EA's bright and shiny new corporate trademark is "Challenge Everything." Where this applies is not exactly clear. Churning out one licensed football game after another doesn't sound like challenging much of anything to me; it sounds like a money farm
fixed?bune duggy said:it's the Capitalist Way!
john2kx said:they need 85-hour work weeks to throw marginal improvements and updated stats into an already-existing football game?
It doesn't help that a lot of these people have self esteem problems and don't want to be thought of as dragging down the team. This shit is rampant in almost all software development.WarPig said:Making games is hard. This business pretty much runs on the notion that the people in it should somehow be grateful for the opportunity, and thus deliver above and beyond the call of an ordinary paycheck. The fact that most developers get profit participation in their games helps, but I do wonder whether the current model can sustain itself.
DFS.
The Bookerman said:Can't say workin for Ubi's walk in the park also.
The Public expects so much....
Like countless sequels year after year.
The Bookerman said:I'm already workin 50-60 hours a week and I find it hard to have a life.
Edit: I'm only in QA by the way.
captmcblack said:If a lowly QA grunt like me could put in 60 hour weeks just bug-hunting, I shudder to think what a devmonkey could put in...
tehrik-e-insaaf said:Well the same question should be directed to anyone who joins Investment Banking or Management Consulting firms. Why put up with that kind of crap? The reason is entirely because you get a fast-tracked experience in those first few years, and the level of stress tolerance you develop will help you land jobs anywhere else.
Dave Long said:You only live once. Spending most of your waking hours working isn't something you're going to be proud of on your deathbed. No one ever said "I wish I had worked more." when they were dying.
bishoptl said:going over season mode takes time, fellas, and no matter how many people you throw at it, the time involved does not change.
The fact that most developers get profit participation in their games helps
Seriously. 80 hours a week is just plain stupid. The world revolves around people, relationships, family, living life... video games are just entertainment. It's a hobby. If you were curing cancer, then yeah, definitely work your heart out and feel content when you die. But video games? Please...
A lot of people don't understand what software development is like, period. And when there's a creative image associated with it, it just makes it worse.fart said:i don't understand the guys i know who are itching to get out of undergrad to hit the game dev trenches. pay is bad, hours are terrible, and at most companies the problems you're solving are trivial, just tedious. i'm not saying games aren't the most interesting class of software (i think they are to a large extent), but the industry right now just seems to be a hellhole.
i'm sure there are other GAF members who are in it now and can corroborate.
At most animation studios, the production pipeline doesn't work that way. An animator will draw key frames in a scene, then hand them off to an in-betweener that fills in secondary key frames, who hands them off to a breakdown animator who fills in lesser frames, etc. Rarely is an entire scene drawn from start to finish by one animator except at smaller, low-budget independent studios where people have to wear more than one hat. Even cut-rate TV animation isn't often done that way.Vark said:eh, like anything else its just an 'art' thing. It's a process.
what drives people to create 2d animation? drawing the same fucking thing over and over and over again, 12-24 times for every second. Spending *weeks* on just a few seconds of animation.
Same goes for 3d work. Spending a few months on a really kick ass model, another few weeks to animate, and for what? a couple of seconds of video?
there's more of a cultural permanence to traditional art. as a software engineer you're just cranking out code that's going to run through some compiler or interpreter and be mashed into some kind of pulp anyways. code has one purpose: to solve problems; given conditions compute some goal. if you're too attached to the code itself, i think, you're missing the point.
At most animation studios, the production pipeline doesn't work that way. An animator will draw key frames in a scene, then hand them off to an in-betweener that fills in secondary key frames, who hands them off to a breakdown animator who fills in lesser frames, etc. Rarely is an entire scene drawn from start to finish by one animator except at smaller, low-budget independent studios where people have to wear more than one hat. Even cut-rate TV animation isn't often done that way.
I disagree. I know many people who started working at an animation company in non-artistic, administrative, technical, or supporting roles and transitioned into specialized positions as modelers, lighters, animators, etc. by learning on the job and taking advantage of free training classes at the studio. They never had to do it all themselves. The entry path you took into the animation industry is only one of many.Vark said:I know, its what I went to school for. But every animator that is part of that pipeline started out doing it all themselves.
I just think that in general, videogame coders such as those described in this testimonial at EA and animators at EA-size animation studios do not share the same "crunch" experience. The testimonial itself even explains one reason why:Vark said:Same goes for 3d work. Spending a few months on a really kick ass model, another few weeks to animate, and for what? a couple of seconds of video?
I can't specifically speak for all the coders in the industry, but you're never just doing 'one' thing in a game.
The interesting thing about this is an assumption that most of the employees seem to be operating under. Whenever the subject of hours come up, inevitably, it seems, someone mentions 'exemption'. They refer to a California law that supposedly exempts businesses from having to pay overtime to certain 'specialty' employees, including software programmers. This is Senate Bill 88. However, Senate Bill 88 specifically does not apply to the entertainment industry -- television, motion picture, and theater industries are specifically mentioned. Further, even in software, there is a pay minimum on the exemption: those exempt must be paid at least $90,000 annually. I can assure you that the majority of EA employees are in fact not in this pay bracket; ergo, these practices are not only unethical, they are illegal.
I disagree. I know many people who started working at an animation company in non-artistic, administrative, technical, or supporting roles and transitioned into specialized positions as modelers, lighters, animators, etc. by learning on the job and taking advantage of free training classes at the studio. They never had to do it all themselves. The entry path you took into the animation industry is only one of many.