Rockstar developers "working 100 hour weeks"

OrangeRKN wrote:Yeah I meant that no boycott will get the support it would need to have a significant impact so would be a largely pointless exercise

What I meant by it not being for the market to decide working conditions is that relying on the market to enforce workers rights isn't enough, it requires legislation and probably unionisation. So effort put into boycotting would be better directed into those areas.

Fair enough, your post read differently to me so apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick.

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

rinks wrote:

Moggy wrote:the market absolutely should dictate working conditions, because if it doesn’t, who will?

Sounding a bit Tory there, mate.

Far from it. There should be laws in place to protect workers, but exploitative employers are always going to be there and the market (i.e. us!) should respond to that and force companies to alter their behaviour or face a slump in profit. The UK/EU governments should do far more (far far more!) but there is also a responsibility on consumers to not accept companies that work their employees into ill health.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the market as a whole responding to things the way you think they should rather than how it actually does. People know about exploitation of foreign labour in gooseberry fool conditions, but they still buy cheap clothing and iPhones.

The market is gooseberry fool at dictating working conditions.

I am not saying that a boycott would work or that people would stick to it if one was called.

But you are being very naïve if you think things are going to change without consumers making a conscious effort to force companies to change. We are living under a Tory government that is lurching ever further right. Even if Corbyn gets in and attempts to change it, the American government is never going to stop it.

It’s fine to think that people are not going to stick to a boycott (you are right, they almost certainly wouldn’t) but it’s not good enough to say “well nobody else is doing it so I am just going to buy the product anyway” – that’s the exact same argument as Boris Johnson uses to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Dual wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Question people should be asking is "Do I want to support this culture through buying this game?"

The price you pay for an excellent product

Yeah, there's so much wrong with this statement it's not even funny.

Gemini73 wrote:

Dual wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Question people should be asking is "Do I want to support this culture through buying this game?"

The price you pay for an excellent product

Yeah, there's so much wrong with this statement it's not even funny.

There's so much Dual with this Dual, I don't even get it.

Might just merge the two topics for lolz.

Mafro wrote:Might just merge the two topics for lolz.

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

rinks wrote:

Moggy wrote:the market absolutely should dictate working conditions, because if it doesn’t, who will?

Sounding a bit Tory there, mate.

Far from it. There should be laws in place to protect workers, but exploitative employers are always going to be there and the market (i.e. us!) should respond to that and force companies to alter their behaviour or face a slump in profit. The UK/EU governments should do far more (far far more!) but there is also a responsibility on consumers to not accept companies that work their employees into ill health.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the market as a whole responding to things the way you think they should rather than how it actually does. People know about exploitation of foreign labour in gooseberry fool conditions, but they still buy cheap clothing and iPhones.

The market is gooseberry fool at dictating working conditions.

I am not saying that a boycott would work or that people would stick to it if one was called.

But you are being very naïve if you think things are going to change without consumers making a conscious effort to force companies to change. We are living under a Tory government that is lurching ever further right. Even if Corbyn gets in and attempts to change it, the American government is never going to stop it.

It’s fine to think that people are not going to stick to a boycott (you are right, they almost certainly wouldn’t) but it’s not good enough to say “well nobody else is doing it so I am just going to buy the product anyway” – that’s the exact same argument as Boris Johnson uses to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Incidentally, I won't be buying this, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who won't, even if it's not going to make a jot of difference to Rockstar.

Yes consumers have to drive change, but they won't do it organically. The market will continue to fail people on working conditions, especially as it keeps inventing new forms of work, until there is some external influence to correct it, whether it be state intervention, unionisation, or other forces driving to educate consumers and lobby retailers/manufacturers.

The market on its own will always continue to exploit people's working conditions if it can squeeze more profit out of it.

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

rinks wrote:

Moggy wrote:the market absolutely should dictate working conditions, because if it doesn’t, who will?

Sounding a bit Tory there, mate.

Far from it. There should be laws in place to protect workers, but exploitative employers are always going to be there and the market (i.e. us!) should respond to that and force companies to alter their behaviour or face a slump in profit. The UK/EU governments should do far more (far far more!) but there is also a responsibility on consumers to not accept companies that work their employees into ill health.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the market as a whole responding to things the way you think they should rather than how it actually does. People know about exploitation of foreign labour in gooseberry fool conditions, but they still buy cheap clothing and iPhones.

The market is gooseberry fool at dictating working conditions.

I am not saying that a boycott would work or that people would stick to it if one was called.

But you are being very naïve if you think things are going to change without consumers making a conscious effort to force companies to change. We are living under a Tory government that is lurching ever further right. Even if Corbyn gets in and attempts to change it, the American government is never going to stop it.

It’s fine to think that people are not going to stick to a boycott (you are right, they almost certainly wouldn’t) but it’s not good enough to say “well nobody else is doing it so I am just going to buy the product anyway” – that’s the exact same argument as Boris Johnson uses to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Incidentally, I won't be buying this, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who won't, even if it's not going to make a jot of difference to Rockstar.

Yes consumers have to drive change, but they won't do it organically. The market will continue to fail people on working conditions, especially as it keeps inventing new forms of work, until there is some external influence to correct it, whether it be state intervention, unionisation, or other forces driving to educate consumers and lobby retailers/manufacturers.

The market on its own will always continue to exploit people's working conditions if it can squeeze more profit out of it.

We are in agreement there. The consumers of the games market will not boycott in enough numbers to make a difference and the governments of the western powers will not care enough to legislate.

All we can do is whatever our own morals tell us. For all my talk in here, I will probably end up buying RDR2, but it will be second hand and many months down the line when the game is cheap.

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

rinks wrote:

Moggy wrote:the market absolutely should dictate working conditions, because if it doesn’t, who will?

Sounding a bit Tory there, mate.

Far from it. There should be laws in place to protect workers, but exploitative employers are always going to be there and the market (i.e. us!) should respond to that and force companies to alter their behaviour or face a slump in profit. The UK/EU governments should do far more (far far more!) but there is also a responsibility on consumers to not accept companies that work their employees into ill health.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the market as a whole responding to things the way you think they should rather than how it actually does. People know about exploitation of foreign labour in gooseberry fool conditions, but they still buy cheap clothing and iPhones.

The market is gooseberry fool at dictating working conditions.

I am not saying that a boycott would work or that people would stick to it if one was called.

But you are being very naïve if you think things are going to change without consumers making a conscious effort to force companies to change. We are living under a Tory government that is lurching ever further right. Even if Corbyn gets in and attempts to change it, the American government is never going to stop it.

It’s fine to think that people are not going to stick to a boycott (you are right, they almost certainly wouldn’t) but it’s not good enough to say “well nobody else is doing it so I am just going to buy the product anyway” – that’s the exact same argument as Boris Johnson uses to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Incidentally, I won't be buying this, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who won't, even if it's not going to make a jot of difference to Rockstar.

Yes consumers have to drive change, but they won't do it organically. The market will continue to fail people on working conditions, especially as it keeps inventing new forms of work, until there is some external influence to correct it, whether it be state intervention, unionisation, or other forces driving to educate consumers and lobby retailers/manufacturers.

The market on its own will always continue to exploit people's working conditions if it can squeeze more profit out of it.

We are in agreement there. The consumers of the games market will not boycott in enough numbers to make a difference and the governments of the western powers will not care enough to legislate.

All we can do is whatever our own morals tell us. For all my talk in here, I will probably end up buying RDR2, but it will be second hand and many months down the line when the game is cheap.

Do you own any Nike clothing out of interest? Ralph Lauren? Drink Tea? Coffee?

This is not meant to be condescending you may well apply this level of vigilance with everything you buy for all I know.

Manwell Pablo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

rinks wrote:

Moggy wrote:the market absolutely should dictate working conditions, because if it doesn’t, who will?

Sounding a bit Tory there, mate.

Far from it. There should be laws in place to protect workers, but exploitative employers are always going to be there and the market (i.e. us!) should respond to that and force companies to alter their behaviour or face a slump in profit. The UK/EU governments should do far more (far far more!) but there is also a responsibility on consumers to not accept companies that work their employees into ill health.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the market as a whole responding to things the way you think they should rather than how it actually does. People know about exploitation of foreign labour in gooseberry fool conditions, but they still buy cheap clothing and iPhones.

The market is gooseberry fool at dictating working conditions.

I am not saying that a boycott would work or that people would stick to it if one was called.

But you are being very naïve if you think things are going to change without consumers making a conscious effort to force companies to change. We are living under a Tory government that is lurching ever further right. Even if Corbyn gets in and attempts to change it, the American government is never going to stop it.

It’s fine to think that people are not going to stick to a boycott (you are right, they almost certainly wouldn’t) but it’s not good enough to say “well nobody else is doing it so I am just going to buy the product anyway” – that’s the exact same argument as Boris Johnson uses to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Incidentally, I won't be buying this, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who won't, even if it's not going to make a jot of difference to Rockstar.

Yes consumers have to drive change, but they won't do it organically. The market will continue to fail people on working conditions, especially as it keeps inventing new forms of work, until there is some external influence to correct it, whether it be state intervention, unionisation, or other forces driving to educate consumers and lobby retailers/manufacturers.

The market on its own will always continue to exploit people's working conditions if it can squeeze more profit out of it.

We are in agreement there. The consumers of the games market will not boycott in enough numbers to make a difference and the governments of the western powers will not care enough to legislate.

All we can do is whatever our own morals tell us. For all my talk in here, I will probably end up buying RDR2, but it will be second hand and many months down the line when the game is cheap.

Do you own any Nike clothing out of interest? Ralph Lauren? Drink Tea? Coffee?

This is not meant to be condescending you may well apply this level of vigilance with everything you buy for all I know.

I have some Nike trainers but they were given to me as a Christmas present last year. I do drink tea but not coffee. I don’t own any Ralph Lauren.

I see your point and you are right that we all buy or use things that have come from exploitation. I think there is a difference between essentials (clothing, food, drink) and luxuries (video games) though. One of them is easy to boycott while also arguing for political change, the other is hard to boycott but it is possible to simultaneously argue that the politics should change.

Moggy wrote:

Manwell Pablo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

rinks wrote:

Moggy wrote:the market absolutely should dictate working conditions, because if it doesn’t, who will?

Sounding a bit Tory there, mate.

Far from it. There should be laws in place to protect workers, but exploitative employers are always going to be there and the market (i.e. us!) should respond to that and force companies to alter their behaviour or face a slump in profit. The UK/EU governments should do far more (far far more!) but there is also a responsibility on consumers to not accept companies that work their employees into ill health.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the market as a whole responding to things the way you think they should rather than how it actually does. People know about exploitation of foreign labour in gooseberry fool conditions, but they still buy cheap clothing and iPhones.

The market is gooseberry fool at dictating working conditions.

I am not saying that a boycott would work or that people would stick to it if one was called.

But you are being very naïve if you think things are going to change without consumers making a conscious effort to force companies to change. We are living under a Tory government that is lurching ever further right. Even if Corbyn gets in and attempts to change it, the American government is never going to stop it.

It’s fine to think that people are not going to stick to a boycott (you are right, they almost certainly wouldn’t) but it’s not good enough to say “well nobody else is doing it so I am just going to buy the product anyway” – that’s the exact same argument as Boris Johnson uses to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Incidentally, I won't be buying this, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who won't, even if it's not going to make a jot of difference to Rockstar.

Yes consumers have to drive change, but they won't do it organically. The market will continue to fail people on working conditions, especially as it keeps inventing new forms of work, until there is some external influence to correct it, whether it be state intervention, unionisation, or other forces driving to educate consumers and lobby retailers/manufacturers.

The market on its own will always continue to exploit people's working conditions if it can squeeze more profit out of it.

We are in agreement there. The consumers of the games market will not boycott in enough numbers to make a difference and the governments of the western powers will not care enough to legislate.

All we can do is whatever our own morals tell us. For all my talk in here, I will probably end up buying RDR2, but it will be second hand and many months down the line when the game is cheap.

Do you own any Nike clothing out of interest? Ralph Lauren? Drink Tea? Coffee?

This is not meant to be condescending you may well apply this level of vigilance with everything you buy for all I know.

I have some Nike trainers but they were given to me as a Christmas present last year. I do drink tea but not coffee. I don’t own any Ralph Lauren.

I see your point and you are right that we all buy or use things that have come from exploitation. I think there is a difference between essentials (clothing, food, drink) and luxuries (video games) though. One of them is easy to boycott while also arguing for political change, the other is hard to boycott but it is possible to simultaneously argue that the politics should change.

True, but then is Tea essential though? It's a diuretic full of tannin. And Tea pickers are treated appallingly.

I think for me, while clearly it shouldn't happen, Games Developers on a fair wage temporarily working too long in what you would think are decent conditions is really the tip of the iceberg. I don't get putting the guilt on the consumer I guess? It should really be regulated by governments.

Having said that the CEO of PG Tips is unlikely to take to Twitter and announce his Kenyan working force have been busy working 15 hour days picking tea leaves for 2 Shillings this week to bring us the very best cuppa they possibly can, and if he did I guess there would be a similar reaction.

There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

Why don't developers unionize? I hated it when the writers did their strike and all my stories were cut mid-season (and I'm not sure that there's since been any improvement in their output), but I understand why they did it... I think. Voice actors are at it too, so what's up with the devs?

Manwell Pablo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Manwell Pablo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

rinks wrote:

Moggy wrote:the market absolutely should dictate working conditions, because if it doesn’t, who will?

Sounding a bit Tory there, mate.

Far from it. There should be laws in place to protect workers, but exploitative employers are always going to be there and the market (i.e. us!) should respond to that and force companies to alter their behaviour or face a slump in profit. The UK/EU governments should do far more (far far more!) but there is also a responsibility on consumers to not accept companies that work their employees into ill health.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the market as a whole responding to things the way you think they should rather than how it actually does. People know about exploitation of foreign labour in gooseberry fool conditions, but they still buy cheap clothing and iPhones.

The market is gooseberry fool at dictating working conditions.

I am not saying that a boycott would work or that people would stick to it if one was called.

But you are being very naïve if you think things are going to change without consumers making a conscious effort to force companies to change. We are living under a Tory government that is lurching ever further right. Even if Corbyn gets in and attempts to change it, the American government is never going to stop it.

It’s fine to think that people are not going to stick to a boycott (you are right, they almost certainly wouldn’t) but it’s not good enough to say “well nobody else is doing it so I am just going to buy the product anyway” – that’s the exact same argument as Boris Johnson uses to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Incidentally, I won't be buying this, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who won't, even if it's not going to make a jot of difference to Rockstar.

Yes consumers have to drive change, but they won't do it organically. The market will continue to fail people on working conditions, especially as it keeps inventing new forms of work, until there is some external influence to correct it, whether it be state intervention, unionisation, or other forces driving to educate consumers and lobby retailers/manufacturers.

The market on its own will always continue to exploit people's working conditions if it can squeeze more profit out of it.

We are in agreement there. The consumers of the games market will not boycott in enough numbers to make a difference and the governments of the western powers will not care enough to legislate.

All we can do is whatever our own morals tell us. For all my talk in here, I will probably end up buying RDR2, but it will be second hand and many months down the line when the game is cheap.

Do you own any Nike clothing out of interest? Ralph Lauren? Drink Tea? Coffee?

This is not meant to be condescending you may well apply this level of vigilance with everything you buy for all I know.

I have some Nike trainers but they were given to me as a Christmas present last year. I do drink tea but not coffee. I don’t own any Ralph Lauren.

I see your point and you are right that we all buy or use things that have come from exploitation. I think there is a difference between essentials (clothing, food, drink) and luxuries (video games) though. One of them is easy to boycott while also arguing for political change, the other is hard to boycott but it is possible to simultaneously argue that the politics should change.

True, but then is Tea essential though? It's a diuretic full of tannin. And Tea pickers are treated appallingly.

I think for me, while clearly it shouldn't happen, Games Developers on a fair wage temporarily working too long in what you would think are decent conditions is really the tip of the iceberg. I don't get putting the guilt on the consumer I guess? It should really be regulated by governments.

Having said that the CEO of PG Tips is unlikely to take to Twitter and announce his Kenyan working force have been busy working 15 hour days picking tea leaves for 2 Shillings this week to bring us the very best cuppa they possibly can, and if he did I guess there would be a similar reaction.

You are right of course. There are very few products that don’t involve exploitation at some stage in their production. If you break things down enough though you will be living on nothing but river water and whatever plants you can pick up in the forest.

mic wrote:Why don't developers unionize? I hated it when the writers did their strike and all my stories were cut mid-season (and I'm not sure that there's since been any improvement in their output), but I understand why they did it... I think. Voice actors are at it too, so what's up with the devs?

The industry as a whole continues to push the narrative that unions are for lazy devs, those who don't want to go the extra mile and achieve great things, or other low skilled professions.

Here's what another developer with a massive fanbase, CDProjekt Red, had to say:

twitter.com/lisaquestions/status/1007330064302682113

Winckle wrote:There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:I dated someone who worked at Rockstar and it was not a pleasant experience for them. (The work, not the dating)

Crap wage, unpaid overtime, expectations to work beyond normal hours etc. You could bring your dog into work though.

This was a few years back so things may have changed.

Well, presumably this is to avoid pets dying while you spend every minute of your life at work

Sadly that's exactly what I was thinking.

Couple of thoughts on this:

1. My brother told me that a study done on doctors showed that tiredness affects their decision making to a higher extent than being drunk. Taking that to it's logical end point, by the time a 100 hour working week has been completed, the coding and work rate of these guys must be absolutely shocking.

2. This isn't the first time that Rockstar's working practices have been brought up before. I vaguely remember a small scale scandal after either L.A. Noire or Red Read Redemption was released over the cramming that was done to get that particular game out on time. Surely it's only a matter of time before the legality of their working practices is called into question?

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:I dated someone who worked at Rockstar and it was not a pleasant experience for them. (The work, not the dating)

Crap wage, unpaid overtime, expectations to work beyond normal hours etc. You could bring your dog into work though.

This was a few years back so things may have changed.

Well, presumably this is to avoid pets dying while you spend every minute of your life at work

Sadly that's exactly what I was thinking.

Couple of thoughts on this:

1. My brother told me that a study done on doctors showed that tiredness affects their decision making to a higher extent than being drunk. Taking that to it's logical end point, by the time a 100 hour working week has been completed, the coding and work rate of these guys must be absolutely shocking.

2. This isn't the first time that Rockstar's working practices have been brought up before. I vaguely remember a small scale scandal after either L.A. Noire or Red Read Redemption was released over the cramming that was done to get that particular game out on time. Surely it's only a matter of time before the legality of their working practices is called into question?

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:I dated someone who worked at Rockstar and it was not a pleasant experience for them. (The work, not the dating)

Crap wage, unpaid overtime, expectations to work beyond normal hours etc. You could bring your dog into work though.

This was a few years back so things may have changed.

Well, presumably this is to avoid pets dying while you spend every minute of your life at work

Sadly that's exactly what I was thinking.

Couple of thoughts on this:

1. My brother told me that a study done on doctors showed that tiredness affects their decision making to a higher extent than being drunk. Taking that to it's logical end point, by the time a 100 hour working week has been completed, the coding and work rate of these guys must be absolutely shocking.

2. This isn't the first time that Rockstar's working practices have been brought up before. I vaguely remember a small scale scandal after either L.A. Noire or Red Read Redemption was released over the cramming that was done to get that particular game out on time. Surely it's only a matter of time before the legality of their working practices is called into question?

It was LA Noire and Team Bondi who developed the game which was produced by Rockstar. Apparently working conditions there were really bad and how much of that was down to Rockstar is a matter for debate, I'll just quickly see if I can find a news story.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/ ... blog-entry

Manwell Pablo wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Albear wrote:I dated someone who worked at Rockstar and it was not a pleasant experience for them. (The work, not the dating)

Crap wage, unpaid overtime, expectations to work beyond normal hours etc. You could bring your dog into work though.

This was a few years back so things may have changed.

Well, presumably this is to avoid pets dying while you spend every minute of your life at work

Sadly that's exactly what I was thinking.

Couple of thoughts on this:

1. My brother told me that a study done on doctors showed that tiredness affects their decision making to a higher extent than being drunk. Taking that to it's logical end point, by the time a 100 hour working week has been completed, the coding and work rate of these guys must be absolutely shocking.

2. This isn't the first time that Rockstar's working practices have been brought up before. I vaguely remember a small scale scandal after either L.A. Noire or Red Read Redemption was released over the cramming that was done to get that particular game out on time. Surely it's only a matter of time before the legality of their working practices is called into question?

It was LA Noire and Team Bondi who developed the game which was produced by Rockstar. Apparently working conditions there were really bad and how much of that was down to Rockstar is a matter for debate, I'll just quickly see if I can find a news story.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/ ... blog-entry

This is relevant https://www.resetera.com/threads/l-a-no ... day.75194/