IGN reports: T2 wants to get rid of the IP, they want to offload PD completely.

[PDCWolf]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

I failed to see the significance of this argument, because:

• Whoever would be buying the IP, would not be buying Nate - these are two different things;
• We are not TTI shareholders, Nate is their problem - not ours (anymore);
• We are not a Court of Law, we aren't going to punish anyone due any misdeeds;
• Nate didn't did all of that by himself - he got a lot of help, really, really lots of help
  • No one is capable to do such a marvelous blunder without lots of help.

I like lists too!

• Read the article. T2 was trying to sell PD too, so yeah, there's a non zero chance that someone actually buys Nate. Obviously not if they just buy the IP, but maybe someone wants to try their hand at the whole thing.
• You maybe own their shares through index funds. Nate was our problem, and is a problem, and will remain a problem for whoever until he retires if my outlook on him is true.
• I don't need a court of law to validate my judgements, I'd need a court of law if I wanted a nationwide-respected ruling saying that Nate, or IG, or PD, or T2 have broken some law. If I blame Nate, I have my reasons, and you might agree with those or not, but you can't tell me how to judge a person, nor should you or anyone guide themselves based on my judgements unless you happen to work for me.
• Of course he didn't, he's as guilty as many others, he just happened to be the guy constantly telling us they had funds, experts, everything was going dandy, and this train wasn't stopping.
  • Yes, they definitely are, specially when they're on positions where they hold power over others and happen to also be in charge of communicating with upstream as well. Again, not saying it's his sole fault but damn if I do think he had a massive, central role like he's already had on 4 previous blunders.

42 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

And no seller in history doesn't at least ask for it.  I've already stated it isn't the buyer's issue...but that doesn't stop the seller from.starting there.

There is no "if" here.  Everything in his video is backed up with facts and corroborated by individuals close to what happened.

"Secret sources" are not sources.

People didn't believe Jason Schrirer at first when he said IG was getting killed confirmed by unnamed sources, an actual journalist with decades of clean track record of not being wrong. ShadowZone just happens to be closer to the community, and only be confirming what we already believe, also stating he has unnamed sources. We just happen to have a lot of context that makes what ShadowZone said fit almost perfectly with what we see and know. However, he didn't name names, and so his credibility is objectively, journalistically, as much as we want to give them.

[Lisias]

35 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I like lists too!

Bulleted or numbered?

 

35 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I like lists too!

• Read the article. T2 was trying to sell PD too, so yeah, there's a non zero chance that someone actually buys Nate. Obviously not if they just buy the IP, but maybe someone wants to try their hand at the whole thing.

But failed, so now there's a zero chance of this happening - not to mention that whoever would had bought the damned thing would do an audit on the development, otherwise they would be as dumb as the predec... uh, never mind.

If someone had bought the thing, I see two hypothesis:

1. The dude knows the trade, would do an audit on the code and then would decide to keep or not any member of the team;
   1. If they would keep Nate, it's because they didn't found anything wrong on him
2. The dude don't have a clue about software development, and then doesn't matter if they would keep Nate or not!

 

35 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

• You maybe own their shares through index funds. Nate was our problem, and is a problem, and will remain a problem for whoever until he retires if my outlook on him is true.

But still out of scope of the proposed Though Experiment, the discussion me and @Scarecrow71 were (trying) to do.

Of course you may be worried about something else (as Nate), but by then why doing it by arguing with @Scarecrow71 and me on a completely different subject?

 

35 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

• I don't need a court of law to validate my judgements, I'd need a court of law if I wanted a nationwide-respected ruling saying that Nate, or IG, or PD, or T2 have broken some law. If I blame Nate, I have my reasons, and you might agree with those or not, but you can't tell me how to judge a person, nor should you or anyone guide themselves based on my judgements unless you happen to work for me.

Depending on how you express your opinions... yes, you need - otherwise you will be dangerously flirting with defamation.

We just don't know how deep is this rabbit hole, and this dude being gagged by a NDA is just aggravating the (potential) offense. There's a reason democratic countries invented that pesky thing called Presumption of Innocence.

By no means I'm intending to supress your opinions - it's exactly the other way around. Being the reason I'm trying to, the most friendly I can, suggest changing how you exercise them.

 

35 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

• Of course he didn't, he's as guilty as many others, he just happened to be the guy constantly telling us they had funds, experts, everything was going dandy, and this train wasn't stopping.
  • Yes, they definitely are, specially when they're on positions where they hold power over others and happen to also be in charge of communicating with upstream as well. Again, not saying it's his sole fault but damn if I do think he had a massive, central role like he's already had on 4 previous blunders.

As far as I know, he didn't committed a crime - so the correct term is RESPONSIBLE.

Yes, he's responsible - and you have a good point about his responsibility over what he had said to us being considerably higher than anyone's else. We can even agree that he may had failed with the expected Working Ethics from someone trying to sell a game to people (kids between them!!).

There's a lot of things that we can hold him responsible. Please note the "we can" - as we don't have a smoking gun to allow us to affirm categorically such a thing without risking, well, slandering the guy.

Yes, you have a good point on bringing his past works to the table. This helps to uphold your argument, but it's not necessarily a proof of wrongdoing or similar misdeed that allow you to declare him guilty of something.

Again, I'm not trying to counter-argue you, you have good reasons to believe what you believe.

However....

1. Truth is a defense - so unless you have proof that you are telling the truth, you don't have a defense.
   1. It doesn't matter what you know, what matters is what you can prove!
2. The dude is under a NDA, he's gagged.
   1. Not being able to defend himself is a potential aggravating against you
3. This is not a Court of Law, it's not up to us do decide who's guilty on this whole ordeal.
   1. Don't help the real responsible (perhaps even guilty) party to walk by focusing everything on Nate.
       

35 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

People didn't believe Jason Schrirer at first when he said IG was getting killed confirmed by unnamed sources, an actual journalist with decades of clean track record of not being wrong.

You mean this guy?

 

Edited June 3 by Lisias
Entertaining grammars made slightely less entertaining...

[PDCWolf]

5 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Bulleted or numbered?

 

But failed, so now there's a zero chance of this happening - not to mention that whoever would had bought the damned thing would do an audit on the development, otherwise they would be as dumb as the predec... uh, never mind.

If someone had bought the thing, I see two hypothesis:

1. The dude knows the trade, would do an audit on the code and then would decide to keep or not any member of the team;
   1. If they would keep Nate, it's because they didn't found anything wrong on him
2. The dude don't have a clue about software development, and then doesn't matter if they would keep Nate or not!

We don't know if the talks have ended in general, we know someone from Paradox got to IGN to confirm Paradox didn't want the deal and that they were offered PD too. Also, I highly doubt anyone buying the franchise would continue from such an overwhelmingly bad start as the current KSP2. That anything will come from the current existing product is wishful thinking at best.

I like em bulleted. Numbers are for steps or priorities.

8 minutes ago, Lisias said:

But still out of scope of the proposed Though Experiment, the discussion me and @Scarecrow71 were (trying) to do.

Of course you may be worried about something else (as Nate), but by then why doing it by arguing with @Scarecrow71 and me on a completely different subject?

I'm trying to throw in my two cents that you're talking too much about money, too little about the human factor which I'm sure it's the most important (why I decided to do the math on some arbitrary and very high estimated KSP2 cost number being less than 1% of T2). Whilst I think the money is the reason they stopped, I hard disagree it's the reason things went bad and no one wants the franchise for. I'm basically just pointing out that you might be trying to think this out with what for me is less than half of the total factors.

11 minutes ago, Lisias said:

 

1. Truth is a defense - so unless you have proof that you are telling the truth, you don't have a defense.
   1. It doesn't matter what you know, what matters is what you can prove!
2. The dude is under a NDA, he's gagged.
   1. Not being able to defend himself is a potential aggravating against you
3. This is not a Court of Law, it's not up to us do decide who's guilty on this whole ordeal.
   1. Don't help the real responsible (perhaps even guilty) party to walk by focusing everything on Nate.

 

 

1. I'm not accusing him on a court of law. I'm merely stating my opinion on a forum for a dead game two dead games actually.
2. Poor little Nate, not being able to post in social media, he must be wiping his tears with the salary of his new position inside PD. He's already come out to lie to our faces, and even though that costed T2 a lot of money, and all of his employees their jobs, that was fine. You can't use that card if we're talking about his integrity.
3. This is not a court of law, so refer to 1. I also did blame T2 and PD for their incapacity to detect problems and even causing them in the first place. I just don't join the "muh corporate greed" bandwagon because money is money and I don't instinctively hate anyone who makes more money than me, which seems to be a very common problem nowadays.

15 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Depending on how you express your opinions... yes, you need - otherwise you will be dangerously flirting with defamation.

I'm gonna cite Pewdiepie's musical hit "Congratulations": "That's not defamation". However, if he's feeling extra petty he can accuse me on a court of law and see if my country extradites me to the US on counts of defamation. And so far, if he doesn't plan on editing his own posts, I haven't accused him of anything he hasn't done. Any accusation outside the very easily provable lying to customers has always been stated clearly as my own opinion, and if he wants to dispute that lying to customers bit, he's gonna have to justify how the things he's said aren't a lie, so I'd be actually doing a favor to the people still tuned in to this mess of a story by digging out more juicy details.

26 minutes ago, Lisias said:

You mean this guy?

"That guy" is Bloomberg's pretty much only writer in what concerns the gaming industry. He's the one anyone with 2 braincells listens to when it comes to the business side of things. He's got some controversial opinions but I'm pretty sure he's yet to be proven wrong when it comes to getting the scoop. For all us in here care about, he just caught T2's CEO with his pants down first, people here just like listen to ShadowZone better because he's been the hopium peddler for the longest time and not some rando or an ignore-list-maker "doomer".

 

[Lisias]

16 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I like em bulleted. Numbers are for steps or priorities.

 

17 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I'm trying to throw in my two cents that you're talking too much about money, too little about the human factor which I'm sure it's the most important (why I decided to do the math on some arbitrary and very high estimated KSP2 cost number being less than 1% of T2). Whilst I think the money is the reason they stopped, I hard disagree it's the reason things went bad and no one wants the franchise for. I'm basically just pointing out that you might be trying to think this out with what for me is less than half of the total factors.

It's not about him, it's about you. I doubt this would render any real trouble to you, but it may prompt someone on TTI (or whoever end up buying this thing) to remove your posts preemptively due something else. We don't know exactly what's going to happen, but I have some hints that it may not go exactly the way we would want - too much stupids decisions made in the last years, sooner or later someone will be in charge of cleaning up.

(and, yeah, I think that there's a chance of someone facing charges eventually - perhaps not by the reasons we are seeing now)

There're many different ways to say something, I just think that perhaps changing a bit yours would make yours posts... "more persistent".

(and I still think that openly bashing someone gagged is, well, less than a constructive way to exercise criticism)

 

24 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

"That guy" is Bloomberg's pretty much only writer in what concerns the gaming industry. He's the one anyone with 2 braincells listens to when it comes to the business side of things. He's got some controversial opinions but I'm pretty sure he's yet to be proven wrong when it comes to getting the scoop. For all us in here care about, he just caught T2's CEO with his pants down first, people here just like listen to ShadowZone better because he's been the hopium peddler for the longest time and not some rando or an ignore-list-maker "doomer".

Well, so I just earned my second braincell. I didn't knew about him.

I added him to my Twitter X news feed.

[WatchClarkBand]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Of course [Nate] didn't, he's as guilty as many others, he just happened to be the guy constantly telling us they had funds, experts, everything was going dandy, and this train wasn't stopping.

I just want to point out that everyone at Intercept only knew what they were told by PD and T2. Jeremy assured myself and everyone at Intercept around launch (when T2 was doing other rounds of layoffs) that neither PD nor Intercept would be hit with any layoffs. A day or two before I was walked out the door, he got a call informing him that he and I were being cut, and he had to do the exit meeting with me (as my manager). He asked "Paul said he was going to get a KSP tattoo upon launch, can I tell him not to do that?" He was told he couldn't pass on that info, and if I got inked before I was let go, that was just too bad for me. Luckily, I was only looking at artists at the time, and hadn't scheduled anything, but... if you believe anyone at Intercept had full view of the financials and strategic planning, you're mistaken.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Defamation and liable are not concerns when you begin by prefacing everything as a subjective interpretation. 

[Cryptobux]

1 hour ago, WatchClarkBand said:

"Paul said he was going to get a KSP tattoo upon launch, can I tell him not to do that?" He was told he couldn't pass on that info, and if I got inked before I was let go, that was just too bad for me. Luckily, I was only looking at artists at the time, and hadn't scheduled anything, but...

@WatchClarkBand This hits home.

First, you (and presumably others) were totally invested in the game, enough so to get a tattoo of it. Hats off.

Second, the executives care so little for their workers they were happy to let you actually get inked with the full knowledge the game and you had no future with them.

Inexcusable behaviour. If that's how they treat their own, it's no wonder Zelnick feels no compunctions about telling outright lies to customers.

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

3 hours ago, WatchClarkBand said:

I just want to point out that everyone at Intercept only knew what they were told by PD and T2. Jeremy assured myself and everyone at Intercept around launch (when T2 was doing other rounds of layoffs) that neither PD nor Intercept would be hit with any layoffs. A day or two before I was walked out the door, he got a call informing him that he and I were being cut, and he had to do the exit meeting with me (as my manager). He asked "Paul said he was going to get a KSP tattoo upon launch, can I tell him not to do that?" He was told he couldn't pass on that info, and if I got inked before I was let go, that was just too bad for me. Luckily, I was only looking at artists at the time, and hadn't scheduled anything, but... if you believe anyone at Intercept had full view of the financials and strategic planning, you're mistaken.

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.

[MarcAbaddon]

Have to disagree here - I think this blindsiding is pretty usual  at any larger companies which has subsidiaries.  If you tell people their entire department is potentially on the copping block the best people leave and  it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So usually there are some rumors and a feeling that projects are not doing well but nothing official, and then the decision comes down from the top.

This being said, it is really hard to imagine that no one at Intercept was worried about this happening. The game was delayed a lot, in a consequence almost certainly over budget and rather poorly received. That should have rung some warning bells. Even the fan base was speculating openly about the plug getting pulled since early release.

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

22 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

Have to disagree here - I think this blindsiding is pretty usual  at any larger companies which has subsidiaries.  If you tell people their entire department is potentially on the copping block the best people leave and  it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So usually there are some rumors and a feeling that projects are not doing well but nothing official, and then the decision comes down from the top.

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.

[MarcAbaddon]

Sure - working in Europe that is my experience too. I was more referring to the decision coming to shut down with little prior warning. Not people getting locked out or the entire building shut down without a warning. What I have seen happen is this process: announcement of shutting down without prior warning leading to a shut down process that takes a few month and includes negotiations about some people getting new jobs in other parts of the company and about the settlements for those who have no choice but to leave.

But for a software company the shut down seems adequate. What would be different here would be people getting laid off so quickly, though you would see a rapid drop as people already find new jobs before their termination notice period runs out.

[Siska]

As i see it, they are offering whole Private Division, which nobody will buy.

They are not selling KSP individualy. That means, either they sel I or franchise go to scrap. Still they will own the rights to the brand which means nobody will be able to work on it.

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

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. 

This may be part of your misinterpretation. The US is a pretty terrible country for workers rights and treatment across the board. That doesn’t excuse managers for behaving this way, but Id hope it would help you understand that neither Nate, Paul, Dakota or anyone actually working on the game has any real power to prevent this. 

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Defamation and liable are not concerns when you begin by prefacing everything as a subjective interpretation. 

Just to clarify: libel land slander are "specializations" of defamation (the former is written, the later is spoken). And you can defame someone even subjectively. "I think John Doe is a thief" is still a defamation if John Doe works on something where stealing would prevent the dude from getting a job, as a security guard.

Yes, in USA Truth is a defense. But you need to prove you know the truth and are not "guessing". It's really messy.

TL;DR: express your opinions giving the subject the benefit of the doubt: "If John Doe really took something from someone, then he may be guilty of heisting". But, frankly, I'm not even sure if I did it right on this example.

 

3 hours ago, MarcAbaddon said:

Have to disagree here - I think this blindsiding is pretty usual  at any larger companies which has subsidiaries.  If you tell people their entire department is potentially on the copping block the best people leave and  it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So usually there are some rumors and a feeling that projects are not doing well but nothing official, and then the decision comes down from the top.

This was exactly what happened when BenQ decided to shutdown operations in Manaus. We were working normally when came the order from the company's Director : "stop everything, logout from any external service, do not even commit anything. All BenQ projects are terminated". And it was just like that.

The only guys that are previously warned of these things are the infra team, as they usually have to shutdown accesses before the notice is given. Don't have a clue if this happened at that time.

2 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

but Id hope it would help you understand that neither Nate, Paul, Dakota or anyone actually working on the game has any real power to prevent this. 

And, worst, would get in really, really serious legal problems if, by knowing, tell someone about without explicit authorization.

[cocoscacao]

13 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Nah, even if you assume no one was there to stop him, he clearly wasn't realistic with his vision

Wasn't realistic how?

Edit:

In terms of budget constraints? He basically got greenlight for it. Gameplay?

11 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

There is no "if" here.  Everything in his video is backed up with facts and corroborated by individuals close to what happened.

There's always room for misinterpretation, some false statement etc. You don't know who gave that information. I'm sure SZ did his best to get to the bottom of everything, but I don't trust anyone or anything 100%, unless it's undeniably documented in some way, and even then... I have to take my own biases into account.

Edited June 3 by cocoscacao

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

46 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

This may be part of your misinterpretation. The US is a pretty terrible country for workers rights and treatment across the board. That doesn’t excuse managers for behaving this way, but Id hope it would help you understand that neither Nate, Paul, Dakota or anyone actually working on the game has any real power to prevent this. 

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.

[Pthigrivi]

1 minute ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

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 era lie.

Only in the sense that when you work for a large, capricious, poorly run company like Take Two nothing is ever certain. Im sure Nate was told that they were fully funded right up until they weren’t, just like Paul believed he wasn’t getting laid off until just before he was. Nate isn’t the liar here. Take Two is. 

[MechBFP]

5 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

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.

Saying Nate lied because you decided to make an unfounded assumption about the situation is probably one of the worst excuses I have seen on here yet. 

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

6 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Saying Nate lied because you decided to make an unfounded assumption about the situation is probably one of the worst excuses I have seen on here yet. 

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? 

[Pthigrivi]

10 minutes ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

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? 

The question is if someone tells you something that turns out not to be true, but they were themselves lied to and believed it and relayed it to you in good faith, is that a lie? Was Dakota lying to us when he told echoed the same? The alternative would be for them to add the caveat each time that we exist under a viscous and arbitrary corporate culture that will at any moment treat customers and employees like trash if it suits a short term boon for fickle investors. 

Edited June 3 by Pthigrivi

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

11 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

The question is if someone tells you something that turns out not to be true, but they were themselves lied to and believed it and relayed it to you in good faith is that a lie? Was Dakota lying to us when he told echoed the same? The alternative would be for them to add the caveat each time that we exist under a viscous and arbitrary corporate culture that will at any moment treat customers and employees like trash if it suits a short term boon for fickle investors. 

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?

Edited June 3 by NH4Cl Enthusiast
Added thoughts

[Mickel]

"We only tell you when you should be aware."

"And when's that?"

"You should now be aware because you just denied it."

"It would have been rather more helpful if I'd been aware before I'd denied it."

"On the contrary [Creative Director], if you had been aware you before you'd denied it, you wouldn't have denied it."

"But I needed to know."

"We do not always tell you about [studio shutdowns] when you need to know."

Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker...  IG was running, right up until they were told they weren't.

[MechBFP]

51 minutes ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

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?

I think you need to grab a dictionary and look up the definition of what a liar is, because you clearly don’t understand the word. 

[Pthigrivi]

51 minutes ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

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?

No, listen, what Im saying is we all hoped and believed KSP2 would slowly claw its way back and eventually deliver on the roadmap. Its not on you and its not on Nate that that didn't happen. The people responsible are upper management at T2 and PD who wildly mismanaged this IP from the very beginning. 

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Nate isn’t the liar here. Take Two is. 

Yes, but they have a point. Nate, as it appears (yep, cheeks-covering ongoing!), was their proxy on the lies.

And since he probably signed a nasty NDA, I'm reasonably sure he will not get into the clear - at least, not for a very long time.

So, in the very bitter end, it really doesn't matter if he lied willingly or not - Logic dictates that we just can't trust anything he says about the subject. At least until that NDA expires.