Label boss Frank Gibeau says he works into the silly hours too
The President of EA Games has weighed in on the game development industry’s worst kept secret – that virtually everyone within it works into unsociable hours.
In an interview with Develop, Frank Gibeau said EA doesn’t force overtime on developers, and insists on having what he calls a “shared sweat equity” within the company’s employees.
“If the developers are pulling all-nighters and are in crunch mode, and the marketing guy is playing tennis with his girlfriend, that doesn’t build a very good dynamic,” he said.
“Something I learned early on as product manager is that you need a shared sweat-equity with the development teams in order to have their respect.”
Gibeau said that crunch work “shouldn’t be forced on developers”.
Advertisement
“Developers have to make that choice to work extra hours,” he said. “And by the way, I don’t get much sleep myself. The EA Games label has studios from all around the world so there’s always something landing in my inbox.
“I completely appreciate it when developers actually want to crunch to make a game work well, it’s their inspiration.”
Development crunch is a modern reality of game development – and so often stories of bad management practices and employee extortion never break beyond the walls of the employer.
Develop understands that Stuart Black at Codemasters, for example, has decided to leave the company partly because he had been working "non-stop into the late hours".
Gibeau said he wants to build the best development outfit in the world, and key to that is building bridges between developers and the publisher.
“EA we don’t think of publishing and development as separate,” he said.
“From a cultural standpoint, at EA publishing and development is now considered one and the same in terms of equality and everyone working together as a team.”
The headline says crunch should optional, but the interview comments in the body text then go on to largely suggest that anyone not staying behind isn't pulling their weight and crunch is okay because everyone, including the bosses, is doing it. This isn't a better situation - in fact, it's even more pressure on employees and even less "optional", surely?
It also just trots out the now-standard staff "passion" (although doesn't use that specific word) excuse for/acceptance of crunch.
To say crunching should be optional is completely missing the point.
If crunching is required - whether it's entered into voluntarily or not - it reflects a failure by management to have realistic deadlines for a project.
A good manager and a good management team should protect their workers from crunching. The simplest way to do that is to have fair and realistic deadlines.
The example of 'shared sweat equity' is misguided. It turns voluntary crunch into involuntary crunch because of the perceived peer pressure. Not to mention, deadlines fall at different times for different departments. Why should marketing be pulling crunch hours when it's a big code milestone? Why should the sound guy work extra while the design team are crunching? Are they expected to stay back and LOOK like they're crunching with the rest of the team when they don't need to? Seems like a good way to burn out and foster resentment in your employees for no tangible reward.
Voluntary crunch is a delusion. It started out as a couple of developers calling it that when they stayed back at work a few extra hours now and again on their own to put in a bit more polish the milestone didn't necessarily call for. Now managers and zealots are hijacking the term to absolve themselves of blame for working creative teams into the ground.
I have to echo ReeW and DobyDobyBoy's comments 100%. Peer pressure OT is just another corporate tool to get people to work OT when they don't need to. "We need to stay late to show support." This is utter BS from lackluster management.
I've had to work OT on crunch plenty of times and I'd NEVER have any of my team staying "just because".
The issue is that fewer and fewer managers are hired that have any experience in developement at all. So they have no clue how to schedule, write or review design docs, and as a result, you get massive cluster f****s resulting in people having to put in OT to make up for it.
And as far as it being "optional"? "“Developers have to make that choice to work extra hours,”" what's missing was the bit about "... or miss their deadlines and get laid off."
This kind of rhetoric works with folks that might not work in the industry, but for those of us who have been here for over a decade, we're pretty aware of the reality.
I agree with most of your points, everyone, but remember the distinction between optional and coercion is important. If it is really optional, that means that the development team really wants to get this working. It may be because of the hectic deadline but it may be because the developers wants to really get this piece of work to shine.
Also, not that hectic deadline may not be because of unrealistic expectation from the management (although it often is) but may be due to other circumstances. And it is hectic because of unrealistic expectation, then I don't think anyone, myself included would want to pull an all nighter for it.
So if it is really optional, then it can work.
But more important than just being optional .. is a proper peak-and-lull cycle. That means that .. ok, I have to work on all nighters for the next six months to get this piece of work out ... and make sure that it is a masterpiece. But after that, I think I have earned the right to take a short break and have a slower pace of work for at least a few month.
If all involved are clued in and these arrangements are in place, then I think it can work.
PS. ... of course, if the deadline is unrealistic, then the management should be amiable to extending it. witness how some of the game company work. As long as the management do not let the sales and marketing side of the company dominate the conversation, then that will be possible.
