View Single Post
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,916
# 13
10-19-2012, 05:50 PM
Originally Posted by red01999 View Post
A comment on this.

First of all, the internal culture changes the views of those who work there - I am sure of this. However, the thing is, I've been involved in some projects where something similar happened (volunteer, no money involved, just time and love for the project). Those on the "outside" had a drastically different view from those on the "inside" and for things to work many things needed to be kept from those outside. This caused a rift between those inside and outside and made it look like insiders were occasionally making nuts decisions. In fact I have had people comment to /me/ that things I did for it looked strange on the outside but made perfect sense once inside.

Is this the same situation? Probably, to some extent.
I'm convinced that this is it.

Is it RIGHT Cryptic is not transparent?
Even if it's what puts food in people's mouths, that doesn't make it right. I've worked in places with the disconnect you describe between inside and outside thinking and have come to believe it's both immoral and counterproductive.

That doesn't mean Cryptic needs to disclose everything. It does mean they need to find a way to overcome that gap in practice to justify their right to exist. Putting food on tables and paying for employees' kids' braces and paying investor dividends doesn't justify their right to exist. No company has a right to exist on this basis alone.

It has to be justified through a connection and a reconciliation between their values and their customers' values. That doesn't mean they have to say what their values are or disclose every philosophy or need that drives their actions. It means, in practice, they have to align the values of what they offer with the value that people will spend money to attain.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's probably a functional necessity from both a business perspective (not every business posts everything about it to the public, after all, even publicly traded companies limit their information outflow), and a game perspective (the people screaming about changes X Y and Z may not realize that it's causing major problems somewhere non-obvious).
Understood. But when there is a discrepancy, you anticipate and correct for it. And if you claim to pride yourself on openness as a company, you TRUST YOUR CUSTOMERS. And if they have a problem, if they even have to think about your internal philosophy, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

However, given he does work for them, and they keep a roof over his head and whatnot, simple fact of the matter is he could be under orders to keep his mouth shut about certain things.
Maybe the problem is with people overvaluing a roof over their head. Consistent and well reasoned principles matter more. They have to. And game design is all about the management, allocation, and application of values and principles in a fair (or at least proportionally rewarding) way. If that's not what you're doing as a game developer, you might want to rethink whether your job is actually game development to begin with or is something else with a fake job title attached.

This would probably be one of them. There are almost certainly limits to how much he can talk about.
That's business. That's understandable. The issue is not what he can or can't say about why he and the team do what they do. It's why they do what they do.

I've noticed when devs speak, they try to be friendly but flat-out ignore certain comments.
Probably for their own sanity and blood pressure and because of NDAs. And I get that. I can handle an NDA.

What I don't get is why we have a dev nicknamed Tron ("he fights for the user") because ALL DEVS should be Tron. Even when penalizing users, a good developer does it for the greater good of the user. And why "Tron" seems to be the one who is always the one saying that unpopular stuff is non-negotiable.

This is business. Nothing should be non-negotiable unless it overrides a core value. Capitalism is all about everything being negotiable and haggling for the right price.

Plus, frankly, the devs in a lot of cases are probably not the ones calling the shots on monetization issues - that's further up the food chain, at least in a general sense.
And that's fine if we're talking C-Store or lockboxes but then as a customer, I want a pipeline to the person making the business decisions. And if this stuff has pervasively shaped all areas of content, I'd be happy to start filing billing tickets in-game and contacting PWE's San Francisco offices with complaints about game content, if all game content is subserviant to a bad monetization model. And I'll urge others to do the same.