It’s difficult because your workforce is your workforce and the tools the tools. Remote Desktop into files really sucks dude.If UBIsoft can't manage productivity /performance /collaboration of home workers that's a management problem. Forced return to office mandates are a well documented post COVID tool for trimming workforces on the cheap. Their employees are right to hold two fingers up to that effort.
Yea it’s unfortunate. I wrote about it here:
UBIsoft in potential financial trouble
What was wrong with that side-quest? It had the same mechanics and writing as everything else in the game. The gameplay elements and the context were booring. Its not like youre stoping supervillians or bankrobbers. If a quest is that mundane the writing better be really good, like funny or...forum.beyond3d.com
I didn’t think they would go on strike in retaliation. The other offices will go through the same process as well; 3 days in office.
It’s difficult because your workforce is your workforce and the tools the tools. Remote Desktop into files really sucks dude.
Everyone needs to see the latest builds, and some people are bad. WFH, we have tons of people running several jobs at once, just straight up doom scrolling on their phones, just about doing anything but work.
Some companies can manage this better than others, but due to the highly collaborative nature of games, I don’t think WFH is a good fit here for it.
Ultimately, maybe the studios should relocate away from the overpriced centres if they want employees to work in the office? The whole motion to cram more and more people into the same city locations is just moronic from the outset, and it's now we're really starting to feel the burden of that organisation. It's incredibly wasteful. Covid opened people's eyes to how it could be different and they understandably don't want to go back because it was never a good system in the first place.
I don't know what the answer is. Once upon a time you only needed one income per household and people could relocate if necessary, but life has become exponentially more complicated. I'm just stating a counterpoint to Tkumpathenurple suggesting they should just suck it up. A return to the ways things were shouldn't be assumed the best cause of action if the way things were was decidedly suboptimal. Things are never going to change for the better if everyone just accepts 'the way things are', and it was accepting the way things are that led to an escalation of problems that, if resisted earlier, perhaps wouldn't have come to this.But this is not really realistic for many people. For people with a family they need to consider their spouse's job, and also where their children go to school. Most people don't really want to move around for a new job, so it's understandable that companies want to set up locations in population centers to better attract workers.
...
I think this works in the normal work place. For most of us, WFH works pretty well. But developers have crazy crunch, and I know that Ubisoft tries really hard to reduce crunch hours. They also have unlimited vacation IIRC. This is their first major move here, 3 days back in the office. It’s not easy, once your life has a particular workflow and cost savings it’s hard to go back. But, I don’t see games as a good place to deploy WFH.I wonder if a reduction of hours might be the move? WFH seems to be unsustainable for creative projects, and probably more broadly given keeping webcams turned on has often been deemed a breach of privacy.
But living in cities doesn't tend to be terribly compatible with family life, and the last few decades' approach of "import infinite slaves" has put pressure on housing markets across the western world. A problem which isn't going to be fixed any time soon.
So that leaves us facing lengthier commutes. But that gets in the way of family life again: working 9 hours, travelling for 4, and sleeping for 7 leaves you with a measly 4 to cook, clean, eat, shower, shit, shave, socialise, study, exercise, and unwind. The only wiggle room I see here is in shorter shifts.
That should play out in the business results. You should see developers that are WFH failing and those who go into the office succeeding. If there's not a clear 'WFH == long development and poor results' correlation, that generalisation is comfortably disproven. Can we point to various publishers and see this one, UIbi say, has a high contingent of WFH and is failing, whereas that other one is on fire? Although you'd also have to look at QOL for the employees for those better games, unless you have zero interest in anything except the quality of games released. Perhaps those best tier results are only obtained by burning through people?I would say the vast drop in output over the last four years is all the evidence we need that WFH isn’t generally ideal for video game development. Employees with such high levels of entitlement despite delivering nothing but mediocrity or worse should quit. The industry is better off without them so it’s a win/win for all parties.
I think it has been playing out in their business results, though I'd like to point out sales don't necessarily reflect the quality of software. I'm not sure which companies are still WFH and which are not, but it's certainly fair to say that nearly all developers took a noticeable hit to their output when WFH was mandatory. I'm not convinced that an employee's QOL should necessarily be the concern of the employer. Now labor laws should be complied with and a fair wage should be paid, but I don't find the other arguments listed in this thread to be reasonable at all. Crunch is a separate issue before someone chimes in with that. I believe any work done over the standard 40 hours a week should be voluntary and should not have the possibility for potentially negative outcomes should an employee decide not to.That should play out in the business results. You should see developers that are WFH failing and those who go into the office succeeding. If there's not a clear 'WFH == long development and poor results' correlation, that generalisation is comfortably disproven. Can we point to various publishers and see this one, UIbi say, has a high contingent of WFH and is failing, whereas that other one is on fire? Although you'd also have to look at QOL for the employees for those better games, unless you have zero interest in anything except the quality of games released. Perhaps those best tier results are only obtained by burning through people?
It gets complicated.
I'm not sure which companies are still WFH and which are not, but it's certainly fair to say that nearly all developers took a noticeable hit to their output when WFH was mandatory.
Isnt that a good reason to have the boss in the same room as them instead of some cushy office somewhereThey’re looking anywhere but at their screen, often looking down.
Yup. Unfortunately my entire company is remote in the Americas. There’s no officeIsnt that a good reason to have the boss in the same room as them instead of some cushy office somewhere
The drought of games, the drop in quality of games that released, the comments from developers themselves citing such. Different types of software can be affected in different ways. Game development is highly collaborative and reactive. It's very easy to envision many reasons why WFH will reduce output and efficiency.Why is that fair to say? What’s the evidence? Some of the most productive developers I’ve worked with (not gaming) were remote even before the pandemic.