Multiple Journalists Callout VentureBeat Article About Quantic Dream's Defense of Alleged Toxic Culture
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
Just facts and logic!
“Quantic Dreams is a video game company. They sell games. End of article.”
Stop posting there then. educate yourself before making a post to distract from the issue.
Hopefully next week will bring some more attention to this bullshit story, unbelieveable groveling from Takahashi and Venturebeat to publish it. It would be interesting to know how this article came about and if it was Quantic Dream that initiated it, if they perhaps shopped it to other outlets.
Just in case someone needs a primer CanardPC has a rough english translation of their 2018 article available, accompanied with uncensored versions of the photoshopped pictures that were circulated around in company emails. Extremely NSFW, be warned. Never mind the court rulings, I would like to see someone with a straight face try to tell me a workplace and management that allows hundreds of pics like those to circulate in company emails for years has no other problems with their culture. JFC.
Just in case someone needs a primer CanardPC has a rough english translation of their 2018 article available, accompanied with uncensored versions of the photoshopped pictures that were circulated around in company emails. Extremely NSFW, be warned. Never mind the court rulings, I would like to see someone with a straight face try to tell me a workplace and management that allows hundreds of pics like those to circulate in company emails for years has no other problems with their culture. JFC.
i don't find it strange at all. just go back to the very first thread, and see the kind of people who were doing it, and the timing of it. they were just worried the launch of detroit will be overshadowed by controversy or even worse the game may get cancelled and were doing everything possible to try and dismiss the articles.
thankfully because of some things that have happened to QD since then (most of them not really related to this issue and controversy) many of those people have stopped caring about QD and their games as much.
I would go as far as argue that it was also because (at that time) QD was more like an "exclusive" Sony console dev.
Did Cage ever own up to what was going on in the first place? I remember his defense basically being "I'm not racist, homophobic, or sexist because I'm friends with a black guy and I've worked with a lesbian", which was especially silly considering Ellen Page was considering legal action against the studio. Now he is straight up lying about the situation. I'm baffled he still has the position he does, honestly.
Fanboys are wild. They get super attached to companies like that and start just ignoring or denying all criticisms or issues with them and lying to defend them. Look at the guy who made the last thread about this article for example.
In their mind, these were hit pieces to try and hurt a company and game they were enamored with. Rather than what they really were, which was using the increased spotlight on the company due to their impending release to signal boost the issues in that company.
people didn't want the launch of the newest exclusive from their fave dev/pub to be overshadowed by controversy, that's basically it.
had this whole thing happened now that they have no upcoming game and are no longer an exclusive dev, most of those people wouldn't come to their defense to try to brush off or question the articles
edit: there was that guy from yesterday tho who was still working overtime to clear cage and QD's name
honestly this feels like a stretch, but i might feel that way because i genuinely cannot fathom someone being so into QD that they'd act like that? i dunno, different strokes for different folks and all, but...
Yeah I don’t get it either, I think their games are all pretty mediocre or bad, but it’s definitely the case.
One thing that I have noticed with game journalism that needs work is the separation of option and fact. Some sites do it better than others but it is something that I feel should be clearer to distinguish.
Given the way that things are in the US, it's more of a shock that this didn't happen... because it has happened before.
That makes me question a few things if VB has been brought to the point of "shooting the messenger". That is concerning.
It's a good thing they are calling this out. I didn't read the Venture BEat article but other people could have been misinformed.
Yeah I agree. There were a lot of people defending QD when this broke, but almost no one was defending Riot when their story came out. I would assume there would be a ton more people defending Riot if this was a fanboy thing.
I guess it makes more sense that it was a Sony thing and not a QD thing in particular.
That's due to the fact that there are many QD fans that think that everyone is always out to get David Cage and QD, and that everyone, including the media are just haters. You saw it a lot after the release of Detroit when the harsher critiques started coming out about the game.
Look at how everyone stopped talking about Blizzard standing with the Chinese government after they issued a fake public apology and then showed D4.
Imagine being so caught up in console wars bullshit that you feel like you had no choice but to defend a shitty, problematic game by a shitty, problematic developer.
This forum is also heavily slanted towards single-player games relative to the industry at large.
Just before that
was another highlight.
Late reply, but- I do think there are some other differences there that would also help explain it? Though the Riot stuff did include ex-employees, it also included current employees and there was a lot of public discussion of it, followed by some people still at the company making an effort to improve the culture (and pressure the company not to force arbitration, etc.). Probably helps that it was all in English, too. This all meant it was really less of a “black box” that could be projected onto, imo.
Well, I should say I definitely also saw some people being shitty here or there still. Especially since there are unfortunately people who are grossly suspicious of anyone making an accusation of harassment/sexism. But you’re right that it was largely handled better.
What I find disturbing about all of this is the fact that people are dog piling on dean because he gave QD an outlet to speak for themselves. The media has a job to let information out, even the side of the accused. It worked wonders getting the sites to publicly release the questions they sent which throws what QD said down the gutter. It makes them seem worse but I think if the media were some sort of judge and jury on who should be heard or not, is a scarier idea. I posted this in the other closed thread.
I found the venturebeat articles existence to be fine. It allows people to question the article and hold people who made the quotes responsible.
I really don't think it's fine. It's very, very bad reporting with some made up stuff and a serious lack of fact checking by the writer/editor. It reads like a puff piece.
We knew a lot about what went on because of the investigative journalism that this article undermines. It even goes as far to mislead people to think the court ruled in QD's favor which we know is not true and we've known since 2018 where it got reported on by a lot sites including GameIndustry dot biz. We also knew that QD attempted to take Le Monde and Mediapart to court over their investigative journalism while also threatening other sites too. Nothing that QD has done these past 4 years has made them look innocent whatsoever. It shouldn't take a clarification of the questions asked when there was already a gigantic pile of crap on QD already.
Tbh, I expected better of Dean Takahashi. He's a long standing veteran and has been an excellent writer and reporter. This piece is just absurd.
That is the problem right here. Allowing QD to talk about the issue themselves, require that the writer to not to put their own take into it. Again there is a difference between what the writer is saying and what is being quoted from other people. Alot of the article is comprised of quotes, the article was about how QD defended itself. It is important to have these takes and not interfere as a writer. Whether it makes the company look good or even worse, the important part is that they did it to themselves. The company can't blame Dean for quotes, and it is insane that people are trying to blame the writer for not taking a stance when having a piece where the company is speaking for themselves.
Criticize the content I understand. But also pay attention to where the content comes from and place blame on where it is due. Not every article needs to be investigative journalism. And I think that is what people seem to be getting upset over. The article seems as if the writer didn't take a side and I feel that nowadays, more and more people get upset if people don't take a side because to them it seems as if it means excusing or condoning a behavior.
I find it more interesting when writers do this because it makes the people talking about this feel more comfortable about speaking their tale and normally in a position of comfort they reveal more than if they are guarded. I would rather hear from people and companies like that because it shines a clearer light on any issues there are.
I think your position is incredibly misplaced. The article itself is terrible and it's also getting heavily criticized by Journalists listed in OP for the same reasons being pointed by posters here. You should not include full on page from various employees stating they don't believe QD has a toxic workplace because it's a terrible assessment of a workplace environment but the fact that it does so for full pages is a huge issue (basically think of every serious industry issue that's ever been reported and think about whether anyone on record while being employed had specifically criticized who they were working for basically zero).
QD itself already had the opportunity to defend itself in court and was condemned which is why the criticisms have increased. This is absolutely not even a question at all so why on earth would you need to hear QD's side in further detail defending itself. Jason Schreier states pretty clear in a damning way
The ruling itself which has been posted numerous times is straight up clear cut.
This is such a weak take. They're called journalists covering toxic workplace. If they're not investigating, they're a PR piece. The stance has already been made clear.
The blame is on the writer because such a piece shouldn't even have been written in the first place because how bad it is.
This post is disgusting.
The article actively harmed the reputation of journalists who covered the story. This wasn't journalism, it was giving a platform for an accused party to hurt people whose job was to bring light, not judgement to a situation.
The fact is that you think that by merely reporting accusations, that the journalists involved in reporting cases of abuse are working against QD. That's not what journalism is and the fact that you think this is some sort of balance speaks volumes.
And this is exactly what I am pointing out. The idea that if the article is not taking a stance then it means that it is condoning or encouraging a company/behavior. Doing something in court is not the same as having your voice heard in press or media. I think many people have simply forgotten how journalism can not take a side but still be incredibly informative.
One of the most interesting things I have ever seen was a video of Oprah Winfrey interviewing residents in Forsyth County, Georgia and she asked questions without being confrontational. As a black person that was born in the south and lived there most of my life, I couldn't see a reason why a black media person would put themselves in such danger to hear what white racists have to say. I mean, I would have thought it be clear cut and easy to understand. I found myself fascinated at the discourse that went on and the insight of how racism is handled. Because of that, It allowed me to step back and look at other sources of information and what people say and how they say it to provide interesting context to how they think.
My opinion is that this article, especially after all the information that has come out, makes QD seem worse than they are before this issue occurred. I never paid much attention to the original case when it happened but this article made me not trust anything that they have said, because the way they presented the information I have seen it before. And I am glad for this because I feel as if they wouldn't be as forthcoming if this was a combative article.
A journalist doesn't always have to take a side to expose a company. Sometimes you can let companies and people do it all by themselves.
And I find your take nonsense. The article didn't harm anyone. It basically had the company state their stance and opinions. And like any responsible media, you can see the sites that QD claimed asked them unfair questions released their questions, and pointed out "this is what we sent them".
As to your second point, I never said anything about journalists working against QD. That is stuff that QD stated. What is interesting is that if this is played out in court, them doing this publicly and then allowing people/companies to respond publicly would in fact be worse for them. And I personally do hope that anybody that can provide a counter to them does so publicly.
This is like the Comcast vs Byron Allen case, which Comcast stated something which caused many companies to respond publicly. This is an excellent way to get information out. And the idea that only one side can speak out and not the other way around is disturbing on many levels.
Last edited:
You're warped. The article didn't harm anyone?
Tell that to the journalists who were defamed in the article.
Tell that to jschreier
Dean should never have published lies without checking them. That's defamation.
A chance you obviously didn't take yourself, considering your reaction to the article was to immediately believe it, assume all prior reporting on QD was a lie, shit on the involved reporters for not being truthful, and express concern about how "intense" these investigations must have been for poor QD. That you keep doubling down after such a blunder, rather than staying silent and hoping people forget about it, frankly leaves me speechless; that you of all people paint the article as an opportunity to form one's own opinion about the matter is Earth-shattering levels of ironic.
This is "Those pictures were harmless" levels of posting, frankly.
Again. Quotes from people are Quotes. Cage is the one making the quotes against these companies. The idea that articles cannot allow for people simply to be quoted without factchecking in media is a complete lie and simply means you are being really selective in what has come out in print, radio, and television. Companies, individuals and even very famous people do so all the time. And not every media that conveys them does fact checking. It is to the point we ahve media whose sole job is to fact check. They wouldn't even exist if it was the onus of every journalist to fact check, investigate or be combative. When you look at a piece of media, normally you get to check what "type" it is before you you hold expectations. Whether it is dubbed an opinion piece, and investigation piece, profile, insight or any other. The title and first few paragraphs of article in question tells what it was going to be about. "
Like I said I didn't follow the case and my response that your are pointing to is
Should have clued you in that I didn't know what was going on from the start because the investigations supposedly happened AFTER the accusations. And that didn't mean I believed them because even in the thread I asked other posters for more information, which you are clearly not pointing out.
Which was me trying to get answers about what happened and also pointed out about how quotes from a select group do not show the entire story. But please continue to misrepresent what I posted (seriously, shit on involved reporters for not being truthful? You got all that from my posts?) as an attempt to box me in. I didn't have all the details, pointed that out in thread but also pointed out in same thread that quotes from company doesn't represent the entire picture in response to the OP.
Last edited:
And this is why, I find it hard to trust some members ability to have a civil discourse. It is always. Someone has to have an agenda if they don't agree exactly with what you are saying. I am not saying QD is right. Or that it isn't a toxic place to work. I simply don't see why the mere existence of the article that quotes these people get people upset, because this article got people, like me to look for more information and ask questions. Instead of being handed a point of view, the more I heard made me believe that QD is full of it, and that wasn't the take of the writer, but QD themselves that did it.
But it is ok, I feel I have said everything I need to have said.
I agree with you. QD is shit, and this article where they try and defend themselves underlines that, if anything.
Not taking a side is one thing. But not fact checking your own words and saying something like:
Being cleared of their accusations is a falsehood. You still need to be factual in your reporting even if you don't take a stance.
I know I wasn't going to say more but I thought I had to say something about this. They didn't say all of the charges, but the most serious charge. When you read further into the article it clarifies what they meant by that
And they also mentioned the charge that QD had to pay.
I am sure this is over a difference in semantics where people in certain area's would consider the image issue a more serious crime, while it seems the article is referring to the higher payment and ramifications of that ruling.
I am sure, in the US, if stuff like that went down, victims could get far more than $5k for injustices suffered at workplace. (Then again we also have our own set of issues) So I am not sure how this is classified in the french labor system. Imo, they should have been charged more for this. $5k is nothing and I imagine insulting.
Last edited:
I feel that it is a gross (in the French sense) misunderstanding of the problem to frame this as people not wanting to let David Cage talk. It's fine to let him make statements.
The issue is that Dean let himself be a mouthpiece for Cage. There's a difference between allowing someone to state their side of the story and creating the situation where that side of the story dominates regardless of reality. If Cage tells a blatant lie, it should be highlighted so that the reader isn't misled. He definitely shouldn't present it as being true.
The issue isn't including what Cage said, it's not including everything necessary to understand the issues with what Cage said, especially when Cage is directly involved in the issue and has significant motive to bend the story in a certain direction.
Imagine, Staticneuron, that I was to piss all over your lawn and hurl rocks at your windows. A ridiculous scenario, maybe, but put yourself in that position where you've been wronged and someone else has wronged you. Imagine that you have the whole thing on video. Imagine that we go to court and I'm found guilty of vandalism.
Then a journalist interviews me, and I say "it was all found to be a lie, shame that there are crazy people who will claim to be vandalized just to sully my good name". Now imagine that the journalist publishes an article based entirely on that statement of mine to show how I managed to beat this charge and save my reputation.
In that scenario where my statement is allowed to dominate the story unchecked regardless of easily verifiable information, has journalistic duty been done? Have all the stakeholders involved been treated fairly? If there's a problem, it that I, the perpetrator, have been allowed to speak, or is it something else that has been off about how it was handled?
Wouldn't releasing the Video to the press allow me to produce a counter narrative? Why on earth would my accuser dominate the story? That is my problem with the framing of this. This is one article, in which Cage is going after other media companies. Which can easily show that they have proof and distribute it so it becomes apart of the conversation. I think that is my take on this, is that it is not one-sided, and the people who feel they are wronged have the ability and means to speak out on this manner.
Even more so, because of the things stated that simply make no sense, QD opened themselves up to a line of questioning and cross checking which makes them seem even more guilty. Anyone who reads this and has a bit of critical thinking starts to see this doesn't add up and the more you question, the more QD looks guilty and unrepentant for what they have done.
You're mixing things up in your framing. Whether rightfully or not, it's being obtuse in ways like that which would leave people to think that you have some sort of ulterior motive here.
The narrative that Dean can control is the narrative of his own article, which misrepresents reality by presenting lies and deliberate misrepresentations by Quantic Dream without question. Dean has the option of, within that article, taking the narrative Quantic Dream provided and showing how it lines up with the readily available information on the situation. He didn't do that, and that's what he's judged on when people evaluate the article itself.
Yes, you can counter this control over the larger narrative beyond the article by countering the article and pointing out the issues in it. But if that's what you think makes this okay, why would you have a problem with this thread, which is doing exactly that?
Yes, someone else can fix the problems that Dean leaves in his reporting. But if what makes the existence of the problems okay is that someone else fixes them, why doesn't he just... you know, not leave them there?
Before they put the safety harnesses on the rollercoaster, they generally design the thing so that it won't normally throw you out of your seat to start with.
Last edited: