Pachter Says Team Bondi "Wasn't Entitled to Overtime Pay"

[RhombusHatesYou]

Game industry contracts also commonly violate intellectual property laws so that the company doesn't have to worry about their employee making a hit title in their own time and becoming rich off it.

Read what I just wrote again, and then figure out why I went from commercial game programmer to indy programmer/coffee barista.

Ah, the legal weighting of Work For Hire contracts... the reason I gave up freelancing as an artist.

Originally they were to stop the creative talent from challenging the company for ownership of the IP they were hired to produce... but somewhere along the long shit got really, really, really fucked up. Until these days the company who hired you have a pretty good shot of claiming ownership of the IP you worked on during your own hours while in the period you were contracted for.

That sort of shit must be hell on programmers, you mob are bigger packrats/asset recyclers than us digital artists are.

 

[Fiskmasen]

This is the life as a game developer. Deal with it, or change profession, simple as that.

The previous 1.5 pages would like to have a word with you.

The last 1½ pages think that the world is made of milk and honey. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that.

 

[Jumplion]

This is the life as a game developer. Deal with it, or change profession, simple as that.

The previous 1.5 pages would like to have a word with you.

The last 1½ pages think that the world is made of milk and honey. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that.

The last 1½ pages believe that the world is made of oil and vinegar (just roll with it).

Shit like this happening is not justification in itself towards it happening. Simply going "It's a fact of life, big deal!" only ignores the issue and nothing will ever change. This is the kind of shit we abandoned with the movie industry around the 60s/70s, it's inefficient and put up as an excuse for shitty management.

 

[Fiskmasen]

This is the life as a game developer. Deal with it, or change profession, simple as that.

The previous 1.5 pages would like to have a word with you.

The last 1½ pages think that the world is made of milk and honey. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that.

The last 1½ pages believe that the world is made of oil and vinegar (just roll with it).

Shit like this happening is not justification in itself towards it happening. Simply going "It's a fact of life, big deal!" only ignores the issue and nothing will ever change. This is the kind of shit we abandoned with the movie industry around the 60s/70s, it's inefficient and put up as an excuse for shitty management.

Had this been any other industry (I'm going to enroll the entire Entertainment Business as an industry for this post) I'd agree that shit like this just shouldn't be allowed. However now we're talking about an extremely result-oriented industry, were shit needs to made in a certain time-period. If that shit doesn't get made on time, a lot of people loses a shitload of money they've fueled into projects. It's called crunch-work for a reason, and if you're not cool with that get another fucking job with a clear 9-5 schedule. Or you know, start some indie-studio or whatever, and take those "I should be payed for my overtime"-standards there. Let's see how fucking far you'll get.

 

[Kian2]

The sad thing is, crunch is a failure of the process. It's not something that should be expected, unless you start off planning to fail. Crunch is another symptom of the underlying problems that produce bug-ridden games.

Paying overtime is not the solution, a developer should never be expected to work 80 or 100 hour weeks in the first place. If they are doing it, then they are paying for problems higher up in the company. People should be getting fired if anyone had to work under those conditions, even if the game gets out on time, because there should be people whose whole job is to make sure a project doesn't go off the rails so far that 'drastic measures' are necessary.

Game development may not be an exact science, and yeah problems crop up and delays happen. Crunch is not the solution. Specially not six months of it. But then the game gets released, and everyone is quick to call it a success and move on. To screw up the next project.

 

[Jumplion]

Had this been any other industry (I'm going to enroll the entire Entertainment Business as an industry for this post) I'd agree that shit like this just shouldn't be allowed. However now we're talking about an extremely result-oriented industry, were shit needs to made in a certain time-period. If that shit doesn't get made on time, a lot of people loses a shitload of money they've fueled into projects. It's called crunch-work for a reason, and if you're not cool with that get another fucking job with a clear 9-5 schedule. Or you know, start some indie-studio or whatever, and take those "I should be payed for my overtime"-standards there. Let's see how fucking far you'll get.

And crunch-work would not be neccessary if management did their jobs properly.

Insomniac games was listed one of the top 10 small companies (not just video games, in general) to work for. They have nearly zero crunch time and they work efficiently with their games. VALVe, Blizzard, BioWare, DICE, they're all pretty damn good developers and they treat their employees with respect and give them freedom. There is absolutely no reason why you can't get work done in a standard 9-5 work day.

Everything you have said could easily be applied to any other industry, yet we don't accept that. Why should we accept this for video game developers? Because they're "results-oriented"? And the movie/book/music/TV industry are not "result-oriented"? Game development is not a sweatshop, you can't run down your employees like this and expect good results. And yet they do, and we've got developer burnout on people who have barely entered the industry.

Some crunch time may be necessary, sure. Shit hits the fan every now and again. Code goes out of wack and you need people to work in a few extra hours/days, maybe at most a month. But don't even try to justify 6-8 months of 9-12 crunch time, 80+ hour work weeks, no vacation, working on weekends, abusive management staff, and unreasonable deadlines. It's detrimental not only to the state of the game, but also to the employee's health physically, mentally, and socially when everything becomes "work, sleep, work, sleep, work, sleep". Crunch time isn't some unfortunate byproduct that happens every now and again, it's a piss-poor way to cover-up the larger issues of game development.

 

[coakroach]

you know its all gonna change once someone dies from exhausion

I guess thats what its going to take

 

[Fiskmasen]

Words, words, words

I basically just read the first paragraph of your post, because the rest turned to pointless drivel quickly. So I'll just answer that first one, shan't I?

Insomniac being listed as one of the ten best small-companies to work for means absolute shit in this context. All it means is that the guys who work there are veterans (they are) of the industry and know how shit works.

As for the rest, let's go through those companies you listed: VALVe, Blizzard, BioWare, DICE... Any common denominator between these guys? That's right - ZERO PUBLISHER INTERFERENCE. I'll bet you the entirety of my life that before DICE released Battlefield 1942, before BioWare released Baldur's Gate, before Blizzard released WarCraft, before VALVe released Half-Life, every single one of those understood and lived with the concept of crunch time. What happened after all those notable releases? Each and everyone of them basically became self-published. People threw money at them screaming "MAKE ANYTHING!!!", not caring how long it would take, because regardless it sell like shit in a farmer's market.

If you can't show numbers like that you'll just have to live with the publisher that's handing you money to get your game done wanting to see some results at specific dates.

 

[dagens24]

If they don't like it they can GIIIIIT OUUUUUT! What brilliant stupidity. Let's de-regulate all industry and have that attitude towards production. You'll get a lot more done, and who cares about health and well-being of the employees, they're just a means to and end, right?

 

[WanderingFool]

Pachter, you do have some great moments... this ain't one of them...

 

[Kian2]

Words, words, words

I basically just read the first paragraph of your post, because the rest turned to pointless drivel quickly. So I'll just answer that first one, shan't I?

[...]

If you can't show numbers like that you'll just have to live with the publisher that's handing you money to get your game done wanting to see some results at specific dates.

Which goes to show that it's a management problem, and not something the developers should be expected to cover for with their effort. Why is crunch time necessary in the first place? Because the people in charge either underestimated how long it would take, or mismanaged the time they had.

Projects aren't budgeted thinking "We have an year, this project actually takes an year and a half to make, so we do six months of crunch and we're golden." It's the other way around. Someone figures out how long it will take, they pitch it to the people with the money, they green-light it, and then when they realize they're not going to make it they start riding the developers expecting them to cover for the fact that management fucked up.

The problem with saying 'crunch is acceptable' is that it allows for the possibility of management planning on crunch to cut costs, and that's fucked up in so many ways it's criminal. There's a reason successful companies don't do it, crunch lowers the quality of the product and burns out their human resources. It may come as a surprise to you, but people who have been working 16 hour days aren't as productive as people who get a good night's sleep and time to relax. Not in creative labors such as programming.

But so long as the game gets pushed out, everyone thinks 'success'. You even get people to look at it like something normal if enough crappy leads get in charge of enough projects.

 

[Fiskmasen]

But so long as the game gets pushed out, everyone thinks 'success'. You even get people to look at it like something normal if enough crappy leads get in charge of enough projects.

Isn't it a success though? Everyone gets a great big bonus, "No hard feelings" all around something you've bleed, sweat and cried to get done is out there for people to play. The last 6 months may have been hell, but at least you have something to show for it.

 

[-Axle-]

I know its been covered before but I'll drop in my two cents into the vast sea of responses.

The biggest issue I have with Pachter's responses is that their rationale is based off of two things; 1.) The practice is commonplace, and 2.) The ends justify the means.

Now forget what the argument is for a second and just look at the logic. This is not sound logic for determining whether something is proper or not, especially when taking into consideration the sustainability of something. It was also commonplace to have black people as slaves or hitting your wife. It got sh!t done. Does that make it "OK"? Certainly not. The second point with the ends justifying the means, do I need to go into that? It seems fairly self-explanatory and I shouldn't have to say that when you're dealing with human labour, the ends NEVER justify the means.

Now, I know a lot of people don't have any respect for Pachter but I urge some of you to still pay attention to what he says. That doesn't mean agree, just listen. I don't agree with some of his stances but when he talks, he talks from a strictly business perspective. He speaks to the interests of investors and this is important to hear as it gives you insight into the people that are making decisions in the industry (not all of them, but a lot of them). I'd love to have a voice on the show just so that I could argue some of his assertions from a business perspective.

I could write a lot more like how those who don't make the decisions shouldn't carry the burden of the risk and how using bonus compensation as a means of offsetting unpaid overtime can very easily be exploitative but I won't since this is already a wall of text. If you read this far, thanks.

 

[blurredplacebo]

interesting article but does any one else wonder why the pip boy plushie in the background have a enormous blue boner?

 

[AnteGravity]

Allow me to sum up Mr. Pachter's business philosophy.

Money > Human Beings

A.k.a businesses don't have social responsibilities, and should only push profit making. If this means abusing your employees and bending legal loopholes then so be it. He doesn't give a damn about you, your family, your well being, only the money you can make him. The only thing he respects are threats to his wallet.

 

[Kian2]

Isn't it a success though? Everyone gets a great big bonus, "No hard feelings" all around something you've bleed, sweat and cried to get done is out there for people to play. The last 6 months may have been hell, but at least you have something to show for it.

No, it's not a success. Let's ignore for now that the bonus generally won't go to the people who actually had to put in the effort but to the people that messed up. Let's assume that the bonus goes to the right people in the right amounts (hah, funny). It's still a failure.

Why? First, those kinds of games tend to be riddled with bugs (and they are usually delayed anyway). No other industry can get away with the kind of crap we let software (in general, games in particular) get away with.

Imagine a Hollywood blockbuster where scenes cut off in the middle of someone's sentences, the boom mics show, and you see production assistants running around in front of the camera. Would that be a success?

How about a book with missing pages and crappy binding? Would you call it publishing success?

A house with a leaky roof? A car with a twitchy airbag(it goes off if you accelerate too fast, try not to do that, kay?)?

So why do we call buggy software, needing interminable patches, months or years late, and that required super-human effort on the part of the developers a success? Because the people getting screwed are not the sames messing up. If the game has show stopping bugs (not talking about mispelled words, but actual 'crash the computer' kind of bugs, which aren't rare), that's a failure. Testing should have caught those. If they didn't have time, that's a failure, management should have allotted enough time.

There's people whose whole job is to plan things, nothing else. Why congratulate them for not planning well? For failing at their cushy, well paying jobs? A deadline isn't set until after someone decides that's got to be the deadline. There is no excuse for crunch time. It's a result of a failure to manage time. If you are not managing time effectively, that's the definition of failure, isn't it?

Why should it be called a success?

 

[-Axle-]

Isn't it a success though? Everyone gets a great big bonus, "No hard feelings" all around something you've bleed, sweat and cried to get done is out there for people to play. The last 6 months may have been hell, but at least you have something to show for it.

The catch is that its only rectified (if you want to call it that) if it is indeed a financial success. What happens if the game flops (regardless of good or not)?

You just transferred a large portion of the labour expense onto the workforce which had zero influence on the decisions made.

 

[LostintheWick]

Those so called "profit pools" don't have to be distributed and most contracts leave a loop hole on royalties. "To be distributed at managements discretion" or somethings similarly worded in small print.

Royalties are the carrot they dangle in front of you to keep you working your hardest til the very end. Many get canned before it's shared (and thus NO SHARE FOR YOU). AND IF it is, it's rarely distributed fairly.

 

[Jumplion]

Words, words, words

I basically just read the first paragraph of your post, because the rest turned to pointless drivel quickly. So I'll just answer that first one, shan't I?

Yes, thanks for insulting and ignoring whatever I said, that'll really help discussion.

If I came off as aggressive to you, personally, I will say I didn't mean to do so. Doesn't mean we can't be civil here.

Insomniac being listed as one of the ten best small-companies to work for means absolute shit in this context. All it means is that the guys who work there are veterans (they are) of the industry and know how shit works.

And clearly, they know how shit works without resorting to unreasonable crunch times. That was my point.

As for the rest, let's go through those companies you listed: VALVe, Blizzard, BioWare, DICE... Any common denominator between these guys? That's right - ZERO PUBLISHER INTERFERENCE. I'll bet you the entirety of my life that before DICE released Battlefield 1942, before BioWare released Baldur's Gate, before Blizzard released WarCraft, before VALVe released Half-Life, every single one of those understood and lived with the concept of crunch time. What happened after all those notable releases? Each and everyone of them basically became self-published. People threw money at them screaming "MAKE ANYTHING!!!", not caring how long it would take, because regardless it sell like shit in a farmer's market.

And they know how to treat their employees respectfully with good development times. That was my point.

If you can't show numbers like that you'll just have to live with the publisher that's handing you money to get your game done wanting to see some results at specific dates.

And I'm not denying that, at all. Developers need to meet milestones. But if meeting those deadlines requires consistent, 6 month crunch times, 80+ hour work weeks, abusive management, and unreasonable deadlines on top of that, I refer you to what I had initially said;

And crunch-work would not be necessary if management did their jobs properly.

If you have to choose between having a barely steady paying job that sucks you physically, mentally, and socially or being unemployed in this economy, well.....that should never be a choice you deal with at all.

 

[LostintheWick]

Isn't it a success though? Everyone gets a great big bonus, "No hard feelings" all around something you've bleed, sweat and cried to get done is out there for people to play. The last 6 months may have been hell, but at least you have something to show for it.

The catch is that its only rectified (if you want to call it that) if it is indeed a financial success. What happens if the game flops (regardless of good or not)?

You just transferred a large portion of the labour expense onto the workforce which had zero influence on the decisions made.

Not to mention the fact that all those who left the company, whether they were fired or quit, don't get a share. Even if they were there for 90% of the dev time. Unless there is some sort of clause in the contract (but what company will give you that if they don't have to).