-
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.
Gamespot's clickbait title about RDR2 [Truth: Four writers worked long hours for three weeks of a seven year project]
- Thread starter caffeware
- Start date
MadYarpen
Member
Yeah if this is true I have problem with buing the game and supporting this shit. Like, seriously. I may wait to buy it second hand or whatever...
There were times over last 4 years where I had to work 12+h, and on Saturdays, occasionally on Sundays, but not that extremely, I think my average was around 11 hours, 5 days a week. And even then I felt it was devastating.
MadYarpen
Member
No, it is not...
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
On the fence with the 100hr work week. At a glance, yes, that's horrible, and I would never dream of doing that much work, but it's not like they don't have a choice. We're talking about some of the biggest and best game developers in the business, who could all find easier work elsewhere in a heartbeat, not sweat shop workers who have no other job opportunities. For all we know, some of them were proud to have worked so hard on a project that will more than likely become one of the best video games of all time. Maybe that's just the price of this level of technical art.
Just playing devil's advocate. 100hr work weeks are insane and I hope they're compensated accordingly when the game inevitably makes a shitzillion dollars.
Just playing devil's advocate. 100hr work weeks are insane and I hope they're compensated accordingly when the game inevitably makes a shitzillion dollars.
And, just in the off-chance those people, all adults, presumably, worked 100-hour weeks out of their own volition, because they actually cared and liked what they were doing?
Because it's completely unheard of, enthusiasts or more generally dedicated professionals doing over-time and being rewarded for it. Now, I am not claiming that's what happened here. Nor am I saying Rockstar management didn't have anything to do with it.
But people asserting the contrary, with the usual degree of certainty, and the usual levels of derision, do need to come forward and bring in that suborn pesky old friend called evidence.
I would assume Rockstar didn't break the law. If they did, by all means, fine them till Brigadoon is restored back to normality. Last time I checked the market was still working and people were still free to decline what I would assume are Rockstar's legal, legitimate albeit extremely demanding requests and seek work elsewhere.
Because it's completely unheard of, enthusiasts or more generally dedicated professionals doing over-time and being rewarded for it. Now, I am not claiming that's what happened here. Nor am I saying Rockstar management didn't have anything to do with it.
But people asserting the contrary, with the usual degree of certainty, and the usual levels of derision, do need to come forward and bring in that suborn pesky old friend called evidence.
I would assume Rockstar didn't break the law. If they did, by all means, fine them till Brigadoon is restored back to normality. Last time I checked the market was still working and people were still free to decline what I would assume are Rockstar's legal, legitimate albeit extremely demanding requests and seek work elsewhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
TimFL
Member
This. But GAF is essentially all about grabbing the pitchforks without thinking.
It‘s not uncommon here to stay for hefty overtime when you‘re passionate about a project.
Snoopycat
Banned
You don't think there'd be repercussions for walking out on one of the biggest game developers on the planet? You actually believe that somebody could just quit their job at Rockstar and that wouldn't affect their opportunities? How would they "find easier work elsewhere in a heartbeat" without a reference from the employer they just walked out on? What if Rockstar make their employees sign contracts which have clauses banning them from working for competing software developers? This isn't some shitty retail job or low level factory position that can be dumped without a second thought.
SonGoku
Member
im sure the employees are just happy at R* and wouldn't have it any other way
If they wanted to leave they would, devs with their pedigree won't have any shortage of job offers.
fixd that for you
new gaf is tamer than most other places when it comes to grabbing pitchforks
Last edited:
Sure thing.
Just present evidence the contracts are written the way you suggest. Of course then you'll have to deal with the subsequent problem of the employee, having read the contact beforehand, still signing it. Meaning, without coercion. Will you look at that. An adult voluntarily signing a contract whose clauses you despise. It's the sort of thing that should be outlawed as of next week.
If Rockstar broke the law, fine them. Sue them for every penny. If you find the working conditions there appalling, walk away, don't even apply. Seek work elsewhere.
Being an adult has its burdens. Freedom has its burdens.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bluecondor
Member
I think people are taking the 100 hour work the wrong way. The sustained amount of focus you can achieve during a 100 hour work week is sometimes vital and necessary when you are trying to get a project done.
When you are really into finishing a project, it is not unheard of to put in 15+ hour days for weeks and even months at a time. Thinking back to when I did my doctoral dissertation, for example, there were a few points in the process in which I put in 100 hour work weeks for several months.
Even now - I still put in 100+ hour work weeks now and then to finish a project. For example - I had an award packet due last year that was nearly 300 pages. I "voluntarily" put in nearly 100 hours of work twice in the process because I needed that sustained amount of time devoted to generating the 300 pages.
Now - if these guys are not fairly compensated for this, that is another matter. But - we shouldn't take away another professional's 100 hour week just because it's not something desirable.
When you are really into finishing a project, it is not unheard of to put in 15+ hour days for weeks and even months at a time. Thinking back to when I did my doctoral dissertation, for example, there were a few points in the process in which I put in 100 hour work weeks for several months.
Even now - I still put in 100+ hour work weeks now and then to finish a project. For example - I had an award packet due last year that was nearly 300 pages. I "voluntarily" put in nearly 100 hours of work twice in the process because I needed that sustained amount of time devoted to generating the 300 pages.
Now - if these guys are not fairly compensated for this, that is another matter. But - we shouldn't take away another professional's 100 hour week just because it's not something desirable.
Redneckerz
Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
I have to cringe at these folks going all ''Yo what up'' on the 100 hour work week metric. Lets get the exact cite of it in here:
“We were working 100-hour weeks” several times in 2018, Dan says.
Given this is a huge game and development has started several years prior, is this really a rightful call to be surprised over? It says ''Several times in 2018.'' The game is out this month. There is this thing called a crunch period where at the end of development, yes, you get into 100 hour work weeks as you prepare the game for a gold master. Now, Houser isn't saying when these 100 hour work weeks happened, so it may very well be in January and in August, nor does Houser say how often these 100 hour work weeks occurred. When its near release, yes, there will be weeks when you hit 100 hours.
The only thing that is odd is the inclusion of several times which implies that these 100 hour work weeks happened even outside of crunch time. Without any further detail however about this, nor when or how often these 100 hour work weeks occurred, this can't be discussed in detail.
Thus, why is this so WTF worthy when crunch periods are a thing with most games? This too is game development. Anything else added to this cite is just you filling in unknown blanks. ''Terrible working conditions''..
It is, however, impressive that people are surprised this exists or read more into the specific cite found above then what's actually there.
Do you geniunely think crunch periods are an exception or what? By that logic, you may have to have issues with a lot of games developed and in stores these days...
This is simply internally filling in the blanks. Lets be honest here.
“We were working 100-hour weeks” several times in 2018, Dan says.
Given this is a huge game and development has started several years prior, is this really a rightful call to be surprised over? It says ''Several times in 2018.'' The game is out this month. There is this thing called a crunch period where at the end of development, yes, you get into 100 hour work weeks as you prepare the game for a gold master. Now, Houser isn't saying when these 100 hour work weeks happened, so it may very well be in January and in August, nor does Houser say how often these 100 hour work weeks occurred. When its near release, yes, there will be weeks when you hit 100 hours.
The only thing that is odd is the inclusion of several times which implies that these 100 hour work weeks happened even outside of crunch time. Without any further detail however about this, nor when or how often these 100 hour work weeks occurred, this can't be discussed in detail.
Thus, why is this so WTF worthy when crunch periods are a thing with most games? This too is game development. Anything else added to this cite is just you filling in unknown blanks. ''Terrible working conditions''..
Even though the attention to detail and the size of the game speak for themselves, but it shows that these kinds of games have a ton of effort applied to them, on a huge scale. This isn't just a studio - It's a factory.
There is nothing impressive about it when most games have crunch periods.
It is, however, impressive that people are surprised this exists or read more into the specific cite found above then what's actually there.
Do you geniunely think crunch periods are an exception or what? By that logic, you may have to have issues with a lot of games developed and in stores these days... I reckon, assuming good faith, that Rockstar isn't like Telltale and its employees are compensated adequately, hereby financially or with secondary conditions, for their work.
Its extreme, yes, but its also part of game development, that's the point. To say its ''terrible working conditions''? You don''t know. Are people abused for that shit like in Telltale? The source does not say anything about that.
This is simply internally filling in the blanks. Lets be honest here.
MadYarpen
Member
I think the problem is that is the standard in the business. And I have some experience in this regard, having worked in a big legal office.
But on the other hand it may have been a single week followed by a week off, who knows. An extreeme ending of development process, so to say? Then I guess overall they are fine.
But if it was generally how they worked for a longer period is just plain wrong and should be criticised.
Personally, I think that if you are good enough to work in a top company, you should be able to do so without agreeing on such monstrous hours. Working for a shitty company regular hours for the best people in business is not really a choice... You could take it to extreeme and say go and work in Walmart or whatever if you don't like it. But why an experienced, educated developer would have to do something like that?
Ar¢tos
Member
No amount of money can compensate the damage that working 100h/week will do to your body and mind. It's disgusting that he proudly admits over working the staff, and I can't imagine anyone working that many hours willingly, no matter how much they enjoy their job.
Last edited:
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Because any developer that can get into Rockstar in the first place can get into, I would hazard a guess, literally any other game studio. This is their requirement for an engine programmer, on an ad posted a few weeks ago:
You get the idea; references aren't everything, and this theoretical person is not going to struggle to find work. This practice is extremely common across the industry because that's how games get made. You halve the amount of time developers are allowed to work on a project and suddenly that project can take over a decade. Some people, like myself, could not handle it, it's not for everybody. But I imagine there's many programmers who would happily work 12 hours days if it meant working for someone like Rockstar.
MadYarpen
Member
I have to cringe at these folks going all ''Yo what up'' on the 100 hour work week metric. Lets get the exact cite of it in here:
No, I am not naive. I just find it striking - 100h/week, and as I said, I used to work a lot and I know what it is, how it feels. I'd like to be able to do something about it.
I certainly hope so. But what is adequate compensation for such week?
Regular over time salary is not good enough IMO, but that's not the point.Fully agree, as I said is matter of scope (see may last message). My first post was a bit knee jerk reaction, I admitt. But still, seeing this number, I think we should not accept this as a standard in game development...
Most people in this business are workaholics and crunch . through it at the end of a project they worked so hard for. I am pretty sure they will get compensated a LOT and also can enjoy a long hard earned vacation.
So the problem now seems to have moved over to lack of imagination. Apparently, soem people can't imagine anyone working that many hours willingly, and so the universe must comply and it must be true, no ifs and buts and maybes about it.
Once I worked 50 hours straight. On something I cared deeply about. Two sleepless nights in a row. I don't regret it a single bit. The fruits of that crunch are with me to this day.
If you are insinuating people were somehow coerced, you better present the evidence, lest your claim be promptly dismissed.
Once I worked 50 hours straight. On something I cared deeply about. Two sleepless nights in a row. I don't regret it a single bit. The fruits of that crunch are with me to this day.
If you are insinuating people were somehow coerced, you better present the evidence, lest your claim be promptly dismissed.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Shepard
Member
I used to work on building sites and towards the end of the jobs we would be doing 12+ hours a day of physical work. I even done a 23 hour day the one time because there was a huge flood in the basement on a huge building in London. It was tiring at first but you do get used to it and the big paycheck at the end, I never complained once and it was optional. Kids these days are scared of a bit of graft.
Thanks for sharing.
Sharing is caring.
Go ahead. It's your time and your money.
Should I care about your time and money?
Baseless assumption.
For example, I have worked 100-hour weeks before and don't share your disposition. I'm waiting for that rational argument that has you deciding what's best for the individual, against his own estimation and will.
So if an individual ponders and evaluates the situation and, uncoerced and duly rewarded, still decides to voluntarily take on a 100-hour week, you will be there by his side telling him that no, you know best, you know what's best for him and that your opinion carries some divine weight?
You can claim half an hour is too much as well. Until you show that you know better than the individuals themselves, the individuals who voluntarily decided to take on such demanding workload, and that your opinion should carry weight in their lives, your claims mean very little, I'm afraid.
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Pretending for a second that that would achieve anything, what if the developers get a bonus for hitting a sales target and you're actively screwing over the people you feel sorry for? What if they wanted to work this hard on it and you're telling them that you're not going to buy it because of how hard they worked?
INdividuals who voluntarily acted?
If you don't work those 100 hour weeks, you get fucking fired. Rockstar has been pretty up front about this.
I find it disgusting that you or anyone else would defend such practices.
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
And yet they've clearly not had a hard time filling their job roles with people willing to accept this in their 20 years as a company. The crunch is not a secret and hasn't been for a long time. Rockstar fires every developer who no longer wants to work those crazy hours? Dozens of developers who are willing line up to take their place. Again, I would not like to do this, neither would you, but what gives you the right to call other people's choices to do so disgusting?
Yes, indeed. Until you can show otherwise, the default assumption - because this is a free market under the rule of Law - is that these people were not coerced. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Don't apply. Quit. Talk with your lead. Go over it with the upper management. Work somewhere else. If that practice is ilegal, sue Rockstar.
Citation needed.
I don't think I'll be able to sleep, worrying over such devastating opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
And you know that how? I do nt now about employment laws in America but I bet you can not get fired for refusing. This is not China or India. Also I love how you decide for other. My Uncle went to become self employed and he wrked his ass off. Often 16-18 hours a day for month and even sometimes on the weekend to get a foot into the sector. This is what self employed people often do and they do it because they want it.
Last edited:
Redneckerz
Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Please show me in the article where it says that Dan is proud about this, or maybe he is just stating numbers?
And no, writing that you had several 100 hour work weeks isn't ''proudly admitting'' things.
Like some others in this thread, you are internally filling in the blanks. Perhaps there are multiple bonuses/perks that come with the job (Even when its not 100 hours a week)? We don't know.
Its why crunch periods are more an exception than a rule - And i assume that it also worked like that for Rockstar. Perhaps they had two crunch periods in 2018 - At the beginning of the year and as they approached gold master. Neither says how often and when these occurred, and i feel this is important to stress because people are already making up stuff that simply isn't said in the particular cite.
As individuals, i doubt something can be done. People demand AAA titles and get upset when get delayed - Perhaps part of the delay is also about staff morality? Who knows. Its far worse operating on a crunch mentality and time frame the entire time - which AFAIK is not present with Rockstar, but was an issue with Telltale and what led to their demise.
Perhaps not, but then we should also settle for longer development times. The consensus is usually that delays are met with negativity, hence why you get this.
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.
Its a lot, yes. But anyone criticizing crunch periods and treating them as if they are a continuous thing aren't better off either. They are called periods for a reason.
Show me some evidence please where 100 hours are to be expected. Because guess what - most games employ this. Its why they are called crunch periods - Nobody in their right mind would do 100 hours/week for months, perhaps even years on end. Hell, that's partially how Telltale ended up being where they are now.
Nuance is a great virtue, as is readily apparent by how you percieve this cite of having to work 100 hour work weeks several times.
Last edited:
mcz117chief
Member
If you are REALLY into something, you can work like 18 hours a day, take a 6 hour sleep break and do it again the next day. I have done something similar a few times. It is all about the person doing it (unless you work in some Chinese sweatshop). I doubt Rockstar gestapo was holding their employees at gunpoint, I think it is more likely that some members of the team were extremely dedicated and enthusiastic and just wanted to keep going to see the fruits of their labor. I honestly doubt anyone of these people were coerced or in any other way forced to put in 100 hours a week.
Paracelsus
Member
If they all got paid six figures and can stay home for months after the project is done, that's cool.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Rockstar-Games-Salaries-E20887.htm
If these numbers are true, then they are basically third world slaves.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Rockstar-Games-Salaries-E20887.htm
If these numbers are true, then they are basically third world slaves.
astroglide
Member
And if we had the game unions they would of have the game be half as long with lots of dlc
Paracelsus
Member
That means 1983 II cannot come soon enough.
Hudo
Member
Yeah, I still can't believe he actually used this as a "marketing bulletpoint" in that interview. It's pretty fucked up to be "proud" of that and use it to market your product.
MadYarpen
Member
But is it always the case? Often here I can read "take all the time you need" after delay news. Of course I know you cannot say neogaf=market, and developers can be public companies, but I have an impression that carefull, good planning, even with some delays, could benefit all and people would accept that.
The Scrivener
Member
The article is unfinished... it goes on to say... "that some people on the development team worked 100-hour week... for nuthin' but love."
mcz117chief
Member
Literally nobody here does
Snoopycat
Banned
What do you mean present evidence? What are you on about? Do you understand that work contracts are private, have NDA clauses in them and don't usually get published on the internet? Present evidence. Lol.
"Of course then you'll have to deal with the subsequent problem of the employee, having read the contact beforehand, still going along and still signing it without coercion."
Awww. Look at you pretending like you have any idea what is in the contracts those employees signed and then using your total lack of any knowledge to dismiss the poor working conditions at Rockstar. You go girl.
"If Rockstar broke the law, fine them. Sue them for every penny. If you find the working conditions there appalling, walk away, don't even apply. Seek work elsewhere."
If it's voluntary, can it be called abuse, though? But maybe you're not concerned with being precise with your words. Maybe the goal here is something completely different.
Evidence needed.
It certainly makes the games actually come out, though I would agree, that's not the sole concern. The absolute chief concern is whether people are being coerced or not. Another concern is whether they are getting paid or not. But I'd laugh for hours on end at the people presuming to know what's best for the developers, better than themselves. If a Rockstar developer came in here telling you, a complete stranger, how you should run your professional life, and that his opinions should take precedence over yours, the joke would be no less hysterical.
Maybe that's why crunch is prevalent in the industry, or so it's said to be ,prevalent in the industry but with the notable exception of the AAA studio you manage, where it's simply unheard of. I do look forward to that GDC presentation on team management.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redneckerz
Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
No crunch on this scale means the game will take even longer to develop. I guess thats why CP2077 is taking its time i reckon? Obviously, they don't abuse the staff like Rockstar apparently does.
Seriously the hyperbole that is thrown around and the stuff people make up because they fail to properly read a cite is amazing. I am sorry, i am usually not one to blanket call this out but this is exactly why these interviews shouldn't be given. People incorrectly translate what is said and bump it up as if its a huge problem that crunch times exist.
I am glad you know it better than Rockstar itself regarding this. Crunch is an expected thing, or every major game is subject to poor planning or greed...
That isn't to say a lot of things can't go wrong during development - Often times inaccurate management is partially a reason, but even if game development would go perfectly, you still end up with crunch times most of the time. Its a sign of the times today as games are increasingly complex. Without it, game development would take even longer than what it is now - You want Star Citizen like dev times for your games? The amount of games released would decrease significantly if we suddenly would abandon crunch periods.
That, and well, there is no opinion from you as to how these employee's contracts are. People are acting as if they are second grade wage slaves, but nobody knows any exact specifics for their contracts. We can't know that eitherway. Even so, people are rather overreacting on a cite so i wish people would actually read that cite and what it implies to say.
I hope that you aren't implying what i think you are implying.
It was not a marketing bulletpoint, it was simply stating what goes on.
Not every number mentioned in an interview is a marketing bulletpoint let alone a tool to boast. The way i read it, its stated as a indicator of the effort spent, not so much as Look at how many hours we work for you.If delays happen too often, people get agiated.. Most people usually don't take kindly to a delay. I mean, its a balancing act. The fact you have users calling it disgusting that a thing called 100 hour work moments can exist on a game of this magnitude (Or most games, really) when in reality the onus of the problem is more on those same users reading the cite improper is what is more problematic. Being upset over 100 hour work moments in this context is literally fabricated outrage bar none.
Even with good planning cames often strike into issues in development. A particular gameplay mechanic proved to be incredibly difficult to implement. Or just a few weeks before gold master a critical bug was discovered. Gamasutra is full of these stories that showcase that game development isn't a package you can wrap up in a planner and it then suddenly will automagically work. Ofcourse, i assume you don't believe that like me, but my point is, even with proper planning you will get into crunch times - Its not a matter of planning your work correctly.
I do agree that proper planning will reduce the chances of seeing delays in development later on though.
Last edited:
So you have no basis for your claims? So it's all carefully guided speculation on your part? So you have no evidence whatsoever and thus your unsubstantiated claims can be dismissed by rational people?
Got it.
Awww, look at you pretending to mind read and having the gal to tell me what I supposedly know. Quick, send an email to Rockstar developers! Tell them they should be quitting, Now!, because, after a careful 2-minute consideration, you have decided, against their own better judgement, that it's just not worth it. You have decided it's just not worth it for them. And because of your stunning ability to insert GIFs as memes and misspell "What?" Rockstar employees should be steady in following your recommendations.
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Where the hell do you live where the lowest average salary being $47k makes you sweat-shop tier poor?
Last edited:
saber45
Neo Member
I currently work in this industry and while no one is "forced" they are definitely heavily suggested to with the implication that if they dont theyll be let go of during their next review. It's pretty tricky to get new jobs in this industry even if you have got Rockstar on your CV
LukeSkywater
Banned
The virtue signaling in this thread is priceless. You arent going to boycott shit.