Support NeoGAF

[Stumpokapow]

This chap's tweets were more than just rude; they potentially harmed the marketability of a major product of Microsoft's, having someone say "you live in the wrong country, deal with it" when he should be getting people to yearn for the (yet-unannounced) product instead. These tweets were covered by so many sites and forums that it has probably had a very real effect on consumers' desires to purchase the next XBox. GAF alone was full of people changing their buying preferences to the PS4 instead.

I think he got fired, forced to quit, or suggested to quit because he discussed an unannounced product in a way that brought negative attention to the company he worked for. I don't think being more polite would have changed the fact that this discussion was not a wise one.

But I think the reason why he got quite so much attention is because he was venting in a rude way, and people who read it felt personally defensive and insulted by what he was saying, and so it spread and snowballed. I think if he had tweeted something like "Do people really get much downtime these days? My internet access is pretty much 100%" or "It seems to me like giving up a little reliability is an acceptable sacrifice for some of the stuff cutting-edge tech enables", he'd still have some people disagreeing, but he'd have the moral high ground because it would be a lot less rude and flippant to other human beings.

Also, you seem to do a lot of thinking!

I assure you that I use more declarative language when I'm not trying to make a point that emphasizes the necessity of modesty and respect for others. When you start getting in that zone, conceding a little of the strength of your argument in order to make sure you're being inclusive in your language is valuable.

 

[partyphone]

Am I the only one that believes he was more in trouble for talking about Nextbox and less for his comments themselves?

Nope! If he was just being a dick on twitter he would have probably just got a talkin' to.

 

[GavinGT]

Why is this thread now about Arthur Gies? Take it elsewhere.

For the new page.

 

[xelios]

I can't say I'm upset but I'm not going to celebrate either. I just hope others learn from this and realize they represent the company they work for, and being condescending toward your user base may not be the smartest move.

 

[blitzcloud]

He got fired because the story reached enough news outlets that it mattered. He became an embarrassment to the company and not just himself. If it just stayed within the GAF > Kotaku > GAF cycle, he probably wouldn't have been fired. But once the "Microsoft's creative director says deal with it" articles started popping up everywhere for the non-core gamer to see. He had to be fired.

Indeed. They had to make an example of him to save face for all the (mostly undeserved) media repercussion

 

[Reiko]

I think people should be nicer to each other. I think the root of the problem with the Orth tweets is that they weren't very nice, they were flippant and condescending ("deal with it", "why would anyone live there?"). I don't think he started from the assumption that people were legitimately upset, had real concerns. I think he mostly jumped to conclusions about others without giving them a fair shake.

I think Arthur's attitude on twitter is generally pretty poor and rude to others, and I think his ongoing campaign to complain about GAF rather than engage in constructive discussion is pretty rude--he has an account and can easily defend himself here or make an affirmative case for his words instead of sniping. I think most of the times where he's faced criticism here, even rude criticism or sometimes insults, it's been as a result of statements he's made that have been rude or judgmental or flippant.

I think the schadenfreude here and on many forums towards people in the industry is a mean at times. I think gravedancing in general is pretty crass, even if in some cases it is understandable. It'd be a better world if more people were happy and nicer to each other, and that has to start by being nice to people who aren't very nice. I think if someone is a negative influence in your life or you think they're a big jerk and a blowhard, you'll be happy if you learn to ignore them or go beyond them, you'll be happier. Worse than people who are bad influences and who generate unhappiness are people who relish getting angry at them rather than learning to let go and move on.

I think empathy and modesty go hand-in-hand, and starting from a modest perspective makes it easier to empathize with others. It also functions as a great way of keeping a check on yourself, because if you're modest, chances are you'll be more able to understand when someone calls attention to mistakes you've made. I think having a personal filter and being able to self-censor and choosing to do so at times where your meanest, cruelest, rudest, or most judgmental instincts surface is a good thing. For the most part, there's a calmer, less rude way of obtaining the result you're hoping to maintain and for the most part, the person you're being rude to is probably not at their best either and if you give them the chance to calm down and articulate themselves a little better, they will.

I think you can be passionately convinced of something, and deliver pointed (and even personal!) criticism about something or someone, but in general conversations should start with empathy, the presumption of good faith, and trying to understand how someone's assumptions lead to their conclusions (even if you disagree with them). And if someone squanders that presumption of good faith, and defies even extraordinary attempts to empathize with them, and makes themselves visible in a way that you could never, ever ignore them, then whatever anger you feel at them will be justified in the end because you know you've done your best to give them a chance to explain themselves.

I don't think very many people come off very well in all this.

Well said.

 

[thepotatoman]

The tweet weren't all that big news, it's that people on the internet go overboard with everything.
It's the same reason every joke has to become a meme nowadays or why EA won "worst company in America".

So yes, the story became huge, but it wasn't warranted, is what i'm saying.

You know when you have basically the entire internet getting onto this, along with tons of professional news sites doing stories on it, you have to admit you probably did mess up badly at some point. The internet is a huge place with tons of people of so many different types using it. I have a hard time seeing anyone could call "the internet" wrong about matters of opinion like this.

Maybe you as just one man don't have a problem with this, but a lot of people did. Why does your opinion trump the opinions of hundreds of thousands of other as the one right opinion about how much this matters.

If a large number of people think it matters, than it does matter, whether you like it or not.

 

[kingocfs]

I think people should be nicer to each other. I think the root of the problem with the Orth tweets is that they weren't very nice, they were flippant and condescending ("deal with it", "why would anyone live there?"). I don't think he started from the assumption that people were legitimately upset, had real concerns. I think he mostly jumped to conclusions about others without giving them a fair shake.

I think Arthur's attitude on twitter is generally pretty poor and rude to others, and I think his ongoing campaign to complain about GAF rather than engage in constructive discussion is pretty rude--he has an account and can easily defend himself here or make an affirmative case for his words instead of sniping. I think most of the times where he's faced criticism here, even rude criticism or sometimes insults, it's been as a result of statements he's made that have been rude or judgmental or flippant.

I think the schadenfreude here and on many forums towards people in the industry is a mean at times. I think gravedancing in general is pretty crass, even if in some cases it is understandable. It'd be a better world if more people were happy and nicer to each other, and that has to start by being nice to people who aren't very nice. I think if someone is a negative influence in your life or you think they're a big jerk and a blowhard, you'll be happy if you learn to ignore them or go beyond them, you'll be happier. Worse than people who are bad influences and who generate unhappiness are people who relish getting angry at them rather than learning to let go and move on.

I think empathy and modesty go hand-in-hand, and starting from a modest perspective makes it easier to empathize with others. It also functions as a great way of keeping a check on yourself, because if you're modest, chances are you'll be more able to understand when someone calls attention to mistakes you've made. I think having a personal filter and being able to self-censor and choosing to do so at times where your meanest, cruelest, rudest, or most judgmental instincts surface is a good thing. For the most part, there's a calmer, less rude way of obtaining the result you're hoping to maintain and for the most part, the person you're being rude to is probably not at their best either and if you give them the chance to calm down and articulate themselves a little better, they will.

I think you can be passionately convinced of something, and deliver pointed (and even personal!) criticism about something or someone, but in general conversations should start with empathy, the presumption of good faith, and trying to understand how someone's assumptions lead to their conclusions (even if you disagree with them). And if someone squanders that presumption of good faith, and defies even extraordinary attempts to empathize with them, and makes themselves visible in a way that you could never, ever ignore them, then whatever anger you feel at them will be justified in the end because you know you've done your best to give them a chance to explain themselves.

I don't think very many people come off very well in all this.

Totally agree. Grave dancing around someone nobody here even knew existed until these dumbass tweets makes it all the weirder.

 

[DukeTogo1300]

That was a joke with a friend.

He did say other stupid things, but getting fire over such little bullshit is excessive.

It being on twitter redefines it, making it a public statement. Twitter followers aren't mind-readers. If the entirety of the intended context isn't there in the tweet, it risks unintended havoc in the public space.

 

[FStop7]

Anyone else remember this? It's another good example of why you don't publicize the internal goings-on of your company.

http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2003/10/23/even-microsoft-wants-g5s/

http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2003/10/29/fifteen-minutes-of-fame/

 

[Goldmund]

I don't understand why Orth couldn't (or wasn't allowed to) make a gesture of good will and humility (whether or not he means it, whether or not it's commensurate to his "act") outside of Twitter. While people are easily offended, they're even more eager to forgive; if you give people the opportunity to exert and subsequently admire their own generosity, they'll forgive and forget almost anything. They'll hardly let anything obstruct their view on that sparkling vista that is their new-found magnanimity.

 

[Poimandres]

If you're going to act like a tool on Twitter, you have to be prepared for the consequences.

I really don't understand why people in public positions conduct themselves so poorly on Twitter.

 

[GavinGT]

It being on twitter redefines it, making it a public statement. Twitter followers aren't mind-readers. If the entirety of the intended context isn't there in the tweet, it risks unintended havoc in the public space.

Which is what makes Twitter so dangerous, since there's often not enough space to come off as anything but a smug asshole. There's no room for subtlety.

 

[Foffy]

I think people should be nicer to each other. I think the root of the problem with the Orth tweets is that they weren't very nice, they were flippant and condescending ("deal with it", "why would anyone live there?"). I don't think he started from the assumption that people were legitimately upset, had real concerns. I think he mostly jumped to conclusions about others without giving them a fair shake.

I think Arthur's attitude on twitter is generally pretty poor and rude to others, and I think his ongoing campaign to complain about GAF rather than engage in constructive discussion is pretty rude--he has an account and can easily defend himself here or make an affirmative case for his words instead of sniping. I think most of the times where he's faced criticism here, even rude criticism or sometimes insults, it's been as a result of statements he's made that have been rude or judgmental or flippant.

I think the schadenfreude here and on many forums towards people in the industry is a mean at times. I think gravedancing in general is pretty crass, even if in some cases it is understandable. It'd be a better world if more people were happy and nicer to each other, and that has to start by being nice to people who aren't very nice. I think if someone is a negative influence in your life or you think they're a big jerk and a blowhard, you'll be happy if you learn to ignore them or go beyond them, you'll be happier. Worse than people who are bad influences and who generate unhappiness are people who relish getting angry at them rather than learning to let go and move on.

I think empathy and modesty go hand-in-hand, and starting from a modest perspective makes it easier to empathize with others. It also functions as a great way of keeping a check on yourself, because if you're modest, chances are you'll be more able to understand when someone calls attention to mistakes you've made. I think having a personal filter and being able to self-censor and choosing to do so at times where your meanest, cruelest, rudest, or most judgmental instincts surface is a good thing. For the most part, there's a calmer, less rude way of obtaining the result you're hoping to maintain and for the most part, the person you're being rude to is probably not at their best either and if you give them the chance to calm down and articulate themselves a little better, they will.

I think you can be passionately convinced of something, and deliver pointed (and even personal!) criticism about something or someone, but in general conversations should start with empathy, the presumption of good faith, and trying to understand how someone's assumptions lead to their conclusions (even if you disagree with them). And if someone squanders that presumption of good faith, and defies even extraordinary attempts to empathize with them, and makes themselves visible in a way that you could never, ever ignore them, then whatever anger you feel at them will be justified in the end because you know you've done your best to give them a chance to explain themselves.

I don't think very many people come off very well in all this.

Man, that goes so far and away from just video games. And it's so true. <3

 

[Anth0ny]

Totally expected. Sucks he lost his job, but... Dumb move on his part.

 

[VXLbeast]

What would Drake do?

Looks like his connection with MS was dropped.

Oh you.

Still, feel bad for the guy. Best of luck to him, and hopefully he keeps his mouth shut form now on.

 

[blitzcloud]

I don't understand why Orth couldn't (or wasn't allowed to) make a gesture of good will and humility (whether or not he means it, whether or not it's commensurate to his "act") outside of Twitter. While people are easily offended, they're even more eager to forgive; if you give people the opportunity to exert and subsequently admire their own generosity, they'll forgive and forget almost anything. They'll hardly let anything obstruct their view on that sparkling vista that is their new-found magnanimity.

His only apology sounded like a scolding from MS to give one. He was like "sorry for telling you the truth geez"

 

[mugoldeneagle03]

When you represent not only a major company but a brand new yet-to-be-announced product, it's probably best not to be a complete asshole to potential consumers, which is exactly who he was interacting w/ on Twitter.

Sucks that he lost his job (I guess), but what else was Microsoft supposed to do?

 

[Baleoce]

Oh you.

Still, feel bad for the guy. Best of luck to him, and hopefully he keeps his mouth shut form now on.

Pretty much how I feel.

 

[GravityMan]

Adam Orth will likely have a very difficult time landing another decent corporate job anywhere in any industry any time soon...if ever. Publicly bringing bad PR to your employer and talking about unannounced secret projects w/o approval is going to be a near-guaranteed deal breaker for any company he applies to. I hope he was smart enough to have enough $$$ saved up to last him awhile.

The guy was an idiot, plain and simple. Now he'll suffer the consequences of his stupidity.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't understand why Orth couldn't (or wasn't allowed to) make a gesture of good will and humility (whether or not he means it, whether or not it's commensurate to his "act") outside of Twitter. While people are easily offended, they're even more eager to forgive; if you give people the opportunity to exert and subsequently admire their own generosity, they'll forgive and forget almost anything. They'll hardly let anything obstruct their view on that sparkling vista that is their new-found magnanimity.

In part, stuff spread too fast for him to be able to mea culpa, but in part it spread so fast because of just how extraordinarily rude he was.

I also think it's difficult to contextualize when he can't actually discuss the issue itself further. For example, if he wanted to make the case that always-on actually brought some benefits to the table (I don't really see it, because the presumption of internet access but allowing for rare disconnections can bring the same benefits without any of the frustration) he wouldn't be able to do so because he can't discuss it.

A more level-headed person might have said something like "Sometimes using cutting edge technology and connectivity does mean a slight risk of reliability issues, but it brings a number of other advantages to the table." For example, I use a laptop with no disc drive and no ethernet port. There are no doubt circumstances where this prohibits me from having fully reliable access to certain content, but there are some neat benefits to doing most of my work in the cloud and having a more portable device as a result. So there are analogies to be made there. Again, I still don't see how someone would make the case for always-on, because my laptop is not always on (although it assumes that I generally have internet access, obviously!), but at least contextualizing it in this way serves as an argument to convince people rather than insult them. Unfortunately he couldn't even do that, because he can't really explain those advantages.

But this doesn't absolve him from blame because the root thing is that this was a series of posts he chose to make set in a tone he chose to use about a subject he wasn't allowed to discuss but chose to anyway. It wasn't in response to an interview question that caught him off guard, it was a spontaneous declaration. I don't think there's any way to reduce the level of autonomy he had in choosing to do this.

*shrugs*

 

[PrimaNocta]

This is horrible. Keep your head up Orth.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

He got fired because the story reached enough news outlets that it mattered. He became an embarrassment to the company and not just himself. If it just stayed within the GAF > Kotaku > GAF cycle, he probably wouldn't have been fired. But once the "Microsoft's creative director says deal with it" articles started popping up everywhere for the non-core gamer to see. He had to be fired.

Obviously.

Perhaps that's why you shouldn't say stupid inflammatory shit while bragging about your position at Microsoft on Twitter.

I don't understand this whole "blame the internet for having a reaction." Blame the guy who said the shit that caused the reaction.

 

[codecow]

I think the real issue is that when it is known that you work for someone, you represent that employer at all times.

I have gotten into hot water a number of times for posting to NeoGAF. One time in particular I remember from a few years ago was when I was mad that Visceral made a game that didn't meet our sales expectations despite critical success. Fortunately it wasn't really news as the sales figures became available the next day however it was picked up by many sites which referenced my GAF post directly.

About 75% of the posts I start typing into GAF I end up deleting instead of sending. I'd love to give more insight into our real concerns as developers and provide my opinions on gaming matters as I have done for almost my entire life up until the last few years but it's not going to happen while I'm still in the industry and maybe not even after that (if I'm alive and not in the industry).

 

[Jac_Solar]

Why is he often wearing gloves?

And what is the other thing Adam did? With Sony?

 

[Unspeakable Evil]

I just can't wrap my head around this. He could of avoided this.

 

[jdl]

I had never even heard of this guy before this whole thing blew up. Crazy.

 

[wildfire]

Which is what makes Twitter so dangerous, since there's often not enough space to come off as anything but a smug asshole. There's no room for subtlety.

There's no subtlety in "Why would I want to live there?" or the way he made his original comments with the silly vacuum analogy unsolicited.

He would've needed to be bringing in great value to the company in order to not get fired. He cost them more than he was worth.


FYI there is a tool to get around Twitter's 140 character limit.

Twit Longer

 

[VeryGooster]

I honestly don't think Orth will have trouble landing another gig. For better or worse, it always seems like the industry looks out for their own, especially after (or maybe as a result of) a high-profile resignation/dismissal.

 

[Fixed1979]

...

Another great post, I wish I still lived in NL so I could buy you a beer...unless of course you've moved off the Rock.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Obviously.

Perhaps that's why you shouldn't say stupid inflammatory shit while bragging about your position at Microsoft on Twitter.

I don't understand this whole "blame the internet for having a reaction." Blame the guy who said the shit that caused the reaction.

He never once said anything about Microsoft. The only reason we even knew he worked at Microsoft is because of his bio that said his position at the company. But Aaron Greenberg also has his title at MS in his bio so I wouldn't call it bragging.

 

[RionaaM]

Deal with it.

Boom!

 

[pvpness]

Dumbass. Trolling gets you nothing. Take note.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Ouch, I feel bad for him, but at the same time it was 100% his own doing. The internet simply brought more attention to it, he dug himself in that hole. Not sure if he should have been fired for that, but he did come off as a douche at points so its likely in his nature. Hope he learns from it and lands on his feet none the less.

 

[TheSeks]

I think the real issue is that when it is known that you work for someone, you represent that employer at all times.

I have gotten into hot water a number of times for posting to NeoGAF. One time in particular I remember from a few years ago was when I was mad that Visceral made a game that didn't meet our sales expectations despite critical success. Fortunately it wasn't really news as the sales figures became available the next day however it was picked up by many sites which referenced my GAF post directly.

About 75% of the posts I start typing into GAF I end up deleting instead of sending. I'd love to give more insight into our real concerns as developers and provide my opinions on gaming matters as I have done for almost my entire life up until the last few years but it's not going to happen while I'm still in the industry and maybe not even after that (if I'm alive and not in the industry).

Sounds like you should be writing a tell-all book to be published when you die, eh?

 

[Valkyria]

As I said in the other thread, an apology should have been enough. I'm sorry he lost his job.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Twitter really does have an amazing propensity to get unknowing people in trouble in their professional lives. It affects careers in industries as disparate as gaming and MMA. I would say it's up to companies to keep a tighter leash on social media, but some of this shit seems like basic common sense.

"Don't say stupid shit in public if you like your job" is a pretty universal rule, yet when it comes to Twitter, people seem to struggle mightily with the concept.

One of the front page stories in the UK yesterday was of this young girl who had been given an extremely important and well paying (least for what she was doing, which is effectively just voicing her opinion) Job and lost it because of racist and inflammatory comments on twitter.

At least she has the excuse of only being 17.

I say stupid shit all the time on my facebook, but I never reference my employer directly and limit the audience of my rants to my real friends and family. Its so easy to have several twitter accounts if you are such an overbearing bore that must tell the world your shitty opinions.

 

[EvangM]

If you're going to act like a tool on Twitter, you have to be prepared for the consequences.

I really don't understand why people in public positions conduct themselves so poorly on Twitter.

Creative director is not a "public" position, in so much that he isn't a PR mouthpiece or employee. However, the discussion taking place on Twitter is (unless you lock it) a public space- I totally understand that. Just wanted to clarify that.


What really gets to me is that(IMO) the public absolutely wants more info about what goes on behind the big green curtain of game making. That's often the reason why we take to outlets like Twitter to interact with you. Even if it's just as simple posting a picture of a random knick-knack from PAX with our game's branding, we feel good about being able to share with the fans and allow ourselves to act like regular people for a brief moment. But if we happen to speak too freely or candidly on a subject related to this biz, we're most likely going to hear about it from our superiors and it can potentially put our employment at risk. And if we have to filter down our thoughts to the point it's nothing but fluff and filler, then I'd rather not say anything and just clam up. And I think that sucks.

This whole sad episode is going to absolutely change how peeps in our industry treat giving their opinions out in public. I know that I've consciously tried to avoid talking about other games(and our own) in public places as much as possible, just to avoid this very scenario from happening.

 

[Paches]

Why is he often wearing gloves?

And what is the other thing Adam did? With Sony?

Have you read the book "Of Mice and Men", by chance?

 

[alr1ght]

Creative director is not a "public" position, in so much that he isn't a PR mouthpiece or employee. However, the discussion taking place on Twitter is (unless you lock it) a public space- I totally understand that. Just wanted to clarify that.


What really gets to me is that(IMO) the public absolutely wants more info about what goes on behind the big green curtain of game making. That's often the reason why we take to outlets like Twitter to interact with you. Even if it's just as simple posting a picture of a random knick-knack from PAX with our game's branding, we feel good about being able to share with the fans and allow ourselves to act like regular people for a brief moment. But if we happen to speak too freely or candidly on a subject related to this biz, we're most likely going to hear about it from our superiors and it can potentially put our employment at risk. And if we have to filter down our thoughts to the point it's nothing but fluff and filler, then I'd rather not say anything and just clam up. And I think that sucks.

This whole sad episode is going to absolutely change how peeps in our industry treat giving their opinions out in public. I know that I've consciously tried to avoid talking about other games(and our own) in public places as much as possible, just to avoid this very scenario from happening.

The old adage of "don't be a dumbass" is a good rule to follow.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Another great post, I wish I still lived in NL so I could buy you a beer...unless of course you've moved off the Rock.

I'm on the mainland for the time being, but I miss home every day. If we're even in NL at the same time, I'm happy to buy you a beer

 

[ChimpanzeeThat]

Twitter - destroying careers since 2006.

I feel for the guy but he didn't have to be a jerk. When will people learn to take more responsibility when they post online?

 

[GeekyDad]

Why would you want to be employed?

Wow, man. This guy's on to something here.

 

[Veronica]

What a douche bucket.

 

[JABEE]

I think the real issue is that when it is known that you work for someone, you represent that employer at all times.

I have gotten into hot water a number of times for posting to NeoGAF. One time in particular I remember from a few years ago was when I was mad that Visceral made a game that didn't meet our sales expectations despite critical success. Fortunately it wasn't really news as the sales figures became available the next day however it was picked up by many sites which referenced my GAF post directly.

About 75% of the posts I start typing into GAF I end up deleting instead of sending. I'd love to give more insight into our real concerns as developers and provide my opinions on gaming matters as I have done for almost my entire life up until the last few years but it's not going to happen while I'm still in the industry and maybe not even after that (if I'm alive and not in the industry).

It's a shame development and publishers can't be more opened, but marketing and sales people want all information to be leaked out according to a schedule.

If out-of-context quotes didn't end up as Kotaku headlines, do you think publishers would be more open? I'm not sure. I think they would still be pretty closed because there is no proof that allowing developers to talk will improve your sales.

 

[UrbanRats]

You know when you have basically the entire internet getting onto this, along with tons of professional news sites doing stories on it, you have to admit you probably did mess up badly at some point. The internet is a huge place with tons of people of so many different types using it. I have a hard time seeing anyone could call "the internet" wrong about matters of opinion like this.

Maybe you as just one man don't have a problem with this, but a lot of people did. Why does your opinion trump the opinions of hundreds of thousands of other as the one right opinion about how much this matters.

If a large number of people think it matters, than it does matter, whether you like it or not.

I think Always Online is absolute trash, so i DO have a problem with it, and i also think his comments and analogies were stupid in nature and dick-ish in tone.
Yet i still think people blew the controversy out of proportion, trying to one up each other and going too far with it.
I generally don't like the angry-mob mentality in the first place.

On Orth's part, i think he should've come out and apologize with a sincere and modest tone, instead of the one he used and, more importantly, instead of trying to hide the tweets (that never works on the internet).

It being on twitter redefines it, making it a public statement. Twitter followers aren't mind-readers. If the entirety of the intended context isn't there in the tweet, it risks unintended havoc in the public space.

Right, but people are not mindless drones either.
I was kind of shocked by that tweet too, until i read about the context in which it was given, at which point i didn't give it as much weight.

So the venue in which he made that comment wasn't appropriate, but people are still able to recognize that mistake and put it into context, once the missing information is provided.

 

[Vire]

Creative director is not a "public" position, in so much that he isn't a PR mouthpiece or employee. However, the discussion taking place on Twitter is (unless you lock it) a public space- I totally understand that. Just wanted to clarify that.


What really gets to me is that(IMO) the public absolutely wants more info about what goes on behind the big green curtain of game making. That's often the reason why we take to outlets like Twitter to interact with you. Even if it's just as simple posting a picture of a random knick-knack from PAX with our game's branding, we feel good about being able to share with the fans and allow ourselves to act like regular people for a brief moment. But if we happen to speak too freely or candidly on a subject related to this biz, we're most likely going to hear about it from our superiors and it can potentially put our employment at risk. And if we have to filter down our thoughts to the point it's nothing but fluff and filler, then I'd rather not say anything and just clam up. And I think that sucks.

This whole sad episode is going to absolutely change how peeps in our industry treat giving their opinions out in public. I know that I've consciously tried to avoid talking about other games(and our own) in public places as much as possible, just to avoid this very scenario from happening.

I hope that isn't the case, there's a difference in saying a somewhat controversial opinion and downright insulting your customer base. Orth did the latter.

I would have been okay with him giving a formal public apology in a written letter, but it's really not my call to make.

Sometimes you have to learn a lesson the hard way unfortunately.

 

[Goldmund]

In part, stuff spread too fast for him to be able to mea culpa, but in part it spread so fast because of just how extraordinarily rude he was.

I also think it's difficult to contextualize when he can't actually discuss the issue itself further. For example, if he wanted to make the case that always-on actually brought some benefits to the table (I don't really see it, because the presumption of internet access but allowing for rare disconnections can bring the same benefits without any of the frustration) he wouldn't be able to do so because he can't discuss it.

A more level-headed person might have said something like "Sometimes using cutting edge technology and connectivity does mean a slight risk of reliability issues, but it brings a number of other advantages to the table." For example, I use a laptop with no disc drive and no ethernet port. There are no doubt circumstances where this prohibits me from having fully reliable access to certain content, but there are some neat benefits to doing most of my work in the cloud and having a more portable device as a result. So there are analogies to be made there. Again, I still don't see how someone would make the case for always-on, because my laptop is not always on (although it assumes that I generally have internet access, obviously!), but at least contextualizing it in this way serves as an argument to convince people rather than insult them. Unfortunately he couldn't even do that, because he can't really explain those advantages.

But this doesn't absolve him from blame because the root thing is that this was a series of posts he chose to make set in a tone he chose to use about a subject he wasn't allowed to discuss but chose to anyway. It wasn't in response to an interview question that caught him off guard, it was a spontaneous declaration. I don't think there's any way to reduce the level of autonomy he had in choosing to do this.

*shrugs*

He wouldn't have had to talk about the issue in any such detail at all, at least not in my opinion, the context would have been his act (being rude, and compromising his employer on a whim) and how it relates to his behavior and attitude in general, what the public and his employer are to expect from him in the future, how he would act differently on other occasions, and why.

 

[Mifune]

Gotta say I feel bad for the guy. He said stupid shit but probably didn't mean any harm. Oh well...hope he keeps his mouth shut from now on.

And if the new rumors about online NOT being required are true - oh boy, he fell on his sword for nothing.

 

[Petrae]

I think the real issue is that when it is known that you work for someone, you represent that employer at all times.

I have gotten into hot water a number of times for posting to NeoGAF. One time in particular I remember from a few years ago was when I was mad that Visceral made a game that didn't meet our sales expectations despite critical success. Fortunately it wasn't really news as the sales figures became available the next day however it was picked up by many sites which referenced my GAF post directly.

About 75% of the posts I start typing into GAF I end up deleting instead of sending. I'd love to give more insight into our real concerns as developers and provide my opinions on gaming matters as I have done for almost my entire life up until the last few years but it's not going to happen while I'm still in the industry and maybe not even after that (if I'm alive and not in the industry).

I, for one, appreciate your candor. It can be difficult in a situation as an employee of a developer, publisher, or other corporate entity.
What's in bounds, what's out of bounds, etc.

It's a lot easier for me, as a 40-something college student and as a gaming enthusiast, to have more polarizing opinions or share certain things if I wanted to. If I was in a position similar to yours, I'd be a lot more selective with my sharing.

I do think that it's possible to have a successful and rewarding social media experience. We just need to think (as you do) before we post/share.

And thanks for being an active member of this forum. It's good to read your perspective.