If you compare the conclusions, this topic's research, while obvious, is closer to reality that the one, which concluded that crunch literally "makes games worse" despite the fact that every single game, which made a significant critical/financial impact had a period of crunch.
It sure does not. My concern is that in this research they correlate the amount of crunch with quality of a game and show that "better" games have statistically less crunch. Since I know the games, considered successful in the industry, all have a lot of crunch, it sounds like they use their own criteria for quality, which has nothing to do with the common meaning.
