What is going on at EA?

Pushtrak

In fairness, the days of an honest slip of the tongue are gone. People should be aware that when they are perceived as speaking for a company, as is the case here, then you have to watch your words carefully. This isn't something that one could have just missed out on. It's a pretty blatant fact of the way the internet is today.

gizmo

Pushtrak wrote: »

In fairness, the days of an honest slip of the tongue are gone. People should be aware that when they are perceived as speaking for a company, as is the case here, then you have to watch your words carefully. This isn't something that one could have just missed out on. It's a pretty blatant fact of the way the internet is today.

Completely true unfortunately which is why I'm not commenting on whether he should get fired, more so that I don't want to see him get fired because I fundamentally disagree with the bit in bold above.

imitation

Pushtrak wrote: »

In fairness, the days of an honest slip of the tongue are gone. People should be aware that when they are perceived as speaking for a company, as is the case here, then you have to watch your words carefully. This isn't something that one could have just missed out on. It's a pretty blatant fact of the way the internet is today.

Yeah it's true, and I think it's wrong that's it's this way, but it's been pushed that way by a few factors.

The push away from anonymity by Facebook, Twitter etc. Is the main factor, a simple innocent bit of banter between two friends on a public page can quickly be picked up by cross referencing who you work for.

Imagine if every forum account suddenly had a person's real name, not a single person would be unscathed, everybody spouts rubbish at somepoint or another.

I feel sorry for these industry guys who have to fall on there own swords (or get pushed onto them by pr) because of the press and a rabid public.

That being said it's not too smart to rubbish a partner of your own company, that's why devs and engineers are kept in there dungeons. I expect advice about this stuff is going to end up in contracts and inductions all over.

The

nesf

imitation wrote: »

Yeah it's true, and I think it's wrong that's it's this way, but it's been pushed that way by a few factors.

The push away from anonymity by Facebook, Twitter etc. Is the main factor, a simple innocent bit of banter between two friends on a public page can quickly be picked up by cross referencing who you work for.

Imagine if every forum account suddenly had a person's real name, not a single person would be unscathed, everybody spouts rubbish at somepoint or another.

I feel sorry for these industry guys who have to fall on there own swords (or get pushed onto them by pr) because of the press and a rabid public.

That being said it's not too smart to rubbish a partner of your own company, that's why devs and engineers are kept in there dungeons. I expect advice about this stuff is going to end up in contracts and inductions all over.

The

It's not really just a thing affecting people working in the game industry. I know quite a few (traditional) businesses where people never speak publicly about their work because their personal opinions could get them fired. If they have a Twitter or Facebook its used for purely personal discussion and rarely touches on their work in any specific way.

ShadowHearth

nesf wrote: »

It's not really just a thing affecting people working in the game industry. I know quite a few (traditional) businesses where people never speak publicly about their work because their personal opinions could get them fired. If they have a Twitter or Facebook its used for purely personal discussion and rarely touches on their work in any specific way.

That is true, I dont see why gaming industry should be an exception. Anyone in any industry would get in trouble for talking shiet about work.
Damn, some employers ( assholes ) check your Facebook before employing you, or put themselfs in to games to keep an eye on employed people.

If you do go with all this social shiet like FB and twitter then learn how to use it properly and that it would not bit you in the arse.

imitation

nesf wrote: »

It's not really just a thing affecting people working in the game industry. I know quite a few (traditional) businesses where people never speak publicly about their work because their personal opinions could get them fired. If they have a Twitter or Facebook its used for purely personal discussion and rarely touches on their work in any specific way.

Oh yes, its not just gaming thing for sure. The thing is, I know people like these, but also know plenty of People who are not like this, openly stating stuff that would get them into hot water. The difference is though is that its verbal down the pub, a bit of gossip or whatever. Problem is some people don't realize there is a difference between what you may or may not have said down the pub, and an time stamped comment published to the internet.

gizmo

The only difference is that for many in the industry, gaming is also a hobby and as such, they enjoy talking about it with their friends and posting their musings on whatever forum they use most, whether it's Twitter, Facebook or a blog. As long as said postings don't include anything NDA-breaking I see no reason why they should be fired over it.

A major issue with this however, is that certain aspects of the gaming press seem content to directly link these opinions with the companies they work for resulting in, with the case of Orth at least, the company needing to make an official statement. That is what will get you fired unfortunately.

As for the tweets in the context of other bits of news on the subject, personally I found this tweet from DICE Technical Director, Johan Andersson, to be far more damaging to the console than the opinions Summerwill expressed.

Pushtrak

I think we're looking at damaging in very different ways. I see that DICE comment as a straight up "we're not pursuing that and here's why" compared to the "dead console walking" comment. There is a big difference between the two comments, and the worse one to my estimation isn't the one you point to. A reprimand is fine, and probably warranted. I don't think his getting fired is necessary though.

gizmo

Pushtrak wrote: »

I think we're looking at damaging in very different ways. I see that DICE comment as a straight up "we're not pursuing that and here's why" compared to the "dead console walking" comment. There is a big difference between the two comments, and the worse one to my estimation isn't the one you point to. A reprimand is fine, and probably warranted. I don't think his getting fired is necessary though.

Well it depends, which do you consider more damaging, EA not developing games for the WiiU because they don't feel the existing market justifies the investment or because their engine of choice for multiplatform development, Frostbite 3, doesn't run adequately enough on the platform*?

Personally I regard the latter as worse, especially when it's coming from the Tech Director of the company that developed said engine.

*Or at least not well enough that in order to recitify the situation a large investment and/or compromise in tech needs to be made.

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

The only difference is that for many in the industry, gaming is also a hobby and as such, they enjoy talking about it with their friends and posting their musings on whatever forum they use most, whether it's Twitter, Facebook or a blog. As long as said postings don't include anything NDA-breaking I see no reason why they should be fired over it.

That doesn't really wash. It doesn't matter if it's your hobby you still can't say things publicly that reflect badly on your company because of the position you hold. Such is life. You can bitch about stuff as much as you want with your friends down the pub though, usually. Putting anything down in "print" though is risky. I vaguely remember a couple of instances of very unflattering emails appearing that had originally been sent to a "friend" which landed people in a lot of trouble.


The DICE comment: well, if he wasn't cleared to talk about technical tests they'd run it'd be problematic for him but it is exactly the kind of thing a developer might authorise someone to say as an explanation for why something isn't supported: e.g. if he was talking about a game not being developed to run on single core processors because initial tests of the engine showed it wouldn't work well if at all with less than two cores, would anyone be upset about this? Damaging, definitely. Mere opinion stated maliciously? No.

gizmo

nesf wrote: »

That doesn't really wash. It doesn't matter if it's your hobby you still can't say things publicly that reflect badly on your company because of the position you hold. Such is life. You can bitch about stuff as much as you want with your friends down the pub though, usually. Putting anything down in "print" though is risky. I vaguely remember a couple of instances of very unflattering emails appearing that had originally been sent to a "friend" which landed people in a lot of trouble.

Therein lies my point though, why should such opinions of one engineer reflect badly on his company? And where does one draw the line in the above case? Should employees not be able to comment on hardware or software they dislike or the policies of other companies they disagree with for fear someone will take offence and it will be picked up by the press in such a manner as has happened?

As an aside, if he was going to get in trouble for a tweet, it would more than likely be the one where he commented on EA's actual policy where he described it as an "utterly intentional decision to focus our resources on markets which actually matter". What I find strange is that more people are up in arms over his WiiU specific comments which one could easily argue are fairly accurate at this stage.

As for the DICE comment, it's impossible to know what he was or wasn't cleared to speak about (one can assume it would be more given his position within the company) however it happened in much the same manner, in reply to a question on Twitter rather than a press statement and delivered with the same amount of maliciousness save for the use of the word "crap".

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

Therein lies my point though, why should such opinions of one engineer reflect badly on his company? And where does one draw the line in the above case? Should employees not be able to comment on hardware or software they dislike or the policies of other companies they disagree with for fear someone will take offence and it will be picked up by the press in such a manner as has happened?

The issue is that you do it publicly and you're known as who you are and your position and such. It is not simply the same as another randomer saying something online. E.g. I've relatives in the Gardaí, working in hospitals, prisons, friends in the ESB, the Army and so on. None of them can go online, identify themselves as working as they do and talk about many things in their job/workfield. That's just how it is. Actually for my friends in the Army they could get in very serious trouble for talking online about things.

They are however free to be "anonymous" on boards/twitter/reddit or whatever and talk away, so long as they stay away from topics about their job.

gizmo

nesf wrote: »

The issue is that you do it publicly and you're known as who you are and your position and such. It is not simply the same as another randomer saying something online. E.g. I've relatives in the Gardaí, working in hospitals, prisons, friends in the ESB, the Army and so on. None of them can go online, identify themselves as working as they do and talk about many things in their job/workfield. That's just how it is. Actually for my friends in the Army they could get in very serious trouble for talking online about things.

They are however free to be "anonymous" on boards/twitter/reddit or whatever and talk away, so long as they stay away from topics about their job.

Perhaps I'm not being clear, my issue is with the status quo here, I simply disagree with the notion that people shouldn't be allowed talk about the industry they're in provided they don't breach an NDA or act inappropriately.

In the context of the above, say I'm a senior engineer in EA and I've just bought <insert new game X> at home. I play the hell out of it, love it but am continuously hampered by bugs. I then go on my personal twitter and talk about said game in this manner. A couple of gaming sites pick up on this and run headines saying "EA Engineer slams quality of X, calls it incredibly bug ridden". Now, should I be fired because of that?

One of the issues I have with devs not being able to talk more freely about the industry is that without them, there exists (generally speaking) a vacuum of information which is only filled by the usual PR mouth pieces and journalists fed from these same sources. It inevitably breeds an atmosphere of distrust amongst gamers where almost every announcement and piece of news released is greeted with, at best, cynicism and at worst, suspicion.

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

Perhaps I'm not being clear, my issue is with the status quo here, I simply disagree with the notion that people shouldn't be allowed talk about the industry they're in provided they don't breach an NDA or act inappropriately.

In the context of the above, say I'm a senior engineer in EA and I've just bought <insert new game X> at home. I play the hell out of it, love it but am continuously hampered by bugs. I then go on my personal twitter and talk about said game in this manner. A couple of gaming sites pick up on this and run headines saying "EA Engineer slams quality of X, calls it incredibly bug ridden". Now, should I be fired because of that?

One of the issues I have with devs not being able to talk more freely about the industry is that without them, there exists (generally speaking) a vacuum of information which is only filled by the usual PR mouth pieces and journalists fed from these same sources. It inevitably breeds an atmosphere of distrust amongst gamers where almost every announcement and piece of news released is greeted with, at best, cynicism and at worst, suspicion.

To have a problem with the status quo one must first conquer the problem of people assuming someone from EA speaks for EA once they're above grunt level. If a programming lead for EA says something people will read volumes into it regarding EA's position regardless of whether it's simple personal opinion or not. And even when they accept it's personal opinion often people wonder if it's coming from a particular culture in that organisation.

Fix the optics issue and you can remove the status quo. Otherwise we're stuck with it.