Developers using money from publishers and putting it toward other projects is not entirely an uncommon practice
I would love to know how many sweet sweet TFLO dollars Level 5 took from Microsoft and spent on other projects.
Developers using money from publishers and putting it toward other projects is not entirely an uncommon practice
Cult of personality.If Dyack really is the King of Evil (as implied in the Kotaku article), I have to wonder why those former SK employees chose to work with him again.
Any comment from Kotaku yet?
The problem at SK also was that the company started out as a small firm, where it is indeed not uncommon that family members take some role (even in HR). This might be a problem when the company is growing (in SK's case: to more than 100 employees at one point).
I would love to know how many sweet sweet TFLO dollars Level 5 took from Microsoft and spent on other projects.
http://kotaku.com/denis-dyack-finally-sounds-off-on-our-article-about-sil-508948428
Kotaku comments. The answer is basically, "we checked things and we are satisfied with our own due diligence." Okay. Can you specifically describe what changed between the Wired-rejected draft and the one that was published? I remain willing to believe the Kotaku article, but at this point it is becoming "yes you did" vs. "no I didn't".
Their response basically tells me that Totillo failed to come back to the NeoGAF thread or do any research and see that the video included responses from this thread on their forum:
http://www.precursorgames.com/forums/index.php?threads/denis-dyack-addresses-kotaku-allegations-vlog-plus-notes-references-posts-email.1465/unread
So he wastes a bunch of time complaining about responses that aren't directed to him, and then basically blames Dyack for staying silent in response to requests to weigh in on the piece of character assassination, which he has no idea why Wired passed on.
Stellar.
Yeah, this is boiling down to whose word you trust more. I was expecting Totilo to offer up some new evidence or something but all the article is saying is basically, "Nuh-uh, that's not what our guys said."
I just find it silly that the article includes completely unverifiable stuff like what Dyack privately thought about Nintendo's influence. But then most of the allegations are unverifiable. Funny that Dyack includes Activision in his response, in points that could be very much verifiable if anyone bothered to do some checking up.
Sorry, but no new details that I can share on the record. Andrew and I both checked back in with sources on this and have just heard more of the same. If we'd had documentation to add, it'd be there. If Activision ever decides to comment, we will note that. And if any of the anonymous sources we've talked to ever comes forward, that'll help, too. That's the risk we took running a piece with just anonymous sources. It will inherently generate more skepticism. I get that.
http://kotaku.com/denis-dyack-finally-sounds-off-on-our-article-about-sil-508948428
Can you specifically describe what changed between the Wired-rejected draft and the one that was published? I remain willing to believe the Kotaku article, but at this point it is becoming "yes you did" vs. "no I didn't".
Sorry, but no new details that I can share on the record. Andrew and I both checked back in with sources on this and have just heard more of the same. If we'd had documentation to add, it'd be there. If Activision ever decides to comment, we will note that. And if any of the anonymous sources we've talked to ever comes forward, that'll help, too. That's the risk we took running a piece with just anonymous sources. It will inherently generate more skepticism. I get that.
Mael said:If you have problems with family working in the same company as the head guy you better build your own.
Imbarkus said:Startups hire family. It's kind of all over out here in the real world.
Sean said:What's so fascinating about the Kotaku article honestly?
Cerebral Assassin said:There is nothing wrong with using anonymous sources in an article, but when that is all the article is based on then it comes down to the credibility of the outlet running the story
Wouldn't you agree, though, that Dyack's assertion that Activision had the ability to check up on the project remotely at any point during development is a verifiable claim? That if he's lying he could very quickly be shot down, whereas if one or more of your sources are lying, it's a matter of hearsay? It's one thing to say that the company was funneling money towards its own projects, and another to say that's impossible and here's a specific reason why.
To me the idea that Silicon Knights could pull the wool over the eyes of the producers at Activision is incredibly far-fetched, and the word of anonymous sources can't really bear the weight of such a serious allegation.
Uh, Stephen addresses in his new post that the article never said this.Would you think that a piece as damming as this would require some kind of hard proof before being published. This is no story about an unannounced game that has little consequence besides disrupting publisher announcement plans. You and andrew decided to accuse a developer of stealing publishing money, yet no proof to be found.
Good question, but Activision won't comment and developers I've spoken to say that Hansoft is not a foolproof way of tracking this. So, yes, it's the word of multiple ex-SK people saying that they watched people get pulled off of XMD to be put on an ED2 demo vs. Dyack saying Activision would have noticed this in Hansoft.
Apparently there were 2 more HR people the employees could talk to...See it's stuff like this that makes having a conversation hard. You have to go back and correct these statements that inject misleading intent and then run with it. Having your wife work at the company is fine; it's whatever. Having her head HR is like a conflict of interest. That supposedly in this case, employees couldn't tell her anything confidentially without it going back to Dyack. What a suffocating atmosphere that would be.
Good question, but Activision won't comment and developers I've spoken to say that Hansoft is not a foolproof way of tracking this. So, yes, it's the word of multiple ex-SK people saying that they watched people get pulled off of XMD to be put on an ED2 demo vs. Dyack saying Activision would have noticed this in Hansoft.
Good question, but Activision won't comment and developers I've spoken to say that Hansoft is not a foolproof way of tracking this. So, yes, it's the word of multiple ex-SK people saying that they watched people get pulled off of XMD to be put on an ED2 demo vs. Dyack saying Activision would have noticed this in Hansoft.
Francis Ford Coppola is making some of his most interesting movies these days, actually. To me the idea that an artist is doomed to failure for the rest of his career because of a string of misses is hopelessly cynical and depressing. I like to think that anyone can regain that spark that they once lost.
Also, I think you will find far more defenders of Too Human than you will of Coppola's Jack.
Hi Denis. Welcome back!
Francis Ford Coppola is making some of his most interesting movies these days, actually. To me the idea that an artist is doomed to failure for the rest of his career because of a string of misses is hopelessly cynical and depressing. I like to think that anyone can regain that spark that they once lost.
Also, I think you will find far more defenders of Too Human than you will of Coppola's Jack.
No, I completely agree with you; I'm speaking more of the expectation of things. I hope Dyack makes a great game because I hope all games are great, but I see little to no reason to presume that it will be great.
I’ve interviewed Dyack numerous times. The conversations we had about the game Too Human were among the most thoughtful I’ve ever had with a game developer. His new project at Precursor, where he serves as chief creative officer, could well be his comeback. And if it is, many who loved Dyack’s older games will cheer. None of this changes that X-Men Destiny’s development was troubled and that those involved have divergent impressions of what went wrong.
Given that Dyack is ready to move on, I’ll encourage our readers to look to Dyack’s future. Check out Precursor’s Kickstarter. And if you like what you see—if you’re excited about what they’re promising—give them some money and help make their new project a reality.
I've had a laugh at Dyack's expense because of his dealings with GAF and the 1up Yours podcast fiasco, but if Kotaku's hatchet job of Dyack and SK was founded on the basis of lies -- and I should add that I'm open to listening to Kotaku's side of the story too, but their explanations had better be good, because some of Dyack's explanations to these allegations are convincing to me -- then I think it's probably the worst thing Kotaku has done in recent memory. Without a doubt.
At any rate, since Dyack has now responded, I think it's fair that we shouldn't let GAF's past dealings with him cloud our evaluation of what he said, just because the Kotaku story confirms our biases.
@ brianmcdoogle and Mifune
At the end of your posts, if you could tack on some insult sword fighting quips to each other as an aside, I would have a nice chuckle. That is all.
I definitely don't presume. But I have faith. I think Dyack is a terrible manager but a creative and idiosyncratic writer/director/designer. I think Too Human is hugely flawed but also hugely fascinating. X-Men Destiny is an unmitigated failure, though, I agree. Still, I think if Coppola could come back from Jack, then Dyack could come back from his missteps.
But then I think M. Night is poised to make a comeback, too, so I'm probably just a blind optimist.
And how appropriate...you fight like a cow. (for Eric the Red)
I trust anonymous sources (especially 8 of them) more than I would ever trust Dyack.
Francis Ford Coppola is making some of his most interesting movies these days, actually. To me the idea that an artist is doomed to failure for the rest of his career because of a string of misses is hopelessly cynical and depressing. I like to think that anyone can regain that spark that they once lost.
Also, I think you will find far more defenders of Too Human than you will of Coppola's Jack.
So this boils down to kotaku saying "we believe our 8 unnamable sources! But we have no proof, and we told you we have no proof, so it's Ok. "
That's gross. Sorry. People misinterpret things in a work environment. Rumors happen. If you are goingto make such serious allegations you morally need proof. There is a reason in the jurisdictional system you need proof to declare someone guilty.
This whole thing ends up being just a huge case of hearsay. Not very profesional, even if there where some truth to it. Without proof it just shouldn't have been published.
I’ve interviewed Dyack numerous times. The conversations we had about the game Too Human were among the most thoughtful I’ve ever had with a game developer. His new project at Precursor, where he serves as chief creative officer, could well be his comeback. And if it is, many who loved Dyack’s older games will cheer. None of this changes that X-Men Destiny’s development was troubled and that those involved have divergent impressions of what went wrong.
Given that Dyack is ready to move on, I’ll encourage our readers to look to Dyack’s future. Check out Precursor’s Kickstarter. And if you like what you see—if you’re excited about what they’re promising—give them some money and help make their new project a reality.
I can find eight banned NeoGAF members tomorrow who would give me loads of independently corroborated accounts of the mismanagement here.
Yet my experience here has been characterized by even-handed management, interesting discussions, thoughtful participants, and a positive forum overall.
Without hard facts, it is all just a matter of perspective and opinion.
While this barely related, I thought SK had to recall all unsold copies of XMen: Destiny and destroy them, based on the Unreal Engine settlement. Is that actually the case, or am I completely wrong about that, because I still see new copies of is available for sale at a number of places online?
As I understand it, this wasn't a case of going out and finding eight people with an axe to grind. More than one hundred people were apparently getting their names removed from a game they worked on, so Andrew McMillen reached out to past and present SK employees and asked them to talk about it, and they overwhelmingly told him "Thanks but no thanks, I'd like to keep my career."
McMillen was only able to get eight people to say anything about SK, and they started to tell stories. These eight people apparently told stories that sometimes matched, and apparently nobody told stories that conflicted (until Dyack, the ninth person to say anything).
If these eight people were just disgruntled employees who were bullshitting, it should be easy to find a hundred former SK people willing to go on record to call them out, shouldn't it?
This has been bothering me. If Andrew could only get 8 people out of over 100 to badmouth SK & Dyack, then I lean towards those 8 just being shitty with the company for their own personal reasons.
Read the rest of his post. He's not agreeing with you.
This is not an issue of nepotism, that's a separate problem. This is a clear conflict of interest, and one that no one with any integrity would allow to exist.
Is it illegal? No. But it is far from simply nepotism.
I feel like the debate about the seriousness of the Kotaku article is overshadowing the larger issue. There's no debate about what SK tried to do to Epic. That should tell you everything you need to know about the character of these people. You don't need the Kotaku article to be true in order to distrust these people, IMO.
We can look at Kotaku's history as the tabloid of gaming too if you want to go that way.
Quite right, I have no love of Kotaku either.
Then we're back to square 1, the only winning move is not to play here.