#201 Edited by Hzaife (160 posts) -

@golguin said:

Strangely enough MS should be thanking the dude. They now know what happens if they go public with their always online plan. If that was their intention it sure as hell isn't anymore.

If it still is then goodbye XBOX and hello Playstation. I love my 360 now and I don't own a PS3 so this turn of events is pretty crazy.

Maybe, just maybe he was the sacrificial lamb for MS to test the waters before unveiling a huge disaster...

#202 Posted by sondunmurkedu (13 posts) -

@jdh5153 said:

@cloudenvy said:

@jdh5153: You're really the worst troll we've had on this forum, you're not even entertaining while you're doing it.

Haha funny. Why is it that anyone with a strong, minority opinion is considered a troll? Whatever makes you happy though. I guess you're not a very entertaining troll either. You're obviously a troll, you disagree with me.

Someone with a strong minority opinion isn't a troll. You disagreeing with me doesn't make you a troll. You making nonsensical arguments just to get a rise out of people makes you a troll.

Glad we cleared that up.

You can pretty much ignore jdh5153, he is complete fanboy. He has a blogspot blog that nobody reads about Microsoft. His little green bro polo in his avatar didn't give it away?

jdh5153: Confirmed Microsoft PR

#203 Edited by Slag (4049 posts) -
#204 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7056 posts) -

@sondunmurkedu said:

@cloudenvy said:

@jdh5153 said:

@cloudenvy said:

@jdh5153: You're really the worst troll we've had on this forum, you're not even entertaining while you're doing it.

Haha funny. Why is it that anyone with a strong, minority opinion is considered a troll? Whatever makes you happy though. I guess you're not a very entertaining troll either. You're obviously a troll, you disagree with me.

Someone with a strong minority opinion isn't a troll. You disagreeing with me doesn't make you a troll. You making nonsensical arguments just to get a rise out of people makes you a troll.

Glad we cleared that up.

You can pretty much ignore jdh5153, he is complete fanboy. He has a blogspot blog that nobody reads about Microsoft. His little green bro polo in his avatar didn't give it away?

jdh5153: Confirmed Microsoft PR

He proved he was a troll when I read his post claiming that Xbox somehow won last generation. I don't remember Xbox having any memorable exclusives beyond Halo and 24 Million sure sounds a hell of a lot smaller than the PS2s 155 Million+. Not sure though, someone should check my math. After that, and so many other obvious troll posts, I've just sighed and ignored it.

#205 Edited by ripelivejam (3574 posts) -

did this become a console war thread? i thought we didn't have those here...

#206 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

did this become a console war thread? i thought we didn't have those here...

Does that mean you've finally joined the PC master race, brother?

#207 Posted by ripelivejam (3574 posts) -

@ripelivejam said:

did this become a console war thread? i thought we didn't have those here...

Does that mean you've finally joined the PC master race, brother?

been there a while, friend. just try not to gloat too much about it. ;)

#208 Edited by TruthTellah (8558 posts) -

I like this line from Cliff Bleszinski's response to all of this:

"I find it disgusting that an online community would revel in the fact that they may have potentially contributed to a person losing their job. Even then, if they didn’t have anything to do with it at the end of the day, that they have the collective ego to think that they could do that. In a world of Indie-go-go and Kickstarter, where we can do great things in numbers, we should know better.

I’d rather live in a world where someone can slip up, say something that the world doesn’t agree with, and not have the collective internet lynch mob up their ass.

Well behaved people rarely make history.

Deal with it."

I absolutely agree with this. Even though I support being courteous and thinking before you speak, I don't think anyone should be lynched by an online mob for making mistakes in a random comment or saying things people disagree with. If something someone said is deplorable, you can disagree and even condemn what they said, but people don't need to hound them, threaten their life, or celebrate them losing their job. It's disturbing how ruthless many people are willing to be at a whim. No matter how little someone actually knows of an individual, simply crossing someone at all can be treated by some as a cardinal sin. You can see it here and most anywhere online, and it's extremely unfortunate.

There's a big difference between speaking against something you disagree with and setting out to destroy someone and revel in their demise. That is simply gross, and we can all be better than that.

#209 Edited by Hzaife (160 posts) -

I like this line from Cliff Bleszinski's response to all of this:

"I find it disgusting that an online community would revel in the fact that they may have potentially contributed to a person losing their job. Even then, if they didn’t have anything to do with it at the end of the day, that they have the collective ego to think that they could do that. In a world of Indie-go-go and Kickstarter, where we can do great things in numbers, we should know better.

I’d rather live in a world where someone can slip up, say something that the world doesn’t agree with, and not have the collective internet lynch mob up their ass.

Well behaved people rarely make history.

Deal with it."

I absolutely agree with this. Even though I support being courteous and thinking before you speak, I don't think anyone should be lynched by an online mob for making mistakes in a random comment or saying things people disagree with. If something someone said is deplorable, you can disagree and even condemn what they said, but people don't need to hound them, threaten their life, or celebrate them losing their job. It's disturbing how ruthless many people are willing to be at a whim. No matter how little someone actually knows of an individual, simply crossing someone at all can be treated by some as a cardinal sin. You can see it here and most anywhere online, and it's extremely unfortunate.

There's a big difference between speaking against something you disagree with and setting out to destroy someone and revel in their demise. That is simply gross, and we can all be better than that.

This is the world we live in, if your a public figure and take to twitter with your stupid remarks you face consequences.

Adam rightfully so, was either sacked or resigned of his own will.

How did Adam think this would end? he made a mockery of the customer with his remarks and Microsoft know this, they had to remove him other wise they wouldn't have.

He was smug and arrogant and im quite happy he's being held accountable for being an overall JERK.

#210 Edited by BPRJCTX (704 posts) -

I like this line from Cliff Bleszinski's response to all of this:

"I find it disgusting that an online community would revel in the fact that they may have potentially contributed to a person losing their job. Even then, if they didn’t have anything to do with it at the end of the day, that they have the collective ego to think that they could do that. In a world of Indie-go-go and Kickstarter, where we can do great things in numbers, we should know better.

I’d rather live in a world where someone can slip up, say something that the world doesn’t agree with, and not have the collective internet lynch mob up their ass.

Well behaved people rarely make history.

Deal with it."

I absolutely agree with this. Even though I support being courteous and thinking before you speak, I don't think anyone should be lynched by an online mob for making mistakes in a random comment or saying things people disagree with. If something someone said is deplorable, you can disagree and even condemn what they said, but people don't need to hound them, threaten their life, or celebrate them losing their job. It's disturbing how ruthless many people are willing to be at a whim. No matter how little someone actually knows of an individual, simply crossing someone at all can be treated by some as a cardinal sin. You can see it here and most anywhere online, and it's extremely unfortunate.

There's a big difference between speaking against something you disagree with and setting out to destroy someone and revel in their demise. That is simply gross, and we can all be better than that.

I don't have the time to write right now, but, if you read his comments, it's pretty easy to see that, he did it to himself.

He's part of Microsoft, and and in his contract, there's a line that is something along these lines, "you will not do anything, to make this company look bad in the eyes of the public".

And that's exaclty what he did.

Everything that was said on the internet, has nothing to do with him leaving, he simply dug his own grave.

#211 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7056 posts) -

I like this line from Cliff Bleszinski's response to all of this:

"I find it disgusting that an online community would revel in the fact that they may have potentially contributed to a person losing their job. Even then, if they didn’t have anything to do with it at the end of the day, that they have the collective ego to think that they could do that. In a world of Indie-go-go and Kickstarter, where we can do great things in numbers, we should know better.

I’d rather live in a world where someone can slip up, say something that the world doesn’t agree with, and not have the collective internet lynch mob up their ass.

Well behaved people rarely make history.

Deal with it."

I absolutely agree with this. Even though I support being courteous and thinking before you speak, I don't think anyone should be lynched by an online mob for making mistakes in a random comment or saying things people disagree with. If something someone said is deplorable, you can disagree and even condemn what they said, but people don't need to hound them, threaten their life, or celebrate them losing their job. It's disturbing how ruthless many people are willing to be at a whim. No matter how little someone actually knows of an individual, simply crossing someone at all can be treated by some as a cardinal sin. You can see it here and most anywhere online, and it's extremely unfortunate.

There's a big difference between speaking against something you disagree with and setting out to destroy someone and revel in their demise. That is simply gross, and we can all be better than that.

Exactly the line of thought I've had since this whole thing started. The guy was a jerk and said some stupid stuff. That doesn't mean he should lose his job. And the people "dancing on his grave" so to speak, are being jackasses.

#212 Edited by TruthTellah (8558 posts) -

@hzaife: @bprjctx: I don't actually disagree with him deciding to resign; I think that was probably a reasonable decision considering what happened. I'm talking less about that and more the larger response that in many ways went way too far, and how this is one instance that is unfortunately far too common. The willingness of people to harass someone and even make death threats toward them, and then, if they lose their job, to do a little jig at their misfortune.

This isn't about people being accountable for what they say; it's people setting out to destroy someone for either an unpopular comment or mistake and then dancing on their grave. That's removed from reality. That's a gross sentiment that shows little consideration for the fact that it's a real human being involved. No one should be lynched by an Internet mob, and none of us should be proud of the sad reality that people can do that.

#213 Posted by supamon (1333 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

I like this line from Cliff Bleszinski's response to all of this:

"I find it disgusting that an online community would revel in the fact that they may have potentially contributed to a person losing their job. Even then, if they didn’t have anything to do with it at the end of the day, that they have the collective ego to think that they could do that. In a world of Indie-go-go and Kickstarter, where we can do great things in numbers, we should know better.

I’d rather live in a world where someone can slip up, say something that the world doesn’t agree with, and not have the collective internet lynch mob up their ass.

Well behaved people rarely make history.

Deal with it."

I absolutely agree with this. Even though I support being courteous and thinking before you speak, I don't think anyone should be lynched by an online mob for making mistakes in a random comment or saying things people disagree with. If something someone said is deplorable, you can disagree and even condemn what they said, but people don't need to hound them, threaten their life, or celebrate them losing their job. It's disturbing how ruthless many people are willing to be at a whim. No matter how little someone actually knows of an individual, simply crossing someone at all can be treated by some as a cardinal sin. You can see it here and most anywhere online, and it's extremely unfortunate.

There's a big difference between speaking against something you disagree with and setting out to destroy someone and revel in their demise. That is simply gross, and we can all be better than that.

Exactly the line of thought I've had since this whole thing started. The guy was a jerk and said some stupid stuff. That doesn't mean he should lose his job. And the people "dancing on his grave" so to speak, are being jackasses.

Tell that to the GAF people. It's frightening how people are willing to go on a witch hunt the moment they see something they disagree with. This is example why developers are usually tight-lipped or evasive.

#214 Posted by Nictel (2380 posts) -

Guys! Here is the new Xbox: $699,- always on and Live for $20 a month! ... ... Guys?....

But yeah firing him over this seems excessive. People being proud of it is just disgusting.

#215 Posted by Slag (4049 posts) -

@truthtellah: I agree with you completely.

We've all had bad days, seems unnecessarily harsh to kill a guy for ten minutes of stupid comments.

what he said was really stupid and callous, but man it's not like he said anything that should be a career ender. A suspension, a twitter ban and reprimand was probably the max that was needed here.

The Gaf thread got really gross and crazy vindictive. That "Sweet Billy" stuff was just crazy. Gotta admit Twitter mob mentality is getting kinda scary these days, it has the potential to really ruin people's lives. And like all Mobs they don't exactly remain rational in their pursuit of "justice".

If I was a game company CEO after seeing this, the first thing I'd do is ban twitter for all my employees save PR. The risks far outweigh the positives.

#216 Posted by Hzaife (160 posts) -

Accountability is scarce in the video game industry, but thankfully it has reared its head

#217 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3575 posts) -

@slag said:

damn he's really gone over some dumb tweets? I mean I didn't like what he said or how he said it, but that seems way too harsh.

twitter is professionally dangerous man, not sure why anybody uses it.

thought Cliffy B had a good perspective on this

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/47725362941/deal-with-it

"Well behaved people rarely make history."

That sounds like something an asshole would say. At any rate, arguing for even more limitations on consumer rights would turn me "against" pretty much anyone. When someone acts like a dick on top of it all, that certainly doesn't help.

I'm glad he's fired / was forced to resign, because he's against consumer rights, and because he was rude to his customers. "He / she was rude to customers" should be enough reason to get almost ANYONE fired. At the same time--and even more so--I would rather he still had a job, and I would rather he wasn't a jerk in the first place.

"Sorry, I don't get the drama around having an "always on" console. Every device now is 'always on'. That's the world we live in. #dealwithit"

Either Microsoft isn't developing an always online console--which would make the quote above misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst--or MS really IS developing developing an always online console, and he's caused extremely negative opinions of a billion dollar product launch before anyone had the chance to properly market it to the press or consumers.

In any event, he is responsible for an absolutely torrential amount of bad press less than two months away from the biggest video game industry press event in the country. With any of this in mind, how is the action of removing him from your company "too harsh"?

#218 Edited by Humanity (8846 posts) -

In any event, he is responsible for an absolutely torrential amount of bad press less than two months away from the biggest video game industry press event in the country. With any of this in mind, how is the action of removing him from your company "too harsh"?

In that case almost all the big studio CEO's should be fired right now because they very often say some really stupid things that generate poor press. Also you should ease up with your "consumer rights" views. Your consumer right is to choose a product and buy it. Until Microsoft secretly taps into your bank account and starts siphoning money out without your knowledge or consent then I think your consumer rights are intact.

#220 Posted by Marokai (2812 posts) -

I've never seen an industry who's public figures so consistently shit on it's own audience and customer base. Seriously; fuck Cliff Bleszinski here. I don't give a damn about being "well behaved" when figures in this industry, in contrast, don't give a damn about respecting their own customers. How did that asshole on twitter think this would end? Should there just be no consequences for saying shit like that? For just pissing on the less well off and people who rightfully have a problem with being forced to have an internet connection for no good reason? Actions have consequences, sorry.

#221 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

There's a new rumor that the always online thing is mostly a sham. It won't be needed to play local content. It's more of the sense that it'll be designed to be always online. Used games and local games will be playable regardless.

Dude was an asshole, spoke out of place, and got fired. Happy ending in my book.

The sad fact of the matter is most of the world, even in places like America, don't have reliable and fast internet connections. I'm sure all of you lucky Swedes have like 300 Mbps down 100% of the time, but I don't think anyone out there is really stupid enough to think the internet is just everywhere.

If this does turn out to be true, I wonder what they'll tell the troops deployed in Afghanistan or -future warzone- without any internet. I would have loved to hear a deployed Jarhead respond to that asshat's "deal with it" crap.

#222 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3575 posts) -

What defenders of "always online" think most people who are against overly restrictive DRM sound like:

What most people who are against overly restrictive DRM actually sound like:

#223 Edited by Humanity (8846 posts) -

Instead of presenting a rational counter argument and having a civil discussion you straight away decide to mock and sneer in order to establish yourself as the superior point of view. You are doing a great job of representing the part of the internet that regular calm folk looking to have a regular discussion are constantly embarrassed of. Let me get hard at work on my really awesome image macro that says "someone has an opinion on the internet lol what an idiot"

#224 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3575 posts) -

@humanity said:

Instead of presenting a rational counter argument and having a civil discussion you straight away decide to mock and sneer in order to establish yourself as the superior point of view. You are doing a great job of representing the part of the internet that regular calm folk looking to have a regular discussion are constantly embarrassed of. Let me get hard at work on my really awesome image macro that says "someone has an opinion on the internet lol what an idiot"

#dealwithit

Seriously though, why should I be asked to surrender my ability to use a device that I paid for, unless I can continuously prove to the manufacturer that I'm not misusing my property in any way? Why should a company's rights against shielding themselves against piracy supersede my right to use the games that I paid for, even after the company decides to turn off their servers? Why should I just quietly accept radical changes to currently accepted property usage concepts that have almost no benefit to the consumer, and have every benefit to a corporation?

And this isn't even getting into the topic of some of the other anti-consumer possibilities that "always online" opens up, as it could potentially be used to block borrowing games, loaning games, renting games, buying used games, or selling used games.

If you support always online due to the help it would offer in preventing piracy, do you also support those possible restrictions?

If you want to have a civil discussion, be my guest. There are four questions in this post. Please reply to each, and I'll offer you the same courtesy.

#225 Edited by cmblasko (1133 posts) -

Ctrl-f'ing for "deal with it" is a really simple way to filter out noise.

@humanity: You literally said that there is no cause for concern over the violation of your rights as a customer until a company decides to steal from you. What reasonable discussion can be produced from such an extreme viewpoint?

#226 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3575 posts) -

@cmblasko said:

Ctrl-f'ing for "deal with it" is a really simple way to filter out noise.

@humanity: You literally said that there is no cause for concern over the violation of your rights as a customer until a company decides to steal from you. What reasonable discussion can be produced from such an extreme viewpoint?

That was basically my reaction, which was the reason for my meme reply in the first place. But I've been asked for a civil discussion, so we'll see where things go from here.

#227 Edited by Humanity (8846 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: I think it's very funny and ironic that after being initially rude for no reason at all you decide to offer the "courtesy" of answering me.

That aside there are many services and products that already do all the things you pointed out - both past and present. There is this small online service called Steam, which at one point had no offline mode all the way back in 2000 or so. These days it's considered the best digital distribution platform on the market. It's not the same system that launched all those years ago and it's foolish to think that when the new XBOX launches it won't change and evolve either.

And this isn't even getting into the topic that none of us know anything concrete about the new XBOX at all. All of this is pure speculation. A lot of developers are muttering things under their noses but none of us will know for sure until the console is out and they definitely say "Yes always online, no used games, DNA test before every activation ever etc etc.." If we all rebelled each time an "accepted property usage concept" was challenged and modified over the years then you'd still be exchanging chunks of gold to pay for your XBOX900. Everything changes and you can't just sit in your bunker and aggressively reject new ways of conducting business. There will be growing pains but this sort of push will ultimately evolve the way the industry operates.

@cmblasko: That's not exactly what I was implying actually as I was referring to what he wrote specifically giving an exaggerated example. Civil discourse is always a possibility, and it especially helps to clear up misunderstandings when reading "radical" statements.

#228 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3575 posts) -

@humanity:

"If you want to have a civil discussion, be my guest. There are four questions in this post. Please reply to each, and I'll offer you the same courtesy."

1) Why should I be asked to surrender my ability to use a device that I paid for, unless I can continuously prove to the manufacturer that I'm not misusing my property in any way?

2) Why should a company's rights against shielding themselves against piracy supersede my right to use the games that I paid for, even after the company decides to turn off their servers?

3) Why should I just quietly accept radical changes to currently accepted property usage concepts that have almost no benefit to the consumer, and have every benefit to a corporation?

And this isn't even getting into the topic of some of the other anti-consumer possibilities that "always online" opens up, as it could potentially be used to block borrowing games, loaning games, renting games, buying used games, or selling used games.

4) If you support always online due to the help it would offer in preventing piracy, do you also support those possible restrictions?

#229 Edited by EXTomar (4508 posts) -

It is my opinion and I speak for no one else but I have to no faith that Microsoft will handle this correctly given how well other products like Office 365 work. I have legitimate concerns if they can execute this correctly].

Instead go into detail about the strengths and let me know what happens if the all too common case "my wifi drops out for 30 seconds due to interference...what happens?" where "Deal with it" is not the correct response.

#230 Posted by Hailinel (23944 posts) -

Just curious, but what exactly was his job as "Creative Director"? It certainly doesn't seem to involve any PR skills.

Online
#231 Edited by Jams (2959 posts) -

I CAN'T FUCKING BELIEVE I MISSED THIS WHOLE THING!!!

I like this line from Cliff Bleszinski's response to all of this:

"I find it disgusting that an online community would revel in the fact that they may have potentially contributed to a person losing their job. Even then, if they didn’t have anything to do with it at the end of the day, that they have the collective ego to think that they could do that. In a world of Indie-go-go and Kickstarter, where we can do great things in numbers, we should know better.

I’d rather live in a world where someone can slip up, say something that the world doesn’t agree with, and not have the collective internet lynch mob up their ass.

Well behaved people rarely make history.

Deal with it."

I absolutely agree with this. Even though I support being courteous and thinking before you speak, I don't think anyone should be lynched by an online mob for making mistakes in a random comment or saying things people disagree with. If something someone said is deplorable, you can disagree and even condemn what they said, but people don't need to hound them, threaten their life, or celebrate them losing their job. It's disturbing how ruthless many people are willing to be at a whim. No matter how little someone actually knows of an individual, simply crossing someone at all can be treated by some as a cardinal sin. You can see it here and most anywhere online, and it's extremely unfortunate.

There's a big difference between speaking against something you disagree with and setting out to destroy someone and revel in their demise. That is simply gross, and we can all be better than that.

For some reason I can't stand Ciffyb's responses to internet drama. It's like he's always trying to make a point to shame the internet about being sheltered from and even more sheltered point of view.

First of all, this is what happened. MS creative director makes comments to rile up MS's potential consumer base in a negative way. He becomes successful and now he has the internet in an uproar. That's what happens when you tell people "deal with it". The people are going to say "No, fuck you". Microsoft see's this and thinks, "god damn it, here we are about to release information about a new console and we have an employee riling up our consumers against it and making us look bad in the process."

SO, they do what any company does. They DEAL WITH IT.

And what happens after Microsoft has dealt with it? Those people that the former employee was telling to deal with it are now say, "NO YOU DEAL WITH IT! How does it feel asshole? Maybe you don't want to be an internet asshole with an important position next time."

Was the 'internet' a lynch mob? No.
Was it right for the internet to dance 'on the grave' of the former MS employee? Well that depends on if you were the one on the receiving end of the insults.

Did the employee deserve to get fired? That's up to Microsoft alone
Did the internet cause the employee to lose his job? We don't know. Ultimately it was between MS and the Employee.

TLDNR

Think of it this way. The employee was a little tipsy at the office Christmas party and made a sexual suggestion to the bosses wife. The bosses wife didn't like that and told the boss. So now the boss has to do something about it.

The difference between that scenario and this one is that the Christmas party is Twitter, the sexual suggestion is the #dealwithit suggestion. MS is the boss and the internet community is the Boss's wife.

#232 Posted by Jimbo (9775 posts) -

I know 'Deal with it' has become the go-to phrase for people who can't otherwise argue their position, but to use it in this context is ridiculous. Saying 'Deal with it' to people who have just successfully changed something makes no sense whatsoever. They literally just got done proving that they don't have to 'deal with it'.

#233 Edited by EXTomar (4508 posts) -

As for CliffB's response, it isn't that this guy said something unpopular that got himself fired but he committed "a foul" doing his job. If you are hired to do shepherd a product and it has an controversial feature or detail, spinning it as "everyone just needs to deal with it" is a piss poor way to accomplish that task.

His job is to help craft the message for his product and he screwed up badly by explicitly pointing out the drawbacks of their product and dismissing concerns when people ask "What?". Why should he keep his job?

#234 Posted by Jams (2959 posts) -

PC gaming is dead.

Linux Gaming is where it's at.

#dealwithit

#235 Posted by phantomzxro (1565 posts) -

@slag said:

damn he's really gone over some dumb tweets? I mean I didn't like what he said or how he said it, but that seems way too harsh.

twitter is professionally dangerous man, not sure why anybody uses it.

thought Cliffy B had a good perspective on this

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/47725362941/deal-with-it

I'm sorry but i just can't get behind Cliffy B words at all. He is saying the same thing but just in a sweeter voice. Also i don't remember anyone making a petition or poll to get the man fired. He said some dumb things and the internet reacted on his words.

It's MS who made the choice to let the man go and i don't think people are "dancing on his grave" if you will. More like if you tell someone to "deal with it" on a problem or concern , you can bet money when the roles are turned around most will throw that deal with it right back at you.

Also its not fair to use a personal example such as going camping and it might be a good thing you can't use your electronics for everyone. Sure that can be a good thing for some or sometimes but that should not be forced on anyone if it does not need to be. You apply this always online theory to other devices and i bet it would not fly at all.

#236 Posted by Inkerman (1449 posts) -

I like this line from Cliff Bleszinski's response to all of this:

"I find it disgusting that an online community would revel in the fact that they may have potentially contributed to a person losing their job. Even then, if they didn’t have anything to do with it at the end of the day, that they have the collective ego to think that they could do that. In a world of Indie-go-go and Kickstarter, where we can do great things in numbers, we should know better.

I’d rather live in a world where someone can slip up, say something that the world doesn’t agree with, and not have the collective internet lynch mob up their ass.

Well behaved people rarely make history.

Deal with it."

I absolutely agree with this. Even though I support being courteous and thinking before you speak, I don't think anyone should be lynched by an online mob for making mistakes in a random comment or saying things people disagree with. If something someone said is deplorable, you can disagree and even condemn what they said, but people don't need to hound them, threaten their life, or celebrate them losing their job. It's disturbing how ruthless many people are willing to be at a whim. No matter how little someone actually knows of an individual, simply crossing someone at all can be treated by some as a cardinal sin. You can see it here and most anywhere online, and it's extremely unfortunate.

There's a big difference between speaking against something you disagree with and setting out to destroy someone and revel in their demise. That is simply gross, and we can all be better than that.

I don't know about any death threats made or anything like that (which are obviously way crazy), but I do think he should have been fired for his comments and I think it perfectly reasonable for a community (even one on the internet) to demand his resignation or termination for his comments. Not only did he not represent his company well, he actually insulted customers and the public at large in a discussion about his company's product, at that point demands should be made for his resignation.

#237 Edited by Slag (4049 posts) -

@phantomzxro said:

It's MS who made the choice to let the man go and i don't think people are "dancing on his grave" if you will. More like if you tell someone to "deal with it" on a problem or concern , you can bet money when the roles are turned around most will throw that deal with it right back at you.

Also its not fair to use a personal example such as going camping and it might be a good thing you can't use your electronics for everyone. Sure that can be a good thing for some or sometimes but that should not be forced on anyone if it does not need to be. You apply this always online theory to other devices and i bet it would not fly at all.

no one is dancing on his grave? have you read the at replies sent to him on twitter? Obviously some time has passed but when this was going down they were getting really vicious and crazy personal. They still are pretty classless now.

https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=%40adam_orth&src=typd

or the 43 page neogaf thread about him getting canned

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=538053

or the 203 page neogaf thread that brought his stupid comments to light initially?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=534951

I don't like what Adam Orth said at all or how he said it, he definitely deserved to be punished for his stupidity by his superiors, but this way out of line with actual offense. Not only did he lose his job, the guy is probably unemployable in the industry for some time, perhaps permanently. A ten minute fairly innocuous mistake is causing him to get bullied relentlessly by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people.

Cliffy B is very anti consumer in my opinion on many things I don't agree with (see his stance on simcity), but I do think he is right this internet mob rage is getting pretty dangerous and horribly abused.

I agree with you about the camping thing.

#238 Edited by bigjeffrey (4809 posts) -

We didnt even know this dude existed, but we berated the shit out of him.

#239 Edited by Darson (448 posts) -

This thread has made me realize that this forum, and the internet as a whole, wouldn't be as large and popular as it is today without two or more groups consistently debating over stupid shit that will never actually change either group's viewpoint and only causes disorganized personal flame wars.

We all should be ashamed.

According to this philosophy, I can guarantee that someone, somewhere, will argue about this with me.

#240 Posted by Slag (4049 posts) -

"Well behaved people rarely make history."

That sounds like something an asshole would say. At any rate, arguing for even more limitations on consumer rights would turn me "against" pretty much anyone. When someone acts like a dick on top of it all, that certainly doesn't help.

I'm glad he's fired / was forced to resign, because he's against consumer rights, and because he was rude to his customers. "He / she was rude to customers" should be enough reason to get almost ANYONE fired. At the same time--and even more so--I would rather he still had a job, and I would rather he wasn't a jerk in the first place.

"Sorry, I don't get the drama around having an "always on" console. Every device now is 'always on'. That's the world we live in. #dealwithit"

Either Microsoft isn't developing an always online console--which would make the quote above misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst--or MS really IS developing developing an always online console, and he's caused extremely negative opinions of a billion dollar product launch before anyone had the chance to properly market it to the press or consumers.

In any event, he is responsible for an absolutely torrential amount of bad press less than two months away from the biggest video game industry press event in the country. With any of this in mind, how is the action of removing him from your company "too harsh"?

I don't like what Cliffy B has to say on many things and when he does have a semblance of good point he often butchers by phrasing it like an asshole as you pointed out

re: his line of

"Well behaved people rarely make history."

I think the idea behind that actually has truth to it (i.e. risk takers, who often break unwritten societal/industry rules, are often what drive innovation), he just phrased ii in about the most needlessly combative way possible.

Like you I tend to think he is super pro-industry while being pretty anti-consumer at the same time. His stance about EA and simcity is completely out of touch fwiw. (He doesn't seem to understand that it's not this simcity that has a problem but the next one, which many people won't even give a chance to given how bad this one was).

I do think he has a point about mistakes and internet lynch mobs.

Adam Orth certainly said some really stupid things. Even if he was joking around and I suspect at least some of that was, he certainly deserves to get in trouble for it. That being said I just don't think a few bad comments aren't something somebody shouldn't have an opportunity to redeem themselves. People aren't perfect, if you don't let them make at least some mistakes they won't ever take risks.

Maybe this was the final straw for him and he had other infractions, I don't know.

I get MSFT has super strict NDA and tries to ultra tightly control information related to a new launch, but it's not like they don't have plenty of time to change the narrative. If your console is going lose millions over a rather few jerkish comments by a mid level employee you are not doing a good job pitching your product to the public.

#241 Edited by Nicked (246 posts) -

It's crazy how people are trying to defend consumer rights when we're witnessing a breakdown of the right to freedom of speech. Though I guess people getting fired for speaking their minds is banal at this point, huh? I'm not trying to be naive about how this stuff works, but I don't get how people can say basically that "he was saying stuff I didn't like so he deserved to be fired". Gross.

#242 Posted by phantomzxro (1565 posts) -

@slag: I have read most of what people have said on the internet about Adam Orth and it may be tasteless to kick a man while he is down but i don't see many out of line comments about the man. I don't support the people openly bad mouthing the guy but if you can make snarky remarks online directed at people then you have to take them as well.

Like i said i think people are just throwing back the "deal with it" remark he so snarky stated on twitter. I'm pretty sure Adam Orth will be fine and find another job somewhere because that is the business. Many devs get let go even when they do a great job, and they just move on to the next project. That is why Adam Orth was most likely asked to resign to keep his resume clean of any bad marks of being fired.

At the end of the day it was Microsoft call to fire him, ask to resign, or whatever and Microsoft's game plan to be hush mouth about their next system. So the internet is only a voice and Microsoft is the one really pulling the strings on this matter. On Cliffy B i don't think his opinions are the right way to handle it if you ask me. The internet is not some evil beast you attack all the time. Sure it an unruly place but maybe if Adam Orth and others like minded would give the people some respect and listen to the feedback you won't have to worry about the "wrath of the Internet" and maybe only have to deal with a jerk on the internet here and there.

#243 Posted by dhenniga (25 posts) -

@nicked: He was saying things that were just plain offensive and rude. He should have known better and while I never want to see people loose their jobs, he absolutely did this to himself and Microsoft had no choice but to let him go for the public image of the company. If you doubt this, re-read his tweets and tell me this is honestly the person you want running Microsoft's creative division.

#244 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3575 posts) -

@nicked said:

It's crazy how people are trying to defend consumer rights when we're witnessing a breakdown of the right to freedom of speech. Though I guess people getting fired for speaking their minds is banal at this point, huh? I'm not trying to be naive about how this stuff works, but I don't get how people can say basically that "he was saying stuff I didn't like so he deserved to be fired". Gross.

Are you arguing that freedom of speech means that employees should be allowed to insult their customers without consequence? Are you arguing that businesses should not be allowed to remove employees for insulting their customers? Are you not arguing any of this, but you are arguing that "deal with it" shouldn't be considered insulting?

Where does freedom of speech end, and the right to remove an antagonistic employee begin?

#245 Posted by ninnanuam (265 posts) -

There wasn't one strike against him there were two, and more important than being a dick is that MS are not talking about a new console yet, at. all. There is not a fucking word from that company, or its PR, or the grunts on the ground in any public space on its next box....fuck, everyone still has to say "unannounced platforms" when talking about upcoming releases.

Him even mentioning a potential "feature" in the new console, even with all the buzz around it, was what I would call a bad move. I'm sure it goes against his NDA somewhere. Even if he was all rainbows and sunshine he was going to be in trouble with someone, they pay huge PR teams vast amounts of money to know exactly when to announce stuff, and what to announce and how to shape the message then some derp comes along an speaks out of turn on the rumors floating around about a product MS hasn't even said exists. The icing on the cake is that he did it so poorly with such negative PR that he also probably violated the "you represent MS so don't be a dick in public clause" in his employment contract as well.

There is a reason that "Microsoft does not comment on rumors or speculation" is the go to line for anyone over there being asked any fucking questions on pretty much anything. I've heard/read it so much in stories and podcasts that I have the exact sentence memorized.

#246 Edited by troll93 (386 posts) -

@humanity said:

In that case almost all the big studio CEO's should be fired right now because they very often say some really stupid things that generate poor press. Also you should ease up with your "consumer rights" views. Your consumer right is to choose a product and buy it. Until Microsoft secretly taps into your bank account and starts siphoning money out without your knowledge or consent then I think your consumer rights are intact.

Too true. When you buy something you are entering into a contract. Most of the terms of this contract are controlled by the seller, depending on what country you are in the government may have some required terms. Your choice is to accept or not accept that contract. That is truthfully the end of it. This places the burden on the consumer, you have to make a decision, will you accept or not. That is your right, not this seemingly nebulous "rights" that gets floated around now and then.

Microsoft is not saying that you have to buy the next xbox, they are offering you something for sale. The cool thing about the free market is that there is competitors. You can buy a PS4, A PC or a Wii or if you are really crazy, an Onea. These are all valid options that will do the task of playing games, most at the same level as the xbox. The phrase is right, VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR!

#247 Posted by Hailinel (23944 posts) -

@nicked said:

It's crazy how people are trying to defend consumer rights when we're witnessing a breakdown of the right to freedom of speech. Though I guess people getting fired for speaking their minds is banal at this point, huh? I'm not trying to be naive about how this stuff works, but I don't get how people can say basically that "he was saying stuff I didn't like so he deserved to be fired". Gross.

As an employee of Microsoft, he had an obligation to not talk shit that could reflect bad on the company. That his job is not PR, and that he was not acting in a position of PR when he made those tweets, does not absolve him from the fact that he made Microsoft look bad, and that he may have hinted at certain things that are still under NDA. That's why he was fired/force to resign. He made his employer look bad to a wide audience, even if he wasn't speaking as a company representative.

Whether or not he deserved to be fired is not for the public to decide. That is entirely the call of his managers and HR at Microsoft.

Online
#248 Edited by danm_999 (74 posts) -

@nicked said:

It's crazy how people are trying to defend consumer rights when we're witnessing a breakdown of the right to freedom of speech. Though I guess people getting fired for speaking their minds is banal at this point, huh? I'm not trying to be naive about how this stuff works, but I don't get how people can say basically that "he was saying stuff I didn't like so he deserved to be fired". Gross.

I don't think you understand the issue of free speech. Nobody tried to censor Orth, nobody tried to hide his tweets (except Orth himself when he realised what a huge mistake he made), and nobody infringed his right to free speech. This isn't a free speech issue in any way, shape or form.

For some reason these days, an increasing group of people, which you appear to be among, think their right to free speech also means that when they say something stupid or hostile or gross, they have a right to be protected from the consequences of that speech, and that they shouldn't be criticised. They don't, and they shouldn't.

Having freedom also means being responsible for your own actions, so if Orth has the freedom to disseminate his views, his detractors similarly have the freedom to criticise him.

#249 Edited by AiurFlux (901 posts) -

I'm going to say a few things.

First off people never EVER speak with their wallets. We know this to be fact. Especially gamers. Why? Because they're fucking moronic sheep that follow the rest of the herd. All you have to do is look at the outlash against Diablo III and SimCity relative to their sales numbers to witness this. A person is smart, people as a whole a dumb chaotic parasites.

Secondly Cliff Bleszinski should, he himself, "deal with it". If Adam Orth can go online and act like a stupid cunt saying things that he fucking knows will generate vitriol then the internet has the similar right to go online and call him out on it. A few of Cliffy B's (urgh) arguments are the stuff of moronic legend. Diablo III would have sold half as many copies if it wasn't always online because of piracy? Really? Do you have any evidence on that dumbass? At least evidence that isn't related to a shit Gears PC port that came out a year later. Then he uses an analogy about not being able to play a game in a cabin because of no internet access, which is only half of the point (the reliability of Microsoft, or any company, is the issue here) and he's doing a bang up job trivializing it. He's a corporate shill anyway, so good for him.

Thirdly I don't agree with Orth's firing because people shouldn't be fired for acting like idiots on Twitter, being that I believe in absolute freedom of speech no matter how stupid. But the idea that yet again the majority pays for the minorities faults should bother everyone. But it doesn't. Why? Because it's that way for everything else in the US anyway. Say something even remotely offensive, even as a joke, and some small special interest group composed of 5 people that claims to represent thousands will raise hell over it.

In short, Cliffy B should deal with. The dude shouldn't have been fired for this. And always online is still fucking retarded.

#250 Posted by Hailinel (23944 posts) -

@aiurflux said:

I'm going to say a few things.

First off people never EVER speak with their wallets. We know this to be fact. Especially gamers. Why? Because they're fucking moronic sheep that follow the rest of the herd. All you have to do is look at the outlash against Diablo III and SimCity relative to their sales numbers to witness this. A person is smart, people as a whole a dumb chaotic parasites.

You weren't paying attention when DmC came out, were you?

Online