Limited Run Games "overjoyed" to partner with THQ Nordic

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lakeside

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,878
The reality is that a smaller company that associates with unpopular people is going to be more effected by that decision than a large company that makes a similar decision.

Social pressure rarely gets applied evenly. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. When people where putting pressure on platform holders to de-platform Alex Jones, the pressure was not applied evenly, but it still started a snowball effect that eventually rolled up more companies.

LRG made a choice here and they don’t get shielded from the consequences just because the outcome isn’t 100% just.
Pressure applied unevenly = Pressure applied in the most convenient locations.

You can justify your position all you want but what I see is a position that lets you do -something- without doing something that inconveniences you.
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,559
Boycotting due to allying with a known child porn loving company is now disproportionate, I've fucking heard everything now.
THQ also does business with the platform holders by default. You're going to be PC and mobile gaming only?

At the very least if you are going to continue boycotting LRG find a way to communicate that to them because they won't understand otherwise why they lost future revenue.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
Pressure applied unevenly = Pressure applied in the most convenient locations.

You can justify your position all you want but what I see is a position that lets you do -something- without doing something that inconveniences you.
You mean it's an inconvenience to apply the comments stated in here to an employee of a 12 person company who's releases you might not buy anyway, to the releases of Sony and MS which you drool furiously over when their Metacritic scores arrive? Guilt by association cannot exist for Steam, PSN and XBL, but it does with LRG due to Red Faction?

Well, I never. And here I thought boycotting and cancel culture would attempt to have some sort of consistency and not be a bullet-riddled hive of hypocrisy.

But hooray for our community probably chasing someone off a forum for a basic ass physical re-release of Red Faction, which as I've said a few times now, was probably initiated at the start of this year or something. I'd ask LimitedRunGames, you know, a sensible question to ask before the cancel culture race, but who does know if they'll come back any time soon?

I'd wager a guess they didn't just send an email to THQ last week saying "Hey, can we do a physical release for Red Faction?".
 

Lakeside

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,878
You mean it's an inconvenience to apply the comments stated in here to an employee of a 12 person company who's releases you might not buy anyway, to the releases of Sony and MS which you drool furiously over when their Metacritic scores arrive? Guilt by association cannot exist for Steam, PSN and XBL, but it does with LRG due to Red Faction?

Well, I never. And here I thought boycotting and cancel culture would attempt to have some sort of consistency and not be a bullet-riddled hive of hypocrisy.

But hooray for our community probably chasing someone off a forum for a basic ass physical re-release of Red Faction, which as I've said a few times now, was probably initiated at the start of this year or something. I'd ask LimitedRunGames, you know, a sensible question to ask before the cancel culture race, but who does know if they'll come back any time soon?

I'd wager a guess they didn't just send an email to THQ last week saying "Hey, can we do a physical release for Red Faction?".
I'm not sure why you are directing this at me when we seem to be saying the same thing. Or maybe you are agreeing with me in some way that went over my head, idk.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
I'm not sure why you are directing this at me when we seem to be saying the same thing. Or maybe you are agreeing with me in some way that went over my head, idk.
Agreeing with you, as I'm disappointed a genuinely reasonable response was met with such hostility and not one person even thought to ask when was the contract initiated to try and arrange a physical copy of Red Faction.

It seems to be exactly what you said, a matter of convenient location, to avoid a personal inconvenience. The excitement that fuels some people to engage in cancel culture, where sometimes you wonder if it is even good faith boycotting or personal morals, or just a rush of blood to the head in being able to directly throw shit at someone.
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,559
To be clear, we are overjoyed to bring Red Faction to physical format. Agreed that it was bad wording for the tweet, and for that we apologize. It should've been clearer.

We are not overjoyed with THQN's AMA on 8chan, to say the least, and in no way endorse it.
Understandable and appreciate some understanding of our reaction.

You'll have to be mindful going forward that a portion of your audience will refuse to but THQ related games because two people in leadership positions got involved and the apology that came afterward was terrible because it took a Microsoft employee 20 hours later to force them to take down their link to the AMA after the apology was made.

Personally I'll still keep on eye out for your future releases.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,040
OK, then your position is a lot more defensible. I disagree, there is no 'blended approach' if your issue is companies selling games from THQN. At that point, the volume of sales and importance of the business relationship (and thus effect on the offending corporation, in this case THQN) becomes relevant. It makes the decision to boycott the company that has the least amount of influence on THQN's success while continuing to support the companies that have to most influence over their success pretty indefensible if the goal is to hold THQN accountable or to limit any way which your money indirectly supports THQN.
The spiderweb of companies that do business with THQN is so massive that at some point, I will absolutely do something that benefits someone who intersects it. My core point is that I don't think it's a good idea to paralyze oneself into inaction for fear of not taking perfect action.

The overall goal isn't accountability per-se, it's doing something that could play a small part in effecting change. A smaller company like LRG is more likely to respond to this criticism than a larger one. If small companies start responding, it sets a precedent for the larger ones.

Pressure applied unevenly = Pressure applied in the most convenient locations.

You can justify your position all you want but what I see is a position that lets you do -something- without doing something that inconveniences you.
Yes, social pressure is often applied through points of low resistance. People are more often willing to sign a petition for a cause they support if a person shows up at their door with a clipboard than if they had to research it themselves. People are more likely to donate to disaster relief if they see a celebrity tweet about it. People are more likely to give to a food bank if you ask them while they are at a grocery store anyway. There is always a constant tension between the urge to do good and your own personal convenience. There have been marches I have wanted to go to that I have not because they were a little too far away or I didn't want to miss work, or I was just too tired that day. I have given less money than I should have to causes I believe in because I wanted to spend more money than I should have on Christmas presents. We have all ignored problems, cut corners or straight up taken actions that run counter to what we believe in because of the realities of our lives. That just makes us human. You have to do the best you can, acknowledge your faults and the faults of others and try to keep enough perspective to keep yourself heading in the right direction.

So yes, I do think it's important for people to do -something- even if it isn't the perfect something. And I think it's even ok to feel good about doing that -something- as long as you keep a little perspective. Because a lot of little somethings is actually how a lot of social change happens. We look back and only remember the big somethings, but it's the countless tiny personal choices that create the framework for big things to happen.
 

Lord of Ostia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,452
The spiderweb of companies that do business with THQN is so massive that at some point, I will absolutely do something that benefits someone who intersects it. My core point is that I don't think it's a good idea to paralyze oneself into inaction for fear of not taking perfect action.

The overall goal isn't accountability per-se, it's doing something that could play a small part in effecting change. A smaller company like LRG is more likely to respond to this criticism than a larger one. If small companies start responding, it sets a precedent for the larger ones.



Yes, social pressure is often applied through points of low resistance. People are more often willing to sign a petition for a cause they support if a person shows up at their door with a clipboard than if they had to research it themselves. People are more likely to donate to disaster relief if they see a celebrity tweet about it. People are more likely to give to a food bank if you ask them while they are at a grocery store anyway. There is always a constant tension between the urge to do good and your own personal convenience. There have been marches I have wanted to go to that I have not because they were a little too far away or I didn't want to miss work, or I was just too tired that day. I have given less money than I should have to causes I believe in because I wanted to spend more money than I should have on Christmas presents. We have all ignored problems, cut corners or straight up taken actions that run counter to what we believe in because of the realities of our lives. That just makes us human. You have to do the best you can, acknowledge your faults and the faults of others and try to keep enough perspective to keep yourself heading in the right direction.

So yes, I do think it's important for people to do -something- even if it isn't the perfect something. And I think it's even ok to feel good about doing that -something- as long as you keep a little perspective. Because a lot of little somethings is actually how a lot of social change happens. We look back and only remember the big somethings, but it's the countless tiny personal choices that create the framework for big things to happen.
But we aren't talking about the 'spiderweb of companies' somehow associated with THQN, we aren't discussing the logistics companies shipping their games in trucks or the contractors building their offices. We are talking about the other companies that are acting as retailers for their products, a very specific business relationship. So the larger companies' retail relationships with THQN represent virtually all of their profit, and yet the only place you are willing to draw the line at is the tiny 12 person retail outlet who is selling a single one of their products and immediately responded to criticism? You don't see how that seems so toothless and hypocritical to the point of absurdity?

It's not about being perfect, it's about having some semblance of consistency in what you claim as a value. Otherwise it's just pointless grandstanding to make yourself feel morally superior. Which is kind of the problem with attempting to conflate morality with consumer decisionmaking. Consuming or not consuming is not a moral act, because there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. That's not to say that there is no point to your consumer choices, just that there is no larger benefit outside of your own personal feelings and well-being.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,817
They should have done more research before the AMA, but I don't think anyone at THQ Nordic loves child pornography.
They were told about it on Twitter and said it was okay because someone was handling the nasty stuff. What nasty stuff do you think they were talking about?

There was a link for /trapshota/ - lolis with a few extra inches above all pages on 8chan's /v/. They literally had to scroll over a pedophilia link to post the thread.

They liked a post saying that the AMA and detractors were just sensitive was going great while the AMA was full of Nazis, anti-black racism, and what have you.

They responded to posts that talked about lolis or had homophobic slurs.



Claiming ignorance on their part ignores all the points wherein they demonstrated that they were not ignorant.
 

Lakeside

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,878
But we aren't talking about the 'spiderweb of companies' somehow associated with THQN, we aren't discussing the logistics companies shipping their games in trucks or the contractors building their offices. We are talking about the other companies that are acting as retailers for their products, a very specific business relationship. So the larger companies' retail relationships with THQN represent virtually all of their profit, and yet the only place you are willing to draw the line at is the tiny 12 person retail outlet who is selling a single one of their products and immediately responded to criticism? You don't see how that seems so toothless and hypocritical to the point of absurdity?

It's not about being perfect, it's about having some semblance of consistency in what you claim as a value. Otherwise it's just pointless grandstanding to make yourself feel morally superior. Which is kind of the problem with attempting to conflate morality with consumer decisionmaking. Consuming or not consuming is not a moral act, because there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. That's not to say that there is no point to your consumer choices, just that there is no larger benefit outside of your own personal feelings and well-being.
Thank you, you saved me a long post. The main issue that I take is that people will give the larger companies that represent a bigger financial stake a pass while trying to make an example out of a very small company that would actually suffer harm for something that another part of the "spiderweb" likely did after the agreement was in place.

I'm having to resist reiterating much of your post.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,040
But we aren't talking about the 'spiderweb of companies' somehow associated with THQN, we aren't discussing the logistics companies shipping their games in trucks or the contractors building their offices. We are talking about the other companies that are acting as retailers for their products, a very specific business relationship. So the larger companies' retail relationships with THQN represent virtually all of their profit, and yet the only place you are willing to draw the line at is the tiny 12 person retail outlet who is selling a single one of their products and immediately responded to criticism? You don't see how that seems so toothless and hypocritical to the point of absurdity?

It's not about being perfect, it's about having some semblance of consistency in what you claim as a value. Otherwise it's just pointless grandstanding to make yourself feel morally superior. Which is kind of the problem with attempting to conflate morality with consumer decisionmaking. Consuming or not consuming is not a moral act, because there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. That's not to say that there is no point to your consumer choices, just that there is no larger benefit outside of your own personal feelings and well-being.
I just don't understand how your model actually works to accomplish anything. You say than my stance is about creating a false sense of moral superiority, but from my perspective all I see is you throwing out a mix of moral absolutes and relativism to create a position of moral superiority for yourself. I just don't understand how your position works practically. I don't understand how being quiet and not making choices that actually directly affect groups you want to change. I don't understand how anyone can project any sort of morality on the world around them using what seems to be your standards. I just don't see how it works.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,040
Thank you, you saved me a long post. The main issue that I take is that people will give the larger companies that represent a bigger financial stake a pass while trying to make an example out of a very small company that would actually suffer harm for something that another part of the "spiderweb" likely did after the agreement was in place.

I'm having to resist reiterating much of your post.
I mean, I am a decision maker at a small company. I have to just understand the realities of how my choices intersect with my company's position in the world. This is something that I have to think about and deal with.

Even if this agreement predated THQN's actions, that doesn't really explain the tweet they made or their response in this thread. It feels like it was something that wasn't known or considered before they went public with this announcement. That sucks for them, and they are in an unenviable position. But I think it is completely reasonable for people to let their opinions about the situation be known in a respectful way. I think voicing displeasure is reasonable and I think allowing that displeasure to have an effect on their purchasing decisions is also reasonable. It's up to LRG to decide how they want to proceed. They will have to balance their existing commitments against whatever (probably relatively small) harm that could result in the change in perception some of their audience will have towards them. Hopefully they will take a moment, re-evaluate what they want their relationship between them and their audience to look like, and proceed in a way that they feel most comfortable with.
 

Lord of Ostia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,452
I just don't understand how your model actually works to accomplish anything. You say than my stance is about creating a false sense of moral superiority, but from my perspective all I see is you throwing out a mix of moral absolutes and relativism to create a position of moral superiority for yourself. I just don't understand how your position works practically. I don't understand how being quiet and not making choices that actually directly affect groups you want to change. I don't understand how anyone can project any sort of morality on the world around them using what seems to be your standards. I just don't see how it works.
If we are talking about making meaningful societal change, you do that through changing policy and through education and raising awareness. Individual consumption decisions are not an effective means of affecting societal change in the existing system we have now. Where have I claimed any moral superiority? I'm simply questioning the extent of your own value system based on the statements you've made. If you are asking me if I decline to consume certain goods or services based on personal reasons, yes absolutely. But those are not meaningful moral choices, simply personal ones.

I'm not saying 'be quiet' and I'm not saying 'do nothing'. I am saying that the decision to boycott the smallest retailer working with THQN for working with them but not boycott the larger retailers working with them is a meaningless gesture. You already stated you aren't buying any games from any of those retailers though, so in your case you are being consistent so long as you continue to not buy any games from any of those companies.

As for directly affecting the groups you want to change...I mean yeah that's why you wouldn't buy a THQN game.
 

Creatchee

Member
Oct 26, 2017
839
Sarasota, Florida
But we aren't talking about the 'spiderweb of companies' somehow associated with THQN, we aren't discussing the logistics companies shipping their games in trucks or the contractors building their offices. We are talking about the other companies that are acting as retailers for their products, a very specific business relationship. So the larger companies' retail relationships with THQN represent virtually all of their profit, and yet the only place you are willing to draw the line at is the tiny 12 person retail outlet who is selling a single one of their products and immediately responded to criticism? You don't see how that seems so toothless and hypocritical to the point of absurdity?

It's not about being perfect, it's about having some semblance of consistency in what you claim as a value. Otherwise it's just pointless grandstanding to make yourself feel morally superior. Which is kind of the problem with attempting to conflate morality with consumer decisionmaking. Consuming or not consuming is not a moral act, because there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. That's not to say that there is no point to your consumer choices, just that there is no larger benefit outside of your own personal feelings and well-being.
Thank you for making the most logic-based and well-reasoned post in regards to this topic and similar "cancel" topics that I've ever seen on this website.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,040
If we are talking about making meaningful societal change, you do that through changing policy and through education and raising awareness. Individual consumption decisions are not an effective means of affecting societal change in the existing system we have now. Where have I claimed any moral superiority? I'm simply questioning the extent of your own value system based on the statements you've made. If you are asking me if I decline to consume certain goods or services based on personal reasons, yes absolutely. But those are not meaningful moral choices, simply personal ones.

I'm not saying 'be quiet' and I'm not saying 'do nothing'. I am saying that the decision to boycott the smallest retailer working with THQN for working with them but not boycott the larger retailers working with them is a meaningless gesture. You already stated you aren't buying any games from any of those retailers though, so in your case you are being consistent so long as you continue to not buy any games from any of those companies.

As for directly affecting the groups you want to change...I mean yeah that's why you wouldn't buy a THQN game.
I really think the core of our disagreement is some differences in defination of things like "moral choices" and even boycott. I don't quite understand your distinction between moral choices and personal ones. I would say that the arc of a person's life is a series of personal choices and the arc of a society is what comes from a collective's personal choices. So while yes, personal choices are a small and insignificant way to effect any sort of social change, that are also all that we really have as individuals.

I would also say that boycott is a strong word that applies a bit more of a rigid definition to what I am talking about. If I am in a situation where I am choosing how to spend my time and money on things that are about my personal entertainment, things that are not vital, things where I have a lot of leeway, I am not going to engage with things that are surrounded by things that make me feel bad. I also am not going to criticize someone else who does that either. I am not sure that such things fall under the definition of a boycott. Which I think of as something a little more organized and codified.

I would also argue that no gesture is meaningless.

I also think that things like education and awareness are great tools, they are not the only levers and each relies on endless other variables. So as an individual, I think the best you can do is try to expand your awareness when possible and try to be a decent person who does things that you can live with. Hypocrisy is going to happen, failures are going to happen, but that is part of the path. So if a person sees this specific news about this specific situation involving this specific company I don't think it is proper to criticize them for taking a specific respectful and proportional action, even if that action doesn't perfectly accomplish larger goals, even if that action has a disproportionate effect in relation to the larger ecosystem of actors at play. As long as the specific act is justified, I think that is the best we can hope for.

The reason why I won't let this die (but I will now and you can feel free to have the last word as a response) is because I think that in general, arguments that call for inaction or less action because of hypocrisy or some larger, other, problem that should take precedence are acidic to healthy debate and moral action. I am pushing back here against you specifically because I think we are actually relatively close to being in agreement on this issue and I thought that we could have I decent conversation about this, which I feel we have had.
 

Lord of Ostia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,452
I really think the core of our disagreement is some differences in defination of things like "moral choices" and even boycott. I don't quite understand your distinction between moral choices and personal ones. I would say that the arc of a person's life is a series of personal choices and the arc of a society is what comes from a collective's personal choices. So while yes, personal choices are a small and insignificant way to effect any sort of social change, that are also all that we really have as individuals.

I would also say that boycott is a strong word that applies a bit more of a rigid definition to what I am talking about. If I am in a situation where I am choosing how to spend my time and money on things that are about my personal entertainment, things that are not vital, things where I have a lot of leeway, I am not going to engage with things that are surrounded by things that make me feel bad. I also am not going to criticize someone else who does that either. I am not sure that such things fall under the definition of a boycott. Which I think of as something a little more organized and codified.

I would also argue that no gesture is meaningless.

I also think that things like education and awareness are great tools, they are not the only levers and each relies on endless other variables. So as an individual, I think the best you can do is try to expand your awareness when possible and try to be a decent person who does things that you can live with. Hypocrisy is going to happen, failures are going to happen, but that is part of the path. So if a person sees this specific news about this specific situation involving this specific company I don't think it is proper to criticize them for taking a specific respectful and proportional action, even if that action doesn't perfectly accomplish larger goals, even if that action has a disproportionate effect in relation to the larger ecosystem of actors at play. As long as the specific act is justified, I think that is the best we can hope for.

The reason why I won't let this die (but I will now and you can feel free to have the last word as a response) is because I think that in general, arguments that call for inaction or less action because of hypocrisy or some larger, other, problem that should take precedence are acidic to healthy debate and moral action. I am pushing back here against you specifically because I think we are actually relatively close to being in agreement on this issue and I thought that we could have I decent conversation about this, which I feel we have had.
Absolutely agree with the bolded, and honestly if buying a game totally unrelated to THQN from LRG makes you feel bad, then don't do it. I'm questioning the rationale behind that choice, because in my view, the logical end point of that choice is not buying any game from any company that also sells THQN products. I'm not willing to take that stance, because I'm not willing to essentially give up on a hobby that is really important to me because of the actions of one shitty company. Similarly, I don't believe in taking a stance like that and then only holding one company to that standard and letting the larger, more influential companies off the hook, because that's not actually taking a meaningful stance. I DO refuse to buy THQN products, because I don't want to support a company like that, even if I know that my lack of support means absolutely nothing to their bottom line or make meaningful change.

You keep suggesting that I'm saying you cant address the smaller problem without addressing the larger one, and that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am saying. Rather, there is no smaller and larger problem, they are literally the exact same problem (companies selling THQN games). I feel that only taking action against one retailer but none of the others is worthless because you aren't even being consistent in your personal values in that scenario. If you feel differently then that's fine, I'm simply expressing my disagreement with that idea. Yes you've been very polite and it's been a good discussion, I think we understand each other a little better.
 
Apr 18, 2018
182
Germany
User Banned (1 Week): Trolling in a sensitive thread, account in junior phase
After reading this thread I want to buy this game even more. Have fun Era.
 
OP
OP
Diggeh

Diggeh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
530
>serious discussion

Its fucking video games.
You bumped this thread to make some misguided drive-by dismissing our discussion as being merely about video games, which apparently can't be serious in your eyes, while blatantly ignoring the issue we're actually discussing? Pretty pathetic, but hey, you gave this some more visibility, so I thank you for that.

While I'm here, I've heard rumblings about there being future THQN games in the pipeline for LimitedRunGames. Can we get some clarification on whether or not there will be more THQN games? I should hope not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.