Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Numberyellow

  1. thanks for keeping one of my favorite mods alive.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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..
  6. 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.
  7. media is often sensationalist, because that's what sells papers, gets subscriptions, and clicks....it 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.
  8. [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 doubt..you'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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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 information....it's probably reliable...but we need more.
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. Nope, didn't say that. In fact, we don't know for certain why it they did it. All i said is that they COULD do it for no reason at all, under certain circumstances, provided the contract was worded in such a way as to facilitate it. But let's not let facts and reality get in the way of "lol, numberyellow's wrong"
  17. No, it's not wrong. If they were in need of an extension, then they were clearly at the end of the time allotted in the contract for production of the software. Take-Two could have chosen to grant them an extension, OR pulled the contract entirely. I'm well aware of how contracts work. i've been under my fair share of them. Large corporations, with teams of lawyers working for them, will often include a "bail out" provision, so they can get out of a contract early. EDIT: If you fancy yourself an expert on the subject, why not simply state why you believe what i said to be wrong, instead of just declaring (paraphrasing) "it's wrong, you're an idiot".
  18. Or, they just got greedy, and decided to cut out the middle man. You keep harping on the fact that these three individuals left "immediately". They were most likely offered a good deal....additionally, they probably took it, because they knew without the KSP contract, Star Theory was screwed. Also, they'd been working on the project for literally years.. i'm sure they wanted to finish it. You continue to imply that their departure is indicative of there being a serious problem with Star Theory...yet you present nothing to substantiate the implication. KSP is Take-Two's I.P... they can pull the contract any time they want, for whatever reason they want...or even for no reason at all. There doesn't hafta be some special event, that "allows" them to decide to not let a studio work on their I.P. anymore. Again, you imply there was a major problem at Star Theory, without anything to back it. Sure, they weren't a huge developer, but they did make some pretty good games, that clearly sold well enough to keep the studio in business. They wouldn't have been my first choice to develop KSP, but they're by no means a bad studio. You don't know that something went wrong...i don't know that either. that's an assumption. You seem to be unwilling to entertain the idea that Take-Two got greedy, and decided that they would take what they wanted, instead of behaving civilly. Clearly, you've never watched any of Yong's work before. He reports on industry news. The bloomberg article is really the only thing anyone has to work with. Other articles are based on information from that one, and videos reporting the news, are using that article as their basis, because, let's face it: Gamers don't read bloomberg, anymore than they were reading Kotaku.....so someone's gotta get the word out. Also, anyone familiar with KSP, KNOWS it was acquired by Take-Two. So he probably didn't think it was necessary to state things that his viewers probably already know. Because Private division IS Take-Two. What, do you think they don't take their marching orders from the same board of directors that the rest of the company does? PD is nothing more than a box for them to put indie developers into, for the sake of convenience. And Take-Two IS actually pretty evil. Not so long ago, they harassed a guy, and then destroyed his entire life, for reporting on information that one of their dumbass devs accidentally leaked on a live twitch stream.
  19. I just want to make sure you understand that KSP2 wasn't Star Theory's first project. They have developed other games.
  20. We'll see. No amount of reassuring from a developer is going to convince me that "everything is ok", because it's in their best interest to say just that.
  21. Not necessarily... If this thread is any indication, most people are only worried about "is the game going to be good?", and are completely ignoring the bloodbath behind the scenes. Corporations depend on this "spare me the growing pains" public attitude. Everyone wants the shiny new bauble, and has little to no concern for the cost of it's production, or the ethics or morality of the company bringing it to market. Additionally, you said that being poached is a good deal for the one being poached, and that they wouldn't allow themselves to be poached, unless they were getting a better deal. That's not necessarily true. If your company has just ONE contract, and that one contract is the company's only source of income, if that contract gets pulled, and you get another job offer, you're most likely going to take it, whether it's a better deal or not, because at that point, it's the difference between having a job with any kind of future, and not.. Context matters. It's not always good for the one being poached. I'll grant you that there is some truth to your words.. we can still make choices in keeping with our personal code and values. If someone is selling the best bananas in town, and someone comes along, cuts their throat, and then starts selling their bananas, i'm obviously not going to buy them.
  22. I disagree that the quality of the product is all that should matter. However, one's sense of morality is all their own. I'm not saying you should agree with me, or hold the same values i do. I'm simply stating, for the record, that i disagree with what you've said. I already wasn't going to buy KSP2, and i made that decision, the moment Take-Two became involved, because of OTHER scummy things they've done. This affair just reinforces that decision for me. I believe the way in which companies conduct themselves matters, when they engage in behavior that is repugnant to people, people should rightly choose not to reward such behavior. "vote with your wallet", i believe they say..
  23. Not necessarily. Until it was shut down, Westwood survived as an EA subsidiary, same thing with Visceral. Hell, BioWare still exists as an EA subsidiary. If we're going to stick with the animal death analogy.. Is it not better to kill an animal peacefully, and humanely, rather than hacking off bits of it until it dies? I absolutely believe the method matters
  24. you are implying that worth is static. It is not. Take your car for example. It has a blue book value....that is nothing more than an average of it's market value....which is determined by sales data. The prices being used for that average are the result of what individual parties value the car at. Now, you may think your specific car is worth more, because that's the value YOU put on it. I may not think it's worth that much, and i may offer you blue book for it, or less... there is literally nothing wrong with you saying you don't want to sell to me, because i'm not offering you a number you think is fair. The value of a thing is entirely subjective. So, no, i'm not saying Take-Two was in the wrong, if Star Theory owners were holding out for more.... i'm saying they're in the wrong for destroying the company after negotiations fell through. You're employing a straw-man.
  • Create New...