Jakob Knight, on 08 October 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:
While the article was informative in several areas, it does fail to address when a game developer outright lies to its community (not just information that leads to accusations, but provable, undeniable lies) and remains unrepetant that they have done so.
Heffay, on 08 October 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:
Hahah! That's funny. People still believe this.
What a world we live in! Then again, there are still flat earthers, Birthers, and 9/11 Truthers, so maybe it's more sad than funny.
Heffay, on 09 October 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:
You have a point. I apologize for the personal attack. It is beneath the forums to engage in such behavior, and I shouldn't do it just because someone else did it first. That's third grade right there.
Since your apology contained an accusation that the original post was a personal attack, I assume it was not sincere. This also is supported by your own initial response which seems to indicate a dismissal of my post as less than factual. Therefore, I will respond with both a denial and an explanation, as I am obligated to do so by your conduct.
First of all, my post was not a personal attack, but a simple statement of fact. Those facts are borne out by the evidence and logic at hand, and your own inability to provide more than spurious comments to support your own post indicates you are unaware of these. I will therefore present them for your enlightenment.
I said the Developers outright lied to the community, and remained unrepentant in doing so. Let us examine the definitions involved in this statement:
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Definition of Lie:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
Definition of Unrepentant:
not sorry for having done wrong <she was unrepentant about selling her ex-boyfriend's prized guitar>
Let us now examine the evidence:
Ask the Devs #40:
Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:
3PV
Viper69 : If we are going to be able to choose to play against people using 3PV or not to, how are you going to address the then fractured and smaller groups that then have to wait in queue for a match that meets their perimeters?
A: There will be two modes Normal and Hardcore (FPV) only. We anticipate most players will play the first mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. 3PV will be going onto test servers in the next 60 days and we’ll see how it goes from there.
Ask the Devs #41:
Bryan Ekman, on 28 June 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:
3PV
Vasces Diablo: Is it possible to rename the view modes? Specifically "Training" for 3PV and "Normal" for 1PV. It's semantics, true, but a portion of the community feels it's an important distinction. 1st person has been the "normal" view in earlier titles and it would create an indication to new players to that effect.
A: If you are referring to Normal and Hardcore descriptors for the matchmaking buckets, these are not final yet. Training and Normal would not work as this would imply an offline mode for 3PV which is not the case. 3PV is not only a great way for new players to learn to play the game, it’s actually a really fun way to play the game! Our early play tests have resulted in some interesting observations as hardcore 1PV proponents have taken a step back and seen the value and fun in 3PV. I expect once the 3PV view mode hits the Test Servers in the next 30 days, players will find it not as powerful as feared or as intrusive into the existing experience, rather accept it as an extension. Of course as promised out of the gates players will be able to choose 1PV and 3PV mixed or just 1PV.
:
"Instead of weighing the impact of the feature in every way we simply reacted very quickly and told the community that you will not have to play against players in third person perspective. Now this was many months ago and we weren’t even close to working on third person yet as it needed to find its way into our feature backlog."
"So here we are and all I can do at this point is reiterate that we truly feel we made the best decision for MWO and its future but this meant we needed to go back on previous statement and then we communicated it poorly to boot.
"To make it perfectly clear, there was never any meeting or particular moment at PGI where we decided that we would never provide the separate Queue’s for “Hardcore” (the mode where third person is not allowed). We simply decided that we felt it was likely not necessary and probably detrimental to split the community and with that in mind not worth delaying or holding out of the product when we could possibly see great benefit from the feature as we approach and cross over into official launch."
So. From the evidence above, we can conclude that the community was issued statements many times, over an extended period of time that 3PV implementation would be an optional mode that would not affect them if they did not want it to. This contradicts the claim by Russ Bullock that this was a quick decision, and is evidence the plan to keep 3PV seperate from the normal playmode of the game was a long-term plan. This satisfies the first definition of a Lie, and therefore is the first lie.
Next, we have the statements made several times, over several different periods of time separated by many days that there would be separate queues implemented when 3PV was put in, and this was intended specifically to place firmly in the minds of the community that they would not have to have 3PV active in their games unless they selected for it. However, the Devs then decided to not implement separate queues when 3PV was, in fact, put in place. This satisfies the second definition of a Lie, and is therefore the second lie.
Next, we have the statement by Bryan Ekman that players would never be forced to use or play against other players using 3PV. The update notes of the implementation of 3PV, however, show that 3PV was, indeed, forced upon all players by being the default setting, and the notation by Russ that a seperate queue for 1PV only was not going to be offered by default forced all players to play against other players using 3PV. This then is the third, and possibly fourth, lie.
Let us now examine the apology made by Russ Bullock on the subject. Russ acknowledges that they knew they were going back on many previous statements, and that they felt they were in the right in doing so. Further, the complete apology post in no way mentions any desire for remorse in doing so, but rather expresses regret in not getting the word out that they were going to do so faster. In every civilized culture (and not a few barbaric ones) and ethics code, going back on statements, breaking promises made (especially through outright disinterest in any value in keeping them), and providing false information are defined as wrong. Therefore, this satisfies the definition of unrepentant.
Further, it could be argued that the decision to not follow through on the promises made to the community may also satisfy another term.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Definition of Delinquent:
1 : offending by neglect or violation of duty or of law
Definition of Duty:
2 a : obligatory tasks, conduct, service, or functions that arise from one's position (as in life or in a group)
3 a : a moral or legal obligation
When posting the above statements, the Devs were asserting their authority by virtue of position within their company to make statements that would be taken as official, true, and trustworthy, and which would be enforced by that authority. They were speaking as the Company, and with the Company's veracity to credit their words. Part of authority is responsibility to honor promises made with that authority, and to conduct oneself as a representative of that Company.
In failing to provide the promised separate queues, the Devs failed to uphold their duties as representatives of the Company. By forcing all players to participate in 3PV enabled matches, they actively went against Company statements to the contrary. Even if the first is looked aside as negligence (failing to act to fulfill Company obligations made to the community), the second cannot be so qualified (acting directly to counter the Company's obligations to the community). Therefore, the definition of delinquent has been met.
So, we have proven through evidence and logic that the statement that the Devs are liars is a true one and not a personal attack. We have further proven that stating they are delinquents is also correct and applicable without being personal in nature. This completely refutes both of your statements, and I hope it has provided you with new learning you did not obtain before making them.
Edited by Jakob Knight, 09 October 2013 - 02:59 PM.
10
