-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Would(honestly) you accept if games wer sub par/ took longer to avoid crunch
- Thread starter Redfox088
- Start date
I know several people who have worked 100 hour weeks for games, the whole studio doing it? Sure, probably not, but I guarantee there were people doing that.
These are two completely different questions and bundling them together is weird at best, a symptom of fundamentally misunderstanding how games are made at worst. Crunch makes for worse games, not better; devs who crunch aren't at their top of their creative and attentive game. Good games take time to make, not just because of the work involved, but because creative work needs time to breathe and come up with great ideas. Code needs time to be created in a clean and organized manner (and refactored when needed), not rushed so that devs are forced to hack in edge cases and new functionality with duct tape and pray nothing breaks.
That's, of course, not to mention that crunch is the symptom of either a mismanaged development schedule (with all the problems that entails), or a broken work ethic based on exploiting workers out of the gate (which is not exactly the best for employee motivation).
Into the Breach took four years to make, and it's the absolutely perfect game development masterclass it is because they didn't have a time limit and could spend however they wanted exploring and refining gameplay. As gamers, we should push for games to take longer to be made, not shorter. It's a self-obvious truth elsewhere; all other things being equal, you'd expect a product that took more time to make to be the better one. Why do we make an exception with games?
That's, of course, not to mention that crunch is the symptom of either a mismanaged development schedule (with all the problems that entails), or a broken work ethic based on exploiting workers out of the gate (which is not exactly the best for employee motivation).
Into the Breach took four years to make, and it's the absolutely perfect game development masterclass it is because they didn't have a time limit and could spend however they wanted exploring and refining gameplay. As gamers, we should push for games to take longer to be made, not shorter. It's a self-obvious truth elsewhere; all other things being equal, you'd expect a product that took more time to make to be the better one. Why do we make an exception with games?
The notion that prolonged crunch shortens timelines and improves quality is complete BS, and by extension the question in the OP is not a real either.
We could be asking for less brute force approach to development (instead of 2k people on RDR2, something less factory like, with less management overhead and less production waste, and ultimately less 'human' cost) and 'that' would actually be a cost/time tradeoff on many levels - but it's also not nearly as simple as trading one number for another. More importantly - it would be less predictable in initial adoption - and companies like predictability far more than the health of their employees.
We could be asking for less brute force approach to development (instead of 2k people on RDR2, something less factory like, with less management overhead and less production waste, and ultimately less 'human' cost) and 'that' would actually be a cost/time tradeoff on many levels - but it's also not nearly as simple as trading one number for another. More importantly - it would be less predictable in initial adoption - and companies like predictability far more than the health of their employees.
What the industry needs is better project management, less rush to release and, in many cases, more emphasis on the core of the game and less time and resources spent on eye candy. RDR2 is the perfect example of spending waaaaaaaay too much resources in graphic fidelity and pointless details concerned with realism, to the actual detriment of gameplay.
There's always this concern when people bring up unionising or stronger labour laws that it will result in worse products or services, but is there evidence of this?
Genuinely curious if there are any studies.
Genuinely curious if there are any studies.
I would be bothered by AAA games having low polish, being janky and buggy. However I wouldn't mind lower graphics. I'd be perfectly fine with games like AC Odyssey or Spider-Man if they had PS360 level of graphics with higher resolution. Hell even FFX and MGS2 look perfectly fine to me nowadays with modern resolutions.
I think it should be constantly reiterated. Crunch is to help the publisher's bottom line and offset poor management. It makes games worse.
i'd be more than ok waiting longer for games.
waiting longer just means the developers deadlines aren't as tight. but as a consumer we'd likely be unaware of it. it's not like games will continue to be announced when they would have if they had shorter deadlines. announcement schedules, E3 schedules, hype building schedules would all shift to compensate.
plus it's not like all games start development at the same time so there would be other things to play in the meantime anyway. it might just mean we get one or 2 games out of a franchise or studio per gen instead of several, but i think that would help with franchise fatigue in the long run.
i say bring it on, what is currently happening isn't sustainable and needs to change either way. the only alternative to longer deadlines i can think of is for devs/publishers to take a step back in regards to visuals and push art to the forefront instead of texture res and geometry detail, which in theory, should reduce costs.
waiting longer just means the developers deadlines aren't as tight. but as a consumer we'd likely be unaware of it. it's not like games will continue to be announced when they would have if they had shorter deadlines. announcement schedules, E3 schedules, hype building schedules would all shift to compensate.
plus it's not like all games start development at the same time so there would be other things to play in the meantime anyway. it might just mean we get one or 2 games out of a franchise or studio per gen instead of several, but i think that would help with franchise fatigue in the long run.
i say bring it on, what is currently happening isn't sustainable and needs to change either way. the only alternative to longer deadlines i can think of is for devs/publishers to take a step back in regards to visuals and push art to the forefront instead of texture res and geometry detail, which in theory, should reduce costs.
Define subpar. Are we talking production values? Then sure, absolutely, I don't mind.
I don't mind waiting either, but then the problem is that they need to sell even more than they already do to make that money back.
Games getting more expensive doesn't seem like a reasonable solution that anyone would be interested in pursuing.
I don't mind waiting either, but then the problem is that they need to sell even more than they already do to make that money back.
Games getting more expensive doesn't seem like a reasonable solution that anyone would be interested in pursuing.
I don't give a crap about "crush" but this is obviously up to the developers / publishers and worker. They have to decide how the conduct business and do work.
So yeah at the end of the day I would accept that, but it's not something I would advocate for.
So yeah at the end of the day I would accept that, but it's not something I would advocate for.
I have no problems waiting longer for a game if it means the developers have a heathier work environment.
I can wait. But I don't see us as responsible as the publishers. They want to push games because it cost them money. Why should we get a subpar game, for the same price while big publishers earn millions of dollars? They need to realise that they are the ones profiting the most from it. Of course they also take the risk, but as long as the game doesn't bomb like Fallout 76 (which somehow seem to do fine financially) it's actually not THAT risky -- it's not like you bet all your money on double-zero and once the spin turns out any different you lose everything.
I don't believe games would turn out subpar if crunch is avoided. All it needs them to take a bit longer, people on crunch aren't very productive anyway. And it's on higher management to figure out how not to slowly kill off their workforce's social lifes and health, not the consumer. Give them more time or don't plan games as big in scope. Nobody would get hurt if AC Odyssey 4 was 10% smaller than the other games.
If they avoided crunch, games would probably be better. Lack of sleep/loss of the will to live is probably one of the driving factors of the bugs and bad design choices. Took longer? That shouldn't matter so long as they don't announce them years before they are expected to be finished. Also maybe if they focused games instead of trying to provide everything to everyone under the sun they wouldn't take as long / cost so much to make.
Just take longer. Releasing a sub-par game and then using crunch as the shield just makes no sense to me. Imagine if that was used as a defense for Sonic 06 lol.
If there were an honest and necessary trade that meant better hours/pay/treatment but games took longer...of course I would.
There's more games (and movies, music, books, etc) that are worth my time than I can even remotely consume in my lifetime if I dedicated myself completely to it. I'm not worried if things take longer or even cost more. There's already more than I'll ever really need.
There's more games (and movies, music, books, etc) that are worth my time than I can even remotely consume in my lifetime if I dedicated myself completely to it. I'm not worried if things take longer or even cost more. There's already more than I'll ever really need.
Let me wait a few months longer to avoid crunch, sure. But I'm not the problem, the shareholders are.
No, I wouldn't accept that.
I don't think it's a zero sum where work-life balance has to be sacrificed just to make a good game and satisfy customers. It's on management to find a sweet spot to get that win-win situation where the studio is making good content while providing good work-life balance.
I don't think it's a zero sum where work-life balance has to be sacrificed just to make a good game and satisfy customers. It's on management to find a sweet spot to get that win-win situation where the studio is making good content while providing good work-life balance.
Yeah. I've got plenty of shit to play. I'm okay with them taking longer, not with them being subpar though
The indie market should be the only clue that's necessary to answer that question.
People don't mind buying games with non-cutting-edge graphics or even with limited budget/scopes provided they offer a unique and engrossing experience.
Pretty graphics are nice to have and I'm all for improvements in that department but I think it's a poor choice to pick those over other aspects of the game.
People don't mind buying games with non-cutting-edge graphics or even with limited budget/scopes provided they offer a unique and engrossing experience.
Pretty graphics are nice to have and I'm all for improvements in that department but I think it's a poor choice to pick those over other aspects of the game.
I would be perfectly fine with games taking longer to release. Actually, I can't keep up with all the great games that are being released these days which means I miss many of them. I don't play multiplayer and GaaS games, though.
Neither as they do not address the core of the problem which is poor project management from the very top of the company. Every story I have heard were crunch has got out of control you can always see one or more bad decisions made by senior managers .
Be it an engine unstable for the game, allowing feature creep to take over, somebody played a really cool game and this must now be in the game even though it is 6 month to ship and it will undo the last years worth of work. Or just not hiring enough people to do the job and are not willing to trim down the game.
My classic example is LA Noir a great game but the open world add nothing of note to the game, if they had lost the open world and just focused on the investigations it would have lost nothing and would have seven tens if not hundreds of thousands of hours of work.
Be it an engine unstable for the game, allowing feature creep to take over, somebody played a really cool game and this must now be in the game even though it is 6 month to ship and it will undo the last years worth of work. Or just not hiring enough people to do the job and are not willing to trim down the game.
My classic example is LA Noir a great game but the open world add nothing of note to the game, if they had lost the open world and just focused on the investigations it would have lost nothing and would have seven tens if not hundreds of thousands of hours of work.
This is me too: I'm fine with games being more to cover the crunch.
I am for healthy working conditions and fair pay, no matter if that results in a delay, regardless of industry. Every should be treated well at work and not forced into working long hours or making that the norm.
Honestly, if you had me choose between all this forced crunch and having no videogames, I'd choose no videogames. I don't like the idea of anyone's life or health being damaged so that I can be entertained. That's just greed, plain and simple.
Honestly, if you had me choose between all this forced crunch and having no videogames, I'd choose no videogames. I don't like the idea of anyone's life or health being damaged so that I can be entertained. That's just greed, plain and simple.
I have no problem with things taking longer. I probably wouldn't waste my time with sub-par games unless the way they are subpar is purely from a technical graphics perspective. I'm not going to suddenly want to play games with bad animation or shitty feeling gameplay.
if games got more expensive than they already are (specially outside the US) i would just stop buying them and i'm far from being the stingiest person i know who games. Making them all lose their jobs because publishers are putting the extra dev cost on the game price isn't going to help anyone. It's not our obligation as customers to pay from our pocket for more dev time or resources anyway, that someone could actually be led to believe that is ludicrous
Are you two joking or just delusional? Surely you know that the reason for crunch is purely out of greed from the company itself and not because they lack the resources to actually pay employees properly for their time.
Why the hell would you put that onto the consumers?
I have other stuff to do anyway. Take all the time y'all need. Just remember to email me once there's an update/release.
Subpar? Technically no, but if a game isn't made by Nintendo it most likely needs a patch so that risk always loomed for the last 7 years.
Delayed? Yes.
Delayed? Yes.
Yep. Didn't buy MK11 because of the unethical working conditions. Not afraid to boycott future games where the employees are treated like slaves. In fact, I wish there was a list or website or something that kept tabs on how well companies treat their staff, so people like me would know what studios to avoid.
I ain't worried about missing out on anything. My Steam backlog is like 300 games. I've still got PS3 and PS4 games that I haven't even opened. If I completely stopped buying new games today, I'd have about five years worth of game to catch up with.
I ain't worried about missing out on anything. My Steam backlog is like 300 games. I've still got PS3 and PS4 games that I haven't even opened. If I completely stopped buying new games today, I'd have about five years worth of game to catch up with.
Gaming is entertainment. Inherently it is not a necessity. Thus developer/publishers need to produce a product that compels customers to spend their hard earned money. The onus should not be on the customer to assure that corporations follow the law or that legislators do their jobs and address these labor issues. Why are we used as a shield for irresponsible corporate behavior?
Delay the damn games. I'm not dying to play it by the fiscal year.
And why make a game for 5 years is its going to be subpar? Delay it for another 3 months.
And why make a game for 5 years is its going to be subpar? Delay it for another 3 months.
Simple take - if every single game in development now, and in the future took 6 more months, all we'd have to do is not have any major releases for 6 months, and after that, no one would even realize they were taking 6 more months.
Complicated take - 6 more months of labor * X amount of games = a LOT of money - these big games aren't labors of love, the fast they can ship them, flip the workers to the next game and repeat - the better the shareholders do, and THAT is actually the goal of the corporation, and all corporations, to increase shareholder equity as much as possible, each and every day.
So yea, it won't happen - no AAA project manager is gonna get the green light for an extra $10-20 million just to 'slow down production'.
Complicated take - 6 more months of labor * X amount of games = a LOT of money - these big games aren't labors of love, the fast they can ship them, flip the workers to the next game and repeat - the better the shareholders do, and THAT is actually the goal of the corporation, and all corporations, to increase shareholder equity as much as possible, each and every day.
So yea, it won't happen - no AAA project manager is gonna get the green light for an extra $10-20 million just to 'slow down production'.
Subpar? No.
Took longer to develop and release? Sure, I have no problem waiting for games that I like.
Took longer to develop and release? Sure, I have no problem waiting for games that I like.