https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...pouse-software
I wonder if maybe the reason why so many AAA games like the Division are released nowadays with so many bugs is due to this kind of situation. It's easy for us gamers to be critical of the games we play (especially when they suffer from server issues or are released full of bugs), but I think we often forget that these games are made by workers who pay their own sort of price for the games that we get to enjoy.
Anyways, this is a somewhat lengthy article, so I'll give you a quick summary of what it says:
In 2004, an investigation into EA revealed extensive overtime periods known as "Crunch" periods where workers would have to work as long as 13 hours a day, seven days a week. While this has spurned efforts to better improve work-life balance issues, the video game industry is still dominated by a "macho" culture that emphasizes a "hardcore" work lifestyle and generally skews towards a younger, male workforce. Hence, the industry suffers from a high rate of burnout and turnover. Efforts are nonetheless being made to better protect workers in the video game industry from the excessive use of "crunch" periods in order to crank out games on time and on budget.
Going to have to agree with this one . With all the delays and hype to this title and knowing the history of other releases there is NO excuse for having 90% of this crap going on except incompetence and lack of communication with each other as well as customers. So as stated POOR GAME MAKING.Originally Posted by ronnieronb Go to original post
I was under the impression this game was delayed for 2 years from its initial release date. If development time was 3 years, that means they expected to develop this game in 1 year? That seems like a lofty goal.
If that's the case, I give them applause for being playable in that time with the goals they set. Aren't most games in a 5+ year development cycle that aim for this kind of complexity?
I've been working 12-18 hours a day, 7 days a week for the last 12 years. While I do get "days off" in between of 7-10 days, they aren't guaranteed. For example, last year I had a total of 32 days off. In 2014 I had a total of 12 days off. This year I'll probably end up somewhere in the 50-60 day range (price of oil is a *****). To put that in context, people who have 2 days off a week take 104 days a year + vacation, sick days, etc.
Excuse me if "13 hour days, 7 days a week during crunch periods" doesn't really sound like a big deal.
Sorry MREasyGuns, but what is your job then?Originally Posted by MREasyGuns Go to original post
There have been plenty of studies that proved that a 40-hours week is the best. It prevents people from making mistakes, burning out etc.
Now granted, if you like your job and get satisfaction out of it, you might easily shatter that 40 hours,.
But most people work to live, rather then live to work. Forcing somebody to work 12 hours a day, for weeks on end is in the end counter productive. Mistakes will be made and in the long run your employees will leave (if they dont burn out beforehand)