next »

[raiten]

Because most normal people would not get carried away like that; it says something about their character.

I honestly think most people definitely would.

[Peevish]

They spent 10,000 british pounds in a single joy week during the gdc for instance -- that's as much as some people make in a year.

That's as much as I make in 3 years. I wouldn't be able to to look at an expensive car that I just bought without thinking "someday I might be broke, and I'll wonder how many more months I could have been developing if I hadn't bought this thing." No one calling themselves a bedroom developer has £10,000 joyweeks.

But they have oodles of my sympathy, what they're going through now has to feel like torture, and nobody expects that a few luxuries are going to hurt them this badly down the line.

[redoubtable troutbot]

Because most normal people would not get carried away like that; it says something about their character.

Seriously, what kind of argument is that? A vague conclusion based on a highly dubious generalization?

[Problem Machine]

Because most normal people would not get carried away like that

Haha are you retarded? That's exactly what normal people do. All the fucking time. You have noticed the economy collapsing because of people basically doing exactly that? (among other reasons, obviously).

Man these last couple of days you've been kind of off. SOMEONE obviously needs to be working on their game more!

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Seriously, what kind of argument is that? A vague conclusion based on a highly dubious generalization?

It's not an argument, I'm not trying to prove that most people would. It's just my estimation of most people's reasoning ability. Perhaps it's inaccurate and I'm giving the average person more credit than they deserve, but I honestly don't think that most people would bankrupt their business like that. If you have a different estimation of their behavior, that's fine, I don't mind.

And I don't see the argument as any *more* specious than the comment above that which said "I honestly think most people definitely would." -- both don't have much evidence either way. Why pick on my claim and not the other one?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

It says something about your character that you constantly try to pick apart other people's decisions.

I don't think criticizing one (enormously stupid) type of behavior amounts to trying to pick apart other people's decisions in general. But you're right partially, it says that I have less respect for people who live on the short-term and don't plan for the future than I do for people who are longer-term thinkers and have delayed gratification.

And I didn't mean that I want Introversion to fail, just that their failure isn't surprising considering their behavior. If you don't save for the future and instead spend all your money as soon as you get it, you will be less prepared for times when you don't have any money. Whether most people would act the same way or not isn't really the issue. Their actions caused them to fail, and I can't really have sympathy for the self-destructive. I reserve it for people who tried their best but failed because of external circumstances, not for people who destroyed themselves.

[JoeHonkie]

It says something about your character that you constantly try to pick apart other people's decisions.

I don't think criticizing one (enormously stupid) type of behavior amounts to trying to pick apart other people's decisions in general. But you're right partially, it says that I have less respect for people who live on the short-term and don't plan for the future than I do for people who are longer-term thinkers and have delayed gratification.

And I didn't mean that I want Introversion to fail, just that their failure isn't surprising considering their behavior. If you don't save for the future and instead spend all your money as soon as you get it, you will be less prepared for times when you don't have any money. Whether most people would act the same way or not isn't really the issue. Their actions caused them to fail, and I can't really have sympathy for the self-destructive. I reserve it for people who tried their best but failed because of external circumstances, not for people who destroyed themselves.

I'm not a fan of the way you originally made your statements, but I certainly find it hard to argue with this wall of text.  I do argue with your lack of compassion.  These are clearly people who made mistakes because they were young and suddenly had access to a lot of money, which I can't really hold against them, because people do that.  They also seem to have learned from their mistakes and are still having problems.  I totally sympathize with that.  Apparently I have made mistakes before, too.  Would you believe it?

[redoubtable troutbot]

I reserve it for people who tried their best but failed because of external circumstances, not for people who destroyed themselves.

It's a bit unfair to imply they "destroyed themselves". They're broke because multiwinia didn't sell as well as they had hoped. That's hardly within their control. And I think it is safe to assume they tried their best.

From the numbers available in their blog post, they wasted about 6% of their uplink income. That's hardly "all their money". I very much doubt the "speedboats and fast cars" is the primary reason they're in this trouble now.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

re JoeHonkie: I've made mistakes too, many worse than theirs, but I don't really expect sympathy for such mistakes. I don't even give myself much sympathy for them. Maybe that's a bit harsh, but people differ in personality, and my personality is such that I think that if someone (including myself) makes a mistake, they should suffer the consequences of it.

re redoubtable troutbot: I agree that it's probably not the primary reason, but it probably ties into it. For instance, they said that their recent reaction to their poor income in 2008 is to lower their costs, by moving into a less posh office for instance. I don't really think they've learned their lesson if they are renting a more expensive office than they could get along with. A company should always try to be keeping costs down, even in times of plenty.

[JoeHonkie]

re JoeHonkie: I've made mistakes too, many worse than theirs, but I don't really expect sympathy for such mistakes. I don't even give myself much sympathy for them. Maybe that's a bit harsh, but people differ in personality, and my personality is such that I think that if someone (including myself) makes a mistake, they should suffer the consequences of it.

Fair enough.  I still think you can accept that people should suffer the consequences of their mistakes and have sympathy for them at the same time.  Everyone needs room to make mistakes.

[redoubtable troutbot]

I think that if someone (including myself) makes a mistake, they should suffer the consequences of it.

What kind of punishment is sufficient, then, for this heinous crime of wasting their own money? That they close down?

I for one want to see them keep their jobs, despite their mistakes, if only to see their next game.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

re JoeHonkie: Well, it's not like I've absolutely no sympathy for them, I'm sure that there are people hurt inadvertently. I don't have much sympathy for the main two guys who started Introversion, but I do for the rest of their new crew/employees, and for the people who are looking forward to their games but may not get to play them due to their lack of funding. Still, if they can afford 1-million British pound budgets for their games, and can still afford cheaper offices and such, they aren't doing very poorly in comparison to most indies.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

What kind of punishment is sufficient, then, for this heinous crime of wasting their own money? That they close down?

I for one want to see them keep their jobs, despite their mistakes, if only to see their next game.

I didn't mean that it was a punishment, it's a consequence -- there's a bit of a difference. If a guy sees you kill someone and jails you, it's a punishment. If you try to push a piano up the stairs and it falls on you and kills you, it's a consequence. I'm against human punishment in general, since they don't have to happen, but not against natural consequences, which have to happen.

So in answer: anything that happens as a result of their actions are the consequences. I don't know what those are, and can't really guess. But all actions have consequences, it's just natural karma. My thought was just that the current financial difficulties of their company is karma for their previous actions.

[redoubtable troutbot]

So in answer: anything that happens as a result of their actions are the consequences. I don't know what those are, and can't really guess. But all actions have consequences, it's just natural karma. My thought was just that the current financial difficulties of their company is karma for their previous actions.

Are you serious?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Are you asking whether I seriously believe in karma in a supernatural sense, or whether I seriously believe that their previous actions led to this outcome? To the first, no, I think karma obeys natural physical laws, and is completely compatible with science. To the second, yes, I feel that their actions led to their current financial difficulties -- which they kind of even admit in the three posts linked to in the first post in this thread.

[Melly]

Keep the discussion civil people. Just a friendly reminder.

[redoubtable troutbot]

Are you asking whether I seriously believe in karma in a supernatural sense,

Is there any other sense?

To the first, no, I think karma obeys natural physical laws, and is completely compatible with science.

What? How is it compatible with science? "obeys natural physical laws"? What is that supposed to mean?

Karma is completely based in faith. In addition, it's one of the most disgusting faith-related inventions ever, on par with the original sin. The thought that you can just say "he must have done something to deserve that" whenever something bad happens to someone is frankly just revolting, and I hope this is not what you mean.

Sure, they're partly to blame for the situation they're in, but does that mean they now don't deserve our compassion? That's harsh.

[JoeHonkie]

Are you asking whether I seriously believe in karma in a supernatural sense,

Is there any other sense?

To the first, no, I think karma obeys natural physical laws, and is completely compatible with science.

What? How is it compatible with science? "obeys natural physical laws"? What is that supposed to mean?

Karma is completely based in faith. In addition, it's one of the most disgusting faith-related inventions ever, on par with the original sin. The thought that you can just say "he must have done something to deserve that" whenever something bad happens to someone is frankly just revolting, and I hope this is not what you mean.

Sure, they're partly to blame for the situation they're in, but does that mean they now don't deserve our compassion? That's harsh.

Karma in a religious sense really doesn't match what you are talking about.  I think he's just using it in the traditional metaphor Western sense.

But this is kind of off track.  Let's talk about how I'll be sad if there's no more games from these dudes.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Is there any other sense?

What? How is it compatible with science? "obeys natural physical laws"? What is that supposed to mean?

Karma is completely based in faith. In addition, it's one of the most disgusting faith-related inventions ever, on par with the original sin. The thought that you can just say "he must have done something to deserve that" whenever something bad happens to someone is frankly just revolting, and I hope this is not what you mean.

Sure, they're partly to blame for the situation they're in, but does that mean they now don't deserve our compassion? That's harsh.

I don't really want to side-track the topic with discussions of this, perhaps we could start a new thread if you're interested. But karma is just cause and effect, which governs all things. It's not faith-based, it's the understanding that all actions have effects, and all effects were caused by previous actions.

It doesn't necessarily mean that when something bad occurs to someone that they "deserved" it -- deserving isn't really a part of it. It's not "deserve", it's "cause" -- it is saying that when something bad happens to someone, that their actions probably played some part in causing it. That doesn't imply that they deserved the ill-effects of their actions or that it's some sort of punishment. It's also the understanding that actions continue to have consequences long after those actions were undertaken. The actions you took many years ago continue to have consequences today, through a chain of cause and effect.

But anyway, any further talk on it would probably be best done in another thread (start one and point me to it if you like) rather than here, since it's a bit too off-topic.

[redoubtable troutbot]

No, you're right, this is very much off topic. Tough I don't agree with your understanding of karma. To say "they brought it on themselves" is pretty much the same thing as saying they "deserve" it. For further evidence that karma = a Bad Thing, look at the caste system in india, and the fact that it supposedly carries on to your next life.

fuck, sorry, let's just forget it. it's neither relevant nor interesting.

I just hope we can agree that we want introversion to live long enough to make some more excellent games.