|
|
On October 06 2016 00:49 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 08:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 05 2016 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:
So I have no issue with what Artillery did on that front. Yes, they over-hyped a platform for future games. Yes, they over-hyped a game that had no clear design. And yes, they failed to deliver on both accounts. So overall, it was quite disappointing. However, I think you've got way too much anger for something that is really standard practice and the only difference between this one and a whole host of other games is that you heard of this and may have even been pessimistically hopeful while most of the other games never hit your radar. for the most part i share your perspective. i appreciate the depth of your reply. However, please do not attempt to assess my emotional state. I said the company was a "House of Cards"... and that is pretty much what it turned out to be. There is nothing to be angry about. yep, entertainment software companies standard practice is exploiting employees.... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/crunched-games-industry-exploiting-workforce-ea-spouse-softwarejust because its standard for EA to do this doesn't mean EA is a good company. other companies that do this then use the "hey everyone does it" logic.. they are no better than EA. You defend Blizzard all the time, and tout what a great company they are. Yet they do the same exact thing, and have ever since the Blizzard North days... Friends and family alphas were taking place ever since then. All these other companies are bad companies, EA, Artillery, etc.... but somehow Blizzard is a good company for doing the same thing? By your own definition, that would make Blizzard "no better than EA". Please explain?
1. i can find a jurisdiction where EA, Blizzard and Artillery are breaking zero employment standards. This does not make all 3 companies "good".
2. if Blizzard usually employs 12 month a year crunch time ( as they acknowledge occurred with the development of SC1) and uses free "volunteer" testers during pre-Alpha software stages stages they are as bad as EA. If Blizzard uses volunteer testers during Beta testing they are in the clear. The blurry line between pre-Alpha testing and Beta testing needs to be defined by someone with far more legal training than me.
3. in September 2013 the promise of a winter 2013 beta test was announced. It is from this point forward i heard news of these volunteer testers talking about how great everything was. 2.5+ years before the software hits its "Alpha" we have "volunteers" helping with "free testing". This crosses the line from ethical to unethical.
Free testing via a Public Beta 6 months before general release is 100% ethical. Free testing 1 year before alpha begins is the start of a blurry line between ethical and scam. 2.5+ years before alpha is definitely all-out pure scam-city.
Has Day9 said 1 word publicly about his 3 year experience working full time at Artillery? For a charismatic guy who constantly speaks optimistically about everything .... the silence is deafening. If Day9 ever does speak publicly about his experience it can definitely move this conversation forward.
|
On October 06 2016 02:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 00:49 Spyridon wrote:On October 05 2016 08:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 05 2016 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:
So I have no issue with what Artillery did on that front. Yes, they over-hyped a platform for future games. Yes, they over-hyped a game that had no clear design. And yes, they failed to deliver on both accounts. So overall, it was quite disappointing. However, I think you've got way too much anger for something that is really standard practice and the only difference between this one and a whole host of other games is that you heard of this and may have even been pessimistically hopeful while most of the other games never hit your radar. for the most part i share your perspective. i appreciate the depth of your reply. However, please do not attempt to assess my emotional state. I said the company was a "House of Cards"... and that is pretty much what it turned out to be. There is nothing to be angry about. yep, entertainment software companies standard practice is exploiting employees.... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/crunched-games-industry-exploiting-workforce-ea-spouse-softwarejust because its standard for EA to do this doesn't mean EA is a good company. other companies that do this then use the "hey everyone does it" logic.. they are no better than EA. You defend Blizzard all the time, and tout what a great company they are. Yet they do the same exact thing, and have ever since the Blizzard North days... Friends and family alphas were taking place ever since then. All these other companies are bad companies, EA, Artillery, etc.... but somehow Blizzard is a good company for doing the same thing? By your own definition, that would make Blizzard "no better than EA". Please explain? 1. i can find a jurisdiction where EA, Blizzard and Artillery are breaking zero employment standards. This does not make all 3 companies "good". 2. if Blizzard usually employs 12 month a year crunch time ( as they acknowledge occurred with the development of SC1) and uses free "volunteer" testers during pre-Alpha software stages stages they are as bad as EA. If Blizzard uses volunteer testers during Beta testing they are in the clear. The blurry line between pre-Alpha testing and Beta testing needs to be defined by someone with far more legal training than me. 3. in September 2013 the promise of a winter 2013 beta test was announced. It is from this point forward i heard news of these volunteer testers talking about how great everything was. 2.5+ years before the software hits its "Alpha" we have "volunteers" helping with "free testing". This crosses the line from ethical to unethical. Free testing via a Public Beta 6 months before general release is 100% ethical. Free testing 1 year before alpha begins is the start of a blurry line between ethical and scam. 2.5+ years before alpha is definitely all-out pure scam-city. Has Day9 said 1 word publicly about his 3 year experience working full time at Artillery? For a charismatic guy who talks a lot the silence is deafening. If Day9 ever does speak publicly about his experience it can definitely move this conversation forward.
I don't get how you can find it unethical when the people doing it volunteer. They don't care about being paid, if they did they wouldn't do it anyway and it's not unethical at all.
Now if Blizzard was forcing their employees to do it for free or forcing people somehow and not giving them a choice, then I would agree. However, I have volunteered for Alpha tests because I wanted to knowing there was no compensation.
Don't see how it's any different then a beta if you volunteer for it.
|
On October 06 2016 02:36 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 06 2016 00:49 Spyridon wrote:On October 05 2016 08:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 05 2016 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:
So I have no issue with what Artillery did on that front. Yes, they over-hyped a platform for future games. Yes, they over-hyped a game that had no clear design. And yes, they failed to deliver on both accounts. So overall, it was quite disappointing. However, I think you've got way too much anger for something that is really standard practice and the only difference between this one and a whole host of other games is that you heard of this and may have even been pessimistically hopeful while most of the other games never hit your radar. for the most part i share your perspective. i appreciate the depth of your reply. However, please do not attempt to assess my emotional state. I said the company was a "House of Cards"... and that is pretty much what it turned out to be. There is nothing to be angry about. yep, entertainment software companies standard practice is exploiting employees.... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/crunched-games-industry-exploiting-workforce-ea-spouse-softwarejust because its standard for EA to do this doesn't mean EA is a good company. other companies that do this then use the "hey everyone does it" logic.. they are no better than EA. You defend Blizzard all the time, and tout what a great company they are. Yet they do the same exact thing, and have ever since the Blizzard North days... Friends and family alphas were taking place ever since then. All these other companies are bad companies, EA, Artillery, etc.... but somehow Blizzard is a good company for doing the same thing? By your own definition, that would make Blizzard "no better than EA". Please explain? 1. i can find a jurisdiction where EA, Blizzard and Artillery are breaking zero employment standards. This does not make all 3 companies "good". 2. if Blizzard usually employs 12 month a year crunch time ( as they acknowledge occurred with the development of SC1) and uses free "volunteer" testers during pre-Alpha software stages stages they are as bad as EA. If Blizzard uses volunteer testers during Beta testing they are in the clear. The blurry line between pre-Alpha testing and Beta testing needs to be defined by someone with far more legal training than me. 3. in September 2013 the promise of a winter 2013 beta test was announced. It is from this point forward i heard news of these volunteer testers talking about how great everything was. 2.5+ years before the software hits its "Alpha" we have "volunteers" helping with "free testing". This crosses the line from ethical to unethical. Free testing via a Public Beta 6 months before general release is 100% ethical. Free testing 1 year before alpha begins is the start of a blurry line between ethical and scam. 2.5+ years before alpha is definitely all-out pure scam-city. Has Day9 said 1 word publicly about his 3 year experience working full time at Artillery? For a charismatic guy who talks a lot the silence is deafening. If Day9 ever does speak publicly about his experience it can definitely move this conversation forward. I don't get how you can find it unethical when the people doing it volunteer. They don't care about being paid, if they did they wouldn't do it anyway and it's not unethical at all. Now if Blizzard was forcing their employees to do it for free or forcing people somehow and not giving them a choice, then I would agree. However, I have volunteered for Alpha tests because I wanted to knowing there was no compensation. Don't see how it's any different then a beta if you volunteer for it.
it starts to become a scam when you entice volunteers for years with promises of "getting in on the ground level of an amazing opportunity that will change you life". You'll be working so closely with our key people as this thing grows you'll be the first person we hire.... etc etc etc.
Then it turns out you have zero marketing dollars for even the Alpha stage much less the Beta.
On October 06 2016 02:36 blade55555 wrote:
Don't see how it's any different then a beta if you volunteer for it.
the deeper you are into the Alpha .. like say 3 years before the Alpha... you are not play-testing a consumer product in its final stages... you are the software engineer's unofficial, unpaid assistant. in my jurisdiction you get paid for that - at least $11.25/hour. which still is fuck all money relative to the investments Artillery claims were made.
https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/internships.php
Volunteer scams happen all over the place. Here is just 1 example where nearly half of the companies using "interns" and "volunteers" were breaking the law.
http://lawofwork.ca/?p=8317
|
Back when I tested the game I figured that a few hours investment into testing every week would essentially be something I might leverage into a junior Q&A position later on(at some random local company), if I were so inclined, -- since at that time a friend of mine had a Q&A job at Paragon she was fond of. Before I lost my motivation to help I really just tried to treat it as if it was work that I was paid for, that was the standard I was trying to set for my activities, and at maybe three hours a week it wasn't that much sacrifice and I really didn't mind donating my time to help.
That is to say, I was kinda aware I was occasionally doing work people are usually paid for, but I got something(ie work experience) out of it in return.
|
Beta/alpha testing does not fall under volunteer work. Its not even work. There are no specific requirements or tasks set by the game developer and they do not even make the claim that the tester is required to do anything. Feedback is not required. I am sure some enterprising lawyer would love to file that class action(where legal fees for the plaintiff are required statute), but it would never survive long.
|
Hey, maybe when they derive income from that amazing engine they spent years making they'll send some cash your way. but, i doubt it.
|
On October 06 2016 02:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 00:49 Spyridon wrote:On October 05 2016 08:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 05 2016 07:42 RenSC2 wrote:
So I have no issue with what Artillery did on that front. Yes, they over-hyped a platform for future games. Yes, they over-hyped a game that had no clear design. And yes, they failed to deliver on both accounts. So overall, it was quite disappointing. However, I think you've got way too much anger for something that is really standard practice and the only difference between this one and a whole host of other games is that you heard of this and may have even been pessimistically hopeful while most of the other games never hit your radar. for the most part i share your perspective. i appreciate the depth of your reply. However, please do not attempt to assess my emotional state. I said the company was a "House of Cards"... and that is pretty much what it turned out to be. There is nothing to be angry about. yep, entertainment software companies standard practice is exploiting employees.... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/crunched-games-industry-exploiting-workforce-ea-spouse-softwarejust because its standard for EA to do this doesn't mean EA is a good company. other companies that do this then use the "hey everyone does it" logic.. they are no better than EA. You defend Blizzard all the time, and tout what a great company they are. Yet they do the same exact thing, and have ever since the Blizzard North days... Friends and family alphas were taking place ever since then. All these other companies are bad companies, EA, Artillery, etc.... but somehow Blizzard is a good company for doing the same thing? By your own definition, that would make Blizzard "no better than EA". Please explain? 1. i can find a jurisdiction where EA, Blizzard and Artillery are breaking zero employment standards. This does not make all 3 companies "good". 2. if Blizzard usually employs 12 month a year crunch time ( as they acknowledge occurred with the development of SC1) and uses free "volunteer" testers during pre-Alpha software stages stages they are as bad as EA. If Blizzard uses volunteer testers during Beta testing they are in the clear. The blurry line between pre-Alpha testing and Beta testing needs to be defined by someone with far more legal training than me. 3. in September 2013 the promise of a winter 2013 beta test was announced. It is from this point forward i heard news of these volunteer testers talking about how great everything was. 2.5+ years before the software hits its "Alpha" we have "volunteers" helping with "free testing". This crosses the line from ethical to unethical. Free testing via a Public Beta 6 months before general release is 100% ethical. Free testing 1 year before alpha begins is the start of a blurry line between ethical and scam. 2.5+ years before alpha is definitely all-out pure scam-city. Has Day9 said 1 word publicly about his 3 year experience working full time at Artillery? For a charismatic guy who constantly speaks optimistically about everything .... the silence is deafening. If Day9 ever does speak publicly about his experience it can definitely move this conversation forward.
2) They do. They call it "friends and family alpha". You can only get in through invites that are given out to you personally. Literally a sheet of paper with the invite information on it. Which makes their format a bit MORE questionable, as they are the only game development company that actually gives you something in writing in order to join their alphas, rather than just accepting a generic EULA/NDA online.
Furthermore, they use free testers the entire development process. The only testers that are actually paid are "QA Testers".
Finally, there's absolutely no laws regarding free testing at any phase of game development. It's all covered in the license agreement you have to accept before beginning testing. So everything your saying is false. Again, I've said to you many times, you make assumptions and treat them as fact. Your assumptions are not facts. It would be a joke to bring this up to a legal consultant.
3) The length of time testing has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. You are not forced to play. You willingly play as much as you want. It doesn't even cross the line in to ethics at all if you are not legally bound to take part in any action.
What are they going to do? Take themselves to court because they unethically decided to play the game 16 hours a day for no cash in return?
it starts to become a scam when you entice volunteers for years with promises of "getting in on the ground level of an amazing opportunity that will change you life". You'll be working so closely with our key people as this thing grows you'll be the first person we hire.... etc etc etc.
Then it turns out you have zero marketing dollars for even the Alpha stage much less the Beta.
They never said anything like that. Where did you come up with that statement? In your head? Exactly the point of what I said earlier - You treat your assumptions as FACT! In reality, what you are thinking never happened. Yet you come up with quotes in your head and convince yourself it actually happened? That's basically delusional...
Furthermore, it started only as a weekend test, and if you were one of the more active participants or gave nice feedback or something, they asked you if you would like to be invited in to the daily testers. And at every stage of alpha, you were directly working with the developers. There was only a handful of players, and for awhile more than half of them were usually the developers.
It required absolutely no marketing or promises, if you were there at the time, you would have seen that the developers truly did care about their game, and if you wanted to participate along with them, you could have done that. If you didn't want to, no problem! You were never, ever forced in to anything, or promised anything.
They actually did have investors as well. Very big name ones, including Tecent. Again, your basing your argument on assumptions. Just because backers pull out suddenly does not mean they didn't have marketing dollars. It's extremely common in the industry.
Nearly all development teams are not self-funded. Which is the sole reason companies like EA and Activision get involved.
If anyone is to blame, it's the investors, not the developers. Because from the little bit we do know, it was a very sudden and unexpected pull out.
the deeper you are into the Alpha .. like say 3 years before the Alpha... you are not play-testing a consumer product in its final stages... you are the software engineer's unofficial, unpaid assistant. in my jurisdiction you get paid for that - at least $11.25/hour. which still is fuck all money relative to the investments Artillery claims were made.
Your link is for INTERNS. These people are not interns, they are not part of the company nor a representative of the company at all. You are not even physically going to their location, never working alongside the company members, and not considered either a volunteer for their organization, nor an intern for their organization. The case would be closed right there.
Furthermore, the amount of time for testing does not relate AT ALL in this case. Even if it did, Blizzard would be one of the biggest violators ever. Because as we all know, in their history they have been known to delay more than any other company. Look at how many years Overwatch was in development. Far longer than Atlas was.
You need to separate your delusions from reality.
|
if you read deeper into it its about the mis-classification of interns and volunteers.
As it is they made a bunch of promises for 3+ years and fulfilled none of them. Artillery has zero credibility as a game maker. None.
the money-guys are always "bad cop" and the software makers are always the creative-fun genius-guy "good cop". that is how its always played dawg.
|
Yes, but that doesn't magically make a beta or alpha test an internship.
|
The software developers were so shocked and stunned by this "sudden" development and Day9 left several weeks prior. ya, ok man.
its ironic you brag about how happy you are to make no money while simultaneously bragging about the bazillions of dollars investment money they have coming in.
i guess whoever makes bank on that game engine they made gets the elevator. and you get the shaft.
i hope you get paid money for you work in the future, man.
|
You could tell this was dead on arrival by the way the devs talked about implementing other game modes and the game being a 'platform' for all sorts of game types rather than showing any real passion at fine tuning and strengthening their game as it was.
|
The developer making the game is different from the developer creating the platform to make the game.
I think the technology to make a browser based RTS game is still being developed, but the developers actually making GoA went belly up.
Although I could be wrong about that. There was so much information I might have gotten my wires mixed up during the absorption.
edit: Yup I was wrong, they are the same developer. Whatever, dead company so no point in discussion anymore.
JJR and anyone else should really open a new thread about the ethics of game developers using volunteers to test their game without compensation. Just let this thread die already.
|
On October 06 2016 05:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
The developer making the game is different from the developer creating the platform to make the game.
I think the technology to make a browser based RTS game is still being developed, but the developers actually making GoA went belly up.
Although I could be wrong about that. There was so much information I might have gotten my wires mixed up during the absorption.
I mean the developers of GoA, or at least the developers that did things like appear on stream playing their game and what not so I could be wrong, but they seemed to be GoA developers specifically. They seemed like they wanted to take the same armies & units and make other game modes for them.
|
On October 06 2016 03:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
if you read deeper into it its about the mis-classification of interns and volunteers.
As it is they made a bunch of promises for 3+ years and fulfilled none of them. Artillery has zero credibility as a game maker. None.
the money-guys are always "bad cop" and the software makers are always the creative-fun genius-guy "good cop". that is how its always played dawg.
It's about mis-classification of interns and volunteers, and in legal terms, "game testers" are neither of those. You have to be an active member of the company to be either of those things.
They made no promises to any of the testers. If you want to get in to the topic of promises about the game or engine, Blizzard has many more of those than Artillery ever did. And you have personally defended Blizzards actions in every one of those cases. Double-standard....
The software designers are at the whim of the 'money guys'. They can do their best, and they may not make a game that succeeds (more than 90% of games don't), but it's the money guys decision if & when to pull the plug. Many good games have the plug pulled, many bad games receive funding. But the responsibility in both cases is put on the backers.
|
You do realise that people on a game during alpha/beta, whatever stage, only play the game, don't you?
If you have ever done a real testing job, you would realise how this has nothing in common with playing an alpha game.
Sure, you can, maybe, at some point, if you feel like it, send a bug report, or a suggestion, but the vast majority of people don't. Actually, many people playing pre-release games don't even know they can do it.
I don't even understand what you are arguing about with your 'free testing'.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 06 2016 03:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
The software developers were so shocked and stunned by this "sudden" development and Day9 left several weeks prior. ya, ok man.
its ironic you brag about how happy you are to make no money while simultaneously bragging about the bazillions of dollars investment money they have coming in.
i guess whoever makes bank on that game engine they made gets the elevator. and you get the shaft.
i hope you get paid money for you work in the future, man.
You need to take the edge out of your posts in this thread.
Maybe you are doing it unintentionally but you come off as extremely condescending.
|
On October 05 2016 05:58 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 04:57 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2016 04:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:ya, the investment money was so great they couldn't pay the testers. ya, i can smell the BS from here. On October 05 2016 03:59 Spyridon wrote:
I was one of the daily testers ever since the first weekend test that happened probably around a year ago...
when other people are looking to profit i never work for free. ever. i make database software. first thing i want to know is the transaction value of every record in the database. What crackpot have you been smoking from? No company pays their invited alpha testers. They are always volenteers. Their not the Q/A department. Just because you are not willing to test upcoming games/software for nothing doesn't mean others are not willing to help with their spare time in exchange for helping something they like/enjoy improve. Nor does it make the developers crooks... Get off your high horse and face reality for once. Hey now lets take the tone down a bit. JJR wasn't implying anything nor standing on a pedestal. You are correct about alpha testers. However, most game developers at least have an internal testing team that does get paid. From what I understand, these guys didn't even field their game to an internal team. They seemed to want free labour so just kicked off an invite-alpha test. That seems a bit greedy no? Alpha testers aren't here to find bugs or determine major gameplay imbalances. They should be used to fine-tune the game.
What are you talking about? Small game devs and startup companies do not have a paid test team. When you're 5-10 developing a game, you don't pay 2 more people just to playtest it, you just playtest it yourself.
And alpha versions of software are very buggy and feature incomplete by definition, so yes, the alpha testers are actually there to find and report bugs, and also talk about the features they would like to see. Not "fine-tune" the game... Alpha testers are usually motivated by enthusiasm for the product and will to actively improve it. So ridiculous to use "free labor" like the testers aren't fucking gamers who volunteer because they have the time to worry about an unreleased game... Why not use "slavery"?
|
Playing a video game of your own free will, without structure or direction from the developer is not work. There is no compensation and nothing that you could be considered “work product.” You cannot put being in a closed beta/alpha on your resume. JJR has been pushing this argument for a while now, but any attempt to push this in a court would land with the sound of a wet fart.
|
Idk, Jimmy's being insanely stubborn. You have people PAYING to be in alphas/betas nowadays, and JJR thinks having a free alpha/beta is somehow bad?
|
On October 07 2016 02:22 lestye wrote:
Idk, Jimmy's being insanely stubborn. You have people PAYING to be in alphas/betas nowadays, and JJR thinks having a free alpha/beta is somehow bad?
He has always been insanely stubborn, sensationalist, presumptuous, and unreasonable. Sadly, it seems to be getting worse rather than better. It's only becoming more and more frustrating to read his posts... and that makes it so hard to not respond. So hard not to respond that it makes you feel like your being trolled. But he is 100% convinced of it all, making it all the more frustrating lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
