stusser
3705
I don’t know that any of them would characterize overtime as a problem, as they’re always desperate to get more of it.
Nesrie
3706
A lot of industries have periods of long hours and required overtime, paid or otherwise, but months and months of 100 hour weeks is not… typical, especially with no end in sight. Let’s not forget the mental breakdowns, the burn-outs… like it’s just not as common as suggested for most other industries.
Oghier
3707
Ah, OK. I see your point.
That’s not what I have seen, though. When you’re in a facility where people have been working 12 hour shifts for a year, most just want to see their kids again and maybe get some sleep. Overtime seems generally welcome (when compensated) up to a point. Optional OT is always popular. Forced, long-term OT loses its luster for many, though, even at time-and-a-half.
(That applies mostly to manufacturing facilities, which have been about 75% of my work over the past few decades).
geewhiz
3708
If you are in a corporate position that requires travel you are easily doing 60 hours or more.
Nesrie
3709
If I had to travel twelves hours, at an airport and on a plane, I would not consider that working hours. It’s probably industry specific but travel time isn’t always calculated that way. It would be considered a working day though because, well I don’t work for inhumane organizations for the most part.
Granath
3710
Absolutely. Even worse, travel is often on a Sunday to be at a client’s location on a Monday morning or (worse) taking a red-eye home and not getting in until Saturday morning. You are typically well compensated for travel-heavy positions but they take a toll on your family and your body. Travel is most often not compensated and most companies do not offer comp time or any other type of break for travel time. It is part of that type of job which often is well paid because of it.
Which is why I told my company last year I would not be traveling as much anymore. Instead of 75% travel I am down to about 25% which is much more manageable. After traveling enough to be a lifetime Marriott Titanium member and amassing more than a million miles on AA, I am a bit tired of it.
But those in gaming are not compensated for crunch time in any meaningful way. Worse, it is often week or months at a time where travel can often be broken up or at least planned.
dsmart
3711
lol! You are aware they did it again since then, right? Several times in fact. Then Tim stated that the decision was up to the devs and publishers whether or not to do an exclusive, publish on the store etc.
dsmart
3712
This is all kinds of bad, right?
KevinC
3713
Bad enough we’ve been discussing it for the past 20 posts or so! ;)
stusser
3714
Well it’s nigh-4000 posts, can’t expect anyone to read all of it. That’s why we have a summary in the OP now.
CraigM
3715
I wonder, what is the crossover between the dev teams working on their games, their engine, and their store front? Like is this just their game dev studio, is it the entire company?
I’d suspect that it is a company culture thing, and doubt any team escapes intact. However I wouldn’t be the least surprised if the game dev side takes it worse.
I used to be that way when I was younger. “Overtime? Sure, hit me up.”
We all got used to it. So when the new company took over, they immediately shut down overtime. And it hurt.
Then they realized we couldn’t keep up without it, and nobody was applying for jobs (ND had a very low unemployment rate), so they reinstated OT. Not exactly forced OT, but as close as you can get.
Then, no raises for three years. When I approached my boss then on the subject of raises, she said, “What? All that money you guys are making with overtime, and now you want more?!?”
In other words, OT is sometimes used instead of giving raises. I mean hey, if you need to have them work OT, then you might as well treat it as a raise, right? Pisses me off.
stusser
3717
Well, that’s where collective bargaining is supposed to step in.
dsmart
3719
I have no reason to believe that they will do that if Steam matches their revenue stream. Why? Because they still have zero bargaining power against Steam’s ecosystem.
If Steam matches the revenue split, and EGS stops doing exclusives, then every meaningful incentive for a dev to put their games on EGS, goes away. EGS doesn’t have any compelling USPs other than:
- revenue split. more money is always good
- discovery. less titles, less crud to wade through
- review bombing mitigation. lol! you can’t review bomb if you can’t review
Take away #1, and all you have left are those two. Are they compelling enough for a dev to sell on EGS and not Steam? Also, as of now, EGS is invite-only; so it’s not as if devs actually have a choice in that regard.
Exclusives are a huge money-making incentive.
If EGS wants to be the HBO (in terms of selective curation) of videogames, they need to stick with exclusives and ofc the higher royalty split. Trying to beat Steam’s Walmart approach is a non-starter; and I’m quite certain that folks at Epic know this.
I think the real argument is that Steam will never match their revenue split, meaning that that EGS will usually be the better deal for developers.
Reemul
3721
I don’t know if it is a better deal in the longer term. If you sell less copies but make up for the shortfall from Epic initially that is fine, but they aren’t giving you free money forever. At some point your next game will sell half as much (or less) than if it was on steam and you won’t get the free exclusive money and 12% extra of a lot less probably won’t be enough
That’s assuming you actually sell less copies.
LockerK
3723
Tim Sweeney has given me no reason to believe anything he says regarding EGS and there’s no reason to think this is any different. What’s Valve going to do if he doesn’t keep his word, jack their cut back up?
If 30% store dominance is the #1 problem for PC developers, where does working 70-100 hours per week rank on the problem scale?
