JV = Josh Vanderwall
JB = John Bolding
RW = Ron Whitaker
LF = Lizzy Finnegan
JV: At this point, crowdfunding has shown a lot of success. There have been a lot of really really great success stories with crowdfunding campaigns that hit their goals, delivered their projects, and received wild praise for what they have done. Like, I feel like Pillars of Eternity was a great example -- an amazing game -- so we definitely have cases where it has worked impeccably well.
There are also cases, as we have seen over the years, where things just do not get delivered. A lot of people just fall of the grid entirely, take the money and run away ostensibly or nobody has any idea what happened to the money 'cause the people stopped talking.
JB: Or there are cases where the games have released and been a pale shadow of what was promised.
JV: The FTC actually hit a board card game earlier this year. They basically failed to deliver the promises on their campaign. There was a class action...
JB: Washington State Attorney General
JV: ...took them to task for it and the FTC sided with the consumers and basically told this company "Look, you made these promises; you had these obligations; you failed to fulfill them; fuck you"
JB: pay people money
JV: I concur. I think that is absolutely the right way to go. Crowdfunding is still a fledging industry. I think it has a lot of potential value. It can do a lot of amazing things. Let consumers tell you what they want with their money. That way, giant corporations that are risk adverse never ever have to take a risk and we still get the stuff we want. That is very important to me. I feel like that is very valuable.
All that being said, one thing that is very gravely concerning to me is the kind of damage that failed projects cause in consumer trust with the platform in general. Kickstarter is kind of the big go-to name for video games for the most part. There have been detractors since day one, and every time there is a failed story -- a failed project or whatever, it doesn't deliver or stuff like that -- they just come out en-masse.
Hey look, I told you so. This is terrible. Never back anything on Kickstarter ever. This is the worst idea you could possible do. This is worse than pre-ordering
Which, occasionally, it can be. At this point in time, we have the behemoth. We the absolute giant of crowdfunding kinda sort-of looking like it is going to be one of these catastrophic failed stories and it is really really sad. At this point -- Liz you will probably know this better than me -- they are at or at least near a million backers right now, right?
LF: Yeah, just about. There are a lot of people involved and a lot of the backers have tens of thousands of dollars put into it.
JV: So if you don't already know what we are talking about, StarCitizen is an amazing idea. It is a beautiful, gorgeous plan for a game. Bolding disagrees, but I think it looks fucking awesome. Unfortunately, as far as we can tell, that is all it will ever do -- is look awesome, sound cool -- and that is really really just really bad given that a million people (I don't even know how many people participate in crowdfunding) has to be a large percentage right?
JB: It is the record. It is in fact the Guinness World Records record holder for most money overall crowdfunding and most backers.
RW: It is very interesting to me because there are so many games that hit kickstarter and these crowdfunding platforms and even StarCitizen on Kickstarter raised -- I don't remember exactly what they raised on Kickstarter
LF: 6 million
RW: Yeah, it wasn't anything like what they have now. They took that crowdfunding and continued it on their site outside of kickstarter and it just went completely bananas.
JV: Liz, why don't you brief us on what you talked about last week -- 'cause you posted an article last week as well -- kind of talking about some of the speculative concerns with StarCitizen as a project and the feasibility thereof. A lot of that was, I know, allegations and claims and stuff like that from 3rd parties to a large extent. So, we posted it as an opinion piece. We posted it as rumors and speculation not as fact. Can you brief us on what that was all about?
LF: Derek Smart -- a lot of people are probably really familar with him -- posted a series of blog posts. There were thousands of words to go through. Derek Smart, for anything you can say about him, is not a concise man. There was a lot to go through in order to get to what point he was making. While I was reading through them, what really jumped out, was the fact that he had actually predicted the firings. I think that is what a lot of people where paying attention to initially. He had said,
These people were just let go. It is because the Austin office is closing. It is because of this. They are running out of money.
And then hours later, those people who he said were let go confirmed it on social media. So that is what drew me to his blog posts. One of the big things he had pointed out that I personally thought was the most concerning was the changes made the to the Terms of Service. It changed entirely the structure of the refund; entirely the structure of the release date. But the original delivery date was November 2014.
And within 12 months of that, if it was not delivered, you would be eligible for a refund with no questions asked. In February, after the game had already not been delivered, the ToS changed. The anticipated release date changed to 2016 and the refund was now within 18 months of that. So they complete cut off all the people who were promised refunds next month (big smile/laugh)
JV: I feel like they were entitled to in fucking December of last year. As soon as you miss your delivery date, you get a refund or you are entitled to it at the very least.
JB: And that change -- to put it into numbers helps me -- that change means that the original date would have been November 2014 and then if you agreed to those February ToS it is possible your new date that you could get a refund is...
RW: 2018, give or take
JB: May 2018. Just checking.
JV: Before we continue on -- 'cause I feel this already raises a number of major concerns
RW: chuckle / smile
JV: First and foremost, if you miss your game's delivery date by more than a few weeks -- especially if don't tell people until after the fact that you are missing the delivery date -- I feel like anybody that wanted your game and doesn't want it anymore is 100% entitled to a refund. You had an agreement. You failed to live up your agreement. At the very least, you should be willing to give back their money.
More than that though, Liz, can you...where you ever able to find the release date on the website again?
LF: No. It is gone. giggle
JV: Yep, ok. So....
LF: I mean, it might be buried but it is not easy to find. I actually went in and I typed into the search bar 2016, 2017. And nothing was coming up.
JV: As she mentioned, the ToS were updated; nixed the inclusion of a delivery date. In the Terms of Service itself referred to the delivery date on the website, which -- as I recall was up there on Friday when your story went up, right?
LF: Yeah
JV: You saw the release date last week?
LF: nod
JV: And is now gone from the website or at the very least, buried and incredibly difficult to find.
JB: cool
JV: I am fairly good at searching for stuff on the internet -- that is something I do a lot of -- and I looked for it and I sure as shit couldn't find it. Wherever they have put it, if anywhere, is definitely not visible or front and center
JB: is deliberately obscured
JV: which is a deliberately fraudulently marketing practice frankly.
LF: When you type it into google what the release date for the game it comes up as 2017 -- just to put that out there. As far as the wikipedia is concerned, also it is going to be 2017. I did find an additional website -- I can't tell who is running it; I don't know if it has anything to do with them or not; I think it is starcitizenstatus.com; they are saying end of 2016 still though -- I have no clue; there are different release dates everywhere.
RW: I was able to find, before we started today, an image of the original release date page. It states
-
Spring 2015 for the beta of FPS and planetside and social.
-
Summer 2015 for the arena commander 2.0 multicrew ships.
-
Fall 2015 for the first episode of Squadron 42 being released.
-
End of 2015 for the persistent universe alpha
-
Commercial launch in 2016
JV: snicker
JB: These are all of the release dates re-iterated by Chris Roberts this year at gamescom.
RW: That is actually not the original release date stuff that was made public when they kickstarted the game. That is the "Oh, we feature creeped our way into a monster of a game and we need to move this back two years"
JV: right
LF: right
JV: Liz, please continue
LF: The firings are obviously very concerning. The Austin office was the 11 million dollar stretch goal for crowdfunding, so if that closes, that is a whole other level of issues they are potentially looking at. As far as I am concerned, as far as consumer trust goes. People paid 1 million dollars for you to be able to move into this office; what is going on with that?
As far as some people have stated, they are under the impression that they are definitely absolutely closing down the Austin office so that is something that would be interesting to keep an eye on.
JV: I think it is also important to note; Derek Smart is a controversial personality on the internet. A lot of people really really don't like that guy. I don't know him personally, but he is smarmy bastard on the internet; there is no denying that. You just cannot factually deny that he is a smarmy bastard on the internet.
LF: ....can be..dishonest.....try to deny that.... (hard to make out exactly what phrases she said)
JV: But just because you think somebody's an asshole, does not make the facts that they point to incorrect. That is a big thing that I have seen with comments and feedback on Liz's piece.
But Derek Smart has no credibility. Derek Smart is an asshole. Derek Smart this. Derek Smart that.
Derek Smart was the impetus to look into these facts, but just 'cause pointed at the facts does not make them untrue. People just don't want to admit/acknowledge that to a large extent. That is an important thing. You don't have to agree with somebody to recognize the truthfulness of a factual statement.
JB: I personally....StarCitizen has been a game that I have been agressively watching. Both because I am always interested when a game has a complete meltdown and because I never thought the original game was technologically attainable. But I had dismissed the most recent round of drama -- at this point, much to my discredit -- because of the source; ah, it's Derek Smart. I moved on with my life.
JV: You know, that is perfectly fine and reasonable...
JB: absolutely
JV: approach. If you see something from somebody that you just generally don't regard as a credible source, don't feel obliged to necessarily look into them. But when somebody else does and presents that information to you, don't try to deny it just because you didn't want to look into it yourself.
JB: completely true
LF: That was one of the areas that I was really careful with. I knew going into this, that a lot of people were not comfortable with Derek Smart -- that might be an understatement -- a lot of people hate him. laugh
RW/JB: laugh
LF: There is no way around that. A lot of people legitimately hate this guy. I made sure any information that I provided directly linked to a document or had a second source that was directly corroborating it, like with the employees and their tweets. Even with that information, my article was largely blue text because I was so careful with it. It is linked right there. Just click on the link and you will see what I am talking about. It was absolutely amazing that people weren't willing to click into the link at look at what I was providing because Derek Smart's name was attached to it.
JV: I've interacted with friends -- personal friends of mine -- that have been complaining to me about this article because it referenced Derek Smart. All of them, after a lengthy conversation in some cases, were convinced at some point
"Ok, you are right. I just really don't like Derek Smart. Also, I put $1,000 into StarCitizen and really didn't want to believe this. But ok, this is compelling enough for me to not discount completely."
LF: right
On the topic of it's credible enough to not discount, now -- as of recording this; will definitely go live when this goes live -- Liz has gotten some additional comments from additional sources all corroborating everything that was in last weeks article and a bunch of new information. We will link to both articles below this podcast. So, if this is something of interest to you, definitely check those out.
They are really really important for the future of the games industry. I think this is one of the biggest, most important things that could have happened in the past decade or more, even. I feel like 80-90 million dollar case of utter failure to deliver on what is ultimately a million person commitment; that is a pretty big deal.
RW: It is also important to point out that it is 80-90 million dollars right now. Crowdfunding continues. There is still money pouring into there. There are people who have subscriptions that are paying a monthly right now that is all feeding into this....
JV: right
RW: ...whatever it is
LF: The most recent spaceship that they just released is a DLC for $900 laugh
JV: laugh
RW: I also saw that there was a spaceship -- it has been a little while back -- but they had sold one and said it was going to be exclusive. The only way to get it is to buy it right here. So it is a digital DLC spaceship, whatever. But then they posted a thing and said they were seeking the approval of the community to sell off their excess inventory of this ship...
JV: big laugh LF: laugh
RW: ...that they didn't sell originally. It's not sitting on a shelf in a warehouse somewhere.
JV: It is literally a copy/paste. laugh
RW: laugh
JV: I know how things work to some extent. Duplicating something in digital format is generally just a copy/paste.
JV: Liz, before we actually get into the meat of what you learned this weekend, I want to preface the whole conversation because your sources were anonymous. I just want to make sure people are aware that it is still credible.
One anonymous source is interesting. Somebody contacts you anonymously and tells you some crazy shit. It is interesting, you might look into it, but if it's not something you can easily verify it's most likely you will write them off as a crack-pot.
Two sources anonymously telling you the same thing is compelling. You will really want to dig into that. You will want to look into it as thoroughly as possible with what information you have available.
Liz, how many anonymous sources do you have?
LF: nine
JV: nine.
LF: 5 of them were not anonymous to me
JV: right. You have personally confirmed at the very least 5 absolute confirmations of their relations to the project as well as the 4 you have mostly confirmed...
LF: I'm sorry, it was 6. 3 of them were completely anonymous.
JV: Again, if you have 2 people telling you the same thing, that is compelling enough, but 9 people telling you more or less exactly the same thing on totally different accounts using their own words. All of that is true as I gathered. That is news. That is a story. That is a very real thing that is almost certainly happening in the world.
JB: twos a company, threes a crowd...
JV: nines a lawsuit laugh LF: laugh JB: laugh
JV: I will say, there is obviously a real concern of basically fabricating stories to make a point or discredit -- a reporter even in some cases. Collaborative story-telling is obviously a real concern with anonymous sources. Where your correspondents in any way speaking to each other to your knowledge? Where they in any way communicating amongst themselves?
LF: I know that my name had been spread, which is how people got into contact with me. I am not entirely sure how much contact they had prior to that. I have no clue. None of them knew that I was talking to the other specifically though. Except for 1 person putting my name out.
JV: Along the same lines, did you notice anything in reviewing the responses to questions, the anecdotes, the stories they were telling, that might lead you to believe or even suspect remotely that they might have concocted this story on their own, gotten together, and then tried to present it to you as fact? Is that something that ever even remotely seemed feasible?
LF: No shaking head. Not at any point. I think a lot of it. They felt guilty. Is the impression I got. We are talking about people from different offices because Cloud Imperium has multiple different areas. We are talking about people from different offices who I got a lot of very specific stories that were completely independent. You know, specific to each person that I obviously chose not to share because that would tell who they were. There was a lot more information that I did not include and it was very intimate information.
JV: interesting
JF: that was even more concerning than what I shared, I would say.
JV: I feel like this is going to be a lot of nitty gritty detail shortly. So, folks that want the very bare-bones essential, what I really really need to know about this story. Liz, what is the most important thing that everybody should absolutely know about what has happened and what you have learned about what is going on with StarCitizen?
LF: OMGosh, I have to choose one. I would have to say the most important are the allegations of mismanaging the money. Hands down, that would be the top. Second to that, would definitely be the reports of how the employees are being treated. Most interesting, most important for people to know would be these allegations of mismanagement of money. The allegations that, Roberts and Gardener,
- their private home is being paid for with company money.
- That their cars' leases are being paid for with company money.
- That they're developing this crowdfunding platform with Turbulent in order to sell it to other companies and they are investing crowdfunding money into this project.
It is definitely enough that it is concerning.
JV: I feel like managerial assholish behavior is definitely a problem, but is certainly not the public interest part of this story. I feel like taking your money and spending it on an investment rather than the game development is definitely a big problem. Spending it on a mansion instead of the game development is probably an even bigger problem.
LF: snicker
JV: Thank you, Liz. If all you care about is the most important topics, those are the most important topics. Lets do a little finer detail.
JV: If you don't mind, Liz, could you just hit the bullet points as far as what you have seen the allegations for the funds mismanagement, first and foremost, so we can do a brief discussion and them move on to the shitty but not necessarily public interest things that have been going on as well.
LF: The fund mismanagement. The paying for their house, paying for their cars, private vacations. But then also, something that people brought up was responsible fund management, which was spending money on things that weren't necessary. Hollywood a-list actors to do voice-overs for the commercials.
JV: huffs JB: shakes head
LF: You know, that is not a small chunk of money. They are paying a decent amount of money for these people's time. He had just done an interview where he stated that spent 4 months doing capture with a-list hollywood cast for the game. That is not necessary to make this game happen. That is a significant amount of money if you have a full cast of a-list actors...chuckle
JV: huffs
LF: emphatically...for 4 whole months. That is a huge, astronomical amount of money. That is something that the sources were absolutely very concerned with.
That they would finish complete parts of the game and he would say "why don't we try something different". Now, it is important to know that before the crowd funding even started, it had been 12 years since Chris Roberts had been in the game industry and he's got people who have been in the industry that entire time saying "No, that is not going to work. That's not possible". They would spend 6 months redoing something just to prove that it was impossible. That is time. That is resources. That is money. And then they would have to go back. That was the main thing.
Spending money on the vacations, the house, those are the most concerning obviously because that's just not irresponsible.
JV: that's embezzlement. straight up million dollar embezzlement.
RW: There is a word for that.
JB: woof
JV: I feel like this does not require a lot of opinions. This does not require a lot of "oh, I think". If this is proven to be the case, 100% legally speaking. If Chris Roberts and wife bought a mansion with crowdfunding money; paid for their cars and vacations with crowdfunding money....
LF: They didn't buy. It's leased.
JV: Sorry. Leased with crowdfunding money. This is embezzlement. There is no other word for that. There are 100% laws against this.
JB: In the United States, that is a crime. laugh
RW: chuckle
JV: We don't see a lot of people going to jail for this because most of them are politically connected and get out scott-free. I don't think Roberts has the political connections. If this is proven, I feel it could set a good precedent for actually holding people accountable for the shitty shitty shady things they do.
JB: We also have this special thing in the American political system where someone is made an example of...
JV: That is also a thing. And I feel like right now, what crowdfunding needs is examples and the FTC knows that. We'll see. I've be very interested to see how that aspect plays out.
JV: Outside of embezzlement, completely wasting money on stupid shit like getting a-list actors for voice overs for a game that doesn't exist, that kind of thing; I feel like that is obviously very wasteful. We also have situations like with the Austin studio where they are just letting people go. I feel this is indicative of money problems. You don't just shut down a studio because you are thriving as a company. I don't think that is how that works. I've never run a business, but I have a feeling if it was doing well, I wouldn't close the doors. That is indicative, although obviously not substantively, evidence of the money problems there. Liz, can you tell us more about what is happening at the Austin studio and the layoffs there?
LF: So, what seems to be happening is that they are doing gradual rolling layoffs. The most recent statement that came out regarding this was "we are not doing layoffs, we are just eliminating unnecessary positions". That's layoffs laugh.
JV: Yeah, yeah. Not naming any names. I have seen "news" outlets regurgitate the horse-shit that is "oh, these 20 layoffs aren't 'layoffs'; we are reorganizing"
LF: They are just not employed anymore.
JV: Yeah. I feel like when you are laying off people, they are layoffs. When there are dozens of them, as the case may be here...
LF: mumbles something specific that I can't make out
JV: ...or even if it is only a couple dozen. Fact of the matter is, by almost any standard, those are massive layoffs. That's just not some layoffs, that is ten, twenty, thirty percent of the entire staff of the studio.
JB: As soon as you fire 10 people, that is a department.
JV: Right. That is massive layoffs. That is not a restructuring or reorganizing or anything like the reality is. They have good PR. And that is evidenced by the utter lack of people looking at these situations and going like "hey, wait, no. Thirty people laid off; that's not reorganization"
JB: That is an entire development studio in some other places.
JV: You can make 20 games in a year with that many people if you are doing Indie retro stuff. Go ahead, Liz.
LF: One interesting thing with that is that a lot of the jobs that have been posted for the Austin office are no longer available. It is just a handfull of engineer jobs now. So there were more jobs listed just 2 weeks ago. And now. And now they are not. laugh
JV: interesting
LF: I thought that was very interesting as well. Obviously, there is a lot of theories about why they are doing this the way they are. The one big one would obviously be because it was a stretch goal for people. Backers paid for this office, so even if they are to downsize to a smaller one, that is still going to end up being an issue because people paid for this office in order to amp up production. But the stretch goals are an entirely different issue. big laugh
JV: laugh
LF: In 2012 on the kickstarter page, they had said that the higher cost of the stretch goals was to make sure that they were still delivering the game by 2014. look of contempt
JV: laugh Yeah.
LF: So, that is an issue in and of itself. laugh
JV: It's an amazing situation when the more money you get, the less you produce. I feel like that is just an odd kind of thing to be happening...
JB: big laugh RW: rolling laugh
JV: ...for people to be like "oh, that makes sense"...
RW: perfectly normal
JV: that doesn't make sense
LF: Prior to the kickstarter even launching, they had already put a year into development. So if we are looking at 2016, 2017; that is a lot of time to try to put this game together and a lot of money to do it with. One of the concerns that was expressed was that he was out of the industry for so long, he wasn't sure what he could do with that amount of money, with that amount of technology because he did not have the hands-on time with it. So, it is very possible that he threw a number out there and had no clue--the original ask was for $500,000 for this game laugh--there is no way that would have happened. laugh snicker
LV: snicker
JB: It is actually outlandish. If you think about this. This was 2012, and this is the game he is promising. This is...the most comprehensive openworld game before this is grand theft auto IV....
RW: They still haven't raised enough money to make GTA IV yet.
JV: laugh JB: laugh
LF: One of the things that you have to remember with this as well is -- 90 million dollars, yes, is a lot of money -- but they were starting completely from scratch. Some people had pointed out to me that -- The Witcher III, 81 million dollars and oh, look how big that is. Yes, but that was Witcher III big emphasis. They were not starting completely from scratch. They had some already established workable things to build on top of. This was completely 100% brand new from scratch.
RW: Not only that, but one of your stretch goals is "we are gonna open a studio"
LF: big laugh
RW: Right? I mean...
JB: I don't think that is an outlandish stretch goal.
RW: no...no...I'm not saying it is an outlandish stretch goal. I am saying that you can't look at a game like The Witcher III when you have CD Projekt that is an established studio that has been making games for years and one of your stretch goals is "we are gonna get some office space and we are going to open a studio". emphatically That is a lot of money!
LF: yeah nodding
RW: Takes a lot of money to open a studio like that.
JB: In the world of logistics and fulfillment, there is a really important term and it is actually why the entire industry of "getting things from one place to another and making them work" exists. It is called coordination cost. I feel like no one at RSI/CIG, whatever the fuck this company is called at this point, has ever heard of this concept. Because the idea of -- as a stretch goal of opening a studio but not thinking that is going to add development time -- is insane. Opening a studio, recruiting a brand new team and then teaching them to work together before they can even produce anything is like 3 or 4 months of time.
RW: They obviously should be working together on day one. That happens everywhere, right?
JB: I hear that if you just throw 12 random strangers into a room together, they'll work together perfectly fine.
JV: They'll get the desks and stuff later and a laptop...they'll be fine.
everybody has a big laugh and squirts out little comments together
JV: So, we have some really compelling evidence for some very very, just bad financial management and issues like that...
JB: Mistakes were made
JV: Mistakes, 100%, have been made here. One thing, this is circumstantial, obviously, but Roberts also had a movie studio in the early 2000's...
LF: nodding
JV: ...which was sued by Kevin Costner on the order of 8 million dollars for some shady financial stuff. Is that correct Liz?
LF: Right. He had been promised twice that the movie was going to go forward and then all of a sudden, he was told it's not. He said,
"ok, this is breech of contract. I was promised...I shut down other opportunities because I was promised that this was going to go forward. And then he didn't have the money to do it, but that's not my problem. You are going to pay me."
JV: Which I feel like is very applicable here. laugh
JB: The kinda scary thing about that is...it's not the first time. You see these guys like Chris Roberts, like Tim Schafer, who are really creative people and they end up in a position -- like Chris Roberts when he was making games like Strike Commander and Wing Commander. Strike Commander is a great example; that was a game that took forever to make -- like over 4 years to make -- back in the 90's...
JB: I think that was from 96 to 2000
RW: ...I mean, that was forever. No, Strike Commander came out in 93, I think.
JB: Oh no, I was thinking about Wing Commander.
RW: You are thinking of Wing Commander. Strike Commander was like a 4 year, 1 million man hour project in the early 90's. Which was roughly the development time of every Nintendo game ever made. smile
JB: big laugh RW: laugh
JV: But computers are faster now, Ron. So games get developed faster, right? That's how that works, 100%.
RW: True. That's how that works.
LF: Basically, the analogy that Janelle had made over twitter, which was the greatest analogy I had ever see -- that women is amazing.
You can't sell me a car, then decide to make it a flying car and then not give it to me because flying cars are hard.
laughs all around
RW: That is exactly right.
LF: That is the most amazing thing I have read in my entire life. I love her.
JV: That is absolutely the best analogy I've heard for this situation, 100% hands down. Disclosure, I'm married to Janelle. We all agree that that was the best analogy on the subject.
JB: I'd like to point out that it was a metaphor.
JV: You're going to hell, John. You are a terrible person.
RW: Don't worry Bolding, you are both shallow and pedantic. laugh
JV: laugh JB: laugh LF: big laugh
JV: I'd like to wrap up before too long, but I feel like on the general interest of just shitty behavior in general, we are outside of the public interest stuff...
JB: Actually, I am going to really disagree with you before we get into this. In the United States, these are civil rights violations and they are crimes.
JV: No. They are not general public interest stuff, though.
JB: I think they are.
JV: 100% crimes. They are 100% illegal but I don't think are necessarily something that could be considered "public good"...
JB: These are things that will fall under the Freedom of Information Act and therefore they are public documents.
JV: Absolutely.
JB: Our court system thinks they are public interest; so do I.
JV: My only point was that they weren't backing on the promise of them being good employers.
JB: I completely agree. You are totally correct.
JV: So, Liz, can you tell us a little bit about what the internal environment was like from your interactions with the employees?
LF: It was bad. It was really bad. It was like words that I did not want to type in that article, but that they were quotes and I kind of had to. It is just a lot of personal insults very publically. A lot of HR complaints that nothing could be done about it because they were reporting to the people who were doing it. That was definitely a huge concern.
I think that is something that companies have to take into account is the fact that if you are an independent company and you found the company and you have an HR department, you really don't want to be the bad guy, so maybe it should be an external HR department. I think that is probably something that should be looked at. If these complaints really do exist, which it sounds like they do, but obviously.
It is very much everyone walking on eggshells because if anything could be interpretted incorrectly: your manhood was called into question, your sexuality was called into question, your race was called into question, your competency was called into question. This was all done very publically. I had heard stories of people becoming physically ill while working there from the stress of it, which is insane.
JV: On top of just shitty management in general, I've also read through the article we have -- the latest we have from you on this -- there was this mention as well of discriminatory hiring practices.
LF: Right.
JV: Liz, if you need to. Take a second, we will talk amongst ourselves. I feel like this kind of toxic work environment is detrimental not just to the employees but to the project as a whole. If you spend all of your time worrying about how to word your email to your boss to tell him that his idea is stupid and inconceivable to implement, that is hours of work time that you could have been spending coding something that is workable, is feasible to implement.
JB: The idea that the employees were sort of afraid to tell their boss what they thought about the basic plans. If you can't tell your manager, "I, the person that will be doing this work, believe this to be infeasible." At the basic leve, that's a problem. If then, you layer on top of that, the fear that you will be called out in a profanity-ladel all-caps email to the rest of the office....
LV: to the whole company, at least office
JB: ...for questioning. That has stepped beyond the management issue and into, like, mental health issue.
JV: Bolding, I forgot, I need a 100,000 words on the history of video games by tomorrow.
JB: I believe in you...laugh...if that is something that you need.
JV: You were saying, Ron?
RW: This was what I was gonna get a minute ago. When you take a guy like Chris Roberts, or a guy like Tim Schafer, these are guys that are very creative that have worked in the gaming industry and have been in positions where they were in charge of video games, but they are not people who have been in positions where they have been in charge of companies. So, you take a guy that -- there is a famous quote about Tim Schafer
The guy missed every deadline. He went way over budget. He didn't hit any milestones. And so we cut the game off.
And then Tim Scafer went and made the game and did all of those things but still got those games made. It doesn't mean Bobby was wrong, it just means that he got a game made despite that. When you take somebody that is in that situation, that has always had someone from a publisher standing above them, riding that whip hand saying "ok, it is time to get the game out now". It's time to let HR deal with that. Take that control away, and this is a lot of times what happens.
JV: Liz, before we wrap up here, the hiring practices. All of the interactions internally that these people were mentioning as major concerns -- and they certainly are and are still illegal -- I feel like being an asshole is still slightly less illegal then what you are about to tell us now.
LF: There were -- and this was reported by multiple people and had apparently been taken to Human Resources -- instances where Sandi, who is advising people on hiring. One piece of advice that she gave was to check the education of the person and if it was too long ago, not to call them in for an interview because they might be over 40 and a protected class and are harder to fire. rolling eyes and snicker
RW: chuckle
LF: If that is your concern with bringing someone in is how easy it is to "reorganize" their position.
RW: OMG, guess what? I just realized I am a protected class. double-fist cheer
LF: big laugh JB: laugh
JV: FUCK!
RW: Yes!
LF: Something good came out of it.
laughs all around
LF: There was one instance where somebody had come in and she said "No, I am not hiring a black girl". These are things I didn't really want to have to write because I felt bad just writing the quote. I felt disgusted with myself and I didn't even say it...just because I wrote it down. There were ones that I couldn't even bring myself to include that were talking about
oh well, she probably has a hairy .... nudge wink....you know laugh
RW: uh...
LF: And things like...I just couldn't do it. I could not write that down and feel good about what I was publishing.
JV: In her defense, I don't think a hairy....gestures...is a protected class, so...
laughing all around
JB: It is now.
more laughing
JV: I feel like at this point, we've kinda hit the major points. You should 100% -- if you have made it this far in this podcast, obviously this is of interest to you in some capacity -- click the links below, read these stories -- don't hate me for the badge notification....
RW: rolling snort-snicker-laugh
JV: laugh LF: cover face laughing JB: *long face trying not to laugh * RW: rolling laugh
JB: I am zipping my lips.
RW: big grin
JV: Yep. You'll see.
RW: gestures cut sign
JV: I would love to hear what everybody in the community thinks about what is going on with StarCitizen. Is this as damning as it seems to be to us? I feel like this is really really damning for the feasibility for the project ever coming to fruition...
LF: One area where a lot of people were not certain of...there is always the possibility that an investor will come in. There is always the possibility that they will be bought out. So, I wouldn't say that we are completely giving up on the game; it's just not coming out from this company as is.
JV: right. So, share your thoughts in the forums. Facebook comments. Hit us up on twitter. If you have questions, comments, rants about kickstarter or what-have-you, shoot us an email at podcast@escapistmag.com . We do love ranty rant rant rant. I do a lot of that myself. I usually delete it before it goes anywhere, but I do a lot of it. I feel like I speak for everybody here when I say that.
JB: laugh
JV: Again, it's sad. We try to keep things light. We want to celebrate games. And with that, comes not necessarily taking everything entirely seriously. So, yes, we are joking a little about it here and there, but this is a very serious thing. This is not a laughing matter, as it where, when it comes to actual fulfillment of promises made and I hope we will see more extensive regulations from the FTC in the not so distant future kind of saying
If you miss your delivery date, you can't change it two months later and refuse refunds until a year and a half after that.
I don't think this is something the FTC will ultimately stand for and it is largely just a matter of whether it comes to their attention in significant manner. I will be really interested to see how that goes. If you have speculation on what the FTC may or may not do about it, shoot us an email, put it in the forums, whatever. We will be following this with great interest.