An insider's look at what he gave up to create a classic game
polygon.com
polygon.com
Conclusion: do not put yourself in an environment where the people around you are doing bad things. If you are already in such an environment, talk to someone outside it, get their view on the matter, and take it seriously. And if you think you aren't in such an environment, consider doing that anyway as a reality check.
Exactly, I cannot agree more. One of the most striking examples of this is a classic experiment where people are no longer able to trust their own judgment in a very simple matter and are compelled to give an obviously wrong answer to avoid deviating from the norm:
Also, from the end of the article:
> Asch's 1951 report emphasised the predominance of independence over yielding saying "the facts that were being judged were, under the circumstances, the most decisive." However, a 1990 survey of US introductory psychology textbooks found that most ignored independence, instead reported a misleading summary of the results as reflecting complete power of the situation to produce conformity of behavior and belief.
"25 percent of the sample consistently defied majority opinion, with the rest conforming on some trials."
Ie, when taking the test individually, everyone got the correct answer almost all the time. But when taking the test in a group, 75% gave the incorrect answer at some point.
I do broadly agree with you, though.
("But but but look at all of my smart grad student friends getting their PhDs! They can't all be doing something irrational, can they?!")
Those interested in cash will grow tired of the funding cycles and move on.
There isn't much of a financial reward in research. You believe you're on the brink of discovering something others have tried and failed to explain.
The funding cycles will also make the people not in it for the money tired, except for the ones that keep winning; it's a rat race regardless of your interest in cash. Most research is not about being "on the brink of discovering something [...]"; that is a romantic idea of research which is exceedingly rare.
Money in the bank is not the end goal for everyone. You can work a job to get paid so that one day you don't have to work anymore. Or, you can work a job that pays sufficiently and you'll happily do until your last days of life.
Lastly, most research is on the brink of discovering something. Whether or not there is a life changing impact (or application whatsoever) as a result of that discovery is another argument all together.
Just that with most humanly shaped goals, the formula would be too complicated to be tractable, especially since you have to account for all your guesses of the unknown. People don't even know what makes them happy before they live through it, and you can only live through so many experiences.
So we `give up' and rely on rules-of-thumb and call them wisdom. And mostly we should!
Academia's contribution to that position is a murky proposition (added debt without added earnings potential undermines financial security). And while there are certainly immediate rewards from the pursuit of intellectual goals and from your friends at university, you can also get not-too-dissimilar rewards and more cash doing something like programming computers. And then you can use the cash to do things like: honeymoon with your wife in South America, enroll your child in a really good arts or music program, or spoil your grandchildren with a study-abroad semester in Europe.
If that's what you're looking for, you shouldn't even be considering a phd.
If I could live my life over, I would never have gone to grad school. And I'd have probably had kids 10 years earlier than I did.
- more overlap of your lifetime with the kids lifetime (so, see more of your kids) - get the scary parts over earlier, and enjoy more of the rest - if female, easier time conceiving
Let's put some numbers on that. My first child was born when I was 35. I turn 48 this year, and will not have all my children in college until I'm nearly 60. I'm not looking forward to figuring out college when I'd like to retire.
Moving on, my family health history sucks - I do not have a male relative who has reached 60 without a heart attack and/or stroke. That includes 2 brothers that I know of. I'm working to take care of myself with diet+exercise, but already have hypertension. If my children have children as late as I did, there won't be a grandchild until I'm in my 70s. I have very few male relatives who survived to 70, and none arrived there with their minds intact. There is reason to believe that I could do better, but realistically there is a good chance that I won't.
I was aware of most of these facts in my 20s. They just didn't seem relevant to the life choices that I was making then. In retrospect, I wish I'd chosen differently. I won't push my children towards any particular life decisions, but I hope to give them tools to make choices that better reflect what they want in the long term than I did.
Or maybe that's just parenting in general.
Fundamentally, as individuals, time is all we have. Using it wisely is important.
Who you "associate with matters", always has.
The tech/startup world has realized relatively quickly that 100 hour workweeks are detrimental to productivity, retention, and overall success. Seems like articles such as this come out on a weekly basis, along with other articles on 'progressive' practices such as unlimited vacation, flex working hours, mandatory time off, half-day Fridays, etc... and it's only taken a dozen or so years.
The medical profession, on the other hand, has struggled with this for almost a hundred years. The norm was for residents to work 100+ hour weeks, for 3-5 years. Non-stop. Only recently have they given themselves a pat on the back for achieving a '[mandatory 80 hour workweek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_resident_work_hours#To....
Seems odd that people building apps and games have figured out that working insane hours is bad, but the people responsible for treating the sick and wounded are still chugging along, bleary eyed and overworked.
A doctor can't put their patients in suspended animation while they get some shut-eye. The patient's condition may worse or improve. They may make vague complaints that are clues that can only be pieced together if you were around to pick up all of them.
Likewise, it's very very difficult for a doctor to serialize every bit of data they've gleaned from a patient to pass on to the next doctor to come on rotation.
Because of that "continuity of care"—having one doctor around to continuously interact with the same patient—is really important. It would definitely be great for doctors to work shorter hours, but it does have some real costs. Patients aren't text files.
Note, staggered hand-offs also work best. You really don't want everyone to leave at the same time.
Usually I make sure I have some busywork or easy stuff set aside that I can do in that time period without requiring a lot of mental effort.
Unlimited vacation is not progressive and it is also unhealthy.
It causes feelings of guilt while on vacation. Often there's an unspoken obligated to check-in (email & chat) when on vacation. And leads to taking fewer vacation days not more. When leaving a company, they have no obligation to pay out accrued vacation days since there is none defined (this may be a Canadian thing). Additionally, it can also come with the unspoken culture of overtime, since it can easily be made up with "more time off".
Having worked with unlimited vacation, if I am ever offered it again, I will decline and negotiate defined vacation into my employment agreement.
But on average, I'd say you're right. Many of my coworkers took almost zero vacation. At one point, the CTO just started scheduling a week off at a time for people who hadn't taken one in a year+.
Funny enough, of all places, banks have such rules. You have to take at least two weeks of leave as a single block. That was introduced after rogue traders hid losses from the beancounters by shuffling their positions around every day.
I don't think all banks introduced these measures to the same degree and at the same time. So there might be plenty of data around for some enterprising statistician to tease out the effect on productivity from these natural experiments. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment)
It has the following benefits:
* if hiding something requires certain "adjustments" to periodical reports, then having someone else do it would often expose it - the particular rogue trader case, we was falsifying control documents, if someone else would do it a single time, then it would have been detected.
* if a particular customer or portfolio has problems that should have been escalated but haven't; having someone else handle them independently during your vacation would often expose it.
* if you suddenly need to replace someone, because they leave, die or get fired, you have a good understanding on what needs to be handed off, how to do it, and have some people who have done this before. It ensures, so to speak, that you don't have an absurdly low "bus-factor".
In addition, since it's not a one-off event but a policy, it acts as a preventive measure to do things in a manner that can be handed off, because they will have to be handed off, and a preventive measure for fraud because you have an expectation that you will get found out instead of knowing that you are the sole keeper of some information and can "adjust" it as needed.
Not that quickly ;-) My first job at a start up was 1992, I think. I didn't take a single day off (even national holidays) for 18 months. 12 hour days during the week, 8 on the weekend. After that, I took a year off to pretend to do a master's degree (but really just hung out in the gym and lifted weights). And then I went straight into a job where I became much more sensible and only worked 90 hour weeks.
I remember reading Jamie Zawinksi's writing at the time. There are some remnants of it around the internet, but because of this: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/11/watch-a-vc-use-my-name-to-s... he's not keen for people to link to it. I still remember with great fondness the post about trying to answer a survey of how many hours a week he worked. He said something like 120, but the computer field only had 2 digits. JWZ was incredulous that this could happen given that the guy who wrote the code surely worked more than 100 hours a week.
Back in those days, this was the way we thought you were supposed to do it. Even though Peopleware was written in 1987, we all read it and promptly ignored its advice (BTW, when was the last time you saw a programmer's desk of the recommended size? ahem....)
Even today (getting pretty darn close to the 30th anniversary of Peopleware) how many teams believe that crunch is not just necessary, but desirable? Hey, the fact that we don't crunch is one of the biggest selling points of the group I work with. Lot's of great programmers are willing to give up salary in exchange for a no-crunch life.
Lately there is general acceptance amongst programmers that a 40 hour week is a good idea (this is not always shared by entrepreneurs). However, my experience is that before about the year 2010, the concept was ludicrous -- even ridiculed. I'm really happy to see the tide turn, but this is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Seems he doesn't have a high opinion of HN.
It seems like that could be remedied with overlapping shifts, but that costs more money. I wonder how medical malpractice factors in.
Adding in some kind of unobtrusive HUD would be awesome too.
Treating a sick patient is a little like reverse engineering a binary. Disassembly into blocks takes some guesswork. Pattern recognition plays a role- therefore you already need to know design patterns before you even approach a binary. Properly codifying your guesses can be helped by using something like IDA but sometimes that slows you down and you can go just as fast using ollydbg/gdb/whatever. This is because the construct is in your brain and you are using these software tools to gather data points, not construct some model on paper that stands like a sculpture or perhaps a Rube-Goldberg device that is a rough approximation of the original source code.
Treating patients begins with such a puzzle. You need to know what diseases look like, what the key distinguishing features of look-alike diseases are. Then you also need to have a feel for the time course of these processes. On this mental scaffold you pin data points gleaned from the tests you order. Trying to communicate this whole mental structure along with the relevant data points and also pointing out the confusing chaff can be a tremendous waste of time. Verbal communication is a lot faster. The abstraction/deabstraction bottleneck is avoided. Instead, approximations are presented so the model is quickly understood by the next physician. The next level of detail is then overlaid. Then another level of detail is overlaid and so on, like building a fractal image. The advantage of this approach is that the big picture is conveyed first without a lot of detail that could be misleading if it receives the wrong emphasis. Also, the receiving physician can interrogate the process early in the big picture phase to verify major diagnostic and treatment decisions.
Writing text is a linear process- it is a serial data stream. However, puzzle solving requires a constant zooming and zooming out as well as non linear jumping around, Puzzle solving is not well suited to a linear data stream. But writing and reading text is all that we are taught since grade school. Even the attempt to structure knowledge into an 'outline' is too restrictive. Interestingly, when we teach children how to use the this linear tool of text writing, we do not use linear methods. Rather, a sentence is approached as a whole entity and then broken down until the meaning is understood. We use this game of 'diagramming sentences' to break down, analyze and communicate the parts of our sentences. The most meaningful parts are the subject and verb. Then we sometimes add an object. Adjectives and adverbs are modifiers. Prepositions are key fulcrums as well. The similarity to medicine is that a patient's condition is analogous to a sentence in English.
When we discuss a patient's condition, there is a similar pattern-the principal parts are presented first. Additional levels of detail are then added to embellish and refine the picture. The model morphs and morphs again as certain facts are emphasized and others de-emphasized. Finally it locks into one of the 'disease patterns' we recognize.
Electronic medical records are not any different than the notes we used to write. They are a skeumorphic sham that do not permit better or faster comprehension. Computers have permitted an amazing use of graphics and improved design patterns that have changed the content on the net. If you saw a web site designed in 1990 you would recognize it immediately. Today's sites are much more dynamic. Font choices, formatting, parallax page movement, drop downs, animation and sound focus our attention to communicate information quickly. Hyperlinks permit non linear navigation. Electronic medical records make no use of that. Graphic primitives, hyperlinks or audio cues are not built in to these programs. Instead we are forced to use relics from a previous era. Why? That's a WHOLE 'NOTHER can 'o worms. There are over 450 electronic medical record systems most of which do not talk to each other. It feels like I am using wordstar. Remember that program??
Improving patient care needs to begin with the patient. We need to be able to give a person an iPad with a picture of a body on it. As they point and click and expand relevant body parts, they need to be given choices of typical symptoms. The whole patient centered part can be in any language- it would be mostly pictures with a few words. As they continue to point and click, the iPad is generating the text that represents their choices. The text could be in the physician's language. A person could do this while waiting for the physician. So when the physician gets to the patient, you just saved half an hour. and maybe avoided some unnecessary tests. and maybe gotten them the care they they needed. faster.
I'm imagining different kinds of 3-D visualizations that would usefully show the current state of the diagnosis, with the reported symptoms, test results, current theories, timeline and more.
It has some advantages and disadvantages compared to normal work schedule (essentially, less commute but many of weekends/holidays away from family), but you can definitely live with that.
However, having 12 hour shifts every day? Just hire two employees then, because you have enough work that requires two full employees.
IMO, this is all about money. For residents to work shorter hours, either the cost of care would have to go way up or each residents total pay would have to go way down. Payers won't accept the former, current and prospective residents won't accept the latter (largely, because the cost of medical education is driven by expectations set by the status quo -- they literally can't afford a cut.)
The only solutions are to either get more money into schools to graduate more practitioners, or hope that new technology and innovation can somehow alleviate the burden of work on the existing care providers.
Some places around the world are moving in that direction.
Why can't hospitals simply say to highschool graduates: We will "sponsor" your medical study, i.e. you won't have to take any debt for medical school education, but afterwards you will have to work, say, 10 years for us (with a priori defined salaries)?
Or we can find ways to achieve the set health goals using less doctors hours.
My girlfriend's brother is a doctor, and falls asleep very easily. He told us that during his residency, he once fell asleep during heart surgery while holding open the patient's chest (with some kind of crowbar-like medical instrument whose name I forget). Fortunately he maintained muscle tension so nothing bad happened. The surgeon noticed he was sleeping and told him to take a walk.
He also falls asleep driving, standing on the bus, at the dinner table, etc.
Pardon me?! The surgeon didn't say "take a nap" ?
Your girlfriend's brother should see a doctor about possible apnea or other sleep disorder.
> A pattern emerged in my days during this period. Get up, get washed and dressed, wash down a couple of caffeine tablets with some strong coffee, pick up a red bull, a coke and some cereal bars on my way into the office. Once at work I’d be at my desk non-stop; all meals would be eaten at my desk, though sometimes I’d not eat at all. When I did eat, it would usually mean a sandwich from the supermarket for lunch. Work would often provide dinner, invariably takeout. Sugary caffeinated drinks and sweets would sustain me for the rest of the time.
Working 80 hour weeks is not okay, but working 40 hour weeks is also probably not okay when you're relying on this sort of sustenance.
Thanks incredibly for sharing your experience and helping build such a renowned game. Hopefully people can take away from your experiences strategies to avoid a similar fate!
Better to take breaks, do something else, just relax for a day or two even if nothing is coming out, and then continue when it comes naturally.
Ask? I mean no wonder that team was working 80 hour weeks. If you stop thinking then even very simple problems become monumental challenges.
I can easily imagine leading even a small-ish team of 5 to 10 other programmers who don't all start and finish the day at the exact same moment (so each may be working 9 hour days but it stretches over a 12 hours period) can make you "naturally" work longer hours if you don't keep an eye out for it.
The best executives I've ever seen, for better or worse, will regularly make decisions on the project so there's a continual sense of marching towards goals. They may not always be the right decisions, but making the wrong decisions can be less damaging than making no decisions.
Conversely, company culture and environment is a by-product of the executive behavior.
The latter probably is a stronger influence in younger, smaller companies, the former stronger in older and larger firms.
There is no way whatsoever that I would work 80 hours a week for an extended period unless I were working on my own startup or company and the time that I invest would benefit me in the future. And even then, I wouldn't do it.
And you're probably working on games because you're passionate about them so considering the hop over to a job doing $boring_thing vs. crunch time abuse is choosing between a rock and a hard place.
You are right about working on games. They do bank on people's passions more than in CRUD software.
Willful moderation can never be applied systemically in this industry. There are two ways out: 1) six sigma industrial engineering type management of your processes, and 2) lucking into a clever idea that's not hard to implement. 1) leads to a safe, if well-loved, game. 2)is great of course, like in the way that hoping you'll win the lottery is great.
Might be tempted to add a 3) de-risking by middleware, but all that does is raise the bar for everyone. Good for consumers, not helpful for devs.
My opinions are based on working in the game industry for ~6 years, with months of 100 hour weeks under my belt. Stressed to the point of bleeding out of random parts of my body.
Just can't see it ever changing. I just lol at unionization.
What about people working on cloud-y games (like WoW) that don't have one big bang release, but have more continuous development?
I ultimately burned out while working on an MMO, so I think the answer to your second question is that it's no different... because the launch is for sure a very, very big bang release.
There's probably also a difference between people closer to the creation of new content (for all the updates and expansion with firm deadlines) and the people keeping the infrastructure running.
Not so much because it actually made them productive, but because it made them look productive. Also, there are people who naturally deal less-badly with long hours---and they tend to rise to the top here.
Side note: Eurogamer had an absolutely epic insider write up of Lionhead...I'm surprised it didn't make front page but it was one of the best things I've ever read about the industry, and I've never played the Fable games https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Lionhead:%20The%20inside%20sto...
-A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens
This is very relevant to the Bay Area tech scene. This area literally has the income disparity of a 3rd world country.Died.
People acclimate to awful things when isolated in a monoculture. It is not worth it.
* http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/11/15/editorials/ge...
Fable, at least, turned into a game worth playing.
And as a side note: If the text about his work sounds like your work, you can gain a lot of more performance, fun and results if you spend some of your time learning more indepth how everything about your job works. The debugging drudges become less once you know enough. And not all of it can be learned just by doing.
When I first started working at Ghost Games (an EA studio) I heard a lot of horror stories about the crunch of the previous project. What made me put this aside and take the job was how everyone at the interview spoke sincerely about how crunch is a bad thing, the damage it had done to the studio and all the ongoing efforts to ensure it wouldn't happen again. In the end, the project I joined (the reboot of Need For Speed) finished without anything which could reasonably be called a crunch and I only had to put in a few hours of overtime, including one Saturday. This made me feel so relieved and I'm now looking forward to a long career in this field.
Of course, EA has a history of crunch as bad as the next game company, but there is a strong feeling that they've realised that it's a problem and they are doing everything they can to mitigate it. It's simply not good for business to burn through talent at a rapid pace and build a reputation for ruining people's lives.
That sounds pretty terrifying - wonder if there's a way to be resilient to this or if everyone is affected this way given enough time.
* Fairly competitive player for that era
* Helicopters lurking over the crest of the next hill being a frequent threat
* Terrain being indestructible
* Definitely took cover behind a DC bus stop shelter from the threat of missiles raining down on me from a traffic helicopter
But I was at the office for 16 hours already, and there was nothing but my desk to sleep at at the office.
Before too long I ended up in the hospital for a heart attack scare (it wasn't a heart attack, but it seemed like one), and work stopped asking me to put in so many hours for a while.
The games I spent so much time and energy on didn't do so well for various reasons (unrelated to the quality of the games, I had polished them up as well as I could considering the shifting demands and firm deadlines), and the company ended up biting the bullet.
He joined a team that was goofing off, which made it an extremely fun place to work. Wouldn't life be easy without deadlines? So when they actually had to produce something, they were far behind where they should have been. The fault for this situation probably lies with the management but ... as a developer (who's ostensibly getting paid), you should expect to do work at work.
He also states that he was sad to see the "Big Blue Box" culture and company disappear. That company would have instead gone out of business if someone (the parent company?) hadn't stepped in and changed things.
The deadline is extrinsic (At best, arbitrary at worst), missing a deadline doesn't mean the product was not getting made.