What's up with .400 studios?

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'm glad someone gets it.

Reps from the good ole'/bad ole' usenet days die slowly, and this setup was perfect.

[hoosierdude]

Originally Posted by Angie

Unfortunately, there are certain individuals with a vested interest in seeing Joe discredited and slandered in the gaming community and in the public.
Joe has decided not to comment at this time, but I imagine that he will eventually share his story. FWIW, my services were "terminated" too.

I know that a lot of people would like to see what Joe's responses would be to the charges brought against him.

If he is innocent of the charges as he implies, then being silent does not show him in the kindest light. If this was me, and folks were accusing me of improprieties that are being bandied about the various sports sim boards, I would be making clear without a doubt my innocence with proof and facts instead of innuendo and threatening lawsuits to the various whistleblowers.

Simply put, Joe, if you are not guilty of the charges against you, then you need to quit playing games and prove it.

If you are guilty, then admit your guilt and apologize to the people you wronged.

By dragging this controversy out for an undetermined period of time with no response from the accused, it takes the .400 Software Studios name and sullies it even deeper.

If you truly care about the company you founded, then end the speculation, and prove or disprove your innocence with facts.

By allowing the controversy to continue with your silence and implied guilt, whether it be fair or not, you make the company suffer for your inability or unwillingness to give your side of the story.

For everyone that has ever bought or played a .400 game, or thought about it, for the fans and enemies of games put out by .400 Software Studios, please end this as soon as possible. The fans, the sports sims players, and the interested bystanders deserve this to stop.


End this Joe. Please just finish it so things can move on. Please.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My point isn't to "sit here & bash Joe again" -- it's that it seems rather hard to discuss the situation without a certain amount of "personal" commentary coming into play, since that plays a role in a lot of our game purchase decisions in this genre

I mean, think about it, how many times have phrases like "XYZ seems like a good guy, I'm gonna support his work" or "ZYX rubs me the wrong way, I'll spend my money elsewhere" been a part of discussions about various games/developers/companies? IMO, that's an important element for just about all of the indy developers at least.

I definitely agree with Jon here. The reason why I have been very interested in the situation is that I am not sure whether or not to support .400. As it stands now, I am leaning towards continued support, but there is some confusion about this latest incident.

If Joe (and unfortunately Angie) was "terminated" because of how he dealt with his critics and customers only, then I think they made a bad move. If they "terminated" him because of rumor of how he dealt with developers and possibly manipulating reviews, then I applaud .400, because that was going to hinder any progress.

I guess we will have to hear Joe's side of the story as it was mentioned that he may post something in the future. Otherwise the real verdict will come when .400 releases another title. If there next titles run smoothly, none of this will really matter, for that would have been the best move for them to grow.

This has been an eye-opening experience. I had seen this kind of crap happen a lot in the corporate world, but didn't think it would filter down to indie developers. I didn't think they were large enough to have this much drama. I guess I was wrong.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buddy Grant

Reps from the good ole'/bad ole' usenet days die slowly, and this setup was perfect.

Yeah, the setup was so good I'm betting the set upper knew exactly what he was doing.

[Ben E Lou]

Jon:

You've got an excellent point. It is *very* fair to comment if Joe rubs you the wrong way because of something he has said or done publicly. My comments were more related to the uncomfortableness I have that the overall feel of this thread is one of assumption of Joe's guilt in matters that we really don't know about.

[Buccaneer]

Oh great, now we are getting some of the "right to know" crowd here.

Get a fucking clue. Just because you bought a product does not entitle you to become a shareholder in the company. Unless you have a vested interest - and buying a product does NOT gives you that interest - you do not have the right to know about legal matters, personnel decisions and financial statements (particularly if the company is not a public entity). If any previews, reviews, rumors, perceptions cause you to buy or not buy a product from a company, so be it. If a company makes personnel decisions that affect the quality of a future product and you chose to buy or not to buy, so be it. That is your right. But it is not your right to know internal decisions and legalities. So stop your (not pointed at anyone in particular) fucking crusade on your "right to know".

I apologize in advance for the f-bomb rant. Some of you are no better than the paparazzi and tabloid vultures.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Oh great, now we are getting some of the "right to know" crowd here.

Get a fucking clue. Just because you bought a product does not entitle you to become a shareholder in the company. Unless you have a vested interest - and buying a product does NOT gives you that interest - you do not have the right to know about legal matters, personnel decisions and financial statements (particularly if the company is not a public entity). If any previews, reviews, rumors, perceptions cause you to buy or not buy a product from a company, so be it. If a company makes personnel decisions that affect the quality of a future product and you chose to buy or not to buy, so be it. That is your right. But it is not your right to know internal decisions and legalities. So stop your (not pointed at anyone in particular) fucking crusade on your "right to know".

I apologize in advance for the f-bomb rant. Some of you are no better than the paparazzi and tabloid vultures.

But he uses red and yellow font colors in his signature..

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Oh great, now we are getting some of the "right to know" crowd here.

Get a fucking clue. Just because you bought a product does not entitle you to become a shareholder in the company. Unless you have a vested interest - and buying a product does NOT gives you that interest - you do not have the right to know about legal matters, personnel decisions and financial statements (particularly if the company is not a public entity). If any previews, reviews, rumors, perceptions cause you to buy or not buy a product from a company, so be it. If a company makes personnel decisions that affect the quality of a future product and you chose to buy or not to buy, so be it. That is your right. But it is not your right to know internal decisions and legalities. So stop your (not pointed at anyone in particular) fucking crusade on your "right to know".

I apologize in advance for the f-bomb rant. Some of you are no better than the paparazzi and tabloid vultures.

Of course no one has a "right to know" in theory but a customer has a right to ask and if a business is going to lose enough business not taking the "right to ask" seriously then they deserve the lost sales IMHO.

Not that I'm in any camp. I really don't care one way or another but it is just another chapter of the computer game soap opera. Sometimes the show is better than the game.

[Buddy Grant]

Hoosier (TC Dale ?) - you say the burden of proof is on Joe when most here seem to acknowledge this is a he says/he says situation, that means you are demanding someone do the impossible. Plus, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the accuser? The smart thing for all involved is to handle this away from message boards, not come on and post "I'm innocent/he is guilty". Whoever is in charge of .400 now (if anyone) should make some statement, and they should stay as far away from this grade school mentality slagging as possible. Don't say something ridiculous like "we are investigating whether Joe had anything to do with JFK's assassination", take the high road and make the parting at least appear somewhat adult and professional, regardless of what really happened. Then hire Druez/Jason K. just so you can tell him to please quit posting all the forum jabs - he is hurting .400 immeasurably nearly each time he posts.

I understand how someone who got passed over or ignored by .400 studios might be bitter and want to join the angry mobs calling for Joe's head (not honorable but understandable), I understand how ex-400 customers who may have been screwed over by failed products might want to pile on anything having to do with that company (especially here at FOFC with the FOF loyalties), but I don't get how one net denizen with little online credibility and nothing to lose can tell a story that appears highly suspect, then have that story taken as seriously as it has been by several online communities (400/ootp/fofc). This story could ruin the professional reputation of someone that has worked in this niche market for many years, and meanwhile others with as little to lose as the original accuser pile on, it's sickening and like a car wreck at the side of the road it's tough for us to look away.

I don't know Joe personally but I have followed games he has supported since long before he co-founded 400 studio's. Maybe he's an honest nice guy, maybe he's an dishonest jerk, maybe he's an honest jerk, or maybe he's even a dishonest nice guy but what has happened here in this thread and several others seems very unfair to me. I am impressed by Shaun Sullivan's classy explanation about the 400/Puresim split - if Shaun had any negative opinions about anyone or anything at 400 he took the high road, kudo's to him. I'm also impressed that Joe has stayed out of this online hissy fit, that means he's probably going to take some licks from pretty much every bored onlooker who stumbles onto this thread and that's not fair, but it's the path of personal character. I wish that others who thought highly of Joe (and I know there are many) would speak up for him at this time, instead of letting the folks with personal scores to settle own the streets (mob theme again - get it).

Don't get me wrong, if Joe has done anything professionally dishonorable he deserves a piling on like the one that is happening here and elsewhere, but based on who the accusers are, Joe's rep before this debacle, and Shauns endorsement it's hard for me to understand how the heck this got so out of control.

Paging Scottvib to the white voice-of-reason phone!

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Sometimes the show is better than the game.

Isn't this the problem?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by DeToxRoxDVHStyle

Isn't this the problem?

I don't know that I'd call it a problem myself but I've always been able to afford the games I play. I've never taken a game purchase that personally before.

[StormcloudCreations]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

This has been an eye-opening experience. I had seen this kind of crap happen a lot in the corporate world, but didn't think it would filter down to indie developers. I didn't think they were large enough to have this much drama. I guess I was wrong.

Oh it can happen with nearly any type of company where more than a few people work together on things.

It's why i've been cautious with my own growth as a company over the last year of expansion for me (only just now i've added a full-time artist and part-time programmer to my "staff", both carefully selected for decent attitudes and good work ethics); to avoid the conflicts, creative or otherwise, that may arise.

[sovereignstar]

Can't we all just get along?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Oh great, now we are getting some of the "right to know" crowd here.

Get a fucking clue. Just because you bought a product does not entitle you to become a shareholder in the company. Unless you have a vested interest - and buying a product does NOT gives you that interest - you do not have the right to know about legal matters, personnel decisions and financial statements (particularly if the company is not a public entity). If any previews, reviews, rumors, perceptions cause you to buy or not buy a product from a company, so be it. If a company makes personnel decisions that affect the quality of a future product and you chose to buy or not to buy, so be it. That is your right. But it is not your right to know internal decisions and legalities. So stop your (not pointed at anyone in particular) fucking crusade on your "right to know".

I apologize in advance for the f-bomb rant. Some of you are no better than the paparazzi and tabloid vultures.

Whoa, try the decaf, Bucc. I did a search in this thread and so far you're the only one person who has used the phrase "right to know" and you did it twice. I realize you're quoting someone from the .400 boards, but I think you're putting words in the mouths of people at FOFC.

I think the vast majority of us agree with your premise -- that buying a game doesn't give you the "right" to anything other than ownership of that game. But consumers have the "right" to base their buying decisions on anything they want. And if consumers says, "I want .400 to explain why they fired Joe," then .400 has two choices: appease the consumers by explaining it or alienating them by not explaining.

That's a tough decision, but it's the decision you know you're going to have to make it you enter a niche market like text sports sims. We're like a small-town cafe. Everybody knows everybody, and if the guy over at the feed store gets fired, everybody is going to be talking about it and want to know what happened. Conversely, if somebody gets fired over at EA, who cares? It's two different playing fields.

Things like this are a no-win situation. .400 can't win -- it they're quiet it looks like their hiding something and if they talk it looks like their bagging on Joe. Joe can't win either -- if he talks he looks like a whiner and if he's quiet he looks guilty. It's an ugly situation. The ideal solution would be for this to fade away, but that's not human nature. Until there is something defnitive explaining the situation, people will always have questions and wonder.

I understand SkyDog's apprehension about how far to let this go. But I don't think at this point there is enough evidence to portray anybody as a villain, just supposition. As long as it stays that way, I think it's fair to let people continue to speak their mind about it. There's a point where it could get out of hand, but I don't think we're there yet.

[Hurst2112]

I give this thread a 2.40 rating. Meaning, all the 'good' stuff was in the first 2.40 pages.

[vtbub]

Yet another bizzare chapter for .400.

The people that I've dealtwith that work/have worked over there are very good, care deeply about the product, and are nice people to boot.

I've never talked to Joe before, and I'm not going to weigh in with an opinion of him one way or another.

I'm saddened, but not surprised over what's been alleged/counter-alledged over here and other places.

.400, to their credit and misfortune, has been a very ambitious company with goals on how to advance the genre. In the end, I hope that they pull through and continue in producing games that are pretty under the hood and on the outside.

I hope whoever is running .400 now takes some time and sorts some things out with Marc Vaughan, Marc Duffy over at Sports Interactive, and Mac Howard. If they feel comfortable, chatting with Heavyreign and Jim would be helpful.

Hopefuly, they can get some solid advice from these pros, then step back and create products that advance the genre and get us to focus on the positive.

[Buccaneer]

Matt, I know it was a little overboard but this "right to know" has been permeating too many posts, maybe not in those exact words but the intent is there, including yours.

Where you and I disagree is on this

And if consumers says, "I want .400 to explain why they fired Joe," then .400 has two choices: appease the consumers by explaining it or alienating them by not explaining.

Those are NOT the only two choices. In my view, neither of those are valid ones for non-share/stake holders. Again, now you are saying that you have a right to know from 400 when you present those two choices. No you do not. Sure, we can speculate and wonder, but "appeasing customers" or "alienating customers" should NOT have a basis in publically discussing internal personnel and legal decisions. It should only have a basis in the quality and desire of a product. Yes, there is a direct cause and effect on personnel and quality, but as a consumer, it is for you to judge only on the results.

By the way, the courts will not take into your consideration that this is a 'small town cafe'. It will rule (if it gets that far) on standard business rules and laws, regardless if its a two-person company or a large corporation.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by vtbub

Yet another bizzare chapter for .400.

The people that I've dealtwith that work/have worked over there are very good, care deeply about the product, and are nice people to boot.

I've never talked to Joe before, and I'm not going to weigh in with an opinion of him one way or another.

I'm saddened, but not surprised over what's been alleged/counter-alledged over here and other places.

.400, to their credit and misfortune, has been a very ambitious company with goals on how to advance the genre. In the end, I hope that they pull through and continue in producing games that are pretty under the hood and on the outside.

I hope whoever is running .400 now takes some time and sorts some things out with Marc Vaughan, Marc Duffy over at Sports Interactive, and Mac Howard. If they feel comfortable, chatting with Heavyreign and Jim would be helpful.

Hopefuly, they can get some solid advice from these pros, then step back and create products that advance the genre and get us to focus on the positive.

After the dust settles, this is what I hope for.


Todd

[Swaggs]

Yawn.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Those are NOT the only two choices. In my view, neither of those are valid ones for non-share/stake holders. Again, now you are saying that you have a right to know from 400 when you present those two choices. No you do not. Sure, we can speculate and wonder, but "appeasing customers" or "alienating customers" should NOT have a basis in publically discussing internal personnel and legal decisions. It should only have a basis in the quality and desire of a product. Yes, there is a direct cause and effect on personnel and quality, but as a consumer, it is for you to judge only on the results.

By the way, the courts will not take into your consideration that this is a 'small town cafe'. It will rule (if it gets that far) on standard business rules and laws, regardless if its a two-person company or a large corporation.

I take what you are saying is that as a consumer, I'm only allowed to consider "results" as a purchase decision. That's just wrong. I can consider any darn factor I want to in making a decision.

I still stand by .400 having those two choices. If consumers have every right to ask a company, "Why did you do this?" Wht consumers do not have a "right" to is an answer. A company does not have to answer the question -- leaving the two choices, either answer or don't answer. If your customers want you to answer and you don't, they may not chose to buy from you. Purchase decisions are not based on "results." They are often very emotional.

No one, except you, is talking about a LEGAL right to information. Courts have nothing to do with this. I'm under no obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, to buy a product based purely on "results." If I don't want to buy Nike shoes because I think the Swoosh is stupid, that's my right and there's nothing that can be done about that.

I understand that .400 may be limited in what they can or are willing to say due to legal obligations. Consumers may say that they want to know why .400 fired Joe. Maybe .400 wants to say but can't because they don't want to get sued. Fine. That's a choice. The "small town" analogy is true in that if this were EA and they fired somebody, we wouldn't care because it's the big city and we don't know who that is. But in a community as small as the text sim community where everybody knows everybody, there are going to be questions and they are always going to be people who want to know what is going on. You may not think that is proper, but there is nothing that prevents people from asking the questions.

I think you're taking some of this stuff too literally.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Where you and I disagree is on this ...

Since I seem to be largely in agreement with kcchief on this one, I'm going to take another angle (one I've used somewhere along the way already, but it seems to bear repeating) -- I'm not arguing that there's a right to know, but I'd argue to my death that there's a right to ask.

That's one of the beauties of being a customer/potential customer -- you can ask pretty much anything you want, no matter whether the seller likes it or not. What's up to the seller/potential seller is how, or even if, they answer.

And this sort of thing happens pretty frequently, at least in any variety of experiences I've had.

For example, when a key component of one of the radio station's I buy ads on has someone leave, I have the option to inquire (usually discreetly) about the circumstances. It's not an every-time-someone-leaves-thing, but there are situations where it impacts my buying decision. Sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad, but an impact sometimes either way. And I reserve the option of asking whether the ownership group is a megacorp like Clear Channel or some guy & his son in Podunk, AL.

We don't just buy product, we also buy image -- good & bad -- it's a factor in certain buying decisions for just about everybody IMO, and a big factor for some people more than others.

With those stipulations, I guess what I'm not understanding in your argument is how this is any different a situation than anything else that involves buyer & seller.

Not trying to beat on you Bucc, I'm just trying to figure out how your position reconciles those differences.

Jon

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I reserve the option of asking whether the ownership group is a megacorp like Clear Channel or some guy & his son in Podunk, AL.

I always suspected Podunk was in Alabama.

CR

[SirFozzie]

Just to take a look at it from another point of view, I think it very likely, if not absolutely certain, that part of the agreement when Joe left .400 (or was terminated), that neither side would talk about it.

No matter who's right or who's wrong, neither side would benefit by airing their dirty laundry in public.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I always suspected Podunk was in Alabama.

CR

90% of Alabama is podunk (and that isn't a bad thing).

[wig]

This is funny as hell.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Since I seem to be largely in agreement with kcchief on this one, I'm going to take another angle (one I've used somewhere along the way already, but it seems to bear repeating) -- I'm not arguing that there's a right to know, but I'd argue to my death that there's a right to ask.

That's one of the beauties of being a customer/potential customer -- you can ask pretty much anything you want, no matter whether the seller likes it or not. What's up to the seller/potential seller is how, or even if, they answer.

And this sort of thing happens pretty frequently, at least in any variety of experiences I've had.

For example, when a key component of one of the radio station's I buy ads on has someone leave, I have the option to inquire (usually discreetly) about the circumstances. It's not an every-time-someone-leaves-thing, but there are situations where it impacts my buying decision. Sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad, but an impact sometimes either way. And I reserve the option of asking whether the ownership group is a megacorp like Clear Channel or some guy & his son in Podunk, AL.

We don't just buy product, we also buy image -- good & bad -- it's a factor in certain buying decisions for just about everybody IMO, and a big factor for some people more than others.

With those stipulations, I guess what I'm not understanding in your argument is how this is any different a situation than anything else that involves buyer & seller.

Not trying to beat on you Bucc, I'm just trying to figure out how your position reconciles those differences.

Jon

Man, Jon and Kc, I said the same thing in way fewer words.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by StormcloudCreations

As far as making changes to it, i'm considering doing a sequel to the game with more features and enhancements, and an improved fancier interface. I"m trying to decide if it would be worth it or not.

I hope you decide to go forward with it. I think the game has a lot of potential.

[WSUCougar]

My god, we've fallen, Bill & Ted like, into the next incarnation of The Sims...

...The Sports Sims.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

My god, we've fallen, Bill & Ted like, into the next incarnation of The Sims...

...The Sports Sims.

...and we've already got the title song, don't we Coug ?