If you really believe that judges and courts are so easy to buy and corrupt, why don't you try to buy or corrupt one?
W H A T ?
If you really believe that judges and courts are so easy to buy and corrupt, why don't you try to buy or corrupt one?
She literally considered suing over it, so, uh.
But my video gamesMan some people really will go the extra mile to defend sexism and racism on a here huh
That couldn't be possible, David Cage worked with Ellen Page after all!
I don't think those are unreasonable things to expect of the media. I'd expect them to have those as bare minimum standards before reporting on things.
She considered suing due to modders utilizing her model in ways the game do not allow you to.
No, she sued over there being a naked model for her in the game despite part of her contract being that there was no nudity involved in her in-game representation. She was considering suing Sony, not the modders.She considered suing due to modders utilizing her model in ways the game do not allow you to.
Is this what it's come to, shouting "Fake News" and belittling anyone who wants to wait and see what judgements are made......given two previous cases have already been ruled in QD's favour.
No one is saying there haven't been issues. There are in every workplace to greater or lesser degrees. The question is how extensive they where, how QD management dealt with them, and if the reporting was fair and balanced.
The very reason we have press complaint commissions is so they can rule on disputed cases. I wouldn't take any sides take as gospel with so many conflicting reports.
What happened
The game, "Beyond: Two Souls," and it's exclusive to the PlayStation 3. In one scene, Page's character takes a shower. Her character model is never shown fully nude, nor is it possible to manipulate the game's camera to see her naked character.
Page didn't allow the game's developers to scan her naked body. Instead, programmers and artists at the game's development studio, France-based Quantic Dream, created a fully rendered naked model of Page's in-game character, Jodie.
So the image of a naked Page exists in the game's code, but isn't accessible by players.
But if "Beyond: Two Souls" is run on what is known as a "debug" PlayStation 3, which is typically available only to game developers and journalists and lets you see content buried in a game's code, players can see Page naked. Which is to say, yes, of course, images of a naked Ellen Page from "Beyond: Two Souls" are very much available online. They've been available online since October 2013, when the game launched.
That is indeed correct.So just to ask this so everyone on a new page can see, the past two cases that were dropped or whatever basically amounted to the following
" QD was not in breach of contract" aka doesnt mean jack shit weather they did or didnt do the shitty thing, only that the contract wasnt breached right?
Which would imply that nothing about the accusation was true or false since the case was about something else altogether?
No, she sued over there being a naked model for her in the game despite part of her contract being that there was no nudity involved in her in-game representation. She was considering suing Sony, not the modders.
So just to ask this so everyone on a new page can see, the past two cases that were dropped or whatever basically amounted to the following
" QD was not in breach of contract" aka doesnt mean jack shit weather they did or didnt do the shitty thing, only that the contract wasnt breached right?
Which would imply that nothing about the accusation was true or false since the case was about something else altogether?
Ok... that doesn't mean she authorized them to create a nude model of her likeness.The model is not actually shown in the game though, and it's only visible by modding on a hacked PS3.
This is lemonde's articleI read the Conrad PC article. It makes sense that was the outlet that they didn't sue, because that story indicates the reporter was at an actual tribunal between employers and employees and quotes Cage and the GM guy as much as they employees.
If the other two are reputable, which it seems they are, I can't see why they would get saddled with false information and then not reach out to Cage similarly when he's apparently prepared to say shit as dumb as 'muh work.'
Detroit looking like it could be QD's last game with Sony.
cinq anciens collaborateurs ont porté plainte au printemps 2017 contre Quantic Dream et l'un de ses salariés pour des photomontages dégradants. Le parquet de Paris a retenu la qualification d'« injures non publiques envers particulier
Le Monde, Mediapart and Canard PC went to Quantic Dream HQ to speak with the management about it. They even sent the questions they were going to ask.
The model wasn't nude in the game, the model was only nude when modders hacked the game. And of course she would not try and sue the modders, what would be the point of that?No, she sued over there being a naked model for her in the game despite part of her contract being that there was no nudity involved in her in-game representation. She was considering suing Sony, not the modders.
It's just sad. Like all this effort to discredit legitimate news sources, and the biggest in the country over ... a studio that has a history of making poorly received games? Get a fucking grip.
nahh I'll be there day 1 if it's a good game. Thanks for the suggestion though.
The model is in the game but not accessible through normal means.The model wasn't nude in the game, the model was only nude when modders hacked the game. And of course she would not try and sue the modders, what would be the point of that?
nahh I'll be there day 1 if it's a good game. Thanks for the suggestion though.
They were only given 11 days total before it went to press. So not 11 full work days so not a whole lot of time to respond.Then it sounds like QD were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and I have no idea why they think suing the newspapers would be a good idea.
I have seen this repeated, and it's not entirely true.So just to ask this so everyone on a new page can see, the past two cases that were dropped or whatever basically amounted to the following
" QD was not in breach of contract" aka doesnt mean jack shit weather they did or didnt do the shitty thing, only that the contract wasnt breached right?
Which would imply that nothing about the accusation was true or false since the case was about something else altogether?
the model was nude in the game, just censored by black bars. The whole fucking point is that a nude model was made at all despite Ellen Page not consenting to it in any way.The model wasn't nude in the game, the model was only nude when modders hacked the game. And of course she would not try and sue the modders, what would be the point of that?
The model wasn't nude in the game, the model was only nude when modders hacked the game. And of course she would not try and sue the modders, what would be the point of that?
Yes, so why is this being discussed as if Quantic Dream did something wrong? I mean, not that I expected this thread to NOT be about bashing QD ad nauseaum.The model is in the game but not accessible through normal means.
It's like racy texture in Geist, it's in the game but you can't do anything with it during normal gameplay.
Exactly. The modders were the ones that removed the censorship, not QD.
Yes, so why is this being discussed as if Quantic Dream did something wrong? I mean, not that I expected this thread to NOT be about bashing QD ad nauseaum.
The employees claims were ruled against but I think that was only 2 of 3 so one might still be going. However there probably isn't much reported on those since it would be a privacy concern for the employee.
Yes, so why is this being discussed as if Quantic Dream did something wrong? I mean, not that I expected this thread to NOT be about bashing QD ad nauseaum.
Depends on if the case were about breach of contract or not.I have seen this repeated, and it's not entirely true.
Prud'hommes is involved in disputes between employees and employers, whether there is a contract or not, and that includes harrassment and discrimination.
So the fact that 2 out of 3 cases were outright dismissed does matter.
They were *contractually prohibited from creating such a model*. Why don't you get the importance of that?
It was censored, do you not get the importance of that?Because it's a breach of contract ? There's a nude model of her in the game, and she never signed for that. Literally, that's all that matters.
I'm not sure how many times you can miss the point.Yes, so why is this being discussed as if Quantic Dream did something wrong? I mean, not that I expected this thread to NOT be about bashing QD ad nauseaum.
Exactly. The modders were the ones that removed the censorship, not QD.
There's no importance in that. It's quite literally completely and utterly irrelevant.
an actress doesn't want a nude model of her to exist.Yes, so why is this being discussed as if Quantic Dream did something wrong? I mean, not that I expected this thread to NOT be about bashing QD ad nauseaum.
Exactly. The modders were the ones that removed the censorship, not QD.
They were forbidden from creating the model in the 1st place, censoring or not.
It's a little tricky because we don't know what they were being accused of. It could have been about bonus' or something entirely unrelated.They were? Wow...that's a big deal!
I always thought that if it was as bad as some people make it to be more employees would had come forward, specially with the european laws in place, that protect the workers much more than the american ones.
The fact that everything stayed more or less the same inside QD after the allegations came out plus this ruling change the initial picture quite a bit imo
You can justify it however you want, they were legally not allowed to put it in there, normally accessible or not.
bruhh just jumped on the impressions page