The link "second part of this article" doesn't work btw.
I think there's an interesting angle here on the games vs games as a service (live ops) difference between what will be GTA6 and Naughty Dog games. Where the model, however exploitive, works for Naughty Dog because the games are relatively contained.
GTA6 will be expected to service content for years, if not a decade.
That model contributes to the overall chaos of crunch, by extending crunch ad infinitum.
Sorry about the broken link. Part two is next week, and I got ahead of myself on the linking.
This is exactly the right distinction to draw, and I didn't make it explicitly enough in the post.
The Naughty Dog model has a natural release valve: the game ships, the crunch ends, people leave. The cycle resets. Brutal, but contained.
Live service changes the calculus entirely. There's no ship date that functions as a release valve. GTA Online has been in continuous development since 2013. GTA 6 online will presumably run alongside it or replace it. That's not a crunch cycle, that's a permanent production state dressed up as one.
The bonus-incentivised overtime mechanism doesn't just extend under that model. It becomes the baseline. Which makes the union's demand for an end to crunch not just about the launch window. It's about what comes after it.
I'm also always flabbergasted by the amount of times in Production Interviews that I've had where I've approached my talents/abilities/contributions in a way that says "I don't like crunch, and I'm here to solve your crunch problem" - to the studio/interviewer essentially saying "that's not what we want to hire you for".
I find that mind blowing that at a high level studios don't see producers as the problem solvers and keepers of sanity, and don't want those things to be metrics for success.
Being openly anti-crunch over my time in the business has been career-limiting. I was up for an EP role at a top publisher on a huge franchise. At the final interview with the senior VP where I gave my POV crunch. I thought I crushed the interview until the recruiter with $ in their eyes called me furious. They told me hard pass and wondered what I said to create such a reaction.
The link "second part of this article" doesn't work btw.
I think there's an interesting angle here on the games vs games as a service (live ops) difference between what will be GTA6 and Naughty Dog games. Where the model, however exploitive, works for Naughty Dog because the games are relatively contained.
GTA6 will be expected to service content for years, if not a decade.
That model contributes to the overall chaos of crunch, by extending crunch ad infinitum.
Sorry about the broken link. Part two is next week, and I got ahead of myself on the linking.
This is exactly the right distinction to draw, and I didn't make it explicitly enough in the post.
The Naughty Dog model has a natural release valve: the game ships, the crunch ends, people leave. The cycle resets. Brutal, but contained.
Live service changes the calculus entirely. There's no ship date that functions as a release valve. GTA Online has been in continuous development since 2013. GTA 6 online will presumably run alongside it or replace it. That's not a crunch cycle, that's a permanent production state dressed up as one.
The bonus-incentivised overtime mechanism doesn't just extend under that model. It becomes the baseline. Which makes the union's demand for an end to crunch not just about the launch window. It's about what comes after it.
Good addition. Worth a post in its own right.
100%
I'm also always flabbergasted by the amount of times in Production Interviews that I've had where I've approached my talents/abilities/contributions in a way that says "I don't like crunch, and I'm here to solve your crunch problem" - to the studio/interviewer essentially saying "that's not what we want to hire you for".
I find that mind blowing that at a high level studios don't see producers as the problem solvers and keepers of sanity, and don't want those things to be metrics for success.
Being openly anti-crunch over my time in the business has been career-limiting. I was up for an EP role at a top publisher on a huge franchise. At the final interview with the senior VP where I gave my POV crunch. I thought I crushed the interview until the recruiter with $ in their eyes called me furious. They told me hard pass and wondered what I said to create such a reaction.