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

[Commodus]

6 hours 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.

That's somewhat ludicrous, because you could apply the same rhetoric back in the Victorian era when labor movements were just getting started.  "They chose to work 12 hours per day in a mine that will give them cancer, let them work themselves to death if they want!"  Labor movements and labor laws exist precisely to prevent exploitation like this, where you're effectively forced to work extreme overtime if you want to take the job in the first place.

[Fasauceome]

7 minutes ago, Mr. horse said:

crunching? is that like giving a really short deadline to complete something?

Nothing wrong with that at all, if you can't handle your jobs production requirements go someplace else. 

Now if the employees are being abused, harassed or harmed against their will that is another thing.

A crunch comes from a sudden change in deadline, it's not expected by the developers so the higher ups basically say "hey by the way you need this done a lot sooner or you'll be punished," which is pretty abusive if you ask me. 

[Bramimond]

44 minutes ago, Commodus said:

That's somewhat ludicrous, because you could apply the same rhetoric back in the Victorian era when labor movements were just getting started.  "They chose to work 12 hours per day in a mine that will give them cancer, let them work themselves to death if they want!"  Labor movements and labor laws exist precisely to prevent exploitation like this, where you're effectively forced to work extreme overtime if you want to take the job in the first place.

I could and I would, as long as nobody is forced into these working conditions. If it's a free choice, I don't see the problem with working yourself to death. I'm not too familiar with circumstances in the past, so how about we keep this topic in the present? Sitting in a chair staring at a screen won't give you cancer. (Not sure how working in a mine could, either, to be honest. Working in a mine destroys your lungs through fine dust.)

 

If nobody was willing to work under these conditions, you wouldn't need to outlaw the practice. Hence you're trying to force your will upon other people, which I cannot approve of. There's another saying that goes like this: the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Don't try to claim the moral high ground if you're the one trying to force people to do what you want.

[warmmilk]

6 hours ago, Bramimond said:

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.

well definitely not pay check to pay check... thats doable for most people with career's. but a full year to support a full family... thats in the single digit percentages

[WihGlah]

So long as their efforts were recognised, It's up to the workers.

 

If (as has been reported) they are working long hours for no extra reward, then the workers should leave.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Bramimond said:

I could and I would, as long as nobody is forced into these working conditions. If it's a free choice, I don't see the problem with working yourself to death. I'm not too familiar with circumstances in the past, so how about we keep this topic in the present? Sitting in a chair staring at a screen won't give you cancer. (Not sure how working in a mine could, either, to be honest. Working in a mine destroys your lungs through fine dust.)

 

If nobody was willing to work under these conditions, you wouldn't need to outlaw the practice. Hence you're trying to force your will upon other people, which I cannot approve of. There's another saying that goes like this: the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Don't try to claim the moral high ground if you're the one trying to force people to do what you want.

That's very weird logic, I'm sorry to say.  Labor laws and regulations by their nature are "forcing" companies to behave in a certain way, and there's no doubt that many of those rules are wise.  Are you arguing that there should be no labor laws whatsoever, no matter how much they improve the quality of life for workers?

 

This is exploitation and abuse.  That isn't up for dispute.  And just because you submit to that exploitation doesn't make it acceptable.  We have to strike a fine line between allowing overtime and preventing abuse, but we should do something -- even if it's just to shame companies for treating their employees like disposable robots.  What disappoints me is that you're obsessed with doing nothing, with apathy, with conformity.

[Bramimond]

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

and there's no doubt that many of those rules are wise.  Are you arguing that there should be no labor laws whatsoever, no matter how much they improve the quality of life for workers?

 

This is exploitation and abuse.  That isn't up for dispute.  [...]

What disappoints me is that you're obsessed with doing nothing, with apathy, with conformity.

I have my doubts. Pretending any given way is how it should be and refusing to entertain different opinions seems bigoted to me. I'm obsessed with freedom, not with apathy. Laws restrict freedom, which I do not like very much, when it is avoidable.

 

3 hours ago, warmmilk said:

well definitely not pay check to pay check... thats doable for most people with career's. but a full year to support a full family... thats in the single digit percentages

If you do the math on what you need as bare necessities to make do for a year it won't seem as impossible anymore. The way I calculated this it's under $50.000 for a family, which should be easily doable if you put your mind to it. Just save up for a couple of years if you have to. Don't buy any alcohol, cigarettes, movies, video games, subscriptions (netflix or whatever),... basically only spend money on what you need to survive (and invest in yourself) until you have saved enough to sustain exactly that kind of lifestyle for a full year.

[Drak3]

5 hours ago, Mr. horse said:

A sudden change in dead line is hardly abusive. Things happen all the time that could make a dead line change and a confidant employee should be flexible and able to cope with that.

A sudden change in deadline also is rarely the cause of crunch time.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 hours ago, Bramimond said:

I could and I would, as long as nobody is forced into these working conditions. If it's a free choice, I don't see the problem with working yourself to death. I'm not too familiar with circumstances in the past, so how about we keep this topic in the present?

The thing is, you seem to be pretty unfamiliar with the present as well.

[warmmilk]

20 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

I have my doubts. Pretending any given way is how it should be and refusing to entertain different opinions seems bigoted to me. I'm obsessed with freedom, not with apathy. Laws restrict freedom, which I do not like very much, when it is avoidable.

 

If you do the math on what you need as bare necessities to make do for a year it won't seem as impossible anymore. The way I calculated this it's under $50.000 for a family, which should be easily doable if you put your mind to it. Just save up for a couple of years if you have to. Don't buy any alcohol, cigarettes, movies, video games, subscriptions (netflix or whatever),... basically only spend money on what you need to survive (and invest in yourself) until you have saved enough to sustain exactly that kind of lifestyle for a full year.

I'm not saying its not possible, I'm just saying that your assumption that this is standard operating procedure for most people is way off

[Nowak]

Yes, I would feel bad. Excessive work (like the 100+ hour work weeks at Epic) is abuse. It's forcing people to put their health at risk so you could meet a bottom line. Seriously, the effects it has on the human body are horrible - I've met people who have spinal injuries from working crunch, and that's not even the worst that can happen (the worst that can happen is death; are your games really worth someone dying over?).

 

Also, more often than not, they're not paid for the excessive overtime.

 

On 4/29/2019 at 2:41 PM, wasab said:

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. 

That doesn't mean excessive work is or should be normal. Also, the article says that Japan's trying to change its work week, so your point is moot.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Pretty sure that's how the culture of the working world works

[Bramimond]

17 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The thing is, you seem to be pretty unfamiliar with the present as well.

I'm living in it, meaning I can at least speak from experience.

 

17 hours ago, warmmilk said:

I'm not saying its not possible, I'm just saying that your assumption that this is standard operating procedure for most people is way off

My assumption is that it's not standard, hence I recommend doing it. All I'm saying is that if you live as a slave to your wage it's your own fault. It's possible to live differently.

[zassou]

glad to see there are still some compassionate people, unlike some heartless husks.

[Mutoh]

I would feel bad if a game I wanted to enjoy turned out to be crap. 

 

 

 

Read into that how you will

[Drak3]

On 5/2/2019 at 12:18 PM, zassou said:

glad to see there are still some compassionate people, unlike some heartless husks.

Excessive empathy is an unnecessary evil.

[Sky Spark]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Excessive empathy is an unnecessary evil.

Wrong.

[alicskysareblue]

Im very disappointed by alot of these answers, in my working time. Ive haf hostile working enviroments that affected me mentally and really took a toll on my well being. And Ive never worked anywhere near those hours.

 

 

Developers dont "sign up" for these situations its publishers like EA who really push these situations onto people. Its a aweful truth about are society.

 

 

As for feeling bad ? No I would just develop a deep respect for the amount of work they put into the game. I see games as art... Well most of the time.

 

 

But my views maybe due to being older annd experiance.

[EldritchMoose]

It's a bit of a mixed bag for me. On one hand, I steer away from big games that I know are produced by way of massive pressure from the company execs who are just angling for good boy points from their shareholders. Shitty practices at companies like Activision/Blizzard, Bioware, Rockstar, Take 2, Epic (not to mention my personal dislike of Tim Sweeney, Bobby Kotick and Randy Pitchford in particular) mean I won't be buying any of their games any time soon.

 

That said, there is a point where that ends, because I don't have the time nor the inclination to do a background check on everyone involved before I purchase a game, just so I feel like I'm allowed to enjoy it. It's a myth that it's possible to somehow live a cruelty-free life. I eat meat, drive gasoline and buy consumer electronics. But whenever I do find out about shitty business practices that I don't like, I will gladly opt out.

 

And I am absolutely, completely sure that somewhere out there, Randy Pitchford is going to feel so very sad about that one less copy of Borderlands that will be sold.

 

(that last part was sarcasm, I know that usually doesn't carry well through a text-based medium)