[argd678]

I think they interviewed mostly people new to the gaming industry who don’t know how to manage their time under pressure, Epic isn’t an easy place if you’re not pretty senior, they expect you to know what to do with little guidance. That said they also see the company as being a marathon since it’s success isn’t certain and fragile, so it’s something they expect employees to take care of because it’s a unique place, maybe similar to how museum staff look after art work. No doubt it’s brutal with Fortnight’s success, and you will get fired if you’re not competent and pulling your weight, but that’s the industry they’re in, you can’t have a few people putting everyone else’s livelihood at risk, and they also compensate very well when they’re successful. So it’s not like some sweat shop, it’s more complex than the article makes it sound.

[9935c101ab17a66]

> I think they interviewed mostly people new to the gaming industry who don’t know how to manage their time under pressure,

So everyone who has to work long hours is just incompetent or new, or new and incompetent, and should just do the same amount of work in less time, duh? That's not how these high-pressure workplaces function. Even if you are a significant contributor and you are technically allowed to opt out of overtime, that doesn't mean everyone won't resent you for it, and that management won't interpret as a 'lack of commitment' when promotion or reviews come around. As a corollary, the recent rise 'unlimited time off' policies have been widely criticized because they often inadvertently contribute to implicit pressures to take less time off than before, because of the resentment, hostility and jealously. I've seen some companies rolling out unlimited time off with mandatory minimums which seems healthier, but I'm unsure how successful it has been.

> they expect you to know what to do with little guidance

Even good engineers need guidance, and guidance and training are especially important when you're doubling and tripling your workforce.

> so it’s something they expect employees to take care of because it’s a unique place, maybe similar to how museum staff look after art work.

This is a super weird analogy and makes no sense to me.

> and you will get fired if you’re not competent and pulling your weight

Where does the article say that Epic shouldn't fire incompetent employees? No one is saying that.

> but that’s the industry they’re in, you can’t have a few people putting everyone else’s livelihood at risk

Your response to a toxic work culture is just 'It is what it is, deal with it'? Don't you think we should have discussions about the human impact and damage caused by these intractable competing interests? And there's almost certainly a financial and business cost, it's just not as obvious to measure.

> So it’s not like some sweat shop, it’s more complex than the article makes it sound.

The article covers both sides pretty thoroughly, there's a litany of quotes from Epic PR addressing the claims and recounting their efforts to resolve them. I understand WHY these pressures exist, and it's clear the Epic want to do everything they can to leverage their transient popularity. But that's not to say they shouldn't be criticized or they shouldn't do better.

[argd678]

I don’t think you’ve worked at a struggling studio before, but yes that’s just how it is, right up to the CEO. Once someone figures out a better way they’d do it in a heartbeat. Executives are no different than anyone else and they shoulder the responsibility of making sure everyone has a job too, it’s one sided to think they’re only interested in profit especially in Epic’s case. You may think the museum analogy is odd, but it’s not just another studio for many people.

[Latty]

But this isn't a struggling studio - it's a studio making insane profit.

[argd678]

It’s not the same as say selling Microsoft Office, where the sales are stable. It’s not stable and will taper off if they don’t act on it, they also only have one game. So they got lucky and it’s fragile success, it can change at anytime, they know this and since they’ve been around since 1991 and have come close to shutting down many times since then. EA would be more what you’re thinking, where they have more diverse income from many titles and studios, one game failing won’t cause EA to shutdown, but that’s not what’s happening here. I can understand the righteous feelings, but it needs to be coupled with an accurate understanding of the problem to find a solution.

[9935c101ab17a66]

But... no one is denying that. The article acknowledges it (it actually discusses it extensively), I acknowledge it. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do better, or that there isn't a huge cost on the personal lives of the people working there.

You are also making the assumption that their continued success is dependent on their toxic work culture, but I don't think that's a given. I'd wager that most people who work the kind of hours that we're discussing are:

a) either no more productive than someone working 40-50 hours, or only marginally more productive b) More likely to make simple/avoidable mistakes, which take time to track down, resolve and waste QA resources c) More likely to quit or have to go medical leave, which increases turnover, which is an enormous cost in development.

Furthermore, the stories of how bad the work place is will discourage potentially skilled applicants, and the longer they let it go on, the more trouble they'll have changing the way they are perceived in the industry.

I'd also wager that if you are constantly in crunch mode like this, it would stifle creativity and possible innovations. No one has the time to play around with new ideas, or try things and fail.

[Latty]

I'm not sure how that changes the understanding of the problem - no, they aren't guaranteed to profit forever (who is?). If the argument is "it's reasonable to abuse your employees unless you literally can't possibly ever run into financial trouble", it's a bad argument.