By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Uncharted director criticizes triple-a development, says it can 'destroy people'

Tagged games:

Miyamotoo said:
Well you cant really make quality AAA game without real effort.

How about real effort 8 hours a day 5 times a week instead of 12 hours per day and 7 days a week?

Companies should hire more people if they cant at least get close to that.



Around the Network
pray4mojo said:

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to AAA development so maybe this isn't practical but why not just double the staff? I mean, we're talking about games that are funded by companies with billions to spend. Seems like a logical idea. If team A has X amount of employees and works 12 hour days 7 days a week, doubling the staff should theoretically allow them to work normal hours.

Not to be rude, but that's a rather naive and shortsighted mindset. In fact, a major mistake developers or anyone working on group-based projects often face is when they're coming down to a deadline and things are looking dire so their superior just hires more people. That'll make things go faster, right? Well, besides the fact that these new employees must be trained and caught up to speed, are less proficient and knowledgable about what they're making and more inclined towards mistakes, or don't have a personality or views that jive well with the rest of the development team. This actually makes things worse and puts an even bigger strain on the previous developers because now they have to serve as trainers and glorified babysitters.

It's a mistake to believe that because developer(X) can do 40 hours of work in a week, that if X= 40, then X*2 = 80. Humans are not a stagnant X value, and their productivity flucuates depending on various circumstances.

I don't work in the video game industry, but I do work as a developer in a different field with projects of a much smaller scale. Generally it's one developer per project. But putting two on a project does not cut down timelines in half. It perhaps creates 20% more efficiency if nothing goes wrong, because it's not as simple as splitting the code in half and one person doing one part and the other doing another. We still need to discuss and coordinate at all times.

That's also not counting the fact that you're doubling the BUDGET as well by hiring so many people on, even if it's all at the start. You may be fine with a 50% paycut, but this is a lot of people's livelihoods and they don't have the luxury of picking a paycut over long work hours when supporting a family.



Cerebralbore101 said:
This is why I hate graphics whores. It takes ten times as much effort to take a game from PS3 graphics to PS4 graphics. The difference is negligible. You could have a game world three times as big, and three times as many quests with dated graphics. But nooooo! People gotta have their 1080p 60 fps nonsense.

I honestly wouldn't mind if we went back to PS1 graphics.  It would force quite a lot of developers to think differently and put out games with actual unique substance instead of trying to make cinematic spectacles with little substance.



Lube Me Up

Japanese devs agree.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Mbolibombo said:
Miyamotoo said:
Well you cant really make quality AAA game without real effort.

How about real effort 8 hours a day 5 times a week instead of 12 hours per day and 7 days a week?

Companies should hire more people if they cant at least get close to that.

And they would either not make profit or cut wages, neither is desirable so that isn't a real solution.

Brii said:
pray4mojo said:

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to AAA development so maybe this isn't practical but why not just double the staff? I mean, we're talking about games that are funded by companies with billions to spend. Seems like a logical idea. If team A has X amount of employees and works 12 hour days 7 days a week, doubling the staff should theoretically allow them to work normal hours.

Not to be rude, but that's a rather naive and shortsighted mindset. In fact, a major mistake developers or anyone working on group-based projects often face is when they're coming down to a deadline and things are looking dire so their superior just hires more people. That'll make things go faster, right? Well, besides the fact that these new employees must be trained and caught up to speed, are less proficient and knowledgable about what they're making and more inclined towards mistakes, or don't have a personality or views that jive well with the rest of the development team. This actually makes things worse and puts an even bigger strain on the previous developers because now they have to serve as trainers and glorified babysitters.

It's a mistake to believe that because developer(X) can do 40 hours of work in a week, that if X= 40, then X*2 = 80. Humans are not a stagnant X value, and their productivity flucuates depending on various circumstances.

I don't work in the video game industry, but I do work as a developer in a different field with projects of a much smaller scale. Generally it's one developer per project. But putting two on a project does not cut down timelines in half. It perhaps creates 20% more efficiency if nothing goes wrong, because it's not as simple as splitting the code in half and one person doing one part and the other doing another. We still need to discuss and coordinate at all times.

That's also not counting the fact that you're doubling the BUDGET as well by hiring so many people on, even if it's all at the start. You may be fine with a 50% paycut, but this is a lot of people's livelihoods and they don't have the luxury of picking a paycut over long work hours when supporting a family.

Thank you for being a sensible person with some business knowledge instead of ludicrous view.

LMU Uncle Alfred said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
This is why I hate graphics whores. It takes ten times as much effort to take a game from PS3 graphics to PS4 graphics. The difference is negligible. You could have a game world three times as big, and three times as many quests with dated graphics. But nooooo! People gotta have their 1080p 60 fps nonsense.

I honestly wouldn't mind if we went back to PS1 graphics.  It would force quite a lot of developers to think differently and put out games with actual unique substance instead of trying to make cinematic spectacles with little substance.

Yep, because all PS1 games were great and unique. I have far more enjoyed PS3 games than PS1 games even though I had much more free time back then.

AZWification said:

Japanese devs agree.

Yep. 8 years to make Last Guardian must let them work 20h a week without any stress =p



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
arcaneguyver said:
Games are taking longer and longer to make, while technology is improving faster than the average consumer can keep up with.

Upon reading this, can you imagine being a cog in a machine releasing one of these huge games? You spend well over 40 hours a week on it, the game goes gold, but you gotta keep working on that day one patch. Game releases, and there's a good chance people shit on this thing you've spent thousands of hours building; and what if it flops? That's gotta be a gigantic hit to the morale. And yet you may still be required to keep working on further patches...


You describe it pretty almost perfectly. But, your're forgetting the part where you might get laid off the day that day 1 patch goes final. You're forgetting the part where you game comes out to critical acclaim, and great sales, but you don't get to see an extra dime of the hard work you've poured in because you no longer work there. That sucks too.

People don't make video games for money, they do it because they love it, and the people that are in it for the money are fully aware and take full advantage. It's why the industry has such a high turn over rate. Developers take abuse from pretty much everyone around them, day in and day out, and there's only so much they can take before they hit the "eject" button, and go find a real job, with real job security, and real pay, and sensible hours. Then all you really have to show for it is the placques on the walls, and stories of sleeping under your desk. The upside is the best feeling I've ever had outside of saying "I do" and looking into my child's eyes for the first time. There's always those reviews and comments where some fan from the middle of nowhere talks about your game in such a way glowing way that you can tell it touched their heart. That impact it makes all of the bullshit melt off of you, if only briefly. But that's what keeps me going. Those little victories. Those are the things I hold onto.

But I have to admit, it's really starting to lose its luster. I became a parent recently, and now I need to make sure that my kid has everything they'll need, and the "real world" is looking mighty appealing. Losing my job right now would be devestating, and I have a major release right around the corner, and the threat of yet another lay off is weighing me down. I'm seriously considering moving on to a different industry before that happens.

Game development needs to change. Game developers are people too. Don't ever forget that.



pray4mojo said:
DonFerrari said:

We know about them... they are doing it, so either they like the money or the work, perhaps both... but I doubt they would appreciate a 50% cut. Would you like?

At their salary? Sure! I'd rather have less money and more happiness in my life.

They already get paid less than they make in other software development industries, because making video games has a "cool factor" and people are lining up out the door waiting for a chance at your job.



Brii said:
pray4mojo said:

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to AAA development so maybe this isn't practical but why not just double the staff? I mean, we're talking about games that are funded by companies with billions to spend. Seems like a logical idea. If team A has X amount of employees and works 12 hour days 7 days a week, doubling the staff should theoretically allow them to work normal hours.

Not to be rude, but that's a rather naive and shortsighted mindset. In fact, a major mistake developers or anyone working on group-based projects often face is when they're coming down to a deadline and things are looking dire so their superior just hires more people. That'll make things go faster, right? Well, besides the fact that these new employees must be trained and caught up to speed, are less proficient and knowledgable about what they're making and more inclined towards mistakes, or don't have a personality or views that jive well with the rest of the development team. This actually makes things worse and puts an even bigger strain on the previous developers because now they have to serve as trainers and glorified babysitters.

It's a mistake to believe that because developer(X) can do 40 hours of work in a week, that if X= 40, then X*2 = 80. Humans are not a stagnant X value, and their productivity flucuates depending on various circumstances.

I don't work in the video game industry, but I do work as a developer in a different field with projects of a much smaller scale. Generally it's one developer per project. But putting two on a project does not cut down timelines in half. It perhaps creates 20% more efficiency if nothing goes wrong, because it's not as simple as splitting the code in half and one person doing one part and the other doing another. We still need to discuss and coordinate at all times.

That's also not counting the fact that you're doubling the BUDGET as well by hiring so many people on, even if it's all at the start. You may be fine with a 50% paycut, but this is a lot of people's livelihoods and they don't have the luxury of picking a paycut over long work hours when supporting a family.

I understand all that but you also can't expect people to work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day either. If having larger teams isn't the solution, there should be another one. People shouldn't have to work themselves into the hospital in the western world like they're in sweat shops.



pray4mojo said:
Brii said:

Not to be rude, but that's a rather naive and shortsighted mindset. In fact, a major mistake developers or anyone working on group-based projects often face is when they're coming down to a deadline and things are looking dire so their superior just hires more people. That'll make things go faster, right? Well, besides the fact that these new employees must be trained and caught up to speed, are less proficient and knowledgable about what they're making and more inclined towards mistakes, or don't have a personality or views that jive well with the rest of the development team. This actually makes things worse and puts an even bigger strain on the previous developers because now they have to serve as trainers and glorified babysitters.

It's a mistake to believe that because developer(X) can do 40 hours of work in a week, that if X= 40, then X*2 = 80. Humans are not a stagnant X value, and their productivity flucuates depending on various circumstances.

I don't work in the video game industry, but I do work as a developer in a different field with projects of a much smaller scale. Generally it's one developer per project. But putting two on a project does not cut down timelines in half. It perhaps creates 20% more efficiency if nothing goes wrong, because it's not as simple as splitting the code in half and one person doing one part and the other doing another. We still need to discuss and coordinate at all times.

That's also not counting the fact that you're doubling the BUDGET as well by hiring so many people on, even if it's all at the start. You may be fine with a 50% paycut, but this is a lot of people's livelihoods and they don't have the luxury of picking a paycut over long work hours when supporting a family.

I understand all that but you also can't expect people to work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day either. If having larger teams isn't the solution, there should be another one. People shouldn't have to work themselves into the hospital in the western world like they're in sweat shops.

They can, and do. I've personally seen it. The games industry is absolutely brutal



Now we know why Amy Hennig is a former Naughty Dog employee.



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5