We’re not incapable of seeing that. We understand your interpretation. We just think it’s not necessarily the best or only read of the developer’s intent. It might even be uncharitable!
“If you don’t do the fun run, the charity gets nothing!”
CF_Kane
5437
I think those examples are oversimplifications. The context and circumstances are notably different here.
CF_Kane
5439
That doesn’t make the moral substance of the offer any different. It is an effort to coerce someone to do something they don’t want to do by promising charitable contributions in exchange for action.
I am agnostic over whether the dev made the offer in bad faith, I just think the offer is, technically speaking, bullshit from a moral perspective.
I’m sorry, I’m not aware of any conditional statements they’ve made regarding charitable giving. I do understand Tim Sweeney is a big contributor to conservation efforts in his home state, though.
Do you think playing stupid actually helps your position?
KevinC
5441
Says the charity ultimatum guy.
@CF_Kane understands why I used the word ass. I read that Tweet the same way. It’s designed specifically so that Sweeney has no good response. DARQ dev is acting like an ass, which was my words. I didn’t call him an ass. I said he’s acting like one.
KevinC
5443
If the Darq devs had promised all along a portion of their sales would go to charity and they reneged on it unless EGS lets them onto the store without an exclusivity agreement, I would agree with saying that was an ultimatum and holding charity money “hostage”.
As far as I’m aware, no such pledge has been made? Sincerely, please correct me if I’m wrong, Darq isn’t a game I followed or have any interest in. If no such pledge was made, then how is making an offer to donate Darq sales on EGS an ultimatum in any way? How do you have an ultimatum when if it’s ignored, we return to the status quo and Darq sells like basically every other game on the market?
I don’t really understand why this is confusing. He’s calling out Tim/Epic’s statements that they’re primarily trying to help indie devs succeed by saying “if you really wanted to make sure I succeed, you’d let me on your store and still be on Steam”. Then, because them doing so would result in more sales for him and he wants to indicate it isn’t about the money, he counteracts that by saying he’ll donate the extra money to charity.
Using charity to counteract personal gain from a challenge or position in an argument isn’t exactly a new thing. Doesn’t mean it’s right or smart, but the intent seems pretty clear to me.
But the idea was proposed in response to a large financial offer that many gamers feel lacked moral substance to begin with. He wound up in this position so I think he’s responding to the spotlight more than seeking it out. That makes it easier for me assume good intentions. (Or at least not assume bad intentions.)
BTW, I appreciate your willingness to see both sides here. I’ve been trying to do so as well. The folks who speak with absolute certainty are a lot more insufferable to me.
Here we go, Nesrie! Dave just breached my two strikes ass policy! (And then he added a few more for good measure.)
Every criticism I directed at you over Ooblets I now hereby direct at Dave over DARQ. I hope this lays to rest any concerns you may have that you’re a victim of a double standard.
Dave, I think we all understood why you used the word ass. We’re just saying it’s not necessarily the case.
And I love that “didn’t call him an ass, said he was acting like one” qualification. I use that sometimes when I get angry at my wife or daughters. “I’m not a brat!” “I said you were acting like one!” I know it’s bullshit every time I say it. :D
Why not read the Darq dev’s words in the same manner people here asked for the Ooblets devs: with some charity, empathy, and an acceptance that they may have used humor, sarcasm, or an off-color approach in a way that a PR professional wouldn’t?
The Darq dev is caught up in a larger hobby discussion and market disruption with a massive internet spotlight trained on their every word (context being reversed this time).
Nesrie
5448
Tweeney created this situation in the first place. Epic’s entire approach to how they plan on populating their store “shelves” vs what they actually, well mostly just him, say which completely conflicts with the other, also complicates the situation. The DARQ dev is responding to a situation he didn’t actually ask for, not when Epic asked for an exclusive or forever hold your peace, and not when Tweeney decided to be cute to someone who goaded him on Twitter with both of them pulling the dev back into the discussion.
The only thing this guy has done is ask, again, for a spot in the store, and this time he removed monetary gain from himself. This is not like a boxing match that was never going to happen. The dev is selling his game, and is going to continue selling his game. It’s business as usual not some sideshow.
Also this…
Which has been pointed out before. How the heck is anyone going to believe this claim/plea/explanation of extending the benefit of the doubt to devs who are not communication experts if the same damn group doesn’t even do it themselves the second an issue comes up where a dev doesn’t agree with them.
QT3 RR Two Ass Policy it is
Yeah it pretty much always is.
Actually, it was proposed in response to Tim saying he wishes Darq success in a tweet.
He’s not “caught up” in it. He’s actively courting controversy.
Nesrie
5450
With a jokey winky attached.
…but, it’s not. You’re giving them the benefit of doubt by saying it that way. It’s like when editors would tell me to change something to include the word “seems” if I was interpreting something a specific way. It allows for the possibility you’re wrong about that thing. It seems like this guy might be an ass! I think he’s acting like one.
Anyway, this argument over semantics that has sprung up hasn’t really addressed what I said specifically. That Tweet is calculated to give the other guy no good option. If Sweeney says “No thanks” then people hate Epic Games Store and Tim Sweeney. If Sweeney says, “Sure, we’ll let you do that.” then people hate the store a little less but now they’re calling Sweeney out for allowing the game on the store under these conditions and these alone. You really can’t see the Tweets from the haters saying, “Ohhhh! So if you give all your money to charity, then it’s ok to be on your store and everyone else’s?!” which obviously Sweeney won’t do for every game either (nor would other devs want that deal).
It’s a dev acting like an ass by putting a company that was willing to bankroll his game under an exclusive contract in a no win situation and it seems like it’s to take advantage of people who hate the Epic Games Store. Maybe he thought he was being a nice guy somehow, but he’s not. He’s made a bad faith offer that the other party can’t take either way but still lets him look like a cool dude, which apparently some people here are eating right up. *shrug emoji*
Which obviously implies malice? Ignoring that the winky comes after the “that’s why we pursued the game in the first place” part?
Haven’t you heard? Catch-22s are now considered good!
Nesrie
5453
Hey you’re not giving the dev any benefit of the doubt, why should anyone give Sweeney that, the guy that throws fuel on the fire any chance he gets. It can absolutely mean he is not serious about what he said.
Let’s just face it. It was never about devs. It’s just about finding people that agree with you.
We’re so deep in the weeds, interpreting the emoji that came after the text. But I read it as self-deprecating on Sweeney’s part.
For me, it’s a plea for reason and not rushing to judgment against your fellow human beings. And, for me, it goes way beyond the specific topic of Steam vs Epic etc. At the core, it’s interpreting tone via text and it’s made more complicated given Twitter’s condensed format. Remove tone of voice, facial expressions, and try to make your point as brief as possible. It’s a Kafka-esque nightmare!
