Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter

Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too "Woke"

In a post on Instagram, Cliff Bleszinski offers his frank reflections on what he could have done differently to increase the chances of succeeding with LawBreakers, the debut title from his now defunct developer, Boss Key Productions (thanks Wccftech). The former Epic Games designer admits that along with being a direct competitor to Overwatch, the multiplayer first-person shooter was probably harmed by the insertion of his personal politics and efforts at being woke. Here's his postmortem on LawBreakers, which only survived for about 13 months:
Ever since the studio closed I've been wracking my brain what I could have done differently. Pivot HARD when the juggernaut of Overwatch was announced. Been less nice with my design ideas and more of a dictator with them.

One big epiphany I had was that I pushed my own personal political beliefs in a world that was increasingly divided.

Instead of the story being "this game looks neat" it became "this is the game with the 'woke bro' trying to push his hackey politics on us with gender neutral bathrooms." Instead of "these characters seem fun" it was "this is the studio with the CEO who refuses to make his female characters sexier." Instead of "who am I going to choose" it became "white dude shoehorns diversity in his game and then smells his own smug farts in interviews" instead of just letting the product ... speak for itself.

It's okay to be political when your company or studio is established for great product FIRST. But we were unproven and I regret doing it. (This will be quite the doozy of a chapter in the upcoming memoir.)
View
104 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


104. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 13, 2020, 09:13  RedEye9 
 
Quinn wrote on Feb 13, 2020, 03:12:
Beamer wrote on Feb 12, 2020, 19:31:
Dave Draiman, aside from being a terrible singer in a terrible band, is an avowed "anti-SJW" that stupidly conflates disliking Israel to disliking Jewish people. He's pretty conservative. So I highly doubt your version of the events. At the very least, it's coming from a different place than you think. He endlessly whines about people being too offended, while also endlessly villifying Palestinians.

A friend and colleague was at the show when he was on vacation. He showed me the video (he was filming because he expected them to actually perform). The first few minutes Dave talked about the seriousness of suicided (understandable place and time, considering the target group) and after that the longer half of his long speech was about what I mentioned below. The friend said some people got so tired of the lecture they literally left (which was also seen in his video) and he was considering to do so as well.

But. But...
This is a common thing that's happening here on Blues and everywhere else: we are now suddenly talking a boring talk about an example I gave to make it easier for others to understand my point (the general reason why examples are used). It would've been completely fine if the entire example was fictional, as long as it was believable and if I announced it was fictional as a caveat.
The result is that, somehow, my entire point was ignored/dismissed and now we're talking about Dave fucking Draiman. It feels very insincere. My message explaining people's issues with wokeness was me trying to build a bridge between us who disagree in this constant, violent and overly unfriendly discussion about this and similar topics.
Get a clue.

We are sick of people who post when they are drunk or suffer from white fragility.
Those who don't research what they post and use Breitbart as their shallow pool of knowledge and think a fictional example is a good example (or in this case, a supposed real example that your friend at a concert experienced while tripping balls. Reset yourself and tell your friends to do the same.).

Artists, actors, musicians and playwrites (ever heard of William Shakespeare) have been making political statements since the dawn of time.

This comment was edited on Feb 13, 2020, 14:24.
 
Avatar 58135
 



Vaccines Cause Immunity
Welcome to the Anthropocene
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

103. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 13, 2020, 03:12 Quinn
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 12, 2020, 19:31:
Dave Draiman, aside from being a terrible singer in a terrible band, is an avowed "anti-SJW" that stupidly conflates disliking Israel to disliking Jewish people. He's pretty conservative. So I highly doubt your version of the events. At the very least, it's coming from a different place than you think. He endlessly whines about people being too offended, while also endlessly villifying Palestinians.

A friend and colleague was at the show when he was on vacation. He showed me the video (he was filming because he expected them to actually perform). The first few minutes Dave talked about the seriousness of suicided (understandable place and time, considering the target group) and after that the longer half of his long speech was about what I mentioned below. The friend said some people got so tired of the lecture they literally left (which was also seen in his video) and he was considering to do so as well.

But. But...
This is a common thing that's happening here on Blues and everywhere else: we are now suddenly talking a boring talk about an example I gave to make it easier for others to understand my point (the general reason why examples are used). It would've been completely fine if the entire example was fictional, as long as it was believable and if I announced it was fictional as a caveat.
The result is that, somehow, my entire point was ignored/dismissed and now we're talking about Dave fucking Draiman. It feels very insincere. My message explaining people's issues with wokeness was me trying to build a bridge between us who disagree in this constant, violent and overly unfriendly discussion about this and similar topics.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

102. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 12, 2020, 19:31  Beamer 
 
Dave Draiman, aside from being a terrible singer in a terrible band, is an avowed "anti-SJW" that stupidly conflates disliking Israel to disliking Jewish people. He's pretty conservative. So I highly doubt your version of the events. At the very least, it's coming from a different place than you think. He endlessly whines about people being too offended, while also endlessly villifying Palestinians.  



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

101. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 12, 2020, 17:21  Mr. Tact 
 
Cliff, you made it to 100! Congrats!  



"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

100. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 12, 2020, 16:36 Quinn
 
RedEye9 wrote on Feb 12, 2020, 16:08:
Quinn wrote on Feb 12, 2020, 14:26:
Disturbed. Concert in New York.
Holy fuck.
That must have been horrific for you. Sad
I hope you’re O.K.

Horrific?
For me?

You really believe what you think you read, don't you kid? Calm down. You're so quick to lable those you believe are on the opposing side, that you actively install bugs into the interface that should help you converse with others you don't agree with. Reset yourself and tell your friends to do the same.

This comment was edited on Feb 12, 2020, 18:40.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

99. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 12, 2020, 16:08  RedEye9 
 
Quinn wrote on Feb 12, 2020, 14:26:
Disturbed. Concert in New York.
Holy fuck.
That must have been horrific for you. Sad
I hope you’re O.K.
ADDED OBVIOUS SARCASM TAG

This comment was edited on Feb 12, 2020, 20:24.
 
Avatar 58135
 



Vaccines Cause Immunity
Welcome to the Anthropocene
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

98. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 12, 2020, 14:26 Quinn
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 12, 2020, 07:51:
Quinn wrote on Feb 12, 2020, 06:39:
Beamer wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 21:33:
ventry wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 17:51:
NKD wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 20:38:
Quinn wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 16:14:
"Go woke, go broke" is a real thing in many cases,

In what cases?

Not gaming related but, the first thing that came to mind.....
Gillette.
Wrote down the value of the brand a whopping $8 Billion after their stupid advert that targeted their main customers as "toxic".
Stupid pricks.

Someone here is a stupid prick, but it's not Gillette. It's the man too dumb to get his information anywhere other than Brietbart.

1) P&G wrote down $8 billion. I at least give you credit for being smart enough to say they wrote it down, not lost it. Most aren't that bright, but it's still not very bright

2) They did not do this due to the commercial

3) In fact, they did this about a month after the commercial aired. You'd have to be a special kind of "stupid prick" to think that a company decide to write down $8 billion in about a month

4) What P&G did was write down the value from the purchase price in 2005

5) This makes some sense. When P&G bought Gillette, it owned the razor market. It was bought at its peak

6) But times rapidly changed. First, their share shrank. While Gillette could slaughter rivals like Schick, it never expected the rise of Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, which took about a combined 10% of the market, and took it primarily from Gillette

7) At the same time, the category shrank. Leave your mom's basement for a few hours and look at the men. In 2005, they were all clean shaven. Over the past 4 or 5 years, beards have been in style. Men have stopped shaving as often, meaning they're buying fewer razors, meaning the entire category is smaller

8) So, in summary, Gillette was written down because the category shrank, and because their share of that shrank. This was a decision that would take several quarters to make, yet was announced mere months after the commercial

9) Stupid pricks think there's a connection to the commercial, but that's why they're stupid pricks. They don't understand anything, they just have enormous confirmation bias, because they're dumb, and they like saying things like "go woke, get broke" despite there being ample evidence that it isn't true. In reality, these stupid pricks are fragile individuals with no actual accomplishments of their own, and desperately think any attention to people not like them diminishes their chances of future success, and freak out like absolute stupid pricks

Good god, thinking that there's a connection between the commercial and the write-down is the absolute dumbest thing people believe. It's only believed, though, by the absolute stupidest pricks.

Such vitriol. And I remember Blue deleted a long comment of mine because one sentence started with "don't be a cunt"

Look, the woke message or messages are good. I feel many people (in this case on the political left) misinterpret critique toward wokeness as critique against the validity of the message. This is an absolute false interpretation and I bet my left nut that the absolute majority of people who are against wokeness are for the content of the message (except the message from those deluded motherfuckers who think it's OK to talk shit about an entire race as long as that race is white).

The thing is, for everything is a time and a place. When a hardrock band spends the first 15 minutes of what should be performing their art lecturing everyone about how their fans should be tolerant to all ethnic groups and cultures, a paying fan who already shares those ideals has every right to be pissed off about it. That's just one example. There are many more.

Anyway, that's what basically everyone against the woke movement is actually against. Not the message, but the time, place and also the way in which a message is being given.

The commercials appealed to their audience, and alienated consumers they chose not to target. Much like how, when Larry David was asked if his MAGA hat joke would scare off some viewers, he said let them be scared.

Some people aren't desirable to have as your audience. You don't need to appeal to everyone.

As for your hard rock band example, since you don't mention names I have no clue what you mean, but I'm guessing it didn't really happen how you're saying it happened. That's just one example of why you have a reputation of being close minded to anything not appealing primarily to white people around here.

Here we go again with the little insults, acting like you and your less-than-a-handful of fellow buddies can tell me what my reputation on this site is. Speak for yourself and stop being a c-- Oops, you'll report me if I finished that thought.

Anyway: Disturbed. Concert in New York.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

97. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 12, 2020, 10:38  RedEye9 
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 21:33:
ventry wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 17:51:
NKD wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 20:38:
Quinn wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 16:14:
"Go woke, go broke" is a real thing in many cases,

In what cases?

Not gaming related but, the first thing that came to mind.....
Gillette.
Wrote down the value of the brand a whopping $8 Billion after their stupid advert that targeted their main customers as "toxic".
Stupid pricks.

Someone here is a stupid prick, but it's not Gillette. It's the man too dumb to get his information anywhere other than Brietbart.

1) P&G wrote down $8 billion. I at least give you credit for being smart enough to say they wrote it down, not lost it. Most aren't that bright, but it's still not very bright

2) They did not do this due to the commercial

3) In fact, they did this about a month after the commercial aired. You'd have to be a special kind of "stupid prick" to think that a company decide to write down $8 billion in about a month

4) What P&G did was write down the value from the purchase price in 2005

5) This makes some sense. When P&G bought Gillette, it owned the razor market. It was bought at its peak

6) But times rapidly changed. First, their share shrank. While Gillette could slaughter rivals like Schick, it never expected the rise of Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, which took about a combined 10% of the market, and took it primarily from Gillette

7) At the same time, the category shrank. Leave your mom's basement for a few hours and look at the men. In 2005, they were all clean shaven. Over the past 4 or 5 years, beards have been in style. Men have stopped shaving as often, meaning they're buying fewer razors, meaning the entire category is smaller

8) So, in summary, Gillette was written down because the category shrank, and because their share of that shrank. This was a decision that would take several quarters to make, yet was announced mere months after the commercial

9) Stupid pricks think there's a connection to the commercial, but that's why they're stupid pricks. They don't understand anything, they just have enormous confirmation bias, because they're dumb, and they like saying things like "go woke, get broke" despite there being ample evidence that it isn't true. In reality, these stupid pricks are fragile individuals with no actual accomplishments of their own, and desperately think any attention to people not like them diminishes their chances of future success, and freak out like absolute stupid pricks

Good god, thinking that there's a connection between the commercial and the write-down is the absolute dumbest thing people believe. It's only believed, though, by the absolute stupidest pricks.
7. b. The population is aging and the older we get hair growth slows down, requiring less shaving. And as people age out of the work force and the jobs that required them to shave regularly, many are opting not to keep up with the daily grind.
Thanks Beamer, your post is spot-on.
 
Avatar 58135
 



Vaccines Cause Immunity
Welcome to the Anthropocene
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

96. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 12, 2020, 07:51  Beamer 
 
Quinn wrote on Feb 12, 2020, 06:39:
Beamer wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 21:33:
ventry wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 17:51:
NKD wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 20:38:
Quinn wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 16:14:
"Go woke, go broke" is a real thing in many cases,

In what cases?

Not gaming related but, the first thing that came to mind.....
Gillette.
Wrote down the value of the brand a whopping $8 Billion after their stupid advert that targeted their main customers as "toxic".
Stupid pricks.

Someone here is a stupid prick, but it's not Gillette. It's the man too dumb to get his information anywhere other than Brietbart.

1) P&G wrote down $8 billion. I at least give you credit for being smart enough to say they wrote it down, not lost it. Most aren't that bright, but it's still not very bright

2) They did not do this due to the commercial

3) In fact, they did this about a month after the commercial aired. You'd have to be a special kind of "stupid prick" to think that a company decide to write down $8 billion in about a month

4) What P&G did was write down the value from the purchase price in 2005

5) This makes some sense. When P&G bought Gillette, it owned the razor market. It was bought at its peak

6) But times rapidly changed. First, their share shrank. While Gillette could slaughter rivals like Schick, it never expected the rise of Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, which took about a combined 10% of the market, and took it primarily from Gillette

7) At the same time, the category shrank. Leave your mom's basement for a few hours and look at the men. In 2005, they were all clean shaven. Over the past 4 or 5 years, beards have been in style. Men have stopped shaving as often, meaning they're buying fewer razors, meaning the entire category is smaller

8) So, in summary, Gillette was written down because the category shrank, and because their share of that shrank. This was a decision that would take several quarters to make, yet was announced mere months after the commercial

9) Stupid pricks think there's a connection to the commercial, but that's why they're stupid pricks. They don't understand anything, they just have enormous confirmation bias, because they're dumb, and they like saying things like "go woke, get broke" despite there being ample evidence that it isn't true. In reality, these stupid pricks are fragile individuals with no actual accomplishments of their own, and desperately think any attention to people not like them diminishes their chances of future success, and freak out like absolute stupid pricks

Good god, thinking that there's a connection between the commercial and the write-down is the absolute dumbest thing people believe. It's only believed, though, by the absolute stupidest pricks.

Such vitriol. And I remember Blue deleted a long comment of mine because one sentence started with "don't be a cunt"

Look, the woke message or messages are good. I feel many people (in this case on the political left) misinterpret critique toward wokeness as critique against the validity of the message. This is an absolute false interpretation and I bet my left nut that the absolute majority of people who are against wokeness are for the content of the message (except the message from those deluded motherfuckers who think it's OK to talk shit about an entire race as long as that race is white).

The thing is, for everything is a time and a place. When a hardrock band spends the first 15 minutes of what should be performing their art lecturing everyone about how their fans should be tolerant to all ethnic groups and cultures, a paying fan who already shares those ideals has every right to be pissed off about it. That's just one example. There are many more.

Anyway, that's what basically everyone against the woke movement is actually against. Not the message, but the time, place and also the way in which a message is being given.

The commercials appealed to their audience, and alienated consumers they chose not to target. Much like how, when Larry David was asked if his MAGA hat joke would scare off some viewers, he said let them be scared.

Some people aren't desirable to have as your audience. You don't need to appeal to everyone.

As for your hard rock band example, since you don't mention names I have no clue what you mean, but I'm guessing it didn't really happen how you're saying it happened. That's just one example of why you have a reputation of being close minded to anything not appealing primarily to white people around here.
 



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

95. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 12, 2020, 06:39 Quinn
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 21:33:
ventry wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 17:51:
NKD wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 20:38:
Quinn wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 16:14:
"Go woke, go broke" is a real thing in many cases,

In what cases?

Not gaming related but, the first thing that came to mind.....
Gillette.
Wrote down the value of the brand a whopping $8 Billion after their stupid advert that targeted their main customers as "toxic".
Stupid pricks.

Someone here is a stupid prick, but it's not Gillette. It's the man too dumb to get his information anywhere other than Brietbart.

1) P&G wrote down $8 billion. I at least give you credit for being smart enough to say they wrote it down, not lost it. Most aren't that bright, but it's still not very bright

2) They did not do this due to the commercial

3) In fact, they did this about a month after the commercial aired. You'd have to be a special kind of "stupid prick" to think that a company decide to write down $8 billion in about a month

4) What P&G did was write down the value from the purchase price in 2005

5) This makes some sense. When P&G bought Gillette, it owned the razor market. It was bought at its peak

6) But times rapidly changed. First, their share shrank. While Gillette could slaughter rivals like Schick, it never expected the rise of Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, which took about a combined 10% of the market, and took it primarily from Gillette

7) At the same time, the category shrank. Leave your mom's basement for a few hours and look at the men. In 2005, they were all clean shaven. Over the past 4 or 5 years, beards have been in style. Men have stopped shaving as often, meaning they're buying fewer razors, meaning the entire category is smaller

8) So, in summary, Gillette was written down because the category shrank, and because their share of that shrank. This was a decision that would take several quarters to make, yet was announced mere months after the commercial

9) Stupid pricks think there's a connection to the commercial, but that's why they're stupid pricks. They don't understand anything, they just have enormous confirmation bias, because they're dumb, and they like saying things like "go woke, get broke" despite there being ample evidence that it isn't true. In reality, these stupid pricks are fragile individuals with no actual accomplishments of their own, and desperately think any attention to people not like them diminishes their chances of future success, and freak out like absolute stupid pricks

Good god, thinking that there's a connection between the commercial and the write-down is the absolute dumbest thing people believe. It's only believed, though, by the absolute stupidest pricks.

Such vitriol. And I remember Blue deleted a long comment of mine because one sentence started with "don't be a cunt"

Look, the woke message or messages are good. I feel many people (in this case on the political left) misinterpret critique toward wokeness as critique against the validity of the message. This is an absolute false interpretation and I bet my left nut that the absolute majority of people who are against wokeness are for the content of the message (except the message from those deluded motherfuckers who think it's OK to talk shit about an entire race as long as that race is white).

The thing is, for everything is a time and a place. When a hardrock band spends the first 15 minutes of what should be performing their art lecturing everyone about how their fans should be tolerant to all ethnic groups and cultures, a paying fan who already shares those ideals has every right to be pissed off about it. That's just one example. There are many more.

Anyway, that's what basically everyone against the woke movement is actually against. Not the message, but the time, place and also the way in which a message is being given.

This comment was edited on Feb 12, 2020, 06:55.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

94. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 11, 2020, 21:33  Beamer 
 
007Bistromath wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 15:33:
Beamer wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 15:03:
"Fembusters," now that doesn't sound rational.
You're confusing irrationality with bias. Of course I have a bad opinion of both the movie and its political context. It is entirely possible for a criticism to be slanted but still make sense.

I'm using your terminology as evidence that you aren't thinking rationally. No one rational goes around using terminology like that.
 



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

93. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 11, 2020, 21:33  Beamer 
 
ventry wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 17:51:
NKD wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 20:38:
Quinn wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 16:14:
"Go woke, go broke" is a real thing in many cases,

In what cases?

Not gaming related but, the first thing that came to mind.....
Gillette.
Wrote down the value of the brand a whopping $8 Billion after their stupid advert that targeted their main customers as "toxic".
Stupid pricks.

Someone here is a stupid prick, but it's not Gillette. It's the man too dumb to get his information anywhere other than Brietbart.

1) P&G wrote down $8 billion. I at least give you credit for being smart enough to say they wrote it down, not lost it. Most aren't that bright, but it's still not very bright

2) They did not do this due to the commercial

3) In fact, they did this about a month after the commercial aired. You'd have to be a special kind of "stupid prick" to think that a company decide to write down $8 billion in about a month

4) What P&G did was write down the value from the purchase price in 2005

5) This makes some sense. When P&G bought Gillette, it owned the razor market. It was bought at its peak

6) But times rapidly changed. First, their share shrank. While Gillette could slaughter rivals like Schick, it never expected the rise of Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, which took about a combined 10% of the market, and took it primarily from Gillette

7) At the same time, the category shrank. Leave your mom's basement for a few hours and look at the men. In 2005, they were all clean shaven. Over the past 4 or 5 years, beards have been in style. Men have stopped shaving as often, meaning they're buying fewer razors, meaning the entire category is smaller

8) So, in summary, Gillette was written down because the category shrank, and because their share of that shrank. This was a decision that would take several quarters to make, yet was announced mere months after the commercial

9) Stupid pricks think there's a connection to the commercial, but that's why they're stupid pricks. They don't understand anything, they just have enormous confirmation bias, because they're dumb, and they like saying things like "go woke, get broke" despite there being ample evidence that it isn't true. In reality, these stupid pricks are fragile individuals with no actual accomplishments of their own, and desperately think any attention to people not like them diminishes their chances of future success, and freak out like absolute stupid pricks

Good god, thinking that there's a connection between the commercial and the write-down is the absolute dumbest thing people believe. It's only believed, though, by the absolute stupidest pricks.
 



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

92. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 11, 2020, 18:14  RedEye9 
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 18:07:
ventry wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 17:51:
Not gaming related but, the first thing that came to mind..... Gillette.

...SNIPPED For Sanity by RedEye9...

Didn't remember anything about this. Googled it, watched "The Best a Man Can Get" spot which was apparently criticized for "virtual signaling" and "making broad generalizations about male behavior" -- but it looked right on target to me. Anyone offended by that ad, doesn't live in the real world. Of course all men are not like that, but there are a LOT of men like that -- yes, even today. Gillette is part of P&G (which bought it in 2005 for $57b) and if they were concerned about, they didn't show it.
You didn't remember anything about it because the markdown had nothing to do with the ad campaign. Not to mention P&G stock is doing better than ever.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/12/11/18134456/best-razor-gillette-harrys-dollar-shave-club
 
Avatar 58135
 



Vaccines Cause Immunity
Welcome to the Anthropocene
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

91. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 11, 2020, 18:07  Mr. Tact 
 
ventry wrote on Feb 11, 2020, 17:51:
Not gaming related but, the first thing that came to mind..... Gillette.
Wrote down the value of the brand a whopping $8 Billion after their stupid advert that targeted their main customers as "toxic".
Stupid pricks.
Didn't remember anything about this. Googled it, watched "The Best a Man Can Get" spot which was apparently criticized for "virtual signaling" and "making broad generalizations about male behavior" -- but it looked right on target to me. Anyone offended by that ad, doesn't live in the real world. Of course all men are not like that, but there are a LOT of men like that -- yes, even today. Gillette is part of P&G (which bought it in 2005 for $57b) and if they were concerned about, they didn't show it.
 



"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

90. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 11, 2020, 17:51 ventry
 
NKD wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 20:38:
Quinn wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 16:14:
"Go woke, go broke" is a real thing in many cases,

In what cases?

Not gaming related but, the first thing that came to mind.....
Gillette.
Wrote down the value of the brand a whopping $8 Billion after their stupid advert that targeted their main customers as "toxic".
Stupid pricks.
 



The most powerful governments on earth can't stop a virus from spreading
BUT,
They can reduce the Earths temperature if you give them more of your money.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

89. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 7, 2020, 15:33 007Bistromath
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 15:03:
"Fembusters," now that doesn't sound rational.
You're confusing irrationality with bias. Of course I have a bad opinion of both the movie and its political context. It is entirely possible for a criticism to be slanted but still make sense.
 
Avatar 54732
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

88. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 7, 2020, 15:18  jdreyer 
 
Prez wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 22:15:
It's funny that this came up since I was thinking about it the other night. On a whim I started re-watching "The Shield" with Michael Chiklis last week. There was a rookie cop played by Michael Jace who was homosexual but trying desperately to fight the urges and hide his proclivity from his fellow officers. There was some very on-the-nose portrayal of homosexual activity throughout the season. I wondered why this never registered with me back when I watched it in the mid 2000's. The answer of course, was because it fit the narrative. It wasn't shoehorned in; it was a critical plot point that made for interesting drama. The show wasn't "getting woke". It was so well-acted that it was impossible not to empathize and, on some level, even relate with the character. I'd be lying if I said I didn't turn away from the screen during a lot of the portrayal of the intimacy between the 2 characters, as that's just not what I'm into, but I certainly didn't stop watching the show because this was good drama. That just so happened to involve some gay characters.

Ditto for The Wire. The Omar and Kima Greggs storylines, for example.
 
Avatar 22024
 



"Blizzard fucked up what should have been the easiest pile of free money ever." - NKD
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

87. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 7, 2020, 15:03  Beamer 
 
007Bistromath wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 14:17:
Beamer wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 13:10:
Reread this and ask yourself if it sounds reasonable, or if you're putting illogical motivations to people.
You are operating under the assumption that the people responsible for making Fembusters are rational actors and generally honest. Leaving aside that that is far too generous for that shitpile, all the interviews where they talk about their woke bullshit and all the backlash they supposedly received for it makes it pretty clear what was actually going on. They wanted people to argue about it on the internet, because if you have no real faith in your product, you think any publicity is good publicity. They multiplied their advertising budget by tenfold by stirring up controversy.

Now CliffyB seems to want some of that, or at least to be able to use his values (that he's never demonstrated in any of his work, becuase he's a puerile macho idiot who makes puerile macho games even when theyr'e good) as a crutch to lean on when his sales numbers give him a hard whack.

"Fembusters," now that doesn't sound rational.
 



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

86. No subject Feb 7, 2020, 14:23 007Bistromath
 
RedEye9 wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 14:20:
Step away from the keyboard and seek professional help. https://www.nami.org/#
"Sometimes corporate media jerks do disingenuous things to draw attention to themselves" isn't exactly "Bush did 9/11," guy.
 
Avatar 54732
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

85. Re: Cliff Bleszinski Says LawBreakers Too Feb 7, 2020, 14:20  RedEye9 
 
007Bistromath wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 11:42:
The intention was to make fans of the originals angry so that shitty woke people would defend it.
Step away from the keyboard and seek professional help. https://www.nami.org/#
 
Avatar 58135
 



Vaccines Cause Immunity
Welcome to the Anthropocene
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
104 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >