Kotaku's Jason Schreier: Inside Rockstar Games' Culture Of Crunch
- Thread starter Deleted member 10629
- Start date
Seem to be in line with what we expected. Some departments were able to wrap up their work and had reasonable hours. Departments whose type of work didn't have that luxury felt the full weight of AAA dev crunch. I don't know anyone working on Red Dead 2, but the stories from GTA5 and GTA Online sounded soul crushing. Not surprised little has changed.
Unfortunately, it's not an uncommon policy.
That to me seems like a massive change in the last parts of development and something that should have been figured out a long time ago. Adding black bars to a game as massive as this one at such a juncture seems to imply some poor planning and design.
What the actual fuck is this
Calling the Housers control-freaks seems generous to control-freaks.
This is something that doesn't surprise me.
Crunch has improved over the years in the industry, but it definitely hasn't done so equally, so there are studios and departments that get shafted to improve things elsewhere.
Even excluding internal staff, you can, for example, make huge demands on outsourcing partners in short timeframes to work your artists less.
"What followed was one of the strangest interview experiences I've ever had. Rockstar's head of PR and communications, Simon Ramsey, sat with me at a table in a fourth-floor conference room. Ramsey said we'd be video-chatting with staff from all across the world, and after some brief technical issues, we were faced with two boxes on a screen. In one box, on the left, two employees sat on a couch at Rockstar New England. In another box, on the right, three Rockstar North employees also sat on a couch. They all wore casual clothes, some adorned with Red Dead Redemption logos and slogans. We exchanged quick introductions, and then I was given free rein to interview them about their work-life balances and crunch experiences. All five of them. At once."
"After one of these calls, Ramsey turned to me and asked what I thought so far. I told him that I believed these stories but was skeptical that anyone could be transparent under interview circumstances like this. He seemed surprised."
"After one of these calls, Ramsey turned to me and asked what I thought so far. I told him that I believed these stories but was skeptical that anyone could be transparent under interview circumstances like this. He seemed surprised."
I think it absolutely depends on the field. I was raising an eyebrow at the idea that 55-60 hours average is not outside the norm for most companies. It sounded anecdotal or guessing rather than a fact based on actual data.
Also, even if 55-60 hours per week is normal, that doesn't mean it's healthy, required to get the work done, fair to employees, etc. Defending the status quo because it's what's currently normal stands directly in opposition to working conditions improving.
People who try to say 50-60 hours a week is 'normal' want to sort their priorities out. Doing that every so often - sure everyone has to. But for weeks on end for years? That is messed up, unhealthy and socially destructive. Doesn't matter how much you earn. It isn't worth it.
Oh no, not the best selling developer in the world! Is something like Transformers 4 above reproach because it grossed a billion dollars too?
It's dumb, my friend, because movies come in all sorts of aspect ratios. The cinematic quality is not decided by a proportion, but by the composition, the staging, the lighting, and so forth. This smells of a decision from somebody that really does not know or care much about cinema. Of somebody that one day watched a Leone movie and said, "Hey let's make our game all widey and stretchy like that (despite the fact that our cut-scenes had been designed and made with an entirely different aspect ratio all this time)." It's just nonsense. It's no different than other devs thinking they're gonna make their game look cinematic by bathing it in a grain filter and chromatic aberration. They added necessary workload unto the developers on what seems like a whim.
As someone who has worked in multiple companies on the software side, there's pretty much always crunch - especially as certain timelines come to a close. This doesn't seem strange. I mean, sure, it's never ideal, but this doesn't seem different than another industry?
I mean, things like not being listed in the credits may not apply to someone not in games, but I mean, I doubt any of us in other industries have been in a credits roll for a project we've been on. I'm not condoning "forcing" people to work ridiculous hours for months on end, but let's not pretend that Rockstar is some sort of a sweatshop compared to any other software company.
I mean, things like not being listed in the credits may not apply to someone not in games, but I mean, I doubt any of us in other industries have been in a credits roll for a project we've been on. I'm not condoning "forcing" people to work ridiculous hours for months on end, but let's not pretend that Rockstar is some sort of a sweatshop compared to any other software company.
50-60 hours is not out of the ordinary, and no where close to the 100 hours previously reported.
Yea nothing wrong with working 10 hours 6 days a week for an entire year, nothing at all.
That is some cult "I am not being held against my will " bullshit
It IS out of the ordinary to do 60hours weeks for YEARS. It'd be illegal if it was in a proper country with real worker protection.
How can people fucking defend this
Here's my two cents from reading this article:
1. Rockstar's policies & culture have been really bad.
2. They've gotten better lately but they still have a long way to go.
3. We need unions.
1. Rockstar's policies & culture have been really bad.
2. They've gotten better lately but they still have a long way to go.
3. We need unions.
Aaaannnddd heeeerrrreeeee coooommmmeeee the angry Red Dead Redemption twwooooooo defendeerrrsss
I'm only halfway through the piece (it's incredibly long. Amazing work by schreier again) but all of this brings forth a dilemma to me. Do you not buy the game to protest these conditions? It sounds like an easy yes but the article states that a lot of the salaried employees are hoping for bonuses that are hinged on the game selling well because they don't get compensated for overtime work.
This whole thing is such a clusterfuck result of no unions and no regulations by governments.
This whole thing is such a clusterfuck result of no unions and no regulations by governments.
Union workers with strict guidelines on overtime pay.
Couldn't have made a worse comparison if you tried.
My SO worked 12 hour shifts as a nurse, but that was only 3 days a week.
it's helpful to read an article first if you want to discuss it
"Others said they still had it rough, however. Three people who worked at Rockstar San Diego between 2011 and 2016 recall a period where they were told that overtime wasn't optional. "It was mandatory 80 hours for basically the whole studio," said one person who was there. "If you don't have any work to do on Red Dead 2, just test GTA V for another eight hours." Said a second: "Maybe they didn't tell anyone 100 hours, but they definitely told us 80. Concept artists were sitting there being glorified QA.""
"A second Rockstar NYC developer also said they reached out because of Houser's comments. "While nobody I know worked 100 hour weeks, many of us worked 60-80 hour weeks for the past one or two years," they said. "To hear one of the heads of the company effectively go on record as saying none of that ever happened has been a huge blow to morale at a time when we should be celebrating.""
The whole industry is fucked.
Devs needs to unionize now.
10 to 20h more each week for months or years?
100h is insane, 50-60h is still fucking bad
Devs needs to unionize now.
10 to 20h more each week for months or years?
100h is insane, 50-60h is still fucking bad
Very good reporting and a good read.
I'm really not sure what the solution is. It's clear that making these huge games with AAA production values that many of us love and have as the main reason we keep gaming take huge teams to make even with terrible amounts of crunch. Thus the super high budgets need to be even higher so teams can be even bigger to reduce crunch through having enough staff to get it done in a reasonable time frame with reasonable workloads.
But so many gamers bitch about $60 game prices (especially games that stay full price for a long time), or complain even about good DLC (nice expansions released well after launch) that it's near impossible for them to raise prices to maintain profit margins and keep shareholders happy while expanding the size of the team enough to eliminate crunch.
Something has to give there if the problem is going to go away. Really, some big time release like this just needs to come out at $100 as the only option (and include any expansions in that price) and succeed and set a standard for huge budget games costing more. There's no justification for a huge budget game with top notch production values costing the same $60 as something like Octopath Traveler and other titles with much smaller budgets and development teams.
But even then, you'll always have the issue of workaholics who love their jobs (or just have strong work ethics and want to get ahead faster by going the extra mile) working a ton more and risking setting the standard of that being what's expected. It's not really realistic to require companies to force people out of the office after 8 hours, and even if you did those types would probably just have rigs at home and work more there.
It's a complex issue and hard to solve as I don't want to shame those people as a strong work ethic is one of the things I pride myself on and most value in others. People just wanting to laze around and do the bare minimum to get buy have little use to me (I'm not a people person in general, so more of a what can you do for me type). But at the same time, no one should feel forced to work more than the standard 40 hour week--much less if any overtime isn't paid. So it's not something I see getting solved anytime soon, if ever. Hopefully we just see improvements like seem to have happened at Rockstar over the years. There's still some bothersome stuff about the development of RDR2 in that article for sure, but it still seems like a big improvement from the development of the first game and some of the other titles mentioned.
50-60 has never been a big deal to me personally. I did that regularly for years when working toward tenure and I was/am salaried so I didn't get any overtime pay. Tangible benefits were just being more productive to have a safe tenure case, and occasionally some extra money (summer pay from landing grants, consulting pay for some outside work etc.).
I do it much less often post tenure, but definitely would do it regularly if I was in a position to get overtime pay. We don't have kids, and my wife works longer hours (also a salaried position, she's just a workaholic type and loves her job) so I have a ton of free time and the extra money would be nice.
That said, as above I don't support people feeling pressured that working 50-60 hours (much less more) is the expectation. I just have no qualms with it being an option for people who want to do it out of love for the work or ambition to try to go the extra mile and get promotions faster etc. As long as people doing excellent work on 40 hour weeks are still getting noticed and promote, it's all good to me. It's just the challenge of how to not have the workaholics move from being the exceptions to the norm who are going way above and beyond to setting the standard for what is expected at that company.
I'm really not sure what the solution is. It's clear that making these huge games with AAA production values that many of us love and have as the main reason we keep gaming take huge teams to make even with terrible amounts of crunch. Thus the super high budgets need to be even higher so teams can be even bigger to reduce crunch through having enough staff to get it done in a reasonable time frame with reasonable workloads.
But so many gamers bitch about $60 game prices (especially games that stay full price for a long time), or complain even about good DLC (nice expansions released well after launch) that it's near impossible for them to raise prices to maintain profit margins and keep shareholders happy while expanding the size of the team enough to eliminate crunch.
Something has to give there if the problem is going to go away. Really, some big time release like this just needs to come out at $100 as the only option (and include any expansions in that price) and succeed and set a standard for huge budget games costing more. There's no justification for a huge budget game with top notch production values costing the same $60 as something like Octopath Traveler and other titles with much smaller budgets and development teams.
But even then, you'll always have the issue of workaholics who love their jobs (or just have strong work ethics and want to get ahead faster by going the extra mile) working a ton more and risking setting the standard of that being what's expected. It's not really realistic to require companies to force people out of the office after 8 hours, and even if you did those types would probably just have rigs at home and work more there.
It's a complex issue and hard to solve as I don't want to shame those people as a strong work ethic is one of the things I pride myself on and most value in others. People just wanting to laze around and do the bare minimum to get buy have little use to me (I'm not a people person in general, so more of a what can you do for me type). But at the same time, no one should feel forced to work more than the standard 40 hour week--much less if any overtime isn't paid. So it's not something I see getting solved anytime soon, if ever. Hopefully we just see improvements like seem to have happened at Rockstar over the years. There's still some bothersome stuff about the development of RDR2 in that article for sure, but it still seems like a big improvement from the development of the first game and some of the other titles mentioned.
50-60 has never been a big deal to me personally. I did that regularly for years when working toward tenure and I was/am salaried so I didn't get any overtime pay. Tangible benefits were just being more productive to have a safe tenure case, and occasionally some extra money (summer pay from landing grants, consulting pay for some outside work etc.).
I do it much less often post tenure, but definitely would do it regularly if I was in a position to get overtime pay. We don't have kids, and my wife works longer hours (also a salaried position, she's just a workaholic type and loves her job) so I have a ton of free time and the extra money would be nice.
That said, as above I don't support people feeling pressured that working 50-60 hours (much less more) is the expectation. I just have no qualms with it being an option for people who want to do it out of love for the work or ambition to try to go the extra mile and get promotions faster etc. As long as people doing excellent work on 40 hour weeks are still getting noticed and promote, it's all good to me. It's just the challenge of how to not have the workaholics move from being the exceptions to the norm who are going way above and beyond to setting the standard for what is expected at that company.
Blindingly obvious. Any one who has worked a month in any office could have told you that but we still had clueless morons in the other thread parroting the "Its optional" nonsense.
This whole article is nauseating to read. I dont know what is worse, the fact that so many experiences there tell you how horribly they were exploited with the promises of bonus or permanent job (instead of a contract based position) being dangled above their heads or the ones that have convinced themselves that they loved working 80 hours a week.
I mean, tell me how this is not Stockholm syndrome -
Absolutely disgusting.
Literal fucking hostages LMAO.
That's made me settle on getting RDR2 used at most. Enjoyment of gaming shouldn't just be about those playing the game but also those making it too.
The most important paragraph:
Whatever we know now, we don't know the worst of it.
The bottom of the well is deeper than our reach.
Whatever we know now, we don't know the worst of it.
The bottom of the well is deeper than our reach.
This is just insane. People coming in on weekends just to look good for the boss.
I missed the part where it says it's not just for a few weeks to get the game done, but more like a company policy to work long hours for extended periods of time.
In that case yeah, it's not normal at all.
Yeah, this is absolutely fucked.
Acknowledge people for their work, Rockstar.
I'm buying the game, if only because now I know that salaried employees' bonus money is tied to it, but holy shit the Houser brothers are garbage and unions need to happen.
Hell of a read, some damn fine reporting from Schreier as per usual.
The section that stood out in particular was people sticking it out at Rockstar so they could get a GTA or RDR to their name so then they could pretty swiftly get the fuck out. That and upper management seem like a all round garbage fire.
The section that stood out in particular was people sticking it out at Rockstar so they could get a GTA or RDR to their name so then they could pretty swiftly get the fuck out. That and upper management seem like a all round garbage fire.
Yeah it's "only" 50-60 hours a week for years, as well as a general toxic work environment. Everything is fine you guys!
You bring up a good point, but honestly. The game will do well. The people who care enough to boycott won't make a dent. But what we can do as make noise. Make it a conversation that persists after the game has launched. Rocktstar will definitely be evaluating how they deal with their work culture going forwards because of this.
It reads like how R Kelly would set up and interview with his "girlfriends"
I totally believe the assertion that the worst stories are unprintable because they'd allow people to be targeted for legal repercussions. Especially if you are still there and are hoping to see that bonus come in so your family will see some small benefit from your suffering. Maybe Schreier can write a tell all book in a couple decades when Sam and Dan have passed on.
The website with the huge list of names is pretty sad. Those all could have fit in the credits, since they are already bloated from needing multiple studios to ship the title.
The website with the huge list of names is pretty sad. Those all could have fit in the credits, since they are already bloated from needing multiple studios to ship the title.
OPTIONAL crunch, you see.
Damn, and the black bars stuff... I have seen those type of stuff with people ive worked on this industry, but usually with people that were at the top and shouldn't. I thought Rockstar was better than that. The black bars stuff is something you try in the first cinematics tests, not when every cutscene is already made. Like anyone with a head would undertand is not only adding 2 black bars, is actually chaning cameras and reshooting everything again with those black bars so everything works visually without cuts.
The more I read into these companies, the more they sound like cults run by narcissistic fuckstains who prey on - and are enabled by - the insecure and the idealistic.