That's how I feel. I'm also not sure if Rock star would even get the message that people aren't buying it because of the work conditions. Most effective would probably be if devs decided to boycott rock star until the conditions improve. Unlike sweatshops etc. Rock star actually needs qualified talent.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Supporting abusive work environments - Why I wont be buying Red Dead 2
- Thread starter Raging Spaniard
- Start date
Chainsawkitten
Member
If the alternative is to be both a homophobe and a racist, then yes.
I personally am not stopping at R*. I also try to reduce the negative impact I have in other ways. I don't buy meat. I only use public transportation. I don't replace my cell phone to get the latest new, cool features. I use the same one I did 12 years ago and I'll continue to do so until it breaks. When it comes to things like game consoles I only buy used. I also don't buy anything by Nestlé.
There are about a million other things I could do that I don't. So I'm a big fat hypocrite. But hey, I'm still a much better person than non-hypocrites who do nothing at all. If being a non-hypocrite means you can't give a fuck about anything because there are always other important things to care about then being a non-hypocrite makes you a terrible human being.
I'm not personally boycotting R*, though. I probably would if I could (not simply because they're bad, but because they're among the very worst (in their industry)) but I can't because I have no interest in anything they make to begin with, and that's not really a boycott.
Tajaz2426
Psychology PhD from Wikipedia University
Im going to say that calling people morons, is not the best way to come across intelligent in any forum. Whether it be the internet or in a social setting.
If you do not agree with points and arguments discussed, make a counter argument. A drive by post calling people morons is why this forum is like gamefaqs.
On topic, like I posted before this isn't folks that they have no choice in the matter to work there. As I stated a lot of industries have long hours everyday, not just during "crunch time".
I spent 15 years working 12-16 hours a day and that wasn't even in combat where you can go past the 24 hour clock. Guess what? I knew what I was getting into, a job that can take everything from you, including your life.
There are many more jobs out there like mine and i certainly didn't say you are working us to hard, training for this mission. They knew what they were getting into as they are professionals. These people go to college and specifically ask to work in game development where they know there can be long hours.
As I stated before, if they are be abused in any manner, not aloud to eat, go to the bathroom, or they work over 24 hours a day, then I'll happily get behind whatever comes about with this company.
I don't plan on purchasing this game and anyone that doesn't I stand behind them. Anyone who does, then that is their own personal prerogative.
Sounds brutal there. However, I do not feel that reducing support for the efforts of those developers currently (and previously) working at Rockstar, in San Diego, in the best way to punish their employers. Ultimately, this (on a large enough scale) will likely only do these employees more bad than good.
boneyjangles
Member
I also just wanted to add, video games is seen as a 'fun/desirable' industry.
Having worked in a few industries, but mostly IT or design related, I'll say that the 'fun/cool' jobs are always tougher on people and their social lives.
As they are more 'fun/cool' and desirable, they are more competitive and difficult to get positions in. People want to prove themselves, or are more passionate more of the time, resulting culture of work that is harder work and longer hours.. Very competitive for positions, very competitive between companies proving themselves and fighting it out for the work that's out there.
Especially see this with design, every year the job market is flooded with graduates, and there are only so many positions, the marketplace is brimming with enthusiastic people keen to prove themselves. This seeps into the culture of who employs them. Working in design as I have in the past, I've been blown away by how hard/long people work vs other industries, because people are pursuing their passion and there are dozens of people lining up to replace anyone who is slacking.
Or alternatively, you can just go work a 9-5 for a boring engineering firm, with other people going about the 9-5. Boring but essential jobs that a lot of the population exist in.
Video game companies are obviously going to fall into the 'fun/cool' job category, so they are going to be rammed full of people working their balls off in a competitive desirable industry. But they know that at any time they can go do a more boring engineering job that probably even pays better.
Publishers and developers obviously know the stakes here, if Rockstar push it too far, their game or their employment train will collapse and talented people will go elsewhere.
Having worked in a few industries, but mostly IT or design related, I'll say that the 'fun/cool' jobs are always tougher on people and their social lives.
As they are more 'fun/cool' and desirable, they are more competitive and difficult to get positions in. People want to prove themselves, or are more passionate more of the time, resulting culture of work that is harder work and longer hours.. Very competitive for positions, very competitive between companies proving themselves and fighting it out for the work that's out there.
Especially see this with design, every year the job market is flooded with graduates, and there are only so many positions, the marketplace is brimming with enthusiastic people keen to prove themselves. This seeps into the culture of who employs them. Working in design as I have in the past, I've been blown away by how hard/long people work vs other industries, because people are pursuing their passion and there are dozens of people lining up to replace anyone who is slacking.
Or alternatively, you can just go work a 9-5 for a boring engineering firm, with other people going about the 9-5. Boring but essential jobs that a lot of the population exist in.
Video game companies are obviously going to fall into the 'fun/cool' job category, so they are going to be rammed full of people working their balls off in a competitive desirable industry. But they know that at any time they can go do a more boring engineering job that probably even pays better.
Publishers and developers obviously know the stakes here, if Rockstar push it too far, their game or their employment train will collapse and talented people will go elsewhere.
Weltall Zero
Member
My exact same feeling. It's like groundhog day, with the exact same fallacious arguments being made over and over by people that just discovered the thread, didn't bother reading past the first page, then decided they were the one precious snowflakes in several hundred posts to think of whataboutisms, "its the same everywhere" and "they can always quit".
Fuck this shit, I'm out.
Counterarguments have been made, repeatedly and at length, by many of this board's best posters (including mods), completely destroying all of those blanked, hot-take "arguments". This is not even about people with (shitty) arguments, it's about people who don't bother reading the thread (not even the OP) and regurgitate the exact same drivel that has been thoroughly and continuously debunked. It's pretty understandable to lose one's nerve about this utterly sisyphean situation.
hobblygobbly
Member
The current economic model of the world is capitalism, and some countries, U.S being the greatest example, have highly unrestricted capitalism which results in a very toxic work culture in general.
Capitalist output is mostly unethical, part of the struggle of both socialism, and eventually communism, is to remove this by liberating the proletariat from those such as employers who seek to use their skill for the majority of their own benefit, to stop the exploitation in all forms. A programmer working for R* San Diego, in the 21st century, is part of the proletariat. The 21st century's advance of the capitalist model has blurred the exploitation in various degrees, from explicit exploitation of people in sweat shops in poor countries, to the lack of unions of game programmers, working hours, lack of input in management of the business and authoritarianism by management.
This is why if you feel strongly about this, you should learn and adapt your ideology, your views on capitalism.
In the capitalist world you will be forced to abide by it - this is part of the struggle of breaking away from it from both a worker and as the consumer of the production output from the worker, one will be a hypocrite because in order to even survive, such as consumption of food, means you are subservient as a consumer to a means of production of that food that may be unethical by the business that produced it.
In a capitalist world one will always be a hypocrite especially when it comes down to necessities.
The only way you can bring change, is by voting for parties, or policies of particular parties, that aim to offset capitalism's issues, and parties that aim to change the economic model through legislation to something more fair.
For the most part it is picking your battles. However one needs to change their views on capitalism as well.
An intermediary system that should be adopted by more countries, including the process of transitioning to socialism, and then communism, is the German model of codetermination, and workers councils, which should be applied to all businesses. However this sort of thing will never seem to be accepted in toxic working cultures such as the U.S, because it's "too socialist" or "too communist".
You can read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betriebsverfassung (German version with much more info)
Capitalist output is mostly unethical, part of the struggle of both socialism, and eventually communism, is to remove this by liberating the proletariat from those such as employers who seek to use their skill for the majority of their own benefit, to stop the exploitation in all forms. A programmer working for R* San Diego, in the 21st century, is part of the proletariat. The 21st century's advance of the capitalist model has blurred the exploitation in various degrees, from explicit exploitation of people in sweat shops in poor countries, to the lack of unions of game programmers, working hours, lack of input in management of the business and authoritarianism by management.
This is why if you feel strongly about this, you should learn and adapt your ideology, your views on capitalism.
In the capitalist world you will be forced to abide by it - this is part of the struggle of breaking away from it from both a worker and as the consumer of the production output from the worker, one will be a hypocrite because in order to even survive, such as consumption of food, means you are subservient as a consumer to a means of production of that food that may be unethical by the business that produced it.
In a capitalist world one will always be a hypocrite especially when it comes down to necessities.
The only way you can bring change, is by voting for parties, or policies of particular parties, that aim to offset capitalism's issues, and parties that aim to change the economic model through legislation to something more fair.
For the most part it is picking your battles. However one needs to change their views on capitalism as well.
An intermediary system that should be adopted by more countries, including the process of transitioning to socialism, and then communism, is the German model of codetermination, and workers councils, which should be applied to all businesses. However this sort of thing will never seem to be accepted in toxic working cultures such as the U.S, because it's "too socialist" or "too communist".
You can read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betriebsverfassung (German version with much more info)
DonfatherBrooks
Member
I've never understood why developers all want to work at a games studio these days. I have been an IT recruitment consultant for a long time now and cut my teeth on hiring devs for games studios.
I now recruit in financial services IT where you earn a lot more and your work life balance is significantly better and these days you often work with new tech. I just took out a very good C++ dev from a studio to work at an IB. He is now on £1000pd works 8-6 monday to friday and has never been happier.
Doing it for the love of the industry should not be enough these days. These companies should be called out.
I now recruit in financial services IT where you earn a lot more and your work life balance is significantly better and these days you often work with new tech. I just took out a very good C++ dev from a studio to work at an IB. He is now on £1000pd works 8-6 monday to friday and has never been happier.
Doing it for the love of the industry should not be enough these days. These companies should be called out.
ShironRedshift
Member
Choice is irrelevant. It can technically be a choice, but still be exploitation all the same. The choose to work there, because they're passionate about the game and want to make it as good and amazing and awesome as possible, but their employers take advantage of that passion to make them work longer hours than reasonable to force the game out the door as soon as possible, making hitting a particular release date more important than employee health or morale.
But that's an approach that while it might sound good at first as long as everyone's willing to do it, it's in fact to the benefit of no one. Productivity very quickly falls off a cliff once you go beyond like 50 hours/a week. That's where concepts like the 40 hour workweek came from in the first place: it's to the benefit of neither employee or employer to work much more than that because of the very steep effect it has on productivity, meaning it makes more sense and is more efficient to head home early and recharge one's batteries than putting in those extra hours every single day, since the increase in productivity from working more reasonable chunks of time will quickly outweigh the negligible benefits from crunch.
Unfortunately, most work in game design tends to be either contracted out of even if you work directly for the company payment tends to be based on a yearly salary rather than hourly. This itself isn't inherently bad in of itself and there's nothing wrong with the basic concept of salaried employment. Unfortunately, however, salaried employment has become rather twisted and used to entirely circumvent the entire concept of overtime. However, rather one has a salary or is paid hourly, our limits remain the same and productivity drops off the cliff once we go passed the 50 hr/wk mark, in many cases earlier. Study after study after study confirms this.
This is also part of why Rockstar games are infamous for being delayed: despite them using such heavy-handed forms of "crunch-time," and how passionate the employees are for their work, the effects on productivity remain the same and both productivity and quality of work drop off a cliff, forcing them to work even more hours to make up for it. They would be much better off if they just worked more reasonable shifts and avoided crunch in the first place, especially since the games end up being delayed regardless. I mean, on top of the numerous studies that confirm this, Rockstar's infamous trend of delaying their games past their initial release dates is the proof in the pudding: if the method truly worked, than such delays wouldn't be necessary every single time (unless management is really just that bad at planning after all this time, which is it's own problem). the fact that they are shows something's going wrong.
Thus, no matter how willing the employees are to put up with it while their working there, their nonetheless still being exploited. They have a lower work/life balance, leading to lower productivity and morale, leading to the games they make taking longer to make anyway and needing to be delayed regardless. There's absolutely no winner here. Not the employees (who are forced to work extremely long and unreasonable hours), not Rockstar North or Take Two (who don't hit their initial release dates) or even consumers (who also don't get the game on the initial release date and have to wait for delays regardless).
There's just no benefit for anyone. So, why defend it instead of lobbying for better, no matter how much of a choice it is? Considering the effects the approach has (wholly negative and to the benefit of no party) remain the same regardless of how much choice exists, that seems to be entirely beside the point. No one benefits, so why not lobby for better regardless?
No matter how much you deflect to choice, or other options the employees may or may not have, that remains the same and the situation and Rockstar in particular remains the same regardless (especially since, even if everyone there did quit, they could easily find other young 20-somethings that would have no problem being exploited because of their passion, so even that would fix nothing in of itself. That's kind of the whole point of "exploitation" and why we tend to have laws and regulations concerning it: corporations are very efficient at finding ways of finding employees to exploit if given free reign, no matter how many pass on the offer. There are always those that won't no matter how many people pass, and that remains a bad thing regardless of the respective number of people that say yes or no to the offer), and that situation remains to the benefit of no one, so why not lobby to change it so that at least someone benefits? I don't get it.
1. "Whatever. They can just leave."
That depends on their situation. There are all sorts of reasons why switching jobs may be difficult.
Plus, they shouldn't have to leave. That's not how labour rights should work.
2. "That's all AAA games."
Nope. There is evidence to the contrary.
3. "You're using a computing device made in horrible environments to type this. You are being inconsistent."
That's moving the goalposts. The point is about ethical purchase of software. Even if you broaden the argument, that making an ethical choice is near impossible for the purchase of one good does not diminish an ethical choice in purchasing another good.
4. "My job is as rough."
Well, you might have a problem too.
5. "They get paid a lot."
If there are jobs as well paid in a less exploitive environment, then whoop dee doo.
6. "You wouldn't pay more for games."
If that was the only way to guarantee that employees were not treated like shit, yes I would.
Now ignore all of that and the better arguments made in response to those six claims (and roughly similar claims) made throughout this thread and roll a six sided die, pick a claim corresponding to the roll, and post it like it is adding to the conversation.
That depends on their situation. There are all sorts of reasons why switching jobs may be difficult.
Plus, they shouldn't have to leave. That's not how labour rights should work.
2. "That's all AAA games."
Nope. There is evidence to the contrary.
3. "You're using a computing device made in horrible environments to type this. You are being inconsistent."
That's moving the goalposts. The point is about ethical purchase of software. Even if you broaden the argument, that making an ethical choice is near impossible for the purchase of one good does not diminish an ethical choice in purchasing another good.
4. "My job is as rough."
Well, you might have a problem too.
5. "They get paid a lot."
If there are jobs as well paid in a less exploitive environment, then whoop dee doo.
6. "You wouldn't pay more for games."
If that was the only way to guarantee that employees were not treated like shit, yes I would.
Now ignore all of that and the better arguments made in response to those six claims (and roughly similar claims) made throughout this thread and roll a six sided die, pick a claim corresponding to the roll, and post it like it is adding to the conversation.
You could say the same about a customer boycott. That shouldn't be necessary either. And while it's obviously harder I believe a developer boycott would be more effective than a customer one.
ShironRedshift
Member
Getting the discussion started certainly doesn't hurt at least. Talking about it is better than not talking about it at all and just letting it get covered up and pretending like it doesn't exist or isn't a problem. Nothing can start or change at all until people admit that there is a problem after all. Discussion is a basic first step, so regardless of anything else, discussions such as this one can only help, not hurt.
As for mass boycotts, like I said at the tail end of my prior point, there will always be groups of fresh college graduates full of passion and ready to make fucking awesome games like Grand Theft Auto 5 or Red Dead Redemption. No matter how many pass, there will be more willing to replace them just for the sheer opportunity to work on such a game, no matter what the physical or emotional cost will be, and companies like Rockstar and Take Two know this. That's what makes it exploitation in the first place! The companies know that no matter how many walk off, there will be just as many willing to replace them, and they're willing to take advantage of this fact, despite even they themselves not benefiting from it due to such approaches inevitably leading to delays and the like.
Of course, nonetheless such tactics as employee-walkouts/strikes/unionization/etc are definitely tools that should be kept closer to their chest and talked about a lot more as well, but they're not perfect solutions either because of the sheer deluge of talent and there's a lot more talented employees out there than there are openings for them at these companies, and Rockstar/Take Two know it. That's the whole point of exploitation: knowing about that, and taking advantage of it, regardless of whether one actually benefits or not. So unfortunately, it's not quite that simple.
But regardless, everyone starts with discussion, which is why I'm so appreciative of threads like this and glad that they exist, all else aside, and wish that they would pop up more often if anything. Because having these discussions in of itself certainly doesn't hurt anything and there's definitely no way anything can change at all until these discussions are had so regardless of what we personally feel the answers and best approaches to these kind of situations are, it can still only be a good thing to at least attempt to talk these things out and try to figure things out, even if that doesn't necessarily go anywhere, as opposed to just pretending there's no problem at all.
kenmasters
Member
Terrible capitalist consumerism in this thread.
So ironic too. The sheep defending the wolves' right to eat their fellow sheep.
So ironic too. The sheep defending the wolves' right to eat their fellow sheep.
IISANDERII
Member
You don't need to make lame excuses to play the game but since you posted, know that the devs would much prefer improved working conditions.
Royce McCutcheon
Junior Member
Calling someone a hypocrit is not moving goal post. Feel free to compartmentalize your arguments, but if I know a Vegan who still eats chicken, then imma have a hard time taking him seriously as he shames me about animal abuse. It's just a long round about way of saying ".....Well that's different" Industries can and do have expectations you can assume upon entering it's workforce. It's crazy, are we assuming folks here don't work? Don't know how it feels to be overworked? I bet they didn't get lobbyist to change their job, they either dealt with the shit, or left.
Salaries have contracts, these ain't some sheep, why can't grown people be responsible for their own benefit when it's entirely in their hands? Neither the law or society is stopping the employees from suing for unpaid overtime, or striking. Only thing *Boycotting* Rockstar will do, is get the building closed down.
Salaries have contracts, these ain't some sheep, why can't grown people be responsible for their own benefit when it's entirely in their hands? Neither the law or society is stopping the employees from suing for unpaid overtime, or striking. Only thing *Boycotting* Rockstar will do, is get the building closed down.
down 2 orth
Member
Ok, I don't need much persuasion to wait for a game to go on sale anyway.
Agreed. As I don't work there, I am limited yo purchase decisions.
Your first argument relies on inconsistency within a choice about what to eat. The situation here is about the choice of consuming a particular kind of good. They weren't following that up woth berating people for consuming any exploitative good.
As for your point about the workforce, is does not equal ought. This thread is a normative argument.
kqedequalsvolvo
Member
I wasn't debating whether someone was a hypocrite or not for not holding different manufacturers to the same high watermark, I was more making the point that it seems harsh for people to pile on people for ethical consumerist gestures and argue they are inherently pointless or wrong on the basis of widespread, structural inequality. For the record, I don't think anything beyond mass boycotts has much impact whatsoever beyond making the person do it feel better about what they spend their money on and I'm sceptical about ethical consumerism in general. But I wouldn't hate on someone for doing it. It's gesture politics, yeah, but it's not pointless.
But sure, it's a clumsy analogy, sorry. The point I was trying to make was, small positive gestures aren't inherently bad or pointless due to other examples of worse suffering in the same or different sectors. Which some people are arguing, you not being one of them.
Or rather, I agree with you in terms of hypocrisy, but that wasn't the point I was trying to address. There's plenty of things in life that annoy me for being really hypocritical. To use a British example, do I think people with disposable income who eat factory farmed meat on the reg but are morally angry about fox hunting are hypocritical? Yes. Do I think it's inherently bad that they are active against fox hunting? No, it's something, I'm glad they are doing something on that issue. Do I think people who boycott game devs with poor working conditions but happily buy stuff from places with worse conditions are hypocrites? Probably, yeah. Do I think boycotting devs with poor working conditions is therefore not 'good'? No.
Angry Fork
Member
Unfortunately voting with your dollar usually doesn't fix this stuff, it requires unionization or government intervention. Nowhere near enough people care about this to be able to not buy this game day one, it's essentially like voting 3rd party in US elections.
Really hoping unionization comes soon in the gaming and tech industry in general but oddly a lot of tech people are libertarian politically and don't see the use of unions, so things won't get done for a while unless that changes.
Really hoping unionization comes soon in the gaming and tech industry in general but oddly a lot of tech people are libertarian politically and don't see the use of unions, so things won't get done for a while unless that changes.
ShironRedshift
Member
Ditch the analogies, please. The point remains no matter how many analogies you use: doing something is still better than doing nothing. Yes, people might not be perfect and perhaps they should do even more. Even if they're hypocrites or whatever. Cutting down on one's meat intake might not be as good as going cold-turkey, but it's still better than doing nothing at all. Would doing more be an even better idea? Of course! But that doesn't stop cutting down one one's intake and avoiding particular foods being better than making absolutely no changes at all.
In the same way, no matter how many iPhones or laptops a person buys, protesting the conditions of a company like Rockstar is still better than doing absolutely nothing at all and mindlessly consuming both. Might it be better if a person protested both? Of course! Might it make them a hypocrite for doing one and not the other? Sure! But doing something and making any change at all is still better than nothing and wholly endorsing the status quo.
Like, either way, if that's how you have to feel, what do you personally have to lose by someone boycotting a company like Rockstar? Why do you care if that makes them a hypocrite at all? Why is that the relevant takeaway that you keep bringing up? Either way, it's a positive move that you seem to agree with, at least in spirit. Shouldn't take be your takeaway? Even if they could do even more, shouldn't you be happy that they do anything at all? How's it benefit your goals to only argue perfection is worthwhile and it's hypocrisy that's the cardinal sin that should be avoided at all costs, above all else?
You're just fighting against your own causes at that point because you're more concerned with perfection than anything else: even if an individual action is good if it's not met with similarly correct choices on every possible similar issue, it's not worthwhile. I just can't agree with looking at that way. Yes, it might be hypocrisy or whatever, but some progress is nonetheless better than none and I ain't going to tear a person's head off just because they're still wrong on other stuff, because that doesn't help anything.
The point remains: Either taking action against companies such as Rockstar is good or it isn't. That remains the case regardless of what stances people take for other corporations. Even if they get it wrong there, something is still better than nothing and there's no logical reason to be upset at them for making the choice they did in this particular case. You want to talk about the labor conditions used to make iPhones or about the virtues of veganism or whatever? That's great! I'm fully behind you there. But in that case, make a thread in the Off-Topic section about that particular topic because it has nothing to do with whether this particular action is right or not. That remains the case regardless of how much of a hypocrite a person may or may not be and what their stances on other issues are.
That's just a case in point example of ad hominem tu quoque. Regardless of how much a hypocrite the speaker may be, either the argument is valid, or it's not. How much a hypocrite they may or may not be has no bearing on that, is just a distraction from the topic on hand, and focusing on that benefits no one and helps no cause be advanced.
GiantBreadbug
Member
Bunch of folks in here doing their own brand of mental gymnastics lmao
Rockstar games are a passing interest to me. GTA is fun, but upon learning this, my choice is much easier. Won't be buying any more of their games now. Sorry, but treating employees as if they deserve to live comfortably is a requisite for me when it comes to buying products, as well as my general consumer practices.
Rockstar games are a passing interest to me. GTA is fun, but upon learning this, my choice is much easier. Won't be buying any more of their games now. Sorry, but treating employees as if they deserve to live comfortably is a requisite for me when it comes to buying products, as well as my general consumer practices.
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
Those children are hardly doing creative work though, no?
I don't see how this analogy is applicable. Someone choosing a single charity in an effort to make a difference for World hunger is great. Surely is resources are limited and he's doing what he can.
But if that same person was simultaneously CONTRIBUTING to the starvation of others, then it would be a conflict of interests worth pointing out.
By being a gamer, chances are your money financially supports abusive labor practices- even if you avoid abusive developers. There's NOTHING WRONG WITH AVOIDING ABUSIVE DEVELOPERS. There's also nothing wrong with pointing out other abusive practices that drive this industry and industry in general.
Royce McCutcheon
Junior Member
For one, people here are being called morons for disagreeing
Teletraan1
Banned
Sometimes I really loathe the Internet. Well thought out OP, addressing a serious well documented issue that needs to get fixed. Responses are "You lost me at Glass door." Or some other snark.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
America.jpg
ResidentWeevil13
Member
Even if your job was to only buy products that were brought to market using fair and humane labor, you'd still probably end up buying something that was made in a sweatshop or made through prison labor programs or made with shitty OT practices. That's the world we currently live in, unfortunately.
I think instead of calling OP a hypocrit, people in this thread should realize the above. They should also realize that calling attention to shitty work environments anywhere and everywhere is a noble pursuit. Instead of shitting on the OP, maybe pick an industry you feel passionately about (clothing, food) and support workers rights through your spending habits there. Focus your attention on one manageable part of a global problem instead of tearing down your teammates in the fight for better working conditions
I think instead of calling OP a hypocrit, people in this thread should realize the above. They should also realize that calling attention to shitty work environments anywhere and everywhere is a noble pursuit. Instead of shitting on the OP, maybe pick an industry you feel passionately about (clothing, food) and support workers rights through your spending habits there. Focus your attention on one manageable part of a global problem instead of tearing down your teammates in the fight for better working conditions
That's short-term thinking. As soon as a company begin to struggle finding new qualified staff, which they can squeeze out like a lemon, they'll have to rethink their staffing-policy.
Stealthcobra
Member
Name a game company that doesn't have crazy work conditions..
And_Gignac
Member
People rationalizing this level of inhuman exploitation makes me super sad.
Mine? Lots? Idk, are you trying to justify a shitty workplace where you work tons of time you're not paid for just because it happens?
cr0w
Old Member
Are you really sure about that?
Regardless, we must commend OP for taking a stance however minuscule in the grand scheme of things it may seem. If talk generated by this could lead a company head somewhere to ease up on their approach then that's at least something.
Chainsawkitten
Member
Yes. 100%
Nintendo as well, AFAIK.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I don't think it's odd, it's an expected outcome of individualism.
GlamFM
Banned
Checked out Glassdoor.
We´re basing all of this on 12 reviews, the 2 newest ones being a year old and all the other ones going back all the way to 2011?
With 2 of the reviews being actually positive we´re looking at 10 bad reviews over the last 7 years?
This seems like nothing really.
I guess working on some of the best games in the industry is challenging.
Everyone seems to agree that the pay is good though.
it´s nothing .gif
We´re basing all of this on 12 reviews, the 2 newest ones being a year old and all the other ones going back all the way to 2011?
With 2 of the reviews being actually positive we´re looking at 10 bad reviews over the last 7 years?
This seems like nothing really.
I guess working on some of the best games in the industry is challenging.
Everyone seems to agree that the pay is good though.
it´s nothing .gif
IISANDERII
Member
I don't know if you know that labour laws exist. What I am sure of is that you don't know why they exist.
Brerlappin
Member
Wow, the Rockstar defense force out in droves here. Rockstar have had a scummy reputation dating back to the time of the original RDR release. There were similar articles released then detailing what a horrible company they are to work for. But who cares, its the employees faults for taking a job and how dare we criticize the living gods who created such flawless masterpieces as GTA 4
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
It's not nothing. It may not be a huge issue but it's somewhat of an issue worth discussing.
Nice try tho
GlamFM
Banned
10 negative reviews (let´s be honest - some of them most likely by the same person) over 7 years in a company of this size is basically nothing in my book.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Wrong on so many levels. You just don't get it
ShironRedshift
Member
Someone clearly hasn't actually read the OP at all...