- Status
Good thing he's not making it black and white then? Also he's not claiming there's a "conspiracy" lol. That's you sensationalising what he's saying. Anyway what are we supposed to be talking about? I'm responding to the video in the OP and people's reactions to it - many of whom are acting like they've just watched Mike Zeroh or something :/
"Jason's just an opportunist that really enjoys his buzzwords, he wouldn't have made these claims if there wasn't an outrage to capitalize on, like every other time he ''reports'' on something."
Simple claim without evidence, speculation, add hominem.
why do you feel the need to call him names and assume things?
why not just attack his arguments and leave speculation about his motives(which you cant really know right now unless your omnipotent) out of the discussion?
Last edited:
that wasn't reasoning, it was me explaining that you misunderstood my statement.
1) you said not being an expert doesn't mean you have bad reasoning inferences, deductions, etc. I agree.
that was not my statement.
my statement was he is not an expert AND he has bad reasoning, etc.
to clarify you thought I was saying
p--->q. (p implies q) (his inferences are bad because he is not an expert)
I was saying
p ∪ q (p AND q). (his inferences are bad and he is not an expert)
as for why I say that, I gave examples of poor reasoning, deceptive statements, in this and other threads.
I apologize for shorthanding, because I have discussed this before.
yes I was saying p->p as a glib method of saying p is a statement, not a conditional.
his inferences/reasoning are bad, because I showed they were bad in other posts
I will say crunch is a pretty big problem in software development, and is often mostly caused by poor management in the longterm, and corporate culture. Realistically, refusing to engage with crunch usually will lead to eventually being fired/laid off/passed up. And generally is socially hard to justify when your Peers are willing.
That said, claiming that as why a project failed is a bit off since that is the norm for projects. Also, its questionable that the project failed.
managing projects with minimal crunch is a sign of really good management, but it is extremely far from the industry norm. The industry norm is crunch
Last edited:
True, and I was wasn't particularly talking about Jason himself it's more a media wide problem where they escalate issues to unreasonable proportions (hence the quotation marks around the word conspiracy).
But hey it's just my opinion
.
Post automatically merged:
Opportunist wasn't used as an ad hominem in this instance, and I wasn't calling him names, it's a well known fact that he goes for sensationalist topics.
Like literally every single one of his articles.
I'm not attacking anything or anyone, I'm just laying out my opinion on the topic of Jason Schreier's reporting.
His motives are pretty clear, surf the outrage wave like he's always done.
Post automatically merged:
Surely there are laws against companies exploiting the labor force, software industry or not.
A contract cannot be called void if it states that the employee has a mandatory 40 hour week and refuses to do a 50-60 hour week, I simply cannot believe that.
But I may be wrong and my views biased due to where I live and my own experience with overtime work as well (which yes I do feel pressured into sometimes when I see my colleagues working their assess off to get through the season, I cannot simply on good conscience say... ''nah I'm not working nights this week because reasons'' I make damned sure I'm there and have their backs, but apparently this is some form of workplace toxicity or something... meh...).
So fair enough perhaps software developers are being exploited and we do need people like Jason to speak up for them.
Last edited:
This has become a constant (attempted) personal skirmish, and a discussion on Schreier rather than the actual topic. Seems to be headed towards a lock, in other words.
True, and I was wasn't particularly talking about Jason himself it's more a media wide problem where they escalate issues to unreasonable proportions (hence the quotation marks around the word conspiracy).
But hey it's just my opinion
Post automatically merged:
Opportunist wasn't used as an ad hominem in this instance, and I wasn't calling him names, it's a well known fact that he goes for sensationalist topics.
Like literally every single one of his articles.
I'm not attacking anything or anyone, I'm just laying out my opinion on the topic of Jason Schreier's reporting.
His motives are pretty clear, surf the outrage wave like he's always done.
Post automatically merged:
Surely there are laws against companies exploiting the labor force, software industry or not.
A contract cannot be called void if it states that the employee has a mandatory 40 hour week and refuses to do a 50-60 hour week, I simply cannot believe that.
But I may be wrong and my views biased due to where I live and my own experience with overtime work as well (which yes I do feel pressured into sometimes when I see my colleagues working their assess off to get through the season, I cannot simply on good conscience say... ''nah I'm not working nights this week because reasons'' I make damned sure I'm there and have their backs, but apparently this is some form of workplace toxicity or something... meh...).
So fair enough perhaps software developers are being exploited and we do need people like Jason to speak up for them.
the contract is not void, but contracts don't last forever, and most work is at will. I don't know the specific laws or rules in Poland though. I would have less problem with the writer's articles if it didnt appear to be using a hot topic to talk about a different issue. I also feel it does the topic a disservice, because it makes the discussion about the result, rather than the issues. As if as long as your product "succeeds" its not relevant.
The whole crunch issue is not simple, because yea, a lot of people might not mind overtime, or do it anyway. Its also a common thing on any project based system with humans. Some of it may be unavoidable due to the nature of deadlines. On the flipside some of the crunch is caused by poor management and unrealistic expectations, then there is how long does the crunch last? A few weeks might be OK, but 4-5 months?
I'd say regardless of the success or failure of a product, companies need to set guidelines and limits, mostly because its the nature of business to try to get the most you can, in the way that you need it, from workers. Its literally someone's job.
I understand, and I also am under the impression that overtime hours should not be mandatory and should also be rewarded whilst also agreeing with the period of time that it involves can ultimately lead to it becoming crunch.
Now see, therein lies the issue, the sensationalist media does not make the right distinction, or doesn't fully emphasize (sorry I don't follow mainstream media anymore so I'm going by the regurgitated topics that spill into the entertainment forums that I follow) on the significant difference between the notion of crunch and voluntary overtime.
Yeah, management is a big topic and a massive issue throughout the industry, but I don't believe it's as clear cut as bad management vs good management, there's a lot of nuance to it and to the information that they have available, like the efficacy of the internal hierarchy, the team leads having realistic expectations and time frames, the community leads providing the right interpretation of the public's expectancy and managing those expectations etc.
Any one of those cogs can became unknowingly (or deliberately) lacking causing a chain reaction that ripples through the company, now add a global pandemic to the list and watch how all the plans and the deadlines become obsolete - in a perfect case scenario this would be a massive setback.
Either way, unless CDPR comes clean it's all speculations, and Jason's anonymous sources don't exactly instill confidence in the whole situation since it always seems like a one sided issue if you follow his articles.
FFS he was advocating for lootboxes based on the fact that the videogame development is too expensive while overlooking the fact that the gaming industry in general is as profitable as it's ever been and then some - quickly overcoming every other type of entertainment industry.
I have a hard time taking anything he says at face value.
Not at all. The fact that CP77 was one of the buggiest and most broken releases ever is not subjective. Neither is the fact that CP fails to provide features that's been taken for granted for decades in high budget games or even mid-budget games of relevant genres. Neither is the fact that Sony refused to sell it, MS put out a poor quality warning, investors sued them and Polish consumer rights agencies put them under their scope. These are facts, not subjective premises.
This is not true. His whole thesis is quite the opposite. CP failed because 1) it was developed by a small studio suddenly gone big and trying to go even bigger despite the industry standards and their own employees telling them it made no sense; 2) they focused on marketing instead of development; 3) they released it 2 years before it was ready.
Neither of which is how industry develops most games. At this point in this discussion you are just manufacturing facts.
Except he - as a reporter - doesn't say anything. He reports on what other people say. These people are CDPR's own devs. So what exactly is your point? Are you guys accusing a Bloomberg journalist of faking sources?
Last edited:
- Status