Wardogs CEO won't hire anyone who rejects crunch, and checks your social media

The debate over crunch in the video game industry is flaring up again, and this time with a stance that leaves no room for nuance. As reported by Dexerto, Joe Brammer, the head of Wardogs, has explained that his studio does not hire developers who believe crunch shouldn't exist. To reinforce that filter, the company reviews applicants' social media accounts before making a decision.

The story matters because it goes against the grain. In recent years, much of the industry has tried, at least publicly, to move away from marathon workdays and the culture of constant sacrifice. For an executive to openly defend the opposite, and to turn it into a hiring criterion on top of that, opens up an uncomfortable conversation about what kind of studios we want to support as players and as content creators.

What you need to know

• Joe Brammer, CEO of Wardogs, maintains that he will not hire developers who think crunch shouldn't exist.
• The studio reviews candidates' social media accounts as part of the hiring process, according to the report published by Dexerto.
• The stance is presented as the studio's work philosophy, not as a one-off measure for a specific project.
• The source gives no details on headcount, working conditions or compensation tied to those extra hours.

What crunch is and why it's such a sensitive topic

When we talk about crunch, we mean periods of intensive work, with long days and often weekends included, that typically happen in the weeks or months leading up to a game's launch. For a long time it has been sold as something inevitable, almost romantic: the team that gives everything so the game ships on time. The reality described by dozens of developers is considerably less epic, with burnout, health problems and people leaving the industry altogether.

What stands out about the Wardogs case is not that crunch exists, something that happens at many studios without anyone admitting it publicly, but that it is defended explicitly and used as a criterion to exclude anyone who doesn't share that view. Reviewing a candidate's social media to detect their opinions on working conditions adds another layer: it's not enough to be willing to put in the hours, you also have to never have criticized the practice in public.

Who it affects and what could change

The most direct impact is on developers themselves, especially younger ones or those looking for their first job in the industry. The message they receive is clear: what you post today about working conditions could close doors for you tomorrow. That pushes people toward self-censorship and weakens the collective ability to improve the sector, which has largely moved forward precisely because there were people who dared to tell what was happening behind closed doors.

There's a takeaway for the gaming community too. More and more people decide what they buy based on how things are made, and a studio that waves the crunch flag exposes itself to scrutiny it may not have anticipated. From the editorial team, we can't go into the specifics of Wardogs' conditions because the source doesn't provide them, and we'd rather not speculate with data we don't have.

Our take

At Underworld Lordz we know what it's like to work under pressure. Any competitive player knows the weeks before a tournament, and any content creator has lived through editing marathons to hit a deadline. Nobody here is going to say that the occasional extra push is a sin. But there's a huge difference between a sprint you choose and a culture that demands you never question overwork as a condition of employment.

What worries us about Brammer's stance is not so much that he defends extra hours, but that he turns an opinion about work into grounds for exclusion. A studio that dismisses anyone who thinks differently about how to organize work probably also dismisses anyone who thinks differently about design, about monetization or about how to treat its community. And the teams that work best, in competitive play and in development alike, tend to be the ones that accept disagreement and use it to improve.

Besides, the industry has already proven that excellent games can be shipped without burning people out. Presenting crunch as a virtue in 2026 sounds more like an excuse for poor planning than a philosophy of excellence. If a studio needs its staff to live permanently at the limit to meet deadlines, the problem rarely lies with the staff.

What do you think?

We want to know how you see it from your side: is it legitimate for a studio to require its employees to accept crunch as part of the job, or do you think screening social media to filter out opinions crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed? Let us know in the team chat or on our Discord.