would you feel bad if a game you enjoyed (not necesarily liked) is a result of hostile working condition? (such as crunching)

[zassou]

on another note. some big game companies, eg activision and take two, keep firing workers while the execs enjoy record bonuses. see jim sterling's previous video about activision ceo bobby kotick.

 

this is purely personal opinion:

if a game sale tanked, and it's caused by either by plainly bad product (like anthem, fallout 76) or public relations disaster, the result is probably have little impact to the people who actually worked on those titles. as some of you already knew: programmers, artists, voice / mocap actors and other people working at a game that dont get additional bonus should the game become a big hit, hell they dont even paid nearly equal to those who working on other creative businesses. unlike other publications like music, books, tv and movie where workers get paid if the works still making some amount of profit. the house, in this case the game publisher like ea, activision and so on, takes all.

 

to these firms, workers are expendable, they would make you crunch, like 70+hr per week, as if it's a norm in the workplace. even to the point of not allowing you go home and make you sleep in the office or even no overtime compensation. either you crunch it or getting fired. at the end, when the game ships, the majority of them are gonna get layed off.  and yes, they DO NOT forcing you to crunch, just dump you a giant whiteboard with too many bullet points that only doable with crunching.

 

my opinion is not paying, refunding or leaving a negative review probably bring little impact of those people who truely created the game you like. what truely matters are the harsh, greedy and exploitive corporate brasses, who already have too much money that impossible for a normal person to spend, would have to think twice about greedy practises, preditory monetisation scheme and more importantly, hostile working environment.

 

let me reminds you that while the entire world is panning fallout 76 and anthem how they epic failed everyone's expectations, the fact is they sells well, extreme well. but the problem is they are NOT selling as many copies as zenimax / ea hoped. in their books, not meeting the target is a fail, no matter what. to those corporate brasses, not growing is failing. yes we are making a ton of money, but we are not making enough money.

 

bottomline: why sports games still sell like hot cakes? check review on nba2k, fifa, madden etc. people still buy them.

 

 

[wasab]

Game devs probably have much higher quality of life and are happier than you. Just saying. 

[wasab]

6 hours ago, zassou said:

on another note. some big game companies, eg activision and take two, keep firing workers while the execs enjoy record bonuses. see jim sterling's previous video about activision ceo bobby kotick.

 

this is purely personal opinion:

if a game sale tanked, and it's caused by either by plainly bad product (like anthem, fallout 76) or public relations disaster, the result is probably have little impact to the people who actually worked on those titles. as some of you already knew: programmers, artists, voice / mocap actors and other people working at a game that dont get additional bonus should the game become a big hit, hell they dont even paid nearly equal to those who working on other creative businesses. unlike other publications like music, books, tv and movie where workers get paid if the works still making some amount of profit. the house, in this case the game publisher like ea, activision and so on, takes all.

 

to these firms, workers are expendable, they would make you crunch, like 70+hr per week, as if it's a norm in the workplace. even to the point of not allowing you go home and make you sleep in the office or even no overtime compensation. either you crunch it or getting fired. at the end, when the game ships, the majority of them are gonna get layed off.  and yes, they DO NOT forcing you to crunch, just dump you a giant whiteboard with too many bullet points that only doable with crunching.

 

my opinion is not paying, refunding or leaving a negative review probably bring little impact of those people who truely created the game you like. what truely matters are the harsh, greedy and exploitive corporate brasses, who already have too much money that impossible for a normal person to spend, would have to think twice about greedy practises, preditory monetisation scheme and more importantly, hostile working environment.

 

let me reminds you that while the entire world is panning fallout 76 and anthem how they epic failed everyone's expectations, the fact is they sells well, extreme well. but the problem is they are NOT selling as many copies as zenimax / ea hoped. in their books, not meeting the target is a fail, no matter what. to those corporate brasses, not growing is failing. yes we are making a ton of money, but we are not making enough money.

 

bottomline: why sports games still sell like hot cakes? check review on nba2k, fifa, madden etc. people still buy them.

 

 

Software firms do not tend to treat their employees like dirt especially software architects who literally makes and breaks a company. These people are responsible  for so much of code base, framworks, and systems behind their company's products, the company literally won't exist without them and finding a replacement for them is a pain in the butt.

 

Oh, btw. I worked 74 hours a week in the summer and so do my parents who had been doing it for the past 20 years and so. It is perfectly normal in many parts of the world. I used to complain that work hours is insane until I realized my bosses actually work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, sometimes longer so.... Yeah. 

[Chett_Manly]

They are not slaves. They have skills that can get them work in less demanding industries. Programmers are in high demand. Artists could move over to VFX work. Sound, QA... these skills are not game production only. So I don't really have much sympathy for them on this. Either they love it and it makes it worth it, or they would be quitting to go work elsewhere. 

 

That said they should all up and quit. As long as people are willing to do it, things will not change. So stop being willing, or stop whining about it.

[PlayStation 2]

14 hours ago, Commodus said:

I don't get the folks who say "it's their choice, no one is forcing them."  That's not really true in many cases.

 

Companies, and not just in the game industry, frequently have a voluntary-but-not-really approach to overtime.  You're not legally required to put in 80-100 hours, but gee, you'll fall behind the other workers and it'd be a shame if the company had to fire you for that.  It's also not so simple as telling workers to find another job, because that can easily mean relocating across the country in a field like game development.

 

The best thing we can do is to support studios like Respawn, which make it a point of refusing to subject staff to crunch time even if it means that you have to wait longer for a new game or an update.  And if you see development teams take action and refuse to work more than a certain amount of hours, throw your weight behind them.

Bringing up Respawn is a very good way to segway why they exist in the first place: because Activision fucked the employees who started it that came from Infinity Ward because they didn't wanna deal with the bullshit the publisher was handing them. They were fired and they founded Respawn to be the opposite of what Activision was turning Infinity Ward into.

Can companies actually go with humane conditions for their employees? Most definitely. Do they want to? If they have no reason to, not really. It's easier to force a few employees to clock in way more hours than they should be with no benefits than to hire more employees, integrating them properly and putting them on your company's payroll. I don't think it's justified, but that's just kinda how shit goes, sadly.

[warmmilk]

"crunching" isn't a hostile work environment, its a thing in every field that has deadlines (such as release date of a game).  welcome to adulthood.  its how the world works.  

 

for the people saying they can't just quit cause its hard to find another job in this field... this is the field they chose to work in... welcome to adulthood, where decisions have consequences. 

 

some people in this threaded started comparing this to clothes, and its not a fair comparison.  when people talk about clothes production hostile work environment, they're literally talking slave labor. people (lots of times kids) were kidnapped, sold, and are now forced to make clothes. to nobody kidnapped these people and is forcing them to make games as slaves, so they work some overtime and much more often than not get paid for it either in overtime pay or bonus... poor game maker guy...

 

is there something I'm missing that actually qualifies as a hostile work environment or is it just overtime when crunching?

[Commodus]

7 hours ago, warmmilk said:

"crunching" isn't a hostile work environment, its a thing in every field that has deadlines (such as release date of a game).  welcome to adulthood.  its how the world works.  

 

for the people saying they can't just quit cause its hard to find another job in this field... this is the field they chose to work in... welcome to adulthood, where decisions have consequences. 

 

some people in this threaded started comparing this to clothes, and its not a fair comparison.  when people talk about clothes production hostile work environment, they're literally talking slave labor. people (lots of times kids) were kidnapped, sold, and are now forced to make clothes. to nobody kidnapped these people and is forcing them to make games as slaves, so they work some overtime and much more often than not get paid for it either in overtime pay or bonus... poor game maker guy...

 

is there something I'm missing that actually qualifies as a hostile work environment or is it just overtime when crunching?

Ah, I was waiting for an apologist to wander in.

 

THIS IS NOT HOW IT SHOULD WORK.  You shouldn't spend months basically living at the office, cut off from your family and jeopardizing your health, just so that your company can make its quarterly revenue target.  If you 'need' to shorten the lifespans of your staff to put out a game for the holidays, you shouldn't be releasing the game during the holidays.  People are more important than companies.  One day, you'll learn to accept this.

 

Just because you chose a given field doesn't mean you have to accept the conditions as they are.  You can press for change, you do know that, right?

 

What's disconcerting is that your overall line of thinking is "accept the status quo.  Don't question.  Conform.  Submit."  Do you treat politics and other subjects the same way?  I'm sorry, but life is too short to simply give companies a pass on horrible business practices.  We can and should do better.

[Bramimond]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Just because you chose a given field doesn't mean you have to accept the conditions as they are.  You can press for change, you do know that, right?

It's easier than that. Just quit your job and work elsewhere. Good developers are in short supply everywhere.

[Commodus]

15 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

It's easier than that. Just quit your job and work elsewhere. Good developers are in short supply everywhere.

That's still complicated, I'm afraid.  Some game devs are specialized, and their work experience might not translate as well.

 

There's also the question of whether "just leave" is really the thing we should be telling them.  You'll just end up with game companies hiring the people most willing to endure long hours, not the best talent.  Besides, it's good to have people who can rally for change based on current experience, not as outsiders.

[Drak3]

I don't feel remotely bad. If they're not capable of doing the job they voluntarily took, no skin off my nose.

[Bramimond]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Besides, it's good to have people who can rally for change based on current experience, not as outsiders.

My favorite games where made by a team with less than 10 people working out of their garage. I don't get why game developers have to slave away at huge faceless corporations making shitty games with lots of micro-transactions shoved in for good measures.

 

Just leave and make a game by yourself. Forcing your ideals on other people is never a good idea. Be the change you want to see in the world, but never force other people to do what you want.

[Commodus]

Just now, Bramimond said:

My favorite games where made by a team with less than 10 people working out of their garage. I don't get why game developers have to slave away at huge faceless corporations making shitty games with lots of micro-transactions shoved in for good measures.

 

Just leave and make a game by yourself. Forcing your ideals on other people is never a good idea. Be the change you want to see in the world, but never force other people to do what you want.

Because that still leaves the company and its practices in place.  You're not really fixing the problem, you're just creating alternatives to it.  And it's easy to say "just start your own company" when you're not the one who has to find talent and jeopardize your family's income.

 

As it is, the truth is that some of those games from big teams do things that indies simply can't, and I don't mean microtransactions.  We shouldn't let these companies off the hook simply because employees can jump ship for smaller outlets.  Like it or not, Activision, EA, Take Two and Ubisoft aren't going away any time soon.  Why not press for better conditions at those companies in addition to supporting those teams that reject crunch?

[wasab]

4 hours ago, Commodus said:

Ah, I was waiting for an apologist to wander in.

 

THIS IS NOT HOW IT SHOULD WORK.  You shouldn't spend months basically living at the office, cut off from your family and jeopardizing your health, just so that your company can make its quarterly revenue target.  If you 'need' to shorten the lifespans of your staff to put out a game for the holidays, you shouldn't be releasing the game during the holidays.  People are more important than companies.  One day, you'll learn to accept this.

 

Just because you chose a given field doesn't mean you have to accept the conditions as they are.  You can press for change, you do know that, right?

 

What's disconcerting is that your overall line of thinking is "accept the status quo.  Don't question.  Conform.  Submit."  Do you treat politics and other subjects the same way?  I'm sorry, but life is too short to simply give companies a pass on horrible business practices.  We can and should do better.

Tell that to the Japanese. Their society has a workaholics culture. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/06/01/japan-has-some-of-the-longest-working-hours-in-the-world-its-trying-to-change.html

 

I wonder how many of their kids actually get to see their parents on a daily basis. 

[warmmilk]

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

Ah, I was waiting for an apologist to wander in.

 

THIS IS NOT HOW IT SHOULD WORK.  You shouldn't spend months basically living at the office, cut off from your family and jeopardizing your health, just so that your company can make its quarterly revenue target.  If you 'need' to shorten the lifespans of your staff to put out a game for the holidays, you shouldn't be releasing the game during the holidays.  People are more important than companies.  One day, you'll learn to accept this.

 

Just because you chose a given field doesn't mean you have to accept the conditions as they are.  You can press for change, you do know that, right?

 

What's disconcerting is that your overall line of thinking is "accept the status quo.  Don't question.  Conform.  Submit."  Do you treat politics and other subjects the same way?  I'm sorry, but life is too short to simply give companies a pass on horrible business practices.  We can and should do better.

the way you talk about it makes it sound like we might have different definitions "crunching"... what kinda crunching are you talking about that would jeopardize your health and shorten your lifespan?  what kinda hours and for how long?

[Commodus]

15 hours ago, warmmilk said:

the way you talk about it makes it sound like we might have different definitions "crunching"... what kinda crunching are you talking about that would jeopardize your health and shorten your lifespan?  what kinda hours and for how long?

Studies typically suggest that working more than 55 hours a week is bad for you, leading to physical and mental health issues as well as reduced productivity.  Now, I know it's not realistic to ensure you completely avoid going over that, but you shouldn't have to do it for months at a time.  And the 70-100 hours from the Epic story... well, I'd genuinely fear for someone's health at that point.

 

Think about the math for the figures in the Epic story.  Let's say you work that "baseline" 70 hours per week.  That's 10 hours a day if you work every single day of the week, and longer if you dare to take a day or two off (which, in crunch, you generally don't).  That's going to be rough on your body, never mind your family -- imagine having kids and seeing them for only an hour or so before they go to bed, and even then in an exhausted state.  100 hours?  You're basically a prisoner at the office.

[Bramimond]

21 hours ago, Commodus said:

Because that still leaves the company and its practices in place.  [...]  We shouldn't let these companies off the hook simply because employees can jump ship for smaller outlets.

It sounds like you're legitimate upset about how a faceless corporation is doing business. But why? If this works out for them, let them do it their way. No one is forced to work for them. If everyone would leave them over these conditions, they would fix those conditions on their own.

 

Don't go and make everything someone wants to do illegal. That's not a fix, that's a disaster.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Bramimond said:

It sounds like you're legitimate upset about how a faceless corporation is doing business. But why? If this works out for them, let them do it their way. No one is forced to work for them. If everyone would leave them over these conditions, they would fix those conditions on their own.

 

Don't go and make everything someone wants to do illegal. That's not a fix, that's a disaster.

I argue  this way because the companies don't really lose employees, they just hire people who are either willing to suffer or don't know any better.  And this won't stop companies from establishing similar practices again.

 

I believe it's important to not simply let horrible practices slide, especially when they're unlikely to be corrected by the market.  I'm not arguing that everything someone wants to do should be illegal, but I don't like how society has seemingly regressed to that Victorian-era workshop mentality where you're supposed to be thankful for working 12-hour days in rough conditions.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

No. I dislike bad working conditions, the game being terrible wouldn't make it any better. Developers being overworked and making a game I enjoy isn't any worse than developers being overworked and making a game I hate, or developers being overworked and making a game I never played or heard of.

 

Basically, concerns about working conditions are independent of tastes for products, but there is no such option in your poll.

[warmmilk]

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

Studies typically suggest that working more than 55 hours a week is bad for you, leading to physical and mental health issues as well as reduced productivity.  Now, I know it's not realistic to ensure you completely avoid going over that, but you shouldn't have to do it for months at a time.  And the 70-100 hours from the Epic story... well, I'd genuinely fear for someone's health at that point.

 

Think about the math for the figures in the Epic story.  Let's say you work that "baseline" 70 hours per week.  That's 10 hours a day if you work every single day of the week, and longer if you dare to take a day or two off (which, in crunch, you generally don't).  That's going to be rough on your body, never mind your family -- imagine having kids and seeing them for only an hour or so before they go to bed, and even then in an exhausted state.  100 hours?  You're basically a prisoner at the office.

I guess if they're doing it for months at a time, then yeah, they need to make a change... they'd prolly be more productive if they just hired more people.

 

I realize "just quit" is a much harder thing to actually do than to say, especially when you have a family to support.  but if you work for a company thats always doing this and show's no sign of changing, you gotta make a change for yourself.

[Commodus]

2 hours ago, warmmilk said:

I guess if they're doing it for months at a time, then yeah, they need to make a change... they'd prolly be more productive if they just hired more people.

 

I realize "just quit" is a much harder thing to actually do than to say, especially when you have a family to support.  but if you work for a company thats always doing this and show's no sign of changing, you gotta make a change for yourself.

 

That's the thing: crunch mode frequently lasts for months at a time, usually in the home stretch to get a game out for the holidays.  There needs to be pressure on these companies to either hire more staff (when possible) or be more willing to accept that a holiday-targeted game will have to be pushed to, say, March.

 

I agree that employees who face a rough situation and realize it isn't going to change should at least seriously consider quitting.  We mainly have to remember that telling them "just quit" isn't really an answer -- it'd be better to actually fix the corporate system.

[warmmilk]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

 

That's the thing: crunch mode frequently lasts for months at a time, usually in the home stretch to get a game out for the holidays.  There needs to be pressure on these companies to either hire more staff (when possible) or be more willing to accept that a holiday-targeted game will have to be pushed to, say, March.

 

I agree that employees who face a rough situation and realize it isn't going to change should at least seriously consider quitting.  We mainly have to remember that telling them "just quit" isn't really an answer -- it'd be better to actually fix the corporate system.

well... they should go on strike

[Giganthrax]

No, it's not my lot as a customer to care about that sort of thing. 

 

To the OP: if you really want to concern yourself the misfortune of people who you don't even know, I suggest you start sponsoring a 3rd world child or helping out at the homeless shelter or volunteering at a hospital or something. I'm sure those things are all worth your time and energy more than wanting to help a bunch of highly educated and probably also highly paid programmers who live in the richest part of the US.  

[Bramimond]

13 hours ago, Commodus said:

I argue  this way because the companies don't really lose employees, they just hire people who are either willing to suffer or don't know any better.  And this won't stop companies from establishing similar practices again.

And I'm saying they should be allowed to work that way if they want to. They do not need stopping. They're not kids anymore, they don't need parents telling them that they aren't allowed to drink alcohol, because it's bad for them or that they aren't allowed to smoke, because it's bad for them or that they aren't allowed to overwork themselves, because it's bad for them. They are adults and can make choices about their own life as they please.

 

10 hours ago, warmmilk said:

I realize "just quit" is a much harder thing to actually do than to say, especially when you have a family to support. 

You should always have enough money in the bank to tell your boss "fuck you", quit and have enough to support you and your family for a year. If you don't and your job is that of a developer where you earn enough to make this happen, than it's really your own fault.

 

I'm just tired of people looking out for a parent/government that takes care of things they really should do themselves.

[warmmilk]

57 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

And I'm saying they should be allowed to work that way if they want to. They do not need stopping. They're not kids anymore, they don't need parents telling them that they aren't allowed to drink alcohol, because it's bad for them or that they aren't allowed to smoke, because it's bad for them or that they aren't allowed to overwork themselves, because it's bad for them. They are adults and can make choices about their own life as they please.

 

You should always have enough money in the bank to tell your boss "fuck you", quit and have enough to support you and your family for a year. If you don't and your job is that of a developer where you earn enough to make this happen, than it's really your own fault.

 

I'm just tired of people looking out for a parent/government that takes care of things they really should do themselves.

for a year? do you have any idea how tiny the percentage of people out there can actually do that?

[Bramimond]

1 hour ago, warmmilk said:

for a year? do you have any idea how tiny the percentage of people out there can actually do that?

Everyone? You just have to cut back on your expenses. Living from paycheck to paycheck is for slaves. Like the saying goes, just stop buying shit you don't need with money you don't have to impress people you don't like.