River Of Slime |OT| Mission: Impossible

[Ghoul]

we need to start putting age restrictions on synthesizers that was awful.

[nudemacusers]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i’m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they’ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/page-12#post-21727371

Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.

Fundamentally that changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.

This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.

It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.

The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.

People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.

People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.

Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society.  When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.

I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.

It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!

Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.

That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.

"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.

Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.

So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.

So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.

It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.

Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.

In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.

Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.

"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".

Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:



[MEDIA=twitter]1031930291772899329[/MEDIA]

Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".

So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:



Which is responded to with this:

[MEDIA=twitter]1054706033887793152[/MEDIA]

Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..

GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!

In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:

..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.

Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.

So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?

Vote with your wallets!

Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!

Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.

This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.

Still not done?

That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.

Can you give me a tldr for this

[who is ted danson?]

Fuck me that's long

[BIONIC]

I’m not reading that shit. Wait for Benjiobliteratez to wake up 

[jorma]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i’m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they’ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/page-12#post-21727371

Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.

Fundamentally that changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.

This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.

It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.

The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.

People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.

People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.

Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society.  When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.

I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.

It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!

Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.

That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.

"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.

Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.

So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.

So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.

It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.

Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.

In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.

Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.

"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".

Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:



[MEDIA=twitter]1031930291772899329[/MEDIA]

Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".

So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:



Which is responded to with this:

[MEDIA=twitter]1054706033887793152[/MEDIA]

Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..

GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!

In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:

..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.

Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.

So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?

Vote with your wallets!

Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!

Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.

This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.

Still not done?

That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.

fucking finally! This should be edited into the op and required reading for every CDPR thread from now on.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i’m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they’ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/page-12#post-21727371

Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.

Fundamentally that changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.

This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.

It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.

The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.

People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.

People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.

Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society.  When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.

I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.

It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!

Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.

That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.

"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.

Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.

So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.

So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.

It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.

Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.

In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.

Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.

"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".

Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:



[MEDIA=twitter]1031930291772899329[/MEDIA]

Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".

So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:



Which is responded to with this:

[MEDIA=twitter]1054706033887793152[/MEDIA]

Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..

GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!

In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:

..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.

Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.

So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?

Vote with your wallets!

Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!

Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.

This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.

Still not done?

That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.

fucking finally! This should be edited into the op and required reading for every CDPR thread from now on.

as a screenshot, not a quote

[BisMarckie]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i’m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they’ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/page-12#post-21727371

Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.

Fundamentally that changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.

This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.

It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.

The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.

People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.

People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.

Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society.  When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.

I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.

It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!

Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.

That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.

"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.

Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.

So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.

So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.

It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.

Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.

In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.

Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.

"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".

Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:



[MEDIA=twitter]1031930291772899329[/MEDIA]

Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".

So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:



Which is responded to with this:

[MEDIA=twitter]1054706033887793152[/MEDIA]

Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..

GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!

In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:

..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.

Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.

So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?

Vote with your wallets!

Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!

Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.

This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.

Still not done?

That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.

fucking finally! This should be edited into the op and required reading for every CDPR thread from now on.

as a screenshot, not a quote

Sure, why not.

[VomKriege]

I’m not reading that shit. Wait for Benjiobliteratez to wake up 

Cancel CDPR.

[PogiJones]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i’m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they’ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/page-12#post-21727371

Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.

Fundamentally that changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.

This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.

It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.

The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.

People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.

People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.

Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society.  When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.

I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.

It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!

Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.

That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.

"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.

Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.

So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.

So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.

It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.

Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.

In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.

Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.

"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".

Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:



[MEDIA=twitter]1031930291772899329[/MEDIA]

Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".

So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:



Which is responded to with this:

[MEDIA=twitter]1054706033887793152[/MEDIA]

Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..

GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!

In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:

..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.

Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.

So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?

Vote with your wallets!

Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!

Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.

This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.

Still not done?

That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.

Can you give me a tldr for this

tldr

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

immediately prior to the screed above:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i%E2%80%99m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they%E2%80%99ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/post-21723228

There are people who, again, knowingly hired a gamergate supporter to represent GOG. Not work behind-the-scenes but to serve as the public mouthpiece of the company.

KNOWINGLY. They are people who saw literal gamergate apologia on the hire's linkedin account and accepted him into the company. If they did not see it (it was certainly THERE, and a quick check on the threads about their "#wontbeerased" -- I was there for that, I remember the discussion -- can easily demonstrate that) then they failed to do their due diligence.

These people, the ones who are responsible for this hiring and overseeing how their company is represented by these hires, are financially compensated when people use their storefront despite sympathising with or at least condoning the worst fucking goddamn opinions in the entire goddamn planet.

If you cannot accept this argument then there is no point in arguing with you further.

wasn't the "DEFINITELY A GAMERGATER!!!" stuff that he had worked on some website that had gate in the title and predated #gamergate?

e:
And is "women shouldn't be working in videogames" to take #gamergater aggregate opinion as the most reductive statement their detractors define it as, actually the worst opinion on the planet?

[BisMarckie]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i’m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they’ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/page-12#post-21727371

Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.

Fundamentally that changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.

This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.

It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.

The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.

People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.

People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.

Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society.  When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.

I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.

It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!

Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.

That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.

"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.

Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.

So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.

So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.

It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.

Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.

In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.

Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.

"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".

Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:



[MEDIA=twitter]1031930291772899329[/MEDIA]

Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".

So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:



Which is responded to with this:

[MEDIA=twitter]1054706033887793152[/MEDIA]

Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..

GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!

In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:

..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.

Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.

So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?

Vote with your wallets!

Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!

Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.

This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.

Still not done?

That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.

Can you give me a tldr for this

tldr

[marrec]

Can you give me a tldr for this

They repeat "entire companies are responsible for the actions of individual employees" over and over again

[Straight Edge]

https://www.resetera.com/goto/post?id=21660530

Evil Within 2 for me was really generic, you could really feel it was directed by a white guy. Well each to their own.

from the next page:

Is Nakamura the first female game director?

Everyone forgets Roberta Williams... she basically created a genre 

And Rieko Kodama.

[Momo]

we need to start putting age restrictions on synthesizers that was awful.

swaggot aint the best producer, not everyone can be macross.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/here-is-what-japanese-gamers-think-about-tifas-final-fantasy-vii-remake-design.1486456/

Even though Tifa's figure has become unrealistic, it's unrealistic to
say that cowmilk boing boing is unrealistic

[Crash Dummy]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/here-is-what-japanese-gamers-think-about-tifas-final-fantasy-vii-remake-design.1486456/

Even though Tifa's figure has become unrealistic, it's unrealistic to
say that cowmilk boing boing is unrealistic

newsfeed please

[james]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i’m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they’ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/page-12#post-21727371

Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.

Fundamentally that changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.

This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.

It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.

The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.

People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.

People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.

Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society.  When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.

I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.

It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!

Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.

That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.

"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.

Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.

So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.

So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.

It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.

Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.

In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.

Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.

"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".

Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:



[MEDIA=twitter]1031930291772899329[/MEDIA]

Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".

So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:



Which is responded to with this:

[MEDIA=twitter]1054706033887793152[/MEDIA]

Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..

GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!

In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:

..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.

Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.

So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?

Vote with your wallets!

Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!

Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.

This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.

Still not done?

That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.

Can you give me a tldr for this

tldr

This

Not this fucking quote bullshit again

[PogiJones]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i’m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they’ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/page-12#post-21727371

Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.

Fundamentally that changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.

This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.

It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.

The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.

People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.

People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.

Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society.  When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.

I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.

It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!

Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.

That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.

"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.

Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.

So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.

So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.

It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.

Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.

In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.

Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.

"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".

Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:



[MEDIA=twitter]1031930291772899329[/MEDIA]

Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".

So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:



Which is responded to with this:

[MEDIA=twitter]1054706033887793152[/MEDIA]

Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..

GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!

In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:

..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.

Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.

So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?

Vote with your wallets!

Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!

Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.

This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.

Still not done?

That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.

Can you give me a tldr for this

tldr

This

Not this fucking quote bullshit again

 

[Momo]

everyone who quotes that is a pedophile

[BIONIC]

everyone who quotes that is a pedophile

That’s true.

[BisMarckie]

It‘s ephebophile you jerk.

[BisMarckie]

It‘s also fucking typical. Everyone was just having a good time and then Pogi comes along and goes way too far and makes everyone uncomfortable.

[thisismyusername]

It‘s also fucking typical. Everyone was just having a good time and then Pogi comes along and goes overboard,

sMellee fans.

[clothedmacuser]

last page sucks, let's start a new one with bore values

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

She's cute aside from the gross self-Asianing

 

[Tiops]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cyberpunk-2077-looks-amazing-but-i’m-conflicted-about-supporting-cd-projekt-red-with-the-doubt-they’ve-cast-around-their-social-stances.122170/page-12#post-21727371

Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.
...

I'm reading that 3 times and translating to 10 different languages.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

I'm personally going to recruit an all PoC team with at least one token white person for the reverse diversity that 90% of other games have

Thanks for sharing

[BisMarckie]

THQ Nordic bans fresh from the Banbot:

Ayyyyyyyy, I just got my platinum in Red Faction not too long ago, so a physical disc on my shelf would be swell! But... LRG's shipping to Canada is ruff.

Do we have any indication of price or release date yet?

Nice! More physical games is good in my book.

Just ban THQ altogether you cowards.

[HaughtyFrank]

THQ Nordic bans fresh from the Banbot:

Ayyyyyyyy, I just got my platinum in Red Faction not too long ago, so a physical disc on my shelf would be swell! But... LRG's shipping to Canada is ruff.

Do we have any indication of price or release date yet?

Nice! More physical games is good in my book.

Just ban THQ altogether you cowards.

It's not like there's a thread about the physical release, and if there was people would hijack it with THQ talk. Guess this is only allowed in one direction. 

[Joe Molotov]

THQ Nordic bans fresh from the Banbot:

Ayyyyyyyy, I just got my platinum in Red Faction not too long ago, so a physical disc on my shelf would be swell! But... LRG's shipping to Canada is ruff.

Do we have any indication of price or release date yet?

Nice! More physical games is good in my book.

Just ban THQ altogether you cowards.

It's not like there's a thread about the physical release, and if there was people would hijack it with THQ talk. Guess this is only allowed in one direction. 

lmao, week long ban for insincerely claiming to want a game in a sensitive thread

[nudemacusers]

Who says you have to love something to have sex with it?

[BIONIC]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/limited-run-games-overjoyed-to-partner-with-thq-nordic.122252/page-5#post-21716311

Boycotting due to allying with a known child porn loving company is now disproportionate, I've fucking heard everything now.

That avatar tho 

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/limited-run-games-overjoyed-to-partner-with-thq-nordic.122252/page-5#post-21716311

Boycotting due to allying with a known child porn loving company is now disproportionate, I've fucking heard everything now.

That avatar tho 

IT IS KNOWN

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

Its also pretty funny that the defence of LRG in that topic isn't "Uhhhh guys maybe claiming THQ are a known child porn enjoying company is disingenuous false equivalence", it's "Guys, think of the optics for resetera"

[tiesto]

https://www.resetera.com/goto/post?id=21660530

Evil Within 2 for me was really generic, you could really feel it was directed by a white guy. Well each to their own.

from the next page:

Is Nakamura the first female game director?

Everyone forgets Roberta Williams... she basically created a genre 

And Rieko Kodama too  :'(

[PogiJones]

Just ban THQ altogether you cowards.

The fuck?  One could easily mistake that thread for being an announcement of those games coming to LRG...

I'm starting to come around to the idea that Gaming side re truly is insane.

[marrec]

It really is just about retribution against THQN for ignoring their screeds.

[james]

With the alarming frequency of which Resetera mentions child porn...surely theyre on all the lists right?

[PogiJones]

Like marrec's hit list 

[BisMarckie]

Like marrec's hit list 

It‘s also fucking typical. Everyone was just having a good time and then Pogi comes along and goes way too far and makes everyone uncomfortable.

Why would you attack marrec like this completely out of nowhere?

[PogiJones]

Why would you attack marrec like this completely out of nowhere?

Like the poster it's based on, that post attacked someone completely out of nowhere

[Ghoul]

DO NOT ATTACK ANIME AVATARS.

[james]

DO NOT ATTACK ANIME AVATARS.

Is my avatar considered anime?

Discuss.

[PogiJones]

Answer: Do you have a dedicated furry thread?

[BisMarckie]

Are splattoon squid girls anime?

[james]

Answer: Have you made a dedicated furry thread?

No I have not.

Are splattoon squid girls anime?

No they are not

[PogiJones]

Since this is UE4 and also coming to PC at some point, I imagine people can mod some more toned muscles onto her normalmap or something.

 

[PogiJones]

No I have not.

Fixed it.

[clothedmacuser]

I'm personally going to recruit an all PoC team with at least one token white person for the reverse diversity that 90% of other games have

Thanks for sharing

https://twitter.com/joekeskold/status/1137680725648584704

[BisMarckie]

No they are not

Good, because people who jerk it to anime are weirdos. And if there is one thing I never did, it is thinking of you as a weirdo.

[Ghoul]

DO NOT ATTACK ANIME AVATARS.

Is my avatar considered anime?

Discuss.

It's a gamer meme, so you're literally Hitler.

[jorma]

DO NOT ATTACK ANIME AVATARS.

Is my avatar considered anime?

Discuss.

there's nothing to discuss, weeb

[james]

Pikachu is a beloved media icon, probably a generation defining one.

The silent generation had Mickey

Boomers had Archie

We have Pikachu.

Anyone who calls Pikachu anime because it originated in Japan is racist.


Or, for you math nerds...

Anime is trash.
Pikachu is gold.
Gold cannot be trash
Ergo, Pikachu cannot be anime.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

I'm personally going to recruit an all PoC team with at least one token white person for the reverse diversity that 90% of other games have

Thanks for sharing

https://twitter.com/joekeskold/status/1137680725648584704

lmao.
actual runtime of that boring-ass episode: 61m

[PogiJones]

Huh, Woody Harrelson's dad was a hitman? Why didn't TVC ever say anything?

[Tiops]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/limited-run-games-overjoyed-to-partner-with-thq-nordic.122252/page-5#post-21716311

Boycotting due to allying with a known child porn loving company is now disproportionate, I've fucking heard everything now.

That avatar tho 

CHILD PORN LOVING COMPANY

[BisMarckie]

lmao.
actual runtime of that boring-ass episode: 61m

That‘s a parody account, but nevertheless the VR fighting game episode was so bad that it was hilarious. The episode with the dude who kidnapped the black guy because of his crusade against social media however:

[Joe Molotov]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/limited-run-games-overjoyed-to-partner-with-thq-nordic.122252/page-5#post-21716311

Boycotting due to allying with a known child porn loving company is now disproportionate, I've fucking heard everything now.

That avatar tho 

CHILD PORN LOVING COMPANY

But enough about RESETERA LLC, amirite?

[marrec]

If I didn't like that episode of Black Mirror does that just further entrench my problematic views?

[Boredfrom]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/limited-run-games-overjoyed-to-partner-with-thq-nordic.122252/page-5#post-21716311

Boycotting due to allying with a known child porn loving company is now disproportionate, I've fucking heard everything now.

That avatar tho 

Pedos hate anime, though. Ask Peter Bright.

[james]

Thoughts?