- http://www.igda.org/why-crunch-modes...rk-six-lessons (emphasis mine)There's a bottom-line reason most industries gave up crunch mode over 75 years ago: It's the single most expensive way there is to get the work done.
When used long-term, Crunch Mode slows development and creates more bugs when compared with 40-hour weeks.
More than a century of studies show that long-term useful worker output is maximized near a five-day, 40-hour workweek. Productivity drops immediately upon starting overtime and continues to drop until, at approximately eight 60-hour weeks, the total work done is the same as what would have been done in eight 40-hour weeks.
Crunch comes up from time to time here, with Yaustar and I agreeing that it doesn't work and Darklights suggesting it is an unavoidable part of the industry. Today, I rediscovered a 2005 essay from the IGDA's "Quality of Life" Special Interest Group and thought I'd share it.
Go read it and then come back. I'll wait...
To sum it up, it was 1893 when big businesses started to realise that a 40-hour week is more productive than a 60-hour one. Henry Ford abolished it in 1926, not because it was cheaper or better for the staff, but specifically because it made more money. Despite this, the games industry (a high-tech industry) sticks to processes which are over a century out of date.
So, I ask you all; what is your opinion of crunch? Is it a relic of flawed thinking, something we do because we always have done? Are games developers not the same as mortal men? Does it make a difference that we are computer users and not machine-operators?