Paranautical Activity Returns to Steam

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

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.

So now I will make the counter-argument to my first post. When it comes to the guy who actually made the threat, whether he was serious or not, Valve should be able to decide they don't want to deal with him again. The government has the power to actually deprive you of life and liberty, so we want the punishment to fit the crime, but a private citizen or private business can decide who they do and don't work with.

That being said I don't think the rest of the developers at that company should be punished for the owner's statements, at least after the owner stepped down and left the company.

albino boo:
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. Valev 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 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.

Before we go any further, please, stop calling people names. You've never met the man and neither have I, so I don't think either of us have any right to declare him a "narcissistic loudmouth." Moving on, consequences should have terms and limits based on what the action was, otherwise the consequences become just as unacceptable as the action itself. As I've said, it's fine to take the game down, but it is not reasonable to never deal with the company again because of a single sentence, death threat or otherwise. It was stupid and unprofessional, but it happened once. Professionalism is about making money and it's easier to make money if you're willing to ignore fundamentally harmless idiocy, like one-off outbursts on Twitter, even if it was a death threat.

Amir Kondori:
So now I will make the counter-argument to my first post. When it comes to the guy who actually made the threat, whether he was serious or not, Valve should be able to decide they don't want to deal with him again. The government has the power to actually deprive you of life and liberty, so we want the punishment to fit the crime, but a private citizen or private business can decide who they do and don't work with.

That being said I don't think the rest of the developers at that company should be punished for the owner's statements, at least after the owner stepped down and left the company.

Valve controls 70% of all PC sales. That's enough control to make the difference between making a living and having to leave the industry. I understand your position that they are a private company that can do as it likes, I'm only arguing that they are being needlessly harsh considering the power they wield. They may not have the legal authority to deprive someone of life and liberty directly, but if you deprive someone of enough money it's not all that different. Though I absolutely agree with you that the other people involved shouldn't have been punished.

shirkbot:

albino boo:
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. Valev 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 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.

Before we go any further, please, stop calling people names. You've never met the man and neither have I, so I don't think either of us have any right to declare him a "narcissistic loudmouth." Moving on, consequences should have terms and limits based on what the action was, otherwise the consequences become just as unacceptable as the action itself. As I've said, it's fine to take the game down, but it is not reasonable to never deal with the company again because of a single sentence, death threat or otherwise. It was stupid and unprofessional, but it happened once. Professionalism is about making money and it's easier to make money if you're willing to ignore fundamentally harmless idiocy, like one-off outbursts on Twitter, even if it was a death threat.

I'm sorry I have every right to call him a narcissistic loud mouth and if you don't like that that's really quite tough. It is my opinion as someone that runs a medium size business that he is a narcissistic loudmouth and no large or medium sized business will be bothered dealing with him. If you spit in someone's face they don't like you, cause/effect. If you are rude and abusive you don't get the business.They needed valve more than valve needed them so you dont insult the people that can make or break your business. This nothing to do with games its universal practice, to do business then you behave in business like manner and if you dont then dont business. Spitting your dummy out on twitter because they didn't change the to full release from early access is not behaviour that any business would find acceptable. You can argue to you are blue in the face but isn't going to change the what behaviour business expect when dealing with each other.

shirkbot:

albino boo:
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. Valev 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 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.

Before we go any further, please, stop calling people names. You've never met the man and neither have I, so I don't think either of us have any right to declare him a "narcissistic loudmouth." Moving on, consequences should have terms and limits based on what the action was, otherwise the consequences become just as unacceptable as the action itself. As I've said, it's fine to take the game down, but it is not reasonable to never deal with the company again because of a single sentence, death threat or otherwise. It was stupid and unprofessional, but it happened once. Professionalism is about making money and it's easier to make money if you're willing to ignore fundamentally harmless idiocy, like one-off outbursts on Twitter, even if it was a death threat.

Amir Kondori:
So now I will make the counter-argument to my first post. When it comes to the guy who actually made the threat, whether he was serious or not, Valve should be able to decide they don't want to deal with him again. The government has the power to actually deprive you of life and liberty, so we want the punishment to fit the crime, but a private citizen or private business can decide who they do and don't work with.

That being said I don't think the rest of the developers at that company should be punished for the owner's statements, at least after the owner stepped down and left the company.

Valve controls 70% of all PC sales. That's enough control to make the difference between making a living and having to leave the industry. I understand your position that they are a private company that can do as it likes, I'm only arguing that they are being needlessly harsh considering the power they wield. They may not have the legal authority to deprive someone of life and liberty directly, but if you deprive someone of enough money it's not all that different. Though I absolutely agree with you that the other people involved shouldn't have been punished.

I understand where you are coming from but I really feel that I, as a private citizen, should be able to choose not to work with or do business with someone who threatened my life. I don't know that he couldn't still work as a developer on a game that he doesn't own or publish and still get have that game sold through Steam. He can still release his work on his own as well, his sales may not be as good but you can still have a breakout game.

Amir Kondori:
I understand where you are coming from but I really feel that I, as a private citizen, should be able to choose not to work with or do business with someone who threatened my life. I don't know that he couldn't still work as a developer on a game that he doesn't own or publish and still get have that game sold through Steam. He can still release his work on his own as well, his sales may not be as good but you can still have a breakout game.

But permanently? People and businesses change enough with time that a permanent ban is ridiculous. My other issue is the sheer power of Valve. If you or GOG or whoever did the same thing, I wouldn't care nearly as much, but Valve is just way too big. You might be right, he might be able to do other work on other games, but what's to say Valve won't just block that too? The main reason I paint the whole thing in such bleak terms is that there are not a lot of second chances in most media industries, and video games in particular. They just take so much time and money to make and it's very difficult to do while still doing a regular job. He may have a chance now (Bad publicity is still publicity...), or he may have 0. It all depends how this pans out. I just wish everyone the best of luck.

albino boo:
I'm sorry I have every right to call him a narcissistic loud mouth and if you don't like that that's really quite tough. It is my opinion as someone that runs a medium size business that he is a narcissistic loudmouth and no large or medium sized business will be bothered dealing with him. If you spit in someone's face they don't like you, cause/effect. If you are rude and abusive you don't get the business.They needed valve more than valve needed them so you dont insult the people that can make or break your business. This nothing to do with games its universal practice, to do business then you behave in business like manner and if you dont then dont business. Spitting your dummy out on twitter because they didn't change the to full release from early access is not behaviour that any business would find acceptable. You can argue to you are blue in the face but isn't going to change the what behaviour business expect when dealing with each other.

Why should I listen to anything you have to say on business-like behavior when you will not even honor a polite request to not insult a total stranger? That is not only discourteous to him, it is discourteous to me. We don't agree, fine, but the least you can do is not sling insults at someone you do not know and who just lost their IP. Say what you like, but I'm not going to listen until you start practicing what you preach.

albino boo:

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.

Precisely. It absolutely baffles me that people think Valve overreacted to the situation.

Let's say one of apples high-ups - a CEO or near-equivalent - was angry about their current dealings with Intel, of whom are providing CPUs for Apples new product line. In his rage, this higher-up decides to vent on Twitter. In so doing, he tweets a death threat towards the owner/founder of Intel, not unlike what Maulbeck had done.

Now, let's say in response that Intel decides to break it's deal with Apple on the grounds that they have no interest in having a working relationship with any company that would threaten, jokingly or not, the life of their owner/founder.

Would the same people proclaiming Valve's actions as "too harsh" think Intel's response was the same?

If yes, then they need a serious dose of reality.

If no, then they present a double standard.

This whole situation is unfortunate for all parties involved, but the onus of guilt lies entirely on the shoulders of Maulbeck.

Not a game worth owning and not a developer worth trusting. Valve did the right thing but I never would have allowed the game back, regardless of the backroom solution to avoid owning up to being jerk.

As to the co-founder that didn't make the death threat, what are you doing hanging around a jerk like that? It only tarnishes anything you do regardless of his ability to dodge responsibility for being an asshat. There are many other indie developers to connect with, ones that know enough to know threaten distributors. Most are probably better at game design as well.

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.

i dont know, you simply DO NOT THREATEN TO KILL your employer, i dont think that shit flies in any industry

NuclearKangaroo:

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.

i dont know, you simply DO NOT THREATEN TO KILL your employer, i dont think that shit flies in any industry

edit: Ignore, I'm done with arguing about things this insignificant when I have much more important things in life to focus on.

Steven Bogos:
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."

No one figures that the specific mention of "PC rights" is important? Well I guess with the escapist's "broad" spectrum it really doesn't matter in the end.

NuclearKangaroo:
i dont know, you simply DO NOT THREATEN TO KILL your employer, i dont think that shit flies in any industry

Valve aren't his employer.

Vigormortis:
Precisely. It absolutely baffles me that people think Valve overreacted to the situation.

Let's say one of apples high-ups - a CEO or near-equivalent - was angry about their current dealings with Intel, of whom are providing CPUs for Apples new product line. In his rage, this higher-up decides to vent on Twitter. In so doing, he tweets a death threat towards the owner/founder of Intel, not unlike what Maulbeck had done.

Now, let's say in response that Intel decides to break it's deal with Apple on the grounds that they have no interest in having a working relationship with any company that would threaten, jokingly or not, the life of their owner/founder.

Would the same people proclaiming Valve's actions as "too harsh" think Intel's response was the same?

If yes, then they need a serious dose of reality.

If no, then they present a double standard.

This whole situation is unfortunate for all parties involved, but the onus of guilt lies entirely on the shoulders of Maulbeck.

Actually as a business you do whatever makes you more money regardless of what you think of the people involved... happens all the time actually so I suggest you take your own suggestion there.

Rozalia1:

NuclearKangaroo:
i dont know, you simply DO NOT THREATEN TO KILL your employer, i dont think that shit flies in any industry

Valve aren't his employer.

very well, let me rephrase that

YOU DO NOT THREATEN TO KILL YOUR BUSINESS PARTNER

NuclearKangaroo:

very well, let me rephrase that

YOU DO NOT THREATEN TO KILL YOUR BUSINESS PARTNER

Not quite as you were incorrect the first time and have now changed what you were saying to state something different.

He didn't unless you think kayfabe is real life, but there is no reason such matters should get in the way of good business. People who utterly despise each other work together all the time in the name of more money.

Rozalia1:

NuclearKangaroo:

very well, let me rephrase that

YOU DO NOT THREATEN TO KILL YOUR BUSINESS PARTNER

Not quite as you were incorrect the first time and have now changed what you were saying to state something different.

He didn't unless you think kayfabe is real life, but there is no reason such matters should get in the way of good business. People who utterly despise each other work together all the time in the name of more money.

I think Valve has a better handle on what's good business for them than anyone in this thread. It was a small developer who acted insanely unprofessionally, Valve is getting more devs trying to get their games on Steam then they can handle, i'm sure the message this sends to other devs is worth more than whatever money the company would have brought in. Being on Steam isn't a right, I dont know why Steam should waste anymore time on them

This story reminds me of a Yogscast video I watched a while ago. It was a piece of commentary on a Zelda Skyward Sword trailer, and Simon, being the comedian that he is, started bellowing 'HEY, LISTEN!' In a shrill voice until Lewis promised to, quote, 'fucking stab you'.
Those were unfortunately the innocent times where death threats like that one weren't treated seriously, so Simon just laughed it off as an innocent joke and no legal action was started. But at least out-of-context quotes from this video could be used by our valiant social justice guardians for Lewis' character assassination should he step out of line and say something politically incorrect in the future.

Meanwhile, thank God we live in the enlightened times where such horrible death threats can't be ignored anymore.

Fulbert:
This story reminds me of a Yogscast video I watched a while ago. It was a piece of commentary on a Zelda Skyward Sword trailer, and Simon, being the comedian that he is, started bellowing 'HEY, LISTEN!' In a shrill voice until Lewis promised to, quote, 'fucking stab you'.
Those were unfortunately the innocent times where death threats like that one weren't treated seriously, so Simon just laughed it off as an innocent joke and no legal action was started. But at least out-of-context quotes from this video could be used by our valiant social justice guardians for Lewis' character assassination should he step out of line and say something politically incorrect in the future.

Meanwhile, thank God we live in the enlightened times where such horrible death threats can't be ignored anymore.

Simon and Lewis are friends, Gabe is the stranger who happens to run the storefront that they want the privilege of having their game on. What does this even have to do with legal action or social justice, death threats (however uncredible) are rarely a good idea to give to business partners

Once again, if some random part machinist who supplied a major car manufacturer were to make death threats about the CEO of said car manufacturer, nobody would bat an eye at the supplier being cut off and blacklisted. Why are video games this special medium where things that are said somehow don't matter anymore?

shirkbot:

Amir Kondori:
I understand where you are coming from but I really feel that I, as a private citizen, should be able to choose not to work with or do business with someone who threatened my life. I don't know that he couldn't still work as a developer on a game that he doesn't own or publish and still get have that game sold through Steam. He can still release his work on his own as well, his sales may not be as good but you can still have a breakout game.

But permanently? People and businesses change enough with time that a permanent ban is ridiculous. My other issue is the sheer power of Valve. If you or GOG or whoever did the same thing, I wouldn't care nearly as much, but Valve is just way too big. You might be right, he might be able to do other work on other games, but what's to say Valve won't just block that too? The main reason I paint the whole thing in such bleak terms is that there are not a lot of second chances in most media industries, and video games in particular. They just take so much time and money to make and it's very difficult to do while still doing a regular job. He may have a chance now (Bad publicity is still publicity...), or he may have 0. It all depends how this pans out. I just wish everyone the best of luck.[...]

Your shitting me, right? You're basically saying that "Valve is too big to dictate their own policies, and who they work with."?

Seriously? No. Doesn't work that way. Valve is their own company with their own big-boy pants. If they decide to not work with someone who's going to make them pennies then that's their decision. Lemme reiterate what I mentioned before.

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.

This is serious, yes... But this clearly isn't serious for Valve, it's serious for the manchild who had his little outburst on social media. You're right, There are next to no second chances in this line of work. Maulbeck blew his first chance, and that was his choice. Oh, and there's a difference between bad publicity and suicide.

The Bucket:

Fulbert:
This story reminds me of a Yogscast video I watched a while ago. It was a piece of commentary on a Zelda Skyward Sword trailer, and Simon, being the comedian that he is, started bellowing 'HEY, LISTEN!' In a shrill voice until Lewis promised to, quote, 'fucking stab you'.
Those were unfortunately the innocent times where death threats like that one weren't treated seriously, so Simon just laughed it off as an innocent joke and no legal action was started. But at least out-of-context quotes from this video could be used by our valiant social justice guardians for Lewis' character assassination should he step out of line and say something politically incorrect in the future.

Meanwhile, thank God we live in the enlightened times where such horrible death threats can't be ignored anymore.

Simon and Lewis are friends, Gabe is the stranger who happens to run the storefront that they want the privilege of having their game on. What does this even have to do with legal action or social justice, death threats (however uncredible) are rarely a good idea to give to business partners

Oh, I absolutely agree that you don't say such things to your business partners. Especially, not to the ones in the position of power. I just wonder why people in the gaming community have got all touchy about such obviously silly and groundless remarks all of the sudden. Nobody seemed to care a mere couple of years ago, and now it's death threats upon death threats, like we're in the middle of some Sicilian vendetta war. How long before we start sending each other fish and putting horse heads into personalities' beds?

I watched a TV interview with a local authority figure where he told a story about his subordinates who were supposed to make a report of some sort. He said, 'When I found out they failed to do it, I was like, I'm gonna kill you all!' I wonder what the headlines would be if the Western gaming media were to report the story. 'Local authority figure plans office purge'?

Fulbert:

The Bucket:

Fulbert:
This story reminds me of a Yogscast video I watched a while ago. It was a piece of commentary on a Zelda Skyward Sword trailer, and Simon, being the comedian that he is, started bellowing 'HEY, LISTEN!' In a shrill voice until Lewis promised to, quote, 'fucking stab you'.
Those were unfortunately the innocent times where death threats like that one weren't treated seriously, so Simon just laughed it off as an innocent joke and no legal action was started. But at least out-of-context quotes from this video could be used by our valiant social justice guardians for Lewis' character assassination should he step out of line and say something politically incorrect in the future.

Meanwhile, thank God we live in the enlightened times where such horrible death threats can't be ignored anymore.

Simon and Lewis are friends, Gabe is the stranger who happens to run the storefront that they want the privilege of having their game on. What does this even have to do with legal action or social justice, death threats (however uncredible) are rarely a good idea to give to business partners

Oh, I absolutely agree that you don't say such things to your business partners. Especially, not to the ones in the position of power. I just wonder why people in the gaming community have got all touchy about such obviously silly and groundless remarks all of the sudden. Nobody seemed to care a mere couple of years ago, and now it's death threats upon death threats, like we're in the middle of some Sicilian vendetta war. How long before we start sending each other fish and putting horse heads into personalities' beds?

I watched a TV interview with a local authority figure where he told a story about his subordinates who were supposed to make a report of some sort. He said, 'When I found out they failed to do it, I was like, I'm gonna kill you all!' I wonder what the headlines would be if the Western gaming media were to report the story. 'Local authority figure plans office purge'?

You're ignoring context. Nobody cared about Simon/Lewis because they're two good friends joking around (as happens everyday). Nobody cared about the interview you saw because it was two work colleges making an obvious everyday exaggeration. The problem with this its a person expressing his disapproval with a company by making a "threat" to a single person within it, Gabe, who is a total stranger to him.

I dont think anyone is criticizing them because they think the threat was legitimate. They're criticizing them because it was an infantile moronic thing to do, and I cant see any reason why Valve would encourage such behaivour by doing business with him or the company he represents again.

I'm of the opinion that many people need a reality check regarding Twitter.

Twitter is like taking a megaphone out in the middle of a city park, and yelling as loud as you can. Now, maybe you aren't heard because they're are millions of other people yelling into megaphones, but that doesn't mean you aren't responsible if somebody does hear you.

Just because you are on the internet doesn't mean your actions magically don't have any consequences. If a CEO of a minor company declared to the press that he was going to kill a CEO of a major company, then you bet your ass they won't have any business relations. The dude would be lucky if he wasn't send to prison.

Valve's market dominance means jackshit. Actually, it reflects worse on the devs for being so fucking stupid to badmouth their most critical business client. Valve's actions were 1001% justified, and the devs are lucky they got their game back on Steam.

shirkbot:

Amir Kondori:
I understand where you are coming from but I really feel that I, as a private citizen, should be able to choose not to work with or do business with someone who threatened my life. I don't know that he couldn't still work as a developer on a game that he doesn't own or publish and still get have that game sold through Steam. He can still release his work on his own as well, his sales may not be as good but you can still have a breakout game.

But permanently? People and businesses change enough with time that a permanent ban is ridiculous. My other issue is the sheer power of Valve. If you or GOG or whoever did the same thing, I wouldn't care nearly as much, but Valve is just way too big. You might be right, he might be able to do other work on other games, but what's to say Valve won't just block that too? The main reason I paint the whole thing in such bleak terms is that there are not a lot of second chances in most media industries, and video games in particular. They just take so much time and money to make and it's very difficult to do while still doing a regular job. He may have a chance now (Bad publicity is still publicity...), or he may have 0. It all depends how this pans out. I just wish everyone the best of luck.

albino boo:
I'm sorry I have every right to call him a narcissistic loud mouth and if you don't like that that's really quite tough. It is my opinion as someone that runs a medium size business that he is a narcissistic loudmouth and no large or medium sized business will be bothered dealing with him. If you spit in someone's face they don't like you, cause/effect. If you are rude and abusive you don't get the business.They needed valve more than valve needed them so you dont insult the people that can make or break your business. This nothing to do with games its universal practice, to do business then you behave in business like manner and if you dont then dont business. Spitting your dummy out on twitter because they didn't change the to full release from early access is not behaviour that any business would find acceptable. You can argue to you are blue in the face but isn't going to change the what behaviour business expect when dealing with each other.

Why should I listen to anything you have to say on business-like behavior when you will not even honor a polite request to not insult a total stranger? That is not only discourteous to him, it is discourteous to me. We don't agree, fine, but the least you can do is not sling insults at someone you do not know and who just lost their IP. Say what you like, but I'm not going to listen until you start practicing what you preach.

The thing is he made a death threat. I know it seems very likely that he was just upset about launch problems and let his emotions get the better of him but there also exists the possibility that he is emotionally unstable and might try to carry out the threat. I know I wouldn't have to guess if he meant it or not or if he would do other things without thinking in the future. That is why I think it is acceptable that Valve stop doing business with this one individual.

Steven Bogos:
even if it should have been obvious that Maulbeck wasn't serious.

No it wasn't, the guy literally said "I am going to kill Gabe Newell" and nothing else, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell out of that comment alone whether it was his actual intention and even thou you can ASSUME he didn't meant it as that, "assumption" changes absolutely nothing when it comes to it.

The guy made a FUCKING STUPID comment on twitter, which even HE recognized as being fucking stupid, there's no discussion there, and since Valve made the choice of cutting all relations with the company, which is a completely reasonable choice given the circumstances, meaning that this was the only choice to give the game a chance to sell again, then so be it.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.