Board 8 > Thoughts on Rockstar bragging about 100 hour work weeks before RDR2?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't know how you read that sentence and not assume he means quit.
---

I mean I guess you can argue "these people need to be defended from themselves and should not work that long" but if you're passionate about what you're doing in a coding position you can plausibly devote 100 hours to a project without it being cruel and unusual imo. As long as you take some stretch and food breaks-- the work can be mentally stimulating enough. I've put in 14 hour work days into fun projects before and at the end it wasn't "god I'm exhausted" it was "hell yeah I got a lot done today." You can still function okay as long as you get your sleep. And I'm not even a very good or passionate coder I mean hell I work in IT now more often than programming-- the people who are there are probably the cream of the crop so they can probably maintain that level easier.

Doing that 7 days a week, which puts you awfully close to 100 hours? I'm not enough of a nerd to want to (nor have I ever been in any sort of project where it was remotely necessary for any more than a day or two at a time) but it's plausible it could be done without it being cruel to the right kinda motivated person.

That being said, I feel like these people would need to be monitored carefully because unless you're way into it I feel like the productivity would naturally drop off pretty hard one way or the other even if they are passionate, maintaining that pace for a week straight, and I really feel like you're getting grossly diminishing returns with anything more than 60. But who knows, really.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

I don't know how you read that sentence and not assume he means quit.

HotDogButts posted...

They're not firing someone who's only working 60 hours a week when they have people going 100 to get this shit done.

Probably by actually reading it?
---

Obviously we must be reading that completely differently, because I'm still reading it as saying "find another job".

If that's not what you meant then you should he a bit more careful with your phrasing, because that's a difference of a minor disagreement and assuming you're a bottom of the barrel scumbag.
---

I think the difference between us in a discussion I naturally assume what the other person is saying makes some degree of sense and if the phrasing is weird they probably just make a phrasing gaff, whereas you project a meaning onto what they're saying that fits the easiest stance to argue against and go from there.

Like on what planet does "they're not firing someone who only works 60 hours a week, but those people who want to only work that amount can quit" make any sort of sense as a relevant point to anything. Because if you assume that's what he meant by "walk out" then that's exactly what the sentence says.

Like if they're not firing you for only putting in 60... you can just... not come into work after you've put in your 60, right? Do you also need to send in a resignation? Why would that be the case? You say "hey manager dude I've put in 60 hours of work and I'm exhausted I'm taking off until next week, okay?" and manager dude is like "okay"
---

Props to you on having more patience than me at this point. I can't be bothered to spell things out for people who want something to be upset about so badly they start constructing their own realities, anymore.
---

Lopen posted...

I mean I guess you can argue "these people need to be defended from themselves and should not work that long"

I think that's the only possible way to think about labor laws, yeah
---

The idea is that those who don't put in those hours are never going to be valued as much in the company and not advance, so leaving after 60 years in an environment of 80+ is handicapping yourself. "Well Bill and Mitch are equally qualified, but Bill knocked out 90 hours for a month. Guess Mitch isn't as driven." This is a pretty basic common knowledge concept in retail, maybe it's more out there in development.

But hey, if that's not what was intended then I'll back off. I have never seen someone refer to "walking out" on a job as anything other than quitting, though. Those phrases are synonymous.
---

I disagree that's necessarily going to be the case. It's about the tasks completed more than the hours worked for that kinda stuff. If a guy puts in 100 and gets less or even comparable amounts done to the guy who put in 60 and said he was exhausted and bailed, the guy who worked 60 is getting the promotions, not the guy who worked 100.

I feel like you guys are people who work in the 9-5 service type industry and don't really have a grasp of how project based work is done and are just thinking on the wrong wavelength. It's really not about how hard you work it's about how smart you work. I mean, a guy who only puts in 40 when it's major crunch time and only does the bare minimum of what's assigned to him, yeah, they might not get those promotions, but I guarantee you plenty of 50-60 hour dudes in the company are doing more than fine.
---

no it's well established fact that only people who work 100 hours at their jobs get anywhere in this world

what planet are you guys even arguing from christ

you invent boogiemen to tear them down and feel good about yourselves
---

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism

Consume any ill-gotten fruits of labor as you must in order to scrape whatever purpose you can out of our meaningless existences.

Eat Arbys
---

Kenri posted...

I think that's the only possible way to think about labor laws, yeah

Also on this I'm pretty sure labor laws are there to defend laborers from their bosses, not from themselves.

If you're the type who is overtaxing yourself by 40 hours while exhausted entirely in the name of getting ahead at work (and probably failing, because as said it doesn't really work that way) you probably need help from a psychiatrist moreso than a law to help you.

Again I do think it's a mistake to let anyone work that long in principle and I'd try to closely monitor their production the minute they go over 60, but it's at least plausible it could happen in a way that isn't cruel.
---

there are certainly professions where 100 hours is not atypical

corporate lawyers and doctors often see that type of shit early in their careers

software development doesn't really fit that billing though
---

Because doctors are forced into residencies to be able to legally practice on their own creating slave labor conditions. Thanks government.
---

HotDogButts posted...

Because doctors are forced into residencies to be able to legally practice on their own creating slave labor conditions. Thanks government.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing...
---

That the only profession in America that is forced to work those ridiculous hours are those that the government has created laws around restricting the trade of their labor.
---

metroid composite posted...

redrocket posted...

@metroid_composite

MC, do you have any stories like this from working on GTA 5?

Well, I couldn't reply to this before but look at this:

https://kotaku.com/red-dead-redemption-2-developers-speak-out-after-rockst-1829835034

I can respond, yaaay.

Yeah, I've been on RDR2 for five years. It's actually a pretty well-managed project. The nature of American labour laws is that they don't count lunch or exercise breaks, so...my typical day on RDR2 has been 9 hours working 1 hour lunch, 1 hour exercise cause I want to exercise before the sun sets. This does mean 11 hours at work. I very rarely worked weekends. So...55 hour work weeks when we add in breaks or 45 if you don't (most would count that as 55). Did that go higher than 55 near big deadlines? Yeah, to like...60, maybe 65 (usually in short bursts).

Thanks for the response!
---

HotDogButts posted...

Because doctors are forced into residencies to be able to legally practice on their own creating slave labor conditions. Thanks government.

The doctor thing is really fucking stupid
---