3 ms·

This has very little to do with Panic, their employees, or their products. Firewatch was made by Campo Santo, which is now owned by Valve.

akersten 7y ago
That is not the impression I get from it being prominently featured [0] on their homepage. Is there something I'm missing? [0] https://imgur.com/QD6NmW8 https://imgur.com/QD6NmW8 Edit: In fairness, clicking through to the Firewatch site does say "in cooperation with Panic," so it's not entirely a Panic product, but there's certainly a degree of involvement. I'm seeing other comments [1] placing those actions on the game studio, so I suppose my first impression was incorrect. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=19679388 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=19679388
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  Campo Santo is the developer and Panic is the publisher. Obviously we can't know Panic's involvement in the debacle, but the Campo Santo founder did take ownership of the decision by announcing it on his personal Twitter account. In other words, it wasn't a faceless Campo Santo or Panic blog post. At which point I think it's kinda unfair to poison the comment section on such an unrelated development. This is currently the top-voted thread on a post announcing a code editor. Meanwhile, Vanaman is a creative writer for Valve. How many more times will HN discussion around this editor have to be side-tracked by Vanaman's tweets until HN considers Panic atoned?
  - vsl 7y ago
    Panic co-founder Cabel Sasser endorsed it: https://twitter.com/cabel/status/907395474591703040 https://twitter.com/cabel/status/907395474591703040 (thread) https://twitter.com/cabel/status/1047883132391682048 https://twitter.com/cabel/status/1047883132391682048 https://twitter.com/cabel/status/1047883847239589889 https://twitter.com/cabel/status/1047883847239589889 I don't give a damn about the person in that incident. I do give a damn about blatant political abuse of the law, particularly by people in our industry who have no excuse for not knowing better. > poison the comment section on such an unrelated development. You don't think ethics of the company's leadership are relevant, in situations involving products that they create or hold copyright or exclusive distribution rights to? Bringing it up is not just distaste for Sasser's politics, but a view into what may happen to users or reviewers of products sold by them. You may decide the risk is extremely low (it probably is) or that you don't care, but it doesn't seem entirely irrelevant to me.

akersten 7y ago

That is not the impression I get from it being prominently featured [0] on their homepage. Is there something I'm missing? [0] https://imgur.com/QD6NmW8 https://imgur.com/QD6NmW8 Edit: In fairness, clicking through to the Firewatch site does say "in cooperation with Panic," so it's not entirely a Panic product, but there's certainly a degree of involvement. I'm seeing other comments [1] placing those actions on the game studio, so I suppose my first impression was incorrect. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=19679388 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=19679388

hombre_fatal 7y ago
Campo Santo is the developer and Panic is the publisher. Obviously we can't know Panic's involvement in the debacle, but the Campo Santo founder did take ownership of the decision by announcing it on his personal Twitter account. In other words, it wasn't a faceless Campo Santo or Panic blog post. At which point I think it's kinda unfair to poison the comment section on such an unrelated development. This is currently the top-voted thread on a post announcing a code editor. Meanwhile, Vanaman is a creative writer for Valve. How many more times will HN discussion around this editor have to be side-tracked by Vanaman's tweets until HN considers Panic atoned?
- vsl 7y ago
  Panic co-founder Cabel Sasser endorsed it: https://twitter.com/cabel/status/907395474591703040 https://twitter.com/cabel/status/907395474591703040 (thread) https://twitter.com/cabel/status/1047883132391682048 https://twitter.com/cabel/status/1047883132391682048 https://twitter.com/cabel/status/1047883847239589889 https://twitter.com/cabel/status/1047883847239589889 I don't give a damn about the person in that incident. I do give a damn about blatant political abuse of the law, particularly by people in our industry who have no excuse for not knowing better. > poison the comment section on such an unrelated development. You don't think ethics of the company's leadership are relevant, in situations involving products that they create or hold copyright or exclusive distribution rights to? Bringing it up is not just distaste for Sasser's politics, but a view into what may happen to users or reviewers of products sold by them. You may decide the risk is extremely low (it probably is) or that you don't care, but it doesn't seem entirely irrelevant to me.