There's a button to change your vote before mods come in an cleanse the yes voters. :P
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Would people accept the crunch time of a studio to be increased, if it made their most wanted game to be released sooner?
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
Honestly, even if you're a selfish jerk its a bad choice. Longer development times are a big factor in making a game just better in general. When you maximise people's working days, you get reduced efficiency, less creativity, narrowed perspective, incentives for cutting corners.
Plus even if you think it's hard but those poor brave souls can do it if they choose, they cannot. Burnout isn't a risk or a hurdle for lesser developers, its an inevitability. You might want a sequel to your favourite game but do you want another game after that? You'll lose all the talent in the company in a few years if the working conditions are poor. Under the hood the staff will be replaced by different people with a different creative vision. The subtler things you love about a game series that elevate its appeal for you will be lost if you don't have long term support for the workers that make it. This applies in any industry.
Plus even if you think it's hard but those poor brave souls can do it if they choose, they cannot. Burnout isn't a risk or a hurdle for lesser developers, its an inevitability. You might want a sequel to your favourite game but do you want another game after that? You'll lose all the talent in the company in a few years if the working conditions are poor. Under the hood the staff will be replaced by different people with a different creative vision. The subtler things you love about a game series that elevate its appeal for you will be lost if you don't have long term support for the workers that make it. This applies in any industry.
Considering a lot of selfish, sociopathic tendencies among many in the modern 'gamer culture', plus an anonymous poll where no one has to have the stones to put their names by their 'yes' votes, I'm honestly surprised there aren't higher yes numbers there.
Faith in ERA rose a little this morning (so far).
Faith in ERA rose a little this morning (so far).
I really can't imagine who would say yes to this. Video games are a silly hobby that I happen to enjoy very much. There is no scenario in which I want to negatively affect someone's life in order to play them sooner.
This survey is literally 1 or 0.
Can we have some discussion about degrees of crunch, OP?
Bingo.
If trolling, still is 2/10 comedy.
Can we have some discussion about degrees of crunch, OP?
Bingo.
If trolling, still is 2/10 comedy.
My experience in the industry has been that while the overwhelming majority of gamers will express how much they hate crunch, want better treatment of developers, don't want publishers pushing studios to the brink of literal physical collapse to ship their favorite game.
But the reality has been that those same gamers largely don't actually give a shit outside of forum posts, twitter hashtags and social media 'thoughts and prayers' style posturing. Ya'll will boycott an entire publisher catalog of games because one dude posts on 8-chan but you tell people their favorite franchise is built on literal blood, sweat and tears of unpaid, overworked creatives and you'll get "boy, that's a real shame" as they line up to buy the Super Deluxe Collector's Edition on launch day.
But the reality has been that those same gamers largely don't actually give a shit outside of forum posts, twitter hashtags and social media 'thoughts and prayers' style posturing. Ya'll will boycott an entire publisher catalog of games because one dude posts on 8-chan but you tell people their favorite franchise is built on literal blood, sweat and tears of unpaid, overworked creatives and you'll get "boy, that's a real shame" as they line up to buy the Super Deluxe Collector's Edition on launch day.
No, I wouldn't personally want that at all; however, to answer the thread title, yes, I do think that many people would accept it.
OP
OP
Yes choices are extreme, but I wondered how many people would be willing to sacrifice the quality life of other people for their own hobby/satisfaction, so I didn't want to dilute with too many options. Even adding degrees of crunch, I would not make such a choice without the opinion of people who are primarily concerned, the developers themselves, because even with degrees, it would still be selfish.
There's no such thing as truly optional overtime with no stigma for saying no. Peer pressure is a hell of a drug.
I'm sure the general public would say yes, because a CEO would never word it so plainly. Most people just want their favorite game ASAP, and don't even consider the developers as people but a nebulous entity that makes their games with rockstar directors.
That said of course I vote no, because I'm not a child or selfish/ignorant of the game industry.
That said of course I vote no, because I'm not a child or selfish/ignorant of the game industry.
Yes, this. Seeing how people cheer for anything made by Naughty Dog or CD Projekt Red even though we know they are hell holes when it comes to crunch shows how much posturing there is when gamers criticize crunch.
No, because even leaving aside whether it's right, it's not like crunch results in a better game. Look at Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem.
I wouldn't want that future but I can see most gamers not really caring. Out of sight, out of mind.
You say this, but every day I see multiple threads and posts that are in line with the "yes" response. That's the natural implication of every "it's a disgrace and horrible that X game has been delayed" post. Same thing with "X game should be locked at 60 FPS and development time should be 2 years" type of threads.
Crunch lowers the quality of work to meet deadlines based on sales and marketing. I do not play the sales and marketing so I don't care about that. I care about what makes the game better and that is a lack of crunch and good project management.
This question the thread poses is based on a hypothetical scenario in which we, as consumers, were given direct control on whether or not a studio undergoes crunch. 95% of us would opt to wait if that were on the table. The fact that, in reality, higher ups at those studios don't give a shit is outside of our control.
Thanks for the reply. It's still valid to ask your question, but I think it provides little information. Most people are not extreme (psychopaths, narcissists).
If the opposite was the case, most of society would not mind people being in pain nearly everywhere, while they got what they wanted (in the short term, anyway).
Maybe a rating scale from 1-5, and post/comment to go with it, could be something to compare to?
But that veers into a "real survey" setting, and I'd want to pay people in some way for responding.
Another approach (not very practical, but could be anonymised):
1) Maybe hold some kind of survey of devs currently on Resetera regarding the frequency and content of their crunch periods.
2) Ask if people will change their game purchasing decisions based on the results.
3) Measure sales of popular games over the next 3-6 months, by members of the forum.
Also, very much this.
Last edited:
I don't want people having mental breakdowns just so I can play a game sooner rather than later. I can wait.
Take the time to finish your game. I can wait, I'm not in any rush. Reality doesn't work like that unfortunately.
Yeah, I said that at the bottom of my post - it's really too bad.
