Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Indie Game Jam Show Collapses Due To Interference From "Pepsi Consultant"

Unknown Lamer posted about 8 months ago | from the do-the-what-are-you-twelve dept.

Games 465

Sockatume (732728) writes "Would you like to see a half-million-dollar TV show in which four teams of indie developers and Youtube personalities compete to create amazing videogames? Tough luck, because GAME_JAM from Maker Studios has spectacularly imploded. Although a lot could go wrong with this kind of show, the blame isn't being levelled at game developer egos or project mismanagement but the heroic efforts of one Matti Leshem, a branding consultant brought in for Pepsi. After imposing Mountain Dew branding rules that even banned coffee from the set, his efforts to build a gender divide amongst the teams culminated in the competitors downing their tools and the production collapsing. Accounts from Adriel Wallick, Zoe Quinn, and Robin Arnott are also available."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639625)

"...culminated in the competitors downing their tools and the projection collapsing." huh?

Re:wat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639653)

I think that's the nice way of saying they lit their hair on fire and almost killed them, just like Michael Jackson.

Re:jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639719)

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :
He is the son of Alyssa Leshem, a skin care specialist, and Moshe Leshem, former ambassador to Israel
/pol/ is always right. ALWAYS.

Re:wat? (3, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46639659)

Typo. I mean production. I definitely do not mean that existence is all an elaborate ruse to distract you from the terrifying truth about reality.

Nope.

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (4, Interesting)

Altus (1034) | about 8 months ago | (#46639779)

Part of the problem here is "downing their tools" which is an idiom that is not used in American english. While I was able to take a guess at what it meant it is confusing and awkward to those who are not familiar with the idiom.

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (5, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46639863)

Thanks, I had no idea it was a specifically British idiom. Sokath, his eyes uncovered.

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639881)

ok, but what does it mean?

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#46639917)

It does NOT mean that they ate their tools. You may down a few beers, but you may not down your tools.

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (4, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 8 months ago | (#46640215)

I tried downing my tool, but I couldn't reach.

Dante Hicks

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46640045)

downed- to put down

They put down their tools.

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640103)

Their tool is the coffee. So they downed each a mug of coffee and went home

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (1, Offtopic)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46639907)

Part of the problem here is "downing their tools" which is an idiom that is not used in American english. While I was able to take a guess at what it meant it is confusing and awkward to those who are not familiar with the idiom.

Mr. Smith, there will be no put-downs in this meeting.

Yo! I'm down with that.

Our dog is too old, so we're putting it down.

Rather than go uptown we're going downtown, Saturday night.

Looks like it was written by a claw shrimp - they live down deep.

The network is down, looks like switch failure.

Way, down upon the Swanee River, far, far away...

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639945)

What? I'm American. I had no issue whatsoever comprehending what "downing their tools" meant. Honestly, I think some people just love being purposely obtuse.

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (1)

Quirkz (1206400) | about 8 months ago | (#46640037)

I got it eventually but had to read it a couple of times. I think I was already thrown by the headline. The words "Indie Game Jam Show Collapses" - the last three words could be either nouns or verbs, and I couldn't figure out which. I'm short on sleep, though, so it may just be me.

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 8 months ago | (#46640191)

In an article where the tools explicitly described are coffee and Mountain Dew, and the standard American use of "downing X" means to "drink X", I can see the confusion (and was confused myself).

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (5, Insightful)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 8 months ago | (#46640009)

Even if it's not used in American English (which honestly, is surprising to me), it's not exactly obtuse or difficult to work it out. Putting ones tools down (and stopping work). What else could it mean? The only possible other interpretation is 'downing', as in 'consuming' ones tools, which obviously doesn't make any sense in this context.

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640029)

But it might make sense when you also consider that 'tool' is slang for male genitalia.

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (0)

mooingyak (720677) | about 8 months ago | (#46640053)

Even if it's not used in American English (which honestly, is surprising to me), it's not exactly obtuse or difficult to work it out. Putting ones tools down (and stopping work). What else could it mean? The only possible other interpretation is 'downing', as in 'consuming' ones tools, which obviously doesn't make any sense in this context.

Mostly it reads like a typo, making me wonder what word is missing.

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640071)

Their tools were more Mountain Dew!

Re:Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra (5, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46640125)

It's got the electrolytes that programmers crave!

His eyes, opened! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640135)

Altus and Sockatume at Slashdot.

Re:wat? (1, Informative)

kodiaktau (2351664) | about 8 months ago | (#46639857)

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... [thefreedictionary.com]

Fuck Pepsi and fuck beta!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639633)

Why would anyone drink Pepsi or Mountain Dew? Drinking cat piss or dog semen would be a better way to spend your time.

Re:Fuck Pepsi and fuck beta!! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#46639923)

To much information. Please don't tell us the rest of your life!

We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geeks (5, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#46639635)

We geeks are the doers.

We make things.

We create new stuffs.

We come up with new and exciting ideas.

But we are *NOT* tools for anyone.

That "pepsi consultant" can go eat shit and die - if he or she thinks he/she can push geeks to do whatever he/she likes.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (5, Insightful)

Kuroji (990107) | about 8 months ago | (#46639701)

The "consultant" thought he would make a name for himself by acting like Gordon Ramsay. Hilariously, he was right, just in the exact opposite of what he hoped for. Unlike the chef, he did nothing to earn any such position and tried to generate strife where there was none.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639985)

Or he applied the well known principle of "Management by Perkele." He's name is Matti, after all.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (5, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 8 months ago | (#46640075)

I've been a professional game programmer for quite a while. Yes, female programmers are rare. I've worked with only three or four in the last fifteen years or so if I recall correctly. They're mostly to be found in the art, design, QA, and production/management departments. To be honest, this always made me a little sad, because one of the big strengths of working on teams comes from having different skill sets of course, but also different opinions and viewpoints. As with anyone else, their actual skills varied quite a bit from person to person. But I really don't think it comes down to sexism or anything that people should freak out about - it's just not a job that appeals, for whatever reason, to a large number of women.

I've never even heard anyone at work malign someone on the job because they were female. Granted, I'm not exactly in the position to hear that sort of thing, but most developers I know don't have that sort of mind set to begin with. They're there because they love making games, and don't really care about whether someone is male or female. It never really made much of a difference to me, at least.

I'm proud of the devs for not taking the bait and declining to participate in this idiotic "Pepsi Consultant's" little drama show. What a fucking moron.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639819)

Eventually you'll be a grownup who needs a job.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639875)

not everyone falls into the same pitfalls as you do

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#46639889)

And then we'll still be better than idiots like you with no dignity or self-respect.

Not everyone who does things in the vague arena of entertainment wants to be a whore for a corporate product they don't actually endorse.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640127)

The chip you just developed will change your puny opinions!

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (-1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46640219)

I hope your dignity and self-respect keep your warm during your long wait at the bus stop.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640239)

If you sign up to do a reality tv show, you pretty much are whore of some sort.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (1, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 8 months ago | (#46639839)

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.

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)

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639925)

Such contracts are not godlike power, you don't get to tell people to do "whatever he/she likes", you are limited to what can reasonably be asked for for the money you are offering and the contract that was signed and all limited by the circumstances of the people you hire. If people will die if they quit then you can ask like this for all else there are limits! I see this idea that paying gives you unlimited power too often, it just is not true and worse it is also a justification for abusive, often unnecessarily abusive, behaviour.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (4, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 8 months ago | (#46640039)

Well, if the event was sponsored by Pepsi, yes. That's generally one of the conditions for sponsorship.

There's a big difference between putting up Pepsi logos and branding (which everyone involved said they were fine with) and forbidding anyone to use any drink that isn't a Pepsi product, including water and coffee. No one could reasonably have expected the latter going in.

Nor does corporate sponsorship imply that a "branding consultant" should engage in aggressively sexist behavior that would get someone fired if they did it in any normal white-collar office.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (1, Offtopic)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46640161)

Rule #1: Always read the contract carefully.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46639933)

A good allegory to this is the Simpsons episode with the "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show" show. A bit long for my ADD, but makes the point.

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46640079)

You also aren't very interesting watching, about as marginal an audience as for StripSearch.

At least not for the typical US audience. It's always fun to see how the same branded show will focus more on drama in the US while other countries focus more on information. You can actually watch cooking competitions from other countries where there's actual cooking being taught and shown!

Re:We are the geeks, we are not tools for non-geek (4, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 8 months ago | (#46640137)

But we are *NOT* tools for anyone.

Obviously, you've never been to Silicon Valley. That place is chock full of tools.

no kidding (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639645)

Sorry these nerds had to learn the hard way that pretty much everything on TV is fake.

Re:no kidding (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#46639871)

Sorry these nerds had to learn the hard way that pretty much everything on TV is fake.

I once tried to figure out what this "reality TV" thing was by watching one of those "tough job" shows. It was clear that the guys had a hard job but also much more clear that the TV people were trying to create drama and rifts where none or very little existed.

I might have kept watching if it was more about some of the really interesting challenges that the job entailed, but it turned out to be mostly about trying to get this guy to be mad at his boss, show how upset this other guy's wife was that his job required him to be gone for some lengths of time, etc.

But ... all that aside - these are indie developers and YouTube people who are trying to do something on broadcast TV with a Network get a half-million dollars in sponsorship from Pepsi? Dudes and dudettes - look into this Internet thing. If your idea doesn't suck, fund it on IndieGoGo and make it back with YouTube ads. Then again, maybe there's a reason they didn't go that route in the first place (they could fool Pepsi out of half a million but not ten thousand savvy investors).

Re:no kidding (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 8 months ago | (#46639965)

Totally this.

Deadliest Catch was actually initially interesting because it focused on the real and technical aspects of doing a legitimately dangerous job. It didn't take long for it to devolve into the typical reality TV pattern of all drama all the time. By the time I stopped watching, the fact that they were on a boat wasn't even that relevant any more.

Re:no kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640123)

I am mildly curious how much of it is intentional network manipulation and how much is merely the result of every minor difference of opinion being amplified by reruns and commercials. In a real-life situation without cameras, most conflicts tend to resolve themselves when all participants get a chance to step away, calm down, and start thinking about the other points of view (this may be during or after hospitalization, depending on the tempers involved). Being televised (or on an internet forum) removes the option of distancing yourself from the original conflict because there's always a bit of film (or a quoted post) available at a moment's notice.

Re:no kidding (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 8 months ago | (#46640197)

I think it's also a combination of people playing it up for the cameras, and the fact that they are condensing weeks (in some cases more) into 44 minutes (in some cases less). I generally consider myself pretty easy going, but if a film crew followed me around for 2 months, they could probably edit out a 44 minute video that would portray me however they wanted.

Less Confusing Thread Title Suggestion (0)

Huntr (951770) | about 8 months ago | (#46639667)

May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?'

yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639723)

I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Less Confusing Thread Title Suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639813)

May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?'

It would also be great if the linked story could get the story across without making it a novel written by someone with hubris the size of a planet.

Not really (1)

the_humeister (922869) | about 8 months ago | (#46639699)

Would you like to see a half-million-dollar TV show in which four teams of indie developers and Youtube personalities compete to create amazing videogames?

I'd rather play the game they made as a finished product instead.

Re:Not really (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 8 months ago | (#46639821)

And letting us vote on the games would be the competition.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639921)

And letting us vote on the games would be the competition.

ooh and we could all vote with our wall-hats... no wait that doesn't sound right, we could all vote with our mallets... no, how could we all vote on a product for sale?

Re:Not really (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 8 months ago | (#46640183)

With Dogecoins?

Integrity of everyone involved is compromised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639751)

Not that anyone took Maker Studios and everyone it employs seriously to begin with.

Are programmers really this naive? (0, Flamebait)

ZeroPly (881915) | about 8 months ago | (#46639757)

These guys made a deal with Pepsi, the epitome of a soulless American corporation which will drown fat teenagers in high fructose corn syrup to get a quarterly profit, and they expected Fiji water and organic bananas on the set?

There are about a gazillion indie film makers looking for work. If you don't like corporate, don't do corporate. Your little vanity project is helping keep the lardasses in this country hooked on Taco Bell and buckets of Pepsi, so please don't expect sympathy that your precious self had to drink some Mountain Dew.

I don't know, maybe for their next project they can ask for $5 million from Nike, and do the entire project barefoot... or better, see if Fox has any interest in a "I'm a clueless techie dork" reality show...

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46639845)

The programmers didn't make a deal with Pepsi; Maker Studio, a subsidiary of Disney, made the deal with the programmers, and also later made a deal with Pepsi. The half-million dollars burned probably wasn't Pepsi's, but the studio's.

I suggest reading the article. Any of the four.

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (4, Funny)

ultranova (717540) | about 8 months ago | (#46640021)

I suggest reading the article. Any of the four.

Except the one with the bright pink background. There's just no excuse for that.

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (-1)

ZeroPly (881915) | about 8 months ago | (#46640101)

From Adriel Wallick: "The game jam was to be sponsored by Pepsi and produced by Polaris/Maker."

That was after the contract negotiations. This wasn't a case where Maker Studios ran out behind the participants' backs and recruited Pepsi. The participants' knew from the onset that Pepsi was involved. Without Pepsi, there was no project, no matter how they try to spin this.

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. Sorry, you don't get to deal with the devil, and then complain that there's not enough water underneath those hot studio lights...

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#46640237)

The programmers didn't make a deal with Pepsi; Maker Studio, a subsidiary of Disney...

Heh, same difference. The devil takes many forms...

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639855)

RTFA, they had no problem being forced to drink their product. It was when this Matti Leshem from Pepsi intentionally posed sexists questions in mixed company in order to stir up controversy between developers that everyone was up in arms.

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 8 months ago | (#46639885)

Does Matti Leshem need to get Buzz Aldin'd?

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | about 8 months ago | (#46639891)

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

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (3, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#46640163)

Reality stars are people desperate for fame and "a shot" in hollywood. They get pushed around for bogus dreams of a future that they won't have.

Indie game devs are people with useful skills and degrees who could be making twice what they are right now, but chase the dream of making what they want, and doing what they enjoy. Rolling over for some corporate shill you can do at JP Morgan chase for a lot more money, and a lot less hassle.

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#46639909)

Or... and this is just an idea, they could keep the advertising separate. Advertise between segments, rather than expecting skilled, focused people to make concessions in the middle of a competition.

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 8 months ago | (#46640005)

These guys made a deal with Pepsi, the epitome of a soulless American corporation

However, Pepsi did burn Michael Jackson, literally, so give them a tiny bit of credit.

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (2)

jeff13 (255285) | about 8 months ago | (#46640069)

Let me get this straight...

You're telling me that because one is lucky enough to get a job they should happily accept being forbidden to do things, like drink coffee? There's a word for people like you.

Re:Are programmers really this naive? (0)

ZeroPly (881915) | about 8 months ago | (#46640145)

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.

A consultant making things worse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639791)

Thas unpossible!
Seriously, do consultans ever actually improve the situation?

This is not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639807)

Really. It's not.

Read the summary a couple times (1, Interesting)

korbulon (2792438) | about 8 months ago | (#46639809)

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.

Re:Read the summary a couple times (1)

rockout (1039072) | about 8 months ago | (#46639901)

Read at least one of the articles. They're actually pretty good. I can forgive the Australian summary, since it led me to a pretty interesting story.

Re:Read the summary a couple times (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46639959)

I'm not even Australian, apparently I just write in some sort of impenetrable code.

Re:Read the summary a couple times (5, Funny)

ErroneousBee (611028) | about 8 months ago | (#46640001)

Is that even English? Seems more like some dystopian futurespeak loosely based on a form of English which has been coopted by media and communications majors.

Not only is it English, it is British English from English Britain, the original and still the best English since 1066.

Accept no substitutes.

Re:Read the summary a couple times (1, Informative)

hendrips (2722525) | about 8 months ago | (#46640091)

So...Norman French? Because that's the language they were speaking after 1066...

Re:Read the summary a couple times (1, Interesting)

Rob Riggs (6418) | about 8 months ago | (#46640097)

Not only is it English, it is British English from English Britain, the original and still the best English since 1066.

More like the tortured English of Murdoch's London headline writers. I don't think they are required to have a complete understanding of the language. I could write a book entitled "How to turn any sentence into meaningless gibberish with just a Thesaurus" using just London newspaper headlines as examples.

Re:Read the summary a couple times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640049)

TFA is the same way.

Re:Read the summary a couple times (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 8 months ago | (#46640229)

I bet he drinks water, like from the toilet.

Man I did not see that one coming. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639811)

Jew goes int terminal overjew mode and jews event to death.

Guess participants will have to go back home now. I recommend they hit the showers.

Gender divide.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639829)

Nice butt! The ripped jeans were a bit over the top though. I wonder how many hundreds of dollars she spent on them... And that little metrosexual behind the camera and the other with the glasses, oh dear!

This article is awful (2, Informative)

Altus (1034) | about 8 months ago | (#46639835)

Practically unreadable. It is far too long and contains many run-on sentences. Further it is filled with jargon that is not explained.

Re:This article is awful (1)

hodet (620484) | about 8 months ago | (#46640175)

Whew. It's not just me then. I can appreciate how they stuck together though. They wanted drama, well they got it.

Re:This article is awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640199)

Right. The first article I tried to read and stopped after second subtitle. (Thank god for those). I tried to skip the introduction but to no good end.
Looks written more by an lawyer trying to document a disaster ,careful not to make angry any party in this screw up, than a reporter.

..and nothing of value was lost. (3, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about 8 months ago | (#46639843)

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.

Re:..and nothing of value was lost. (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 8 months ago | (#46640211)

The answer is "Some people who aren't you."

I would, except that the idea of another "drama" filled "reality" snorefest instead of a real documentary would ruin it.

Matti Leshem (3, Informative)

Webs 101 (798265) | about 8 months ago | (#46639877)

Gee, he doesn't look like a dick at all!

http://www.tvrage.com/person/i... [tvrage.com]

Re:Matti Leshem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640223)

Gee, he doesn't look like a dick at all!

http://www.tvrage.com/person/i... [tvrage.com]

You'd be shocked to discover he had a Trilby (not even a proper Fedora) - I feel like I can guess everything else about this guy's life at this point.

Fluff narrative (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639887)

Could that article be packed with any more narrative fluff?

Wat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639895)

How does one "down" their tools, or "level blame" at someone? Americans love to reinvent and "coolify" the English language in the most creative and pretentious ways.

there's obviously more too this (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46639905)

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.

Re:there's obviously more too this (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640111)

Read the articles. That was proposed by the sponsors after firing the asshole. However, the devs had lost so much energy and focus due to the jackass that they were pretty confident anything they'd come up with at that point would be crap. Rather than put out crap just to finish, they walked.

tldr (3, Insightful)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | about 8 months ago | (#46639927)

It opens with paragraphs of him saying how awesome he is. Funk dat.

the time cards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46639947)

Won't somebody please think of the time cards!?

because gender divide... (1)

Anathem (1983388) | about 8 months ago | (#46639951)

...is exactly what developers need. I know, I know make for good TV. Wait, does it?

Re:because gender divide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640165)

I think it's a necessary evil. As a culture changes a stereotype, it:

1) exploits/consumes it, while ignoring the individual's substance or difference from what is considered normal (Freddie Mercury)

2) makes it evil (the movie Warlock), Ursula (from The Little Mermaid who was modeled after a drag queen)

3) grudgingly accepts (RuPaul), still divided

4) majority acceptance (Ellen coming out)

5) changes laws because the population doesn't understand discrimination was even possible (getting fired for being trans-)

6) forgets that there's even a stereotype, or the stereotype fades to be meaningless (Irish-Americans)

I don't think that it's right to stir gender issues among programmers, but I think we're pretty early in the cycle, and our culture wants to change this stereotype, but we need to drag all the mess out of the closet and look at it before we can clean it up.

I'd watch that for a dollar (2)

mveloso (325617) | about 8 months ago | (#46640031)

I'm only about a third of the way into the article, and it's already hilarious.

You generally don't read a lot of crash and burn stories, so this is great. The author needs more drugs, though, and some speed.

Re:I'd watch that for a dollar (1)

mveloso (325617) | about 8 months ago | (#46640095)

As an aside, it shows how one person can make a difference - whether that difference is negative (in this case) or positive.

Maker Studios (1)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | about 8 months ago | (#46640051)

I would like to point out how buzzword-y the Maker Studios website [makerstudios.com] is.

Maker is a talent first, technology-driven media company. Entertainment is changing. Millennials are living a mobile, social, on-demand life.

Youtube Personalities? (2, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 8 months ago | (#46640073)

That's not a thing, that's just a narcissist.

Bloggers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640105)

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/181/457089364_f970a20953_o.jpg

When Markedroids try to lead... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46640213)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?