So you are blaming him for the company exploiting him...I've heard it all now.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Rockstar employees were working "100 hour weeks" for RDR 2 [UPDATE: Rockstar's response]
- Thread starter Odesu
- Start date
So you are blaming him for the company exploiting him...I've heard it all now.
Rockstar is going to have to increase dev time or higher more staff to bring their employees hours down to below 60.
They are going to have to at this point, I don't feel like this story is going away anytime soon. They can most definitely afford the increased budget.
They are going to have to at this point, I don't feel like this story is going away anytime soon. They can most definitely afford the increased budget.
It's really not worth it for your personal well being. Particularly with how much you end up being taxed at that salary, it isn't worth the sacrifice.
This is definitely interesting.
- James Brumpton @Jim936 2h2 hours ago
I was a tester on Max Payne 3 and GTA V. I can honestly say crunch periods were horrible. I was paid minimum wage (£12k p/a when starting) so when overtime came up I snapped it up because my salary allowed me life's basics. No more.
1 reply1 retweet1 like
James Brumpton @Jim936 2h2 hours ago
I worked nights (MP3) and days (GTA V). It would be 10-12hrs, 5-7 days a week. My social life took a real hit. During Max Payne I worked about 50/51 days solid without a day off. This was my own choosing because of the amount of money (or lack of) I was earning.
1 reply0 retweets0 likes
Whilst overtime wasn't "compulsory", I would feel guilty if I didn't sign up for it.
4:58 AM - 16 Oct 2018
1 reply0 retweets0 likes
New conversation
I was lucky to walk away with a £7.5k bonus from GTA V. I'm not ignorant to how lucky and fortunate I was to receive that. Having said that I'd make these points about that... - There's no guarantee of a bonus - Was the money really worth it?
1 reply0 retweets0 likes
I'm not trying to drag anyone. Management were there if I needed to talk and I appreciated that. I'm trying to make the point that "crunch" is not a very pleasant experience. I'm grateful for being given a job and the path that it allowed me to take.
0 replies0 retweets0 likes
THIS !
It makes me sick to my stomach some gamers are trying to defend Rockstar here, when this is CLEARLY unacceptable.
I'm looking forward to the game, but this is shocking and needs to stop ! Especially when you see the compensation is fat from extraordinary for some of that workforce.
Ill be willing to be that on top of this, RDR2 will be even more egregiously riddled with microtransactions than GTAV is, but there wont be nearly a 1/10th of the controversy about it from gamers as there is for say, AC Odyssey, because a lot of gamers, and press, are only too willing to give R* a pass for all manner of shitty behaviour because R* can do no wrong in their eyes
Yet in the same post he thanks them for the experience?
"This was my own choosing because of the amount of money (or lack of) I was earning."
"I'm not trying to drag anyone. Management were there if I needed to talk and I appreciated that. I'm trying to make the point that "crunch" is not a very pleasant experience. I'm grateful for being given a job and the path that it allowed me to take."
and this is why nothing will ever change. You have people in this very thread defending this bullshit and many more on the outside who just don't give a damn.
Just like "we" won't give a damn once the game is out to rave reviews and we're all playing it.
Just like "we" won't give a damn once the game is out to rave reviews and we're all playing it.
You're not "required" to be a crunch happy sycophant when you work for Tesla, but you'll notice everyone who isn't a crunch-happy sycophant at Tesla doesn't last very long there. Same story with Rockstar. Very similar corporate culture of "being part of something special", and a management process that grinds through employees with no regard for their personal welfare. If you don't work overtime, you will be guilt tripped until you break or they fire you. Period. And we have allegations that the company has a history blackmailing employees into quitting.
Yeah for sure.100 hours a week breaks down to Monday to Saturday working from 8am to 1am (lol) or else working seven days a week from 8am to 10pm. There is no way in hell I would do that for any amount of money! Who cares what your salary is when 100 percent of your waking hours are spent in an office surrounding by your coworkers. It isn't an exaggeration to say that you're entire life is your job.I would rather make 1/5 that salary and have a job that allows me to actually have a life outside of work. I enjoy cooking, walking my dog, playing video games, reading, spending time with my friends and family. I wouldn't sacrifice that.
The last time change happened was from someone outside a company so I dont agree that this is solely and internal matter and outside pressure can't at least force them to reevaluate their practices. I can see take two stepping in if enough noise is made, hopefully.
Like I said nothing will happen unless people from within the company, currently, speak out on the subject. We can hope there are a few who will come out anonymously.
They could hire more people to work on the game...but maybe that would mean more micro transactions which everyone would complain about.
I mean, the game is $60. The same prices games have been for almost 2 decades now. They are more involved and bigger. How do you think it's getting done?
I mean, the game is $60. The same prices games have been for almost 2 decades now. They are more involved and bigger. How do you think it's getting done?
If you want some real change to happen, then people need to speak out. Not half assed attempts from 2K because some outsiders think there's a problem with no proof.
to all the people defending Rockstar and still refusing to believe that this is true, isn't it telling that you say these are all past allegations and aren't from current employees - when NO past or current employees are defending Rockstar? That the only one defending the company is literally the founder?
A company the size of R* can't pay people enough to allow them to live well without working for 51 days straight?
And this is why big companies like R* are given a free pass, because employees will think that it will look good on their resume if they have worked at R* and will do what it takes to hold a job there. R* exploit this fact.
On the opposite side, if crunch time was forbidden and a strict pro-employee schedule was followed from day 1 of development, we'd be waiting 10 years in between game releases. (Is that the case with Star Citizen? Are they simply taking their time? If so, look at how much criticism they're getting and SC is crowd-funded through a kickstarter. Have they done crunch-time madness with their 500 employees? What about Blizzard? They used to abide by a "it'll be done when it's done" attitude, before Activision showed up anyway. Do they screw their employees personal lives to get a game out the door too?)
You'd get 1 AAA game every console generation. MAYBE. With just DLC to trail along behind it.
That game may or may not provide enough revenue, on its own, to produce another AAA game, and/or interest in it would not carry over to the next iteration with such a gap between releases.
The follow-up game may not ever happen and the people who made the last game may not be employed there anymore; you lose the core people who made the previous game so great and hope the next staff of programmers and artists can carry the torch.
The juggling act between making a AAA budget game, paying quality staff to make it and getting it out to the consumers while demand is high, in time to max profits is eternal.
I would advise prospective applicants to make sure you read the fine print and let your family read it too, before you sign up. Because that business is an unforgiving bastard for many.
You'd get 1 AAA game every console generation. MAYBE. With just DLC to trail along behind it.
That game may or may not provide enough revenue, on its own, to produce another AAA game, and/or interest in it would not carry over to the next iteration with such a gap between releases.
The follow-up game may not ever happen and the people who made the last game may not be employed there anymore; you lose the core people who made the previous game so great and hope the next staff of programmers and artists can carry the torch.
The juggling act between making a AAA budget game, paying quality staff to make it and getting it out to the consumers while demand is high, in time to max profits is eternal.
I would advise prospective applicants to make sure you read the fine print and let your family read it too, before you sign up. Because that business is an unforgiving bastard for many.
You're 100% right, it was when The Benz left the company, I knew it was kinda recent!
R* has been my favorite dev for as long as I can remember but I'm not going to pretend there isn't something fucked up going on with their workplace conditions. There's been rumblings about this sort of thing for years as every so often it seems like it rears it's head. I honestly hope this story doesn't get swept under the rug and maybe for once something changes. The people that work at R* have made such amazing games and they deserve to be treated a whole lot better than this.
User Warned: Excessive hostility, personal attacks against another member
So the hand-waving went from "we only had reports of crunch from 10 years ago" to "okay crunch for just a few years ago was confirmed, b-b-but one/some people weren't that burned out from it so that makes it fine!!!"
Again, what the fuck is wrong with you? Is it just the fact that you were shown to be wrong so you have to keep digging your heels? This is the internet, nobody gives a fuck about you, just admit you don't give a crap about developers and get on with your life.
Rockstar worked on Red Dead Redemption 2 for EIGHT years and STILL managed to ask 100-hour workweeks from their employees. Let that sink in.
Sadly not in our lifetime. Housers will live happily and won't get the wall.
The answer to all of this is that you treat your staff well and you ignore whiny entitled gamers. Treating staff with respect and thinking about their mental well-being is a good way of getting a better product made and increasing productivity.
I am showing the other side of the coin and you are being insulting. What have I been been wrong about? I think you may be upset that I quoted his whole tweet rather than your select quote.
Seriously, just go look at any Assassins Creed Odyssey thread and you'll see all the shit he was slinging at other posters.
Can you pass me some of whatever it is you're smoking?
This is what was said though :
The "we" absolutely shows Dan was part of the group that did. Also the sentence that precedes it feels coherent with the "clarification" he has given.
Of course there is crunch for the others, but is it 100 hours or 60 hours ? Is it 2 weeks, 3 weeks, or 8 years ?
You have no idea, yet you're all acting like Rockstar forced everyone to work 100 hours a week for years or get fired, and then use 10 years old experiences when the situation was at its lowest point and has supposedly improve since.
Again, the crunch mentality is horrible but it affects 99% of all game studios (and not just game studios). The question is to know how long it goes on and if employees are not penalized if they decide not to go through because they are exhausted.
Which we literally know nothing about in this matter.
Everyone is accusing Rockstar of making everyone work 100hours a week regularly which is preposterous and the sentence was clarified. That doesn't mean there isn't actual crunch more in line with what you see in other companies, which is an industry wide issue, of course, but the Rockstar hatred has been quite something.
Even though I've been critical of Rockstar and Dan Houser, I agree with a lot of what you've written, but I still think he deserves to be ripped.
To me, it just doesn't seem realistic that large numbers of people were working 100 hour weeks, it's not sustainable for a company, people will leave and go elsewhere for more money, especially in this economy. Rockstar doesn't pay their regular developers some high salary, they're paid about the average of the game development sector -- 20% lower than general software development -- and so if the company is routinely asking for insane hours like 100 hour weeks, which is seriously beyond the pale, and they're asking everyone to do that, the company would be a skeleton crew... because as much as you love Red Dead Redemption, GTA, or whatever their hot product is, almost nobody is going to do that to themselves for the love of a game... except highly compensated team members who have longevity with the company and really believe in the mission.
Related to this... there's a little known secret in the tech industry that a recruiter for Amazon shared with me. Amazon has a lot of trouble hiring senior-level engineers at the company, because they've developed a reputation for being a company that overworks developers. They don't have any trouble hiring junior developers, young engineers eager to get out of grad school and put a company like Amazon on their resume, but for seasoned developers they have a tougher time hiring candidates than they should. Experienced developers know that Amazon is known for having really driving, crunch-driven development... Not that they're asking for a ton of extra hours, but there's this reputation that most engineers are overloaded with work and deadlines. That's hurt them, especially because Amazon pays about average to most major software companies (e.g., you're not going to be paid appreciably more at Amazon than you could at CloudFlare, Microsoft, Wayfare, or some other seasoned tech company).
While I don't think it's realistic, I think Houser still deserves getting poked here. He loves the smell of his own shit, and he parades around in a shit-suit in these interviews trying to show off, and I'm enjoying that he's getting criticized for braggadocious claims like this. He obviously thinks working a 100-hour week is a badge of honor, like, he's pouring so much of his life into this game, and that's a testament to its quality. This is an old-school tech/silicon valley misunderstanding, but you saw it with a lot of tech evangelist books from the 90s and 2000s... These CEOs and executives of companies like Jobs or in the gaming industry, Carmichael and iD, who would brag about never sleeping, drinking coffee all night, just to release Doom and Commander Keen, or whatever. Most of them were lying. Sure, Steve Jobs and Jony Ive might work exhausting hours while developing the iPhone, but then they take their millions of dollars and go on some desert odyssey doing peyote for a month, or they go on a trip to Scandinavia and look at architecture for six months and call it work.
But, the ramifications of that silicon valley bullshit is that you have 2nd gen and 3rd gen silicon valley companies who will read a book like Walter Isaacson's The Innovators or Masters of Doom and then think that that's how these companies got successful, failing to look at the other 98% of Silicon Valley tech startups that failed when they implemented those practices. They also fail to see that you end up losing the next generation of talented engineers who can help your company pivot with the market and new trends.
So, I think the shadenfreud against Houser is deserved. He's going to the well on bragging about Rockstar's work ethic, and it creates an incredibly hostile work environment even if he's the only one working 100+ hours (which I doubt anyway...). Because if Dan Houser, the founder of the company, is routinely working 60 or 70 hour weeks, 20+ hours over what he should be working to get his work done, then there's going to be at least a few brownnosing middle managers who think, "Well, if Dan's doing this, then I better do this too..." and then that middle manager is going to have a dozen direct reports who think, "Well... if my manager is doing this... then I better do it too..." And the result of that is that the company does not have a policy of working extra hours, but it ends up having a culture of working extra hours, and that's worse. And then outside of Rockstar, there's going to be a dozen development managers who read this interview and think, "Well, Houser is putting in 100 hours at Rockstar and they're making the most profitable game on eartth, GTAV, and so that means that maybe I should say I'm putting in 100 hours..." and then that toxic culture that Houser perpetuates at Rockstar just got exported to another game development company, and some other junior developer somewhere else is feeling the pinch of toxic culture.
Last edited:
So do nothing and just pretend like everything is ok because apparently it's not worth trying unless someone manages to get R* to do a complete 180? I am sure EA didn't overnight go from crunch to no crunch, you need time to slowly let the old practices erode away but you can't do that if don't start somewhere at least.
Yup. It's crazy, but we probably wouldn't even have a regular GTA or RDR game series right now, even at a 5 to 8 year clip, without crunchtime.
Unless you microtransaction the hell out of it, you're looking at 1 GTA or 1 RDR game per console generation without any crunchtime involved.
Games need to be scaled back, then. Having bulls and horses expand and shrink their testicules might be funny and good attention to detail, but just think about the hours invested in making that work, and how they might have been used in other, more important things.
There's definitely an aspect of this that reminds me of what I've heard from crew on James Cameron movies.
i.e. it's hell, it sucks bad, tons of work, people break down... and they keep coming back, or being replaced easily, because it's a Cameron film.
Maybe if they showed some acknowledgement that it's a problem and expressed a desire to correct it we could give them the benefit of the doubt, but they haven't so why should we?
Yeah ok. Imma drop this pointless tangent and not clutter this thread. At least we are on the same page and agree that something should be done.
Yeah, I find it insane if they had everyone doing 100 hour weeks for crunch. I'd expect that 50 hours would be the most common with maybe a bit of 60 hours ramping up to the end. That still sucks, but it's not 100 hours of suck.
Also do we know if Rockstar contracts out their QA or if its internal?
It really sounds like a guy who chose to take extra work for awhile to make some more money fast. I'm quite sure the crunch isn't pleasant. It's not pleasant when your office does a merger either. But people are acting like it's how they work all the time, it really doesn't seem like it. And everything points to them being compensated for it (which isn't anything special by R*, of course they should. But many acted like they weren't getting paid.). I guess the article will shed more light. But the people who just call everyone a shilling asshole for not immediately denouncing the company seems odd.
Early retirement though. (If you get compensated adequately)
I can confirm that 100hr weeks still give 'enough' time to play. No friends though.
GTA and RDR aren't so far beyond everything else that it's impossible to be done without crunch. I mean you are only assuming it's possible one (horrible) way but that's because we don't see a product from them without their horrible work practices.
It's entirely possible that the studio itself is just horribly mismanaged. I mean, you see other studios (that still do crunch but nowhere near the horrible stories) and they put out great games that are on par, if not better, than what Rockstar puts out. Rockstar is not some mythical game studio whose games can only be done by them.
If the company's name started with "U" and ended with "bisoft" you can guarantee that SG 17 would be singing a different tune.
With ACO all they needed was a few lines in a minority of reviews to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that the MTX resulted in a fundamentally broken, predatory, anti consumer grindfest, but we should definitely wait for more info about the well documented crunch culture at R* going on for over 15 years.
People have pointed out that game devs don't make the same kind of money as other software related fields so even if they took the money and ran I doubt they'd get very far.
To the contrarians somehow still defending Rockstar, here's a Eurogamer article with the twitter responses of some devs who worked at Rockstar-
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...ontroversy-amidst-storm-of-criticism#comments
Here are a few of the tweets-
1. Dylan(@christs_chins)-
2. Aaron Stewart-Ahn(@somebadideas)-
3. Roisi, except spooky(@roisiproven)- in response to Dan Houser's clarification that "no one is forced to work hard"
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...ontroversy-amidst-storm-of-criticism#comments
Here are a few of the tweets-
1. Dylan(@christs_chins)-
2. Aaron Stewart-Ahn(@somebadideas)-
3. Roisi, except spooky(@roisiproven)- in response to Dan Houser's clarification that "no one is forced to work hard"
In that case I would be essentially trading the entirety of my prime years in exchange for being able to chill a bit longer when I was old. Still not worth it for me personally. I want to keep as much of my time to myself that I can during this period in my life (I'm 28, recently married, no kids) and really enjoy my own hobbies, interests, and loved ones.
That is just my own gut feeling though, I get that other people make their own calculus and find it to be worth it.
Oh give me a break
Working 40 - 50 hour work weeks won't make games suddenly less profitable and there won't be less of them. Management may just not be able to cut 70 takes before settling on one anymore in their releases. And they may not have to anyway because employees will be more likely to get it done right the first time when they're well rested!
Why would there be a controversy about RDR 2 ?
The single player is a full game experience with no microtransactions.
The online is a free update added months later which is more like an mmo.
That's nothing like what ACO did.
A $200k salary isn't enough to retire that early though to give up all of your early years.
If you have a family, then even 50 hour work weeks makes things challenging when kids are involved. 100 is completely out of the question.
Early retirement would be 40 or late 30's. That's not old.. anyway, working can be as fulfilling as friends/pets/children to some. Especially when you own your own business and can directly reap the rewards. Not speaking to/ working at a big studio for Rockstar at a fixed (?) wage and not being in charge of your own scheduling/workload. That last bit makes a huge difference.
I wasn't really answering with regards to this specific situation/salary. Just with regards to the 100hr+ work weeks.
That's... fine? There are many other games to play out there. If I had to choose between hundreds of employees being driven to death working and me playing an extra game or two by them, I'd just choose the former.