General Gaming News and Discussion

Rajaah · Jan 25, 2024

DickTrickle said:
The reporter has arthrogryposis. Who the reporter is and his condition isn't even being disputed by anyone and wasn't reported as Parkinson's by anything I remember. Whether you think his mocking was specific to his disability or generalized around the idea that the reporter was groveling, the dude didn't just have a bum leg. Just Google the guy and you can see he's got some fucked up shit with his hands. Maybe you should give your sources a second take if they're just suggesting he had a bum leg.

Ambiturner said:
Nah, the guy has a condition that gives him permanent retard arm.

Looked it up. Damn, I was wrong about the bum leg. I should double check things before I call out media outlets for not double checking things. I definitely saw "Parkinsons" mentioned in news chyrons about the reporter at the time, so that might have been the initial knee-jerk reaction by those outlets when the story first broke.

Thing is, he didn't necessarily mock the reporter's disability. He definitely mocked the reporter, using the same mannerism he'd been using for other people (including himself). I think the news drew a correlation that wasn't there in order to dunk on him, and it worked extremely well.

One could easily argue that he did know about the reporter's disability and WAS mocking it, despite it being a general mannerism he used for other people. Hard to say without being in the guy's head. I think the media was stating things as facts that weren't backed up, though.

Caeden · Jan 25, 2024

Every fucking company has pushed DEI. They have to or they cannot get loans or credit thanks to the Blackrocks of the world. So naturally those that espouse the language have access to money and therefore grow. Blackrock’s adherence to ESG bullshit shows they’re more than willing to torch dollars to have control and funnel a larger percentage of the pie to themselves.

I’ve been in fortune 250 land my entire career. DEI does jack and shit. The women and minorities that thrive care far less about this bullshit.

Rajaah · Jan 25, 2024

Mist said:
Pretty sure every one of your facts are wrong here.

Please cite any of your sources.

It was over seven years ago so my memory was off on certain specifics. Edited the post to admit its wrongness.

Ossoi · Jan 25, 2024

CaughtCross said:
I grew up really close to Blizzard in Irvine, see employees for them all over. A couple years ago I meet a lady who worked at Blizzard as a full time recruiter. And she didnt recruit for any technical or art jobs at the company, just for random administrative roles. It blew my mind Blizzard had full time employees to do this. They have so many people useless people working at that company not even involved it making games.

It blew your mind that companies hire talent acquisition staff directly to avoid the fees associated from using external agency recruiters?

CaughtCross · Jan 25, 2024

Ossoi said:
It blew your mind that companies hire talent acquisition staff directly to avoid the fees associated from using external agency recruiters?

Yes because hiring full time employees is expensive in California. Seems like a waste for a company making games to hire people whose job it is to hire more people that dont make games.

Rajaah · Jan 25, 2024

Caeden said:
Man. Blizzard was up there with Nintendo to me growing up and as a young adult. Now they feel like a soulless husk pushing the worst anti-consumer shit.

Yup. I loved World of Warcraft growing up (though I fell out a bit once I realized the game was so easy that I could run into a pack of 4+ mobs and AOE them down before I died, facetanking them all the while, as a MAGE, circa WOTLK)

Tried "catching up" a couple years ago, barely got through BFA content, and simply could not get through Shadowlands content. It was boring, there was nothing compelling about it. Never even got to Dragonflight. Considering how many times I played the leveling content of the early expansions and enjoyed them, it was a bummer to find the recent expansions to be so dull and devoid of compelling areas/gameplay.

Mist · Jan 25, 2024

Caeden said:
The women and minorities that thrive care far less about this bullshit.

It's more about getting through the hiring filters. Before the big DEI push, companies were less willing to take risks or expend effort to go looking at top candidates outside of a very narrow profile. Better to just hire someone's kid, cousin, or friend, who just happened to be another mediocre white guy. It's easier that way.

After the big DEI push, things got better for a while, and companies obviously grew. But I think what ultimately happened is the DEI hires eventually filtered up the chain and started bringing in their unqualified friends, kids, cousins, polyculemates, whatever. This certainly would explain the video game industry right now.

So, the first wave of diversity hires were probably great hires that would have gotten overlooked otherwise...

...the second and third waves... not so much. And now corporate America is migrating back to its baseline mediocrity, and people are blaming DEI instead of Rainbow-flavored Nepotism.

Ossoi · Jan 25, 2024

CaughtCross said:
Yes because hiring full time employees is expensive in California. Seems like a waste for a company making games to hire people whose job it is to hire more people that dont make games.

Do you know how much specialised recruiters cost?

At the level of administrative positions then a basic UK recruitment agency will charge 10% of the positions salary on a contingency/success basis. The more complex/senior positions then the more the external recruiter will charge. I charge 25% with 1/3rd of that fee up front as a retainer.

There's a reason most big companies have internal TA teams, and even then those TA teams can't fill every position.

Ossoi · Jan 25, 2024

Mist said:
It's more about getting through the hiring filters. Before the big DEI push, companies were less willing to take risks or expend effort to go looking at top candidates outside of a very narrow profile. Better to just hire someone's kid, cousin, or friend, who just happened to be another mediocre white guy. It's easier that way.

After the big DEI push, things got better for a while, and companies obviously grew. But I think what ultimately happened is the DEI hires eventually filtered up the chain and started bringing in their unqualified friends, kids, cousins, polyculemates, whatever. This certainly would explain the video game industry right now.

So, the first wave of diversity hires were probably great hires that would have gotten overlooked otherwise...

...the second and third waves... not so much. And now corporate America is migrating back to its baseline mediocrity, and people are blaming DEI instead of Rainbow-flavored Nepotism.

you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Minorities like Chinese and Indians are over-represented in the tech industry. Women are under-represented in certain professions because women are more interested in people than they are in things. Women are under-represented in senior positions because they take career breaks due to maternity and are less likely to return to work full time after childbirth. Men are also more competitive and more ambitious than women. Men are also less people/family focused so are more likely to devote more time into rising the career ladder and doing the 60-80+ hour weeks that it takes to climb the ladder than women.

None of the above is sexist - it's all well documented and supported by studies.

DIE means that inequity (in this case the under representation of blacks/women) is evidence of systemic sexism/racism. Therefore blacks/women must be hired/promoted at all costs (eg meritocracy)

Your DIE = growth is just an obvious false cause fallacy.

Kaines · Jan 25, 2024

Mist said:
It's more about getting through the hiring filters. Before the big DEI push, companies were less willing to take risks or expend effort to go looking at top candidates outside of a very narrow profile. Better to just hire someone's kid, cousin, or friend, who just happened to be another mediocre white guy. It's easier that way.

After the big DEI push, things got better for a while, and companies obviously grew. But I think what ultimately happened is the DEI hires eventually filtered up the chain and started bringing in their unqualified friends, kids, cousins, polyculemates, whatever. This certainly would explain the video game industry right now.

So, the first wave of diversity hires were probably great hires that would have gotten overlooked otherwise...

...the second and third waves... not so much. And now corporate America is migrating back to its baseline mediocrity, and people are blaming DEI instead of Rainbow-flavored Nepotism.

No. People are rightfully blaming liberal racism and identity policies over the search for actual talent. Once again, you are a moron.

Mist · Jan 25, 2024

Kaines said:
No. People are rightfully blaming liberal racism and identity policies over the search for actual talent. Once again, you are a moron.

Pareto principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

80% of people in any given organization are interchangeable at best, or plain worthless. This was just as true before DEI as it was after.

99.9% of complaints about DEI are coming from mediocre white guys who are just mad that more worthless/interchangeable slots got opened up to mediocre people who aren't white guys. Those 80% of useless chairs belonged to them!

Kaines · Jan 25, 2024

Mist said:
Pareto principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

80% of people in any given organization are interchangeable at best, or plain worthless. This was just as true before DEI as it was after.

99.9% of complaints about DEI are coming from mediocre white guys who are just mad that more worthless/interchangeable slots got opened up to mediocre people who aren't white guys. Those 80% of useless chairs belonged to them!

Made up statistics on the internet is a cool argument. You're still a moron and have not one single idea what you are talking about. It is good to see you embracing your liberal racism, however.

Mist · Jan 25, 2024

Kaines said:
Made up statistics on the internet is a cool argument. You're still a moron and have not one single idea what you are talking about.

The pareto rule pre-dates the internet by quite a lot. Many highly influential business texts have been published on the topic, going back nearly a century. Heck, Scott Adams wrote and entire Dilbert book about this, ironically.

Big Phoenix · Jan 25, 2024

Mist said:
99.9% of complaints about DEI are coming from mediocre white guys who are just mad that more worthless/interchangeable slots got opened up to mediocre people who aren't white guys. Those 80% of useless chairs belonged to them!

"Those white men where useless parasites anyways!"

Amazing the retarded stances people take to justify vehemently racist policies.

... · Jan 25, 2024

spronk said:
naughty dog dev feels that the makers of palworld (just passed 8 million copies sold in 6 days) is "cheating", doesn't really know how though

i guess any dev that doesn't remaster their games 3 times in 2 years (last of us) or not including a 30 minute intro video on diversity is cheating

magic programming dirt

Control · Jan 25, 2024

Mist said:
Microsoft's huge growth came during the same period as their diversity push. One could say the same for much of the rest of the tech industry.

Or maybe huge growth enabled a ton of virtue-signaling luxury beliefs? And maybe headcount is often a more valued metric than revenue per head?

Also, bonus question: If diversity is really about effectiveness, wouldn't the number of successful tech startups be representatively distributed?

Mist · Jan 25, 2024

Big Phoenix said:
"Those white men where useless parasites anyways!"

Amazing the retarded stances people take to justify vehemently racist policies.

No, the point is that most people at a company are borderline useless, or at least interchangeable. But if you just keep hiring from the same cluster of people who are all related to the useless people you already have, you will never accidentally find better people outside of that cluster. There is no evidence that being cajoled into looking into wider pools of people harmed companies. If DEI harmed growth or profits, it would show up in the data somewhere. What evidence we do have points in the opposite direction.

I understand that you're in the bottom 80% and therefore cannot possibly understand what I'm trying to say here. Keep on being useless.

Control said:
Or maybe huge growth enabled a ton of virtue-signaling luxury beliefs?

Definitely a chicken/egg problem, already acknowledged this. But on the flipside, there are no signs of harm showing up in the statistics. If DEI was the disaster that its detractors claim it to be, you would have an entire generation of corporate collapses. In fact, the last big wave of corporate collapses was in the white-guyest industry of all time, investment banking, during the financial collapse of 2006. A textbook example, literally, of where an unquestioning monoculture led to chasing entire pyramids of bad incentives.

Control said:
Also, bonus question: If diversity is really about effectiveness, wouldn't the number of successful tech startups be representatively distributed?

You really have no idea how startups are funded, do you?

Hint, you have to beg a bunch of rich mostly white mostly guys for giant sums of money before you ever hire your 5th employee. They then give you money knowing 15 out of 20 companies they fund will not return their investment. Even a basic understanding of human behavior shows they're far more likely to give money to people who remind them of themselves. No one who works in VC or tech disputes this.

But again, even I will admit that gaming in particular appears to have crossed over the hump at certain companies, to where they're hiring friends-of-friends of rainbow weirdos to fill roles they have no right being in.

Animosity · Jan 25, 2024

CaughtCross said:
Yes because hiring full time employees is expensive in California. Seems like a waste for a company making games to hire people whose job it is to hire more people that dont make games.

You would be wrong here. I use to live in California and the company I worked for used a third party recruiting company and you had to pay them out the ass to hire on an employee full time. Companies have their own recruiting department so they can filter through the bullshit as well as save money on paying a third party.

Kaines · Jan 25, 2024

Mist said:
No, the point is that most people at a company are borderline useless, or at least interchangeable. But if you just keep hiring from the same cluster of people who are all related to the useless people you already have, you will never accidentally find better people outside of that cluster. There is no evidence that being cajoled into looking into wider pools of people harmed companies. If DEI harmed growth or profits, it would show up in the data somewhere. What evidence we do have points in the opposite direction.

I understand that you're in the bottom 80% and therefore cannot possibly understand what I'm trying to say here. Keep on being useless.

Definitely a chicken/egg problem, already acknowledged this. But on the flipside, there are no signs of harm showing up in the statistics. If DEI was the disaster that its detractors claim it to be, you would have an entire generation of corporate collapses. In fact, the last big wave of corporate collapses was in the white-guyest industry of all time, investment banking, during the financial collapse of 2006. A textbook example, literally, of where an unquestioning monoculture led to chasing entire pyramids of bad incentives.

You really have no idea how startups are funded, do you?

Hint, you have to beg a bunch of rich mostly white mostly guys for giant sums of money before you ever hire your 5th employee. They then give you money knowing 15 out of 20 companies they fund will not return their investment. Even a basic understanding of human behavior shows they're far more likely to give money to people who remind them of themselves. No one who works in VC or tech disputes this.

But again, even I will admit that gaming in particular appears to have crossed over the hump at certain companies, to where they're hiring friends-of-friends of rainbow weirdos to fill roles they have no right being in.

This is revisionist bullshit. Typical liberal. DEI had no effect on companies hiring the top 20% that was keeping them afloat. It had a dramatic impact on what the bottom 80% of useless looked like. You simply swapped white useless for rainbow useless. You didn't actually change what the top 20% looked like at all, as those people were diversified LONG before DEI came along.

You're still a fucking moron and a racist.

Daidraco · Jan 25, 2024

We can pick apart this argument however Mist wants to play. Mist is saying that before diversity hires, the offices were full of nepotism - which I have no doubt is true to some degree. But 80%? Lets look back at the history of Tech companies then, shall we? Apple and those companies started and gained ground in the late 70's on into the 80's. The Dot Com bubble was in the 1990's up to what, its peak in the year 2000? Then after that bubble burst, we had a new wave of tech companies come in in the early 2000's (or gained prominence in the early 2000's) that have went on to become billion dollar+ companies, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, etc. Even through a depression around 2008, these companies held on fairly well. After that depression, we had another wave of tech companies, namely Facebook (meta), and others that gained prominence from 2008 and are still relative today. You could say that the tech industry at large has almost came in waves every 10 years or so up to that point.

Now if you asked the ol' Alphabet search machine when the Diversity Inclusion bullshit started, it'll list you a bunch of articles that say that it started around 2014, or some that say "Five years of DEI and its effects" dated in 2020. Some will even say as early as when Facebook made its first "Big Office" which was in the early 2010's iirc. Now isnt it funny, that its the year 2024 and the only new players we've seen into the billion dollar club are from other countries? I wonder why that is.

General Gaming News and Discussion

Honorable Member

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Honorable Member

Tranny Chaser

Vyemm Raider

Honorable Member

Eeyore Enthusiast

Tranny Chaser

Tranny Chaser

Potato Supreme

Eeyore Enthusiast

Potato Supreme

Eeyore Enthusiast

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Goonsquad Officer

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Eeyore Enthusiast

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Potato Supreme

Golden Baronet of the Realm