By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - CD Projekt Red Making 6 Day Work Weeks Mandatory Leading Up To Launch

Cobretti2 said:
Otter said:  

What is so baffling? When people have their dream job they should be grateful as most the time it really isn't stressful. We all have to put in over time sometimes. If you are on salary wage then that is the norm. No extra paid for overtime. Hell I am doing over time now at its just before midnight on a Friday (taking a break to read and reply on the forum now).

I don't know why 7 extra days is a big deal because simply put, it could be worst. For example deployed for military duty, then you are away 6-12 months from your kids, at least these devs get to see their kids. For me if you value that extra day (even if its a short period you miss out on), you are in the wrong job. With prestigious jobs like working for one of the best devs scarifies are made sometimes.

Hell I work a full time job (9-5) and then I run another company (6-12), that I hope will grow one day to maybe be my only job. Throw in the over time I do and I am going to bed between 2-3 am each night. I haven't been on a holiday in 6 years, and cash out my annual leave so I can continue to work and fund my other company. I have chosen to make sacrifices, no one asked me to do it, I don't want anyone feeling sorry for me, and guess what I don't complain about it as that is the path I chose. 

The same goes for this scenario, people chose to work for a AAA dev they know what they getting into. Compared to other jobs on offer in Poland they are way ahead and those who are complaining should just suck it up and get on with it or good luck finding a better job. TBH how many staff members are actually complain about having to work those extra 7 days? Or is it just outraged games calling CD Projekt the big bad wolf? Did they ask for a knight in shining armor to save them? or we all assuming they need saving because "crunch" is bad? Perhaps they don't feel the crunch? perhaps they love the crunch? I know it may be hard to believe but some people are wired that way to work hard hence why they took on that job to begin with.

We have also lost something that our parent and grandparents had, gratitude for the things we have in life. We spend far too much time complaining about everything. As an example, a lot of graduates (not all) these days think they are entitled to start on 6 figure salaries (well in my country) straight out of Uni instead of being grateful they got hired. With that attitude, when reality hits that no you don't start there you work your way up to there, they just complain all the time why am I being paid so little, everyone around me is making more money and I have to work more hours and make less. 

Now I am not saying we should go all the way back to stone ages (as you put it) where people worked 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. Just be grateful that in the grand scheme of things, most of us only have to work one job to make ends meet. We already work way less hours than previous generations and get paid better for it anyway, so a few over time days isn't going to end your life especially when you get paid well for it.

So yes I am saying once again suck it up, otherwise where does it stop? 3 day working weeks with 7 figure salaries being the norm? Then what is next? get paid not to work?

You are conflating way too many topics which you are falsely equating to this discussion. Everything from kids expecting 6 figure salaries to comparisons with jobs which require the huge sacrifices in family life in order for them to function (like military). Those are discussions you need to take elsewhere because it has nothing to do with CDPR mandating overtime for 6 weeks, so they can get a game out a month earlier or with fewer bugs.

I will focus on your last sentence because that is where the crux of discussion is. Where does it end?

Firstly this is what you sound like: "Lunch breaks? Next they'll be asking for holidays!"

Secondly if you pay attention to the discussion being had instead of defaulting to your general hump about what you believe of modern society, you would notice that the end goal is management being push to improve their operations and planning so crunch isn't necessary and developers only ever have to work overtime in short notice emergencies, and or voluntarily without fear of repercussions/job loss. 

Lastly, as I said earlier, if Developers didn't care then the topic would never pick up steam. However if you follow the online discourse, its clearly a topic of contention within the industry. Its ironic that most of the people I see arguing in defence of Crunch have no experience in games, and most that I see criticising it are people who actually work in the industry. Its one thing to sit back and feel like it doesn't seem like a big deal, its another to argue that if people don't like it they shouldn't dare complain and should just suck it up. That there is called being regressive, and that is what baffles me.

Last edited by Otter - on 02 October 2020

Around the Network
Cobretti2 said:
Vodacixi said:
For those who speak like there is no other option... How about hiring more people? And don't come at me with the "they would need some time to adapt" yadayada. Sure... like in any other job. But that's what decent companies do. Instead of making 30 people do the job of 50 people with monstruous overtime and overall poor conditions, they hire the remaining 20. They will need some time to adapt, but if they know what they are doing, that will be no more than a week. Two tops.

CDProjekt could hire a few developers for the months when there is more work. But they won't do that because that would mean spending more money than whathever bonus they are giving to their current employees. And even if they are spending more money on bonuses, by hiring more people they would improve their employees conditions and that in return would probably make them work better. But no... Let's squeeze them as strong as we can. No matter if they end up mentally destroyed, I'll give them money. Everyone knows that throwing money at people solve all of their problems.

It is essentially 7-8 extra days of work to iron out more bugs, what benefit does it have to hire more people here? They already delayed the game a few times to avoid excessive long periods of crunch.  They don't need to hire any more developers for what the regular crew will do in 8 days extra max.

The probably did hire more testers which found more bugs and decided they were not happy to pull an Activision or EA and release the game and let the gamers be the bug testers essentially where people will be forced to download huge patches later to fix game breaking bugs.

7-8 days PER PERSON. That's 1-2 months of overall extra work. In any area of work is common to hire more people for periods when there is more work to do. Or when there is a setback. There is no need for the company to exploit their employees like this. Unless they just want to launch the game no matter what, and saving as much money as they can off course.



Jaxyfoo said:
Wow I must live in a different world to most forum posters. 

No kidding.  The disconnect I feel sometimes is kind of amazing.  I've been working overtime every week for the last three months.  I know people who beg for overtime, who try to transfer into departments that give out the most overtime.  I don't think I've worked anywhere that didn't have some mandatory overtime to some degree.  Sometimes things just have to get done--and if they don't, it affects everyone. You don't just go, "oh, only the management has to worry about that," and think the consequences won't trickle down.  Then I come online and see people comparing a short period of overtime to slavery?  

And what I'm doing now is nothing compared to when I owned my own business.  But people think the the guys at indie studios aren't working their asses off?  Many of them are probably clocking more hours than anyone.



You guys obviously haven't worked in industries where overtime is expected due to deadlines or extreme demand. Saying that, its a bit shitty where they said the game was in a near complete state several months ago and no crunch, to a mandatory crunch.

Saying that, this is pretty normal for any AAA game.



Yeah i still find it absolutely normal that they have to do this for a short while, it is almost impossible to perfectly predict how much time is needed and how much people you need to hire. Hiring new people that close at launch is also pretty difficult and not practical when they mostly need some time to learn what they need to in that certain company.
If you had a leading position in any kind of logistic company you would probably understand,in this case i would even give props to the company for making a good effort to minimize crunch and paying overtime.



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
Yeah i still find it absolutely normal that they have to do this for a short while, it is almost impossible to perfectly predict how much time is needed and how much people you need to hire. Hiring new people that close at launch is also pretty difficult and not practical when they mostly need some time to learn what they need to in that certain company.
If you had a leading position in any kind of logistic company you would probably understand,in this case i would even give props to the company for making a good effort to minimize crunch and paying overtime.

If it's common place among AAA games development means they can actually predict very well the workforce they need and estimate how much overtime their employees were going to make to finish the games 

Overtime for some teams are ok. Management errors mistakes, charging specifications, unpredictable risks or even plain lack of productivity can make some small teams need to do overtime. 

But make everyone under the project to have overtime? It's deliberate, I can't believe 100% of the dev's in 100% of studios and in 100% of AAA projects can't meet deadline efficiently 



Overtime and crunch are to be expected when you work with projects and are closing in on a deadline. That's just part of the job. Even well managed projects can lead to short periods of overtime. But lots of overtime and long and frequent periods of crunch is a sign of poor management and planning, and such working conditions should be frowned upon.



Ka-pi96 said:

For real? That seems crazy to me.

Valuing more money (that you have no time to spend) over your free time seems insane to me. So I can only assume people who "beg" for overtime are absolutely desperate for the money. But what kind of messed up country would you need to be in for a standard 40 hour work week to not bring in enough cash to survive off of?

Who are you to judge what other people do with their time?  Your assumptions seem to just be your own narrow view applied to everyone else.  People's reasons are their own and as different as the people themselves.  

My father was a workaholic who climbed into a log truck when he got off his job at the mill because that was his hobby.  A supervisor I know takes all the overtime he can get because he's recently divorced and would rather be around coworkers than sitting in his apartment.  One of my friends works overtime because she's a single mother with three kids.  Another lady I know sleeps like 4 hours a night and always comes in a couple of hours early despite making plenty of money.  My sister's husband works all the overtime he can get because they spend a lot of money buying new stuff and going on trips--it's what they like to do.

I doubt they much care about what "seems crazy" to you.



pokoko said:

My father was a workaholic who climbed into a log truck when he got off his job at the mill because that was his hobby. 

A supervisor I know takes all the overtime he can get because he's recently divorced and would rather be around coworkers than sitting in his apartment. 

One of my friends works overtime because she's a single mother with three kids. 

Another lady I know sleeps like 4 hours a night and always comes in a couple of hours early despite making plenty of money. 

My sister's husband works all the overtime he can get because they spend a lot of money buying new stuff and going on trips--it's what they like to do.

Why I have the impression you didn't mention a single healthy (in both socioeconomic and biological aspects) person? Except maybe your sister's husband 

Working too much is hardly sustainable. There is a reason why more developed countries stabilished laws limiting the amount of working hours weekly/monthly to their citizens 



Ka-pi96 said:

I'll judge whatever I want to. If you don't like it, too bad.

Sure, you can judge people you don't know anything about and make things up to fit your preconceptions but nobody really gives a fuck.  

IcaroRibeiro said:

Why I have the impression you didn't mention a single healthy (in both socioeconomic and biological aspects) person? Except maybe your sister's husband 

Working too much is hardly sustainable. There is a reason why more developed countries stabilished laws limiting the amount of working hours weekly/monthly to their citizens 

I don't know why you have that impression when you know nothing about those people.  Because my father liked driving a truck instead of watching TV or playing video games, you think you know all about him?  That's pure ignorance.  People are different.