Thread for Gamers IX: God Howard Anniversary Edition

[Valentine Z]

Finally playing Dead Space 1 for the first time. The only time I tried it before was the demo way back around.. 2011?

So far so good, I'm already at Chapter 5. One thing I wished I never do was spreading the power nodes thin across my weapons; should have just stick with using them all on one weapon.

[Just-An-Illusion]

The new Rainbow Six game is out on GamePass. Well I don't mind getting free Ubisoft games.

[Valentine Z]

The new Rainbow Six game is out on GamePass. Well I don't mind getting free Ubisoft games.

Ahh, the power of Game Pass! <3 It really is nice to try out all those games instead of making one-time purchases. I mean sure, I still buy games as a stand-alone if I really, really love it, but so far I'm enjoying the games on Game Pass.

[Corrian]

The new Rainbow Six game is out on GamePass. Well I don't mind getting free Ubisoft games.

Ahh, the power of Game Pass! <3 It really is nice to try out all those games instead of making one-time purchases. I mean sure, I still buy games as a stand-alone if I really, really love it, but so far I'm enjoying the games on Game Pass.

I'd just sit there not using Game Pass for months and end up paying a full game price within 6 months anyway that I could have just bought.

[Imperial isa]

Going by this
https://www.techradar.com/au/news/activ ... book-or-ea

That is a horror i would not want to happen, Facebook getting there hands on them and making you link Facebook to play all the games,just like their VR head sets.

[Ifreann]

Yeah, I think it's bad for people to have to live with financial insecurity.

You let yourself be financially insecure if you don't properly prepare to switch jobs when the due date of your job is coming up. Until you can get the company to mutually agree with you being a full time employee, you shouldn't expect to be one. Employment is a mutual arrangement, when one party is satisfied or dissatisfied, they can end that arrangement.

Ah yes, the blame game.

Laid off a large portion of the QA team despite promising them pay increases.

Makes sense if your aiming to downsize. You fire the deadweight, and give the ones you want to stay a raise. Especially if you were to drop a game like let's say Overwatch 2, you mainly need QA testers in the development and launch phases, less so after launch. You can expect Activision Blizzard does this on the regular for most of their titles. They aren't to enticed keeping workers who in their eyes, "they don't need anymore". Companies think in terms of business, not morals.

It makes sense, in terms of business, to tell people they're going to get a raise and then fire them?

How?

Well I said "the striking workers", so I probably mean "the striking workers".

I mean in all seriousness, they got themselves a nice arrangement assuming they don't get fired or let go because of it. With the strike fund, they get money without doing any work. The downside is it usually kills any chance of climbing up the corporate ladder, assuming if any of them had that ambition in the first place.

They've got a nice arrangement apart from how they're permanently limiting their career prospects in the hopes of decent conditions now. Yeah, sounds real nice.

[Ifreann]

Testers at Raven have reportedly formed a union.

[solidarity forever loudly]

[Anarchic Hallownest]

I have picked up Hollow Knight again, which is evident considering the fact that this is me, Imperial States of Duotona, on a nation I specifically made just to geek out about the game.

[Holy Tedalonia]

You let yourself be financially insecure if you don't properly prepare to switch jobs when the due date of your job is coming up. Until you can get the company to mutually agree with you being a full time employee, you shouldn't expect to be one. Employment is a mutual arrangement, when one party is satisfied or dissatisfied, they can end that arrangement.

Ah yes, the blame game.

Once a company is done with you, it's not their responsibility to make sure you have a job. If someone was so concern over job security, they'd get a government job where you literally can't get fired.

Makes sense if your aiming to downsize. You fire the deadweight, and give the ones you want to stay a raise. Especially if you were to drop a game like let's say Overwatch 2, you mainly need QA testers in the development and launch phases, less so after launch. You can expect Activision Blizzard does this on the regular for most of their titles. They aren't to enticed keeping workers who in their eyes, "they don't need anymore". Companies think in terms of business, not morals.

It makes sense, in terms of business, to tell people they're going to get a raise and then fire them?

How?

Firing deadweight and keeping good employees by giving them a raise is a common corporate tactic to downsize a bloated company. From what was described by Raven the layoffs had been known long before they happened. So they knew that it was going to happen.

From what I've read about it, they interviewed Raven employees from a base by base, giving ones they wanted to keep a raise, and booting the rest. The misunderstanding came from coworkers telling others that they got a raise, so it gave a mistaken impression.

I'm very curious where your coming from the idea that they told the same people they letting go, that they were getting a raise. Because there's nothing wrong saying there will be layoffs and a raise for those staying. But everything wrong with telling the specific individual that he will be getting a raise, and instead firing him.

I mean in all seriousness, they got themselves a nice arrangement assuming they don't get fired or let go because of it. With the strike fund, they get money without doing any work. The downside is it usually kills any chance of climbing up the corporate ladder, assuming if any of them had that ambition in the first place.

They've got a nice arrangement apart from how they're permanently limiting their career prospects in the hopes of decent conditions now. Yeah, sounds real nice.

Yeah a company isn't going to promote someone who actively was hostile to it and working against it's interests. Even if they were of good intentions.

If they truly wish for a better work environment without burning the career prospects. Looking for another job is the answer. Like the ex-activision employees before them.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Going by this
https://www.techradar.com/au/news/activ ... book-or-ea

That is a horror i would not want to happen, Facebook getting there hands on them and making you link Facebook to play all the games,just like their VR head sets.

Yeah. I'm going to say this now. Companies are likely going to actively bid for these game companies. With streaming technology finally coming around, and a growing interest in the large gaming market. I think it's safe to say the era of independent companies ruling the game industry will come to an end.

Gamepass is ahead of it's time, but other companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook. Are likely throw their hat in the ring. Because even if it fails, it's a great opportunity to write off some taxes. A future where we have a Facebook EA, or a Amazon Rockstar is becoming increasingly likely with each step we take to game streaming.

[Heloin]

Is gamepass really ahead of it’s time if it feels firmly of it’s time? Gamepass is just a subscription service that like the rest of them likely doesn’t make enough money to actually support itself now but will try and corner a market for when it will be able to hike up the price.

[Ifreann]

Ah yes, the blame game.

Once a company is done with you, it's not their responsibility to make sure you have a job. If someone was so concern over job security, they'd get a government job where you literally can't get fired.

And it's bad that people's welfare is irrelevant to the powers that control their welfare.

It makes sense, in terms of business, to tell people they're going to get a raise and then fire them?

How?

Firing deadweight and keeping good employees by giving them a raise is a common corporate tactic to downsize a bloated company. From what was described by Raven the layoffs had been known long before they happened. So they knew that it was going to happen.

From what I've read about it, they interviewed Raven employees from a base by base, giving ones they wanted to keep a raise, and booting the rest. The misunderstanding came from coworkers telling others that they got a raise, so it gave a mistaken impression.

I'm very curious where your coming from the idea that they told the same people they letting go, that they were getting a raise. Because there's nothing wrong saying there will be layoffs and a raise for those staying. But everything wrong with telling the specific individual that he will be getting a raise, and instead firing him.

Mmmm. Blame game. It's not the company's fault that they lead people to believe there'd be work and more money unless they can be narrowly and specifically nailed for lying to individual people.

They've got a nice arrangement apart from how they're permanently limiting their career prospects in the hopes of decent conditions now. Yeah, sounds real nice.

Yeah a company isn't going to promote someone who actively was hostile to it and working against it's interests. Even if they were of good intentions.

If they truly wish for a better work environment without burning the career prospects. Looking for another job is the answer. Like the ex-activision employees before them.

And this is a nice arrangement in your mind.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Once a company is done with you, it's not their responsibility to make sure you have a job. If someone was so concern over job security, they'd get a government job where you literally can't get fired.

And it's bad that people's welfare is irrelevant to the powers that control their welfare.

Theres no such company that does that. There one and only job is to make money. Until your welfare aligns with that, they won't help you one bit.

Firing deadweight and keeping good employees by giving them a raise is a common corporate tactic to downsize a bloated company. From what was described by Raven the layoffs had been known long before they happened. So they knew that it was going to happen.

From what I've read about it, they interviewed Raven employees from a base by base, giving ones they wanted to keep a raise, and booting the rest. The misunderstanding came from coworkers telling others that they got a raise, so it gave a mistaken impression.

I'm very curious where your coming from the idea that they told the same people they letting go, that they were getting a raise. Because there's nothing wrong saying there will be layoffs and a raise for those staying. But everything wrong with telling the specific individual that he will be getting a raise, and instead firing him.

Mmmm. Blame game. It's not the company's fault that they lead people to believe there'd be work and more money unless they can be narrowly and specifically nailed for lying to individual people.

You trust ex-employees. Generally the worst people to trust, because they almost always keep out what they did wrong and only says bad things about their ex company. So forgive me for being skeptical.

Until I see evidence that Activision blizzard explicitly told the employees they were firing that they themselves would get a raise. I'm calling cap.

Yeah a company isn't going to promote someone who actively was hostile to it and working against it's interests. Even if they were of good intentions.

If they truly wish for a better work environment without burning the career prospects. Looking for another job is the answer. Like the ex-activision employees before them.

And this is a nice arrangement in your mind.

Making money without any work is a W. If they were smart, they'd cash in on the strike and find a side hustle to keep them busy in the meantime. While also looking for another job.

[Ifreann]

And it's bad that people's welfare is irrelevant to the powers that control their welfare.

Theres no such company that does that. There one and only job is to make money. Until your welfare aligns with that, they won't help you one bit.

And that's bad.

Mmmm. Blame game. It's not the company's fault that they lead people to believe there'd be work and more money unless they can be narrowly and specifically nailed for lying to individual people.

You trust ex-employees. Generally the worst people to trust, because they almost always keep out what they did wrong and only says bad things about their ex company. So forgive me for being skeptical.

Until I see evidence that Activision blizzard explicitly told the employees they were firing that they themselves would get a raise. I'm calling cap.

Such unshakeable faith in the institution which you keep explaining has no morals, ethics, or principles beyond making money.

And this is a nice arrangement in your mind.

Making money without any work is a W. If they were smart, they'd cash in on the strike and find a side hustle to keep them busy in the meantime. While also looking for another job.

Permanently damaging your career is a W. Just get another job, any company in the games industry will be glad to hire you when they hear you left your last job because you went on strike over working conditions. Huge dub, bossman.

[Immoren]

You trust ex-employees. Generally the worst people to trust, because they almost always keep out what they did wrong and only says bad things about their ex company. So forgive me for being skeptical.

Always trust ex-employees no matter what they did wrong, because theyre the smaller side. *nods*

[Just-An-Illusion]

Mfw someone is literally defending a company known to harass its female employees.....

[Holy Tedalonia]

Theres no such company that does that. There one and only job is to make money. Until your welfare aligns with that, they won't help you one bit.

And that's bad.

Legal obligations supersede any moral obligations. They are legally required to make money, so their going to do everything in their power to make that money. Activision Blizzard isn't around to make friends, just like any other corporation isn't. Even if Activision wanted to be a good person, they are constrained by shareholders demands and is lead by one of them.

You trust ex-employees. Generally the worst people to trust, because they almost always keep out what they did wrong and only says bad things about their ex company. So forgive me for being skeptical.

Until I see evidence that Activision blizzard explicitly told the employees they were firing that they themselves would get a raise. I'm calling cap.

Such unshakeable faith in the institution which you keep explaining has no morals, ethics, or principles beyond making money.

Its more so of a understanding that companies to shit like what they did to Raven all the time. Shit isn't unique. The only unique potential difference, is them "lying to staff", which from what I've read from articles was a employees mistaken belief, and not corporate promising soon to be fired employees.

Its less "I love Activision blizzard and believe in them implicitly", and more companies want to make money. Lying to employees to sadistically trick them into a false sense of security isn't very "cash money", there's no motive. What most likely happened is Activision did a routine downsizing of Raven after a major project completed, promised the department a raise after the routine layoffs and this "mixed messages" confused the employees. It's sad folks lost their job, but this is the corporate world.

Making money without any work is a W. If they were smart, they'd cash in on the strike and find a side hustle to keep them busy in the meantime. While also looking for another job.

Permanently damaging your career is a W. Just get another job, any company in the games industry will be glad to hire you when they hear you left your last job because you went on strike over working conditions. Huge dub, bossman.

Its very easy to get a contract job in the game industry, and these contract jobs are mostly entry level jobs. A contract job market tends to have a lot of jobs, and a lot of mobility to and from other jobs. I think they'll be fine.

The only reason why they are striking is because they know they got nothing to lose.

[The Huskar Social Union]

After watching Mandalore Gamings review on Homeworld: Cataclysm i want more horror RTS games.

[Imperial isa]

After watching Mandalore Gamings review on Homeworld: Cataclysm i want more horror RTS games.

Had to look that up an i never knew of that spinoff.

[The Huskar Social Union]

After watching Mandalore Gamings review on Homeworld: Cataclysm i want more horror RTS games.

Had to look that up an i never knew of that spinoff.

Its called Emergence now, apparently its because Blizzard trademarked the word Cataclysm and the game was not allowed to be sold for a while until it went back up on GOG a few years ago as "Homeworld: Emergence"

It takes place between Homeworld 1 and Homeworld 2

[Imperial isa]

Had to look that up an i never knew of that spinoff.

Its called Emergence now, apparently its because Blizzard trademarked the word Cataclysm and the game was not allowed to be sold for a while until it went back up on GOG a few years ago as "Homeworld: Emergence"

It takes place between Homeworld 1 and Homeworld 2

Yeah for the WOW Cataclysm update which is silly as not like anyone could mix the two games up.

[Herador]

After watching Mandalore Gamings review on Homeworld: Cataclysm i want more horror RTS games.

I was kinda scared Mandy was going to hate on Cataclysm, a lot of people seem not fond of it, but I'm hyped as hell he saw what the dev's were trying to do. Loved his point that Cataclysm is more Homeworld 2 than Homeworld 2.

[The Huskar Social Union]

After watching Mandalore Gamings review on Homeworld: Cataclysm i want more horror RTS games.

I was kinda scared Mandy was going to hate on Cataclysm, a lot of people seem not fond of it, but I'm hyped as hell he saw what the dev's were trying to do. Loved his point that Cataclysm is more Homeworld 2 than Homeworld 2.

I never got around to completing homeworld 2. I got the remastered collection a few years back and played the first campaign which i had a lot of fun in and messed around with a few mods (the halo one in particular was awesome) but only got a few missions into Homeworld 2.

I actually just bought Deserts of Kharak as ive never tried it either so im gona give it a shot and who knows maybe it will get me back into that Homeworld mood. Big shame Cataclysm was not featured in the Remaster.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak is a very pretty game given the only landscape is a desert.

Cutscene art is pretty neat too.

Gameplay wise, even though it takes place on a planet instead of in space like the other homeworld games it still feels like the same combat which is nice. All the vehicles ive used so far have had a purpose and its very fun using the rock-paper-scissors style of counter against enemy armies. Railguns kick ass especially.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Hopefully traditional RTS's will make a comeback. Missed that shit. Supreme Commander 2 will always be the goat to me.