Paranautical Activity Returns to Steam

[BeerTent]

I think it is BS the original developers had to sell the rights to the game to get it back on Steam. Valve getting angry at the developer as a whole because one guy said something stupid was extremely petty. Even after the developer made it so that it was optional to interact with that person Valve still wouldn't allow the game back on Steam.

Honestly though I feel this could have all been avoided if Valve had offered monetary compensation for all the potential sales that were lost because of how long it took the Steam storefront to say it wasn't in early access anymore.

Both sides were wrong in how they went about things.

Holding an entire company because of one guy on twitter is pretty juvenile. Seems a lot of innocent people had their livelihoods placed in jeopardy because a colleague behaved poorly on twitter. I don't really see how anyone can endorse's Valve's actions in this case. Considering they indeed to keep this blockade against Code Avarice in place simply for the actions of this one guy, I think they need to be more mindful of their status as a monopoly when it comes to PC game digital distribution.

The guy who made the "threats", is he some kind of higher up at the studio? The founder? Director? Can't say I know too much about the guy.

EDIT: Apparently he's the co-founder. I guess it's somewhat understandable, but the whole situation leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

There are only two people working at Code Avarice and one of them made a death threat. Thats a 50% death threat making employee ratio, not entirely an attractive percentage. I think this comes under the games are not special category, in any other line of work making a death threat would result in consequences. Do you think the head of Ford will accept a death threat from one his suppliers? Why are games somehow different from that makes death threats acceptable business practice.

That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game. It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

What if they fired that person though? Again, people seem to be forgetting this entire error all started with Steam not updating the game from being out of early access. Do you think Valve should have issued monetary compensation for potential lost sales or issued an apology because of a fault with their Steam storefront?

If I made a game and I potentially lost sales due to an error that wasn't my fault I would be pretty angry. I wouldn't issue a death threat or anything like that but I would expect an apology at the least.

What about the other person? He made a decision to work with Maulbeck. He made a decision to work with a belligerent manchild, and no he has to pay the price for his foolish antics. Keep in mind, this 'company' is two people. You can't 'fire' the co-founder when you're in the exac same position. You have to leave and disband.

Just to wave all of this off just because of "the other person" would be foolish. Yeah, it isn't fair for the other person, but the other person knew his partner was a manchild. Valve doesn't owe Maulbeck or his partner anything. I'd also be angry if I were this person, but I wouldn't be angry at Valve, I'd be angry that Maulbeck ruined any hopes I had at succeeding in this career.

 

[Bat Vader]

I think it is BS the original developers had to sell the rights to the game to get it back on Steam. Valve getting angry at the developer as a whole because one guy said something stupid was extremely petty. Even after the developer made it so that it was optional to interact with that person Valve still wouldn't allow the game back on Steam.

Honestly though I feel this could have all been avoided if Valve had offered monetary compensation for all the potential sales that were lost because of how long it took the Steam storefront to say it wasn't in early access anymore.

Both sides were wrong in how they went about things.

Holding an entire company because of one guy on twitter is pretty juvenile. Seems a lot of innocent people had their livelihoods placed in jeopardy because a colleague behaved poorly on twitter. I don't really see how anyone can endorse's Valve's actions in this case. Considering they indeed to keep this blockade against Code Avarice in place simply for the actions of this one guy, I think they need to be more mindful of their status as a monopoly when it comes to PC game digital distribution.

The guy who made the "threats", is he some kind of higher up at the studio? The founder? Director? Can't say I know too much about the guy.

EDIT: Apparently he's the co-founder. I guess it's somewhat understandable, but the whole situation leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

There are only two people working at Code Avarice and one of them made a death threat. Thats a 50% death threat making employee ratio, not entirely an attractive percentage. I think this comes under the games are not special category, in any other line of work making a death threat would result in consequences. Do you think the head of Ford will accept a death threat from one his suppliers? Why are games somehow different from that makes death threats acceptable business practice.

That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game. It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

What if they fired that person though? Again, people seem to be forgetting this entire error all started with Steam not updating the game from being out of early access. Do you think Valve should have issued monetary compensation for potential lost sales or issued an apology because of a fault with their Steam storefront?

If I made a game and I potentially lost sales due to an error that wasn't my fault I would be pretty angry. I wouldn't issue a death threat or anything like that but I would expect an apology at the least.

What about the other person? He made a decision to work with Maulbeck. He made a decision to work with a belligerent manchild, and no he has to pay the price for his foolish antics. Keep in mind, this 'company' is two people. You can't 'fire' the co-founder when you're in the exac same position. You have to leave and disband.

Just to wave all of this off just because of "the other person" would be foolish. Yeah, it isn't fair for the other person, but the other person knew his partner was a manchild. Valve doesn't owe Maulbeck or his partner anything. I'd also be angry if I were this person, but I wouldn't be angry at Valve, I'd be angry that Maulbeck ruined any hopes I had at succeeding in this career.

I'm not saying wave all of it off but I think letting the guy know they would exclusively work with him wouldn't have hurt either. It was just a bad situation all around with both parties being at fault. Valve for not apologizing about the game not being updated when it should have and that Mike guy for being an absolute child and sending death threats. Both should have just apologized to one another and gotten over it.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

There are enough user trolls on Steam, no need to have the team joined by devs and open the floodgates of verbal abusement.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Considering all the shit that gets pushed through Greenlight, I'd wish Valve put their foot down more.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

That's still unfair to the other guy though. It's especially unfair since someone at Valve was the one that messed up in the first place by not taking the game out of early access when it was supposed to be. I get that it was most likely a non-human error but did valve even try to compensate them for potential sales lost? Even an apology would have most likely sufficed but I don't remember seeing anyone at Valve issue one.

Making death threats is not acceptable behaviour in any form of business. If you make death threat regardless what its about you lose. You do not have a legal leg to stand on. No company will apologies to anyone making a deathreat full stop. If you had row with a shop and you walked and made a death threat to a member of staff you get arrested for threatening behaviour and not an apology. Games are not special and the normal rules apply. If you make a deathreat you are a stupid person unable to behave in an adult fashion and untrustworthy to do business with.

The big issue I see with the assertion that Valve should have apologized is that the guy didn't really give them much chance to do anything. If I remember correctly, and it's possible I don't because it's been a while, but if I recall he went to Twitter within a day of not getting the status change and started his diatribe that ended with him saying he "would kill Gabe, Gabe was going to die" or some such.

If he'd acted like a professional, if he'd kept his cool, he probably would have gotten an apology going through proper channels. I even understand taking to social media to let followers and fans know about the status change yourself. But you have to give things time to happen. Believe it or not, Valve is not in the business of adhering to the whims of every developer. There was obviously a problem on their end and if given time they'd have fixed it. But rather than seeing it play out, the person in question acted like a child and kicked up a dust cloud with his own petulance and childish behavior. Other developers use Steam, other people were likely in the queue of "problems that need a fixin". And in business one doesn't get bumped to the front of the line because one cries the loudest. It's a shame if a few (potential) sales might have been missed, sure. But it's not like the game wasn't for sale during that time. It's not like they blocked it from the buying public. It was still for sale, just set to EARLY ACCESS for an extra day or whatever.

So maybe he'd have gotten his apology if he behaved the way people in business together tend to behave. And as much as I believe in giving people second chances in most cases, I'm not the one being threatened or running a world-wide storefront. I'm not Valve's biggest fan, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with their response. It seems perfectly reasonable given the actions of the developer in question.

 

[ryukage_sama]

What Valve did may be been overkill and was unnecessary, but the responsibility for the outcome lies entirely on Maulbeck's hands. He did something reckless, stupid and malicious. I consider the circumstances to be similar to a judge sentencing a working father to jail time for making death threats. Yes, the man's wife and children suffer as a result, but its the husband and father who is responsible for the outcome, not the Judge.

The right thing for Maulbeck to do would be to fall on his own sword and atone. Provided his staff were fairly compensated in this transaction, he did the right and responsible thing in selling it.

 

[SilverHunter]

The right thing for Maulbeck to do would be to fall on his own sword and atone. Provided his staff were fairly compensated in this transaction, he did the right and responsible thing in selling it.

Except, of course, Maulbeck isn't even with the company. He was let go/fired immediately after his outburst and the game was removed. So he can't "fall on his sword", or sell it, since it's not his game to sell anymore and hasn't been for a long while.


People also forget that the whole "early access" thing wasn't the very first time the development team had issues with Valve. There's been several reported issues between them and Valve, mostly with the latter screwing the former over (unintentionally of course, but all the same). His outburst and "death threat" was the only time I can remember he had ever been so vocally angered about Valve's handling of their business. It was extremely idiotic for him to do what he did of course, but the fact the team had to suffer more than he did is unfair - and that includes having to sell their game off just to even recoup costs. Whether it was just one other person or several, they have no way of controlling one person and his outburst.

 

[shirkbot]

What Valve did may be been overkill and was unnecessary, but the responsibility for the outcome lies entirely on Maulbeck's hands. He did something reckless, stupid and malicious. I consider the circumstances to be similar to a judge sentencing a working father to jail time for making death threats. Yes, the man's wife and children suffer as a result, but its the husband and father who is responsible for the outcome, not the Judge.

The right thing for Maulbeck to do would be to fall on his own sword and atone. Provided his staff were fairly compensated in this transaction, he did the right and responsible thing in selling it.

Reckless? Yes. Stupid? Yes? Malicious? Questionable. It's a death threat, but it was via Twitter where everything good in humanity goes to die.

More to the point your analogy bothers me on a couple levels.

1) The judge is directly responsible for the outcome because the judge decides sentencing, so whatever the punishment is, it's at the judges discretion.

2) The sentence would eventually end. Valve blacklisted these people forever, and considering their market dominance it makes it akin to sentencing the dev to a lifetime of poverty over a single utterance.

A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game.

This I find acceptable.

It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

This, however, is really not. You do realize that you're implying that 1 death tweet is grounds to permanently ruin another human being's life, yes? I know death threats are serious business, but nobody deserves to have their life and livelihood permanently damaged for saying something stupid. Once. On Twitter. Stop selling the game, fine, but a permanent ban from (an estimated) 70% of the PC market is uncalled for and your idea that Valve should encourage others not to do business with them is just spiteful.

 

[KDR_11k]

I think it should've been a timed ban since a real death threat only gets you a timed prison sentence.

 

[Albino Boo]

What Valve did may be been overkill and was unnecessary, but the responsibility for the outcome lies entirely on Maulbeck's hands. He did something reckless, stupid and malicious. I consider the circumstances to be similar to a judge sentencing a working father to jail time for making death threats. Yes, the man's wife and children suffer as a result, but its the husband and father who is responsible for the outcome, not the Judge.

The right thing for Maulbeck to do would be to fall on his own sword and atone. Provided his staff were fairly compensated in this transaction, he did the right and responsible thing in selling it.

Reckless? Yes. Stupid? Yes? Malicious? Questionable. It's a death threat, but it was via Twitter where everything good in humanity goes to die.

More to the point your analogy bothers me on a couple levels.

1) The judge is directly responsible for the outcome because the judge decides sentencing, so whatever the punishment is, it's at the judges discretion.

2) The sentence would eventually end. Valve blacklisted these people forever, and considering their market dominance it makes it akin to sentencing the dev to a lifetime of poverty over a single utterance.

A primary developer representing the developer name made a death threat to the platform selling their game.

This I find acceptable.

It is perfectly 600% sensible to permanently ban that developer from Steam. If someone were to make a death threat to anyone I work with, I'd have that person and whatever company he represented permanently blacklisted. I'd even reach out to other people I know and get them blacklisted by them too.

Make this kinds of threats in a business, any threats really, even in jest, and you're committing economic suicide. You've no one to blame but yourself.

This, however, is really not. You do realize that you're implying that 1 death tweet is grounds to permanently ruin another human being's life, yes? I know death threats are serious business, but nobody deserves to have their life and livelihood permanently damaged for saying something stupid. Once. On Twitter. Stop selling the game, fine, but a permanent ban from (an estimated) 70% of the PC market is uncalled for and your idea that Valve should encourage others not to do business with them is just spiteful.

If you walk into an office building and make a death threat to the CEO of that company you get arrested, why is doing in on twiter different. Just because something is online does not mean that you can behave like a moron without consequence. If you wouldn't do it in real life then don't do it on twitter.

 

[DanielG]

I find it interesting that the game is also now available on Gog.com

 

[BeerTent]

[...]

You and I both know that corporate politics don't work that way.

Welcome to the real world, where, "I'm going to fucking kill you for not placing the R.T. in Warehouse." Doesn't fly at all. In the real world, if something goes wrong, you put in a ticket. The ticket gets handled in order, and that's how it is.

Maulbeck did not put in a ticket.
Maulbeck did not wait his turn.
Maulbeck did not work with staff to resolve his issue.
Maulbeck did not act within reason like any adult would.
Maulbeck did not consider his credibility and reputation.
Maulbeck did not consider the reputation of his partner. (Which is now irreparably damaged, by the way)

As a result:
Valve Corporation was not aware a simple mistake was made.
Valve Corporation noticed his childish outburst.
Valve Corporation chose to make an example of him.
Valve Corporation is forced to honor their decision.

You're looking at this like it's not a big deal. It is. Death threats in the real world is a serious issue. People playing LoL just got desensitized because every single possible situation that arises that someone's ELO might get slightly harmed, there's 7 or 8 death threats made. Maulbecks partner can get out of this situation. He simply, and rather blindly fucking stupidly, chooses not to.[footnote]I haven't been following this at all, so maybe he did disassociate from Maulbeck.[/footnote] If his partner completely backed away from this situation, finds his own company, or gets hired (Good fucking luck, by the way) then he might have a chance at being successful within the industry.

Apologies can be made. Will they have any affect? No. Why? Maulbeck has zero credibility, and an example must be made.

 

[shirkbot]

If you walk into an office building and make a death threat to the CEO of that company you get arrested, why is doing in on twiter different. Just because something is online does not mean that you can behave like a moron without consequence. If you wouldn't do it in real life then don't do it on twitter.

Because when evaluating a threat, logistical factors have to be considered. If he'd walked into the office and said it to Mr. Newell's face that would have been a direct, credible threat, but this was Twitter.

My position is this: No one-off comment, on Twitter or otherwise, should ever be grounds for indefinite punishment.

Just like there is a world of difference between threatening to kill someone to their face vs. via Twitter, there's a difference between smacking someone upside the head because they said something blindingly idiotic and knowingly locking them out of 70% of their potential market forever. Like I said, by all means take the game down, but indefinite punishment for a single sentence is not justifiable. Even your hypothetical idiot that walks into an office and threatens to kill the CEO gets out of prison at some point, and they don't have to sell everything they own to do it.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I think Valve did act too harshly in this matter. I completely understand pulling the game and not wanting to work with the owner of the company and creator of the game, as is the person who made the idiotic threat.

Once he stepped down from the company though why is there is anymore reason not to work with the developer? The guy who made the threat is gone, no longer a part of the company. A lot of other people at that development company, people who put in work on the game, are now getting screwed for no other reason but that their boss is an idiot.

Valve should have let the game and the developer back in once the guy who made the threats was out of the picture.

 

[Albino Boo]

If you walk into an office building and make a death threat to the CEO of that company you get arrested, why is doing in on twiter different. Just because something is online does not mean that you can behave like a moron without consequence. If you wouldn't do it in real life then don't do it on twitter.

Because when evaluating a threat, logistical factors have to be considered. If he'd walked into the office and said it to Mr. Newell's face that would have been a direct, credible threat, but this was Twitter.

My position is this: No one-off comment, on Twitter or otherwise, should ever be grounds for indefinite punishment.

Just like there is a world of difference between threatening to kill someone to their face vs. via Twitter, there's a difference between smacking someone upside the head because they said something blindingly idiotic and knowingly locking them out of 70% of their potential market forever. Like I said, by all means take the game down, but indefinite punishment for a single sentence is not justifiable. Even your hypothetical idiot that walks into an office and threatens to kill the CEO gets out of prison at some point, and they don't have to sell everything they own to do it.

Unacceptable behavior has consequences. It doesn't matter if it's online or face to face, if you behave like a 12 year old throwing a tantrum people do not want to busines with you. Especially so when you are a tiny developer dealing with a multinational corporation. Valve would have made a few thousands dollars at most and its not worth dealing with narcissistic loud mouth for that money. They are not special they not important and if you behave in unbusiness like manner then you get thrown out. Behave like adults you do business, behave like an entitled child you don't do business. Its that simple

I think Valve did act too harshly in this matter. I completely understand pulling the game and not wanting to work with the owner of the company and creator of the game, as is the person who made the idiotic threat.

Once he stepped down from the company though why is there is anymore reason not to work with the developer? The guy who made the threat is gone, no longer a part of the company. A lot of other people at that development company, people who put in work on the game, are now getting screwed for no other reason but that their boss is an idiot.

Valve should have let the game and the developer back in once the guy who made the threats was out of the picture.

He didn't step down and he is co founder and 50% of the staff. The only thing that was agreed with joint control the twitter account.

 

[Amir Kondori]

If you walk into an office building and make a death threat to the CEO of that company you get arrested, why is doing in on twiter different. Just because something is online does not mean that you can behave like a moron without consequence. If you wouldn't do it in real life then don't do it on twitter.

Because when evaluating a threat, logistical factors have to be considered. If he'd walked into the office and said it to Mr. Newell's face that would have been a direct, credible threat, but this was Twitter.

My position is this: No one-off comment, on Twitter or otherwise, should ever be grounds for indefinite punishment.

Just like there is a world of difference between threatening to kill someone to their face vs. via Twitter, there's a difference between smacking someone upside the head because they said something blindingly idiotic and knowingly locking them out of 70% of their potential market forever. Like I said, by all means take the game down, but indefinite punishment for a single sentence is not justifiable. Even your hypothetical idiot that walks into an office and threatens to kill the CEO gets out of prison at some point, and they don't have to sell everything they own to do it.

So now I will make the counter-argument to my first post. When it comes to the guy who actually made the threat, whether he was serious or not, Valve should be able to decide they don't want to deal with him again. The government has the power to actually deprive you of life and liberty, so we want the punishment to fit the crime, but a private citizen or private business can decide who they do and don't work with.

That being said I don't think the rest of the developers at that company should be punished for the owner's statements, at least after the owner stepped down and left the company.

 

[shirkbot]

Unacceptable behavior has consequences. It doesn't matter if it's online or face to face, if you behave like a 12 year old throwing a tantrum people do not want to busines with you. Especially so when you are a tiny developer dealing with a multinational corporation. Valev would have made a few thousands dollars at most and its not worth dealing with narcissistic loud mouth for that money. They are not special they not important and if behave in unbusiness like manner then you get thrown out. Behave like adults you do business, behave like an entitled child you don't do business. Its that simple.

Before we go any further, please, stop calling people names. You've never met the man and neither have I, so I don't think either of us have any right to declare him a "narcissistic loudmouth." Moving on, consequences should have terms and limits based on what the action was, otherwise the consequences become just as unacceptable as the action itself. As I've said, it's fine to take the game down, but it is not reasonable to never deal with the company again because of a single sentence, death threat or otherwise. It was stupid and unprofessional, but it happened once. Professionalism is about making money and it's easier to make money if you're willing to ignore fundamentally harmless idiocy, like one-off outbursts on Twitter, even if it was a death threat.

So now I will make the counter-argument to my first post. When it comes to the guy who actually made the threat, whether he was serious or not, Valve should be able to decide they don't want to deal with him again. The government has the power to actually deprive you of life and liberty, so we want the punishment to fit the crime, but a private citizen or private business can decide who they do and don't work with.

That being said I don't think the rest of the developers at that company should be punished for the owner's statements, at least after the owner stepped down and left the company.

Valve controls 70% of all PC sales. That's enough control to make the difference between making a living and having to leave the industry. I understand your position that they are a private company that can do as it likes, I'm only arguing that they are being needlessly harsh considering the power they wield. They may not have the legal authority to deprive someone of life and liberty directly, but if you deprive someone of enough money it's not all that different. Though I absolutely agree with you that the other people involved shouldn't have been punished.

 

[Albino Boo]

Unacceptable behavior has consequences. It doesn't matter if it's online or face to face, if you behave like a 12 year old throwing a tantrum people do not want to busines with you. Especially so when you are a tiny developer dealing with a multinational corporation. Valev would have made a few thousands dollars at most and its not worth dealing with narcissistic loud mouth for that money. They are not special they not important and if behave in unbusiness like manner then you get thrown out. Behave like adults you do business, behave like an entitled child you don't do business. Its that simple.

Before we go any further, please, stop calling people names. You've never met the man and neither have I, so I don't think either of us have any right to declare him a "narcissistic loudmouth." Moving on, consequences should have terms and limits based on what the action was, otherwise the consequences become just as unacceptable as the action itself. As I've said, it's fine to take the game down, but it is not reasonable to never deal with the company again because of a single sentence, death threat or otherwise. It was stupid and unprofessional, but it happened once. Professionalism is about making money and it's easier to make money if you're willing to ignore fundamentally harmless idiocy, like one-off outbursts on Twitter, even if it was a death threat.

I'm sorry I have every right to call him a narcissistic loud mouth and if you don't like that that's really quite tough. It is my opinion as someone that runs a medium size business that he is a narcissistic loudmouth and no large or medium sized business will be bothered dealing with him. If you spit in someone's face they don't like you, cause/effect. If you are rude and abusive you don't get the business.They needed valve more than valve needed them so you dont insult the people that can make or break your business. This nothing to do with games its universal practice, to do business then you behave in business like manner and if you dont then dont business. Spitting your dummy out on twitter because they didn't change the to full release from early access is not behaviour that any business would find acceptable. You can argue to you are blue in the face but isn't going to change the what behaviour business expect when dealing with each other.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Unacceptable behavior has consequences. It doesn't matter if it's online or face to face, if you behave like a 12 year old throwing a tantrum people do not want to busines with you. Especially so when you are a tiny developer dealing with a multinational corporation. Valev would have made a few thousands dollars at most and its not worth dealing with narcissistic loud mouth for that money. They are not special they not important and if behave in unbusiness like manner then you get thrown out. Behave like adults you do business, behave like an entitled child you don't do business. Its that simple.

Before we go any further, please, stop calling people names. You've never met the man and neither have I, so I don't think either of us have any right to declare him a "narcissistic loudmouth." Moving on, consequences should have terms and limits based on what the action was, otherwise the consequences become just as unacceptable as the action itself. As I've said, it's fine to take the game down, but it is not reasonable to never deal with the company again because of a single sentence, death threat or otherwise. It was stupid and unprofessional, but it happened once. Professionalism is about making money and it's easier to make money if you're willing to ignore fundamentally harmless idiocy, like one-off outbursts on Twitter, even if it was a death threat.

So now I will make the counter-argument to my first post. When it comes to the guy who actually made the threat, whether he was serious or not, Valve should be able to decide they don't want to deal with him again. The government has the power to actually deprive you of life and liberty, so we want the punishment to fit the crime, but a private citizen or private business can decide who they do and don't work with.

That being said I don't think the rest of the developers at that company should be punished for the owner's statements, at least after the owner stepped down and left the company.

Valve controls 70% of all PC sales. That's enough control to make the difference between making a living and having to leave the industry. I understand your position that they are a private company that can do as it likes, I'm only arguing that they are being needlessly harsh considering the power they wield. They may not have the legal authority to deprive someone of life and liberty directly, but if you deprive someone of enough money it's not all that different. Though I absolutely agree with you that the other people involved shouldn't have been punished.

I understand where you are coming from but I really feel that I, as a private citizen, should be able to choose not to work with or do business with someone who threatened my life. I don't know that he couldn't still work as a developer on a game that he doesn't own or publish and still get have that game sold through Steam. He can still release his work on his own as well, his sales may not be as good but you can still have a breakout game.

 

[shirkbot]

I understand where you are coming from but I really feel that I, as a private citizen, should be able to choose not to work with or do business with someone who threatened my life. I don't know that he couldn't still work as a developer on a game that he doesn't own or publish and still get have that game sold through Steam. He can still release his work on his own as well, his sales may not be as good but you can still have a breakout game.

But permanently? People and businesses change enough with time that a permanent ban is ridiculous. My other issue is the sheer power of Valve. If you or GOG or whoever did the same thing, I wouldn't care nearly as much, but Valve is just way too big. You might be right, he might be able to do other work on other games, but what's to say Valve won't just block that too? The main reason I paint the whole thing in such bleak terms is that there are not a lot of second chances in most media industries, and video games in particular. They just take so much time and money to make and it's very difficult to do while still doing a regular job. He may have a chance now (Bad publicity is still publicity...), or he may have 0. It all depends how this pans out. I just wish everyone the best of luck.

I'm sorry I have every right to call him a narcissistic loud mouth and if you don't like that that's really quite tough. It is my opinion as someone that runs a medium size business that he is a narcissistic loudmouth and no large or medium sized business will be bothered dealing with him. If you spit in someone's face they don't like you, cause/effect. If you are rude and abusive you don't get the business.They needed valve more than valve needed them so you dont insult the people that can make or break your business. This nothing to do with games its universal practice, to do business then you behave in business like manner and if you dont then dont business. Spitting your dummy out on twitter because they didn't change the to full release from early access is not behaviour that any business would find acceptable. You can argue to you are blue in the face but isn't going to change the what behaviour business expect when dealing with each other.

Why should I listen to anything you have to say on business-like behavior when you will not even honor a polite request to not insult a total stranger? That is not only discourteous to him, it is discourteous to me. We don't agree, fine, but the least you can do is not sling insults at someone you do not know and who just lost their IP. Say what you like, but I'm not going to listen until you start practicing what you preach.