3 ms·
I'm generally all for Devil's Advocate, but when it comes to giving workers reasons to _not_ demand more, I need to see some really compelling evidence of serio
by onion2k 5y ago
I'm generally all for Devil's Advocate, but when it comes to giving workers reasons to _not_ demand more, I need to see some really compelling evidence of serious harm before I'm willing to tell people to reconsider.
makeitdouble isn't saying workers shouldn't demand more; they're saying that paid overtime doesn't solve the problem of crunch time. It makes crunch time acceptable, and (potentially) gets factored into renumeration packages in the long term.
If you want to solve the problem of crunch you need a solution that removes it, not one that pays people to continue doing it.
- Uehreka 5y agoIf crunch time continues but workers are making money commensurate with the fact that they're working outside reasonable hours, then I view that as progress. If base pay is depressed to make up for this change and workers make functionally the same amount, that's a bummer. But either way: I don't necessarily view crunch time as a thing that can or will be solved. I just want the game to be more fair than it is now.
- onion2k 5y agoCrunch doesn't really exist in large areas of the software industry. There's no reason why it can't be solved for gaming, especially at large, well-funded studios like CDPR.