In the video game industry, there is very rarely a thing called "optional" crunch. Having the option to crunch is basically a "Do you want to keep your job or not?" decision.
So yes, "optional crunch" really means "mandatory crunch".
-
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.
- Status
In the video game industry, there is very rarely a thing called "optional" crunch. Having the option to crunch is basically a "Do you want to keep your job or not?" decision.
So yes, "optional crunch" really means "mandatory crunch".
Absurdly weak defense from GI considering (i) they're named, and (ii) Jason was the only report. No idea what that person was thinking in their response.
why the fuck is anyone trying to dunk on Jason about this?
we got influencers who got free chairs saying Jason has an AgEndA for reporting this, and now GameInformer saying his reporting is incorrect?
Dude is literally the only person out of a pool of like 5 people who can legitimately wear the badge of "journalist" in this industry.
So so. Some people may choose because money, to get some specific date to rest with the family. I think people choosing to crunch is fine, it's for personal reasons.
Now, enforcing crunch... That's is the issue in every industry/market.
Agreed.
We're seeing the peak here of paid-for influencers masquerading as journalists playing down harmful practices in the industry because they get free chairs and early copies of the game. Not a good scenario to be in.
Most people do actually...if OT is available. It's more money.
Doesn't the power dynamic and office culture automatically remove "choice" for the developers here? Also the manner in which they were asked also matters. If they were all in a big meeting together (zoom call now I guess), and they were asked all at the same time some might not feel comfortable speaking up. If they were all asked individually in 1-on-1 meetings with their boss, they might feel pressured to answer in a specific way. Either way, just because they ASK the question doesn't mean the employees had any real choice or voice in the matter.
Heh of course they're gonna try to downplay the crunch.
Some people here say they do OT because of the money, but most people won't. You're kidding if you're saying most people will choose to OT than go home on time. Anyway OT isn't necessarily crunch either.
Some people here say they do OT because of the money, but most people won't. You're kidding if you're saying most people will choose to OT than go home on time. Anyway OT isn't necessarily crunch either.
Maybe best to make the title less on GI's side in light of this
A lot of people are just gonna read the title and take it as gospel
The only way to be fair to your employees when it comes to asking if they will crunch is to not ask them to crunch at all. "Asking" employees if they would like to crunch is a joke because of the obvious power dynamic. How many employees trust that their opinion on the matter, whether it's claimed to be anonymous or not, isn't going to be held against them in the future (Whether consciously or unconsciously). "Team players" are rewarded, those who resist... maybe they aren't the best employees.
Pretty much. Jason is the only journalist in the video game industry. Shit is wild.
I dont think you can say they are paid-for in GI's case vs the guy literally in a cyberpunk chair lol. I think if you look back GI just probably got a preview from them I think there were a few previews at the time if I'm not wrong. We could look back and see. But yeah this a mess.
Cus they want Cyberpunk and want to feel good about it.
It's like a step away from the Rooster Teeth stuff smack talking Jeff Gerstmann about Fallout 4 while they were all wearing pip boys.
Not only does the claim that the "mass majority" were okay with it ignore how the culture around crunch create pressure and expectations for the employees, it also ignores all the people who aren't okay with it but now have to work overtime anyways. It just emphasizes a point Jason made on twitter:
That's exactly right. They want to consume freely without worrying about the human cost; $60 is enough for them.
Well, to an extent yes, on the other hand there is a valid point that if this brings fairly significant financial benefits (overtime is paid by Polish law I think plus bonus incentive), then a lot of folks would choose to do so anyways even without the pressure.
But that's the entire problem with the video game industry (lets use sample pay). Say, a Game Director ($100,000 a year) chooses to crunch to get their work done for game launch. That means their team crunches as well (developers making $50,000-$75,000). Because the game developers are crunching, the QA team ($35,000-$45,000 a year) have to crunch as well. Wait shit, the team also has two outside contractors, both handling some QA. Well those employees ($25,000 a year or far less, whatever minimum wage is in their area) now have to crunch as well, and they have to crunch longer and harder than the CDPR team because they want CDPR to pick them for their next contract.
Oh and that awesome 10-20% or revenue promised to the team when the game makes money? Awesome, none of the external partners, who are hurt the most from this crunch, get any of that.
Last edited:
Ahh I remember her from the day the game went gold and everyone went apeshit because Jason mentioned in his tweet the "tired developers". She was one of the people defending Paris(?) for his accusation of Jason having an agenda.
Also watching the clip from OP... to start with a comparison to her work in the military is just such an obvious tactic in a conversation to just say "Hey look, they don't have it as bad as I did." which is never in good faith.
And again: Sure most people at CDPR seem to be okay with doing overtime in an creative industry (which is only too common) but they don't seem to think about their co-workers who just can't, in a company that boostet about their work culture and claiming it isn't for everyone. And think about this for one second:
If they don't stay and do the overtime, that workload will end up on someone elses table. So YOU will end up the traitor and who wants to work at a company where your co-workers see you as an traitor?
lol @ the people saying "optional crunch". what do you think happens if they say no? if the management team is asking people to work overtime it's because there is work that needs finished - if they don't accept, who will finish that work? do you think management would be happy with that work going unfinished?
"optional crunch" really downplays the complex factors involved in endemic crunch.
"optional crunch" really downplays the complex factors involved in endemic crunch.
Oh god let's not make this a battle between Jason's credibility vs GI's. This is literally just someone talking out their ass.
Maybe. I'm finding it hard to trust most people in the industry when it comes to this kind of stuff though.
That being said, given how little coverage the transphobia stuff got, I don't know why I'm surprised.
OP
OP
lol.
This is the second time someone calls Jason a ''bully'' for doing his work.
User Banned (5 Days): Antagonizing Fellow Member; Downplaying Concerns Around Abusive Work Practices; History of Hostility
I feel like Jason is really reaching to find one story to latch onto for his journalism career.
Crunch is no big secret though, and it's not even something that's necessarily bad, it's present in many careers and not everyone that works at these places has it strictly mandated for very long periods of time
Crunch is no big secret though, and it's not even something that's necessarily bad, it's present in many careers and not everyone that works at these places has it strictly mandated for very long periods of time
I've never understood their reasoning of calling someone who is literally trying to improve the lives of the common worker in the video game industry "A bully" and think it's a good look.
They make one great game and suddenly they're peerless and unimpeachable. Absolutely wild to me.
Jason is known for blocking people on Twitter even if you are normal person leaving normal replay. He only won't block big names in the industry even after really messy conversations.
"optional crunch" is not real, folks.
Sure, in the most definition-focused way I suppose you don't have to crunch. But the same could be said for mandatory crunch - you could just quit.
Video game studios are notorious for churn and sucking them in and spitting them out. Turn down "optional crunch" and enjoy being first on the chopping block. Enjoy hearing snide commentary about how your "heart wasn't in it" or "the real believers stayed."
Optional crunch = crunch.
Sure, in the most definition-focused way I suppose you don't have to crunch. But the same could be said for mandatory crunch - you could just quit.
Video game studios are notorious for churn and sucking them in and spitting them out. Turn down "optional crunch" and enjoy being first on the chopping block. Enjoy hearing snide commentary about how your "heart wasn't in it" or "the real believers stayed."
Optional crunch = crunch.
Has Jason called her out, namedropped and shamed her?
Jesus fucking christ, what is her problem?
GI and specifically Liana in the clip is 100% defending crunch. Although her reply to Jason on Twitter goes the plausible deniability route, there's no doubt when she talks about people reporting on crunch and inflammatory headlines she's referring to what stemmed from Jason's reporting. In fact she's basically blaming Jason indirectly for devs not being able to publicly say they're "proud". Very weird stance to take and all the blame should be put on studio heads for not making it possible to finish a game in standard working hours rather than crunching - not people reporting on crunch.
Liana has issues with Jason going by tweets in this thread where she outright says "he crosses lines for clicks", so I don't 100% trust her views when discussing this.
The lengths people will go to justify crunch and defend it is insane. It should always be called out and reported on.
Liana has issues with Jason going by tweets in this thread where she outright says "he crosses lines for clicks", so I don't 100% trust her views when discussing this.
The lengths people will go to justify crunch and defend it is insane. It should always be called out and reported on.
If optional crunch is a rare thing, it still exists, not that it doesn't. I dunno the labor laws over there but I still think that option and madate are still different. Saying that CDPR will fire you if you don't it, has that happened with the company?
Jason is a true, professional journalist in a sea of children that make up the games industry media.
It's kinda funny to watch one of the few actual journalists in gaming get jumped on for reporting on crunch culture.
It's okay GameInformer. You can praise and review Cyberpunk well, we won't judge.
It's okay GameInformer. You can praise and review Cyberpunk well, we won't judge.
- Status