Paranautical Activity Returns to Steam

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Paranautical Activity Returns to Steam

paranautical activity early access

Paranautical Activity developer Code Avarice has sold the rights to the game in order to get it back on Steam.

Remember when Paranautical Activity developer Mike Maulbeck learned it was probably not a great idea to threaten to kill the man who owns the platform his game is hosted on? Later that year, it did some rescructuring in order to ensure this kind of thing would never happen again, and now it has completely sold the rights to Paranautical Activity, leading to its return to Steam.

"Just sold PC rights for Paranautical Activity to @DigeratiDM," Tweeted the official Code Avarice account, adding later that "Paranautical Activity came back to steam today. Paranautical is not owned by Code Avarice anymore. Contact @DigeratiDM for all things PA."

Indeed, it seems that Paranautical Activity is now, once again, available to purchase on Steam. The name has also been altered to "Paranautical Activity: Deluxe Atonement Edition", which we can only assume is a reference to the whole mess that got it kicked off the platform in the first place.

So there you have it. Valve gets to keep its word in stating that it would no longer interact with Code Avarice in the future, Code Avarice gets to cut its losses and make some money by selling the rights, and gamers get to buy the game once more.

Do you think Valve acted too harshly in this situation, or was the punishment appropriate for the crime? Death threats are, after all, no laughing matter, even if it should have been obvious that Maulbeck wasn't serious.

Source: Twitter

Permalink

Honestly, I'm just glad Value actually managed to do something proactive. With the state the rest of the Steam Store seems to be in, you wouldn't be wrong to think that they just don't care about anything that happens or who says what anymore.

The developers getting screwed over like this isn't good. Sure, the game is out, but Valve over-reacted in never interacting with them ever again. Getting closed off from Steam...whilst not being financial suicide per say, is still a massive blow to the sales potential, doubly so for an indie team. Having to do all of these roundabout manoeuvres just to sell the game makes the punishment go too far.

Also, Valve polices this, but not the other stuff that plagues the Steam storefront because of reasons >_>

Valve wasn't too harsh at all. There are way too many half-assed games on Steam as it is, no reason they should have to deal with an infantile manchild having a tantrum about his half-assed game.

It wasn't a loss, and I don't see any big positives to this being back on Steam except for the people who crapped out yet another mediocre 'indie' money grab.

I think it is BS the original developers had to sell the rights to the game to get it back on Steam. Valve getting angry at the developer as a whole because one guy said something stupid was extremely petty. Even after the developer made it so that it was optional to interact with that person Valve still wouldn't allow the game back on Steam.

Honestly though I feel this could have all been avoided if Valve had offered monetary compensation for all the potential sales that were lost because of how long it took the Steam storefront to say it wasn't in early access anymore.

Both sides were wrong in how they went about things.

Holding an entire company because of one guy on twitter is pretty juvenile. Seems a lot of innocent people had their livelihoods placed in jeopardy because a colleague behaved poorly on twitter. I don't really see how anyone can endorse's Valve's actions in this case. Considering they indeed to keep this blockade against Code Avarice in place simply for the actions of this one guy, I think they need to be more mindful of their status as a monopoly when it comes to PC game digital distribution.

The guy who made the "threats", is he some kind of higher up at the studio? The founder? Director? Can't say I know too much about the guy.

EDIT: Apparently he's the co-founder. I guess it's somewhat understandable, but the whole situation leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Bat Vader:
I think it is BS the original developers had to sell the rights to the game to get it back on Steam. Valve getting angry at the developer as a whole because one guy said something stupid was extremely petty. Even after the developer made it so that it was optional to interact with that person Valve still wouldn't allow the game back on Steam.

Honestly though I feel this could have all been avoided if Valve had offered monetary compensation for all the potential sales that were lost because of how long it took the Steam storefront to say it wasn't in early access anymore.

Both sides were wrong in how they went about things.

ZiggyE:
Holding an entire company because of one guy on twitter is pretty juvenile. Seems a lot of innocent people had their livelihoods placed in jeopardy because a colleague behaved poorly on twitter. I don't really see how anyone can endorse's Valve's actions in this case. Considering they indeed to keep this blockade against Code Avarice in place simply for the actions of this one guy, I think they need to be more mindful of their status as a monopoly when it comes to PC game digital distribution.

The guy who made the "threats", is he some kind of higher up at the studio? The founder? Director? Can't say I know too much about the guy.

EDIT: Apparently he's the co-founder. I guess it's somewhat understandable, but the whole situation leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

There are only two people working at Code Avarice and one of them made a death threat. Thats a 50% death threat making employee ratio, not entirely an attractive percentage. I think this comes under the games are not special category, in any other line of work making a death threat would result in consequences. Do you think the head of Ford will accept a death threat from one his suppliers? Why are games somehow different from that makes death threats acceptable business practice.

That is too bad, i was waiting for my steam cards i got from the game would become super rare and would sell for a lot on the market...

Typo: rescructuring = restructuring (I think)

One stupid guy and they have to go to all this trouble to get it back on Steam. Meanwhile Towns is still on steam despite the dev dumping the game in the lap of a person who will likely never finish it.

albino boo:

Bat Vader:
I think it is BS the original developers had to sell the rights to the game to get it back on Steam. Valve getting angry at the developer as a whole because one guy said something stupid was extremely petty. Even after the developer made it so that it was optional to interact with that person Valve still wouldn't allow the game back on Steam.

Honestly though I feel this could have all been avoided if Valve had offered monetary compensation for all the potential sales that were lost because of how long it took the Steam storefront to say it wasn't in early access anymore.

Both sides were wrong in how they went about things.

ZiggyE:
Holding an entire company because of one guy on twitter is pretty juvenile. Seems a lot of innocent people had their livelihoods placed in jeopardy because a colleague behaved poorly on twitter. I don't really see how anyone can endorse's Valve's actions in this case. Considering they indeed to keep this blockade against Code Avarice in place simply for the actions of this one guy, I think they need to be more mindful of their status as a monopoly when it comes to PC game digital distribution.

The guy who made the "threats", is he some kind of higher up at the studio? The founder? Director? Can't say I know too much about the guy.

EDIT: Apparently he's the co-founder. I guess it's somewhat understandable, but the whole situation leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

There are only two people working at Code Avarice and one of them made a death threat. Thats a 50% death threat making employee ratio, not entirely an attractive percentage. I think this comes under the games are not special category, in any other line of work making a death threat would result in consequences. Do you think the head of Ford will accept a death threat from one his suppliers? Why are games somehow different from that makes death threats acceptable business practice.

That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

Bat Vader:

albino boo:

Bat Vader:
I think it is BS the original developers had to sell the rights to the game to get it back on Steam. Valve getting angry at the developer as a whole because one guy said something stupid was extremely petty. Even after the developer made it so that it was optional to interact with that person Valve still wouldn't allow the game back on Steam.

Honestly though I feel this could have all been avoided if Valve had offered monetary compensation for all the potential sales that were lost because of how long it took the Steam storefront to say it wasn't in early access anymore.

Both sides were wrong in how they went about things.

ZiggyE:
Holding an entire company because of one guy on twitter is pretty juvenile. Seems a lot of innocent people had their livelihoods placed in jeopardy because a colleague behaved poorly on twitter. I don't really see how anyone can endorse's Valve's actions in this case. Considering they indeed to keep this blockade against Code Avarice in place simply for the actions of this one guy, I think they need to be more mindful of their status as a monopoly when it comes to PC game digital distribution.

The guy who made the "threats", is he some kind of higher up at the studio? The founder? Director? Can't say I know too much about the guy.

EDIT: Apparently he's the co-founder. I guess it's somewhat understandable, but the whole situation leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

There are only two people working at Code Avarice and one of them made a death threat. Thats a 50% death threat making employee ratio, not entirely an attractive percentage. I think this comes under the games are not special category, in any other line of work making a death threat would result in consequences. Do you think the head of Ford will accept a death threat from one his suppliers? Why are games somehow different from that makes death threats acceptable business practice.

That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game. It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

Denamic:

Bat Vader:

albino boo:
There are only two people working at Code Avarice and one of them made a death threat. Thats a 50% death threat making employee ratio, not entirely an attractive percentage. I think this comes under the games are not special category, in any other line of work making a death threat would result in consequences. Do you think the head of Ford will accept a death threat from one his suppliers? Why are games somehow different from that makes death threats acceptable business practice.

That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game. It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

What if they fired that person though? Again, people seem to be forgetting this entire error all started with Steam not updating the game from being out of early access. Do you think Valve should have issued monetary compensation for potential lost sales or issued an apology because of a fault with their Steam storefront?

If I made a game and I potentially lost sales due to an error that wasn't my fault I would be pretty angry. I wouldn't issue a death threat or anything like that but I would expect an apology at the least.

Bat Vader:
That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

Making death threats is not acceptable behaviour in any form of business. If you make death threat regardless what its about you lose. You do not have a legal leg to stand on. No company will apologies to anyone making a deathreat full stop. If you had row with a shop and you walked and made a death threat to a member of staff you get arrested for threatening behaviour and not an apology. Games are not special and the normal rules apply. If you make a deathreat you are a stupid person unable to behave in an adult fashion and untrustworthy to do business with.

albino boo:

Bat Vader:
That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

Making death threats is not acceptable behaviour in any form of business. If you make death threat regardless what its about you lose. You do not have a legal leg to stand on. No company will apologies to anyone making a deathreat full stop. If you had row with a shop and you walked and made a death threat to a member of staff you get arrested for threatening behaviour and not an apology. Games are not special and the normal rules apply. If you make a deathreat you are a stupid person unable to behave in an adult fashion and untrustworthy to do business with.

I'm not talking about the death threat. I'm asking if he had not issued the death threat should someone in charge at Valve apologized or issued monetary compensation for potential lost sales?

If I had a row with a shop I would make sure to hurt them financially. I would take my business else where, tell everyone I know to do the same, write about how terrible they are and post it online, and write to their corporate office and make sure the offending person(s) got their ass(es) fired.

I have never made a death threat so your insult calling me stupid doesn't apply. Thanks for insulting me though. I was hoping to actually have a discussion here but if you're going to insult I am done.

Just because it's a company doesn't mean it doesn't have people in it.

You don't get to make a death threat and expect that company to play nice. Valve is not under any obligation to grant their services to anyone and can withdraw services should they so please provided no contract is being broken.

If you want to do business with a company do not threaten the owner of said company with bodily harm.

One would think it to be fucking obvious.

Bat Vader:

albino boo:

Bat Vader:
That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

Making death threats is not acceptable behaviour in any form of business. If you make death threat regardless what its about you lose. You do not have a legal leg to stand on. No company will apologies to anyone making a deathreat full stop. If you had row with a shop and you walked and made a death threat to a member of staff you get arrested for threatening behaviour and not an apology. Games are not special and the normal rules apply. If you make a deathreat you are a stupid person unable to behave in an adult fashion and untrustworthy to do business with.

I'm not talking about the death threat. I'm asking if he had not issued the death threat should someone in charge at Valve apologized or issued monetary compensation for potential lost sales?

I have never made a death threat so your insult calling me stupid doesn't apply. Thanks for insulting me though. I was hoping to actually have a discussion her but if you're going to insult I am done.

Please try to read what I wrote and no point did I call you a stupid person.

you

pronoun
1.
used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"are you listening?"

2.
used to refer to any person in general.
"after a while, you get used to it"

A normal business email would have seen the matter resolved but going on to twitter and screaming like a kid means you lose.

albino boo:

Bat Vader:

albino boo:

Making death threats is not acceptable behaviour in any form of business. If you make death threat regardless what its about you lose. You do not have a legal leg to stand on. No company will apologies to anyone making a deathreat full stop. If you had row with a shop and you walked and made a death threat to a member of staff you get arrested for threatening behaviour and not an apology. Games are not special and the normal rules apply. If you make a deathreat you are a stupid person unable to behave in an adult fashion and untrustworthy to do business with.

I'm not talking about the death threat. I'm asking if he had not issued the death threat should someone in charge at Valve apologized or issued monetary compensation for potential lost sales?

I have never made a death threat so your insult calling me stupid doesn't apply. Thanks for insulting me though. I was hoping to actually have a discussion her but if you're going to insult I am done.

Please try to read what I wrote and no point did I call you a stupid person.

you

pronoun
1.
used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"are you listening?"

2.
used to refer to any person in general.
"after a while, you get used to it"

A normal business email would have seen the matter resolved but going on to twitter and screaming like a kid means you lose.

I did read what you wrote and I am sorry I misinterpreted it. That doesn't give you the right to patronize me and use ad-hominems to attack me. How about you apologize as well and we wipe the slate clean. I know what YOU means.

Bat Vader:

albino boo:

Bat Vader:
I'm not talking about the death threat. I'm asking if he had not issued the death threat should someone in charge at Valve apologized or issued monetary compensation for potential lost sales?

I have never made a death threat so your insult calling me stupid doesn't apply. Thanks for insulting me though. I was hoping to actually have a discussion her but if you're going to insult I am done.

Please try to read what I wrote and no point did I call you a stupid person.

you

pronoun
1.
used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"are you listening?"

2.
used to refer to any person in general.
"after a while, you get used to it"

A normal business email would have seen the matter resolved but going on to twitter and screaming like a kid means you lose.

I did read what you wrote and I am sorry I misinterpreted it. That doesn't give you the right to patronize me and use ad-hominems to attack me. How about you apologize as well and we wipe the slate clean. I know what YOU means.

No you clearly don't. If i was going to make an ad hominem attack on point out that its extremely narcissistic to assume that everyone to talking about you personally. I will not apologize because I have done nothing to warrant needing to make an apology.

First of all, I dont think that it matters that it was a death threat or not, I mean, in no fucking way was that threat something to take serious, what matters here is that the dev went full retard against Valve and Valve made him fuck off, honestly I dont mind that.

Bat Vader:

Denamic:

Bat Vader:
That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game. It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

What if they fired that person though? Again, people seem to be forgetting this entire error all started with Steam not updating the game from being out of early access. Do you think Valve should have issued monetary compensation for potential lost sales or issued an apology because of a fault with their Steam storefront?

If I made a game and I potentially lost sales due to an error that wasn't my fault I would be pretty angry. I wouldn't issue a death threat or anything like that but I would expect an apology at the least.

What about the other person? He made a decision to work with Maulbeck. He made a decision to work with a belligerent manchild, and no he has to pay the price for his foolish antics. Keep in mind, this 'company' is two people. You can't 'fire' the co-founder when you're in the exac same position. You have to leave and disband.

Just to wave all of this off just because of "the other person" would be foolish. Yeah, it isn't fair for the other person, but the other person knew his partner was a manchild. Valve doesn't owe Maulbeck or his partner anything. I'd also be angry if I were this person, but I wouldn't be angry at Valve, I'd be angry that Maulbeck ruined any hopes I had at succeeding in this career.

BeerTent:

Bat Vader:

Denamic:

A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game. It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

What if they fired that person though? Again, people seem to be forgetting this entire error all started with Steam not updating the game from being out of early access. Do you think Valve should have issued monetary compensation for potential lost sales or issued an apology because of a fault with their Steam storefront?

If I made a game and I potentially lost sales due to an error that wasn't my fault I would be pretty angry. I wouldn't issue a death threat or anything like that but I would expect an apology at the least.

What about the other person? He made a decision to work with Maulbeck. He made a decision to work with a belligerent manchild, and no he has to pay the price for his foolish antics. Keep in mind, this 'company' is two people. You can't 'fire' the co-founder when you're in the exac same position. You have to leave and disband.

Just to wave all of this off just because of "the other person" would be foolish. Yeah, it isn't fair for the other person, but the other person knew his partner was a manchild. Valve doesn't owe Maulbeck or his partner anything. I'd also be angry if I were this person, but I wouldn't be angry at Valve, I'd be angry that Maulbeck ruined any hopes I had at succeeding in this career.

I'm not saying wave all of it off but I think letting the guy know they would exclusively work with him wouldn't have hurt either. It was just a bad situation all around with both parties being at fault. Valve for not apologizing about the game not being updated when it should have and that Mike guy for being an absolute child and sending death threats. Both should have just apologized to one another and gotten over it.

There are enough user trolls on Steam, no need to have the team joined by devs and open the floodgates of verbal abusement.

Considering all the shit that gets pushed through Greenlight, I'd wish Valve put their foot down more.

albino boo:

Bat Vader:
That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

Making death threats is not acceptable behaviour in any form of business. If you make death threat regardless what its about you lose. You do not have a legal leg to stand on. No company will apologies to anyone making a deathreat full stop. If you had row with a shop and you walked and made a death threat to a member of staff you get arrested for threatening behaviour and not an apology. Games are not special and the normal rules apply. If you make a deathreat you are a stupid person unable to behave in an adult fashion and untrustworthy to do business with.

The big issue I see with the assertion that Valve should have apologized is that the guy didn't really give them much chance to do anything. If I remember correctly, and it's possible I don't because it's been a while, but if I recall he went to Twitter within a day of not getting the status change and started his diatribe that ended with him saying he "would kill Gabe, Gabe was going to die" or some such.

If he'd acted like a professional, if he'd kept his cool, he probably would have gotten an apology going through proper channels. I even understand taking to social media to let followers and fans know about the status change yourself. But you have to give things time to happen. Believe it or not, Valve is not in the business of adhering to the whims of every developer. There was obviously a problem on their end and if given time they'd have fixed it. But rather than seeing it play out, the person in question acted like a child and kicked up a dust cloud with his own petulance and childish behavior. Other developers use Steam, other people were likely in the queue of "problems that need a fixin". And in business one doesn't get bumped to the front of the line because one cries the loudest. It's a shame if a few (potential) sales might have been missed, sure. But it's not like the game wasn't for sale during that time. It's not like they blocked it from the buying public. It was still for sale, just set to EARLY ACCESS for an extra day or whatever.

So maybe he'd have gotten his apology if he behaved the way people in business together tend to behave. And as much as I believe in giving people second chances in most cases, I'm not the one being threatened or running a world-wide storefront. I'm not Valve's biggest fan, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with their response. It seems perfectly reasonable given the actions of the developer in question.

What Valve did may be been overkill and was unnecessary, but the responsibility for the outcome lies entirely on Maulbeck's hands. He did something reckless, stupid and malicious. I consider the circumstances to be similar to a judge sentencing a working father to jail time for making death threats. Yes, the man's wife and children suffer as a result, but its the husband and father who is responsible for the outcome, not the Judge.

The right thing for Maulbeck to do would be to fall on his own sword and atone. Provided his staff were fairly compensated in this transaction, he did the right and responsible thing in selling it.

ryukage_sama:

The right thing for Maulbeck to do would be to fall on his own sword and atone. Provided his staff were fairly compensated in this transaction, he did the right and responsible thing in selling it.

Except, of course, Maulbeck isn't even with the company. He was let go/fired immediately after his outburst and the game was removed. So he can't "fall on his sword", or sell it, since it's not his game to sell anymore and hasn't been for a long while.

People also forget that the whole "early access" thing wasn't the very first time the development team had issues with Valve. There's been several reported issues between them and Valve, mostly with the latter screwing the former over (unintentionally of course, but all the same). His outburst and "death threat" was the only time I can remember he had ever been so vocally angered about Valve's handling of their business. It was extremely idiotic for him to do what he did of course, but the fact the team had to suffer more than he did is unfair - and that includes having to sell their game off just to even recoup costs. Whether it was just one other person or several, they have no way of controlling one person and his outburst.

ryukage_sama:
What Valve did may be been overkill and was unnecessary, but the responsibility for the outcome lies entirely on Maulbeck's hands. He did something reckless, stupid and malicious. I consider the circumstances to be similar to a judge sentencing a working father to jail time for making death threats. Yes, the man's wife and children suffer as a result, but its the husband and father who is responsible for the outcome, not the Judge.

The right thing for Maulbeck to do would be to fall on his own sword and atone. Provided his staff were fairly compensated in this transaction, he did the right and responsible thing in selling it.

Reckless? Yes. Stupid? Yes? Malicious? Questionable. It's a death threat, but it was via Twitter where everything good in humanity goes to die.

More to the point your analogy bothers me on a couple levels.

1) The judge is directly responsible for the outcome because the judge decides sentencing, so whatever the punishment is, it's at the judges discretion.

2) The sentence would eventually end. Valve blacklisted these people forever, and considering their market dominance it makes it akin to sentencing the dev to a lifetime of poverty over a single utterance.

Denamic:
A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game.

This I find acceptable.

It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

This, however, is really not. You do realize that you're implying that 1 death tweet is grounds to permanently ruin another human being's life, yes? I know death threats are serious business, but nobody deserves to have their life and livelihood permanently damaged for saying something stupid. Once. On Twitter. Stop selling the game, fine, but a permanent ban from (an estimated) 70% of the PC market is uncalled for and your idea that Valve should encourage others not to do business with them is just spiteful.

I think it should've been a timed ban since a real death threat only gets you a timed prison sentence.

shirkbot:

ryukage_sama:
What Valve did may be been overkill and was unnecessary, but the responsibility for the outcome lies entirely on Maulbeck's hands. He did something reckless, stupid and malicious. I consider the circumstances to be similar to a judge sentencing a working father to jail time for making death threats. Yes, the man's wife and children suffer as a result, but its the husband and father who is responsible for the outcome, not the Judge.

The right thing for Maulbeck to do would be to fall on his own sword and atone. Provided his staff were fairly compensated in this transaction, he did the right and responsible thing in selling it.

Reckless? Yes. Stupid? Yes? Malicious? Questionable. It's a death threat, but it was via Twitter where everything good in humanity goes to die.

More to the point your analogy bothers me on a couple levels.

1) The judge is directly responsible for the outcome because the judge decides sentencing, so whatever the punishment is, it's at the judges discretion.

2) The sentence would eventually end. Valve blacklisted these people forever, and considering their market dominance it makes it akin to sentencing the dev to a lifetime of poverty over a single utterance.

Denamic:
A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game.

This I find acceptable.

It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

This, however, is really not. You do realize that you're implying that 1 death tweet is grounds to permanently ruin another human being's life, yes? I know death threats are serious business, but nobody deserves to have their life and livelihood permanently damaged for saying something stupid. Once. On Twitter. Stop selling the game, fine, but a permanent ban from (an estimated) 70% of the PC market is uncalled for and your idea that Valve should encourage others not to do business with them is just spiteful.

If you walk into an office building and make a death threat to the CEO of that company you get arrested, why is doing in on twiter different. Just because something is online does not mean that you can behave like a moron without consequence. If you wouldn't do it in real life then don't do it on twitter.

I find it interesting that the game is also now available on Gog.com

Bat Vader:
[...]

You and I both know that corporate politics don't work that way.

Welcome to the real world, where, "I'm going to fucking kill you for not placing the R.T. in Warehouse." Doesn't fly at all. In the real world, if something goes wrong, you put in a ticket. The ticket gets handled in order, and that's how it is.

Maulbeck did not put in a ticket.
Maulbeck did not wait his turn.
Maulbeck did not work with staff to resolve his issue.
Maulbeck did not act within reason like any adult would.
Maulbeck did not consider his credibility and reputation.
Maulbeck did not consider the reputation of his partner. (Which is now irreparably damaged, by the way)

As a result:
Valve Corporation was not aware a simple mistake was made.
Valve Corporation noticed his childish outburst.
Valve Corporation chose to make an example of him.
Valve Corporation is forced to honor their decision.

You're looking at this like it's not a big deal. It is. Death threats in the real world is a serious issue. People playing LoL just got desensitized because every single possible situation that arises that someone's ELO might get slightly harmed, there's 7 or 8 death threats made. Maulbecks partner can get out of this situation. He simply, and rather blindly fucking stupidly, chooses not to.[1] If his partner completely backed away from this situation, finds his own company, or gets hired (Good fucking luck, by the way) then he might have a chance at being successful within the industry.

Apologies can be made. Will they have any affect? No. Why? Maulbeck has zero credibility, and an example must be made.

[1] I haven't been following this at all, so maybe he did disassociate from Maulbeck.

albino boo:

If you walk into an office building and make a death threat to the CEO of that company you get arrested, why is doing in on twiter different. Just because something is online does not mean that you can behave like a moron without consequence. If you wouldn't do it in real life then don't do it on twitter.

Because when evaluating a threat, logistical factors have to be considered. If he'd walked into the office and said it to Mr. Newell's face that would have been a direct, credible threat, but this was Twitter.

My position is this: No one-off comment, on Twitter or otherwise, should ever be grounds for indefinite punishment.

Just like there is a world of difference between threatening to kill someone to their face vs. via Twitter, there's a difference between smacking someone upside the head because they said something blindingly idiotic and knowingly locking them out of 70% of their potential market forever. Like I said, by all means take the game down, but indefinite punishment for a single sentence is not justifiable. Even your hypothetical idiot that walks into an office and threatens to kill the CEO gets out of prison at some point, and they don't have to sell everything they own to do it.

I think Valve did act too harshly in this matter. I completely understand pulling the game and not wanting to work with the owner of the company and creator of the game, as is the person who made the idiotic threat.

Once he stepped down from the company though why is there is anymore reason not to work with the developer? The guy who made the threat is gone, no longer a part of the company. A lot of other people at that development company, people who put in work on the game, are now getting screwed for no other reason but that their boss is an idiot.

Valve should have let the game and the developer back in once the guy who made the threats was out of the picture.

shirkbot:

albino boo:

If you walk into an office building and make a death threat to the CEO of that company you get arrested, why is doing in on twiter different. Just because something is online does not mean that you can behave like a moron without consequence. If you wouldn't do it in real life then don't do it on twitter.

Because when evaluating a threat, logistical factors have to be considered. If he'd walked into the office and said it to Mr. Newell's face that would have been a direct, credible threat, but this was Twitter.

My position is this: No one-off comment, on Twitter or otherwise, should ever be grounds for indefinite punishment.

Just like there is a world of difference between threatening to kill someone to their face vs. via Twitter, there's a difference between smacking someone upside the head because they said something blindingly idiotic and knowingly locking them out of 70% of their potential market forever. Like I said, by all means take the game down, but indefinite punishment for a single sentence is not justifiable. Even your hypothetical idiot that walks into an office and threatens to kill the CEO gets out of prison at some point, and they don't have to sell everything they own to do it.

Unacceptable behavior has consequences. It doesn't matter if it's online or face to face, if you behave like a 12 year old throwing a tantrum people do not want to busines with you. Especially so when you are a tiny developer dealing with a multinational corporation. Valve would have made a few thousands dollars at most and its not worth dealing with narcissistic loud mouth for that money. They are not special they not important and if you behave in unbusiness like manner then you get thrown out. Behave like adults you do business, behave like an entitled child you don't do business. Its that simple

Amir Kondori:
I think Valve did act too harshly in this matter. I completely understand pulling the game and not wanting to work with the owner of the company and creator of the game, as is the person who made the idiotic threat.

Once he stepped down from the company though why is there is anymore reason not to work with the developer? The guy who made the threat is gone, no longer a part of the company. A lot of other people at that development company, people who put in work on the game, are now getting screwed for no other reason but that their boss is an idiot.

Valve should have let the game and the developer back in once the guy who made the threats was out of the picture.

He didn't step down and he is co founder and 50% of the staff. The only thing that was agreed with joint control the twitter account.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.