NH4Cl Enthusiast

No, the question is did Nate have assurances other than someone at T2 saying so when, as you all have admitted, such verbal promises from T2 are worthless? If he knew what you know that they can't be trusted, then he knew if T2 decided to stop the funding they could and would, then him trusting that word and relaying it to us as assurances is dishonest. He gave us info he knew was rotten. Edit: I find this argument bizarre. I said I trusted Nate when he said they were funded and consider it was a false promise. Now I'm being told he's not a liar because I should have known not to trust him?

What's the unfounded part? Where I assumed that when he addressed the community concerns that game will be canned by ensuring they're funded and we don't need to worry that this means he has assurances that the game will reach 1.0? What's the alternative then? When he said they're funded and we don't need to worry was I supposed to assume they're not funded and we need to worry? Please tell me what was the correct interpretation?

I don't think I said they could've prevented it or even knew about the studio being shut down. What they did know was that their funding was not guaranteed at all, yet Nate said to us that it was. Whatever the circumstances are around that, it's still a lie. I mean if you want to split hairs and go through the statements with a fine comb then it's probably possible to lawyer around it and find some kind of a spin where it can be argued he didn't lie, but my argument is that the implication was all along that the game would reach 1.0 and Nate promised us they had funding secured because people at the time were worried about T2 just canning the game. Which they did and Nate's assurances were demonstrably empty words and untrue. He had the option to not lie and he chose to do otherwise. It's simple as that.

I'd say as counterpoint that it's probably more about the location and field of business how these go down. I'm in medical industry myself in Europe and have seen some layoffs happen but it's always negotiated beforehand and absolutely nobody is ever escorted out on the spot unless there's something exceptionally bad happening. Practically everyone on every level of the organization has so many dependencies and responsibilities tied to various compliance requirements that it would be disastrous to just drop someone. Same goes for more traditional industries, if you shut down a plant or processing facility due to layoffs, a big chunk of workers will spend the next 3-6 months shutting down the operation while being allowed to search for the next job. You do not tell a chemical engineer responsible of waste management safety compliance to just leave the premises and not come back. I can however definitely believe this is common in companies dealing with less regulations and mostly immaterial properties, especially in countries with less worker protection laws. But this is of course just a small handful of my personal experience, my point is that as a customer who just buys the game and takes the director's words as coming from a point of authority, it's not my responsibility to analyze that in any sort of industry spesific context. If Nate says they're funded and moving along with roadmap, the implication is that he's sure of that or otherwise he would not make the promise.

They really did a nasty on you But honestly kerbals are still really cool so even if you had that tattoo done it wouldn't be so bad! I have to say I've been surprised and enlightened about how brutal the industry is, on my field something like this could never happen. From that perspective though, given that this sort of blindsiding is the industry standard, given that Nate knew how the funding works and how precarious everything is, it doesn't make his statements any less of a lie. He convinced us (people who don't need to know how the industry works) that funding is secure and development will continue. Reality was that funding was there but not secure and development continued only until T2 decided unilaterally that it suddenly doesn't anymore. This is where the lie was - he made a promise with no grounds and no way to keep it. I was under the (admittedly naive) assumption that he had some sort of binding legalese to promise that the studio will be funded until 1.0 is finished with all the features of the roadmap. I want to add another point about Nate just so I get it off my chest. I've read several times that he was the blue sky dreamer but seriously where the heck is that blue sky? Just to begin with the parts were almost entirely copy-paste, part progression path was copy-paste, craft building mechanics were copy-paste, no ground-breaking technical improvements but lots of issues instead, no integrated mod support, no kerbal customization, no resources, no integrated craft file sharing or in-game "store" or anything, no multiplayer, no new planets, no colonies, no interstellar, nothing that hasn't been present via mods or discussions for years already, science was copy-paste with a minor change and almost everything else was just scrapped. I guess the cartoons were nice? There's no blue sky with cotton candy clouds, rainbows and kerbals in rocket powered hot air balloons dropping candy on marshmallow fields. There's just a glitchy placeholder skybox downloaded from the free section of the asset store.

There's the Chief Executive Officer and then the less known Chief-Execution Officer.

Thanks for bringing this up. It's a big misconception that the company is legally obligated to maximize profits but all they need to do is to act in the shareholders best interest and this can and often is not just maximizing share value at all costs. They can and often do just that, but it's not like a swat team busts through the roof if the CEO chooses the second cheapest provider due to say ethical reasons or whatever. It's exactly what you said, the devil is not in the legislation but embedded in the practices and structures of how companies work.

Thank you for writing down your thoughts, it was a very good read with lots of perspective on leadership roles in general, not just relating to games industry spesifically. Especially the last line is what encapsulates a lot of the responsibility you have when you're in a leadership position. The higher you go, the more you lose the privilege of saying it's someone else's job to do this or that. You need to know your limits and especially you need to recognize what it is that you don't know and be humble about that. Most of all if you choose to commit to doing something you're not sure can be achieved, then it's 100% on you if that fails. And even if something just goes wrong and there was nothing you could have done about it, as a leader it's still your responsibility and nobody else's. Sometimes things go bad in multiple ways (which was clearly the case with KSP2) and all you have left is to choose the manner in which you fail. It can be incredibly unfair at times but it comes with the role. As for Nate, I'm a little less harsh on him now after watching the video but I think he should have known he was going to fail and choose a better way to go about it. But he chose dishonesty over integrity and in the end it doesn't matter how much of the failure can be attributed to him, everyone who wears the title of a director or a manager is at least partially responsible, fair or not. After all the real damage was suffered by everyone in the studio who lost their jobs in an already precarious job market.

Exactly and if the dataset is just two points (as it was when @Lisias originally posted about it) going ballistic over the statistical accuracy of a conversational observation or which analysis method you use makes no sense at all. Even with 4 sources, Gamelytic showed as high as 21.2% and the fourth was 12.1% which just further goes to show that the variation is big and with only four points you can of course calculate all you want but if the next site showed 38% and the one after that 1% it would not be surprising at all. It just says you'd need to have another look at your data and what are they actually reporting. Only reasonable claim to be made is just that KSP2 seems to have sold a lot less, probably around 10-20%. The 3.8 from Play Tracker was a bit of an outlier but PD's own blurb says KSP1 has sold over 5M copies so we know for sure that it does not align with Steam Spy numbers which shows only 3.58M. What would in my opinion be more relevant than the numbers alone would be when the sales were made. My hunch is that majority was before and around launch and then many people like me were dumb enough to play for 10 hours and can't get a refund anymore. But again it's just speculation and as such we have almost useless data.

Hey, stop it with the reasonable and constructive posts already! In this thread we don't explain our terminology, allegations or claims, let alone try to make others understand our point. We go straight to thinly veiled ad hominem attacks and never, I mean NEVER change our own viewpoints. If you keep this sort if thing up, someone might actually stumble upon a fruitful conversation and where would that lead us?

Well, you seem to have caught on to point of the conversation at hand much better than some participants

The fact that it leaves you confused is a problem for you. Being uninformed about something doesn't make you less wrong when you say something incorrect. In fact, that's usually the cause. But if you are then demanding that I must explain it to you until you understand why these things work, I have no words. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. So you didn't figure out your error, I take it?

Lol, are you trying to lawyer some kind of win for yourself? Unfortunately your logic here is flawed so what you said doesn't have any meaning. I would normally consider it bad manners not to explain where the error is, but since you have created a very good exercise for reading comprehension and basic logic, I'll leave it to you for now to figure out where you went wrong as you need the practice. I can explain if you want, but then I'll assume you really tried to figure it out but couldn't. Oh on another note, I think I also realised why I was somewhat confused about the things you said. The reason being that the formula you quoted is simply wrong for this purpose and I dismissed it since I didn't realise what you were trying to say with it. But now that I had a look at it, I understand you just didn't know how to use it. But now that we have established you were wrong, we can just move on.

What you fail to understand completely is that what I said to you originally and what I've told you since has no bearing with whatever argument you're rolling around in your head. All that huge brain of yours and yet you lack the basic argumentative skills and basic reading comprehension. Maybe you should go to high school again for a quick refresher and some practical exercises? No, you really haven't given any definition. If you go back and read reeeeeaalllly carefully what I asked from you and what you've since said, maybe you'll catch on to it. As refresher, you said "close" is very strictly defined in your field but you have yet to tell me where this definition actually is and what it actually is. So until you point that out to me, at which point I'm happy to concede to misunderstanding, I will just assume you're obfuscating because you've said something stupid and can't admit to it or alternatively that you cannot understand basic sentences. This would be easier if you understood that throwing jargon and saying it's too complicated to explain is not answering the question. Also now you're accusing me of moving goalposts and assuming something about my ability to understand mathematics, of which you have yet to actually give any kind of actual explanation as to what you're talking about. Instead you're using a lot of energy to explain all the various ways by which I'm not understanding the thing you're not explaining. See, you didn't answer my question at all, you just answered a question that you proposed to yourself. Given how much you're boasting here I'd say I'm not the one with ego problems... So far all you've done is blow a lot of hot air and dodged almost every argument while telling everyone else they're wrong but not actually why they're wrong. Seriously, I'm sure you're good at maths and statistics and I'm sure you're better at it than me. I have no problem with people being better at maths than me. You're just not making much sense and have probably the worst argumentative and discussion skills that I've seen in a while, backed up with a looooot of hubris and bow you're just projecting it all on me. I engage in this conversation out of some kind of morbid curiosity (again) and it hasn't failed to entertain so far. It's funny because all I've done so far is just try to get you to actually just explain your argument and you're throwing a tantrum and then saying I'm doing it. My 6-year old niece does something similar.

I find this funny because I kinda left that there on purpose knowing you'd probably get hung up on it. However if you read my comment again, I didn't say that 0.1% of 10 million is 500, I just referenced the same number you used and said that's "pretty much where my percentages land." I'll happily admit it's not very accurate if you think this is not "pretty much" the same in this context but as far as your original claim goes, it's absolutely irrelevant whether we're talking about 500 or 10 000 sales here. The fact that you did not understand this just highlights exactly how far above your head the entire point flew of you being totally unable to even comprehend what it is that you're so wrong about. I'd argue anyone with a brain would say that if GTA 6 sells 10 000 copies it's closer to selling nothing at all than it is to their sales target. If you truly don't understand why you're wrong about your entire logic through this example, I can't help you but please stop spewing vitriol at people who disagree with you. Your math is here, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You just repeat that this is the only correct way to define the word "close" in this context and not actually making any kind of argument as to why. Since the rest of your post is just being aggressive, condesceding and attacking my intelligence and character rather than actually spending even one word defending your actual argument, I'll just leave you with your self affirmations but heartily recommend you take a breather and just learn how to be a bit nicer to people. I can recommend a few books. Maybe in a few years from now you'll behave like an actual adult, who knows! If you put in the effort.