Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Capitalism does not reward morality (Score 1) 194

by Darinbob (#48423489) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

Corporations are set up so that you never have to blame yourself. If you do something a bit shady, it's because the boss told you to, and it was likely due to a bout of group-think. If you are the boss, then you're doing it because some executive told you to do it, during a session of group-think. If you're an executive or even the CEO then you did it because the board expects you to do it, and you do whatever it takes to make the quarterly numbers look right. If you're on the board you get excused because you're not actually running the company or doing any management whatsoever, you're just there to make sure the books look correct and keeping the execs from stealing your money.

So who do you blame? It's all group think. It only falls down when a CEO is stupid enough to actually admit an intention to do something unethical, as in the Uber case.

Comment: Re:Insight (Score 1) 534

by Darinbob (#48421445) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

It's a big train wreck. Maybe it's systemd, but maybe it's just lack of good leadership and teamwork. Overall though when you see a trainwreck like that people should stop and figure out what happened.

There are two ways to view this conflict. One view is that the fight is between those who are implementing systemd as a necessary feature and those who are obstructionists. The other view is that the fight is between those who want to keep systemd optional and those who want to make it mandatory. Because those two perspectives see the world in very different ways, people who don't see the same reality will tend to assume the opposition must be irrational. Thus no resolution is possible.

Comment: Re:Beware of Gamers (Score 1) 468

by Darinbob (#48412705) Attached to: Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player

Shouldn't they then take these problems and present them to the funders of the game? Tell the paying customers of the problems and find out if changes are acceptable or not. Maybe find other solutions (ie, some games delay themselves and the customers are actually happy about it, see Project Eternity for example).

So many gamers hate online-only games, the devs can not be ignorant of that, they must know this would go over badly. To remain in the dark seems strange, as if the devs are caught up in their own small world where they've never played any non-PvP games in their lives, don't know any of their close friends who play offline games, or think that those players aren't worth keeping as customers ("care bears" or "not real gamers" or other idiotic stuff).

Where is the layer of management that is supposed to remain objective, keep the dev team on track, keep the investors happy, etc?

Comment: Re:Beware of Gamers (Score 1) 468

by Darinbob (#48412621) Attached to: Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player

Passion for the games is great. But you also need at least some management with reality in mind, who keeps the customer and profits as priorities.

I say this as a developer, because when I develop something I get caught up in my own world and can lose sight of the bigger picture. I may deliver the best product ever but if it is a product that the customer does not want then what's the point?

They promised product X, got a lot of money for it, and are delivering product Y instead. Bait and switch. Somewhere along they line they got caught up in their own world and forgot about the customers who gave them the money. I'm only guessing, but I just have this feeling that some devs are thinking about making the game that they want even if it's not the game that the customers want.

If a product's direction needs to make a major change then it needs to be brought up before the board, and for kickstarter games the board are the funders.

Comment: Re:Apparently "backers" don't understand the term (Score 4, Insightful) 468

by Darinbob (#48409061) Attached to: Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player

Agreed. However if you lose the money that you can afford to lose, you still have the right to complain about it. And that's what people are doing. Telling them to stop complaining is kind of dumb. At the very least there's some moral obligation to warn potential customers to stay away from Frontier and its games.

Comment: Beware of Gamers (Score 4, Interesting) 468

by Darinbob (#48409051) Attached to: Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player

Beware of gamers developing games. Too often you find them preferring their own game play style, ramping up difficulty, no bones thrown to casual players, and so forth. Then it gets defended as "by real games for real gamers" or something like that.

I get a sneaky suspicion this might fall into that category. They've got a "vision" of what they want, and damn the paying customers who say differently.

I mean isn't this part of the whole reason kickstarter games are popular, because they're supposed to listen to customers which is the opposite of what the big name game publishers do?

Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau