LinkedIn today often presents a mixed bag for industry professionals, particularly in the gaming sector, with its share of web3 opportunists, pressure to purchase subscriptions, and journalists on the hunt for insider job information. However, it sometimes serves as a platform for meaningful discussions, as evidenced by a recent conversation among senior developers from well-known studios like Remedy, Ubisoft, and Naughty Dog concerning the pervasive issue of “crunch,” or excessive overtime in game development.
The dialogue, initiated by Novaquark technical director John Walther, focuses on the structural factors contributing to crunch rather than the commonly held belief that it is an inherent aspect of passionate creativity. Walther, who has significant experience with the Anvil engine at Ubisoft, asserts that the gaming industry is gradually shifting away from crunch, which has historically been used to deliver blockbuster titles but ultimately leads to team burnout. He acknowledges that while some companies still resort to crunch under pressure from publishers, the long-term solution lies in enhancing production pipelines and processes.
Walther mentions “scoping down” as a less appealing option and advocates for ambition in game design while maintaining efficiency and organization. This viewpoint invites a broader conversation about how ambition is often conflated with the scale of production.
Responses to Walther’s post highlight additional dimensions of the crunch phenomenon. Robert Krekel, formerly of Naughty Dog, identifies ego among high-performing teams as a significant contributor to crunch. He argues that when top talent is assembled, there arises a pressure to exemplify excellence in their disciplines, which can detract from project deadlines. Krekel believes studio leaders must reform flawed processes while allowing employees the autonomy to innovate, establishing safeguards against self-imposed pressures.
Josh DiCarlo, with his background at Insomniac Games, contends that crunch is fundamentally an institutional issue rather than one of scope. He emphasizes that preventing crunch requires a commitment across all levels of a studio and the development of streamlined, automated processes that avoid reliance on individuals. DiCarlo criticizes the failure to implement rigorous project management practices and stresses the importance of maintaining financial accountability concerning overtime.
Ville Petteri Sorsa, a principal audio designer at Remedy, delivers a pointed critique, stating, “Crunch is the easiest workaround for failures in management and project planning.” He suggests that crunch usually stems from financial pressures and unrealistic deadlines, mirroring sentiments shared by several contributors who have experienced crunch firsthand.
Many professionals within the industry have felt the impact of crunch, often arising from insufficient project structure, lack of resources, or self-imposed expectations to deliver. The experiences discussed in this ongoing dialogue reveal a clear need for a cultural shift within studios to prioritize sustainable work practices, effective management, and adequate planning to mitigate the damaging effects of crunch.
This discussion invites further reflection on how the gaming industry can evolve past ingrained practices of overwork and creative burnout, ensuring a healthier work environment for developers while still allowing for ambitious and innovative game design.
