| Dragon_Lord said: I don't get these companies strategy wouldn't it be cheaper to hire more people and not pay anyone overtime? |
As far as I'm aware the very 'problem' with these crunch times is that the employees are paid no over-time - or paid at all for the extra time they put in due to the nature of their contracts.
This article snips certain things Pachter says without really explaining his full points. Basically - he did concede that over 3-6 months or so (1 year + rumoured at Team Bondi) crunch time is 'too much' and wrong. However, when you go into this industry, you know you're going to have unpaid crunch time and you know how much you'll be paid.
He then went on to say about people complaining about not being paid enough / for crunch time. His counter argument was that if the game you're making launches and is a big success then a % of the money it makes go into a 'profit pool' which is then split up amongst the team who make the game. Insomniac games have sent their entire devlopemet team + famlies on holiday after a successful launch before, and the profit pool payments which the Infinity Ward guys are suing Activision over are around $78m... to be split between around 300 employees... So although the crunch time might be unpaid, you could unltimately get a huge pay off if all goes well.
I'd tend to agree with him for the most part but crunch times should last longer then 'normal' or then promised. It sounds like the Bondi guys went into crunch time 3 months before launch, and then delays of the game meant their crunch times (6 day weeks working 12 hours+) lasted for 18 months or so :/. That's crossing the line, if true.
