I am
not surprised that you are
against it considering you read the original cite regarding this incorrectly. Like
i said in that thread:
''Read the cite and put it into context if you are aware that crunch periods exist. Then the given number is a lot more manageable, predominantly because it misses crucial details to form a proper critical assessment. The fact that you are criticizing this despite these details left out means you aren't reading the cite in context.''
So yeah, i am not surprised since you didn't really bother to understand what the cite was referring to, nor are you understanding it now. To be precise: The cite referred to 100 hour work weeks as
temporary moments, not
consistent things. It does not say that as much, (But nothing you could logically deduce if people actually read the cite) but if you are aware with the concept of crunch you would
know that crunch times don't typically last for months on end. That would be a TellTale situation and you see what happened to them.
If anything it showed people have troubles with logical deduction, which is concerning enough since this is apparently a big enough problem that Rockstar had to clarify itself over it.
I have no interest in this subject because I don't care about professionals who don't value themselves. They work for peanuts, after you divide the total amount of hours worked by the actual money they made. But this constant brainwashing is what drives young people towards these traps.
It doesn't matter how you or anyone else feel about it, or how passionate anyone is. They are making peanuts and the CEO is making millions. They are basically working for someone else to get rich.
Things like financial education or career management are important, especially to young people. Instead of cheering 100h work weeks for no money. Why not cheer 100h work weeks for making lots of money?
*Citation needed*
Man, I'm just getting sick of all these pointless "controversy" that filled entire NeoGaf forums these days. There is not proper discussion about the actual games anymore, its seems here people are more interested the "controversy" behind the game rather than the actual game itself. Heck here the game with most "controversy" will get the most attention, even VC4 got that little attention because whole butt grab controversy and maybe if Fist of the north Star had some kind of "controversy" behind it maybe it would got some attention.
I hear ya. Despite being a heavy contributor to responding to that
controversy (Trying to explain why it isn't controversial whatsoever) it was essentially scooping with a shovel whilst the floodgates went open. It's really
frustrating to see it out in play, especially when it's done by people who have no clue about how the industry works but think that a
misinformed opinion is a valid one, often doubling down on it aswell. And then it even turns out that what they were arguing against was false and the
evidence for Rockstar being a shitty company is usually backtraced to decade old stuff from Team Bondi,
not Rockstar.
Its a shame because the game has an insane eye for detail which makes it instantly explainable why the studio had to employ so many people working on it. Even trivial details like dirty boots or the saddles on your horse... its a lot and its far more interesting to discuss that than having to spend dozens of posts defending a position you saw happening from the get go would get misinterpreted.
Since you seem to know, I ask my question again. How much are Rockstar's devs paid, exactly?
Don't expect any answer, its far easier to make a claim than to actually
elaborate it. Same thing
happened to me in an earlier thread regarding similar sentiments.
It should also be noted that a lot of this sentiment goes back to Team Bondi and not to Rockstar itself, making it even worse as they are blamed for things they didn't even do back then. All in all Its really disingenous behavior and it does not make them
right, at all.
