Slashdot Mirror
Indie Game Jam Show Collapses Due To Interference From "Pepsi Consultant"
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 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.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Sorry these nerds had to learn the hard way that pretty much everything on TV is fake.
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
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.
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.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
Practically unreadable. It is far too long and contains many run-on sentences. Further it is filled with jargon that is not explained.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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 abide by any sort of rules a sponsor might want to impose, and while it's possible there are few who are willing to sponsor anyways, the numbers are far fewer, and the money small enough that it's not worth the bother.
The fallout from this will likely be minimal unless Pepsi sponsors a large number of them - generally the event there is dead, but others will remain unaffected.
Plenty of blame to go around - Pepsi for being so demanding, the organizers for not reading the contract close enough to see what restrictions on sponsorship were, and developers for not asking questions about the sponsorship (and probably letting the "cool, I'm on TV!" factor play an excessively large rule)
Honestly, it sounds like it was a monumentally bad idea in the first place. Who thought anyone would even watch such a thing?
As others have commented: I'd be more interested in the end product of bringing these people together, not watching how they do it.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Idioms don't transfer well between languages. English/Australian: "to refuse to work, especially because you are not satisfied with your pay or working conditions" http://idioms.thefreedictionar...
http://www.tvrage.com/person/i...
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
Does Matti Leshem need to get Buzz Aldin'd?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Could that article be packed with any more narrative fluff?
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.
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 true to the spirit of what was attempted and make something really worth watching
crazy dynamite monkey
So you bring in someone from Pepsi and his requirements and strategies are crap and...the whole project collapses? Eliminate the consultant and end the relationship with Pepsi then find a different sponsor. So clearly there's more to it collapsing than just the Pepsi guy.
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.
To much information. Please don't tell us the rest of your life!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It opens with paragraphs of him saying how awesome he is. Funk dat.
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.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...is exactly what developers need. I know, I know make for good TV. Wait, does it?
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.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Except the one with the bright pink background. There's just no excuse for that.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
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.
I would like to point out how buzzword-y the Maker Studios website is.
Maker is a talent first, technology-driven media company. Entertainment is changing. Millennials are living a mobile, social, on-demand life.
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.
That's not a thing, that's just a narcissist.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
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.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
But we are *NOT* tools for anyone.
Obviously, you've never been to Silicon Valley. That place is chock full of tools.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Rule #1: Always read the contract carefully.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The programmers didn't make a deal with Pepsi; Maker Studio, a subsidiary of Disney...
Heh, same difference. The devil takes many forms...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Two reasons: One is that abuse on that level deserves walking out on as well as a damned fine finger flip at the stupidity it represents as demonstrated by the articles about what went on. Two is - I just really can't stand "reality" shows with their fabricated hate sessions, created and shoved into production by douches like that guy. I honestly feel that those who go along and make them have some dire moral shortcomings - you know, Bridzillas.
Madison Avenue doesn't work that way. For them, the entire program is an advertisement.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There's a wide gulf between what they could have reasonably expected and what they received once on set. In what universe do you reside that makes questions like "Do you think the teams with women on them are at a disadvantage?" acceptable? Even if it's to generate 'value for their investment.'
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?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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.
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?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"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.
I read the bright pink one and my eyes still haven't adjusted back to seeing normal colors.
It was the most concise and to the point of the four though.
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.
Remember when there were shows about actual reality? They called them documentaries.
So there are things that can be done with people who have more freedom in their process or end product. It was a failure of the sponsor to understand the process. More than likely, the sponsor has some money tied up in this process, perhaps more than any other agent. Due to the sponsor incompetence, that money has been lost.
It may be that this means any such venture in the future will be unlikely. It may be that some more competent sponsor will understand the special circumstances and manage to create a profitable venture.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Again, are programmers really this naïve?
Do you think the people on Survivor are in danger of starving to death if they can't get a fire going?
Do you think Bear Grylls does his show without any of it being faked?
Do you think American Idol rewards the contestant with the most musical talent?
These guys signed up for a reality show with heavy corporate branding. At that point, no one gives a flying fuck about how well you document your code. You're a paid actor, meant to bring visibility to a brand. And yes, it looks really, REALLY bad when you sponsor an event where the all-women teams get crushed. It looks bad when the two token black guys finish last. I don't like it any more than you do, but no corporation wants that taste in their mouth.
This is reality in the corporate world. If you don't like the way the game is played, then write code at your own desk, or in your basement, not in front of a production crew.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
This is reality in the corporate world.
The reality of the corporate world is to fuck things up, burn money and get a bunch of bad press in the process?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It sounds like the organizers of the show gave away too much control to the sponsor's representative. It's a natural thing to want to not aggravate the sponsor, but there is a line where you give up way to much control and bad things happen. The point is that you need someone on the management team to step up in these situations to reign in any loose canons. It sounds like this group was missing this key ingredient and everything ended up going off the rails...
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?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The brits on /. have a different take on Gordon Ramsay
Our joke goes along the lines of - on any day he is making tv adverts, while making his branded biscuits in a factory in Northampton, and doing something for british airways, before working at one of those celeb resturants at lunchtime, the afternoon is tv time with a series to make, then he jets off to America to save a restaurant. I guess the cook books get written overnight.
Ramsay is a brand and not what you think he is.
You're still looking at it from the outside. I negotiated sponsorships with corporations in a past life. There is a significant failure rate - some ideas seem good at first glance, but just don't work out. Pepsi realizes this, and isn't heartbroken when money is spent on testing an idea. It is unlikely that this is a "failure" to them. In fact, the vast majority of sponsorship ideas go nowhere. People who are not familiar with the process think that the large corporation just gives you a ton of money to have their name somewhere in small print in the background. It just doesn't work that way. The lower profile the event, the more exposure they will want to squeeze out of you. If you don't like that, just produce the project yourself.
The only ones that failed were the participants. If I were putting six figures into a reality show, there is no way I would want a prima donna who refused to drink Mountain Dew on camera.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
That's like saying a woman doesn't realize her date wants "value" for picking up the dinner check. No, what they didn't realize was that Pepsi was going to waltz in and set the prostitution dial to 100% from the very first "hello".
You seem to think no show has ever turned a profit that depicts an interesting subculture without the insta-pimpover move.
What "bad press"? Slashdot is the only channel I have seen this "story"
It's bad press. Not much perhaps, but it's still bad press. Corporations generally try to avoid it.
If anything, it sends the message that if you want their money, you follow their rules.
Likewise, if they want your work, they have to follow your rules. Pepsi didn't follow the rules and they didn't get what they wanted as a result.
Oh wait, you're thinking that the Internet is going to rise up in solidarity
You're hallucinating that I said that.
End result: pepsi wasted their money.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This definition is from Wikipedia, I would imagine it is fairly non-controversial:
"Reality television is a genre of television programming that documents unscripted situations and actual occurrences, and often features a previously unknown cast. The genre often highlights personal drama and conflict to a much greater extent than other unscripted television such as documentary shows."
So, BY DEFINITION, what they were doing was producing a reality show, since there is no way you could call this a documentary. Why on Earth would you think that Pepsi would care who the most skilled was? How does that help to sell Taco Bell or Mountain Dew? If you're going on TV and making your sponsor money, you're an actor, like it or not. You would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that Pepsi just wanted to showcase your mad programming skills, just because they like programming that darn much.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
I expect that Pepsi does care that they threw $400,000 in a trash can and set it on fire. I also expect that this made news at /some/ level in the trade mags.
Yes. Only on /.
I think they would've made a bigger statement if they had turned their games into parodies of that Matti guy. With his huge bald head, that's an easy target right there. Then at the end, with all the footage in the can, just keep sabotaging the "spirit" of the commercialism. I'd love to watch judges try to decide which "Matti the F**KHEAD" game would win, knowing that the douchebag himself would have to see four different incarnations of himself being satirized.
But no, they decided to walk away. Angry blog posts don't have the same weight as lampooning someone on their own show, honestly. But that is how they did it, so whatever. They were right he was a douchebag, I just disagree how I would've communicated that after he was removed from the production.
/Somebody/ spent the $400,000.
I think he might be fictitious... Nearly all of his pictures have the same face, it's just his suit that changes or the people he is with. ... now copy and paste.
Stare straight ahead. Look confident with a hint of menace and an air of undeserving smugness
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
The problem here is that it looks like someone – maybe Maker, but that isn't quite clear – pulled a bait and switch on both sides.
The event was sold to the programmers as a "Game Jam", a contest of skill. But it was sold to Pepsi as a "reality show" – a heavily edited event that focuses primarily on playing up drama. These two expectations were mutually contradictory, and inevitably led to the clash that happened, and to the whole thing falling apart.
When the developers refused to sign the contracts until the boilerplate "reality show" language was removed or at least modified, this should have been a warning sign to Maker and Pepsi that this wasn't going to work out the way they wanted. But they didn't take the hint.
So, BY DEFINITION, what they were doing was producing a reality show, since there is no way you could call this a documentary.
No, I think they did expect it to be a documentary. And that is what they were led to believe that it was.
And it appears from the various descriptions of this event that it was Maker Studios that signed up the developers. Pepsi was brought in later. Why should this contract, which the developers weren't even directly a party to, mean that the devs have to do a completely different job than the one they signed up for?
So, BY DEFINITION, what they were doing was producing a reality show, since there is no way you could call this a documentary.
Why not? Because of magical corporate woo?
Why on Earth would you think that Pepsi would care who the most skilled was?
Because apparently when they didn't all their money was wasted. I think pepsi didn't get to be where they are now by wasting money.
If you're going on TV and making your sponsor money, you're an actor, like it or not.
Nope. Words mean things by the way. You can't just make up defintions without sounding like a colossal prat.
You would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that Pepsi just wanted to showcase your mad programming skills, just because they like programming that darn much.
You're the only one claiming that anyone said that. It must be nice inside your head where reality is what you define it as.
What pepsi wanted was to have a TV show with lots of pepsi branding that lots of people watched. That is precisely what they failed to get.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So you didn't actually read the articles about this at all?
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.
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.
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. They didn't realize that corporations want value for their investment. Of course Pepsi is going to send in someone to make sure they're getting something out of it.
Having been involved in organizing sponsorship for various events before, that expectation you play up as being delusional is not far from how it actually works most of the time. Plenty of times companies are willing to throw money at something because they just want their name associated with it and/or have vague vested interest in promoting it. Other than requiring you put their logo up as a sponsor, sometimes reading a thank you, and making sure one of their competitors is not also a sponsor, they are hands off. The most hands on approach I've had to deal with is them hiring their own photographer or two person video crew to get some promotional material out of supporting the event. Maybe some bigwig form the company will come watch things, either to see what they spent their money on or because they were honesty interested, but they usually sit there with their mouth closed.
There are sorts of problems and red flags with reality TV shows, and there are subtle ways corporate sponsorship can cause conflicts of interest, but I don't see how anything this blatantly unprofessional should be expected, or even could be expected, from many people who deal with corporate sponsorship on a regular basis.
In a lot of cases yes sad to say programmers are very naive did they not talk to SAG before signing any contract
From the article - "Four hundred thousand dollars, someone quoted. Four hundred thousand."
"Someone" - yeah, that's some top notch reporting right there. Has anyone contacted the Pulitzer people yet? I don't see a single mention in the article of how much Pepsi is on the hook for. This might be shocking to you, but they probably wrote the contract so that actual results would be expected.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
Once you have their money, you never give it back.
You might be thinking of rule #17:
A contract is a contract is a contract ... but only between Ferengi.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
So you're saying that the "consultant" should have free reign to troll the "contestants" and anyone else on the set as much and as hard as he wants just because he worked for the sponsor?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I read the 20,000 word meandering rant by someone who has never heard of "editing". Unless I am reading something incorrectly, every single developer who committed to this knew that Pepsi was the main sponsor before they even bought a plane ticket. Am I not understanding that correctly?
From the article:
"Another clause allowed for willful misrepresentation for the sake of drama, something that could sink the developers’ careers."
And the participants agreed to this. Yet they have the nerve to claim that they didn't realize it was a reality show. I realize that most programmers are not knowledgeable enough to understand what a "director" does, and go to the director when someone on the set is becoming a problem. But when you agree to "Willful misrepresentation", shouldn't that be a big flashing warning sign?
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
I don't think you even need to do that much - just talk to anyone who's ever been involved in this type of production. This is from the article:
"Somehow, he had ended up as the most visible director on set, as well as what was described to me as a “Pepsi Consultant.” "
What the fuck is "most visible director"? There should be ONE director. The consultant talks to that ONE director. Anyone who has a gripe talks to that ONE director. If anything, this enormous rant is about how no director was put in charge, and everything fell apart due to lack of leadership.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
Or how-to shows.
There are even documentaries and how-to shows still around; they're just no longer on channels like Discovery. (Instead, they're where they've always been: PBS.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The final straw wasn't the Pepsi branding, it was the blatant sexism and threat that women would be unfairly shown in an excessively negative light because of a combination of:
1. The infamous "Pepsi consultant" attempting to make gender an issue.
2. Stipulations in the contract basically making it clear the producers were free to edit reactions out of context and make participants look terrible.
3. General nastiness (again, the Pepsi consultant) to everyone involved.
Essentially, the nightmare scenario went something like: Pepsi consultant would have continued to push "Pretty girls in programming" angle; demeaned women get fed up and quit, show portrays such women as thin skinned and unable to handle the heat.
Glad to see this article. After the "We must support jackasses on principle because we're anti-PC" crap over the last few days, it's nice to see software developers sticking up for those subject to this kind of jackassery.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I've only taken one thing away from all this: Traditionally, an individual had to get to their 60s before they turned into a curmudgeon. With pop culture being what it is and trends changing so rapidly you'll now be one by your 30s.
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 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.
It's the polite way of saying they told the show to F off while they all walked out the door.
No water? No coffee?
So Aquafina and prepackaged Starbucks coffees aren't produced by Pepsi Co?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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.
Well, since Pepsi makes Aquafina, the first half of that expectation is actually relatively reasonable. Maybe the second half is less reasonable, since Pepsi doesn't have any fruit distribution subsidiaries as far as I can tell. Tropicana fruit juice should have been doable...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
They did negotiate the contract, some parts were removed, but none of the linked articles said anything about the "dramatic" clause being excluded. They were very well aware, like in all other reality show productions, that their words and actions would be twisted for dramatic effect.
did you forget to take your meds?
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.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Yes and no. The marketing guys usually decide what product they want showcased. They might have signed up for this whole deal to showcase the Mountain Dew drinking programmer who's so into the code that he doesn't sleep. If they were sponsoring a yoga class, they might want Aquafina displayed. But generally they're going to have fairly rigid requirements on product placement, based on direction from far up the corporate food chain.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
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.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
"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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Rule #1 of Slashdot: NEVER read the fucking article.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Of course the tools were not up to par. Of course there are PAs everywhere. Of course there are cameras in your face wherever you go. Of course they misrepresent what you say for dramatic tension. Of course they try to designate one the "bad boy" and try to get people yelling at each other. How did they expect this to be otherwise? Did they expect an average day at the office? These were supposed to be intelligent people, and yet they willingly walked into a lion's den for what, money? The story isn't how badly developers were treated, it's that they were dumb enough to go on the show in the first place.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
That was kind of mentioned at the end of the first paragraph of the post you replied to. The nature of that experience will vary a lot though, from women who had to deal with some blatant BS in their life, to stuff subtle enough that they might not even be aware of the influence themselves, assuming it has any influence relevant to whatever field they are working in and is not dwarfed by some other big influence in their life. Having seen a lot of discussions on how to encourage women to get into physical sciences, I've seen women who can clearly cite bad things in their life that had to be overcome, others that can cite good things that encouraged them, and yet others that have no idea what to do because they can't see how the path leading them into such fields was any different than their colleagues. Assuming progress is being made, that last category is or will grow.
Hmm. What got me was that it all fell apart when the Mountan Dewd Bro started instigating sexist shite.
"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.
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. 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.
I guess you just missed the parts like,
And everyone “got it.” It was a reality-kinda-sorta-thing. Sponsors would be there. Mountain Dew would be there. Dramatic tension was likely unavoidable on some level, and the prizes would be dumb. If anything it was just poor planning, and maybe some questionable brand integration.
Or,
The contracting was expected. The prizing, branding, sponsors and cinema of the whole thing fell in line with what they thought might happen.
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The developers initially did not agree on the terms of the contract, including that one. Adriel was still in the process of negotiating the contract, so did not sign it before they decided to walk away from the project. This is why she gives more details than e.g. Zoe who did sign the contract.
The person from Pepsi was deliberately provoking the participants to create drama where it was not needed and offending the participants in the process. It would be the equivalent of the producers of MasterChief saying "Do gay people/women make better cooks?" to the contestants in order to provoke a reaction they can capture on camera, rather than the contestants competing on their own merit and capturing the dramas, interactions and comradery that occurs naturally.
It would have been more insightful to see e.g. the teams with women on them working better than the teams which are all men. Or seeing that both teams are equally good/bad, have their own high points and their own low points irrespective of the gender of the people involved.
It was interesting reading about how the YouTubers contributed their graphical skills and voice-over talents. That would have made interesting viewing -- especially seeing how it evolved and how the task delegation/brainstorming worked.
While Pepsi may indeed be utter twats, it was fucking poor showing by the developer.
Show some fucking respect for your client.
For starters the main story is down, and no cache appears to be available. But from the other 3 viewpoints here's what I takeaway:
A person whose job it was to make the "story" aspect of the videos engaging asked a purposefully hurtful question to incite conflict (since conflict sells). Rather than consistently using that as a launching point into educating the masses (people who will be watching the videos - obviously the person asking has no need for education) the teams decided to SHUT DOWN. First they shut down by ignoring future incursions. Then they shutdown entirely. Seems like the guy was giving you a soap box for you to talk on.
Joseph Elwell.
Product placement is really on the rise right now. In part because traditional advertising segments just don't work as well as they used to - people have learned to be much better at tuning them out, and many viewers just skip over them entirely now that DVRs are commonplace.
Adriel is a woman. And she has things flying in space right now that are running her code. Saying that "her team is at a disadvantage" because she's a woman and "can she use her looks to win?" is completely insulting. She's there because she's really good.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I wouldn't be surprised if the virus-ridden computers were intentional sabotage to inject more drama. There can't be much good television in filming a bunch of developers sitting at a screen and typing code few people can understand.
I take it you haven't looked at Karmashock's posting history?
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Perhaps it isn't evidence of illiteracy, it is certainly evidence of a lack of reasoning ability.
If you cannot use context to make a decent guess at what some non-obscure words mean, this is laziness. Or stupidity
The context being discussed was work-related and the phrase was "downing their tools".
If you don't recognise "tool" as the noun that describes the item one uses to perform a task, and cannot see that "downing" might mean "putting down" then you have limited ability in what you claim is your native language. (Or are very tired, or drunk, or you forgot your reading glasses)
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I shall get that immediately.
If it's elegant to down my tools, is it equally cromulent to up yours?
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Down their tools is not a US phrase. Leveling blame is a very old phrase. I think the pretension is not where you think it is.
Live an learn, you can't *make* some people live your reality.
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 sellout, it's so mainstream". Actual I-shit-you-not comment from the original author "Writer here. I work in a writing style called gonzo. It's extremely polarizing..." He doesn't *quite* say "you've probably never heard of it" but I, for one, sincerely hope I never do so again!
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
My company frequently encourages us to Tweet/Facebook product/PR announcements on our private feeds. We're a couple steps short of being required to do so, but if we ever hit that point, that's when I'm looking for a change of employment. I expect to be paid for the software I write, not for flogging said software. Given a sufficient raise, I'd sell out (it's not as if I have a moral objection to the product I work on). If they don't want to pay me enough, there are other development companies in the area, and I'm sure that one of them would like to pay me just for writing software.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia apparently doesn't have a list of people punched by astronauts. Can you get right on that please?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
That's what you get when you try to play mindgames and try to artificially set up people against each other who are used to team work. Those tricks definitly work better when your panel is drafted from anything from egoists to sociopaths on shows like like "Big Brother", "Bachelor" or "$COUNTRY Idol"
bickerdyke
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 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), any of a number of others. Usually there's some mix of these, and yes, drama is *usually* part of that mix... but it's not the only part, and often it's not even an important one. Personally, I dislike drama and *hate* over-dramatized shows (which has largely pushed me away from traditional TV, which seems to be oversaturated with shallow people being nasty at one another).
This was *supposed* to be a documentary about the process of indie game development, specifically a particularly fun kind of short-time development called a "jam". It metamorphosed into a competitive "reality" show, but at least it was still supposed to be about a game jam. If you can't get all the drama that you could want out of a few clips of team members deciding what goes into the game and who does what parts and all that, then you are not the intended audience. The rest of us are more interested in what indie game design is like, and what rapid development is like, and what a development jam is like, and so on.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Rule #2 of Slashdot: You do not talk about Slashdot.
Yeah..I think you are over generalising just a tad...
Also perhaps confusing the open source movement and other free creative endeavours with geeks in general.
Geeks are used as tools for the corporate masters just as much as everyone else.
As far as the show goes...
You put the dick of a corporate in your mouth, don't be surprised when you walk away with a bad taste in it.
See: Internet trolls. Tempted to mark Karmashock as a Foe right now just because it's hard to imagine anybody thinking that way *not* being a troll, but I suppose I'll wait to see if they actually act that way or just think it.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
"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.
The "gender nonsense" was not a real question. It was an insult...and it came at a time when a significant portion of the gamer community has just begun recovering from an uproar about women developers...and it's been such a hot-button issue that one of the women on this show not that long ago was receiving death threats from the members of the gaming community. Jimquisition has some great thoughts and insights on this issue.
The question of women's contributions and the benefits or disadvantages of women in a dev team is completely valid to extremely ignorant masses, and the answers could be very interesting and inspiring, but Matti's questions amounted to "What do you think Chett? Do women suck at this?" "What about you? You're a Woman...do you suck at this? or do you think the fact that you're pretty might help your team with the judges?"
fuck him, the worthless fucking fuck.
The consultant was obviously following rule 34: "War is good for business"
It also sounded like he wasn't really "in charge" officially, but that he just took on that role without being challenged.
Yet another reason to hate product placement.
now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish my Bacardi Rum and Coke-a-Cola before I finish installing my new Antec power supply into my new Intel i7 system, on top on my Ikea BESTÅ Workstation.
I've worked with many women programmers and engineers, and overall they are perfectly average; some are smarter than the average male and some are less smart than average, nothing surprising.
Except that in some programming or computing areas that they are much more rare and thus it seems those average or lower veer off to other jobs. In this case it does seem like the only 2 women (out of 11) were very much above average. Maybe the everyone there is well above average, I don't know since I've never heard of any of them before. Surprised that both of them had an extensive blog, which to me automatically puts someone in the category of going above and beyond the call of merely doing a job (though as an indie developer that sort of forces a person to be their own management/marketing/PR team).
At least no one will attempt to adapt the process of game development into yet another phony "reality" show ever again.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
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.
I agree, that was the best writing of the bunch. Plain English, no name dropping, no philosophizing. Though like all of them it assumes the reader knows what a game jam is.
Why you're at 0 moderation I'll never know.
Pepsi was in from the get-go, and the branding requests were fairly simple. When on camera, please drink from Mountain Dew branded cans and bottles, and wipe off your nail polish. There will be other drinks available, just not on camera, and you'll even be able to drink non-Pepsi products in opaque Pepsi-branded containers. [...but lets be upset about it, `cause water from a Mountain Dew can is somehow a terrible violation of their artistic integrity.] Do you think the Idol judges are drinking Coke in their Coca-Cola glasses? They're all drinking water or coffee, except Tyler, who was clearly drinking Sterno or hand sanitizing fluid. Also...FFS people, it wouldn't kill you to play some ball and smile and drink some Amp on camera, you self-important twits. Spit it out and have water at the craft services table if you're oh, so inconvenienced by YOUR SPONSOR wanting some product placement.
While the "pretty girl" comments were dumb, the whole idea that everyone has to walk away in a huff about them is similarly laughable. You're not that important. Answer the question factually, and move on. It's just a producer looking for some drama. Let him find it in editing, not in you storming off set.
Frankly - and I read all the blogs - it just seems like a bunch of self-important twats who can't play nice with other children, so they took their ball and went home.
I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer, but what exactly does "willful misrepresentation for the sake of drama" mean to you? Of course the person from Pepsi was trying to create drama. It was part of the contract. If you don't want "willful misrepresentation", then don't participate. Don't sign a contract where you explicitly agree to "willful misrepresentation", and then get all high and mighty when the misrepresentation actually happens.
This was a case of some technical dorks thinking that all that boilerplate on the contract doesn't matter, and people will be nice to them just because. They completely overestimated their value in the grand scheme of things. Sorry, better luck next time.
Additionally, this rambling mess of an article was written by someone who's clueless about how TV shoots happen. Where was the fucking director? Oh wait, the Pepsi guy was the "loudest" director - implying that there was more than one director. When you have a problem on set, you bring it to the ONE director who's contracted to shoot the piece. This was a complete lack of leadership during production. My ten year old niece would have realized that, but apparently these programmers are unable to, and just sat there with their thumbs up their butts trying to fix the problem in software.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
Remember when there were shows about actual reality? They called them documentaries.
They still do.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
seriously?
http://youtu.be/dgb-zCnz9mE
My original post went to +2 informative, and then moved between +1 and +3 informative. What generally happens on these threads is that a lot of programmers don't like to hear viewpoints that threaten their world view; f.e. "programmers are not engineers", and they mod down anything that hurts their ego. No skin off my nose - I've actually done sponsorship work for a living, so I'm not bent out of shape that a bunch of code monkeys are butthurt when someone explains reality to them.
Any post that dares suggest that programmers are not on a social par with structural engineers and cardiac surgeons tends to approach -1 asymptotically.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
That only works when you get the people drunk first. The contestants were way to sober and strung up from drinking Mountian Dew.
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.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
By asking "Which is it?" you make it sound like those two beliefs are contradictory and I don't believe that they are.
So long as feminists acknowledge that men are also capable of "bringing unique abilities and perspectives to the table" then it is not hypocritical.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
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
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
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 akward and hard to work with.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
While Pepsi may indeed be utter twats, it was fucking poor showing by the developer.
Show some fucking respect for your client.
Exactly, Dance monkeys DANCE!
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
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.
umm, no
1 they were allowed water
2 event was PAID FOR by Pepsi. If Pepsi says naked hoola hoops, and you signed contract that stated naked hoola hoops, then shut the f up and dance monkey dance.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
"Contracts" or not, the developers' reaction was the correct one.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Not because he worked for the sponsor, because sponsor WANTED it and PAID for it and contestants AGREED to it by signing contracts.
Whole game jam was supposed to be a documentary, but along the way someone decided that money is nice and he wants some of it = half a mil sponsorship deal and change of format.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Professionals do the job and get paid.
They did neither.
End of argument.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'd say this again, keep these liberal arts oppertunist shitheads away from all things in the nerd world.
All this do is stir up all shits to revel in the conflict, and create problems for themselves to solve.
I think I am slowly comming about to this type of "consultant" getting what they reffer to as a "boot party".
I am beginning to wonder if this is feminism, or agitators looking to make problems
It also goes in the reverse, as well. You can't pull something like that and honestly expect professionals to just take it. Pepsi blew this one, big time.
Let me put it this way: There is absolutely no surprise that there is a significant failure rate if you try to treat the workers like that. That's why people in the real world are laughing at the people who believe this shit and thusly drive that failure rate sky high.
Thank you. Would mod this up if I could.
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Yes, how dare you make a personal choice about something that does not align to the interests of the people who are paying you to do something totally unrelated to this personal choice.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that can't understand this gibberish. I lost 3 karmas on hacker news for posting about how incomprehensible it was. It's also too long, too boring, and I still don't know what a Game Jam is.
There are a lot of people who find the false drama of unreality shows to be an utter turn-off. I would have loved to watch something like this without the injection of false drama. Unreality TV plays to the least common denominator, which is why they tend to perform poorly when targeting technically literate people as a demographic.
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.
Why the hell should they even CARE? What the coders drink is not their business. It's unprofessional to bring a drink in to a meeting unless it was assumed to be that informal, perhaps, but otherwise...
If Pepsi caused fuss about a can of coke on someone's desk then I'd agree that they were unreasonable.
When someone brings a can of coke into a meeting - and nobody's brought a can or bottle of coke or pepsi to any meeting I've been in for months - then I can understand that this is interpreted as either antagonism or a lack of business sense, and either are reasonable grounds to challenge the competence of the developer.
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
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Again, that's for a 9-5 desk job. The rules on a reality show (or on television in general) are quite different. No one is suggesting that your boss "willfully misrepresents" your work to create drama while you're managing a SQL server at Edward Jones. No one is suggesting that your boss dictate what you can drink while working at Google. You are talking about something that you know absolutely nothing about. If you are so interested in improving the failure rate, then try working in the business instead of spouting off on the Internet.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
These were not "professionals". Any professional actor would know what a director's function is, and know how to complain when someone on the set is being a jerk. These were professional programmers who thought that their skills magically transferred to other fields, fields which they actually knew nothing about. No one has answered this - why was there not a single director in charge of this? Why didn't any of the programmers speak up about that?
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
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!
Playing it safe in a volatile environment is not childish. It is often prudent. Think of it like going below deck in a storm or grabbing your kids and taking them to storm cellar when there is a tornado. Avoiding the stock market when it starts see sawing all over the place.
Its not childish to avoid volatility. Its childish to create it without purpose.
The only time you want volatility is when you want to hurt people or destroy things. That is the use of volatility. Its destructive. In wars you love volatility... but only amongst the enemy. You want their whole world to be nothing but volatility.
Interesting times as the Chinese curse went. But in business? Its bad. And from employees, business partners, etc... unacceptable. Don't rock the boat because the damn thing will tip over and then everyone is fucked.
Its bad for business. Don't do it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Are you agreeing with me or are you so confused that you didn't realize you just made my point?
Just curious.
As you said, part of that job was providing entertainment... the consultant as you likely gathered was grasping for some tension or something that he could use to spice the show up a bit so it was more interesting.
That's not unreasonable. The people in question want to be upset about that? Express that frustration in a reasonable way. Tell the interviewer why that is offensive and make that part of the show.
That's good television.
Killing the show... bad television.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Again, you're not doing your job if you don't treat your workers with respect. No shit if you bring in people who aren't actors for a gig they have specialized skills for and then expect them to put on a marketer's act, who didn't do their job?
You're right, the best response to a work related problem is to take your issue to social media and destroy the project and burn your relationship with companies that wanted to do business with you.
You're a genius. Never change.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
All I'm getting is "blah blah blah I don't believe in science". When you can demonstrate the ability to completely and perfectly control your emotions in a controlled experiment, I will totally fake caring about what you say. Until then I'm not gonna even bother pretending.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Sometimes, context is a thing. In terms of raw abilities, there is very little (apart from a few very specific biological functions) that cannot be done by both men and women. There might be some statistical variance, but in practice you are much better off evaluating individual competence only.
However, there are specific experiences that only some people will have had, and those can lead to perspectives differing between people.
Friend of mine once happened to go to lunch with some coworkers, and by coincidence ended up in a car in which she was the only white person. And so when the topic of conversation naturally turned to "places where the police pull you over and claim it was random", she was supriseed to find out that she had never experienced this, but that everyone else in the car had an actively-maintained mental map of the locations of "random" police stops. Because they had to assume that if they drove through a few of those, they would get pulled over at least once, and it would add a few minutes to how long it would take to get somewhere.
This isn't a reflection of some kind of innate quality people get from their skin color that affects their ability to remember where the cops do or don't "randomly" pull people over, but it is a case where different people will have very different experiences.
Men and women are both capable of being comparably-skilled programmers. But skill at programming is not the only useful thing in software development; awareness of the experiences users will be bringing to the table can be relevant.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
They absolutely were professionals. These were professional programmers and content creators who work out in the real world where they've tried very hard to cut out the overbearing boss who doesn't know how to do his job. Why didn't they just get actors for their GAME JAM if they wanted to shoot a commercial? This wasn't a commercial, this wasn't an advertisement reel, this was an event that Pepsi made a deal to sponsor. Then Pepsi's guy decided it was his commercial, and made it so the professional content creators who were there for a game jam were treated as if they were actors in a Pepsi commercial. No, the marketing droids did not do their jobs.
While the big thing is sports game sales, Pepsi will insert themselves into every aspect of your work life.
We used to have vending machines stocked and owned by an EBA. Pepsi said NO! They were removed, and replaced with Pepsi owned machines, selling only Pepsi owned company products.
Pepsi made all of the coffee services in our (and every) building use only Pepsi owned coffee machines and Pepsi owned coffee
It was beyond belief the amount of money PepsiCo made for a few million dollars given to the University. My guess is their payback over the length of the contract was something like a few weeks, then - 4.PROFIT!
The ill will it generated was also something to behold. There was now a market in contraband soda and snacks. People would "smuggle" Coke products into the workplace. Illegal coffee machines were not hard ro find. Their snack machines sat largely unused for years. Many of us still refuse to buy any PepsiCo products
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I think the key here is:
The vast majority of people who have spent any time as an adult woman in our society would never dream of claiming it "doesn't matter". That you benefit from most of the ways it matters, and take them for granted, is the problem, not the solution.
I think most people would agree that, if we could eliminate the disparities, there would be no real reason to pay attention to the issue any more, but that won't happen until we go through a period of being aware of them enough to do something about them.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Is this another of those "hope I don't get aids" idiots.. Different offense, but still Stoopid.... In fact what ghe did was worse.. That woman's text was a stupid impulse, but this guy really went at it.. with an overblown sense of self-importance.
Household brands names are rarely born over night.
I have one word of rebuttal for you: Kardashian.
Where did I say I didn't believe in science? What in fact does science have to do with this discussion at all?
You believe in science therefore you have a right to act like a spoiled brat? Show me the equation that backs that up?
Frankly, your whole post is irrational and baseless. It shows a lack of understanding for the subject matter and a lack of education as to how to construct rational thoughts. Beyond that, it appears to show a lack of intellectual integrity since it looks like the whole thing was really a very sloppy attempt at a strawman argument.
In short... you sound like a degenerate moron.
Would you like to try again... this time with less drool?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This guy must have been mentored by some prick who puts the average American through this kind of a crap on your standard American reality show.
So now we're comparing the experiences of women to the experiences of black people in the urban US, are we?
Saying that all of one gender gets treated uniformly the same is pretty simplistic. A tall, athletic, handsome and charismatic man in his 20s will be treated completely differently (and likely objectified, even fetishised) in various situations to a short, awkward, overweight balding man in his late 40s. A wealthy billionaire will get treated very differently to a Filipino man working over smoke mountain looking for roofing materials for his lean-to.
Why then are there no calls to include their voices on various projects? Given the economic disparities that exist, shouldn't there be consultations of people living in poverty, as they constitute a significant percentage of the population and have zero representation in most software development groups?
This is a bit like the way that women, despite being in the majority, obstinately still vote for male politicians much to the frustration of feminists who want to turn the world into a juvenile playground where boys have cooties. Women identify themselves first as human beings, not as women as a class (which would probably be somewhere behind their nationality and their career), and use their voting power not to gain some female perspective but to put the best candidate that best represents their views into office.
Calls to include women simply because they are women are blatantly sexist, in fact.
The latter.
A little gender diversity (and diversity of any and all kinds, really) goes a long way to not only keeping group-think out, but keeping the worst impulses of humanity out.
It happens all of the time. "Hollywood" people don't actually know what makes a show successful, so they go with whatever seems to be in the last successful show. They don't undestand what -really- made it work, so they sieze on what they can do easily. They often end up forcing stuff that was actually bad for the show, or stuff that can't work in the new show.
It's basically a form of superstition, like "what was there must be the reason for it."
The consultant has destroyed something that might have been a big success. If you want to be successful, listen to consultants but take what they say "with a large grain of salt".
"90 percent of -anything- is bullshit."
Oh there is MORE to this story.
He did not know it was pepsi. They did this to him all the time with random clients. We always bring our drinks off our desks...
They had us remove the coke machines from the building before they would have the first meeting with us. Like I said cray cray...
Coke does the same thing BTW...
In 2013, at the NCAA basketball play-in games in Dayton, the Pepsi and NCAA staff would not let media people take Coke products to their tables, courtside. The solution was to pour the Coke into Pepsi cups. Of course, this pissed off the media, who promptly wrote stories about this. Similar stories exist about the Olympics and other events that rely on sponsorship. And it is no different than how TV controls game start times and schedules.
Bullshit
"Hey, kid. If you get down in that mine, dig out the coal, and bring it back to me, I'll pay you. ...What? You want a light? Why did you take the job if you don't have the tools to do it? Batteries cost money, kid. ...What? What's all this whining about dust and poisonous gases and how you can't carry more than two lumps because you're only six years old? I'm paying you; do your job. You don't want to be thought of as unprofessional, do you?"
What self-serving sophistry.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
You're right... throwing a hissy fit and running off to social media to complain is the most reasonable response.
Twit.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Some people pass joints around their business meetings. Not everyone works in stuffy, fscked up environments that require robotic conformity.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Ex-fucking-zactly? kinda the whole goddamn point, anger-bro. They ain't doing their jobs and no one would reasonably argue that they are.
That dictionary definition is accurate but not precise.
For instance, failing to define an obscure word that does appear in major dictionaries, but is unfamiliar to 99% of the population, does not make you illiterate. Nor does not knowing an unfamiliar idiom.
The context wasn't "downing their tools", it was "downing their tools and the projection collapsing", with a typo. Note the summary has been edited to fix the typo.
When something that doesn't look like a word is paired with an obviously wrong word, it is totally fair to guess that maybe the entire sentence is fucked up.
(Especially when nobody was necessarily holding tools in the first place)
Why do you think shows need drama?
Is drama the single, the only interesting thing in the world?
I believe female programmers are at an advantage. It makes me very sad, I think that not only do female programmers do a good job, but it's so wasteful that not more girls have followed this path, when so many would be so good at it.
Although I tend to avoid game programming myself; it seems to be full of stress, hurt and stupid management decisions.
(My SO is a female embedded programmer.)
Yes, it is a reasonable and measured response.
After all, you're calling people twits over far less.
I'm an American and I was highly confused, too. The problem, I think, is that all three words of the phrase are ambiguous, in ways that compound the confusion. I've never heard "downing" used in the context of taking something you hold in your hands, and putting it down on the table. We always say we "put it down" for that. We reserve "downing" for somewhat more aggressive contexts. That amplifies an ambiguity on the word "their": does "their" mean the programmers themselves, or the Pepsi consultants? Finally, the word "tools" is being used here in a metaphorical sense. We Americans know well the term "programmer's tools", but you don't really hold compilers and debuggers in your hands, do you? So the phrase takes the analogy that compilers and debuggers are like hammers and saws, and extends it to say they are putting them down on the table as if they were hammers and saws. Only it doesn't say they've put them down, it says they've downed them. And it doesn't say "programmer's tools", it just says "tools", which might conceivably have a couple of completely different idiomatic meanings: male body parts, or people who are cluelessly obnoxious.
Humans are naive, Corporations are outright delusional. Shills are silly.
And reacting to that can is NOT unprofessional?
Good-bye
Uhh.... here's a clue, Einstein, a shill for Pepsi wouldn't call them "the epitome of a soulless American corporation". You'd think things like that would be obvious.
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
They're the client. They don't have to act professionally.
And this is Pepsi. Everybody knows they're complete cocks when it comes to their main rival, and vice-versa. Deal with it, or don't deal with them.
very good games in this site oyunlar or oyun oyna
You're still looking at it from the outside. I negotiated sponsorships with corporations in a past life. There is a significant failure rate - some ideas seem good at first glance, but just don't work out. Pepsi realizes this, and isn't heartbroken when money is spent on testing an idea. It is unlikely that this is a "failure" to them. In fact, the vast majority of sponsorship ideas go nowhere. People who are not familiar with the process think that the large corporation just gives you a ton of money to have their name somewhere in small print in the background. It just doesn't work that way. The lower profile the event, the more exposure they will want to squeeze out of you. If you don't like that, just produce the project yourself. http://www.hasoyun.net/macera-...
I am beginning to think that what the world needs is more female hackers, so we can beat the agitators to the punch. We also need more minorities.
the intent is to keep the scene the scene without letting corporate agitators use race, sex, etc... as an excuse to divide the scene and force agendas.
Think about how everytime some alternative brand of politics is brought up, and the usual corporate tools spend weeks harping that the effort to buy minority votes the major party spent means we are not racist/sexist for following them.
We see these proffesional activists show up in the geek/hacker scene trying to make a name for themselves by cherry picking examples to blow up for fame and fortune, while meanwhile they don't contribute anything, either personality or code.
--Gordon Ramsay has HIGH STANDARDS - that's why he excoriates people who settle for mediocre/unseasoned/not done well. Watch him in some other stuff besides Hell's Kitchen - he's actually a pretty cool guy.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Actually, yes.
I wouldn't expect a director making a horror movie to hire someone who disdained horror movies. Sure, maybe the camera work would be exactly the same, but you want people excited to be working on a project.
If you work at Pepsi, and you're really bought into the brand, then you care about it. And you think it's a core part of business. So someone drinking Coke would be a pariah.
Your ad here. Ask me how!