I see. Still one cannot outright dismiss these claims which have been thrown at Rockstar in the past. They have a history of this sort of behavior.
-
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 grants permission to current devs to talk about company on social media
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
I see. Still one cannot outright dismiss these claims which have been thrown at Rockstar in the past. They have a history of this sort of behavior.
I wanted to explode in laughter but my wife is sleeping next to me
People were outraged about Telltale recently. Right now it just happens to be Rockstar which are the company in focus. It would be great if the debate grows to focus on the larger, widespread issue, since it is obviously not a mere Rockstar problem.
But focusing on the company that happens to be the one that started the current conversation is not dishonesty or hypocrisy.
If some of the people who are outraged today, would fail in their convictions if similar stories showed up about their favorite studios, hopefully someone else would take up the torch and carry on.
Since this is a widespread issue, in and outside the gaming industry, it really shouldn't matter which companies you like or not. Keep buying Rockstar games if you want to play those games. You are unlikely to change labor laws by some symbolic product boycott anyway - but the least we can do is to make our opinions clear, that things should improve. And try to foster those changes through voting, unionizing and voicing our concerns.
R* is well known and popular. If we could shine a light on the exploitative practices we can bring further discussion on the subject. Does this mean we ignore other devs? No. By doing this it puts the entire gaming industry under scrutiny.
On a side note, why are posters going out of their way to call others hypocrites? As if to shame them for having empathy for the devs who claim being exploited? What is the end game? Oh well, you are a hypocrite so ignore this issue and don't feel bad for these people.
Last edited:
Rockstar isn't being singled out. There's been a lot of coverage concerning crunch in the industry, including about Naughty Dog which you pointed out, not to mentiontalks such as this one. It's widely recognized - at least by anyone paying attention - that a whole lot of studios employ crunch and how damaging it is.
This story just happens to have come out around the same time as RDR 2 is very close to release, because Dan Houser outright said they worked 100h weeks in an interview, therefore getting a lot of exposure. The fact it's the second time these sort of news have come out regarding Rockstar (Rockstar Spouse was 8 years ago, curiously enough surrounding RDR as well) certainly doesn't help their case.
User warned: Thread-whining, accusing fellow users of acting in bad faith in a conspiratorial tone.
Then there should be a thread on the issue rather then singling out a single company everytime a few employees tweet there disdain.
Also the timing of all this is quite the coincidence.
It happening elsewhere doesn't make this any less worth being called out and discussed. I'm surprised you answer like this after saying "Well said" to a poster literally saying that "pressure to not normalize crunch is a good thing." It's good that it's talked about in regards to Rockstar, and it has happened and will keep happening with other studios like Naught Dog or CD Projekt also.
There is just a game from Rockstar launching very soon and Houser making problematic statements in an interview, which set off this discussion at this point in time.
You want a crunch thread, that's going to get buried after a little while? New thread, new news. New reports from people mean a new thread. That's pretty standard on ERA.
I think the hypocritical thing is to not to include other devs in the conversation.
Well if people are as passionate about the widespread issue as they are about this R* scandal the thread will have long legs.
Yeah and I bet these same people with cowboy hats on won't defend those studios as much as they have, so far, defended, made excuses, justified, excused, absolved R* of any wrongdoing. What point are you trying to make? Crunch is present in other studios so why are we dogpiling on R*? Your post just reeks of emotional attachment to a studio and you just want people to leave them alone. The only hypocrites here are people like you who choose to direct the blame on other studios and try to normalise this toxic work practice.
This is whataboutism, there's nothing hypocritical about not always inserting "but all other devs do it too" into the conversation. We can discuss devs seperately. This situation specifically is very high profile right now and many ex-devs and devs are voicing their experiences.
Like I said, new news, new thread. Fairly standard.
Dont worry last month my avatar was slinging a web, the month before he had a kratos tattoo.
If avatar choice represents company allegiance, im am allied with many.
There have been multiple threads on Resetera (and the other place) over the last few years concerning the issue of crunch. Kotaku and Waypoint have done a good job of covering it, to the extent that Waypoint has been asking every studio about it over the last year (an article which prompted a large thread here). The discussion covered a variety of companies who crunch. When a news story about a single company comes up, of course discussion is going to be centred on that company. The hope (and I think that hope has been borne out) is that it branches out to discuss the problem as one that is systemic of the industry, and not a single company. I don't mean this rudely, but it's a failure on your part to not have noticed the overarching discussion that has been happening on this subject and that it has focussed on a variety of companies.
Furthermore, it doesn't make people hypocrites to focus their discussion on the most pressing example in front of them when it comes up. A parallel I would draw (imperfect as it is) would be someone like Louis CK defending himself by saying "but there are so many other famous people who are doing even shittier things than I did" (oh wait, that's basically what he did). Do you consider that a valid point? Are the people who criticized his behaviour hypocrites because in their articles they didn't also list the name of every single dude who had sexually harassed a woman in the past 50 years? I think we should be able discuss a Bad Thing without invoking every other Bad Thing in every one of our posts in order to pass your hypocrite test.
Furthermore, it doesn't make people hypocrites to focus their discussion on the most pressing example in front of them when it comes up. A parallel I would draw (imperfect as it is) would be someone like Louis CK defending himself by saying "but there are so many other famous people who are doing even shittier things than I did" (oh wait, that's basically what he did). Do you consider that a valid point? Are the people who criticized his behaviour hypocrites because in their articles they didn't also list the name of every single dude who had sexually harassed a woman in the past 50 years? I think we should be able discuss a Bad Thing without invoking every other Bad Thing in every one of our posts in order to pass your hypocrite test.
Nah, that is considered normal for allot of positions, but of course you aren't paid overtime over 40 hours because of being salaried. In the US, crunch usually means 60+ hours work weeks, 45-50 is more a regular work load. Positions where you only work 40 are more and more rare, especially ones that pay well.
This line of argumentation is so disingenuous. People are talking about Rockstar's case because of the recent Dan Houser interview. Just like they were talking about Telltale's case a few weeks backs and they will be talking about another different case when it's timely.
'Waaaaah just leave Rockstar alone!' Is how some of you people sound in here.
Yes it is. Do lots of people work it? Sure, but 10 hour work days are not 'the norm' for your rank and file anywhere. That's a work day that even a modest commute puts at something like out the door at 7:15 and back home at 6:45
Sure, I left the house at 6:15 today and was home at 7. Is that supposed to be egregious?
All of our avatars are potential hype indicators. That, or things that we're passionate about transformed into hype indicators when a game is near release that we are passionate about.
There's nothing more to read into them as far as calling members out about them.
Last edited:
Hard to say without knowing your commute, and whether it is your standard work hours, but 50 hour work week is fairly high. Not to an extreme degree like 60-100 hours, but it sure doesnt leave much time for family life and leisure.
If employees at Rockstar and other places didn't go above 50 hour work weeks (long-term average, not in short periods) it is unlikely anyone would be seriously bothered by it (even if we should), but it is pushing the limit of what is reasonable.
Last edited:
The notion that Rockstar is being "singled out" is fanboy nonsense. Corporations get called out on their shit when recent events call attention to their shit. Labor conditions in the industry and the ethicality of industry members are regular topics of discussion on this board.
What happens when the accusations are against someone's favorite dev is exactly what you are doing: deflection and whataboutism.
If you're doing it every day? Yes. You'd better be an employee working hard to get a startup going or an owner or senior management or something. If you're just a regular ass engineer? fuck that. That is absolutely a lot as a 'standard' workweek for your entire hundred + employee army of artists and engineers.
It feels like 99% of these tweets are from rockstar north, where the San Diego and Lincoln people tweeting?
It's all about looking as woke and progressive as possible to your followers. You gotta have the hottest take.
listening to Kinda Funny podcast now. Apparently a R* dev known to the show emailed them saying he or she has never worked 100 hours but then went on to say that they worked from February to August, during the busiest they worked between 65 to 80 hours, 7 days a week. They also said others were worse, doing 80-100 hours each week for some time. The dev also said their OT was UNPAID, but they get a bonus come X'mas depending on tenure.
So, their crunch time ran for 7 months, so much for 3 weeks. Even if they did not work for 100 hours, let us not pretend like 80 is any better.
The dev went on to say that they were never forced to work OT, but only because it is illegal to do so. The workload is big and people are expected to complete in time, which means they have to do OT to get everything done otherwise they get pulled to the side and asked questions. Lastly, the dev said, "The whole team would have meetings where we were asked to push as hard as we could. We all knew what this meant."
And so, R* is just skirting around the legalese of "we never forced anyone" but then again, all the other factors that directly and indirectly cause people to work 80 hours say otherwise. Yeah they weren't literally forced to but, I mean, it's basically impossible not to work insane hours if your workload is there and you're expected to meet your deadlines.
So, their crunch time ran for 7 months, so much for 3 weeks. Even if they did not work for 100 hours, let us not pretend like 80 is any better.
The dev went on to say that they were never forced to work OT, but only because it is illegal to do so. The workload is big and people are expected to complete in time, which means they have to do OT to get everything done otherwise they get pulled to the side and asked questions. Lastly, the dev said, "The whole team would have meetings where we were asked to push as hard as we could. We all knew what this meant."
And so, R* is just skirting around the legalese of "we never forced anyone" but then again, all the other factors that directly and indirectly cause people to work 80 hours say otherwise. Yeah they weren't literally forced to but, I mean, it's basically impossible not to work insane hours if your workload is there and you're expected to meet your deadlines.
35 minutes commute each way, but in a way, it's beside the point. Doesn't leave much time for family life and leisure? Limits of what is reasonable?
This is the stuff that bothers me to the nth degree. Everybody here has this weird ideal about what the "right" and "just" amount of time is and throws out these blanket statements about it. 50 hours is normal for my job, 60+ is rare but can happen in crises. If I at all have any skin in the game as far as my career is concerned I'm happy to work those extra hours at those times because it is where my skill sets are applied the most, I add the most value, and I see calculable results. I won't even say that game development should fit the exact same criteria, but goddamn, the jump to conclusions that is brought here without any semblance of insight into the on-the-ground situations of 90+% of the employees is quite maddening.
All of our avatars are potential hype indicators. That, or things that we're passionate about transformed into hype indicators when a game is near release that we are passionate about.
There's nothing more to read into them as far as calling members out about them.
Yes, its ichi that implied people with RDR themed avatars have a bias towards R*.
I dont think anyone are saying 50+ hours is not 'normal'. It sadly is in some places.
I, and others I've seen here, are saying , it should not be.
It isn't about what a 'just' amount of time is. It is what a healthy amount of time is. One that does not harm the individual. One that doesn't harm their families (if they have one). One that doesn't harm the job they are doing (in the other thread on this topic, people were talking about how doctors and nurses were working long hours because of the important jobs they did - which only makes it much worse...).
We realistically can't/shouldn't limit what people want to inflict on themselves if they are self-employed, but we can place limits on what an employer can inflict on their employees.
Obviously we cant put hard limits on this, that would be just right for all jobs. It is a gradual transition, that heavily depends on the type of work. 100 hours, or even 80 hours, are just so far beyond what should be acceptable regardless of any other consideration.
Last edited:
Yah you didn't allay my concern at all here. Sorry I can judge my health and my families health without someone arbitrarily limiting what I am to do for my employment. Whether that's mutually agreed for contract work, employment work, or entrepreneurial work. I don't see a difference.
I suggest, however, we're probably at an impasse here. Good to know where people's thoughts are stemming from even if I vehemently disagree.
It's almost like this is the truth and that the people that have made video games their entire lives can't cope with any kind of criticism against their favorite studio, no matter how shitty their practices may be.
Exactly. Its probably official company policy and they aren't lying when they say that HOWEVER I think we've all been in situations where social pressure is really put upon you to do something even if it isn't required and if you don't maybe you performance review doesn't go so well or maybe you're the first one to get laid off.
Corporation doesn't care about employees
Hottest take in the universe /s
Never got the industrial revolution at school or what?
Yes. I only have one life to live. Why should i waste all of it making someone else rich?
40 hours is way too much even.
Except many employees said they never were pressured to work overtime.
This is what people don't get. It is not a cooperative, you are being robbed of your production by definition to end up with net profit for shareholders.
My employment arrangement is mutually beneficial. It's the only way I'd ever enter into it.