• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

Would(honestly) you accept if games wer sub par/ took longer to avoid crunch

May 31, 2018
2,286
#1
I’ve been against this crunch issue since it came up with red dead. I honestly didn’t like red dead and maybe that’s why I felt so strongly that it wasn’t worth.


Fast forward to apex.

Loved the game at launch in a way I didn’t like fortnite. But man that battle pass was weak. I dragged them for it on my gaming circle only to find out they wanted to avoid crunching their developers. I called bs, but then that fortnite article came out.



So now I’m at an impasse cuz my friends are still bitching about that weak battle pass but when I bring up crunch they are uhh.....a lot less forgiving than I.


Where do you guys stand on this? Are we all for criticizing crunch until it affects our gameplay experience? Are we just a bunch of hypocrites?
 
Dec 28, 2017
7,745
#4
No game's development should come at the expense of a person's own wellbeing and health. I absolutely would support a longer dev time if it meant game development studios don't incorporate crunch practices. Plenty of great games out there have been made without having to resort to crunch. A recent example of this is Spider-Man. Studios should be trying to curb crunch culture entirely but that will never happen because of toxic management and greed.

Crunch doesn't necessarily lead to a good game and I feel a lot of people need to be reminded of that.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,301
#8
You wouldn't really feel the longer dev times unless you closely follow one specific dev and they announce their title way too early. If all studios moved away from crunch and announced their title plus started the marketing push when a release quarter is realistic, then we wouldn't feel it as a whole if you are a general consumer. Crunch if anything seems more prone to causing issues with the final product, since now exhausting sets in into your work.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,279
Charlotte NC
#11
Quite frankly as long as crunch is paid with OT kinda like Epic with Fortnite I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. If you burn out find another job. If you’re being paid standard hours/not being paid at all then absolutely not. But subpar games isn’t acceptable, I’m paying money for a product, I expect you to put your best foot forward. Dev times are gonna get longer anyway but if you’re taking the better part of a decade to release a title, perhaps you need to work on your pipeline or pull a Ubisoft and hire more people while also setting up a pipeline for success.
 

HylianSeven

Community Resetter
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,852
#12
I'm not really sure how you get to "no crunch = sub-par games".

Projects like video games are generally planned to be completed by a certain date, if crunch happens, it's a management failure. Assuming most developers use agile (I'm sure many probably do), then they have a plan for their release, stories of what needs to get done in games, and about how long it would take to get it done, and then they go with that and plan what to do and when to do it based on what the deadline is. If it's not feasible to get it done by then, then they would have to be allowed more time for that to be feasible.

You also have to factor in that you generally get less productivity out of employees that are burned out due to crunch. Crunch is bad, full stop. But yes, I'd accept delayed games to avoid crunch. That shouldn't lead to sub-par games.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,253
#13
No, I want my games and I want them now and I want them good and I don't care how many innocent people are hurt along the way as long as I have my game however I want it.

Is not what I feel. It can take as long as it needs to, and this industry doesn't need crunch.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,854
#15
Yes.

So many games come out these days fighting for a strategic release slot that many go unnoticed or unplayed. Stretching development times out means big budget games can be done ove ra longer time, alowing more sane development procedures to come through while allowing games to have their time under the spotlight.
 

HylianSeven

Community Resetter
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,852
#16
Quite frankly as long as crunch is paid with OT kinda like Epic with Fortnite I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. If you burn out find another job. If you’re being paid standard hours/not being paid at all then absolutely not. But subpar games isn’t acceptable, I’m paying money for a product, I expect you to put your best foot forward. Dev times are gonna get longer anyway but if you’re taking the better part of a decade to release a title, perhaps you need to work on your pipeline or pull a Ubisoft and hire more people while also setting up a pipeline for success.
I'm not sure how you can say ridiculously long work weeks are fine just because they get paid overtime for it. There's tons of other consequences to working so much that aren't monetary.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,192
Australia
#17
Longer development, sure.

It's not on us to accept sub-par games, though. If the only way developers can get a product out on time is by making it sub-par, they need to change the way they work.
 
Aug 25, 2018
604
#18
No game's development should come at the expense of a person's own wellbeing and health. I absolutely would support a longer dev time if it meant game development studios don't incorporate crunch practices. Plenty of great games out there have been made without having to resort to crunch. A recent example of this is Spider-Man. Studios should be trying to curb crunch culture entirely but that will never happen because of toxic management and greed.

Crunch doesn't necessarily lead to a good game and I feel a lot of people need to be reminded of that.
Couldn't have said it better.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,243
#19
sure whatever, its not like i play many video games anyway

take your time and treat your employees humanely if thats literally what has to happen.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,764
#20
fuck yes of course

The first thing I think of is graphics. All I want is a smooth 60 FPS at 4K. Otherwise developers could strip many of their games down visually and I'd be content.
 
May 15, 2019
45
#24
I would prefer if they just took their time. Games are messier and take longer, in my honest opinion, because so many great devs have just left the industry. Plus there are already so many games available right now that I genuinely don't care. I'll play overwatch or fortnite or destiny 2 or diablo 3 or something.
 
Oct 27, 2017
437
#26
The problem with crunch is that it's simply not supported by scientific studies regarding workplace productivity, at least not in the long term. I think we need to accept delays more gracefully and be less voracious in our appetite for timely content for games with long-term support. A permanent state of crunch is untenable at best and actively damaging to the industry and the lives of developers. I'm not as sure about games developed with a short period of crunch just before release because that may simply be the reality of game development and (in moderate doses, mind you) is probably not excessively cruel. I somehow doubt anything less than unionization would be effective in curtailing crunch culture, though. If they charge more for video games you just know that extra money will be lining the pockets of management, not your average developer. If they delay games they would probably still crunch to add features or squash bugs or polish content. Nothing short of unionization will likely fix the issue, unfortunately.
 

rpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,717
the 24th century
#28
I don't know why you think games would be sub-par without crunch, dunno why you're saying that

Of course I'd accept that, developers should take as much time as they need, video games aren't that serious, no one should be hurt in the making of them
 
Oct 25, 2017
534
#29
Take all the time you need. It's not necessary to have a particular amount of releases per year to be considered a "productive" studio in my eyes; if you assure us that a lower amount of new titles would get your workers proper work/life balance then I'm all for it. I mean, worst case scenario you will play fewer "big" games, leading you to gravitate towards indie/smaller releases (those may have crunch-related problems too, though).

Crunch isn’t necessary to make a great game so it’s not like we have to choose one or the other.
Also this.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
740
#31
You can criticize a game and be against crunch at the same time, they do not go in hand and that belief is part of why crunch has been normalized. Crunch is not required for a game to be good.

And I'd argue that crunch probably hurts game development more than it speeds it up, crunch is a short-term solution with a long-term problem with burn-out and fatigue. Crunch does more harm and very little good, if you can look past the short-term.
 
Nov 7, 2017
998
#32
If anything, giving a dev team more breathing room for project will probably result in better games. You don't want someone who's tired and about to keel over working on code.
Exactly.

Crunch should be legislated out of the game industry, and there should be more effort to hold management of these projects accountable for encouraging dangerous working behaviour like overwork and bigotry.

With the amount of stories I’ve heard of management coasting on their workers and taking advantage of them in developer teams, It honestly feels like there should be a serious management reform.
 
Oct 29, 2017
1,966
#33
I don't accept that scope and crunch are like a 1:1 tradeoff. Happy, well-paid workers are more productive.

That said, I think the relentless pursuit of higher fidelity has contributed to a lot of wasted hours for artists and animators. I can't help but think of RDR2 and the agonizing, last-minute implementation of letterboxing in all of the cutscenes. Stupid bullshit like that is really upsetting and nobody would miss it if it was gone.

Not everything is that clean-cut, but in general I think aesthetic compromises are the easiest to make.
 
Oct 25, 2017
146
Sidewinder
#34
There are more than enough companies making games and backlogs of great games to hold me over for a lifetime. If I would have to wait longer to get new titles from the companies I like or have them scale back in vision in exchange for the employees lives to be at a baseline of not overworked shitty then I'd happily make that trade.
 
Aug 29, 2018
409
#38
Like already said, crunch is not connected to quality games. In fact in any field of work, tiresome workhours halt productivity and quality.

Yes, we can wait a year more for a game to be completed without crunch, publishers can't :(

Captalism can't crash soon enough.
 
OP
OP
Redfox088
May 31, 2018
2,286
#39
I don't know why you think games would be sub-par without crunch, dunno why you're saying that

Of course I'd accept that, developers should take as much time as they need, video games aren't that serious, no one should be hurt in the making of them
I’m saying if games get released basically unfinished/ bare bones instead of hunkering down to meet a dead line. Sea of theives, SFv, etc.


Are we ok with SFV/ EX Layer style releases if the game is janky/featureless?
 

Tzarscream

Banned
Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,336
#40
If anything, giving a dev team more breathing room for project will probably result in better games. You don't want someone who's tired and about to keel over working on code.
I was half way through writing the same thing and then saw this post.

So, this, with bells on it.

A dev that works 8 hours, goes home and has a nice meal, time with the kids and a good night's sleep is probably going to come back the next day refreshed and more productive than a brain dead drone on their 8th can of red bull.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,179
#41
I have no problem with longer dev times, especially not if it results in a better work environment and game.
I'm done playing a unfinished games at this point, anyone that pulls that won't get a penny from me until a year ot 2 after release.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2018
807
#43
I’ve been against this crunch issue since it came up with red dead. I honestly didn’t like red dead and maybe that’s why I felt so strongly that it wasn’t worth.
You do know that whole debacle ended up being complete nonsense based on a quote taken out of context in an interview right?

Nobody at Rockstar was working 100 hour weeks. Not even the 4-person writing team (who Dan Houser was talking about in the first place).

100 hours a week is over 14 hours per day, 7 days a week, lmao. He was exaggerating and it backfired hard.

Not to say the writing team wasn’t crunching, they most certainly were, but that whole “100 hour weeks” quote was blown way out of proportion. Plenty of Rockstar employees also chimed in on Twitter shortly after to talk about how crunch was a non-issue for them at R*. Again, not saying crunch isn’t an issue at all there. But it has improved in the last decade according to many.

So now I’m at an impasse cuz my friends are still bitching about that weak battle pass but when I bring up crunch they are uhh.....a lot less forgiving than I.
You also realize that normal people don’t give a fuck about any of this outside of gaming forums like Era right..? People just like to enjoy games.

Are we just a bunch of hypocrites?
Seeing as there is no ethical consumption under capitalism - Yeah, pretty much.

Crunch is shitty but it’s very hypocritical to get hung up over it as a consumer of...all the other shit we consume in life & the horrendous practices/morality behind it all.

The bottom line is, without crunch, we would not get the games we are accustomed to today - You don’t get a Last of Us or a Red Dead Redemption 2 or a Witcher 3 without someone going above and beyond. That’s just the way it is. That’s the way life is.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
63
Australia
#45
That's a weird zero-sum you're pulling there, OP. But of course games can be as late as they need to be in order to protect the people who make them.

Shareholders will disagree, of course, but then we will have to overthrow capitalism itself to fix that little problem. So one step at a time.
 

rpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,717
the 24th century
#46
I’m saying if games get released basically unfinished/ bare bones instead of hunkering down to meet a dead line. Sea of theives, SFv, etc.


Are we ok with SFV/ EX Layer style releases if the game is janky/featureless?
Publishers rushing shit out the door to hit a self-imposed deadline is a tangentially related but ultimately separate issue
 
Nov 2, 2017
889
#47
There is such a gluttony of good games that I can handle longer dev times that would come from alleviating crunch.

On the topic of dev time, I really hope advancements in machine learning reduce time/effort, particularly for content generation. We've seen it crop up in recent titles, and its reach will only expand in the coming years. I hope ray tracing will gain traction for the same reason.
 

Tzarscream

Banned
Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,336
#49
You do realize that whole debacle ended up being complete nonsense based on a quote taken out of context in an interview right?

Nobody at Rockstar was working 100 hour weeks. Not even the 4-person writing team (who Dan Houser was talking about in the first place).

100 hours a week is over 14 hours per day, 7 days a week, lmao. He was exaggerating and it backfired hard.


You also realize that normal people don’t give a fuck about any of this outside of gaming forums like Era right..? People just like to enjoy games.