The Death March

[W1nTry]

I know you're thinking at a glance of the topic... someone has a game idea and it's called death march.. well truth be told, you could make a 'sims' like game out of what you're about to read, but otherwise its much farther from the truth. The 'Death March' isn't a game, an idea for a game or anything remotely cool. It IS in actuality the term used to refer to the slave driver like work life of present day game developers. Now for those that work (many of us) or those that are studying for degrees, certs, etc. we ALL know the pressure one feels when you're 'under the gun'. You have a big project due, an assignment, lab work, physical, whatever it may be, you're WORKING ur ass off and you have a clock running. Noone here I believe will EVER boast how they LOVE working under the gun and that STRESS is healthy for you. Sure I have said and will still claim I work best under pressure, however that doesn't account for LONG, REPEATED, EXTENSIVE pressure. As the saying goes "Pressure does buss pipe". I came across an article on Ars Technica explaining the dangers of the game development industry from a work ethic point of view. My cousin works for RockStar and Shiv works for Blacktivision ala sledgehammer (yes the team making the new COD MW3). It would be great for them to share some of their experiences in that industry first hand with us, but that could take some time given their SCHEDULES... right away it paints the picture for us doesn't it.

I am going to post excerpts and highlight some disturbing points made have a gander:

The death march: the problem of crunch time in game development
By Andrew Groen | Published about 8 hours ago

Horror stories are constantly surfacing about the lengths game developers sometimes have to go in order to ship a game on time. The worst involve up to 85-hour work weeks—12 hours a day, seven days a week—which is more than double the century-old 40 hour per week standard. Extended periods of crunch can last up to a year, with sustained 60-hour weeks. This practice has earned a markedly less innocuous name than "crunch time." It's called "the death march."

In some cases it's nearly dehumanizing: the closure of All Points Bulletin developer Real Time Worlds in September of last year left more than 185 employees out of a job. They were welcomed to the end of a particularly long crunch period by pink slips rather than profit sharing and bonuses.

In an industry that is steadfastly focused on fun, it seems counter-intuitive that video gamers should be the ones who have to worry about the sagging quality of life of those who make the games. No kid should ever have to wonder if Santa Claus is cracking the whip too hard on his elves to make the Christmas Eve shipping deadline, but despite widespread outrage over revelations from ex-employees describing poor conditions, the status quo remains largely unchanged and unchallenged.

WOW... imagine working at KFC, working double, triple shifts, giving the best service and after a year of being employee of the month they hand you a pink slip... thats kind of a parallel. Continue:

This is one of the principle factors perpetuating the use of crunch by management. The vast majority of employees working in the development of video games are salaried employees and do not receive overtime for additional hours spent at the office. A recent poll of over 350 industry professionals taken by developer-focused website Develop, showed that 98 percent of those polled received no compensation for their overtime work

I raised an eyebrow at this next particular piece:

Why should you care?

You work hard at your job, and you don't always get to go home right when the clock strikes five, either. So why should you take time out of your day to sympathize with game developers? After all, they're adults. If they don't like their situation they can move on, right?

Well, the problem is that it's just not a very effective way to manage a project, and often it's the quality of the games that suffer. This is not a new revelation; as far back as 1909 studies have shown that the 40-hour work week actually provides more output over a long period of time than when employees work longer hours.


In an article published by the International Game Developers Association, 20 year development veteran Evan Robinson notes that studies show that regularly being awake for more than 21 hours impairs the mind as much as having a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08... that's also the point where it becomes illegal to drive a car.

"It's ironic," Robinson wrote. "Most software companies will fire an employee who routinely shows up drunk for work. But they don't think twice about... people who are impaired to the point of legal drunkenness due to lack of sleep. In fact, they will demand that these people work to the point of legal impairment as a condition of continued employment."

So rather than potentially having fun and having a few (as is VERY customary in good ole T&T) you can get as impaired by working. I honestly have experienced this before, once whilst in university I had concurrent labs running and assignments due like WHOA. I was awake for 36 hours of which at least 24 was in DEEP CONCENTRATION and thinking, troubleshooting, calculations, the works. After which I had to drive home. Highway, exhaustion... I felt like I was gonna pass out every second and it was NOT a good experience, very akin to drinking heavily whilst in a down mood... even tho seemingly unrelated, the feeling was the same.

I ask you GATTers what do you think about this unhealthy practice? This is clearly NOT a good thing, WHY? because think of the quality of the games we enjoy IF the team developing it got proper sleep. If you want to read the whole article here is your link: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/05/the-death-march-the-problem-of-crunch-time-in-game-development.ars

I do encourage you to read it, its very relevant to us all as gamers.

[D2ultima]

The reason this is even happening is the same reason why I spill out a string of complaints every year at CoD games. Publishers want games out on a schedule, to make more money, then often want a sequel out the next year. Fast. On the double. An entirely new game.

I sincerely wish that the best developers that are partnered with the worst publishers will get wise and learn that self-releasing is an option. And it's good. Look at the new Section 8: Prejudice. The FULL game (read: proper, albeit short single player campain + multiplayer) is only $15 USD. Digital downloadable copies only. XBL Arcade, PC's Steam/D2D, I think PSN Store (not sure if it's out for PS3). They took their time, brought it out when they wanted how they wanted, and selling it for cheap. It's getting sales, and they're less stressed.

I know it can be harsh for developers, but at some point someone has to teach the publishers that rushing crap to come out is bad. The sad part is that, as they say, devs might end up with pink slips.

I want to make a mention on All Points Bulletin though, the people that were developing it (it's an MMOFPS) had the game out for beta-testing in an open beta. But you had to buy the ability to play their BETA. They ran the servers up, and made people pay for game time. I think it was $20 for 50 hours game time. On a beta. This is simply bad business practice. They literally asked for it. They sold the game to GamersFirst though, so it's not like they all went broke after developing for a year and something. But it is sad that they're all instantly out of a job. APB Reloaded on G1 still is being updated though; so I'm left to wonder if they're all *really* out of a job still.

-----------------------------------------------------

I might be sounding contradictory here. I'll leave it in closing. This is the reason why I try to buy instead of pirate lately. I do believe in supporting developers, they did do a lot of work. I did programming myself, I know the pages and pages of endless text just to make one little thing work. Maybe we shouldn't hunt developers down so often. Publishers are the real evil here. But how do you strike at a publisher without backlashing their underling developers? For example, Activision needs to be taught a lesson in thinking it's okay to release tootz and call it a game every year, then make us pay more and more over time to get one full game. But if we boycott their game, the developers will feel it. If we don't hit them where it hurts (their wallet, not their balls), they won't listen to us otherwise. Any thoughts?

[TriniXaeno]

Perfect catch 22.

By pirating the living daylights out of games over the years, there is now an environment where only the strongest and fittest developers/publishers survive.

That means, no more mister nice guy. Harsh deadlines, clinical project management, draconian CEOs squeezing copious amounts of blood from stone, nasty legal battles and dirty tactics all around.

Its great that you are finding your scruples now and buying the games legit. Unfortunately, too late, too late maybe the cry.

It will probably take another good five years of really strong sales across the digital domain to make the "indie" developer market sustainable for blockbuster titles. (By blockbuster, I do not mean Minecraft and SuperMeatBoy but games on the level of CoD and Battlefield)

It will take services like Steam and D2D to keep that marketplace alive and well till then.

Already, we are seeing the big gaming houses moving in on the digital space by offering services of their own that they can control and as a side effect, lock out the indie minded publishers/devs from sharing "shelf space" with their titles.

The bad news is that such sobering and complex matters are not gaining traction in the minds of the average gamer. We need millions more that think like you and w1ntry to change this story and ensure a happy ending.

Just look at the number of people who commented on this post vs say the "wtmc" thread. lol

Until then, we will be at the mercy of the 800 pound gorilla developers/publishers.

[D2ultima]

But the best thing is, using certain DRM options like Steam/GFWL (as much as I hate it) which are both easy to implement renders games un-crackable for online play; and if somehow you get it to work (it MUST have LAN-hosting capabilities) it won't be with legit people, unlike with say... CoD 4. This is all relatively new to the market though. I hope to see more developers take the stand and go solo like the people who did S8 Prejudice.

The best thing about digital sales (and all-around PC sales) is that they make 60-80% of the profits, whereas retail consoles they only make 6%. I know some hate the idea of a digital copy of their games, but honestly, if it's good, you'll get it. When all that money goes directly to the devs, it's gonna make them nearly overflow with the dough. That's why most of those self-published games go for so cheap. There's no need to make them so expensive. (Shattered Horizon: $20. Killing Floor: $15. S8P: $15).

The only thing the devs need to do for real success is to make sure the game's learning curve isn't too difficult, and that it'll run on most machines (the opposite of both killed Shattered Horizon, a game I'm more sorry to see die off rather than feel like I wasted money buying it).

To be honest, I don't care if a title is AAA or not. But people need to get educated. So many people base whether they'll buy a game or not on a pre-release IGN/Gamespot/etc review, and a few of those people take bribes *glares at IGN*. I think the time for gaming is moving toward a good era soon though, it needed to have this huge fall for it to truly surpass itself. Can't live in a rut of mediocrity forever. Look at BF3.

And look at The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings. I refuse to pirate that game, and a lot of people I know refuse to as well. The devs stated they'd be removing DRM entirely from the game. And so said, so done. It came out, and was immediately patched to remove DRM. And they did it for The Witcher: Enhanced Edition from 2007 as well. People now refusing to pirate a DRM free game just out of respect for the trust they placed in us, the gamers. And the game is apparently nothing to sneeze at either; beautifully done.

[TriniXaeno]

Very well said, poetic even.

Totally agree