theultdev

I don't think they meant extreme as in repetitive use.

I think they meant when you've drank enough to be drunk.

e.g it's not very effective as a truth serum if you've only had a little.

That seems more like a grift of the environment promoting women. It's easier to control sockpuppets and you don't have to pay them.

I don't think that person cared one way or another about women, they were just taking advantage of the environment.

They would have faked male speakers had it benefitted them.

(not condoning, just noting my perception)

Yeah they're educated enough to know what a 50% pay reduction looks like.

I see this talking point rattled off a lot but it makes no sense.

Concentrating in one spot will be more efficient but cause more damage than dispersing.

The efficiency you gain in centralizing is irrelevant since you lowered the total but concentrated it so it can grow instead of disperse.

Which is worse, dumping a ton of salt in one spot in the ocean or dumping 1.2 tons throughout a large area?

There's a reason cities generally have smog and towns generally don't.

Dilution is the solution to pollution.

You're only comparing suburbs to cities. Suburbs don't make any sense in the remote era.

Small towns are a great option, you can bike literally everywhere and meet people very easily. Only two gyms, but not crowded!

The suburbs really only serve a purpose to house people near a city to commute to, which is moot if you're working remotely.

There's no perks of a city or a town living in a suburb. People live in them because of their jobs.

This "problem" pretty much solves itself with the current trend.

Those who want to be in cities because of what you listed will pay the premium and stay and deal with the crowding constraints and workarounds such as open offices and high rent. People are sensitive to prices differently and crowding is not too big of a deal since they like people generally.

Those who want space and privacy will move out and work remotely and somewhat ease the crowding.

Personally I can only "enjoy" a city for a couple days before being drained, then it's back to life as a hermit.

But it doesn't look good for those who like in-office w/ private offices. I see no trend to bring that back.

Sad because that's the only way I would work in-office.

An EXISTING one as I emphasized many times.

Everyone knows they changed their policy of crunch development after RD2

Currently they are not overworked and they aren't complaining about being overworked, the article just eluded to their fear of returning to it.

That's nice they corrected course, but you couldn't point out ONE EXISTING "poor working condition" that you claim exists?

Reply if you do have one, otherwise don't bother.

> they already deal with poor working conditions.

Incase you need to be reminded what you said.

Okay I'll bite, highlight the existing "poor working conditions" please.

The author did write they fear and are worried about "heightened risk of overwork (crunch)" but that doesn't mean it will happen.

Being worried about something happening and something happening are two different things in case I need to point that out.

It seems you're the one that needs to beef up your reading comprehension.

Hint: keywords are "risk", "worried", "fear".

> the article is about the game industry. it's kind of well known for its toxicity and poor working conditions.

Ah yes it's about the gaming industry, not a specific topic like company shifting to office work during the last period of development and workers not wanting to go in to the office.

Makes it easy to shift that goal post when it's just about the industry, but you're also arguing that remote work is a right, so I'm not sure you even fell for that.

Is Rockstar demanding 7 days? No. What you said is false and irrelevant.

Don't try to conflate things that are irrelevant to this particular discussion.

Either you view remote work as a right or not. I don't.

Uhm where did you see they were making them work 7 days a week?

This article is about them complaining about having to go into the office for 5 days.

Working remotely is not a right. You have many people here who advocated against it vehemently for years.

I prefer remote work and I'd only work for a full remote company, but in no way do I feel like it's my right to force a company to allow me be remote.

It sounds to me like they want more coordination during the wrap up period.

I see no evidence of demanding overtime or crunching. The article eludes to the "fear" of return to crunch, but nothing other than speculation.

The only demand is to keep the remote work, nothing to do with hours or anything else.

I will say, it is entirely unfair for them to force workers to return who under the previous policy moved further away.

If it's such a dream project, I would think they wouldn't mind going in to the office during the final wrap up of developing it.

The janitors don't mind going in to the Rockstar office and their job is much less of a dream job.

Well you can fill it up, but you have to run back in to get your change.

If you have two people one can wait, start it once the other pays, then you both go to the bathroom and pick up the change on the way out.

Well then I guess they'll have to go to the office while they look for a new employer, the horror.

But yeah I suppose some could group together to force the policy decisions of where everyone works...

Those damn employers supporting people's families.

Yeah looked it up, so only half a decade, corrected my post.

My point was, it takes a longer time each time and without seeing the level of gameplay you don't know whether it's mismanaged or simply an extensive game being developed.

You also don't know the percentage of their resources they put towards it. I'm sure maintaining and developing GTA Online took at least some resources.

Either way, I'm not going to shit on the one company that actually knows how to make full games.

Looking at you CD PROJEKT RED... (cyberpunk was a joke right?)

The last GTA game took half a decade.

They are 7 years "overdue" from the previous release, but that means nothing by itself.

The last GTA game took the longest and would have seemed past due before release, but look at the level of depth it had. It's still the top game over a decade later.

Most importantly they never give a due date too early for this exact reason.

So they reserve the right to work there because they're making cool stuff?

But they also reserve the right not have to go into the office?

I don't view remote work as a right. It's a policy decision of the employer, same as it's a policy decision of the employer on what they work on, including GTA.

That used to be normal in the US, nowadays most pumps are automated.

You can fill up 24/7, even if the store is closed.

Maintaining multiplayer servers?

Or simply go to a company that does embrace remote.

I don't see why we need a union to force companies to be remote.

Just don't work for those companies.

Amazon tried this and I believe reversed the decision because so many devs quit.

Now their warehouse workers do need a union from the sounds of things.

I'm very pro car and personal travel / liberty, but I will say living briefly in Sydney that the ferry is the ultimate form of public transportation, like a free tour.

However weather does play a large role, and during peak hours the crowds are quite daunting.

There's only very specific places where ferry is useful. You need multiple ports close to each other in calm water with high frequency traffic.

Yeah, now overlay that on Texas to see the scale.

In the US density is a choice. I choose not to live in a city.

In Europe, density is not a choice, they have to live on top of each other.

And if you don't have good public transportation or zoning laws that's due to your local government.

Density matters.

Ah okay, if that's the case then yeah totally in support for that.

That's essentially what I was suggesting with having to loan the opposing team the same amount of money you spend.

And if Nintendo spends $10 million dollars?

And Yuzu spends $25,000 and maybe wins the first case but runs out of money during the appeal and defaults judgment.

Nintendo gets the pot because they won right?

As I pointed out to another user, this reverses the damage if they win, but does not solve the problem of preventing them from being able to win.

Now if you make it where if you want to spend $5 on lawyer fees, you have to loan $5 to the other side and if the other side wins they don't have to pay it back, that may work.

That doesn't solve grinding out the small company, though it does reverse the damage if they don't get ground out.

The problem is not the end payout, it's the base cost can't be afforded along the way.

One side can keep appealing and escalating, the other can't pay for the cases themselves.

They may not get far enough to win the pool.

You would have to have the lawyers work pro bono or some common legal fund pay for it until the case is won to get the pool.

As I pitched to another user, how about:

> for lawsuits, if you want to spend $5 on lawyer fees, you have to loan $5 to the other side.

> if the other side wins they don't have to pay back the loan.

Then why would the litigants contribute in the first place?

If nothing compels them to, they won't, so effectively the status quo.

If it's twice as expensive then the defendants would run out of money sooner right?

You would have to somehow set a limit of legal expenses, which seems... difficult.

You would have to win to get the common fund, you may not get that far if you have to pay into the fund and amount a defense.