Take Two Interactive (Rockstar, 2K, Private Division) canceling games, ending projects and laying off 5% of its workforce

[K^2]

25 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I'd say to just call him the Dead or Alive guy...but that would spin this discussion right round, like a record, baby, right round.

Oh, we can't have that. You Spin Me Round is what we call Dirac. That will get confusing.

[Entropian]

This chain has really made me uncertain about my expectation value for relevance, now I'm not sure what diraction this is going to go...

[K^2]

4 minutes ago, Entropian said:

made me uncertain about my expectation value

Did you really have to drag Heisenberg into this?

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

On 5/20/2024 at 10:58 PM, K^2 said:

So you have accepted that quote as the definition, and were simply confused to why that is the definition. Going back to what you're asking of me:

There is the definition, and that is the definition, as accepted by you already in this thread. Since you are now telling me that "why" isn't the issue, the question is answered. So now we're just waiting for this part, right?

 

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.

[NexusHelium]

*sigh*
Tom gone too. Why does this have to happen… 

[K^2]

4 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast 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.

On 5/20/2024 at 4:00 AM, K^2 said:

If 0 < x < y < z, compare y/x to z/y.

Formula that is too advanced for a particle physicist, but NH4Cl managed to unlock its secrets after thinking about it for a while. Not at first glance, of course, it's way too advanced for that, but on the second try.

Forget integrals of motion. Comparing too ratios, that's the advanced mathematics that needs more than one look at it to wrap your head around it. They'll crack quantum gravity any day now.

 

On 5/20/2024 at 7:11 AM, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

at which point I'm happy to concede to misunderstanding

4 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

Lol, are you trying to lawyer some kind of win for yourself?

I honestly expected nothing else. Thanks for making my point. I've nothing further to add.

[PDCWolf]

3 hours ago, NexusHelium said:

*sigh*
Tom gone too. Why does this have to happen… 

How did you not expect everyone to be fired? If anything, probably only Nate made it.

Also, in case someone hasn't seen it yet. Tom confirmed he was fired (TW: don't read the rest of his profile, yikes).

So, to recount: We've confirmed they fired the Multiplayer Engineer (Wes), they fired the Feature Lead (Tom), we also know they fired Blackrack  which was part of the graphics team. Even if you just consider those 3 layoffs, you know they're no longer planning any long term development because... you kinda need a feature lead for features, and a multiplayer engineer if you want to reach that milestone in the roadmap.

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

12 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Formula that is too advanced for a particle physicist, but NH4Cl managed to unlock its secrets after thinking about it for a while. Not at first glance, of course, it's way too advanced for that, but on the second try.

 

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.

 

14 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I honestly expected nothing else. Thanks for making my point. I've nothing further to add.

So you didn't figure out your error, I take it?

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Well.. if particle physicists are among those qualified enough to understand the application of your formula.. you have supported the oppositional argument so very well.

Trying to apply this degree of mathematical relevance to a general conversation so that ypu can construct some platform in which your view has merit.

If your methodology for supporting your stance is only applicable to a very small subsect individuals.. well then it certainly doesn't apply in scope of generalized conversational comparisons among forum users.

Reserve those conversations for spaces where all parties argee on the specificity meaning of generalized terms. You are arguing a very niche perspective of the situation based on the bias of your field or experiences.

 

Quick question.. 10,000 tall building. Climbing the exterior of this building.. 

If I fell approx. 380 from the ground.. would I be closer to death? Or my lofty goal?

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

9 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Well.. if particle physicists are among those qualified enough to understand the application of your formula.. you have supported the oppositional argument so very well.

Trying to apply this degree of mathematical relevance to a general conversation so that ypu can construct some platform in which your view has merit.

If your methodology for supporting your stance is only applicable to a very small subsect individuals.. well then it certainly doesn't apply in scope of generalized conversational comparisons among forum users.

Reserve those conversations for spaces where all parties argee on the specificity meaning of generalized terms. You are arguing a very niche perspective of the situation based on the bias of your field or experiences.

 

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

[never_do]

Just adding my 2 cents here because in a certain way the discussion was entertaining. Insert "that escalated quickly" meme.

But I think people were not really talking about the same thing. I think the discussion went something like this:

Someone: Here are some values. So the real value X could be close to 1%

Someone else: I think X is closer to 1% than 10%

Someone: But from my reasoning X is close to 1% (not comparing it to 10% at all). Uses the term "margin of error".

After that it was popcorn time and everybody wanted to look like a maths/physics genius.

Maybe one of the problems was the use of the term "margin of error". I am not a native english speaker. But interestingly in my language there is a term which if you directly translate results in "margin of error". However the original term in my language is pretty loosely defined and not a technical/mathematical term. We also have "margin of error" but it uses slightly different words. Interestingly the wiki page for "margin of error" does not have a translation linked into my language which is pretty rare. Probably because of the slightly different meaning of the term although it is a direct translation.

So maybe it was just people talking about different things and also maybe a translation problem.

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

4 minutes ago, never_do said:

 

So maybe it was just people talking about different things and also maybe a translation problem.

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?

[PDCWolf]

22 minutes ago, never_do said:

Just adding my 2 cents here because in a certain way the discussion was entertaining. Insert "that escalated quickly" meme.

But I think people were not really talking about the same thing. I think the discussion went something like this:

Someone: Here are some values. So the real value X could be close to 1%

Someone else: I think X is closer to 1% than 10%

Someone: But from my reasoning X is close to 1% (not comparing it to 10% at all). Uses the term "margin of error".

After that it was popcorn time and everybody wanted to look like a maths/physics genius.

Maybe one of the problems was the use of the term "margin of error". I am not a native english speaker. But interestingly in my language there is a term which if you directly translate results in "margin of error". However the original term in my language is pretty loosely defined and not a technical/mathematical term. We also have "margin of error" but it uses slightly different words. Interestingly the wiki page for "margin of error" does not have a translation linked into my language which is pretty rare. Probably because of the slightly different meaning of the term although it is a direct translation.

So maybe it was just people talking about different things and also maybe a translation problem.

And at the end of the day... 1% or 10% is still insufficient for what this game was supposed to sell by using a budget at least 10 times bigger, and streamlining dumbing it down for a wider audience, so either number is still a good enough argument to understand T2's decision of cancellation and to consider it a commercial failure that they might never touch again even if the economy granted them the possibility of infinite virtual money.

[Dinlink]

On 5/18/2024 at 6:38 PM, Lisias said:

• Steam Spy
  • KSP¹ : 3.58M
  • KSP2 : 590K
  • Ratio: 0.164804469273743 , or ~16.48%
• Play Tracker
  • KSP¹ : 6.24M
  • KSP2 : 240.7K
  • Ratio: 0.03857371794871795 , or ~3.85%

I don't what's the point making predictions and arguing using as base nonsensical data... Or at best data with huge uncertainty...

Steam Spy estimates are about half the value of the Play Tracker for KSP1 and about double of the KSP2 values... Then you compare ratios... Of course they will have about a factor of 4 in difference... But how do we know the real or approximately real uncertainty of the base values so we can propagate this uncertainties to the final estimations...

How can 2 entities be off from each other in about a factor of 2 in opposite directions on the same metric??

I think it would be more productive to find data of better quality than arguing over data full of uncertainty (almost non-sensical)

[Scarecrow71]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

How did you not expect everyone to be fired? If anything, probably only Nate made it.

Also, in case someone hasn't seen it yet. Tom confirmed he was fired (TW: don't read the rest of his profile, yikes).

So, to recount: We've confirmed they fired the Multiplayer Engineer (Wes), they fired the Feature Lead (Tom), we also know they fired Blackrack  which was part of the graphics team. Even if you just consider those 3 layoffs, you know they're no longer planning any long term development because... you kinda need a feature lead for features, and a multiplayer engineer if you want to reach that milestone in the roadmap.

Might not last that long.  Rocketwerkz has already reached out to him.

[Lisias]

34 minutes ago, Dinlink said:

I think it would be more productive to find data of better quality than arguing over data full of uncertainty (almost non-sensical)

Agreed. Feel free to do so, I couldn't - being the reason I tried to work with what I had at hands.

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

1 hour ago, Dinlink said:

I don't what's the point making predictions and arguing using as base nonsensical data... Or at best data with huge uncertainty...

Steam Spy estimates are about half the value of the Play Tracker for KSP1 and about double of the KSP2 values... Then you compare ratios... Of course they will have about a factor of 4 in difference... But how do we know the real or approximately real uncertainty of the base values so we can propagate this uncertainties to the final estimations...

How can 2 entities be off from each other in about a factor of 2 in opposite directions on the same metric??

I think it would be more productive to find data of better quality than arguing over data full of uncertainty (almost non-sensical)

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.

[J.Random]

Friendly reminder for those betting on Rocketwerkz and Dean Hall: Stationeers have been (and still are) in Early Access for the past 6 years, still buggy, still not feature-complete, still reworking the reworks of the reworks. On one hand, it's basically KSP all over again, on the other - this kind of dev culture won't work for KSP2. Paraphrasing the old saying, what's permitted for indie is forbidden to AAA investor-funded sellouts - from customers' point of view, of course.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

I have seen Satire of this very situation on television. It is a trope I feel has been displayed enough to have been immortalized.

Random individual conveys some sentiment with simple arithmetic to emphasize a general feeling of disappointment. 

Then a figure emerges from the back of the room. Crowd parts & a shadowy out of focus frame slowly center on  the individual. Long well oiled mustaschio twirled idly between for finger and thumb... " weeeellll... seems we have a misunderstanding. Let me educate the poor farmers" proceede with circular talk to convince *farmers* some unrelated point in somehow relevant to their disappointment.

[MARL_Mk1]

By Matt's words on his two tweets, we may get actual, real information by the end of the week?

"I have learned a lot these past few days, and it definitely wasn't their fault. By the end of the week you'll understand why."

https://x.com/Matt_Lowne/status/1793376610684641541

Edited May 22 by MARL_Mk1

[Tony Tony Chopper]

2 minutes ago, MARL_Mk1 said:

By Matt's words on his two tweets, we may get actual, real information by the end of the week?

"I have learned a lot these past few days, and it definitely wasn't their fault. By the end of the week you'll understand why."

https://x.com/Matt_Lowne/status/1793376610684641541

No, that's not what I'm interpreting:

"KSP 2 is dead dead dead, it seems. Even if corprorate wants to put out a "we're still working on KSP 2" and then go completely loveing silent forever, it's over until we get actual evidence of the contrary. "

This first sentence indicates he doesn't know more than we. I could be wrong however, I have a hard time to interpret English text right tbh.

[MechBFP]

9 minutes ago, Tony Tony Chopper said:

No, that's not what I'm interpreting:

"KSP 2 is dead dead dead, it seems. Even if corprorate wants to put out a "we're still working on KSP 2" and then go completely loveing silent forever, it's over until we get actual evidence of the contrary. "

This first sentence indicates he doesn't know more than we. I could be wrong however, I have a hard time to interpret English text right tbh.

No, he is saying that he doesn't know the status of the future of KSP2 but does know why it wasn't IG's fault they got laid off. Two separate subjects.

[Tony Tony Chopper]

5 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

No, he is saying that he doesn't know the status of the future of KSP2 but does know why it wasn't IG's fault they got laid off. Two separate subjects.

That was obvious. There were a bunch of devs straight from ST IIRC. That part isn't news to me.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Just now, MechBFP said:

No, he is saying that he doesn't know the status of the future of KSP2 but does know why it wasn't IG's fault they got laid off. Two separate subjects.

People do not like to admit culpability in a situation like this & Nate is ever the spin master. 

Anything taken from Nate will always be "We did an amazing Job. Things were out of our hands" or something similiar. 

Where I personally do not think that the responsibility lies with the individual developer. Even if it did,  No one will come out and say "we did a bad job" .. "it's our fault"

The game WAS pushed out in a rather poor state and could support the Parent say this outcome and was preparing for it.. but I'm just saying..

Nates literal job is to talk a good game.. and he's good at it.

 

[MechBFP]

Just now, Fizzlebop Smith said:

People do not like to admit culpability in a situation like this & Nate is ever the spin master. 

Anything taken from Nate will always be "We did an amazing Job. Things were out of our hands" or something similiar. 

Where I personally do not think that the responsibility lies with the individual developer. Even if it did,  No one will come out and say "we did a bad job" .. "it's our fault"

The game WAS pushed out in a rather poor state and could support the Parent say this outcome and was preparing for it.. but I'm just saying..

Nates literal job is to talk a good game.. and he's good at it.

 

As always the devil is in the details, so we will see if it is fluff or fact.