Game Devs: When Does Crunch Cross The Line?
Rubin, Spector, and more on crunch and why it won't ever die
Last week, Crytek stepped into a world of trouble with a tweet about the development of Ryse: Son of Rome for Xbox One. The company boasted of feeding its crunching team members "more than 11,500 dinners" during the game's development. The #RyseFacts hashtag was co-opted by Twitter to strike out against the idea of crunch development as a good thing. Among those who had negative tweets about crunch culture was former Epic games designer Cliff Bleszinski, who said the practice was "unsustainable".
"'Crunch time' = bad management," tweeted Bleszinski. "This just in: Next gen AAA console launch game with many scripted sequences required lots of crunch."
Is crunch a necessary part of our industry? Is it a result of bad management and should be avoided at all costs? GamesIndustry International reached out to a number of industry veterans to see how they felt about crunch. Despite disliking forced crunch, the folks we spoke to seemed to believe that crunch is something that will remain in the industry.
"I'm going to go out on the limb here and might be answering in a way that strays from the quality of life conversation. My belief is that crunch will always occur in our industry, but it's never something that should be relied on," said Obsidian Entertainment CEO Feargus Urquhart. "Why do I think it will always exist? Because, as game makers we create things. Creation is hard. I doubt that Einstein packed it up after 40 hours a week and I doubt that James Cameron puts in his eight and then turns in for the day."
Junction Point Studios founder and game designer Warren Spector said crunch was the result of working with a host of unknown factors in creative mediums. Since game development is always full of unknowns, crunch will always exist in studios that strive for quality.
"Look, I'm sure there have been games made without crunch. I've never worked on one or led one, but I'm sure examples exist. That tells me something about myself and a lot about the business I'm in," said Spector.
"I'm sure there have been games made without crunch. I've never worked on one or led one."
Warren Spector
"We work in a medium of unknowns. We go into projects with, usually, a high level idea and a ship date. We rely on others to execute against those ideas, bringing their own creativity to the table. As we get deeper into the process we discover that things that sounded good on paper don't work in practice. Things that worked in prototype don't work in a fully textured and lit level. And then the folks providing money or distribution randomize and disrupt by demanding demos or screenshots at the most inconvenient times!"
"What I'm saying is that games - I'm talking about non-sequels, non-imitative games - are inherently unknowable, unpredictable, unmanageable things. A game development process with no crunch? I'm not sure that's possible unless you're working on a ripoff of another game or a low-ambition sequel. And I've never, personally, been much interested in either - as a player or as a developer. I've never had enough time or money."
There are some positives to crunch: working through adversity helps bring team members closer together. Former 2K Marin creative director Jordan Thomas and Naughty Dog co-founder and former THQ president Jason Rubin agreed with this idea.
"To me, the sister concepts of voluntary crunch and even focused, near-term crunch intended to hit specific goals -- are natural when groups of humans compete," Thomas said. "In my personal experience on both sides of the manager/employee divide, if a leader keeps his or her promises about what it's for and when it will end, there can be a net increase in team morale after a sprint finish."
"Crunch sucks, but if it is seen by the team members as a fair cost of participating in an otherwise fantastic employment experience, if they value ownership of the resulting creative success more than the hardship, if the team feels like long hours of collaboration with close friends is ultimately rewarding, and if they feel fairly compensated, then who are we to tell them otherwise?" asked Rubin.
If the team feels like long hours of collaboration with close friends is ultimately rewarding, and if they feel fairly compensated, then who are we to tell them otherwise?
Jason Rubin
"The question is: are we looking at a crew team rowing together to the point of collapse and savoring victory together, or are we looking at a drummer beating a drum as the rowers are worked to collapse? I think that can only be answered by the team members themselves."
"At times, usually on a Sunday at 2 AM, I've even asked myself, 'Do you like crunching?' When I was younger, I often found myself answering, 'Yes.' There's something about working late into the early morning that binds people," added Spector. "Overcoming adversity can be exhilarating. Seeing the impossible happen because people care that much about what they're doing can turn a group of talented individuals into a team - into a family. And, in retrospect, in later years, when the pain of crunch is forgotten, what you're left with is the pride of having worked on something amazing. Those aspects of crunch are all positive and not to be undervalued."
One of the big questions that surrounds crunch is why it happens. Was it a result of bad planning and management? Did features just not work and need to be redone? Did the publisher decide that the game needed to go in a different direction? How studios reached crunch time and how long they spend there is important.
"What I think is important in the conversation about crunch is to talk about why it happened. If crunch happens because it was initially planned for (i.e. there was no way to get the game done from day one without crunch), then that is poor planning, bad management, and putting an unacceptable burden on people and their families," said Urquhart.
"If sustained involuntary crunch is fundamental to your business model, something is deeply wrong," added Thomas. "If a manager sets unrealistic goals, the sprint will fail, and become a death march. Poor decisions multiply as fatigue sets in, relationships decay beyond repair, and so on. Similar to cellular damage from radiation, there's a 'walking ghost' stage where you've already ruined your best people from over-exposure to it, and they're not even manifesting symptoms yet."
"If I had to sum it up - crunch time, duct tape, and the force all have something similar - they each have a light side and a dark side."
Feargus Urquhart
The developers that spoke to GamesIndustry International seem united in the idea that crunch is a necessary evil and can even be positive in some aspects. There are negative aspects that should be avoided, but some believe there's a certain creative fire in the race towards a deadline.
"I've gone through periods of crunch that have exhausted me and strained my personal life," said Urquhart. "I've also gone through crunch periods, albeit much shorter ones, where I feel I was extremely productive and created amazing things. If I had to sum it up - crunch time, duct tape, and the force all have something similar - they each have a light side and a dark side."
"Can we do better?" asked Spector. "I'm sure we can. We probably should. Excessive crunch - anything more than a couple of weeks to a month at a stretch, to my mind - puts relationships and health at risk. That's a high price to pay for a quality game. But 'can' and 'should' are easy words to throw around. After 30 years of making games I'm still waiting to find the wizard who can avoid crunch entirely without compromising at a level I'm unwilling to accept."
In the end, Thomas cautioned studio management to think about the human costs of crunch. It's a tool in the toolbox, but not every problem is a nail requiring a hammer.
"Questioning the ethics of crunch is sane, yet I find that it quickly escalates to 'is hierarchy inherently evil?' or degenerates into a lot of conditional statements about when it's 'worth it'," he said. "But even from the tactical perspective of some bipedal reptile, long inured to any concern over quality of life, there are seriously diminishing returns with crunch as policy. A business is made of human beings. You invest in them, or you're the lord of an empty house."
I've had to go through several crunches, watching kids visiting their dads at work, because he'd stopped bothering going home, and at the same time the Head of Development and the Project Manager pretended it was the coolest thing ever, making their own lack of a life the role model to live by. Pathetic.
I think crunch time is a byproduct of endless financial pressure, which cannot help but lead to "bad" management decisions.
When most clients come to me as a specialist freelancer, they have usually already planned the project, accepted a budget, and a schedule. They'll ask me how long I think it'll take... I'll say 3-4 months absolute minimum. They'll respond "we just don't have the budget for that, and it has to be finished in 6 weeks". I wonder why on earth they asked my professional opinion if all they wanted to hear was affirmation of the uninformed decision they already made.
The project ends up taking 3 months, even with crunch time, because we approach it attempting to complete it in 6 weeks, eventually they realise it isn't possible, and we end up redoing a bunch of work that we cut too many corners on, which we could have avoided if they'd just scheduled 3 months to begin with.
Next time, they'll do the exact same thing again, because nobody is willing to pay for a job to be done well, when they can pay for a job to be kicked out as fast as possible... despite the fact that it ends up taking just as long, and costing just as much when things overrun, and everyone gets burnt out doing crunch time.
I don't know how to break this insane cycle, besides attempting as an artist to be a lot more selective with what projects I take on, and for what companies. Unfortunately that isn't going to be an option for everyone, as a lot of people have families and mortgages to consider.
Useless waste of thinking.
Either do something about it or just go home.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Tim Carter on 24th October 2013 5:25pm
I've been lucky to have never worked on a project where we crunched for more than 3-4 weeks, but I've seen enough close at hand to know the detrimental effects it can have on peoples health, and also to know that its often born from poor management and planning. All too often the easy route is to get the staff below you to work more hours rather than tell the boss above you something needs to be cut or more resources are needed.
Crunch might not be avoidable, but it can be better managed. It should be rewarded (not just free pizza). It should never be built into the schedule pre-production, and staff should never be pressured or treated like outcasts if they go home on time. Clever managers, good managers (they do exist - I've worked with several) will ensure staff dont over crunch and burn themselves out, as opposed to whipping the horse til its on its knees. Also the bravado around crunch needs to go, everyone has a crunch story, whether its working 30hours straight to hit an E3 deadline or working every weekend for 4months, but these shouldnt be seen as achievements.
Yes its a creative industry and you cant always plan accurately, but collectively as an industry we have to improve and not use that as an over riding excuse to suck it up. Ultimately I guarantee no game developer on their deathbed will be wishing they spent more time crunching and less time with their family.
There's no reason a project's quality should be compromised by not going into crunch time... quite the opposite. The only thing that gets compromised is scheduling and finances. Things that should and certainly could have been planned better.
The number of times I've had clients put it to me - "we'd love to have longer, but that's all the budget we've got", as though somehow just by saying it offloads the blame onto the people they negotiated the budget with, and lays the responsibility of living up to that decision on me. I fail to see how it's my problem as an artist. It's THEIR job to negotiate a suitable schedule and budget.
If you set unachievable goals, you should answer for your own failure, and certainly NOT offload your responsibility onto your artists and make them pay for it.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Kirby St. John on 24th October 2013 6:07pm
I've been in situations when they just nod and say "Okay, we'll add that extra time" then later on develop sudden amnesia and demand that the project be finished based on the time table that exists in their heads instead of the agreed upon one.
I often wonder.. how come even after many years of experiencing it first hand they don't seem to develop the realization that crunching has only one certain outcome, lower quality products.
Seriously though; I don't think there is any reason for crunching apart from (as mentioned) bad management and unrealistic goals. But then again I am biased because we come in at 10am and go home at 6pm without fail. No project should ever have to sacrifice your staffs personal time to get work done, period.
Yep, similar to how having abusive parents brings the siblings closer together.
Yes, things can go wrong, people get ill, people quit, so extra work is usually unavoidable. But making that a part of a company's culture will eventually backfire.
And if you can't stop creating new features, great, turn them into DLC or a sequel or both. But please do some planning and please do have some life. Your games will be all the better for it.
Maybe the developer that works 9-5 is extremely passionate about their work, but has children, and values the irreplaceable time spent with their children while they're growing up? Maybe they're also extremely productive, and produce more than a less experienced developer that works twelve hour days, six days a week? I can think of a great many fantastic developers I've worked with in the past that fall into this category, and would work with again in a heartbeat.
Given that there is almost a century's worth of research showing that working beyond normal hours for more than a couple of weeks, is actually detrimental to productivity, I'd argue that passion for your work can also be expressed by making sure you have enough relaxation time to ensure you're creating the best and most creative work possible, rather than burning the candle at both ends and massively compromising your efficiency.
(This is coming from someone that has voluntarily put in a lot of extra hours in my time in the industry, but thankfully has never worked anywhere that has forced me to put in ridiculous hours.)
Edited 4 times. Last edit by Bryan Robertson on 24th October 2013 8:54pm
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Jace on 24th October 2013 10:33pm
That said, crunch should never be factored in from day one. It not only shows a complete lack of confidence in managements ability to create a solid production schedule (iterations factored in), but instills a sense of dread in all the developers, and their families, who know it's coming.
To even call something "crunch" makes it part of the expected routine and that's just not acceptable. It's "management fail" and no amount of wooly art excuses can cover that up.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 25th October 2013 12:27am
Crisis management isn't changing a whole gameplay mechanic due to the early previews or extensive playtesting and it most certainly requires more than a weekend. Usually the term 'crunch' crops up in devs ears/emails sometime around '4 months outside of alpha content lock' and will always center around some major design changes made after said preview and/or playtesting. Server explosions, someone contracting sars and needing to be out for 3 months, etc.. THAT'S crisis management and will require others to pick up slack.
I've been in this industry for 9 years, still believe in the games I make, and don't consider something I'm putting my name on for the world to see to be 'wooly art'. If the game benefits from a little crunch due to playtesting and previewing, then so be it.
The issue is that video games are so malleable, things change, things get added\removed, things get 'discovered' during development. It's difficult to do rigid scheduling (things you know you want, and plan for) with the myriad of things that crop up during development. We're a young industry too, we're still learning the best way to do things etc
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Marty Howe on 25th October 2013 6:30am
I think crunch time is a byproduct of endless financial pressure, which cannot help but lead to "bad" management decisions.
When most clients come to me as a specialist freelancer, they have usually already planned the project, accepted a budget, and a schedule. They'll ask me how long I think it'll take... I'll say 3-4 months absolute minimum. They'll respond "we just don't have the budget for that, and it has to be finished in 6 weeks". I wonder why on earth they asked my professional opinion if all they wanted to hear was affirmation of the uninformed decision they already made.
The project ends up taking 3 months, even with crunch time, because we approach it attempting to complete it in 6 weeks, eventually they realise it isn't possible, and we end up redoing a bunch of work that we cut too many corners on, which we could have avoided if they'd just scheduled 3 months to begin with.
I think you're spot on. It's not just the entertainment industries that come up against this either - it's a prevailing mindset in current business best practice unfortunately - along with the mindset that working longer hours results in more things done and therefore infinitely longer hours result in infinitely more stuff done. Next on the agenda: Removing weekends and holiday!
We work extra hours when we decide we need to, usually. But if a project gets delayed for some reason we reschedule - we don't punish the people we told to do the work that was impossible to do (for whatever reason). I think one of the problems in the games industry is this lack of ability or desire to reschedule. You do hear about the occasional tale where a team got to redo the art style, say, but I don't think it's very common.
One of the things people are always going on about is "owning" your work and taking on the company values and ethos. Unfortunately, I see this punted onto the lower rung workers whilst the management never seem to take any responsibility except for the credit for other people's work (obviously, not all managers are like this but it appears [from my view] that many upper management tend towards this set).
My personal view is that great monuments can and have been built on slave labour. Maybe the solution is smaller monuments.
It makes me happy to see so many here speaking out against crunching. It gives me hope that the industry can actually move away from this style of work in the future, and hopefully stop numerous talented people being burnt out and leaving for other sectors with greener pastures.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Thomas Dolby on 25th October 2013 1:09pm
With all this talk of slavery, here's a fun read...
http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2013/09/how-to-be-a-slave/
Your comment is exactly right. I tell my team to work what you can to work, no one ever looks down on you if you put in 1 hour instead of 2. We're all in the trenches together, we all 'get it'.
It's hard to understand the need of crunch until you've worked on a project with a 100+ team, millions of dollars in development costs, and huge expectations from the fan base. You get one shot at delivering the best possible game you can and if a small amount of crunch will help achieve that, then it's acceptable. I've worked on titles that I've regretted not crunching a little and adding that extra layer of polish or pushing to get that last gameplay mechanic in that would have helped tremendously. I totally understand the need to balance work life and well... life. But these games take years to make and is, in some small way, our mark upon the world. In that it represents us as individual developers, artists, creators across the world. If staying an extra 2-5 hours a week helps me achieve that, then I'm all for it.
That said... like I previously stated, planned crunch from day one is never acceptable. I've worked for studios that say 'well ok... we have a 2 year development planned, but those last 6 months will be crunching, so we should make it.' This is wrong on all counts and should never be considered when creating the initial scope of the game. Our industry has been taken over by people who don't have a clue how long it takes to make the 'product' (managements new term for 'game') they're creating. This practice should be abolished and is what, in my opinion, is causing the problems we're facing now.
What Mr. Urquhart seems to suggest here is that when crunch wasn't planned for, it is ok. But management shouldn't only allow just enough time to finish every feature required for the game, it should allow lots more time for experimentation, redesigns and failures. That's what good planning is. Sometimes too many things go wrong or any other reason makes it necessary to reschedule or even crunch, but if it's happening consistently to the same people, that's because those people don't plan properly.
I remember talking to one very successful manager of a big programming team (outside of games), who told me that every feature gets talked through several times with the customer, gets drawn and designed, and then a programmer is asked how long that would take to implement. And then whatever number of days the programmer says, this manager would multiply that number by 4. Four! Now in most game companies you'd probably get told that you are crazy, because it would cost this much and there's not enough money for that. But we still want it, right?
So reading these lines from people that have weight in this industry makes me feel sick. And yes, I love my job and am happy to throw in many extra hours where I see fit.
They simply take the risk in the project and impose it on the workers least likely to be able to say no, least likely to actually be responsible for creating the risk, least likely to be rewarded for their sacrifice. They do it because its cheap and as long as they don't have to pay the true price of crunch to workers they'll carry on doing it.
I agree. The lesson I learned in another industry was there will always be managers and supervisors on every level who simply don't know how to say no when unrealistic and unreasonable requests and goals are made, or set by their managers. And unfortunately, the people who ultimately pay the price for this are their most passionate or accommodating employees. What I eventually figured out was by always accepting unrealistic deadlines, and always agreeing to work an unreasonable number of hours without challenge, I was enabling bad management and creating an unhealthy environment for myself.
The other lesson I learned was the most effective method for becoming a valued member of a team was to balance passion or the desire to accommodate with pragmatism. Because sometimes being the voice of reason is more valuable to a team than being the most passionate or most accommodating.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by David Serrano on 27th October 2013 5:26pm
The obvious thing to do, is to add a 'buffer' of a few months. We can moan and discuss it endlessly, lets just get to work, and better ourselves at scheduling.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Marty Howe on 28th October 2013 3:31am
Video games are just one tiny sub field of the wider Software Industry. Silicon Valley is a better player to compare the Games Industry too.
As for the concept of 'passion', it is often misused. Being passionate does not mean being submissive or motivated to fulfil the demands from above that conflict with your own life and health out of fear of losing your job or that bonus that made the job so appealing. If it does occur then it is the company's onus to generously compensate them. Working 'hard' in overtime can be a thrilling experience so long as it is your pleasant and positively motivated decision to do so.
I do like the Call Of Duty development approach of alternating between development teams, which allows for much longer development cycles.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Keldon Alleyne on 28th October 2013 5:14pm
The problem is that some things just take time and if you don't focus enough on effective collaboration and quality, you will get builds with enormous amounts of bugs. My experience with big teams that communication really becomes an issue (endless discussions about who needs to fix what) instead of effective collaboration people point to each other. Poor documentation and people leaving can also cause lot of problems. Because knowledge transfer and getting new people up to speed takes time. A other pitfall with new People is the not invented by me-syndrom which can question every thing which has been decided earlier.
The most evil crunches are projects when management signs a contract with a deadline which is unobtainable from the start and use excessive crunch time to make the deadline with as little regard for people and quality of the product.
Having said all of this. Software development (not just gaming) is the only industry I have worked in where crunch time was a normal work mode, and not just the result of the expected rush at the end of any product cycle. The software industry in general seems oblivious to the fact that extending crunch time actually makes a product more expensive, and lower quality. It seems that there is unspoken belief amung managers, that longer hours are more productive (when they are usually the opposite). This seems to be coupled with the belief that features will be dropped at the last minute, or put out in an unworkable state, just to make the deadline. This results in a situation, where the behavior, drives the results (lots of overtime = less/broken features).
'Crunch Time' like any other behavior, is appropriate in the right time and place. Trying to force it does not extend its value, it in fact degrades it. More of something is not always better. The best result is often obtained by using the right tool for the task, not just using the most convienent tool, for every task.
But I find working overtime is dangerous for family relationships. Once it becomes routine and part of the culture of the company, its expected of you to do crunch time all the time and there is always that "just a little bit more factor" to take in to account. Because there will always be that feeling of just a little bit more, which can then turn into days or weeks of extra crunch time.
And before you know it your wife is sleeping with another guy cause your never with her and your kids resent you for not being with them more often.
Crunch time is cool when the team wants to add more to the game than originally planned or polish it up better and you talk with a few guys and agree to do an over nighter together(sounded gay)... anyway the original development time should not account for crunch time. And crunch time should be used sparingly and avoid it becoming routine (expected) in the work enviroment culture. Ive worked in places that cannot obligate you to stay, but if you dont stay, they look at you with dissapointment, give you a huge guilt trip, and put the weight of the things that couldnt be done on you for not staying. And if you dont stay to work, they make your life tough afterwards so you can quite.