Epic Games Store - 88% split goes to devs

[Brad_Grenz]

What’s more likely: Epic proposed a partnership because they had a genuine interest in the game and its potential success, or that was all a farce and Sweeney secretly wants it to fail, as illustrated by a single winky emoji?

For me, it’s a plea for reason and not rushing to judgment against people. 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!

As Dave points out, it doesn’t really matter if the dev thought he was making a good proposal when the tactic is simply immoral on its face. Maybe this is a good learning opportunity for them?

[rrmorton]

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.

I’m all for it! I think that kind of language that allows room for alternative interpretations and a willingness to change your mind in light of new information is really vital.

[Nesrie]

But I read it as self-deprecating on Sweeney’s part.

The point is, everyone can interpret things differently, but there was one group who was damn sure, absolutely beyond aggressive that only one interpretation could be and should ever be okay when a dev is involved with their livelihoods at stake until the next incident in which case they completely reverse course and decided the uncharitable was the only true and tried way something could be read… this time.

What’s more likely: Epic proposed a partnership because they had a genuine interest in the game and its potential success, or that was all a farce and Sweeney secretly wants it to fail, as illustrated by a single winky emoji?

Boy you really do try to interpret the worse in anything you read from anyone who didn’t jump on board from the get go.

How about this… Sweeney didn’t respond to the DARQ dev at all, he was responding to someone who was being a jerk about this topic, and he responded in kind. You keep acting like this was an exchange between two people when there were three.

[Brad_Grenz]

Boy you really do try to interpret the worse in anything you read from anyone who didn’t jump on board from the get go.

This is a weird thing to say when you’re the one who thinks a winky was nefarious…

[rrmorton]

As Dave points out, it doesn’t really matter if the dev thought he was making a good proposal when the tactic is simply immoral on its face.

I wouldn’t say it’s as simple as calling his proposal “simply immoral on its face.” I don’t know what the general reaction is out in the world but here on Qt3 we seem pretty evenly split on how we’re reading his intent.

And, yeah, hopefully everything is a good learning opportunity!

[Nesrie]

This is a weird thing to say when you’re the one who thinks a winky was nefarious…

Dude the smiley’s change the meaning of what you write. It’s not a made up thing, but yeah of course you would ignore the rest.

[Brad_Grenz]

As Dave points out, it doesn’t really matter if the dev thought he was making a good proposal when the tactic is simply immoral on its face.

I wouldn’t say it’s as simple as calling his proposal “simply immoral on its face.” I don’t know what the general reaction is out in the world but here on Qt3 we seem pretty evenly split on how we’re reading his intent.

And, yeah, hopefully everything is a good learning opportunity!

I don’t consider “general reaction” the authority on moral philosophy. It’s why being underhanded works, after all.

[legowarrior]

Can I just ask, why put this on Twitter? Why not through an email. Just ‘Hey man, it would cool if I could be on your store, and just have the money go to a Charity.’

After it’s agreed upon, you can make it public.

[rrmorton]

The point is, everyone can interpret things differently, but there was one group who was damn sure, absolutely beyond aggressive that only one interpretation could be and should ever be okay when a dev is involved with their livelihoods at stake until the next incident in which case they completely reverse course and decided the uncharitable was the only true and tried way something could be read… this time.

Sometimes I can’t really follow your train of thought and argumentative nature but I don’t get the need for the sarcasm and overstatement. It seems like you’re still filtering this through an aggrieved sense of unfairness when it isn’t about you.

[rrmorton]

This is a good point. And it does reveal an angle on publicly putting Epic on the spot. But that’s not necessarily malicious… he may have felt an email would get a definite No while a tweet, however unlikely, might result in a Yes. But an email would have definitely been better if only because it would have given all of us more time for gaming today and less time for… this. :D

[Nesrie]

Sometimes I can’t really follow your train of thought and argumentative nature but I don’t get the need for the sarcasm and overstatement. It seems like you’re still filtering this through an aggrieved sense of unfairness when it isn’t about you.

There’s no sarcasm in there, and it’s not about me. It’s about a specific stance being hypocritical of itself.

Either we give the devs the benefit of the doubt, allow more generous interpretations of any communication they might have with the realization that being able to make a game does not make someone especially good at communicating nor especially skilled with specific communication tools which could be misread or we interpret these messages as we have always done which leaves it up to different interpretations.

We should not have one group demand, and I do mean demand, the first and then shift to the other as they see fit. It invalidates the first ask entirely and brings us back to what everyone was already doing in the first place.

[rrmorton]

I don’t consider “general reaction” the authority on moral philosophy.

But hopefully it’s a little humility check and a reminder that you may not be right.

[Brad_Grenz]

And it does reveal an angle on publicly putting Epic on the spot. But that’s not necessarily malicious… he may have felt an email would get a definite No while a tweet, however unlikely, might result in a Yes.

It’s almost like making it public exerts undue pressure, huh?

[legowarrior]

Sometimes I can’t really follow your train of thought and argumentative nature but I don’t get the need for the sarcasm and overstatement. It seems like you’re still filtering this through an aggrieved sense of unfairness when it isn’t about you.

There’s no sarcasm in there, and it’s not about me. It’s about a specific stance being hypocritical of itself.

Either we give the devs the benefit of the doubt, allow more generous interpretations of any communication they might have with the realization that being able to make a game does not make someone especially good at communicating nor especially skilled with specific communication skills which could be misread or we interpret these message as we have always done which leaves it up to different interpretations.

We should not have one group demand, and I do mean demand, the first and then shift to the other as they see fit. It invalidates the first ask entirely and brings us back to what everyone was already doing in the first place.

But we can also use critical thinking skills.

Like for instance, why was the communication done in public? What was the goal?

With Obblets, the blog post was for a defined audience. The people playing and supporting the developer and interested in buying their game. Hence, it had to public, although it didn’t have to be on Twitter or anything. Just available for people who where looking for it.

With this developer, it was a simple request to Tim. It could have been made through a DM or an email or whatever. It didn’t need to be public.

I can understand making it public after the fact, announcing the situation, but why make it public to begin with it?

It seems, and I could be mistaken, that the audience of the request isn’t Tim Sweeney, because did it was, it could have been done privately, but instead was us. Which is way it doesn’t seem like it’s on the up and up. It’s just another PR stunt.

[rrmorton]

I guess I just don’t see the hypocrisy you’re referring to. I’ve tried to be consistent.

[CF_Kane]

I wouldn’t say it’s as simple as calling his proposal “simply immoral on its face.” I don’t know what the general reaction is out in the world but here on Qt3 we seem pretty evenly split on how we’re reading his intent.

I think intent is a bit of a red herring here. I am definitely willing to give the DARQ dev the benefit of the doubt here as to his intent. I just think his intent is irrelevant to the morality of the tactic he is using (perhaps unintentionally!)

If I offer to give $50 to charity if Brad_Grenz stops posting on Quarter to Three, have I done something good and commendable for charity? Is Brad morally obligated to stop posting? If he continues to post, and I therefore spend the $50 on comic books and candy bars instead of charity, have I acted morally and in good faith?

I think the answer to all of these questions is no. (Sorry Brad for using you as my example, I definitely don’t want you to stop posting).

[rrmorton]

Okay, but there is such a thing as positive pressure. Encouragement to do a good thing. If they wanted to. No harm if they don’t…

[legowarrior]

You would have to be a complete ass to make that sort of comment.

[rrmorton]

Yeah, I get the gist but I don’t think that example is close enough to what happened here to be illuminating.

This may be equally un-illuminating, but what about, if I pour this bucket of ice cold water on my head would you do it too for charity? (This is just meant as an example of the kind of positive peer pressure he may have been trying to tap into.)

[Nesrie]

Like for instance, why was the communication done in public? What was the goal?

He was brought into a Twitter discussion. Twitter is public.

With Obblets, the blog post was for a defined audience.

No. If you post something online, you do not control the audience. If you want to use critical thinking skills, then everyone should know that. You do not post something online you do not want others to to see. We have millions of examples of this being an ongoing lesson on pretty much any Social Media platform.

With this developer, it was a simple request to Tim. It could have been made through a DM or an email or whatever. It didn’t need to be public.

As mentioned above, the initial conversation was not between those two, there was a third person. He was responding to that, But again, just because he didn’t make the best choice in where to post his idea, we’re supposed to assume the worst of him but the best of the other one. No. Either you’re asking people to be more charitable with how we see devs communicate, or your’e not. I don’t see much charity going toward this guy. I see a lot of assumptions about his intentions which was the exact thing you and others took issue with the last time.

I can understand making it public after the fact, announcing the situation, but why make it public to begin with it?

Again the exchange was on Twitter to which he was pulled into. Twitter is public. So are blogs.