3 ms·

> As a salaried developer I don't think I was ever expected to work more than 60 hours a week, and then after the crunch was over we always got 1 or 2 weeks of

by NamTaf 5y ago

> As a salaried developer I don't think I was ever expected to work more than 60 hours a week, and then after the crunch was over we always got 1 or 2 weeks of extra vacation ("comp time"). To be clear, the normal working schedule was 40 hours per week. Crunch time is like 1 or 2 times a year, for maybe 1-2 months each time. And like I said, depending on how much you crunch, you would get extra paid time off afterwards. So for me, that was a pretty good trade. I'd much rather work my ass off for a couple months and then get an extra 2 week vacation at the end of it. Just to be clear, you're saying that crunch time can be up to 1/3 of the year, and you get maximum 4 weeks of additional leave off as a result. Compare that to anywhere overseas, where 4-6 weeks leave per year is the minimum. Moreover, if you're working 50 hours a week on average during that crunch time, and you get 1 week off per month of crunch, you're already marginally behind on equivalent compensation since there's more than 4 weeks per average month. That sounds like an awful agreement and I don't understand why you're trying to hold it up as a great opportunity. I'd instead describe it as an abusive working relationship that further shifts the benefit to the corporation at the employee's expense.

tharkun__ 5y ago
I wonder why you got downvoted as you're basically spot on. Can someone check my calculations, because I'm getting ridiculous numbers, not "marginally behind" He remembers 1-2 times of 1-2 months of crunch of "not being expected to work _more_ than 60 hours". My bet is that this means people usually stayed _at least_ 60 hours during the crunch time due to social pressures created by the employees themselves. Sort of like "unlimited vacation" usually means that on average everyone takes less vacation, because they don't want to be the one with the most vacation taken. So to me this means the _lower_ bound is 60 hours, not the 50 you put as the average. 1-2 in this context tells me: it's definitely 2, if not more, but let's take the lower bound, i.e. 2. The following uses some generous rounding: That's 4 months, so the 1/3 of the year you mentioned of 60 hour weeks. 4.33 weeks per month on average times 4 months is 17.3 weeks of at least 60 hour weeks =~ 1040 hours of work over a period of time that they should've worked ~690 hours. That's an extra of about 345 hours of work they did, which is a whopping 43 8-hour days. Even if after each of the crunches they got 2 weeks off, that's 20 days of vacation to compensate for 43 days of unpaid crunch time that also wreaked havoc with their actual lives. Is my math off somewhere? Because otherwise as this was the lower bound from an idealized remembering of "the good old times" I'd call that exploitative.
- socialist_coder 5y ago
  No one expects the comp time to exactly equal how much extra time you worked. It's just like a little thank you for working hard, and so you can decompress and take care of whatever you've been neglecting in your life during crunch. Would I have enjoyed this if I wasn't a 20-something with no kids who who lived and breathed games? No. So I don't honestly expect everyone to understand this either. If you love your work, it's not work. Never once did I feel like crunch "wreaked havoc with my life". I think you are imagining the worst case scenario. Sure, it could. And the people who worked there who were parents with kids, I felt bad for them. I don't think I would have made that choice. But for me and many of my childless colleagues, the reality is that we loved working in games and getting that experience was vital to our careers.
  - tharkun__ 5y ago
    I would be careful with such blanket statements. I would agree with you that companies do not expect people to expect that and will do everything they can to make people believe that exploitative relationships are OK. Personally though yes I do expect tit for tat. And there are employers out there that understand this very well. At one of my previous places for example we had a few major traffic days which required a sort of "all hands on deck" for the day and part of the night. You probably worked an extra 2 hours in total but you were looking at the chat and production monitors regularly while going about your day and evening/night otherwise. You got an extra day off for that. Also for production support via 'pager' any call from the NOC to you, even if it took 5 minutes of you just telling them 'yeah restart service X' was an automatic 1 hour billed at overtime rates. No not contractors. Internal employees. Also I do love my work and it's not work in that sense. But that does not preclude me from wanting and working actively towards a proper work environment. If you pay me for 40 hours you get 40 hours. 40 hours of 100% of me. Not 60 hours of 50% of me.
  - goatinaboat 5y ago
    And the people who worked there who were parents with kids, I felt bad for them. I don't think I would have made that choice. But for me and many of my childless colleagues, the reality is that we loved working in games and getting that experience was vital to our careers. Those people with kids were once people like you, say 10-20 years ago, and they didn't fully understand the precedent they were setting by accepting and normalising those working practices. I would bet if any of them could go back, they would undo it.
socialist_coder 5y ago
We're not overseas though, we're in the US where we get 15-25 vacation days a year. So an extra 5-10 days each time you crunch is pretty significant. Also this is extra vacation. I get the equation is still in favor of the employer but whatever, I thought it was fair, because of my next point: I loved working on games! It wasn't bad at all doing this back in my 20s. You're doing something you love! With amazing people who also love games! I learned so much back in this period. I was able to tackle super hard challenges and really work on a huge variety of really interesting problems. Why would you not want to work extra hard if you have this kind of opportunity where you also love the work?
- ewmiller 5y ago
  What if you could work on things you love AND be compensated more fairly for it, through something like... collective bargaining? There are other creative careers, like acting, that have union representation for exactly this reason. If there were no actors' union, film companies could abuse an endless supply of wide-eyed hopefuls trying to get famous. Collective bargaining makes sure they can earn a real wage while they work on their dream career. In any case, I'd expect someone named "socialist coder" to be less willing to hand over their power as a worker to their company ;)
  - socialist_coder 5y ago
    I never once took any position for or against collective bargaining in the game industry. I would say I have not looked into this enough to fairly have an opinion on the matter. Plus, I do think my own experience has been with the "good" game companies who didn't work you down to nothing. I really don't think a union vote would have had a chance at all at the places I worked. It does seem like the industry as a whole has gotten worse since I founded my own game company in 2010. Or, maybe the companies I worked at really were the "best" ones for worker quality of life. As for my own politics, I'm not so much pro-union as I am pro-worker cooperative. Unions today do a lot of things for their own benefit at the expense of the rest of society. I see it locally with the teachers union in my school district. It's awful, they are bankrupting the school district and their demands are completely out of touch with reality. So I don't think just having a union is the silver bullet here. Unions pit workers against management. In a hugely creative and cooperative venture like making a video game, that is a pretty big negative. I would love to see more employee owned businesses. Unfortunately video games are hugely capital intensive and very risky. You need to be able to throw away tens of millions of dollars. Very unlike manufacturing where at least if your product fails, you still have a valuable factory. If your video game flops, you literally have $0 in assets to show for it. So, we need to come up with different ways of financing capital and organizing labor so that everyone's best interests are at heart. Very difficult problem to solve and capitalism isn't very interested in solving it. But, I guess it does work for the film industry so what's to say it wouldn't work for game development? Also I want to say, I only wanted to share my view here because I felt like my perspective was missing from this discussion. It's not all unholy crunch time and rock bottom wages. I personally had a great experience in the game industry from 2000 - 2010. With that said, I don't disagree at all with the premise that most game companies take unfair advantage of their employees. Lastly, I want to add that at my own startup, we practice what we preach. In the 10 years we've been going, the amount of days we've asked our developers to "crunch" is in the single digits.

by NamTaf 5y ago

tharkun__ 5y ago

I wonder why you got downvoted as you're basically spot on. Can someone check my calculations, because I'm getting ridiculous numbers, not "marginally behind" He remembers 1-2 times of 1-2 months of crunch of "not being expected to work _more_ than 60 hours". My bet is that this means people usually stayed _at least_ 60 hours during the crunch time due to social pressures created by the employees themselves. Sort of like "unlimited vacation" usually means that on average everyone takes less vacation, because they don't want to be the one with the most vacation taken. So to me this means the _lower_ bound is 60 hours, not the 50 you put as the average. 1-2 in this context tells me: it's definitely 2, if not more, but let's take the lower bound, i.e. 2. The following uses some generous rounding: That's 4 months, so the 1/3 of the year you mentioned of 60 hour weeks. 4.33 weeks per month on average times 4 months is 17.3 weeks of at least 60 hour weeks =~ 1040 hours of work over a period of time that they should've worked ~690 hours. That's an extra of about 345 hours of work they did, which is a whopping 43 8-hour days. Even if after each of the crunches they got 2 weeks off, that's 20 days of vacation to compensate for 43 days of unpaid crunch time that also wreaked havoc with their actual lives. Is my math off somewhere? Because otherwise as this was the lower bound from an idealized remembering of "the good old times" I'd call that exploitative.

socialist_coder 5y ago
No one expects the comp time to exactly equal how much extra time you worked. It's just like a little thank you for working hard, and so you can decompress and take care of whatever you've been neglecting in your life during crunch. Would I have enjoyed this if I wasn't a 20-something with no kids who who lived and breathed games? No. So I don't honestly expect everyone to understand this either. If you love your work, it's not work. Never once did I feel like crunch "wreaked havoc with my life". I think you are imagining the worst case scenario. Sure, it could. And the people who worked there who were parents with kids, I felt bad for them. I don't think I would have made that choice. But for me and many of my childless colleagues, the reality is that we loved working in games and getting that experience was vital to our careers.
- tharkun__ 5y ago
  I would be careful with such blanket statements. I would agree with you that companies do not expect people to expect that and will do everything they can to make people believe that exploitative relationships are OK. Personally though yes I do expect tit for tat. And there are employers out there that understand this very well. At one of my previous places for example we had a few major traffic days which required a sort of "all hands on deck" for the day and part of the night. You probably worked an extra 2 hours in total but you were looking at the chat and production monitors regularly while going about your day and evening/night otherwise. You got an extra day off for that. Also for production support via 'pager' any call from the NOC to you, even if it took 5 minutes of you just telling them 'yeah restart service X' was an automatic 1 hour billed at overtime rates. No not contractors. Internal employees. Also I do love my work and it's not work in that sense. But that does not preclude me from wanting and working actively towards a proper work environment. If you pay me for 40 hours you get 40 hours. 40 hours of 100% of me. Not 60 hours of 50% of me.
- goatinaboat 5y ago
  And the people who worked there who were parents with kids, I felt bad for them. I don't think I would have made that choice. But for me and many of my childless colleagues, the reality is that we loved working in games and getting that experience was vital to our careers. Those people with kids were once people like you, say 10-20 years ago, and they didn't fully understand the precedent they were setting by accepting and normalising those working practices. I would bet if any of them could go back, they would undo it.

socialist_coder 5y ago

We're not overseas though, we're in the US where we get 15-25 vacation days a year. So an extra 5-10 days each time you crunch is pretty significant. Also this is extra vacation. I get the equation is still in favor of the employer but whatever, I thought it was fair, because of my next point: I loved working on games! It wasn't bad at all doing this back in my 20s. You're doing something you love! With amazing people who also love games! I learned so much back in this period. I was able to tackle super hard challenges and really work on a huge variety of really interesting problems. Why would you not want to work extra hard if you have this kind of opportunity where you also love the work?

ewmiller 5y ago
What if you could work on things you love AND be compensated more fairly for it, through something like... collective bargaining? There are other creative careers, like acting, that have union representation for exactly this reason. If there were no actors' union, film companies could abuse an endless supply of wide-eyed hopefuls trying to get famous. Collective bargaining makes sure they can earn a real wage while they work on their dream career. In any case, I'd expect someone named "socialist coder" to be less willing to hand over their power as a worker to their company ;)
- socialist_coder 5y ago
  I never once took any position for or against collective bargaining in the game industry. I would say I have not looked into this enough to fairly have an opinion on the matter. Plus, I do think my own experience has been with the "good" game companies who didn't work you down to nothing. I really don't think a union vote would have had a chance at all at the places I worked. It does seem like the industry as a whole has gotten worse since I founded my own game company in 2010. Or, maybe the companies I worked at really were the "best" ones for worker quality of life. As for my own politics, I'm not so much pro-union as I am pro-worker cooperative. Unions today do a lot of things for their own benefit at the expense of the rest of society. I see it locally with the teachers union in my school district. It's awful, they are bankrupting the school district and their demands are completely out of touch with reality. So I don't think just having a union is the silver bullet here. Unions pit workers against management. In a hugely creative and cooperative venture like making a video game, that is a pretty big negative. I would love to see more employee owned businesses. Unfortunately video games are hugely capital intensive and very risky. You need to be able to throw away tens of millions of dollars. Very unlike manufacturing where at least if your product fails, you still have a valuable factory. If your video game flops, you literally have $0 in assets to show for it. So, we need to come up with different ways of financing capital and organizing labor so that everyone's best interests are at heart. Very difficult problem to solve and capitalism isn't very interested in solving it. But, I guess it does work for the film industry so what's to say it wouldn't work for game development? Also I want to say, I only wanted to share my view here because I felt like my perspective was missing from this discussion. It's not all unholy crunch time and rock bottom wages. I personally had a great experience in the game industry from 2000 - 2010. With that said, I don't disagree at all with the premise that most game companies take unfair advantage of their employees. Lastly, I want to add that at my own startup, we practice what we preach. In the 10 years we've been going, the amount of days we've asked our developers to "crunch" is in the single digits.