Hacker News Reader

Comment by gfxgirl | Hacker News Reader

Oh, you mean the guy that comes around at 11pm to tell everyone "It's Mario Time" meaning you're working until morning?

https://kotaku.com/at-nintendo-working-all-night-is-mario-ti...

Strange how Nintendo gets no shit for crunch because they're "beloved". Lots of articles about Nintendo USA not crunching but the main office in Japan is still the same

View on HN

This isn't meant to be a defense of Nintendo (I don't really care about game studio fandom), but Japan itself has some way to go when it comes to their cultural attitude to work.

That said, companies like Nintendo bucking the salaryman trend would do a lot to help shift people's perspective towards a healthier work/life balance.

I don't get the games industry's obsession with crunch. Never mind adverse health and personal impacts -- does it actually work as a means to squeezing more output out of staff? I mean, you can definitely achieve a short temporary burst to meet a deadline by putting in long hours and maybe Miyamoto can boost his managerial output by sitting in meetings for 60 hours instead of 30. But I really have difficulty picturing programmers working on complex stuff like game engines being more productive with a 80 hour week than a 30 hour week for anything beyond a few days, let alone extended periods of time. And indeed all traditional studies of worker productivity (not necessarily in IT) I recall suggest that productivity falls off a cliff pretty soon as weekly hours a cranked up (see also https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/productivity-vs-annual-ho..., which suggests a general pattern between countries).

So I'm wondering -- is game industry crunch so popular (majority of game studios seem to be doing it) for reasons that having nothing to do with increasing individual worker output?

In the case of Japan in particular there is also a strong tradition of doing long but very unproductive work hours because presence is prized over productivity .

Or are games really "special" in some way (for example because there is some evidence that people can sustain normally unsustainable productivy/weekly hours ratios for "passion projects")?

Does anyone have any good studies or anectodal evidence from their own experience (focussed 30-50 hour week vs crunch for several weeks)?

1) Towards the end of a production cycle mostly laborious work is remaining that doesn’t require as much creativity to produce. Not so much programmers working on an engine, but rather art teams working on finishing assets. For this kind of work you do get more output per hour worked, even if people are overworked. Some companies (many companies unfortunately) do plan for this crunch early on.

2) For a multitude of reasons, usually related to biz dev and budgeting, release windows are set way ahead of time. Then a marketing campaign starts months in advance to build up to release. A marketing campaign is extremely costly, and loses much of its effectiveness if it’s interrupted. it might be impossible to build up the same level of attention a second time, and most companies aren’t willing or can’t afford to take that chance.

3) The work remaining that does require creativity, responding to QA demands, porting, redesigns, bug fixing, etc ends up in a crunch by necessity due to 2).

The first part of your answer that sounds intuitively believable, namely that a bunch of chores accumulate by the end of a production cycle and that productivity is not as badly hit, so it might be possible to get more out of people by overworking them (it's not completely obvious though, many of the studies about productivity declines due to overwork I skimmed study tasks that don't seem like they'd obviously suffer more under overwork than art asset creation).

But the other two points are in a way begging the question: I understand that both poor planning and set-in-stone release/marketing windows are endemic in the industry (and that this creates temptation to overwork people to hit a slipped deadline). But if overworking people is generally a net loss in throughput (as a lot of studies seem to suggest), giving in to this temptation ought to be counterproductive and decrease the likelihood of meeting the deadline. Now of course it's not uncommon for people to really persistently, and en-masse do stupid things that turn out to be highly counterproductive -- like seeing a doctor throughout most of human history. On the other hand, given that the practice seems to be both ubiquitous and universally hated you'd think the first major game studio to figure this out would completely crush its competitors in no time. Since this hasn't happened yet, it's tempting to conclude it must provide some advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com