@nurnberg: I've done it a few times in my career...the worst being nearly 240 hours in two weeks. It was a red bull fueled drunk code rage of bloody murder, but critical for the company I was working for at the time. It was fun for a short duration...and I got 3 or 4 days off to chill after along with some other substantial perks.
I pitty heavily people who do this regularly for no benefits. I don't care how much you love anything...if you spend that kind of time putting that much intense effort into it, you burn out.
@Mogan: Yes. It does...but I think that's just how it rolls with any creative role. My point in this whole thread is it's laughable for them to imply that crunch time is a choice made by a chosen few in the studio. That's just now how it works at all.
@Mogan:Because entry level is entry level, and kids are stupid (you'd be amazed at how long a single 22 year old will work, in awful gut wrenching conditions, and work for peanuts).
It gets your name in the credits for a high profile release. That gives you an in for more lucrative positions elsewhere. It's a vicious cycle, but that's how the industry goes.
@phoenix1289: You clearly don't know how the industry works. After EA took shit for this, it's very taboo to talk about the real working conditions when it comes to development.
But no, you only need a few key positions to have real talent to keep a studio going...80% of your work is grindy, mo caps, clean up, testing, tooling, etc... It's also cannon fodder. If you're not "invested" enough, it's a quick trip to Rockstar Alaska and a dead end position. There are 50 very talented people drooling over that position.
@phoenix1289: No, you don't fire anyone, you shame them or give them god awful jobs until they quit. The army of grunts for game development for a high profile studio is endless.
chakan2's comments