• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

101 Excellent


About Numberyellow

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1,383 profile views
  1. My problem with Schreier is that firstly, he's from Kotaku.....that's a whole issue unto itself. Secondly, the function of a journalist is to investigate a subject, and report the facts, and nothing else. Objectivity is essential to that function. Schreier thinks objectivity is not only impossible, but is "silly" to even attempt. His reporting is frequently contaminated with unsolicited opinions (editorializing), and speculation. He avoids questions when asked, deflects attention away from his own misconduct, by engaging in "what-about-ism", and wraps himself in this air of aloof superiority, and smarmy, self-importance, acting as if he's above all of us, and is immune to scrutiny. I don't trust him to report facts, objectively, with no spin.. the only reason i give any credence to anything in his article, is because of the fact that he's quoting people who were actually there, and because the behavior described in the article, is in line with the kind of behavior Take-Two has engaged in previously. For anyone thinking i'm just dumping on Schreier, because he was with Kokatu, i do give him credit, where it's due.... He was pretty much the ONLY one reporting on the happenings at bungie during it's activision partnership, and the trouble with Destiny.
  2. It's not always about "sticking it to the man", or taking down the evil corporation... sometimes it's just about making decisions you can live with. exactly. I was saying this earlier, corporations depend on people having no principles or conviction....they depend on weak wills, and collective apathy. They do scummy things, and know it's not gonna hurt them most of the time, because of those aforementioned factors.
  3. It's an interesting way of looking at things.... but i don't agree. See, i don't buy the whole "corporate personhood" thing.. Individuals can be sociopaths, companies cannot, because companies aren't alive. I believe corporate boards are made up almost exclusively of sociopaths. It's almost like it's a prerequisite for being on a corporate board.
  4. Yeah, it SHOULD be that way... And sadly, you're kinda right....People these days lack resolve, and conviction. I don't have that problem. I already had plenty of reasons to not buy anything Take-Two publishes. Yeah, it sucks that i hafta miss out on things, but whatever....there are plenty of OTHER things to keep me occupied. Ain't that the truth..
  5. Ok, this is all entirely reasonable. I do wish we had more information.. one thing i will push back on is that we don't have any right to expect information. Take-Two did something that a lot of us are saying is really lousy. A lot of us are unwilling to buy the game now, BECAUSE of this. In order to save reputation, and maximize sales, it would be in their best interest to tell the people they are hoping will buy their game, what exactly happened. I don't think that's unreasonable. But that's just me. We don't hafta agree.
  6. media is often sensationalist, because that's what sells papers, gets subscriptions, and glues butts to seats, and eyes to screens. The Don Henley song "Dirty Laundry" nailed it decades ago. Schreier is a great example of why we should never take anything the media tells us at face value, unless it's a relay of information from first-party sources. Anyway, you're forgetting what Take-Two did to Supmatto. All he did was report on information that was accidentally leaked by a careless Gearbox employee, and for that, they Harassed him with "private investigators" (actually thugs) whom the company sent to this guy's house, to intimidate him. They had all of his social media accounts nuked, after falsely claiming that he was using them to distribute stolen proprietary information...i think they even sued him. They utterly destroyed this guy's life, in order to cover for a mistake made by a gearbox employee. What they did to this guy, is why i'll never buy another of their products. What they did to Star Theory just reinforces that decision.
  7. [snip] Here is the definition of a hostile takeover: " A hostile takeover is the acquisition of one company (called the target company) by another (called the acquirer) that is accomplished by going directly to the company's shareholders or fighting to replace management to get the acquisition approved. " This was, by definition, NOT a hostile takeover. It doesn't seem like you're willing to give Star Theory the benefit of the've stated that you don't believe the information presented in the article, which was acquired from people who worked in the company. You've characterized people's reaction to what is clearly lousy, as "freaking out", and flinging "wild accusations". The way in which you word your posts leads me to believe you don't really think Star Theory was wronged, and that Take-Two didn't really do anything wrong. no one is claiming that Star Theory is trying to ruin everything, and no one is really claiming that Take-Two is trying to ruin everything.... we're reacting to Take-Two having done something really disgusting, entirely out of the ordinary for the industry, yet, completely in line with their corporate personality, as supported by their track record of bad behavior.
  8. What, exactly do you find laughable? A lot of things are entirely possible. What i find peculiar, is that some of you seem so willing to give Take-Two the benefit of the doubt, but won't extend that same courtesy to Star Theory. Also, this was NOT a hostile takeover, it was something far worse.
  9. I'll grant you the bouns bit. However, just because Take-Two calls the salary "excellent", that means it's excellent? Dude, you know damned well that's an entirely subjective description. That's corporate lingo for "see how well we're taking care of them? nothing to see here" I don't think anyone's legit "freaking out", and which "wild accusations" are you talking about?
  10. And how do you know that they were offered "an increased salary and/or bonus"? No, we wouldn't be saying that. Why are you so focused on going to bat for Take-Two? What did they ever do for you?
  11. no, that's NOT what everyone's "up in arms" about. if Take-Two had simply pulled the contract, and hired another studio, or taken the project in-house, yeah it would have sucked, but it wouldn't be a controversy. hell, people probably wouldn't have cared if people from Star Theory had sought out positions at the new studio. what everyone who has a problem with this are bothered by, is Take-Two mass-messaging the whole company, gutting it, and leaving it to die. surely you can see how scummy that is.. now that you point that out... something does seem off about the timing.
  12. sometimes, people will sign less than optimum contracts, in order to get the work. If they need the money bad enough, or want to work on a particular project bad enough, they'll sign on the dotted line. Another reason we really should be looking for more information on the matter is Schreier's track record, and his views on objectivity. I have no doubt he'd go for a more salacious approach on the matter, because that's what he's always done. Does he cover things a lot of others don't? Yes, he does. Does he often get good information on these often ignored stories? Yes, he does. I'll give credit, where it's due, despite my professional dislike of Schreier. We have's probably reliable...but we need more.
  13. Maybe other people are starting from the assumption "publishers bad"...i'm not. It's possible Take-Two are scumbags, and it's equally possible Star Theory royally screwed up. Since Take-Two never made ANY statement about this, we don't have the inside baseball on their end of this. However, since they don't wanna talk about it, that usually means they did a no-no. see my post about Nord.. Additionally, it can be inferred, based on Take-Two's history of doing scummy things, that it is MORE likely that they are the bad guy here. Again, we need more information, but for now, this working theory is sound. No, the point of making a contract, is to secure work. Obviously a talented contractor is usually good at estimating times and costs, but one thing nobody can accurately plan for is "excrements happens". Sometimes you run into a problem, especially in software development, that ends up costing you a lot of time to program around, or redo, or whatever. Being that i grew up with a programmer, i know this all too well. No, not everything with this story is an assumption. There are facts being presented, albeit from only one side of the affair, but still..those facts are not assumptions. You'd make a terrible detective. Ok, so if you watch Yong with any kind of regularity, then you know what he's all about, and how he presents information. He's a commentary/review channel. You also like to harp on the fact that nobody is adding anything to the story... just how in the hell are they supposed to do that? All the information that's available, is already out there... do you honestly think that Take-Two is going to talk to youtubers, when they won't even talk to Bloomberg? What could these people possibly add to the story? It's GAMING NEWS. anyone who's clicking a video about KSP, is probably a player....otherwise, why in the hell would anyone click onto a video about something that isn't relevant to their interests?
  14. What logical gymnasitcs? If the decision maker is having an exceedingly bad day (circumstances), and decides to just pull the contract.....provided the contract is worded correctly, he/she could do that. i'm not saying that's what happened, i'm simply saying it's possible.