LorienvArden said:
Berenzen said:
Here are the companies choices-
Allow them to not do overtime-> risk not finishing the game on time, guaranteed failure. Increases cost because of increased time. With money they may not have. Decreases chances that the game will sell as well do to lost interest
Paid the workers overtime-> Substainally increases cost with money they may or may not have, needs to sell more copies. Risks being a commercial failure
Don't pay the workers overtime through "optional" unpaid overtime-> Don't increase cost of development. Game gets out on time. Less risk of being a commercial failure.
Actually, it is by far more costly to delay the release of a product then to pay overtime.
The best way is to actually manage the project professionally and adjust the budget ahead of time. I haven't worked on software development, but from all the talk surrounding it, "crunch time" is a certainty that you better prepare for.
Though, from the analysis I've seen, in the long term a more costly one. The problem is that people who are sleep deprived, and stressed simply don't work as efficiently, and effectively, as people who are in a relaxed environment.
I'm not saying crunch time is evil per say, but I am saying that it has a detrimental affect to the finished product.
While it's easy to say, in the short term, it is more expensive to delay the release than to simply slam people at a wall until the product is released, the quality control issues in the resulting release do represent a financial loss that is much harder to effectively asses.
LorienvArden said:
A company like codemaster has no excuse NOT to have the experience and manpower to have proper project management.
I can understand that developers like cerberus (Sword of the stars I&II) have huge problems releasing a AAA title on time and are forced to release a buggy piece of software at the end of their deadline. They are a tiny studio working on their second title.
Codemaster has been around for AGES.
I'm wondering if part of the problem is also that, with a smaller developer, it is easier to assess the limits of a project. Whereas if you're being backed by a major publisher who's throwing money at you hand over fist, it's much easier to promise the moon and then throw live bodies at it.
I mean, there are a lot of potential factors, and I'm not saying "you're wrong", but it strikes me that feature creep (not in the normal sense, but regarding the industry as a whole), defining what you must include in your AAA title may also be a contributor.
LorienvArden said:
Extorting your developers is a common practice, but for the wrong reasons. Loosing experienced developers hurts your company. If you risk not getting paid for your work, would you sign a contract if you had a chance ?
I believe that from the vast numbers of programmers that want to get into game development only a percentage actually is experienced and talented.
Alienating them actually hurts companies because the uncertainty and cost of future projects is significantly higher then if you kept them in your company.
Why ?
Because they gain specific experience in working with the company, enabling them to translate that knowledge into a more streamlined and efficient development of future titles.
It's also probably worth pointing out that if you're actually dealing with turnover in a project you're losing time bringing new people up to speed. If you figure it takes one-two weeks to get a new person on a project up to speed on everything going on, that means you've just lost that much time, plus the time the position was left unfilled on the project. Simply adding more live bodies, especially at the expense of trained ones, actually reduces the amount of time available to work on the project, whatever that is.
LorienvArden said:
If you lay off programmers with every project and hiring staff to fill gaps later on, you never build up that experience and get an unmotivated workforce that WILL never ever finish ahead of time. Think of it like comparing experts to a bunch of chained slaves. The slaves will propably build you a nice building someday, but a group of experts will do it faster and cheaper in the end.
Why is it still beeing done ? Because quarterly reports look way better if your project is not hogging human resources and instead just sports a nifty bill for contracted labor.
Shareholders in those companies lack the knowledge to realise that by forcing profitmargins to maximise their gains they effectifly gut the company and increase the risk of failed projects.
I'm not sure if it's honestly a lack of knowledge, or simply a lack of interest. If you invest in a company you only care if it's making money, how they make money is basically irrelevant unless it is something absolutely insane pops up. Even then, there's got to be some assumption that the business you're investing in knows what they're doing, otherwise why did you give them your money?
LorienvArden said:
OT:
Afaik it is acceptable for companies not to pay overtime for managers etc. if it is agreed upon in the contract. Those contracts usually provide incentives for those jobs like bonuses based on success.
Unless specified in the contract, employees have to be paid for overtime. The employee CAN agree on not beeing paid, but not speaking out against a statement from management can't be construed to agreeing to those conditions if a written contract contradicts those terms. The employee can always demand payment as promised in the original contract.
Yeah, you're talking, basically, about an estoppel... basically.
