A metric of success, to me, is being able to make money while you're asleep. You'll never escape the chains of the cubicle if you don't work smart.
I'd like to think he still gets at least 6 hours of sleep a night, but I wouldn't know. The synopsis of the lead, I read, was reasonable, especially remembering what sort of lives the people that worked for EA had.
In short, I don't think this was trying to glorify the hours worked, and instead alerting would-be leads to understand what they're committing to.
If you're the lead and things start going south on your project then you'd better be prepared to start leading and taking on whatever is needed to get your game shipped.
I know it's cool to preach about working smarter instead of harder, but getting a game out of the door and into a box usually requires large doses of both.
They are few and far between though. I grew up in Vancouver where EA has its largest studio presence, and the number of burned out game devs I've met is a little scary.
Video games is like Hollywood - it's glamorous, and has the tendency to suck in some great talent, chew them up, and spit them by the curb 2-4 years down the road. And this will not change so long as there's a lineup of talented artists and developers out the door and around the block waiting for their crack at what may just be the worst working environment known to software-dom in this country.
That is a completely different thing than four hours of sleep a night for years.
This principle is why Caesar, Alexander, and Napoleon were all beloved by their men. They dug in there with everyone else. Slept on the ground. Rode first into battle. All that. It seems silly, but don't underrate it. I can't tell you how many times someone would come to me at 4 in the morning before a deadline and say how much they appreciated that I was there. No one wants to feel used.