So... there will be crunch...

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
FFS, firefighters, doctors, vets, teachers, plumbers, and every working group I can imagine has to do extra hours, sometimes day after day, often without any extra compensation, and nobody is getting "outraged" because of that.

I don't know about other country, but in France we do care about that, and there is a lots of strikes because of that. For example our Urgency Doctors are in strike since 10 month ago and unlike what usually happens the strike is becoming bigger and bigger with time.

And no, not everyone "have to" work extra time, actually I've almost always refused doing any.

So yeah, if your life as a dev is hard, go work as a cleaning guy/girl. You will get a new perspective in your life.

That's a sophism which leads to: No one should complain because there is always someone in a worst situation than himself.
When something goes wrong, everyone have the right to complain about it, the problem being the "wrong" point, not the rest around that.
Post automatically merged:

The only way to be rid of crunch in a capitalist system, is for crunch to be illegal. Otherwise the market will sort itself out into there being unspoken crunch.

Actually it would be more efficient to have crunched product being illegal than to have crunch being illegal, as without that they will just change the country where they do games.
And it need to be a big part of the market to be efficient (or they might just ignore the country doing that), so either a USA law or a EU law.
 
Last edited:
This is a far more complex topic than most journos seem to realize. Just about every dev I've read up on, indie or AAA, have admitted there is a lot of overtime involved in this industry. Much of it is voluntary. Some of it qualifies as employer abuse. The best CDPR can do is try to limit it, and not push workers too hard, but there's no getting rid of it. It's also a reality in damn near every job out there, so these crusaders writing hit pieces on CDPR without getting the full picture are being negligent.
 
I'm not so sure that non-mandatory crunch is non-mandatory.

Sorry for going Jim Sterling on this thread, but let's say you're working in a cut-throat industry, with frequent lay-offs, downsizing and with a job's market that's over flooding with new recruits that companies could churn through like a shredder. If your boss steps into your work place, asks who's willing to do some crunch, and the majority of the workplace says yes, are you seriously going to say no?

Oh sure, your boss will say nothing off it, but they've made sure a culture of crunch already exists and you've just made sure you're the odd man out. Of course you're going to say yes against your own interests and better judgement.

The next time there's lay-offs, you notice an odd pattern where all the workaholics get to stay and all those who said no are told "you're good kid, but somehow you don't quite fit into this company's particular identity. Nothing personal." The next time there's jobs open, even more workaholics get hired and it gets even harder to say no. I mean, it's actually hard to disagree that workaholic employees are better for the company and put more of themselves into the job, right? That's the right type of discrimination, right?

Just read that interview. The heads of CDPR already admit that this is just how the sausage is made. That already strongly slants the working culture in a certain way, doesn't it? Saying no to non-mandatory crunch, just ain't normal.

I think non-mandetory crunch is a fairy tale however. The free market and the interests of business will ensure that employees are selected for their ability to crunch and that job security lies with saying yes. There's nothing non-mandetory about it when the ramifications are the loss of your livelihood. Being able to say "well, we didn't force them" is just a concoction to shrug off responsibility and to make people sleep better. Don't do that. It's just insincere.

I believe you're treading a bit into political territory, which I'd like to avoid if possible given the forum rules. I'm omitting that stuff from my quote here. For the mod's benefit, I think crunch is completely apolitical and it's something everyone cares about to some degree. We can all have a discussion about it without delving into left/right/etc.

Anyway. I like Jim Sterling, but this is one of the few things I disagree with him on. Sometimes, people just need to take responsibility for themselves. Their perceived "I'm the odd man out" thing is just that: their perception. I don't think non-mandatory crunch is a fairytale, and I think of nothing else, it's an important step toward a better future for game devs. If people get fired for not working non-mandatory extra hours, I'll be right there with you fighting against it.

But so far, all I've seen is "I worry this will happen if I don't..." or "I THINK this will happen if I don't.." I've seen very little, if any actual cases of someone getting fired for not crunching in a non-mandatory environment. If you have any compelling examples, please let me know. Of course bearing in mind that one or two does not necessarily represent a trend (it might! just not necessarily). But I'm willing to consider the possibility.

I won't weigh in on the topic of regulation or legality here since I think that comes dangerously close to breaking the rules. I will say, I think crunch is something that can be mitigated through proper planning (this is not something CDPR has ever been known for -- W3 was horribly mismanaged, allegedly) and non-mandatory policies.

The unfortunate thing is, unless Adam misspoke, it sounds like he hasn't even taken the non-mandatory step yet. Which is disconcerting if true.
 
All those rpg elements and legacy stats/jobs/promises won't remove themselves, OP. To make a sub-par GTA clone you have to have a little crunch time.
 
Out of curiosity, do they get paid for the crunch hours? In some cases I feel for the developers, but in others not so much. It's a field that people go to school for knowing full well the complications that can come with the job title.

I mean, I work in a field where I have to be at work regardless of weather conditions or holidays. Sometimes I have to stay late and don't get a choice in the matter, but it's something I knew about before starting the job. I've especially found it difficult to sympathize with those working in major stores like Walmart when they have to work holidays. It's kind of to be expected.
 
Out of curiosity, do they get paid for the crunch hours? In some cases I feel for the developers, but in others not so much. It's a field that people go to school for knowing full well the complications that can come with the job title.

I mean, I work in a field where I have to be at work regardless of weather conditions or holidays. Sometimes I have to stay late and don't get a choice in the matter, but it's something I knew about before starting the job. I've especially found it difficult to sympathize with those working in major stores like Walmart when they have to work holidays. It's kind of to be expected.
Yes, they get paid substantially. I believe it's even more than doubletime (which is usually the norm for overtime). I want to say it's something like triple pay? Could be wrong.

Either way, they are compensated very well for their extra efforts.
 
But so far, all I've seen is "I worry this will happen if I don't..." or "I THINK this will happen if I don't.." I've seen very little, if any actual cases of someone getting fired for not crunching in a non-mandatory environment. If you have any compelling examples, please let me know. Of course bearing in mind that one or two does not necessarily represent a trend (it might! just not necessarily). But I'm willing to consider the possibility.

ACTUAL specific cases and examples of crunch in a non-mandatory environment? To be perfectly candid with you, no, I have none. Not even one or two to draw even a hasty resemblance of a trend.

However, this is the reason why I started referring to the bigger political picture. I don't have specific examples of this particular subject of crunch in the timeframe of the video game industry from the 1970's, down to the present. I mean, I might, but I'm a lazy fellow who doesn't want to do a second thesis into the subject.

What I do have is a bigger and more broader historical trend of market forces, disenfranchising and discriminating against those that are perceived as weaker links in the interest of money. I can draw that ol' chestnut from the entire breadth and depth of human history and put THAT trendline upon this situation.

You could then make the argument "But surely not the Videogame industry! That's a unblemished sanctuary free of human folly, and I must absolutely see the evidence for this particular field!", but you can already start making an educated guess what I'd do with that argument. The videogame industry does not exist in a vacuum and a proper exploration of this subject, necessarily draws from a wider pool of ideas, thoughts and precendents, that cannot be explored within the confines of this forum. I WILL want to draw from subject matter outside of the playing field that has been drawn from these forums.

I'm going to be considerate towards your wishes to stay out of politics though, but I think you know where I'm going with this. Crunch - which deals with the stresses of work, the division of labor, capital and means of production - are just about the most political subjects you can touch upon and its scope is greater than individual responsibility and encompasses the human condition and the breadth of society itself.

So... yeah. :ROFLMAO:

I think crunch is something that can be mitigated through proper planning (this is not something CDPR has ever been known for -- W3 was horribly mismanaged, allegedly) and non-mandatory policies.

The unfortunate thing is, unless Adam misspoke, it sounds like he hasn't even taken the non-mandatory step yet. Which is disconcerting if true.

Yes! I'm just more of a cynic and I'm afraid that the solution to the problem might harder won.
 
I'm not against such a discussion personally, but rules are rules, and I'm really tired of getting my posts deleted, that's why I steered us away.

But anyway, good to hear your thoughts on the whole situation. I think we can pretty much agree that some sort of first step needs to be taken, and I really hope CDPR has taken it or plans to take it.

Recent MadQueen video had sources (allegedly) that said the crunch this time is not nearly as bad as it was for TW3 (I believe they use the term "hell" to describe Witcher 3's crunch). But she could have been making it up or the source could have been fake, or maybe the source could have been lying.... Any number of possibilities, but hopefully things are at least better.

Video, timestamped:

 
Yes, they get paid substantially. I believe it's even more than doubletime (which is usually the norm for overtime). I want to say it's something like triple pay? Could be wrong.

Either way, they are compensated very well for their extra efforts.
Well damn, I'm happy with my time and half (+50%) for overtime and holidays. I'm almost jealous.
 
1. Every major company in the industry does it. Idk why CDPR gets all the flak

2. Employees are aware of crunching when signing contracts. It is their voluntary choice to work in this industry, in this company. They are not forced to work at CDPR if they don't like it.
 
2. Employees are aware of crunching when signing contracts. It is their voluntary choice to work in this industry, in this company. They are not forced to work at CDPR if they don't like it.

Life isn't something that simple, and signing a contract doesn't mean willingly agreeing to it.
 
IMPORTANT NOTE: READ BEFORE SENDING ME INTO OBLIVION

Me as a customer: IDC

Simple, CDPR forced nobody to work for them. And I don't think crunch thing is forced. If that's the case however, devs can exit whenever they want. CDPR don't have the power "this person refused to work for me, so I will make sure they won't find another job for their entire life" so can't see what the problem is.

Customer is always right, as a person who worked in a restaurant (which that rule enforced very harsly in any job related to food) for 14 hours in a day if customer don't like you and leave then there's big problem. Legally, 8/5 in my country aswell but nobody gives anything to that. So I just quit from that job, and I have my own job now, renting cars.

If you don't like the offer, just leave. Simple as that. If you're going to cry however, why not opening your own game company and making sure there'll be good games without crunch?
 
1. Every major company in the industry does it. Idk why CDPR gets all the flak

2. Employees are aware of crunching when signing contracts. It is their voluntary choice to work in this industry, in this company. They are not forced to work at CDPR if they don't like it.

Both of those may be true but it's hard to argue it is a healthy environment for the employees. Thus drawing attention to it has merit.

It may happen everywhere as well. I'd refer to the commentary by Kakita earlier there. "It happens here too.", is a flimsy argument. Put differently, whether or not it occurs elsewhere has no bearing on whether it's ideal or should happen in the game development industry. It could be argued it shouldn't happen in those other places either.

Lastly, it could also be argued this "non-mandatory additional work" concept doesn't always revolve around the work load itself. In a lot of cases it's more related to inefficiencies introduced into the work environment and/or the people setting deadlines and dates lacking proficiency in the fields they're overseeing.

In any case, I'd rather not speculate on how all of this plays a role for or at CDPR. There are too many unknowns.
 
2. Employees are aware of crunching when signing contracts. It is their voluntary choice to work in this industry, in this company. They are not forced to work at CDPR if they don't like it.

Yes it does. That's the very definition of a contract.

When it comes to contracts:

You can be forced or tricked into signing a contract against your better judgement and self interest. This simply because you aren’t aware ahead of time of the realities the contract ends up enforcing, or because not signing the contract is even worse.

I could put a gun to your head when signing the contract. Either literally, or metaphorically by making the terms stand in the way of something that’s important to you and depriving you of much else in the process.

In both cases I could shrug and and argue that you signed willingly and voluntarily, since you had a choice.
But like we said, things aren’t that black and white. Beyond the letter of the law and even within the letter of the law, there is some fairness to consider.

When it comes to jobs in the video game industry and crunch in the contract:

Being able to make someone do something just because of a contract, can be against the interest of a fair and healthy society. We don’t want people pressuring or forcing themselves into a abysmal situation over something like job security. If a bad situation becomes normalized, it inevitably gets worse as the bar continues to sink.

I’m not satisfied with just the “but, contract” argument. I'm not satisfied with the "everywhere else is bad, so who cares if it gets worse" rhetoric either. Both seem rather simplistic and even nihilistic to me. I for one, am driven by a desire for the world to get better, not worse. If everywhere else is bad, than we should make everywhere better and not use that as an excuse to make things bad for the developers or everyone else joining the gaming industry too.
 
Last edited:
It may happen everywhere as well. I'd refer to the commentary by Kakita earlier there. "It happens here too.", is a flimsy argument. Put differently, whether or not it occurs elsewhere has no bearing on whether it's ideal or should happen in the game development industry. It could be argued it shouldn't happen in those other places either.
Crunch happening everywhere is a flimsy argument, but it is a really solid indicator that the problem is systemic. Addressing the individual instances instead of addressing the root causes is pointless and likely to just cause more stress in these work environments. "Best" case scenario it causes a dip in sales, the company lays off devs because of the loss of income, and then figures out a way to better hide or rebrand crunch going forward.
 
Life isn't something that simple, and signing a contract doesn't mean willingly agreeing to it.

That's exactly what it means. In fact, Poland has labor laws that specify that workers cannot force crunch on their employees without their employees' direct and formal consent prior to imposing crunch. The employer cannot force an employee to work overtime without compensation. [Edited]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4211861

Guest
I've been in a crunch since November and will only leave it in early February.

It's terrible. Nobody should have to go through this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom