Jimquisition: Companies Exist To Make Money

[Nurb]

Publishers have existed solely on the good will and loyalty gamers developed from the more fair minded developers of the 90's and early 00's they purchased, ran into the dirt and left for dead.

In the past:
"You're willing to buy our game? Here's a little free DLC for your loyalty while we work on the expansion."

Now:
"You're willing to buy 'our' game? Then you'll be willing to buy a little DLC too, then content we hold back to sell you on release day, then individual items sold in our online stores, and you'll be willing to put up with our removal of dedicated servers so we can take away multiplayer when the sequel comes out at the expense of number of total players... All because of your loyalty... and if you don't like it, you can fuck off."

Now gamers are getting very very bitter, more than in the past.

 

[Nazulu]

Publishers have existed solely on the good will and loyalty gamers developed from the more fair minded developers of the 90's and early 00's they purchased, ran into the dirt and left for dead.

In the past:
"You're willing to buy our game? Here's a little free DLC for your loyalty while we work on the expansion."

Now:
"You're willing to buy 'our' game? Then you'll be willing to buy a little DLC too, then content we hold back to sell you on release day, then individual items sold in our online stores, and you'll be willing to put up with our removal of dedicated servers so we can take away multiplayer when the sequel comes out at the expense of number of total players... All because of your loyalty... and if you don't like it, you can fuck off."

Now gamers are getting very very bitter, more than in the past.

It was such a beautiful thing. I remember when I first bought Red Alert 2 and they already had free map packs to download. Later they made a page on their main site so people can put up their own maps and missions. There was too much for me to go through! Literally. And that was when I didn't have any responsibilites. You could play them all online with friends too, and even though some people found ways to cheat, not many people cared because it was still so exciting to get all these new maps.

*sad* Also, there was time I didn't have internet, it lasted about a month, *big smile* but it didn't mean shit when none of the games had DRM and I could use LAN in so many places.

 

[Fiairflair]

Fuck using Valve as a positive example.

They were the first company who REQUIRED me to install some shit middle man portal on my machine, first company who sold me a game off a shelf in a store that WAS NOT a full working game because the last 5-8% of it had to be downloaded online, one of the first companies that REQUIRED an internet connection to run your game, even if it was only a one time thing.

The fact that they have sales and all sorts of other nonsense doesn't excuse the fact that the core of what they do is draconian and entirely in their interests, not mine.


If that's the best positive example you can give then this a shitty industry we deal with.

Each of those hassles has with it a benefit. You had to install Steam for an on-disc game, but now you have the most user friendly digital distribution platform around. You had to download some manner of patch/DLC/what-have-you, but now the games you buy can be patched with the click of a button. You had to validate your product, but now nobody can take your product from you and you can re-download it on any new computer you get, meaning you can never misplace it or damage it.
The rest is a bonus. You have direct access to system and product support staff if anything goes wrong. You have access to routine markdowns on games that are frequently to the tune of 75%. You even have access to Valve's free-to-play games. If you're in any doubt of how decently Valve treat their customers I can only recommend that you take a look at what EAOrigin tries to pull on you.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I think I would prefer the title "Dead Space 4: Everybody Poops."

That's not trademarked is it?

 

[Strazdas]

at first i was like oh im so going to argue, and thne you say just what i wanted to say.
Damn you Jim, you always know the right thing to say.

 

[Vault101]

this feels kind of like a strawman..I dont think when somone says "they exist to make money" the think thats the end of that..theres more too that side of the argument

 

[Not Matt]

Spoiler: Jim. mind if i recommend a book you might enjoy?

The tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Fuck using Valve as a positive example.

They were the first company who REQUIRED me to install some shit middle man portal on my machine, first company who sold me a game off a shelf in a store that WAS NOT a full working game because the last 5-8% of it had to be downloaded online, one of the first companies that REQUIRED an internet connection to run your game, even if it was only a one time thing.

The fact that they have sales and all sorts of other nonsense doesn't excuse the fact that the core of what they do is draconian and entirely in their interests, not mine.


If that's the best positive example you can give then this a shitty industry we deal with.

Each of those hassles has with it a benefit. You had to install Steam for an on-disc game, but now you have the most user friendly digital distribution platform around. You had to download some manner of patch/DLC/what-have-you, but now the games you buy can be patched with the click of a button. You had to validate your product, but now nobody can take your product from you and you can re-download it on any new computer you get, meaning you can never misplace it or damage it.
The rest is a bonus. You have direct access to system and product support staff if anything goes wrong. You have access to routine markdowns on games that are frequently to the tune of 75%. You even have access to Valve's free-to-play games. If you're in any doubt of how decently Valve treat their customers I can only recommend that you take a look at what EAOrigin tries to pull on you.

Just want to play an interrupt on this.

But an iron fist that is wrapped in velvet might feel all nice and cool to the touch, but it is still an iron fist. And that fist whether it is covered with velvet or not, will still bust your asshole wide open and leave it a raw and ragged mess. I remember a time when consumers could buy a game on the day of its release and fully expect the game to work straight out of the box without first needing game fixing patches or an online verification system that treats every paying consumer as a criminal. I remember when they sold legitimate expansions that were actually worth paying for, instead of scatter-shot DLC that has been either carved out of the original product, or tacked on as an afterthought.

Steam might contain the least shit of the shit sandwiches I'm expected to pick from, but no matter how thinly you spread it over bread it is and it will remain shit on a sandwich. In the last fifteen years technology has been used more and more often not to make our lives better as should be the case, but to make it just that little bit shittier often at the bequest of who stands to profit from it.

But here you are trying to convince someone that the dick meat sandwich they're complaining about isn't nearly as bad as big Billy Bob's dick meat sandwich. For me personally, that fact more than anything else captures just how far gamers have fallen when they stop complaining about what is the least worst option.

 

[Tinybear]

The best parallel I know of to explain Jim's point is when latin-america learned that if you burn the forests, you can use the ashes as fertilizer and it'll be the best farmland in existence, for a couple of years, then it'll be depleted and be useless for several years afterwards. Strangely enough, that backfired a bit, having burned down tons of lush forests just to be able to farm for a few years.

Right now, the video game companies are squeezing the life out of the industry by trying to maximize profits any way possible.

 

[Fiairflair]

Fuck using Valve as a positive example.

They were the first company who REQUIRED me to install some shit middle man portal on my machine, first company who sold me a game off a shelf in a store that WAS NOT a full working game because the last 5-8% of it had to be downloaded online, one of the first companies that REQUIRED an internet connection to run your game, even if it was only a one time thing.

The fact that they have sales and all sorts of other nonsense doesn't excuse the fact that the core of what they do is draconian and entirely in their interests, not mine.


If that's the best positive example you can give then this a shitty industry we deal with.

Each of those hassles has with it a benefit. You had to install Steam for an on-disc game, but now you have the most user friendly digital distribution platform around. You had to download some manner of patch/DLC/what-have-you, but now the games you buy can be patched with the click of a button. You had to validate your product, but now nobody can take your product from you and you can re-download it on any new computer you get, meaning you can never misplace it or damage it.
The rest is a bonus. You have direct access to system and product support staff if anything goes wrong. You have access to routine markdowns on games that are frequently to the tune of 75%. You even have access to Valve's free-to-play games. If you're in any doubt of how decently Valve treat their customers I can only recommend that you take a look at what EAOrigin tries to pull on you.

I'm sorry, but any service that REQUIRES I use it is not friendly, it's invasive. Steam is invasive. Origin is invasive.

This is not a console, this is a PC. I should NEVER be required to install a program to run as a middle man for a product I purchased in a brick and mortar store.

And the most friendly distribution service around is not Steam, it's GOG.com. Why? Because GOG.com does not require a client.

And no sales, no anything else changes the above facts. I do not accept an invasive program, because of a sale. I just shop somewhere else. I haven't used steam in about 2 years, and with the fact I'm doing more console gaming and the fact that GOG.com is offering more independent games like FTL I doubt I'll ever use Steam again.

I can't see a difference between buying a game restricted to one console and buying a game restricted to one PC gaming platform. A store bought game is no more intrusive for insisting that you have free software from Valve than it would be for insisting that you have expensive hardware from Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo. In one case a computer is also needed. In the other a television is also needed.

I judge the deal I get by the quality of the product or service I receive. Valve's products are various, high quality and cheap. Valve's service is comprehensive, secure, easy to use and well staffed for providing assistance. GOG.com is good also, and you rightly called my out on trying to redeem Steam by saying it isn't Origin. But that doesn't make Valve any worse an example of a good gaming company.

 

[Fiairflair]

Fuck using Valve as a positive example.

They were the first company who REQUIRED me to install some shit middle man portal on my machine, first company who sold me a game off a shelf in a store that WAS NOT a full working game because the last 5-8% of it had to be downloaded online, one of the first companies that REQUIRED an internet connection to run your game, even if it was only a one time thing.

The fact that they have sales and all sorts of other nonsense doesn't excuse the fact that the core of what they do is draconian and entirely in their interests, not mine.


If that's the best positive example you can give then this a shitty industry we deal with.

Each of those hassles has with it a benefit. You had to install Steam for an on-disc game, but now you have the most user friendly digital distribution platform around. You had to download some manner of patch/DLC/what-have-you, but now the games you buy can be patched with the click of a button. You had to validate your product, but now nobody can take your product from you and you can re-download it on any new computer you get, meaning you can never misplace it or damage it.
The rest is a bonus. You have direct access to system and product support staff if anything goes wrong. You have access to routine markdowns on games that are frequently to the tune of 75%. You even have access to Valve's free-to-play games. If you're in any doubt of how decently Valve treat their customers I can only recommend that you take a look at what EAOrigin tries to pull on you.

Just want to play an interrupt on this.

But an iron fist that is wrapped in velvet might feel all nice and cool to the touch, but it is still an iron fist. And that fist whether it is covered with velvet or not, will still bust your asshole wide open and leave it a raw and ragged mess. I remember a time when consumers could buy a game on the day of its release and fully expect the game to work straight out of the box without first needing game fixing patches or an online verification system that treats every paying consumer as a criminal. I remember when they sold legitimate expansions that were actually worth paying for, instead of scatter-shot DLC that has been either carved out of the original product, or tacked on as an afterthought.

Steam might contain the least shit of the shit sandwiches I'm expected to pick from, but no matter how thinly you spread it over bread it is and it will remain shit on a sandwich. In the last fifteen years technology has been used more and more often not to make our lives better as should be the case, but to make it just that little bit shittier often at the bequest of who stands to profit from it.

But here you are trying to convince someone that the dick meat sandwich they're complaining about isn't nearly as bad as big Billy Bob's dick meat sandwich. For me personally, that fact more than anything else captures just how far gamers have fallen when they stop complaining about what is the least worst option.

The 'good old days' of gaming you speak of had other issues. For example, Super Nintendo and N64 games were great; almost instant loading times, games pretty much always worked, et cetera. But the electrical contacts in the cartridges were prone to damage (causing a blank screen) and there was only so much one could fit on them. Earlier discs were the same. I strongly believe that graphics aren't everything, but they do allow greater storytelling. As games get bigger, problems get bigger. Patches have been a reality for a long time and digital distribution isn't the reason they are needed. Rather, it is the antidote and Steam is a brand of cure from the top shelf. Also, validating a game is perfectly reasonable provided it is quick and easy and it has benefits to the consumer which I mentioned before.

You're analogy takes Akalabeth's reference to intrusiveness to a new level, but I'd ask you whether the products and services of Steam are really as bad as a velvet iron fist. I reckon Steam on PC is more than alright and I'm keenly awaiting the chance to get my hands on a Steam Box as well.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

As someone who's said companies exist to make money, I'd like to explain what I've always meant by it, and what every person I've heard say it meant by it:
Saying companies exist to make money is a reality not a defense. It shouldn't be meant as any crooked action they take is acceptable, so long as they are profitable. It should be meant as if a corporation takes a crooked action to be profitable, and we the consumers support that decision we should expect more of it in the future, because many corporations will take that action since it worked. In a free-market economy (as much so as it is anyways), every party has to work in their own best interest, if consumers fail to do so it gives these corporations the incentive to give us less and less to make more and more. This isn't a defense of the corporation or stating that that is in anyway noble, its just a fact that it will happen. Personally, I find on disc dlc & companies double dipping with market models like freemium + an initial charge, hell even most implementations of straight up freemium, highly offensive; that's why I don't buy those games, and I find it more offensive that people buy the products that support those actions than the actions themselves.

This is a generalization, I understand that no matter how many times consumers support horrible product guaranteeing more of the same, there will always be a handful of companies that are in it for other reasons like to make a good product, but these are outliers.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

It's hard to disagree with this as a consumer.

It would seem practical however that EA and other big publishers will simply push the envelope until they see significant blowback to change their practices.

-edit-

Just want to play an interrupt on this.

But an iron fist that is wrapped in velvet might feel all nice and cool to the touch, but it is still an iron fist. And that fist whether it is covered with velvet or not, will still bust your asshole wide open and leave it a raw and ragged mess. I remember a time when consumers could buy a game on the day of its release and fully expect the game to work straight out of the box without first needing game fixing patches or an online verification system that treats every paying consumer as a criminal. I remember when they sold legitimate expansions that were actually worth paying for, instead of scatter-shot DLC that has been either carved out of the original product, or tacked on as an afterthought.

Steam might contain the least shit of the shit sandwiches I'm expected to pick from, but no matter how thinly you spread it over bread it is and it will remain shit on a sandwich. In the last fifteen years technology has been used more and more often not to make our lives better as should be the case, but to make it just that little bit shittier often at the bequest of who stands to profit from it.

But here you are trying to convince someone that the dick meat sandwich they're complaining about isn't nearly as bad as big Billy Bob's dick meat sandwich. For me personally, that fact more than anything else captures just how far gamers have fallen when they stop complaining about what is the least worst option.

Oh; woah, hey, now we're trashing on Steam? Sometimes I think I should read all the posts in a thread rather than just the first and last 3.

Steam DRM is a form of DRM, and I'm not going to argue that DRM is a good thing. In a perfect world there would be no DRM, we'd simply pay our money, get a game and that'd be it. You never had to install updates or validate your copy of Super Mario 64.

Steam is also a DDS however, and in it's simplest form a DDS is convenient. I don't have to go to the store, whether I live next door or I live in a small town 30 miles from the nearest Gamestop. Maybe I live in Angola but want an English version of the game.

Patching, again, ideally wouldn't be necessary. But the thought has to occur that with all the improved graphics and programming going into these games there may be a down side. That down side is increased development costs, a not-insubstantial part of which go towards testing. A simplified look at this seems to be either the developers charge more for a game, which no consumer wants, or they release games that are not 100% bug free. Then they patch them. The customer then has to either live with a bugged game or get the patches via some method. Old games had glitches, we tend to idealize them, but there were quite a few.

All in all Steam, Origin, they have pros and cons, and it's up to each individual to decide if it's worth it or not.

 

[Wolcik]

Is the intro/outro a play on both small novel from Mass Effect 3 Gay controversy, and South Park's best selling book episode? Regardless I liked it.
Well, that was a good episode about showing how one defense on the subject is invalid, and it was entertaining while it was over all a simple topic.

 

[Therumancer]

[.

I really encourage you to learn about game development from more than the occasional "inside x game studio" documentary, before you make such thoughtless comments.

... and you just invalidated the entire body of what you had to say.

I recommend you actually READ what I have to say instead of shooting off at some bit that bothers you. The bit about the studios and how they show themselves was only one side bit among numerous other sources. As I pointed out in my "wall of text" there have been a lot of magazines and websites that have covered what's going on inside the gaming industry over the years, not to mention reports on the earnings of people in the industry doing various jobs, and of course numerous articles over the years about conditions working in game development.

See, you might have had a valid point if there weren't supporting reasons other than those video walkthroughs, going from the level of pay, to various complaint by anonymous "wives" about their husbands actually being made to "crunch" and do real work like you know... anyone else in a real job. All of this contributes to the big picture of what's going on.

It might not be a flattering picture, and not what a lot of gamers, or people in the industry want to believe is going on, but well... there it is. I write numerous huge posts for a reason, I usually wind up saying the same thing a few differant ways, but in doing so I also tend to include a lot of supporting information.

Also keep the insults, trolling, and tone under control if you want any kind of attention or response from me.

 

[The Deadpool]

These practices only affect exchange with the consumer. Ethicality is a question of the exchange continuing to be voluntary (or euvoluntary if you would like a higher bar).

By your definition, using child laborers wouldn't fit under an ethical dillema...

But the point here is that their income does NOT make all their actions ethical. Whether people buy or not has no bearing on that discussion.

No, no you did not respond to my post.

I seriously do not know how to make this any simpler for you to grasp...

Making money is NOT an excuse for an immoral business practice. Period. That is the point of the video. That is the point of this post. That is the point of bringing up human trafficking.

No one, not my, not the video, has compared EA business practices to human trafficking. Simply bringing up a subject is NOT the same as comparing, and no amount of huffing and puffing will change that.

You can act indignant until your ass turns purple, it's not going to change reality. Human trafficking was brought up as an example of something that DOES make money and ISN'T ethical in order to prove that making money does NOT excuse unethical practices.

The idea being when someone goes "Hey, what this company is doing is wrong!" if you respond with "Well, it makes them money." then you are NOT actually countering, or even acknowledging his argument.

I know this post has been repetitive, but I honestly don't know how to simplify this any more...

I agree, but a lot of the people I see complaining, and even Jim in this case, seem to think that we should throw a hissy fit, and then the company owes it to us to get its act together. We tell the company what they're doing wrong, and we tell the consuming public what the company is doing wrong, sure. But then we back that up by making purchases based on how we want companies to act.

Well, I certainly have neither the time nor the inclination to keep track of the purchasing habits of every single person I meet online...

Seriously, this is a bit of an assumption isn't it?

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

... and you just invalidated the entire body of what you had to say.

Why? I just explained that most of those reports show a very particular side of specific companies, and is not a reflection of actually working in the industy, which also varies profoundly from company to company (Experience which I actually HAVE). This seems to be your only experiential observation of the "reality" inside game dev companies, which you are using as a gauge to understand other information, and it's not accurate, so I dont understand how that invalidates anything. Just so you know, in general, Dev studios don't usually show anything through the heavy production timeline.

I recommend you actually READ what I have to say instead of shooting off at some bit that bothers you. The bit about the studios and how they show themselves was only one side bit among numerous other sources. As I pointed out in my "wall of text" there have been a lot of magazines and websites that have covered what's going on inside the gaming industry over the years, not to mention reports on the earnings of people in the industry doing various jobs, and of course numerous articles over the years about conditions working in game development.

See, you might have had a valid point if there weren't supporting reasons other than those video walkthroughs, going from the level of pay, to various complaint by anonymous "wives" about their husbands actually being made to "crunch" and do real work like you know... anyone else in a real job. All of this contributes to the big picture of what's going on.

It might not be a flattering picture, and not what a lot of gamers, or people in the industry want to believe is going on, but well... there it is. I write numerous huge posts for a reason, I usually wind up saying the same thing a few differant ways, but in doing so I also tend to include a lot of supporting information.

Also keep the insults, trolling, and tone under control if you want any kind of attention or response from me.

First off, there was no trolling, insult or tone. I just informed you that your perceptions were biased and inaccurate. I've worked directly in the development industry for 4 years now, and in adjacent fields for over 6, and I can tell you that a lot of the "facts" you are dishing out are completely wrong, and actually misunderstand the production pipeline. Posting them as truths does not help to validate your whole idea. And I don't see any supporting information other than passing references to very particular industry comments without any direct quote.

I do agree with your observations about "Corporate Mentality", and the expectations of profit.
That is a fairly straight forward assertion. But then you say that the cost of game development is largely Human resources, which in fact is only a fraction of the budget a publisher sets aside for the complete production of a game. I wonder if you know how big are the marketing and PR budgets in a AAA game, because you seem to completely forget the few dozen million dollars that go into that. Also considering that there are thousands of further technical expenses outside direct "office supplies", which are unique to mediums such as Videogames and Movies.
This is why normally the ones that drive Ferraris are only the directors, and not regular developers. As I said, a staff coder makes more money working developing banking software than games. Artists are often only hired for a specific period that requires their particular expertise, and only lead artists manage to earn a stable and ongoing good salary.

Frankly it is superbly arrogant of you to just say that you wouldnt hire 90% of the people if it was with your money (as if you know how hard they work), because knowing a lot of people that work in the industry, I can tell you with complete honesty that if you are in, you are probably a really hard working specialist. There is too much competition for one to just procrastinate and wait for the next paycheck.

Also, you fail to notice my other observations (which actually include numbers) that shift the problem you present more towards publishers and their expectations than developers and the production/payment rate. A problem that you do brush over but end up ignoring.
But hey, denounce the truths away, doesn't seem you caused any effect. Dont let actual experience slow you.

 

[The Deadpool]

wow what are they teaching in school nowdays?

i think rockafeller, andrew carnegie and a number of other of business titans, whos sole purpose in life was money over anything, a consequence of which many of our nations infrastructure was built, would like to have a word with you.

You mean the ROBBER BARONS? The guys whose unethical business practices essentially forced the US government out of their Laissez Faire capitalist policy? THOSE guys?

 

[William Greeson]

See, I have this problem. I come up with reasonable well thought out arguments for things that hurt me, and that I don't want to see. I say, "Hey, they shouldn't be charging us $5 an inch to play 5 minutes of game before putting up the ticker and going "time to get another 5 dollars out of you!".

My problem is, that when it's time to use my arguments someone says something so momentously stupid that I stutter. It's like I don't really expect anyone to truly be that stupid, and while I'm recoiling from the immense level of stupid that just hit me in the face like a MAC truck, the person who made this comment gets a smug smile assuming they have shut me down. It's ironic because they really haven't, yet that look yet again gets me stuttering.

This makes me bad at arguments. It's also why I love your show. You so eloquently tore this insipid argument about 5 new assholes, and for that, thank god. Thank god for you Jim.

 

[Therumancer]

... and you just invalidated the entire body of what you had to say.

Why? I just explained that most of those reports show a very particular side of specific companies, and is not a reflection of actually working in the industy, which also varies profoundly from company to company (Experience which I actually HAVE). This seems to be your only experiential observation of the "reality" inside game dev companies, which you are using as a gauge to understand other information, and it's not accurate, so I dont understand how that invalidates anything. Just so you know, in general, Dev studios don't usually show anything through the heavy production timeline.

I recommend you actually READ what I have to say instead of shooting off at some bit that bothers you. The bit about the studios and how they show themselves was only one side bit among numerous other sources. As I pointed out in my "wall of text" there have been a lot of magazines and websites that have covered what's going on inside the gaming industry over the years, not to mention reports on the earnings of people in the industry doing various jobs, and of course numerous articles over the years about conditions working in game development.

See, you might have had a valid point if there weren't supporting reasons other than those video walkthroughs, going from the level of pay, to various complaint by anonymous "wives" about their husbands actually being made to "crunch" and do real work like you know... anyone else in a real job. All of this contributes to the big picture of what's going on.

It might not be a flattering picture, and not what a lot of gamers, or people in the industry want to believe is going on, but well... there it is. I write numerous huge posts for a reason, I usually wind up saying the same thing a few differant ways, but in doing so I also tend to include a lot of supporting information.

Also keep the insults, trolling, and tone under control if you want any kind of attention or response from me.

First off, there was no trolling, insult or tone. I just informed you that your perceptions were biased and inaccurate. I've worked directly in the development industry for 4 years now, and in adjacent fields for over 6, and I can tell you that a lot of the "facts" you are dishing out are completely wrong, and actually misunderstand the production pipeline. Posting them as truths does not help to validate your whole idea. And I don't see any supporting information other than passing references to very particular industry comments without any direct quote.

I do agree with your observations about "Corporate Mentality", and the expectations of profit.
That is a fairly straight forward assertion. But then you say that the cost of game development is largely Human resources, which in fact is only a fraction of the budget a publisher sets aside for the complete production of a game. I wonder if you know how big are the marketing and PR budgets in a AAA game, because you seem to completely forget the few dozen million dollars that go into that. Also considering that there are thousands of further technical expenses outside direct "office supplies", which are unique to mediums such as Videogames and Movies.
This is why normally the ones that drive Ferraris are only the directors, and not regular developers. As I said, a staff coder makes more money working developing banking software than games. Artists are often only hired for a specific period that requires their particular expertise, and only lead artists manage to earn a stable and ongoing good salary.

Frankly it is superbly arrogant of you to just say that you wouldnt hire 90% of the people if it was with your money (as if you know how hard they work), because knowing a lot of people that work in the industry, I can tell you with complete honesty that if you are in, you are probably a really hard working specialist. There is too much competition for one to just procrastinate and wait for the next paycheck.

Also, you fail to notice my other observations (which actually include numbers) that shift the problem you present more towards publishers and their expectations than developers and the production/payment rate. A problem that you do brush over but end up ignoring.
But hey, denounce the truths away, doesn't seem you caused any effect. Dont let actual experience slow you.

The differance here is that what your saying is entirely contridictory to the actual facts at hand, I've given referances for that reason if someone wants to bother to do the research on the more hard details of things like reported earnings and such. It's a matter of principle that I don't do people's research for them when it's a simple matter of checking Maxim's online archives, or digging back through The Escapist's (since I believe they covered the same article on earnings). Other statements come from various articles and presentations during the years attempting to shed light on how games are made, produced, etc... which goes through a lot of differant sources. There are tons of things like that so if you want to look it up, it's not hard to do. Viewed critically I don't think many impartial observers would dispute what I'm saying. What's more I call it like I see it, if game developers produce these videos and show themselves in this light, that's what I'm going to call them on when it becomes relevent, "they aren't really like that" isn't an excuse when they say themselves that they are, it's not like someone was pointing a gun at them.... and yes, I stand by saying that going by those videos and what most studios have shown of themselves I wouldn't hire them. Blame the videos for making them look like a bunch of unprofessional slackers if you want, but I can only call it as I see it.

As far as your experience goes, I can empathize to an extent, having using my own personal experience and observations as a factor in a lot of arguements. HOWEVER unlike me you apparently have a vested interest in this debate, since you still work in and around the industry, and these assessions can be applied to you even indirectly. In comparison having been forced into retirement I have no real vested interest in my old profession one way or another (Casino Security) and while there are things I'm responsible enough not to say, you'll also notice I'm extremely critical of the job and what surrounds it, in a way someone depending on it for employment (even potentially in the future) could never be, despite making referances from experience. Likewise many of the arguements I make (usually having to do with groups of people) in no way benefit me, or represent cases I have a personal stake in, indeed NOT making a lot of the arguements I do here would probably benefit me by making me substantially more popular and better received than I am currently am given the crowd.

The point is that while I can respect experience, this is a case where your claims actually work against you. It's sort of like what I might say under the "trust me, it's no big deal, I work for the casino in security" label if I was still employed by them and someone brought up one of the incidents that actually made it into the paper (knife fights in valet, a car riddled with bullets outside of foxwoods on the road, etc...) and speak highly of my employer and the service they provide. I might even actively defend them, because it is my livelyhood. With no vested interest I tend to be a lot more blunt about it, both good and bad, though there are things and incidents I won't talk about no matter how bitter and disgruntled I might be.