What is even more baffling to me is the sheer rage and lack of humanity of fans towards the developers when they delayed it several times. There was a lot of hate including death threats to the developers. I understand the internet brings out the worst in people but I can't imagine anyone desiring to be a game developer at this point.
It's not like every fan was acting like that. "We've received death threats" has become a tool to try and change the topic from whatever made people upset.
Who is using it to excuse anything? Saying that objecting to death threats is used as a distraction technique or "as an excuse" is pretty much suggesting you shouldn't object to it, because doing so is trying to distract or make excuses instead of objecting to unacceptable behavior.
A) death threats aren't acceptable. They're not really fun to receive. I remember a span when I received several and while I was fairly sure they weren't serious, it's still not too fun to think about.
B) whinging about inevitable death threats to deflect attention from your gaffes isn't really great, either. The public complaint, if anything, further normalizes the death threats with people inclined to make them. Secondarily, it generates sympathy and distraction, which is probably the effect one wanted when one chose to whinge.
If one wants to object to death threats in a way that improves our culture and makes them less likely, it's probably best done out of band from the actual coverage of one's failing. Do it retrospectively, and in contemplative channels, not ones that are already polemic and filled with attention to the failing that caused the original outrage.
"If one wants to object to death threats in a way that improves our culture and makes them less likely, it's probably best done out of band from the actual coverage of one's failing. Do it retrospectively, and in contemplative channels, not ones that are already polemic and filled with attention to the failing that caused the original outrage."
Violent extremists are often operate under the mistaken belief that they represent the "silent majority", and that most people secretly agree with what they do.
This is one reason that when a political party that tacitly or explicitly approves of extremist violence gets in to power more terrorist acts are committed. It's also why, for example, racists terrorists believe the murders they commit will spark a "race war". They believe that most people are secretly racist, and all it'll take for such a war to start is for their murders to encourage people's secret hatred to come to the surface.
To counteract this, it's important for the real majority to not be silent, and instead condemn violence, hatred, and terrorism (which includes death threats) in the strongest possible terms. When terrorists see evidence that the majority actually opposes them it'll require a lot more cognitive dissonance on their part to continue to believe that they represent the majority.
This is not a panacea, and I don't imagine for a moment that it will end all violence, especially as some people will never believe the evidence of their lying eyes, but many people speaking out in public against violence is one of the most effective tools we have for combating violent extremism.
Sure. I think it's only useful out of band, though, in these cases.
Because if you're pissed off about Cyberpunk 2077, and think death threats are OK... seeing an article with more news about '2077 being late, and an aside of them saying "these death threats are upsetting us" A) reinforces your belief death threats for situations like this are normal, and B) provides you with some validation/happies.
I'd wager that the kind of people who issue death threats over video game delays has a pretty big overlap with 4chan. 4chan peeps know their behavior is not normative, and having a bunch of outcry has never stopped their pursuit of the luls... and the kind of article mentioning the threats you're talking about is pretty much winning from their standpoint.
NO ONE is saying death threats are ok. But receiving menacing tweets from a few random accounts, specially when you can fabricate them yourself, doesn't even qualify as death threath.
I never said it's acceptable, but when twitter has close to 200 million daily users, you're going to get some death threats when you do something that makes people upset. And it's blatant PR when the company is forcing the devs to do even more crunch time, then tweet about "death threats" and you see the conversation immediately switch from critical to supportive. It's also not like tweeting "Death threats are NOT OKAY" is going to change the mind of the kind of people who send death threats.
Nobody said it was right, but it still derails from discussion by offering essentially an insignificant datapoint.
At this point on the internet, if the topic touches more than 100,000 people and its controversial. You can probably find a few truly heinous comments.
And giving them attention, is kind of what they are after.
I think it's fairly pertinent that you're getting death threats to you and your family from potential psychos. 99% are probably just peeved man-boys, but it only takes that 1% to kill you or someone you care about. I would say it especially if you get a few hundred a day and you're working 16 hours a day for months on end to push out a game.
It's not 1% of them though. It's 0%. None of them are getting off the couch to kill anyone because their video game release is delayed.
It's an expression of frustration, and we all know that. Unfortunately in today's world, feeling threatened is socially valuable so they're simply playing on that. It says more to me about the disingenuity and/or weakness of the "victim" than anything else.
The delays were sheer incompetence and are far from normal in the gaming industry. You don't guarantee to fans personally that the game will definitely come out at a date (which is less than a month away) then delay it the next day.
This indicates that nobody even knew how bad it was. There's also rumors developers found out about the delays from social media.
CDPR execs are just incompetent and unable to set realistic timelines. When big AAA releases are delayed, they're usually delayed once and it's done 6+ months from release (because it's obvious then you won't make it).
Delaying when it's less than a month out? Absolute incompetence. You lose millions and millions of dollars doing this, by burning marketing dollars and screwing over your retail partners.
Reread the OP. It's not exclusively about threats. This is also a giant billion dollar corporation that deliberately misled customers (who in many cases have already paid them for the product).
How did they deliberately mislead them? By saying things like only a natural disaster would stop the latest release date, only for it to slip with less than a month left.
That's an actual lie and false advertising. As someone with project management experience, the people making those claims are either incompetent or lying.
So yeah, customers who paid them money and were lied to have an absolute right to be furious. Death threats is an excuse. 99.99% of the criticism was justified and without intimidation or threats.
Estimates are hard, software gets delayed. It’s not fun for the customer but it happens all the time and life goes on. Ask for your money back, or try for a class action lawsuit if you really think it’s fraudulent.
Obviously people can feel however they want, but we’re talking about $5–60 and like eight months delay; you’ll forgive me for being a little dismissive of people who are “furious” about this.
You're misrepresenting GGP's comment. They mentioned incompetence so as to exculpate the people getting bent up about a video game coming out a few months late — behavior that, as GGGP described it, included death threats.
Yep, it's not like it's a covid vaccine or solution to global warming. It is guaranteed 100% survival rate for the complainers who really need to take a step back and look at what is really important in life. It's certainly not a game that you hasn't even been released.
> The delays were sheer incompetence and are far from normal in the gaming industry.
Oh, so building something that was never done before and not meeting the deadline exactly is sheer incompetence? I hope you never have to build anything new.
Every game is something "never done before". And I did not say not meeting deadlines is sheer incompetence. I said the way they slipped is incompetence. Less than a month from release while blindsiding their own company and fans.
No, you can't really make that claim. There are thousands of clones of more popular games out there, it's not like the game production is massively original to begin with.
And yes, Cyberpunk 2077 pushes the boundaries of what we expect from games in many ways - it's going to be one of the most complex games we have on the market to date when it releases.
It cost more to complete and has less content than GTA III. It's not one of the most complex by any metric.
I don't know people bother to defend billion dollar corporations in the habit of lying and misrepresenting their products. People paid them money for a product that was misrepresented in false advertising, I don't know it could be clearer than that as to why they're justifiably outraged.
99.99% of the criticism did not include intimidation, death threats or anything along those lines. CDPR used it as a deflectionary tactic from their own business practices.
And no, delays like this are not common. Games get delayed when they're many months away from release (it's obvious then that it's not done). Less than a month? They're either lying or so incompetent they don't know their own progress. Neither excuse the false claims.
It's a billion dollar publicly listed corporation. This isn't some indie studio.
Then I'm not sure why you put it in reply to a comment that just talked about how they don't understand how people could do that, if it's not relevant to the threats.
Because the OP was about angry customers, not exclusively about death threats. Of course people are angry, because they in many cases actually lost something. In many companies, you book leave months out and cannot change it.
They were still promising there would be no more delays with less than a month to go, even saying only a natural disaster would stop them. Now we know that's a lie, and they were deliberately misleading customers.
Argue from personal interest if you like, but arguing from business interest suggests that you have a better idea what makes them money than their execs do; the final delay can't have been done for much more than money.
As for my personal interest: "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." - Shigeru Miyamoto
While this comment is problematic because of the entitlement it exudes, it draws attention to two important phenomena:
(1) the issue would have likely been avoided if the studio did not set a day-definite release date (announcing it more generally as e.g. Q4 2020 instead);
(2) there is a general problem with how game pre-orders work: people put their money down but it isn't really clear what they are getting for it in return, or when they will be getting it; many pre-orderers make certain assumptions to this effect, and when promises fail to materialize later, the disappointment runs deep.
I was confused by this article. I am interested in understanding better the point of view of the author and if you have insight in it I would appreciate if you can elaborate on your comment. The criticism of the character creation surprised me: sure it could be better, but is it not also the most embracing version created yet in any AAA videogame that we known of. Same with the poster: is it not cool to have a buff trans protagonist - they are objectified, but that is the point of posters (see captain america or black widow posters). Please assume good faith in my questions: I understand the topic is sensitive but while I have tried to read up on it, my surprise at the tone of the article seems to mean that I am definitely missing something.
I think the key point in regard to your question is this line
> Cyberpunk 2077’s advertising has been saying the quiet part loud. It has maintained the spiky, anti-SJW, anti-woke persona throughout its marketing campaign, careful to always pepper any diverse characters’ inclusion with stereotyping or humor designed to mock its own ideas.
As the article concedes, these pieces individually don't have to be bad, but they are always presented by the overall marketing as something to make fun of or stereotype, not as something to take seriously or positively.
With the caveats that I'm not trans and I haven't looked into the game much beyond reading takes like this, I'll give my interpretation. I think there are a few issues at play, some more nuanced than others.
The first (and most black-and-white) is that CDPR's social media presence has been very… trolly. For example, "did you just assume my gender" is not something I've ever heard a queer person say; it's an anti-woke joke at their expense aimed at people who disdain the notion of gender fluidity. These, I think, color the rest of CDPR's conduct; there are other things that might be considered benign if not for their consistent trolling here.
> The criticism of the character creation surprised me: sure it could be better, but is it not also the most embracing version created yet in any AAA videogame that we known of.
The cynical take is that CDPR is exploiting the issue; they know that this is a popular topic right now and they're appropriating it in order to sell a video game. But even if you assume good faith on the part of CDPR, I think this is a case of intentions not mattering. Ultimately this game is going to be played by a lot of people, and help shape how many of those people see trans issues, and trans people are unhappy with the impression the game will leave.
I also observe that people often use "at least they/we are trying" as a way to evade criticism — even constructive criticism — which makes it hard to move forward. Like, are you only supposed to engage with people that are already hostile?
> Same with the poster: is it not cool to have a buff trans protagonist - they are objectified, but that is the point of posters (see captain america or black widow posters).
Objectification isn't binary; there are plenty of ways to highlight conventionally attractive features, which is why you see films like Wonder Woman lauded for their representation while characters like Black Widow are criticized for superficially similar portrayals. And of course criticism refers only to a consensus; there will always be people who are offended at benign representation and others who are fine with flagrant stereotyping.
Ultimately, I think the author knows that AAA titles are made by teams of hundreds of people, many of whom are trying to make a progressive game. But whatever the creators' intentions, when all is said and done the game and marketing thereof will look how they look, and people will feel how they feel about it.
Maybe a software developers’ union. Big projects like this use a lot of third party tooling; imagine if a decent percentage of those said “we won’t license this to you unless you’re a union shop” or something like that. And said union would enforce humane working conditions.
Us software developers are too smart for organised labour.
And why would companies like Epic restrict their revenues like that? Epic too sees financial gain from their developers working excessive (potentially unpaid) overtime, no doubt. Unions are necessarily devised and lead by workers, not beneficent corps.
That's correct. If you're a software developer and interested in maximizing pay while minimizing stress, you obviously avoid the gaming industry. The only news here is that the company seems to have reneged on the promise it made, but it's not obvious how a union would have solved this problem. Would the union help get the game shipped on time?
> Would the union help get the game shipped on time?
This is such a weird logic. Since when should the company financial incentives have higher priority over the employees well-being? Arguably, if the existence of the company is threatened by a few delays and that the only solution is to exploit people, it should instead close shop and let people get other jobs that will make them happier.
So no, a union would probably not help the game be shipped in time, and if it did, it would be the shittiest union. And if enforcing humane working conditions against the profits of the employer makes the business unsustainable, this means the business should not exist in the first place.
> The only news here is that the company seems to have reneged on the promise it made, but it's not obvious how a union would have solved this problem. Would the union help get the game shipped on time?
Quite likely yes, though not directly. Foreclosing avenues that management tends to fall into which are both empirically not particularly effective and also miserable working conditions, like more than brief crunch time, probably does improve delivery, though that's not the main goal.
The TV and film industries are heavily unionised across multiple sectors--tech, writers, actors, directors, etc.--and it's the norm to complete projects on time and on budget, or with immediate compensation for planning failures leading to overtime/crunch time. Think about the massive amount of content routinely produced for TV and film and tell me how unions make that impossible.
Somehow, the large investors still make lots of money. The primary effect of unions in this space seems to be that they put an actual dollar cost on poor management. When you hear about boondoggles like Heaven's Gate or Waterworld, what you hear isn't that unions screwed it up; you hear about the prima donna director who couldn't get it all "just so" with a couple hundred million to work with.
My employer, a digital services agency, pays hourly overtime of 1.5x. Then the professional PMs we have work very hard to accurately forecast and estimate. I've had crunch periods in which I've been paid overtime, but they're rare because the business has incentived itself to execute on-time and on-budget, mostly by not promising what we can't deliver and expecting the workers to pick up the slack.
When I worked in public sector with a strong union, we didn't do crunch, we accepted that deadlines are malleable and my project managers always anticipated and resolved deadline problems before they became a problem.
Now I work for IBM, and I am expected to work late as much as it takes to ship on time. "On time" is of course completely arbitrary and determined by people who have no understanding of the technical tasks required to ship the project (and most pertinent, don't listen to me when I provide my expert opinion that the timeline is not viable). And they expect to not have to pay me for that overtime.
Not being able to exploit your workers encourages realistic deadlines.
There’s a definite chicken and egg problem. I think it would have to be a grassroots bottom up thing starting with small vendors, because I agree the big vendors aren’t going to do this on their own. But the small vendors are probably the least financially able to make a principled stand on something like this.
You’re probably right that software devs as a group are generally too egocentric or libertarian minded to engage in any sort of collective action for their own benefit.
> Us software developers are too smart for organised labour
Too smart to from cartels instead of being played off against each other by labor by buyers with greater market power?
Nah, just too many have bought into propaganda being spread from the other side of the negotiating table designed to preserve the existing power imbalance.
We don't need a union we need a fucking bar. If you pass a bar exam, you get to charge 350 eur/h like my lawyer. And if you do questionable shit you could be disbarred
I agree. Also, buff dudes spend a long time at the gym and it makes me look bad compared to them so I don't think they should be allowed to go to the gym so much.
The people complaining about it being delayed are probably the people least likely to change their minds because of the delays and not buy the game when it comes out. Empty promises about crunch and lost trust won't matter as much to those people when the game comes out. Also, does the general gaming subculture still care about Red Dead Redemption 2's development and the livelihood and mental health costs it caused to its devs? Or Grand Theft Auto V, seven years later? Will 2077 only be remembered in the future as a very good title with no acknowledgement of the unnecessary toil the devs were put through?
One problem is that there is too much hype. No Man's Sky proved that with too much effective advertising you can hype yourself into a corner, not have enough resources to finish the product properly, and guarantee the disappointment of the people expecting too much. Some game developers seem to not know when to scale back their ambitions and align the hype they generate with a time schedule and human resources management that is healthy. There's just too much passion in some game development areas that isn't left unexploited.
For GTA VI, Rockstar will only release a smaller sized game and instead add sizeable updates spread out over time, which makes it sound like they've finally started to learn from the past.
For GTA, that's probably also because later updates has worked extremely well for GTA V. The online aspects of it, with regular new content, have taken over the single-player side by a lot, so it makes sense double-down on that model.
Seems more like GTA V online has ruined GTA forever. The entire point of GTA for me (and many other people) was a compelling large single player open world with a nice story. Now that rockstar has smelled microtransactions it most likely means the next GTA will have single player as an afterthought.
> No Man's Sky proved that with too much effective advertising you can hype yourself into a corner, not have enough resources to finish the product properly, and guarantee the disappointment of the people expecting too much.
They had plenty of resources, and they did finish it properly once they had enough time. The real problem was declaring the game as 1.0 far too early. The hype made that hurt more but it wasn't the cause of the problems. I mean, it didn't even have a real ending early on, or any multiplayer.
Indeed, that's what companies do, earn money for their investors and owners. Sorry to be blunt, but that's how the world works and arguably talented developers can relatively easily find other jobs that are less stressful.
People doing the majority of the work would not be able to be paid to work for 2 - 3 years non stop on a project if nobody above them had sufficient funds in the first place. What do you expect?
The issue is lowish wage with unhealthy workloads combined with the fact that the people doing the least amount of work get extremely high rewards.
It just shows that the aristocracy is alive and doing well even in this modern world. Unsurprising to anyone that actually paid attention but there are a lot of developers who never realized that they're peasants, still.
there are industries where we can get a decent wage as software developers however, so life is fine for most of us.
You're getting a lot of hate for this comment but I think it's an important discussion.
It isn't easy to "just go somewhere else" or "start your own thing" for a variety of reasons. The reality is that the majority of these game developers aren't getting job offers every day and don't have access to the kind of capital necessary to start a company.
It's flippant to suggest that these developers can just find another job, because the other reality is that most of these developers would only be able to find jobs doing the same thing but under a different moniker.
People in other places in this thread have produced some solutions, which I think is somewhere along the lines of organizing and unionizing, and I think that would help for bigger companies who are known to exploit these workers.
Whatever the solution, history has shown that you cannot rely on a company's word that they won't do this anymore.
You perhaps miss the point of 'then start your own thing'. It is not meant as a realistic suggestion of where to take your career. It is meant to point out that the employer/employee relationship is one-directional for relative profit because it's the other direction in relative stability and investment. You are correct in your analysis that developers don't have access to the kind of capital necessary to start a company. That's the point - you can't predicate an argument on 'the actual workers only get a small fraction' when minus a stable job you would only be able to output a small fraction.
But so do you miss the point as providing a working place which an employee can get by "start your own thing" does in no way imply that it's acceptable to abuse your employee just because they depend on you.
In the end they get a reasonable wage for the normal work they do, but not if crunch is involved. Which, do to the large amount of stress and in turn health (physical+mental) and social risk it can involve doesn't seem reasonable for "any" amount of money (or at least any amount any person would be willing to pay ;=) ).
Mostly means leaving the game industry, which also means leaving behind years of experience, and the area of expertise you prefer to work in (if it wouldn't be for the working conditions).
> "start your own thing"
Is in general just unrealistic as an advise for most people. It's risky, costly, stressfull and needs a bunch of additional skills which are not necessary part of your current job.
> While long hours would be permitted for those interested in working them, crunch would not be made “mandatory.”
Yeah, I'm sure that works well. How can you compete with those that do work long hours when it comes time for performance reviews? The fear of losing your job is very real and I'm sure that creates a culture where in effect everyone is working long hours, no matter what the CD Projekt co-founder says.
Those that work harder or longer than others get ahead. This is a universal truism and also very distinct from the mandated overtime dictated by many developers.
Yes, but an employer attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility for pressures to overwork by "it is not required" is basically the same thing as "unlimited time off".
This is the same problem with companies that have a “no vacation tracking, just take off when you want policy”. It ends up that no one takes vacation for this same reason.
I see two people with this viewpoint, and I would be interested in knowing more. Is the thought here that a company that offers unlimited vacation would see people take none?
I have never worked in such an environment, and I also don't tend to take all of my allotted vacation anyways, but at first glance, I'm not sure how:
"take off as much as you like"
could possibly be more restrictive than:
"take off as much as you like, but no more that 2 weeks."
Assuming of course we are not talking about mandatory vacation policies (that some companies/countries) effectively have.
Here's the dynamic: When you don't take all your allotted vacation, and someone else does, there's no possible claim that you were a harder or more dedicated worker than they were. They did exactly what they were permitted to. And, therefore, I'm guessing that if you wanted to take your vacation, you wouldn't have too much trouble finding time to take it, and nobody would complain that you did.
If there's unlimited vacation, and someone takes two weeks of vacation when the whole company tends to take one, and they were on vacation during a critical project, once time comes for performance reviews, people will say "I'm not sure how committed they are to the company" / "They don't have a great work ethic" / etc. etc. Because it was their choice to decide that two weeks was reasonable, it's easier to hold them responsible for the consequences of that choice.
So, everyone feels like they need to take at most as much vacation as average, possibly less.
One thing I've wondered is how the dynamic would work if you combined unlimited vacation with a minimum requirement. Would that be enough to foster a culture of taking the time you want/need and not worrying? Or would your minimum essentially become the expected amount, with any excess frowned upon?
The thing about "unlimited vacation" policies is there's always a limit. Obviously it can't be 52 weeks. Probably it can't even be 10 weeks. So the question is where that unstated number is.
If the number is the same for everyone, state it. Go ahead and say "Everyone gets 6 weeks vacation." If you don't feel comfortable saying that, then it wasn't unlimited at all, was it?
If the number is different, i.e., junior employees can take less, politically-connected folks and people who figured out how to coast can take more, that's probably a bad thing for your company. At best, make additional vacation a defined promotion benefit.
That's fair. I guess the appeal to me as an employee is that I don't want to like count and ration my vacation days. As long as I can take the time I feel I want/need/deserve without worrying I don't care about making sure I'm maximizing my allowed vacation or even how it compares to other people. But maybe that's not feasible via policy or lack thereof, and having a set number of vacation days is the least worst way to do this thing.
I think your second model isn't exactly accurate. I think it's more like:
"take off as much as you like, but no more than you've earned; you earn 2 weeks each year and can't bank more than 5 weeks"
It's a subtle difference, but an important one. I usually bank vacation time up to my cap (typically 240 hours, but recently bumped to 300 hours). Once I'm close I take every other friday off.
When coworkers ask about it my answer is "I'm at the vacation cap, so if I don't take this time off I lose it."
This statement acts as a double-edged sword. "I'm at vacation cap" signals that I've worked hard and foregone time off in favor of work. i.e. I'm a hard worker. "if I don't take this time off I lose it" signals that I'm not willing to leave anything on the table, and it shows that I value a work-life balance.
This is definitely something that varies from company to company. I have been at three companies with untracked vacation where people used the policy well.
One has to ask “do I like my role and what I’m paid when working 40h weeks?”
I’m happy with my comp and my role. I don’t need a raise or promotion. I can work at this job until 70 with pay rises corresponding to inflation.
Given that, I’m fine if people work 70h weeks all around me. I’m also confident my work output will rival that of the crunchers, because after even just a few weeks it’s not effective.
"Los Angeles County contributed $656 billion in gross domestic product, or 27 percent of California’s economic output, in 2015, according to a Bloomberg analysis of the most-recent data available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That’s the largest amount of goods and services produced among 3,000-plus counties in the U.S. and equal to the economic might of Saudi Arabia."
The entertainment industry makes plenty of money, they just disguise the profits through all kinds of trickery that make what tech companies do with tax shelters look childish by comparison. There’s a whole colloquial term for it, “Hollywood accounting”:
I keep reading about this every once in a while, and it appears to be industry-standard practice.
Is there a major game developer known not to require this of their employees? (According to the article, CD Projekt appearently made such a promise but failed to deliver on it.)
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Once with a 6 months crunch, second time closer to 10 months of 14 hour days. That was enough for me to swear off the entire industry despite working towards it for most of my younger life.
Saw it what it did to our team, destroyed multiple relationships, the product suffered for it and overall both titles we're a disaster.
It cuts in more than one way, aside from some really rare cases the industry compensation is abysmal compared to traditional software engineering. I basically doubled my take home salary leaving the industry while also having a sane work life balance.
Rami Ismail of Nuclear Throne sums is up well[1]:
> In these situations we don't even expect everyone to get through unscathed. It's like management calculates the amount of churn, of burnout, of careers, relations, happiness that will be lost and goes "well, that's not too big a sacrifice to undo the damage of our incompetence".
Fuck em. They deserve nothing for putting a team through hell like that. Chances are they aren't the ones to pay for the damage their crunch does in the end.
Imagine talking an overworked employee out of blowing his own brains out, so he can at least finish the work he has left to do and then you can lay him off.
I did crunch time once. (In my case ironically I was the problem, it was fully unnecessary and no one but me involved).
Thinks I learned from it:
- It's very daunting.
- It's quite bad for your health, especially your mental health.
- It's bad for productivity. Which means it's a fatal cycle: you do crunch time => because of stress and exhaustion you are less productive => you need to do even more crunch because you where not productive enough.
- It's bad for quality. Sure all your tests pass and the many problem(s) seems fixed, but there is a good chance that you will have to pay extra in the long run due to technical dept or just sub-optimal design.
- It's bad for creativity. I could more than one time majorly reduce my work by just reflecting on what is actually needed (in difference to what seems to be needed, is asked for by your team lead (i.e. not your customer)). The chance for this to happen under crunch is continuously decreasing with increasing frequency of crunch.
- EDIT: Because of the last 3 points, it's bad for getting things done in time as they will likely take longer on a "work done per hour" scalar.
Yeah, I don't know why companies do it because it is so counterproductive and damaging: it reduces quality and increases time to completion while harming employee health.
Very brief crunches can maybe push you over a deadline but will (in my experience) result in lower overall productivity per hour (and higher defect rates) for the entire crunch + recovery interval.
Which seems to mean do a two week crunch and then fire your developers, but replacing them is usually more costly than recovery time.
It probably isn't a coincidence that universities often have two week final exam/final project periods followed by two (or more) weeks of vacation.
I did some game testing when I was a teenager (paid in free software). A couple nights playing a game that either sucked or just wasn't my cup of tea was enough to show me that playing games was a lot better than working on games.
Anytime I hear a young person say they want to be a game developer I want to grab them by the shoulders and try to shakes some sense into them. If you're smart enough to do game development, you're probably smart enough to go make twice as much to work half as hard somewhere else. You can go work your 8 hour day, and play whatever game you want the rest of the night. Or do something completely different.
Is this everyone including Graphics designers? Not just developers?
Why are the economics of Gaming so not aligned? The cost of making Games are going up YoY. Revenue and Profits seems to be up too. We have better middleware like Unreal than ever before, and yet the cost keep going up but not salary.
And it seems Nintendo doesn't have any of these problem.
Very large of supply of young people who really want to work in games as a thing in of itself. As opposed to the standard software industry where, at least to my experience, most people spend quite some time thinking about the money they'll make.
Yep this. It's fundamental supply and demand economics. It happens in any sector that's perceived to be fun or attractive. See also 'work for exposure' in photography and music.
It seems to me that the on the opposite end of the scale you have Database administrator. Pretty much all non-trivial software projects need databases, their proper administration is absolutely essential, and it's the least sexy sounding role in a software team.
My (completely untested, and semi-serious) career advice is to read a reference manual for a database like PostgreSQL cover to cover.
Nintendo is also a very closed company with strongly and carefully regulated PR.
We don't really know a lot about their process, but considering a lot of their games are made in Japan and what has been said in the past, there is guaranteed to be crunch there as well. People sleeping in their offices for days on end before shipping a game, etc.
I had a different experience. Worked at a startup, money was tight and the product had to be developed. It was stressful, but it felt great after it was done. Granted, I wouldn't necessarily try it again and not for a large corporation to that level, but I think this is typical for any R&D project, maybe software in particular.
It is just difficult to determine how long things will take in the end. I think it is great they did change the release date and not cut corners.
We did get a lot of free time in exchange after crunch and I think there has to be appreciation. I am sure developers are looking to a relaxed Christmas in the end.
Judging from the game they ended up cutting corners all over the place, to the point where it can be considered a faulty product or at the very least a case of false marketing. It's quite the mess!
This is a terrible situation. I think leadership bit off more than they could chew. Releasing a polished game on PC, consoles and Stadia simultaneously is nigh on impossible for a large, open world game.
I bet Google offered them a bunch of money to launch simultaneously on Stadia, but they still should have said no.
There is a reason Sony games are so polished. They release on a single platform.
Why? What other option do customers have than to accept the delay and just buy the game later? Games are being delayed all the time, it's not like everybody suddenly loses interest in a game they would like to play and are waiting for once it fails to arrive at its initial release date.
Also, it's not an indie studio that needs sales money right now to keep existing. They can easily afford much bigger delays. They prefer to put their employees at severe health risk instead so they can maximize profits.
For me what would be better is ,,Okay, I don't want to play it all through, just give me the first half, and take your time with the second''. But maybe it's because I'm not a fast player generally. Anyways, companies compete how they can, I vote with my wallet.
On a great day I can do about 6 hours of highly concentrated programming work. Most days is probably closer to 4 hours.
If I'm tired, I will definitely not reach the 6 hours.
So I really wonder who in their fucking mind would think that you can pull off 12 hour workdays and be more productive? That is just pure insanity. I think it's time to stop lying to ourselves on how many hours we are actually productive in the 'work hours' that we do.
131 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 190 ms ] threadwho said to accept it? Above poster said that death threats are easy to get these days for virtually anything and can hardly be used as an excuse.
B) whinging about inevitable death threats to deflect attention from your gaffes isn't really great, either. The public complaint, if anything, further normalizes the death threats with people inclined to make them. Secondarily, it generates sympathy and distraction, which is probably the effect one wanted when one chose to whinge.
If one wants to object to death threats in a way that improves our culture and makes them less likely, it's probably best done out of band from the actual coverage of one's failing. Do it retrospectively, and in contemplative channels, not ones that are already polemic and filled with attention to the failing that caused the original outrage.
Violent extremists are often operate under the mistaken belief that they represent the "silent majority", and that most people secretly agree with what they do.
This is one reason that when a political party that tacitly or explicitly approves of extremist violence gets in to power more terrorist acts are committed. It's also why, for example, racists terrorists believe the murders they commit will spark a "race war". They believe that most people are secretly racist, and all it'll take for such a war to start is for their murders to encourage people's secret hatred to come to the surface.
To counteract this, it's important for the real majority to not be silent, and instead condemn violence, hatred, and terrorism (which includes death threats) in the strongest possible terms. When terrorists see evidence that the majority actually opposes them it'll require a lot more cognitive dissonance on their part to continue to believe that they represent the majority.
This is not a panacea, and I don't imagine for a moment that it will end all violence, especially as some people will never believe the evidence of their lying eyes, but many people speaking out in public against violence is one of the most effective tools we have for combating violent extremism.
Because if you're pissed off about Cyberpunk 2077, and think death threats are OK... seeing an article with more news about '2077 being late, and an aside of them saying "these death threats are upsetting us" A) reinforces your belief death threats for situations like this are normal, and B) provides you with some validation/happies.
I'd wager that the kind of people who issue death threats over video game delays has a pretty big overlap with 4chan. 4chan peeps know their behavior is not normative, and having a bunch of outcry has never stopped their pursuit of the luls... and the kind of article mentioning the threats you're talking about is pretty much winning from their standpoint.
At this point on the internet, if the topic touches more than 100,000 people and its controversial. You can probably find a few truly heinous comments.
And giving them attention, is kind of what they are after.
It's an expression of frustration, and we all know that. Unfortunately in today's world, feeling threatened is socially valuable so they're simply playing on that. It says more to me about the disingenuity and/or weakness of the "victim" than anything else.
We need to laugh at people more.
Its just very vocal fringe minority.
This indicates that nobody even knew how bad it was. There's also rumors developers found out about the delays from social media.
CDPR execs are just incompetent and unable to set realistic timelines. When big AAA releases are delayed, they're usually delayed once and it's done 6+ months from release (because it's obvious then you won't make it).
Delaying when it's less than a month out? Absolute incompetence. You lose millions and millions of dollars doing this, by burning marketing dollars and screwing over your retail partners.
How did they deliberately mislead them? By saying things like only a natural disaster would stop the latest release date, only for it to slip with less than a month left.
That's an actual lie and false advertising. As someone with project management experience, the people making those claims are either incompetent or lying.
So yeah, customers who paid them money and were lied to have an absolute right to be furious. Death threats is an excuse. 99.99% of the criticism was justified and without intimidation or threats.
Obviously people can feel however they want, but we’re talking about $5–60 and like eight months delay; you’ll forgive me for being a little dismissive of people who are “furious” about this.
You can point out the delays are do to incompetence without agreeing that death threats are ok.
You are ascribing intent where there is none. We need to stop framing conversations based upon the extremists in the population.
The root comment is full of hyperbole, but there is no indication he supports death threats, that's just silly.
Oh, so building something that was never done before and not meeting the deadline exactly is sheer incompetence? I hope you never have to build anything new.
No, you can't really make that claim. There are thousands of clones of more popular games out there, it's not like the game production is massively original to begin with.
And yes, Cyberpunk 2077 pushes the boundaries of what we expect from games in many ways - it's going to be one of the most complex games we have on the market to date when it releases.
I don't know people bother to defend billion dollar corporations in the habit of lying and misrepresenting their products. People paid them money for a product that was misrepresented in false advertising, I don't know it could be clearer than that as to why they're justifiably outraged.
99.99% of the criticism did not include intimidation, death threats or anything along those lines. CDPR used it as a deflectionary tactic from their own business practices.
And no, delays like this are not common. Games get delayed when they're many months away from release (it's obvious then that it's not done). Less than a month? They're either lying or so incompetent they don't know their own progress. Neither excuse the false claims.
It's a billion dollar publicly listed corporation. This isn't some indie studio.
They were still promising there would be no more delays with less than a month to go, even saying only a natural disaster would stop them. Now we know that's a lie, and they were deliberately misleading customers.
As for my personal interest: "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." - Shigeru Miyamoto
(1) the issue would have likely been avoided if the studio did not set a day-definite release date (announcing it more generally as e.g. Q4 2020 instead);
(2) there is a general problem with how game pre-orders work: people put their money down but it isn't really clear what they are getting for it in return, or when they will be getting it; many pre-orderers make certain assumptions to this effect, and when promises fail to materialize later, the disappointment runs deep.
Expecting not to be lied to as a customer is a very justifiable stance.
And it seems pretty clear to me that they met the standards of lying in the more recent announcements. They didn't just make bad predictions early on.
> more generally as e.g. Q4 2020
The first release date was Q2 and the second release date was Q3, so I'm skeptical that would have helped.
> Cyberpunk 2077’s advertising has been saying the quiet part loud. It has maintained the spiky, anti-SJW, anti-woke persona throughout its marketing campaign, careful to always pepper any diverse characters’ inclusion with stereotyping or humor designed to mock its own ideas.
As the article concedes, these pieces individually don't have to be bad, but they are always presented by the overall marketing as something to make fun of or stereotype, not as something to take seriously or positively.
The first (and most black-and-white) is that CDPR's social media presence has been very… trolly. For example, "did you just assume my gender" is not something I've ever heard a queer person say; it's an anti-woke joke at their expense aimed at people who disdain the notion of gender fluidity. These, I think, color the rest of CDPR's conduct; there are other things that might be considered benign if not for their consistent trolling here.
> The criticism of the character creation surprised me: sure it could be better, but is it not also the most embracing version created yet in any AAA videogame that we known of.
The cynical take is that CDPR is exploiting the issue; they know that this is a popular topic right now and they're appropriating it in order to sell a video game. But even if you assume good faith on the part of CDPR, I think this is a case of intentions not mattering. Ultimately this game is going to be played by a lot of people, and help shape how many of those people see trans issues, and trans people are unhappy with the impression the game will leave.
I also observe that people often use "at least they/we are trying" as a way to evade criticism — even constructive criticism — which makes it hard to move forward. Like, are you only supposed to engage with people that are already hostile?
> Same with the poster: is it not cool to have a buff trans protagonist - they are objectified, but that is the point of posters (see captain america or black widow posters).
Objectification isn't binary; there are plenty of ways to highlight conventionally attractive features, which is why you see films like Wonder Woman lauded for their representation while characters like Black Widow are criticized for superficially similar portrayals. And of course criticism refers only to a consensus; there will always be people who are offended at benign representation and others who are fine with flagrant stereotyping.
Ultimately, I think the author knows that AAA titles are made by teams of hundreds of people, many of whom are trying to make a progressive game. But whatever the creators' intentions, when all is said and done the game and marketing thereof will look how they look, and people will feel how they feel about it.
Some, at the very ends of the bell curve, are enraged and simultaneously not equipped with the tools to process that in a healthy way.
Hate is cheap on Twitter
I wonder what the solution is here. Boycotting the game is hardly going to help the employees there.
I guess this is just one of those things that the law should mandate, but does not for some reason.
And why would companies like Epic restrict their revenues like that? Epic too sees financial gain from their developers working excessive (potentially unpaid) overtime, no doubt. Unions are necessarily devised and lead by workers, not beneficent corps.
This is such a weird logic. Since when should the company financial incentives have higher priority over the employees well-being? Arguably, if the existence of the company is threatened by a few delays and that the only solution is to exploit people, it should instead close shop and let people get other jobs that will make them happier.
So no, a union would probably not help the game be shipped in time, and if it did, it would be the shittiest union. And if enforcing humane working conditions against the profits of the employer makes the business unsustainable, this means the business should not exist in the first place.
Quite likely yes, though not directly. Foreclosing avenues that management tends to fall into which are both empirically not particularly effective and also miserable working conditions, like more than brief crunch time, probably does improve delivery, though that's not the main goal.
Somehow, the large investors still make lots of money. The primary effect of unions in this space seems to be that they put an actual dollar cost on poor management. When you hear about boondoggles like Heaven's Gate or Waterworld, what you hear isn't that unions screwed it up; you hear about the prima donna director who couldn't get it all "just so" with a couple hundred million to work with.
My employer, a digital services agency, pays hourly overtime of 1.5x. Then the professional PMs we have work very hard to accurately forecast and estimate. I've had crunch periods in which I've been paid overtime, but they're rare because the business has incentived itself to execute on-time and on-budget, mostly by not promising what we can't deliver and expecting the workers to pick up the slack.
Now I work for IBM, and I am expected to work late as much as it takes to ship on time. "On time" is of course completely arbitrary and determined by people who have no understanding of the technical tasks required to ship the project (and most pertinent, don't listen to me when I provide my expert opinion that the timeline is not viable). And they expect to not have to pay me for that overtime.
Not being able to exploit your workers encourages realistic deadlines.
You’re probably right that software devs as a group are generally too egocentric or libertarian minded to engage in any sort of collective action for their own benefit.
Too smart to from cartels instead of being played off against each other by labor by buyers with greater market power?
Nah, just too many have bought into propaganda being spread from the other side of the negotiating table designed to preserve the existing power imbalance.
One problem is that there is too much hype. No Man's Sky proved that with too much effective advertising you can hype yourself into a corner, not have enough resources to finish the product properly, and guarantee the disappointment of the people expecting too much. Some game developers seem to not know when to scale back their ambitions and align the hype they generate with a time schedule and human resources management that is healthy. There's just too much passion in some game development areas that isn't left unexploited.
For GTA VI, Rockstar will only release a smaller sized game and instead add sizeable updates spread out over time, which makes it sound like they've finally started to learn from the past.
https://kotaku.com/18-months-after-red-dead-redemption-2-roc...
Sounds like Windows 10, only with microtransactions.
They had plenty of resources, and they did finish it properly once they had enough time. The real problem was declaring the game as 1.0 far too early. The hype made that hurt more but it wasn't the cause of the problems. I mean, it didn't even have a real ending early on, or any multiplayer.
IF that's true, then CDPR's claims about only crunching for the last two or so months isn't as transparent as they wanted it to seem back in October.
While devs can, artists and game designers don't have that bargaining power.
It just shows that the aristocracy is alive and doing well even in this modern world. Unsurprising to anyone that actually paid attention but there are a lot of developers who never realized that they're peasants, still.
there are industries where we can get a decent wage as software developers however, so life is fine for most of us.
Lowish wage for game developers? I beg your pardon?
It isn't easy to "just go somewhere else" or "start your own thing" for a variety of reasons. The reality is that the majority of these game developers aren't getting job offers every day and don't have access to the kind of capital necessary to start a company.
It's flippant to suggest that these developers can just find another job, because the other reality is that most of these developers would only be able to find jobs doing the same thing but under a different moniker.
People in other places in this thread have produced some solutions, which I think is somewhere along the lines of organizing and unionizing, and I think that would help for bigger companies who are known to exploit these workers.
Whatever the solution, history has shown that you cannot rely on a company's word that they won't do this anymore.
Plus the development abstraction layer influences public perception as much as it does developer perception. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/04/11/the-development-ab...
In the end they get a reasonable wage for the normal work they do, but not if crunch is involved. Which, do to the large amount of stress and in turn health (physical+mental) and social risk it can involve doesn't seem reasonable for "any" amount of money (or at least any amount any person would be willing to pay ;=) ).
> "just go somewhere else"
Mostly means leaving the game industry, which also means leaving behind years of experience, and the area of expertise you prefer to work in (if it wouldn't be for the working conditions).
> "start your own thing"
Is in general just unrealistic as an advise for most people. It's risky, costly, stressfull and needs a bunch of additional skills which are not necessary part of your current job.
Video game production involves crunch, news at eleven.
See also https://www.polygon.com/2020/12/4/22058784/cyberpunk-2077-ma...
Yeah, I'm sure that works well. How can you compete with those that do work long hours when it comes time for performance reviews? The fear of losing your job is very real and I'm sure that creates a culture where in effect everyone is working long hours, no matter what the CD Projekt co-founder says.
I have never worked in such an environment, and I also don't tend to take all of my allotted vacation anyways, but at first glance, I'm not sure how:
"take off as much as you like"
could possibly be more restrictive than:
"take off as much as you like, but no more that 2 weeks."
Assuming of course we are not talking about mandatory vacation policies (that some companies/countries) effectively have.
If there's unlimited vacation, and someone takes two weeks of vacation when the whole company tends to take one, and they were on vacation during a critical project, once time comes for performance reviews, people will say "I'm not sure how committed they are to the company" / "They don't have a great work ethic" / etc. etc. Because it was their choice to decide that two weeks was reasonable, it's easier to hold them responsible for the consequences of that choice.
So, everyone feels like they need to take at most as much vacation as average, possibly less.
If the number is the same for everyone, state it. Go ahead and say "Everyone gets 6 weeks vacation." If you don't feel comfortable saying that, then it wasn't unlimited at all, was it?
If the number is different, i.e., junior employees can take less, politically-connected folks and people who figured out how to coast can take more, that's probably a bad thing for your company. At best, make additional vacation a defined promotion benefit.
"take off as much as you like, but no more than you've earned; you earn 2 weeks each year and can't bank more than 5 weeks"
It's a subtle difference, but an important one. I usually bank vacation time up to my cap (typically 240 hours, but recently bumped to 300 hours). Once I'm close I take every other friday off.
When coworkers ask about it my answer is "I'm at the vacation cap, so if I don't take this time off I lose it."
This statement acts as a double-edged sword. "I'm at vacation cap" signals that I've worked hard and foregone time off in favor of work. i.e. I'm a hard worker. "if I don't take this time off I lose it" signals that I'm not willing to leave anything on the table, and it shows that I value a work-life balance.
I’m happy with my comp and my role. I don’t need a raise or promotion. I can work at this job until 70 with pay rises corresponding to inflation.
Given that, I’m fine if people work 70h weeks all around me. I’m also confident my work output will rival that of the crunchers, because after even just a few weeks it’s not effective.
Is Hollywood a successful business model though? Most movies don't make much in the end - we only see the most successful ones.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:atHjZM...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAdeep breathHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Is there a major game developer known not to require this of their employees? (According to the article, CD Projekt appearently made such a promise but failed to deliver on it.)
Saw it what it did to our team, destroyed multiple relationships, the product suffered for it and overall both titles we're a disaster.
It cuts in more than one way, aside from some really rare cases the industry compensation is abysmal compared to traditional software engineering. I basically doubled my take home salary leaving the industry while also having a sane work life balance.
Rami Ismail of Nuclear Throne sums is up well[1]:
> In these situations we don't even expect everyone to get through unscathed. It's like management calculates the amount of churn, of burnout, of careers, relations, happiness that will be lost and goes "well, that's not too big a sacrifice to undo the damage of our incompetence".
Fuck em. They deserve nothing for putting a team through hell like that. Chances are they aren't the ones to pay for the damage their crunch does in the end.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/tha_rami/status/13356988209702543...
That’s the game industry.
Thinks I learned from it:
- It's very daunting.
- It's quite bad for your health, especially your mental health.
- It's bad for productivity. Which means it's a fatal cycle: you do crunch time => because of stress and exhaustion you are less productive => you need to do even more crunch because you where not productive enough.
- It's bad for quality. Sure all your tests pass and the many problem(s) seems fixed, but there is a good chance that you will have to pay extra in the long run due to technical dept or just sub-optimal design.
- It's bad for creativity. I could more than one time majorly reduce my work by just reflecting on what is actually needed (in difference to what seems to be needed, is asked for by your team lead (i.e. not your customer)). The chance for this to happen under crunch is continuously decreasing with increasing frequency of crunch.
- EDIT: Because of the last 3 points, it's bad for getting things done in time as they will likely take longer on a "work done per hour" scalar.
Very brief crunches can maybe push you over a deadline but will (in my experience) result in lower overall productivity per hour (and higher defect rates) for the entire crunch + recovery interval.
Which seems to mean do a two week crunch and then fire your developers, but replacing them is usually more costly than recovery time.
It probably isn't a coincidence that universities often have two week final exam/final project periods followed by two (or more) weeks of vacation.
Anytime I hear a young person say they want to be a game developer I want to grab them by the shoulders and try to shakes some sense into them. If you're smart enough to do game development, you're probably smart enough to go make twice as much to work half as hard somewhere else. You can go work your 8 hour day, and play whatever game you want the rest of the night. Or do something completely different.
Is this everyone including Graphics designers? Not just developers?
Why are the economics of Gaming so not aligned? The cost of making Games are going up YoY. Revenue and Profits seems to be up too. We have better middleware like Unreal than ever before, and yet the cost keep going up but not salary.
And it seems Nintendo doesn't have any of these problem.
Someone please explain to me like I am five.
It seems to me that the on the opposite end of the scale you have Database administrator. Pretty much all non-trivial software projects need databases, their proper administration is absolutely essential, and it's the least sexy sounding role in a software team.
My (completely untested, and semi-serious) career advice is to read a reference manual for a database like PostgreSQL cover to cover.
We don't really know a lot about their process, but considering a lot of their games are made in Japan and what has been said in the past, there is guaranteed to be crunch there as well. People sleeping in their offices for days on end before shipping a game, etc.
It is just difficult to determine how long things will take in the end. I think it is great they did change the release date and not cut corners.
We did get a lot of free time in exchange after crunch and I think there has to be appreciation. I am sure developers are looking to a relaxed Christmas in the end.
Hopefully the compensation was OK, at least.
Not very realistic, unfortunately.
Also, it's not an indie studio that needs sales money right now to keep existing. They can easily afford much bigger delays. They prefer to put their employees at severe health risk instead so they can maximize profits.
If I'm tired, I will definitely not reach the 6 hours.
So I really wonder who in their fucking mind would think that you can pull off 12 hour workdays and be more productive? That is just pure insanity. I think it's time to stop lying to ourselves on how many hours we are actually productive in the 'work hours' that we do.