The serious business of making games

Ooooh. I’ll give that a shot next time I give this one another try.


The EA/FIFA split is official. EA Sports FC is the new brand.

FC stands for Football Club, I’m assuming? Good name for a football club. Questionable name for a football game.

I guess this also means no more World Cup games. I should find a copy of the last good one before they become hard to find. The World Cup ones are the only ones I have fun playing.

Gonna be interesting. They’ll probably spend a buttload of marketing cash next year to make sure everyone is aware of “FIFA” now being “EA Sports FC”, but it’s not like there’ll be immediate competition since Konami really shat the bed with their latest soccer efforts…

Oh no, Jim Ryan. What is you doing?

In the email seen by Bloomberg, PlayStation president Jim Ryan didn’t take a stance on abortion rights, instead writing that the company and its community are “multi-faceted and diverse, holding many different points of view.” He wrote that “we owe it to each other and to PlayStation’s millions of users to respect differences of opinion among everyone in our internal and external communities. Respect does not equal agreement. But it is fundamental to who we are as a company and as a valued global brand.”

Ryan then went on to write that he “would like to share something lighthearted to help inspire everyone to be mindful of having balance that can help ease the stress of uncertain world events,” saying it was recently his two cats’ first birthday and elaborating over the next few paragraphs about his cats’ birthday cakes, their noises and his desire to one day get a dog.

“dogs really are man’s best friend, they know their place, and perform useful functions like biting burglars and chasing balls that you throw for them.”

There are certainly better ways to get across the message he was trying to get across, though at this point I’m getting really tired of the attempt of corporations to claim neutrality in a world where increasingly there is no such thing.

He’s just trying to set expectations before announcing a Boba Fett game probably.

“Please be polite to the people who literally don’t care if (and possibly prefer) you die” seems non-optimal.

Not taking a side is something I think Rush had a catchy song about.

What? They’re adopting a completely dispassionate position where they’re accepting of both the people that think everyone should be free to make their own choices and the people that think everyone else should be forced to do what they say even if it literally kills them. What could go wrong?

Heh. Exactly.

In all seriousness, either remain moot on the specifics, and reiterate a company policy of weaseling out (that is, some sort of cop-out ban on all political talk), or do the right thing and say bigots and wannabe Inquisitors have no place in your company. Anything else is kind of asking for trouble with no pay off.

I don’t know…doesn’t seem like he wrote anything controversial here.

The language itself? No, not really. And this is definitely an area where people will have different opinions (hah!). To me, singling out a specific hot-button issue and saying “respect everyone’s opinion on X” is not really being even-handed or neutral in most cases. In most cases issue X is one where the divisions of opinion are not just clear but are often part and parcel of extremely powerful world views and overall ideological frameworks that are zero sum games. The abortion issue, gender identity, race, religion; things like that are pretty much guaranteed to produce people with opinions that effectively say to one group of people “you don’t deserve to exist.” Telling people to respect opinions like that is neither useful nor moral in my view.

Obviously not the same thing, but this is why “both sides” rang so hollow when people were talking about literal Nazis marching with tiki torches. There’s no discussion or free exchange of ideas when one party advocates eliminating you either via killing or deportation.

I don’t think that the message itself is controversial.

But, he should not have said anything at all.

It is obvious that corporate policies would support his stance of “both sides have fine people” even though I know that is wrong. But corporate policies suck.

The anecdote about cat birthdays is hilariously off tone though. So bad.

This is an email you run by HR and a PR team before you send, he clearly did not do this.

The correct email to send is:

“Right now there is a lot of political disagreement over many issues, it is important to note that our company has policies x,y,z over employee conduct. If you or a loved one are having issues, we offer free counseling (most companies have this anyway) etc.”

Be as basic as possible. Trying to “both sides” this issue is bad, it pisses off both sides.

Oh I think I agree with you here.

Shot himself in the foot.

Just keep quiet is the safest option, although that is itself quite a sad state of affairs.

Sometimes the best option is to say nothing at all.

My wife works for a local business that has a much older man as CEO.

He sent an email a couple weeks back about how much of a joy it has been for him to be able to work from home while immunocompromised.

Employees have never been able to work from home the entire pandemic. He got special treatment.

That email didn’t go over well.

The result of that email has been a disconnection of his ability to send company wide emails without review. It is hilarious how out of touch many CEOs can be. This person had also sent multiple chain email style messages, as well as fox news talking point articles companywide. I mean… come on.


I love (hate) that this was the result and not, say, reevaluating policy and letting employees who are able to work from home.