. This is the same as the silicon valley era of crunch in the 80s and 90s. For every Microsoft, Apple, or Oracle, you had 1,000 companies that failed in their first year and burned out overworked developers who were now out of business and unemployed. Smartly, companies like Microsoft and Apple figured it out. Some teams have crunch, of course, but they balance that out with high pay, work:life balance, PTO, and good benefits, and they're a successful company 30+ years later, standing on the bones of 10,000 companies who abused their employees and swiftly closed their doors. But all you read are about the Rockstars and (old) Microsofts. "Look! IT worked for Rockstar and they made GTAV!" But... what about every other failed developer that you used to love, the dozens of companies that have dissolved over the years? THey all probably based their model on companies like iD Software or Rockstar, and most have been bought, sold, shut down, or shuddered.