-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Tim Sweeney (Epic Games): Companies should divorce from politics, Android is a fake open system, iOS is worse, "respect Gamer rights and freedoms"
- Thread starter Chairmanchuck (另一个我)
- Start date
Whatever that comes out from his mouth ain't worth the spit spent on it.
10-15 years ago another shithead (Brad Wardell) created The Gamers' Bill of Rights.
And proceeded to breach the terms of it with Demigod. A game which shipped with serious technical problems.
What conservative viewpoints is the industry not accepting that doesn't ultimately boil down to racism/sexism/bigotry?
Are you asking if there are are specific consumer rights that might apply to gamers and not to other consumers due to the way the industry works?
Maybe?
Don't take this as a personal attack but please educate yourself.
Withdrawal is the most dangerous thing to do and opens the door wide for manipulation. Please read Hannah Arendt, this goes out to all of you who want politics out of their games.
Coming from the asshole who is single handily crippling the PC games market.
All games on all platforms please.
If you think your % rates are better than other competing stores, and that is what customers want then let the customers vote fairly and not forced into your crappy walled up garden.
Timmy can't because he knows the outcome.
All the games on all the storefronts.
He has to either put up or shut up!
All games on all platforms please.
If you think your % rates are better than other competing stores, and that is what customers want then let the customers vote fairly and not forced into your crappy walled up garden.
Timmy can't because he knows the outcome.
All the games on all the storefronts.
He has to either put up or shut up!
Yes, against Tim and EGS!
Never a good sign. When hate filled psychopaths have your back, it's time to punch out.
The "gotta get my free games though" statements are the gaming equivalent of hating Wal-Mart but also shopping at them because of Rollback prices.
Dean Takahashi - Venture Beat said:
Dean Takahashi - Venture Beat said:
Dean Takahashi - Venture Beat said:
Dean Takahashi - Venture Beat said:
Aside from the last quote, which can come off as a bit rich with the EGS exclusivity contracts Epic is dealing in, I see nothing heinous in this.
I'm with you. This is a wonderful case of people cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to manufacture outrage.
"Right now our political orientations determine which digital storefront you shop from."
And it's not EGS for me.
And it's not EGS for me.
If you think creative can have enough clout to have a say in what a company should put out and how they should message the service then Sweeney has done his job is trying to mask the real intent behind his words.If he had it his way, he only wants to give the illusion that devs can engage in politics freely but not actually let them have a real say at all.
Marketing and PR is the first point of contact for fans and players to gauge the temp of a companies leanings. He wants all that to be neutral so that they can be free to vacuum as much money while both siding anything even slightly political.
that's funny, because thats exactly what the poster you're quoting did - cherry pick quotes
He says creative teams can make whatever they want but their marketing teams won't market their politics. So games with female protagonists and games like Wolfenstein how would they be marketed?
Alongside the above the rest of the comment directly contradicts the way EGS is doing busines. EGS is not giving acces to all costumer by design as well as intention ly making friction with PC gamers that just want to play with their friends.
Imo the fact that the both of you can't see the hypocrisy of Tim's comment is just all kinds of erong
Timmy is a scum-sucking piece of trash.
...I've run out of other stuff to say about him. This is who he is and who he'll continue to be for the rest of his days.
...I've run out of other stuff to say about him. This is who he is and who he'll continue to be for the rest of his days.
I imagine Sweeney the type of affluent white man who, if we're living in the 50s and 60s during the time of protests against and vilifying segregation, he'd be using his platform express his shock at people conducting or not, business with people/organization who publicly espouse support for segregation. Furthermore, he'd hail the movement against bigotry as "divisive" politics and claim that his business unites employees under a grander vision ensuring they overlook bigotry on an individual scale while acting as a launchpad of potentially all sorts of ideologies bereft of filter from third parties.
Tim from the future is contradicting Tim from the past? This has surely never happened before!
/S
That's a new level of dumb.
The fuck is 'gamer rights'? The right to see tits and have all white males protagonists?
Has he said something that negated those statements since then?
Like I said, he doesn't exactly live up to his own ethos, but I don't see how aspiring for games, especially ones that can be translated from one platform to another to be platform agnostic going forward is inherently bad. And no, you don't need to ask me how would you do X on platform Y, because I couldn't tell you.
That's a marketing team's dilemma. I imagine in a perfect world, that department wouldn't have a say in what the product they're responsible for pushing looks like. If that isn't the case with a big publisher, that's on them, and certainly in those companies, both the publisher and developer are worse for it.
Let creators be political, but not PR or publishers suggest a very strong separation between those three branches . A separation that is not there in reality.
Imagine having to advertise "1984" without being political.
Or why would a publisher, taking Tim's advice, even be interested in funding and releasing "1984" in the first place?
Imagine having to advertise "1984" without being political.
Or why would a publisher, taking Tim's advice, even be interested in funding and releasing "1984" in the first place?
i think some of those statements are problematic.
Specifically
There's nothing wrong with marketing including more variety for the sake of reaching a wider audience. This is something I'd expect out of some kid who's run out of ideas as to why having a PoC character in a game is a problem.
Is it really a dilemma?
Marketing can't push a political game so a political game either doesn't get made or gets stealth released.
IMO both of those options are not feasible for most games.specialy in the AAA industry.
I would appreciate how you justify that it's ok for a game to be silenced just because it's political
I mean, you can read do not need to as mustn't if you like.
I have zero industry experience, so I could not tell you which party is the first to push the brakes when it comes to creating or even designing a game that actually has something to say. Are you denied a Wolfenstein with a female protagonist before you even get to pitch it? Does the studio head say no to the idea when it's coming fresh from one of the producers? Does the publisher tell you "it's fine, but just make it a dude"? If anyone runs into those kinds of barriers in their workplace, I would think it to be a good time to stop there and then ask yourself if you're where you want to be. Or, at the very least, talk it out with the parties concerned. That is, if you truly and honestly care about what you're trying to communicate with your craft.
You do realize Sweeney has already contradicted himself consideirng he has advertised publically how Epic will support player's free speech after Blizzard Hong Kong. How 'neutral' of him
Or does it not count because it didn't come from a marketing department PR person.
If you said "specific consumer rights that might apply to GAMES and not to OTHER PRODUCTS" I'd be with you.
I suppose for a company trying to sell as much anything they have it's highly convenient to keep a centrist face, even if the people at the helm have leanings toward one or the other side. Or that's what I got from it. And while that might be repulsive depending on your views, it's probably sound advice directed towards business people.
Sounds like excusing bullshit to me.
Gamer rights is talking to business people?
He is spreading Gamergate talking points to business?
The irony is he is making an incredibly political statement by saying what he's saying and looks like has a history of making political statements.
Not interested in Epic Games for sure...
Not interested in Epic Games for sure...
Do you have the full talk? Because I was operating under the assumption that the 'rights' being referred to were about this quote
Tim Sweeney via Venture Beat said:
And yes, I would assume he's talking to business people. It's an industry event.
You'd be right if the issues within these two viewpoints were simply about taxes or laws on speed limits but they are not. Paying attention to the real world where generations of Hispanic children are currently suffering and dying in government camps, police are militarized and terrorizing minority communities, where scientific fact is suppressed and denied on a systemic scale, where bigoted white supremacist groups feel empowered enough to not just assemble but gain office and affect public policy for thousands on millions, where citizens are allowed to be poisoned by their governments and companies without recourse, and where there is a concerted effort to deny the right to equal justice within multiple levels of government reveals that things aren't as simple as "we should accept the two things". The two things are not the same. The two things fundamentally differ on matters of who is considered a citizen with civil rights, who is considered human and the future of humanity as a whole. To pretend otherwise like Sweeney is doing is to show off that he is disinterested in the realities of the shit he claims to care about.
Just as a base level example: Simply because there are people who believe that the world is flat and that vaccines cause autism exist doesn't mean that they are as valid as scientific truth or that industries are obligated to grant them equal weight. People are free to create as much anti-vax media they want but no social pact is compromised if a company actively chooses not to host or promote that content in favor of purposely focusing on actually encouraging and distributing fact instead. "Divorcing" from that responsibility and granting both "opinions" the same platforms is not bravery or neutrality. It's cowardice and willful ignorance.
Last edited:
I am still awaiting a worthwhile and exclusively "Conservative viewpoint" that is worth espousing in any medium today because we have seen plenty of examples of nothing but the effects of status-quo politics be part of hollywood and game development for majority of their existence.