[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.