Indie Game Jam Show Collapses Due To Interference From "Pepsi Consultant" 465
Sockatume (732728) writes "Would you like to see a half-million-dollar TV show in which four teams of indie developers and Youtube personalities compete to create amazing videogames? Tough luck, because GAME_JAM from Maker Studios has spectacularly imploded. Although a lot could go wrong with this kind of show, the blame isn't being levelled at game developer egos or project mismanagement but the heroic efforts of one Matti Leshem, a branding consultant brought in for Pepsi. After imposing Mountain Dew branding rules that even banned coffee from the set, his efforts to build a gender divide amongst the teams culminated in the competitors downing their tools and the production collapsing. Accounts from Adriel Wallick, Zoe Quinn, and Robin Arnott are also available."
We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geeks (Score:5, Interesting)
We geeks are the doers.
We make things.
We create new stuffs.
We come up with new and exciting ideas.
But we are *NOT* tools for anyone.
That "pepsi consultant" can go eat shit and die - if he or she thinks he/she can push geeks to do whatever he/she likes.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Insightful)
The "consultant" thought he would make a name for himself by acting like Gordon Ramsay. Hilariously, he was right, just in the exact opposite of what he hoped for. Unlike the chef, he did nothing to earn any such position and tried to generate strife where there was none.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been a professional game programmer for quite a while. Yes, female programmers are rare. I've worked with only three or four in the last fifteen years or so if I recall correctly. They're mostly to be found in the art, design, QA, and production/management departments. To be honest, this always made me a little sad, because one of the big strengths of working on teams comes from having different skill sets of course, but also different opinions and viewpoints. As with anyone else, their actual skills varied quite a bit from person to person. But I really don't think it comes down to sexism or anything that people should freak out about - it's just not a job that appeals, for whatever reason, to a large number of women.
I've never even heard anyone at work malign someone on the job because they were female. Granted, I'm not exactly in the position to hear that sort of thing, but most developers I know don't have that sort of mind set to begin with. They're there because they love making games, and don't really care about whether someone is male or female. It never really made much of a difference to me, at least.
I'm proud of the devs for not taking the bait and declining to participate in this idiotic "Pepsi Consultant's" little drama show. What a fucking moron.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:4, Insightful)
To be honest, this always made me a little sad, because one of the big strengths of working on teams comes from having different skill sets of course, but also different opinions and viewpoints.
While better than saying, "We don't want women," I think it is odd to see this idea that women should be wanted for a different viewpoint, as opposed to just wanting people in general with different viewpoints. Opinions and viewpoints seem to be largely influenced by upbringing and life experiences. While there are still plenty of women around who were raised differently as girls than a typical boy was, and there are many women around with different experiences than that. There is still plenty of crap that women put up with when older, but experiences vary there too.
The result is that many of the same things that resulted in men ending up in a male dominated field can often be the same reasons some women get into the field, and there is little to no difference between them as a result, beyond the typical person to person difference. I've known several women who went into engineering, probably in part because they had parents that felt raised them with the attitude, "I don't care if you are a son or daughter, but you should learn how to use basic tools, and if you take an interest, we can work on projects together." As adults, they are not defined as a female engineer, but just as an engineer.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Insightful)
While better than saying, "We don't want women," I think it is odd to see this idea that women should be wanted for a different viewpoint, as opposed to just wanting people in general with different viewpoints. Opinions and viewpoints seem to be largely influenced by upbringing and life experiences. While there are still plenty of women around who were raised differently as girls than a typical boy was, and there are many women around with different experiences than that. There is still plenty of crap that women put up with when older, but experiences vary there too.
The article, if you read it, was largely about an artificial attempt to inject sexism and conflict into the show where none at all existed. Thus, I'm commenting on women's roles as game developers as I've seen it from inside the game industry as a programmer.
I simply feel that women tend to bring a unique viewpoint to the table. I would never pretend to be able to represent the viewpoint of a black man or a gay man. Nor would I be able to represent the viewpoint of a women, because those factors tend to fundamentally alter one's life experience, giving people unique perspectives. Don't read into it any more than that.
Anyhow, the entire point of my post was that, in my experience, most game developers *don't* actually give this much thought in a professional environment. We're too busy trying to make fun games that we (and hopefully others) will enjoy. I'm also not claiming sexism hasn't been a problem either - just that I've never seen it personally. All I have is a perspective of one person's life, so take that for what it is.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:4, Insightful)
There are pervasive differences in the experience of living in the US based entirely off gender (and others based on, say, race), so having someone female on a team will give you insights into things that an all-male team is extremely unlikely to be aware of. And vice versa, although that's much rarer.
That people aren't aware of this is, to some extent, part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
So long as feminists acknowledge that men are also capable of "bringing unique abilities and perspectives to the table" then it is not hypocritical.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Funny)
This is different. I saw the word 'pepsi' and 'brand management' and knew the pepsi guy was the one who would mess it up.
Let me regale you of a tale from my younger days. We were having a meeting with the BIG customer Pepsi.
The lead dev was busy in the basement coding away. He was called and summoned up to the meeting as the BIG customer wanted to ask some questions. He grabs his drink off his desk and walks in. Answers their questions. They are happy, everyone is happy. Until the second meeting.
'We have decided to fund the project but you can not have that one developer anywhere near the project'.
The PM leans back in his chair and says 'Why is that?'
'he brought a coke can into this meeting'
''We can do what you ask but the project will never be completed'
'WHAT *WE* are paying for it'
'you just fired the lead developer of the project and the only one who knows how to do what you want'.
I have heard numerous stories like this one about Pepsi. I may like their drinks, but their management is cray cray. Everything is about the brand and not the customer.
Re: (Score:3)
Picking up a can of coke knowing you're going into a meeting with Pepsi is provocation or naivety, and just unprofessional in that context either way.
If Pepsi came in to sell you their products then sure, do that to put pressure on them, exert competitive tensions, make a point. But not when they're the client.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me suggest an alternative. The consultant was very smart. He knew that without strife and discord, there would be no show. Nothing that people would watch. Reality programs need drama.
So, he worked to create strife. He forced the participants to drink Mountain Dew (so, more caffeine than they were used to) in order to get them hyped up. He made deliberately provocative statements. He did everything possible to get the participants out of their comfort zone and arguing with each other, deliberately, in order to make a show that would sell.
Arguably, although his plan failed, the show might have also failed without his influence, simply because of a lack of drama.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:4, Informative)
"Let me suggest an alternative. The consultant was very smart. He knew that without strife and discord, there would be no show. Nothing that people would watch. Reality programs need drama. "
Let me offer an opposing view, you didn't read the article and have no idea what you are talking about.
Since the actual show wasn't a reality show, it was something more akin to "http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-pitch" or home makovers where the homeowner comes back to see their renovation and the show follows the technical aspect of the renovations, there was no need for "manufactured" drama.
In fact, making an indie game from scratch, involving all the technical aspects from both veterans and novices (the programmers and youtubers respectively), and having to do this on an imposed deadline would create all the "real" drama needed to make the show interesting. Not to mention the inside look at what most people never get to see, creatives making entertainment out of nothing.
what this douchebag did was take a creative environment, strip all of the creativity out of it and then throw in heaps of sexism, forced strife, corporate policy and "reality" fakey crap (like forcing a game programmer to re-enter a "scene" 5 times to get the "shot").
the biggest stupidity was that he was just some corporate douche who used the sponsorship ties the program had to force changes he thought would make the program better, he wasn't even someone there to make those decisions, only by throwing his corporate money weight around was he able to get the ones who were in charge of that stuff to concede to his input.
at the end of the article everyone pretty much agreed if this douche had never been there, there would have been no issue...
TL:DR the adults would have gotten along fine without this mental 3yr old.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm that "consultant" is a very powerful media exec. He MADE his career doing exactly what he did during this game jam. The difference is he is used to targeting Jersey Shore/reality tv of the week on MTV type of audience, 20 something party all night didnt go to college OMG camera lets scream and show our tits people.
Matti Leshem is Pepci go to guy when tehy want to reach young and loud retard crowd. He is not going away anywhere. If anything Pepsi will drop the idea of targetting geeks, after all they are
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:4, Insightful)
The main difference is the approach the producers take in the US vs. the UK shows. The US ones are all about highlighting him being confrontational.
One of the best shows of his I've seen was the kid version of MasterChef. His personality really shone through, by being very supportive of the kids while also focusing his critique on their dishes, rather than them. Well worth a watch IMO.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, if the event was sponsored by Pepsi, yes. That's generally one of the conditions for sponsorship.
Otherwise the event will probably either not happen because there are no funds to organize it, some other sponsor is found (to which one has to follow THEIR rules), or some other form of fundraising is determined.
It's why sites like Wikipedia don't do advertising - because they refuse to
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if the event was sponsored by Pepsi, yes. That's generally one of the conditions for sponsorship.
There's a big difference between putting up Pepsi logos and branding (which everyone involved said they were fine with) and forbidding anyone to use any drink that isn't a Pepsi product, including water and coffee. No one could reasonably have expected the latter going in.
Nor does corporate sponsorship imply that a "branding consultant" should engage in aggressively sexist behavior that would get someone fired if they did it in any normal white-collar office.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Informative)
Rule #1: Always read the contract carefully.
If you read the articles, you'll see that not only did they read the contracts, they re-negotiated several provisions that were clearly unacceptable.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Funny)
Rule #1 of Slashdot: NEVER read the fucking article.
Re: (Score:3)
A good allegory to this is the Simpsons episode with the "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show" show. A bit long for my ADD, but makes the point.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Funny)
But we are *NOT* tools for anyone.
Obviously, you've never been to Silicon Valley. That place is chock full of tools.
Re: (Score:3)
And then we'll still be better than idiots like you with no dignity or self-respect.
Not everyone who does things in the vague arena of entertainment wants to be a whore for a corporate product they don't actually endorse.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Funny)
I hope your dignity and self-respect keep your warm during your long wait at the bus stop.
Why? Does he live in downtown SF and work for google or something?
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I work at a company, and make software. I get paid real US dollars. For the software I make. I don't sell my soul, giving them free advertisement for their crap just because that's where I get my salary. They get my productivity. They don't need my honesty.
Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when there were shows about actual reality? They called them documentaries.
Not really (Score:2)
Would you like to see a half-million-dollar TV show in which four teams of indie developers and Youtube personalities compete to create amazing videogames?
I'd rather play the game they made as a finished product instead.
Re: (Score:2)
And letting us vote on the games would be the competition.
Read the summary a couple times (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even Australian, apparently I just write in some sort of impenetrable code.
Re:Read the summary a couple times (Score:5, Funny)
Is that even English? Seems more like some dystopian futurespeak loosely based on a form of English which has been coopted by media and communications majors.
Not only is it English, it is British English from English Britain, the original and still the best English since 1066.
Accept no substitutes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So...Norman French? Because that's the language they were speaking after 1066...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not only is it English, it is British English from English Britain, the original and still the best English since 1066.
More like the tortured English of Murdoch's London headline writers. I don't think they are required to have a complete understanding of the language. I could write a book entitled "How to turn any sentence into meaningless gibberish with just a Thesaurus" using just London newspaper headlines as examples.
Re:Read the summary a couple times (Score:5, Funny)
Amateurs...
This article is awful (Score:3, Informative)
Practically unreadable. It is far too long and contains many run-on sentences. Further it is filled with jargon that is not explained.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I couldn't figure out if the article just wasn't meant for the general public, like maybe "Indie Statik" is only focused on game developers, and unless you were' heavily into that world, you shouldn't bother reading this.
I wondered about that because not only was there a lot of jargon, but there strange and unclear metaphors, and there were references to various things that seemed to assume you'd understand the reference. Half the time, I didn't know what the author was talking about. Maybe someone
Re:This article is awful (Score:5, Informative)
So far, no luck though ...
Well, some devs went to a game jam. The production company tried to turn it into a dodgy reality TV show, which annoyed everyone. And it was all being run by this guy who I think is best described by a quote from "in the thick of it": Christ alive what a cunt!!!
The combination of him and the generaly crappyness of it resulted in a mass walkout from the devs and the event tanked, burning all the money spent on it.
Skip the first two sections (Score:3)
TL;DR: Start at the section titled "The Set-Up" for actual content.
The first ten paragraphs are personal background for the point of... I'm not even sure, actually. The section "The Press" is at least tangentially related to the actual topic, but the introduction is not. You're not the only person to find it really hard to read, either.
I don't know what the fuck the author is smoking, but I can only imagine this is supposed to be some hipster version of reporting, "oh, comprehensible language is totally a s
Re: (Score:3)
I can comprehend it, its just too damn much work to sift through run on sentences. What is sad is that the person who wrote this claims to be a journalist. I figured it was a developer writing on their blog which would be forgivable.
..and nothing of value was lost. (Score:4, Insightful)
As others have commented: I'd be more interested in the end product of bringing these people together, not watching how they do it.
Re:..and nothing of value was lost. (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer is "Some people who aren't you."
I would, except that the idea of another "drama" filled "reality" snorefest instead of a real documentary would ruin it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that nobody would watch people code for four days. It's that nobody would watch manufactured reality show drama troweled over hour-long chunks of dramatically-edited footage of people coding.
Well, people would, but at that level of edited reality, it becomes irrelevant what the contestants are actually doing. They could be sorting tiny screws or building Lego sculptures of breakfast foods and the show would be the same.
Matti Leshem (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.tvrage.com/person/i... [tvrage.com]
there's obviously more too this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Read the articles. That was proposed by the sponsors after firing the asshole. However, the devs had lost so much energy and focus due to the jackass that they were pretty confident anything they'd come up with at that point would be crap. Rather than put out crap just to finish, they walked.
tldr (Score:4, Insightful)
It opens with paragraphs of him saying how awesome he is. Funk dat.
I'd watch that for a dollar (Score:3)
I'm only about a third of the way into the article, and it's already hilarious.
You generally don't read a lot of crash and burn stories, so this is great. The author needs more drugs, though, and some speed.
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, it shows how one person can make a difference - whether that difference is negative (in this case) or positive.
Maker Studios (Score:2)
I would like to point out how buzzword-y the Maker Studios website [makerstudios.com] is.
Maker is a talent first, technology-driven media company. Entertainment is changing. Millennials are living a mobile, social, on-demand life.
Youtube Personalities? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a thing, that's just a narcissist.
When Markedroids try to lead... (Score:3)
So he tried to create a Jerry Springer kind of air by trying to antagonize the teams and getting them to go ad hominem against each other, and those geeks didn't go for it. Wow, who would've thought that geeks care more about content and less about form, more about what a person can do than who they are...
Matti, in case you're reading this: Don't. Just ... don't. You're not a Jerry Springer. You are, essentially, an oxygen thief.
Good on them (Score:3)
I can't imagine anything more boring (Score:3)
"Would you like to see a half-million-dollar TV show in which four teams of indie developers and Youtube personalities compete to create amazing videogames?"
No. And I can't imagine what drugs somebody was smoking to even think it was a good idea in the first place. It's boring as hell to watch people talk and pound on keyboards. Essentially internal processes (like the excitement of creating a game) are invisible to the third party observer. There's a reason why reality shows are filled with drama real, fake, and everywhere else on the spectrum between the two extremes. That's what pays the bills.
The production company grasped that, the self absorbed prima-donna "indies" did not. Seriously, when the introductory paragraph and a good chunk of the overall text is the narcissistic writer bragging on himself and how cool the "scene" was... I could see the train wreck coming.
Non-divisive "reality" competitions can be fun (Score:4, Interesting)
After being incredibly turned off by "reality" shows that contain no reality at all ("Dangerous Flights" is the most egregious example I've seen lately), I was totally absorbed by Penny Arcade's low-budget reality show offering of Strip Search [penny-arcade.com] last year. (The site is slightly misorganized, but you can find stuff if you try).
The show was a dozen web comic artists in competition. The premise of a single artist being funded and supported by Penny Arcade for a year was motivational, and the simple act of appearing in an episode granted even the entrants ousted first an audience for their work. While it was clear the producers provided for the possibility of backstabbing and conflict, they didn't go out of their way to insert any, and in the end the show was all the better for it. I'd actually put PA's Strip Search above 90% of professional, high-budget, high-production-values TV series.
My point being, it's totally possible to structure an interesting show where game dev competition is friendly and rewarding for all, and producers with zero-sum on the brain don't exist. It just hasn't been made yet, apparently.
Too apologetic (Score:3)
After reading all three articles, I'm glad the developers walked out. Now they need to stop apologizing about it. They were recruited by misrepresentation, and when they found out, they didn't like it. They have nothing to apologize for. They don't need to justify their actions. That the sponsor lost $500K is not their problem.
Rampant Sexism in Games! (Score:3)
Hmm. What got me was that it all fell apart when the Mountan Dewd Bro started instigating sexist shite. [gamasutra.com]
"Do you think you're at an advantage because you have a pretty girl on your team?"
and
"Do you think the teams with women on them are at a disadvantage?"
As expected the indies didn't putting up with corporate sell-out nonsense or reality-TV false shit-stirring of sexism in games. Marketdroids should have known better. [youtube.com]
Protip: Developers are not the players. That's really two separate communities, and there is zero barrier to entry, just like romance novel writing. There are far more female romance novelists. There are far more male indie gamedevs. It's not sexist. Different sexes make different choices in general since Men and women are different. [youtube.com] A generalization doesn't limit the individuals who are free to be outliers. To get rid of the sexism and racism we've got to stop looking at things in terms of those constructed identity labels, and focus on what the individuals are actually creating and deciding and experiencing for themselves.
Re:wat? (Score:4, Informative)
Typo. I mean production. I definitely do not mean that existence is all an elaborate ruse to distract you from the terrifying truth about reality.
Nope.
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the problem here is "downing their tools" which is an idiom that is not used in American english. While I was able to take a guess at what it meant it is confusing and awkward to those who are not familiar with the idiom.
Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks, I had no idea it was a specifically British idiom. Sokath, his eyes uncovered.
Re: (Score:2)
It does NOT mean that they ate their tools. You may down a few beers, but you may not down your tools.
Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (Score:5, Funny)
I tried downing my tool, but I couldn't reach.
Dante Hicks
Re: (Score:3)
It means what it says. They put down their tools. In other words, they stopped working.
Re: (Score:3)
We Americans have our own ways of warping the language.
1. We drive on "parkways", and we park on "driveways".
2. "Bad" as in "This boom box is BAD, man!!!"
3. "My bad"
4. "Friend" as a verb
5. "Twerking"
6. "Hella"
Even going back in time a ways, there was:
"How do you do?" How do you do what? Though I think this one was borrowed from the British, it sure took us long enough to finally shed it.
There's also cellphones. Here in the US, it was common to call them "cells" for a while, though people seem to just cal
Re: (Score:3)
We Americans have our own ways of warping the language.
1. We drive on "parkways", and we park on "driveways".
2. "Bad" as in "This boom box is BAD, man!!!"
3. "My bad"
4. "Friend" as a verb
5. "Twerking"
6. "Hella"
Those are not the worst abuses the Americans have inflicted on the English language.
1. The removal of "u" from words that need it (Honour, favour, neighbour) and yes, "our" has a different sound to "or".
2. The swapping of C's for S's in words like Defence.
3. The removal of tenses. "I already ate" is wrong, you should say "I've already eaten" (present perfect).
4. The mangling of re into er (I.E. centre v center).
5. Ain't isn't a word, the correct contraction of "are not" is "aren't" and it is not an a
Re: (Score:3)
1. The removal of "u" from words that need it (Honour, favour, neighbour) and yes, "our" has a different sound to "or".
English is not a phonetic language with regular rules like German. After the Normans invaded, all that stuff went out the window. Every word simply needs to be memorized on its own. Some loose rules still apply, but there's no direct mapping of sounds to spellings any more. And with different accents, this is even more true now. In American English, "favor" closely fits how most people
Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Contrary to popular belief, it is the tar, not the feathers, that is most important at least among the tools of electricians or politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's elegant to down my tools, is it equally cromulent to up yours?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Part of the problem here is "downing their tools" which is an idiom that is not used in American english. While I was able to take a guess at what it meant it is confusing and awkward to those who are not familiar with the idiom.
Mr. Smith, there will be no put-downs in this meeting.
Yo! I'm down with that.
Our dog is too old, so we're putting it down.
Rather than go uptown we're going downtown, Saturday night.
Looks like it was written by a claw shrimp - they live down deep.
The network is down, looks like switch failure.
Way, down upon the Swanee River, far, far away...
Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it's not used in American English (which honestly, is surprising to me), it's not exactly obtuse or difficult to work it out. Putting ones tools down (and stopping work). What else could it mean? The only possible other interpretation is 'downing', as in 'consuming' ones tools, which obviously doesn't make any sense in this context.
Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (Score:5, Funny)
It's got the electrolytes that programmers crave!
Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
"downing their tools" which is an idiom that is not used in American english.
I'm American and I didn't have to think about that, I knew what it meant instantly... I don't remember learning it from British sources.
"Put down your tools" is pretty clear and since English is full of moments where you make up words like "downing", I don't think many people would be confused.
Re: (Score:2)
I got it eventually but had to read it a couple of times. I think I was already thrown by the headline. The words "Indie Game Jam Show Collapses" - the last three words could be either nouns or verbs, and I couldn't figure out which. I'm short on sleep, though, so it may just be me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Are programmers really this naive? (Score:5, Insightful)
The programmers didn't make a deal with Pepsi; Maker Studio, a subsidiary of Disney, made the deal with the programmers, and also later made a deal with Pepsi. The half-million dollars burned probably wasn't Pepsi's, but the studio's.
I suggest reading the article. Any of the four.
Re:Are programmers really this naive? (Score:5, Funny)
Except the one with the bright pink background. There's just no excuse for that.
Re:Are programmers really this naive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what really happened - these whiny little dorks thought that Pepsi would just throw a few sacks of money at their project and stay out of their way while they looked cool on TV.
Ah, the clever, wise to the ways of the world slashdotter coming along and telling us all how things really are, because he knows so much about reality.
corporations want value for their investment
Well, that worked out well.
Of course Pepsi is going to send in someone to make sure they're getting something out of it.
So why instead did they send a guy who singlehandedly sunk it, guaranteeing loss of their investment then?
So, Mr world wise slashdotter who has so much cynicism and knows the way of the world so very well, how was it a good idea for Pepsi to pour this money down the drain?
Re:Are programmers really this naive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reality check - Pepsi didn't waste money on this.
Apart from all the sponsorship. That wasn't free, you know.
The entire project got scrapped before cameras were rolling
Which only proves you didn't RTFA.
and now every other corporation knows to stay clear of these whiners because they are hard to work with.
So? They're indie game developers. I don't think they care that no other giant megacorp is going to want to film them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than just in-yo-face endorsement, it was active incitement to try to turn something actually interesting into yet another contrived "reality" show.
It was easy for them to push peoples' buttons, what was unexpected (and the most interesting part of this whole debacle IMO) is that rather than sit there and be harassed by assholes everybody just walked out.
I hope that Maker Studios learnt something from this experience and keep tight watch on outside "consultants" so that the next time it will stay
Re:Are programmers really this naive? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reality stars are people desperate for fame and "a shot" in hollywood. They get pushed around for bogus dreams of a future that they won't have.
Indie game devs are people with useful skills and degrees who could be making twice what they are right now, but chase the dream of making what they want, and doing what they enjoy. Rolling over for some corporate shill you can do at JP Morgan chase for a lot more money, and a lot less hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... and this is just an idea, they could keep the advertising separate. Advertise between segments, rather than expecting skilled, focused people to make concessions in the middle of a competition.
Re:Are programmers really this naive? (Score:5, Funny)
These guys made a deal with Pepsi, the epitome of a soulless American corporation
However, Pepsi did burn Michael Jackson, literally, so give them a tiny bit of credit.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me get this straight...
You're telling me that because one is lucky enough to get a job they should happily accept being forbidden to do things, like drink coffee? There's a word for people like you.
Re:Are programmers really this naive? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't be that dense. This is a media production. You don't get to sign up to play Hamlet, and then demand to be able to drink Pepsi while the cameras are rolling. That's the line between being a programmer and being an actor. These guys signed up to be actors, but they don't want to follow the rules.
But that's the problem: they didn't sign up to be actors. They were under the impression that this was going to be an actual contest of skill, and it was changed into a "reality show" without their knowledge or consent. This problem first came up when the contracts were signed – a lot of the standard "reality show" boilerplate had to be removed because the devs refused to go along with it. That should have been a heads-up to the studio, but it wasn't.
Re: (Score:3)
You can use wikipedia but can't read the damn article?
That natal idea, and one of the themes central to all eleven developers agreeing to travel to Los Angeles for the shoot, was the production and filming of a game jam for a televised audience (or at least a YouTube audience) with the intent to document the ups and downs of actually developing a game
TL?DR? Maker pitched a documentary to the developers, then tried to change it into a reality show
Re: (Score:2)
Does Matti Leshem need to get Buzz Aldin'd?
Re:no kidding (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry these nerds had to learn the hard way that pretty much everything on TV is fake.
I once tried to figure out what this "reality TV" thing was by watching one of those "tough job" shows. It was clear that the guys had a hard job but also much more clear that the TV people were trying to create drama and rifts where none or very little existed.
I might have kept watching if it was more about some of the really interesting challenges that the job entailed, but it turned out to be mostly about trying to get this guy to be mad at his boss, show how upset this other guy's wife was that his job required him to be gone for some lengths of time, etc.
But ... all that aside - these are indie developers and YouTube people who are trying to do something on broadcast TV with a Network get a half-million dollars in sponsorship from Pepsi? Dudes and dudettes - look into this Internet thing. If your idea doesn't suck, fund it on IndieGoGo and make it back with YouTube ads. Then again, maybe there's a reason they didn't go that route in the first place (they could fool Pepsi out of half a million but not ten thousand savvy investors).
Re:no kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally this.
Deadliest Catch was actually initially interesting because it focused on the real and technical aspects of doing a legitimately dangerous job. It didn't take long for it to devolve into the typical reality TV pattern of all drama all the time. By the time I stopped watching, the fact that they were on a boat wasn't even that relevant any more.
Re:no kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's also a combination of people playing it up for the cameras, and the fact that they are condensing weeks (in some cases more) into 44 minutes (in some cases less). I generally consider myself pretty easy going, but if a film crew followed me around for 2 months, they could probably edit out a 44 minute video that would portray me however they wanted.
Re:no kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:no kidding (Score:5, Informative)
They're all fake to some extent.
My favorites:
- Storage Wars. The producers were in the habbit of pre-stocking lockers up for auction with rare, valuable or unusual items to ensure some good television. One team objected to this, and made their objections clear to the producers. The producers responded by no longer pre-stocking lockers for that team, but continuing to give the others with just as much loot as before. The team sued.
- Scrapheap Challenge and the US counterpart Junkyard Wars. Though the rules state that competition ceases at sundown, towards the end of the builds it's not hard to see that the sun has long set, and bright floodlights can only go so far to mask it - and, in all the series runs, not once has a team failed to produce a machine that can at least run. It's not hard to tell what is going on: A machine that can't move is bad television, so the organisers don't declare time up until both teams are ready with a machine that can provide an entertaining contest.
- Duck Dynasty. After the 'incident' a few people did some digging on this, and found photos of the family from before the show - when they were all well-dressed, and clean-shaven. By all accounts well-spoken people, with college education. Their redneck persona is entirely fictitious, an act put on for the show - beards, accents and all.
- A visitor to the pawn shop of Pawn Stars wrote a very interesting account. You can buy a lot of show merchandise there - but it's no longer a functioning pawn shop, and the owners are rarely present. They make an appearance only when it's time to kick out the fans and film a producer-supplied purchaser to play their part.
Re: (Score:3)
They were willing to put up with being used as vehicles for product promotion in order to attain a little publicity for themselves, their industry, and the things they believe in. What they weren't willing to put up with was being used to further harmful stereotypes that go against everything they stand for.
It's one thing to put people under pressure and focus on the drama when making a reality TV show. We expect that. They expected that. It's an entirely separate thing to press as hard as you can on a nerv
Re: (Score:2)
To much information. Please don't tell us the rest of your life!
Re:Fuck Pepsi and fuck beta!! (Score:5, Funny)
Why would anyone drink Pepsi or Mountain Dew? Drinking cat piss or dog semen would be a better way to spend your time.
Well, maybe dog semen, but cat semen? That stuff is nearly undrinkable, much worse than Pepsi or Mountain Dew.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe dog semen, but cat semen? That stuff is nearly undrinkable, much worse than Pepsi or Mountain Dew.
Holy mother of god! You were modded informative. Just. Wow.
ROFLMAO
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe dog semen, but cat semen? That stuff is nearly undrinkable, much worse than Pepsi or Mountain Dew.
Holy mother of god! You were modded informative. Just. Wow.
ROFLMAO
Yeah, I was a little horrified to see that!
Re:So what was the problem again? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't stand this shit maybe you should never have agreed to it at all.
Are you referring to the bit where they negotiated the contract and in fact didn't agree to it all? Or the bit where they didn't agree to it all and walked out?
Or are you proposing that there is simply be no middle ground to selling your soul to Mephistopholese and simply not being in a video on youtube?
js3 is an idiot (Score:3)
I think the main thing that js3 missed is that Adriel isn't a "he" at all... which says all that anybody really needs to know about Eir [wikipedia.org] reading comprehension, doesn't it?
Also, no, TV shows don't need drama. There are lots of shows, and even big-budget movies, with very little interpersonal drama. You can get by on excitement (action, sports, etc.) or interest pieces (documentaries, anything with a specific topic like "cooking" or "travel") or suspense (mystery, horror, etc.) or romance (self-explanatory), a
Re:So what was the problem again? (Score:4, Informative)
Basically he went on a game show
From the fucking article:
That natal idea, and one of the themes central to all eleven developers agreeing to travel to Los Angeles for the shoot, was the production and filming of a game jam for a televised audience (or at least a YouTube audience) with the intent to document the ups and downs of actually developing a game
The developers agreed to produce a documentary, it was the sponsors that tried to turn it into a reality show. The only drama they were expecting was game crashes and bug fixes, ordinary issues that occur when developing a game.
Also FTFA:
At some point which remains unclear, the show wholly dipped into a scripted reality slant and became less about making a game, and more about creating drama for sake of the audience, less than one day out of the four blocked off for shooting available to sit down and jam. The rest of the program, as it turned out, was filled with arts and crafts, physical challenges and competitive gaming â" once again, totally unrelated to game development. But that wasnâ(TM)t communicated to anyone, and through Polarisâ(TM) local contacts, the developers were signed up and flown out to Culver City, where they awaited their first hurdle in Makerâ(TM)s legal department.
So not only did the developers initially agree to the documentary format, but when the format was changed no one thought to ask the developers if they were ok with this? I am guessing that if they had known beforehand they would not have come. When they did find out they rejected the initial contract and had reservations about the show. This snowballed because of Matti Leshem's attempts to impose branding restrictions and incite drama where there was none, causing the developers to form ranks and reject the show entirely. They decided they didn't have to stand the shit and instead threw it back in the producers faces. and I really can't blame them. Next time the companies want to make a reality show, tell the actors first.
Re: (Score:3)
That is really excellent advice for members of a species which isn't ours. Humans, however, really do have emotions, and they can't just shut them off. Furthermore, your proposed policy for what things should be like is basically the all-time champion of the Law of Unintended Consequences: If we adopt this policy, then the winning strategy is to constantly be an asshole to everyone, because if you can push them over the edge they lose.
Re:Horrible reactions to predictable problems. (Score:5, Insightful)
He picked the wrong year to ask his questions in the manner in which he did...also the wrong people. Zoe Quinn has been harassed to the point of blatant abuse by a particularly nasty part of the gamer community...death threats, forum-organized raids, and sexually harassing phone calls to her cell among other things. How she presents herself to the indie community as a woman and a developer is a very big deal at the moment. The indie teams are protective of each other and extremely protective of their individual images among their fans and supporters....this is a very big deal.
Also the show wasn't originally conceived of as the craptastic mess Matti turned it into once they got started. So okay, this wasn't quite as bad as Matti walking up to a female rape victim and asking her on camera if she thinks "women are asking for it..." but I'm pretty sure from some of the dev's standpoints, it wasn't too far from that either.
Re: (Score:3)
I felt it was a dificult read at time. The entire preamble felt pointless and should have been cut out and let it get right to the story. And too much of the rest of it had a lot of "I'm important, which is why I was involved!" Though maybe that can be excused as he was probably expecting everyone reading his blog to already know who he is. I don't read enough blogs to know if that sort of style is typical.