 |
|
|
| |
Rockstar: 'Typical' Layoffs Hit Red Dead Redemption Studio
by Kris Graft [PC, Console/PC]
|
|
| |
|
July 15, 2010
|
| |
Rockstar San Diego confirmed that it laid off a number of employees from its studio, which earlier this year released the critically-acclaimed and commercially successful game of the year contender, Red Dead Redemption.
Rockstar San Diego studio manager Steve Martin told gaming site Kotaku, "As is typical with game development, our team sizes have always fluctuated over the course of the development cycle. As Rockstar San Diego transitions from the launch of Red Dead Redemption onto future projects, we are realigning our resources in order to continue to develop games as effectively as possible."
While the studio classified the layoffs as "typical with game development," parent publisher Take-Two has been focused on achieving profitability in years that don't see a major Grand Theft Auto launch, and cutting costs is part of that strategy. Earlier this month, the publisher confirmed 20 layoffs at Civilization studio Firaxis in an effort to reduce costs. Last year, the publisher also sold off its Jack of All Games distribution business.
Rockstar's statement didn't confirm an exact number of layoffs at the Red Dead Redemption studio, but Kotaku reported that the studio laid off around 40 workers. Red Dead Redemption released on May 18, with Take-Two shipping 5 million units by early June across PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.
Take-Two has also openly admitted that it needs to improve the timeliness of its titles. Grand Theft Auto IV and Red Dead Redemption were two notable titles with significant delays, but both received strong critical and commercial reception. Most recently, Take-Two delayed Max Payne 3 and Mafia II.
"We are ensuring that all employees who are affected by these changes are being treated with care," Martin added. "While we have no announcements to make regarding a sequel to Red Dead Redemption, the team here are hard at work on the development of downloadable content for the game."
|
| |
|
|
So they work them to bone with crunch rivalling the EA Spouse fiasco then lay them off and consider that being treated with care. These guys just made you a blockbuster hit and thats how you reward them. Perhaps the 'with' was a typo? "without" seems more appropiate.
Is it me or does there seem to be a trend forming of punishing success in this business :/
I'll never buy a new Rockstar product again, and I'm evangelizing the attitude to everyone I know, both in and out of the industry. It's not hard. With tales like this, and the crunch at SD, it's easy to convince people to buy it used. It's cheaper anyway.
It's a shame too. Red Dead is a brilliant game. They did a great job.
I rented RDR, congrats to the game team for making a great title. Too bad it was for such a crap company that treats their employees like 3rd class citizens.
The number of studios in SD is very limited so I wish them the best.
No loyalty anymore anywhere!
So sad and frustrating. Hopefully they'll all be able to land other gigs with less shortsighted companies
IMO
well, I guess that scratches R* off the list of dev's I'd like to work for.
If it wasn't Rockstar San Diego's or Rockstar NYC's preference to lose people, then it's not really fair to beat up on them for this set of layoffs. They're just doing what their corporate overlords at Take-Two demanded. (That might be a valid reason to criticize whoever sold Angel Studios to Rockstar/Take-Two, however.)
So how does all this belt-tightening at Take-Two play out at EA, I wonder, considering EA's strong attempt to acquire Take-Two back in 2008?
If Take-Two sold out to EA, would those of you threatening not to buy any more Rockstar games (or go to work for Rockstar if you're a developer) change your minds?
Brand loyalty is a tricky thing these days....
The laws that say corporations can be sued for not maximizing profit are why layoffs happen. Either we change the system (the laws) or we change with it (go freelance, ask for more pay, get more freedom).
I will no longer become an employee to a company, it's an old outdated model that doesn't work within an industry that uses layoffs to reduce costs.
The company has to collect the proceeds from the game, and make budgeting decisions based on the actual profit - not just how much the game made, but how much is left after paying for the cost of making the game, the marketing, and other financial obligations that a company incurs (such as possibly repaying bridge loans or short term investments) during the production of a huge project like this. Then you need to decide what you as a company are going to do next and use this money to forward those plans. Sure, this game is hugely successful, but maybe the entire portfolio for the company is not (most companies are lucky to have one smashing success that makes up for several financial losses) - so the proceeds will be rolled into the entire company and they will need to make decisions for where to go from there. This process takes months and involves a lot of politics and in-fighting between the executives, the management, the board of directors, the investors - it's a nightmare of meetings and compromises.
And during this whole process, there is just not enough work to support the extra people that were hired to finish the last game. Are these people expecting to sit around and do nothing and get paid for it? I don't think so, not in any realistic sense. Everyone that worked on this game got paid for their work, probably pretty decent salaries too, and they get to put "Red Dead Redemption" on the "shipped titles" portion of their resume, which is going to open a lot of doors for them. Many of these people probably got offered permanent positions in the company, and some people that have been around for a while were probably fazed out. But a company can't just have a bunch of people sitting around waiting for work while the execs try to plan out the next move - the burn rate would be overwhelming and the company would fail.
Then everyone would lose their jobs, not just 35 or 40 people.
I've been in this industry too long, all I can think is "They must not have been punishing them too badly if they had to ask them to leave at the end of the project. Otherwise they'd be running off to other jobs the second the Gold Master gets burned."
But the economy is still really bad.
In any case, I wish the "downsized" the best. Maybe they can start another studio in the area?
As for me, I was exempt and got OT so I wasn't too bitter doing my time. However, I left a little before the spouse letter. One of my reasons for leaving wasn't because they weren't paying me enough, I just made the decision that my time with my family was worth more than what I was making with OT.
The question does arise however; Do game studios still fall under this "high-tech" exemption? In order to legally qualify, a company has to have over 51% of employees hired as engineers/programmers...considering the requirements for current gen console on the art asset front. I doubt this is true anymore....yet no one raises this question.
I personally have no problem working unpaid overtime. I love making games, and WANT to put in extra time to get the quality I strive for. I do have a problem with companies exploiting their employees, leveraging legal loopholes to work their talent to the bone, just for the sake of doing so.
The layoffs stink, yes.. but working for R* stinks even more. They abuse their people, ask around, you'll hear the same story from anyone who has worked there in the past.
If this is true, then income disparity would have been lower before things like minimum wages, overtime, and other labour standards were introduced. So here's an easy question - was the economy actually better for the average worker prior to the introduction of those things? [Hint: No, not even close.]
@Bart: I see your point, and I think that it's valid, but I can't agree with you, simply on the grounds that dispersion of responsibility is a known and carefully orchestrated technique that is used to get people to think that unethical acts are ok.
>They worked overtime, they got overtime pay - in California there are very strict labor laws that ensure this
As others pointed out, only applies if you are paid hourly (non-exempt). Exempt/salaried workers are paid based on what they do per expectations, not how long it takes for them to do it. Problem happens when expectations are set at a level that can only be acheived with crazy crunching - or when the expectation is the crunch hours themselves.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2265/unionization_now.php
Also, it can't hurt to support IGDA.
You write about us being treated unfairly and none of it is true. We are all extremely well looked after here at in San Diego and we are all paid for the time we put in. Some of us earn OT and others receive bonuses to compensate us for the extra time and effort it takes to make a game like Red Dead.
I’ve received a bonus for every game I’ve made for Rockstar. I’ve never been forced to work a single minute of OT either. I’m provided real food when I work late. I receive a massage when my neck hurts. The fact that anyone writes as if we here at San Diego have something to complain about further shows how little you actually know about us.
It sucks that anyone lost their jobs yesterday. These were our close friends and colleagues who we all care greatly about and will miss. After speaking with many of them later in the day and in to the evening it’s clear that Rockstar is continuing to look after all of them with generous severance packages.
So my question for all of you bashing our company is this:
What message are you intending to send to our bosses? Please Stop NOT forcing your employees to work extra hours and please stop PAYING them fairly when they do.
You have to understand how ridiculous and infuriating it is for us who work here to read the lies being written.
So just to be clear:
-We here are at Rockstar San Diego all voluntarily get up and go to work every day.
-We’re all paid well for the jobs we do.
-None of us are forced to work overtime but we are compensated for the extra effort put in to the games we create when we do.
And in case you were wondering, I actually prefer homemade scones over donuts.
It sucks when people get laid off, but we aren't on the inside, we don't know the situation, we have no idea how many of these people were hired specifically for this large project, we don't know what their next project is and how many people they need for it, we don't know their severance packages and whether or not they exist, etc etc and the thread is nearly totally full of corporate hate. The only thing we do know about this situation is that some people have lost their jobs, which sucks, and that they have RDR on their resumes, which doesn't suck.
I would hope that by this day and age, in companies who have been making games for decades, that there would be more complete and robust plans for employee project migration. The whole hire/layoff cycle is inefficient, and as dev costs increase and consumer prices stay static (or decline as many of you would like) maybe these large publishers can find better ways to purpose talent over a longer timeline.
Anywho, best of luck to those were laid off. I hope you land on your feet very soon and continue to make awesome games. Good luck to those left at SD, I hope your working conditions aren't as bad as we've heard, and if they are then I hope you find a better gig in the near future.
First, I hate the idea of unionzing, unions usually create more trouble than they solve, mostly because after they solved the problems, instead of ceasing to exist, they just keep existing and creating more and more shit...
I already saw unions organizing physical battles, to make other unions in the area to away and leave the people in the area for them to unionize... Like, 300 people at each side, shooting and bashing and slashing at each other, some even hired professional mercs to do the job.
Second, these people are ALREADY paid for their work... You don't understand how your wage work? You work, THEN you get paid, but one month after you worked (or week, or day, or hour... whatever is your contract).
The people at Rockstar got hired to work with RDR, they DO worked (or you think the game suck?), then they got paid. Now, RDR is released, they are not needed, why keep them? To do charity?
Mind you, I am not to like this behavior, to me the AAA style production is stupid, hire hundreds of people to make a single game, expend lots of money on overhead... etc... But there is nothing wrong in hiring lots of people, doing the job, and then firing lots of people again. Yes, it would be better to NOT fire them, but if needed, why not? It is not unlike they will never get a job again...
Hell, in our forums we even call the stuff as "breaking in" because the hardest part is getting the first job... After you get your name in the credits of some games you "broke in" and then can get jobs more easier... If I had Rockstar (any of them) and RDR in my resume, I would be REALLY happy, I mean REALLY REALLY REALLY happy, because currently noone want to hire me, because what I have is some shitty iPhone games in a TV Ad company that decided to venture into iPhone.
"Rockstar is continuing to look after all of them with generous severance packages."
So those laid off received "generous severance packages".
I am pretty sure none of these folks had parachute’s in their employment agreements, as it would be highly unusual, so the severance was a voluntary move on R*'s part.
No one ever likes layoffs and I am sure that includes R* management.
I think any rational observer could agree that it's best when layoffs are a result of careful financial planning that affords a studio the ability to layoff folks in a respectful manner, voluntarily offer "generous severance" etc. and head off more dramatic layoffs down the road, as opposed to the alternative..... financial carelessness by management where people show up one morning to locked doors and sometimes do not even receive a last paycheck.
I have been working in the industry a long time and I know of far too many tragic situations where the latter was the case. Sensory Sweep is the most recent example I can think of...
"Salt Lake County independent video-game developer Sensory Sweep Studios closed this year in a fantastic implosion of overdue bills, unpaid wages and criminal charges against its owner and his wife. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the company owes nearly $1 million to about 200 former employees"
Also for context...
Activision laid off 400 people earlier this year.
EA...1500 last year
Namco 650
I imagine not all of those folks left with a huge hit title under their belt and severance to see them through to their next gig.
And for those voices advocating not buying R* games, maybe compile a list of develoeprs and publishers that laid off folks in the past year and boycott them as well? I imagine your game collection would grow pretty sparse quickly.
Here is one website that tracks job losses in the games industry..
http://www.gamesbrief.com/joblosstracker/
In the context of what we often see in this industry...letting go 40 folks in a responsible and respectful fashion and voluntarily giving them severance...?
IMO while convenient for pure rhetorical purposes, it's very difficult to see R* SD as a heartless slave driver here.
Layoffs do suck, but if the bottom line requires it, better they be done in a strategic, respectful, sensitive manner as opposed to the alternative we so often see.
Just my humble 2 cents.
Also, 40 people is a lot to me so reading about 1500 people being let go certainly gives additional perspective.
I think the whole Infinite Ward debacle is being reflected here. It's just set a precedent and whenever staff are laid offfrom a larger company for a time to come it will be reflected pkorly onto the larger company.
A nice alternative in an ideal world would be to retain the employees and let them do their own projects using the same workplace (maybe on commission) and let them work together/ seperate as desired make bunch of smaller (indie?) games to sustain them until they are needed for a large project again. Google does some stuff like this and it seems to work for them. Just up to the parent company to see the potential in any project an not limit yourself to say, games where you play a criminal trying to get by in life?
Just my opinion. I don't work in games industry or know anyone who does. I'm not a business person, I'm just an outside observer. Food for thought.