Currently Online 
| Cobretti2 said: There are two types of publishers, 1) Who is happy to release a buggy game and let the gamers do the testing for them and then fix the bugs 3-6months after release with a huge patch, 2) Ones that get the developers to do that work and release a game that hopefully has no major game breaking bugs. From reading the article, it seems the game has been finished and they want to iron out a lot of the bugs before the gamer gets it in hand. Here is a question, why do people see crunch as a bad thing? even when they get paid for it? For those who studied a technical degree at uni, every year was crunch lol. For most technical mind people it is actually a driver and a high. Projects that were allocated X days of time to complete probably took in reality 1/10th of that (but longer hours a day). This was the typical cycle of a project at uni if it was a 12month project. Everyone in group excited to get started. Spend about a month all doing hard work and research because it is new and interesting. Then that slows down to once every 2 week catchups then once month as interest is lost you go through the motions working at maybe 50% capability and you know the deadline is months way so you go have some fun instead of work to your full potential. Then before you know it you have 2-4weeks to get the project done, by this stage you probable have completed 30-50% work. Now you have a fixed deadline that is fast approach, you no longer have the luxury of overthinking and ten the best thing happens, your intuition kicks in and you stop second guessing yourself and just get on the with the task at hand as you already know what you have to do because you already planned it early on. Can everyone handle crunch? absolutely not, but that is why the ones out there who use crunch as a drug essentially do well with it as those kind of people are able to focus and work better under a stricter deadline. If you want your name on the best games, best tv shows, best movies, you gotta work hard for it. |
I really don't understand people's rational for arguing for Crunch which is essentially what you're doing.
Any place where it can be avoided, that should be sought after. Optional overtime or an occassional short notice emergency is one thing, months of mandated overtime is another, doesn't matter if its paid. Now of course people could just leave and get a different job, but they can also fight to make their work place one that is healthier for all manner of people. Not just those willing to sacrifice mentaö/physical health, the health of the family time and relationships by being overworked approaching ill managed or unrealistic deadlines. And don't take it from me, take it from the actual developers who are complaining about the impact on their life. I'm not someone who's going to pretend that its literal slave labour, but I'm not going to raise my voice in support of it because that would be backwards. The logic of x and y jobs have to do overtime, so everyone else should be forced to as well, is just dumb. My dad had to work 7 days a week for most of his life but I can recognise that its not ideal and would hope better for myself and others.
If you're indifferent as oppose to being in favour of crunch, maybe just just don't engage with the topic... If the workers who are crunching don't actually care, the topic would never go anywhere anyway
