3 ms·
My rule for reading these things is basically, is there anything in there that I couldn't have written for them before the release? The answer in this case is
by jerf 4y ago
My rule for reading these things is basically, is there anything in there that I couldn't have written for them before the release?
The answer in this case is no. I see nothing there that I couldn't have written. (And to be clear, I mean, me personally, from the exact position I am in right now, not a hypothetical me that works for them or has other knowledge.) Of course they're going to accuse him of lying and misrepresentation, they support their team, they have their own side of the story, they love to pieces everyone involved on their side who are the shining paragons of virtue that indeed we should all learn from and pattern our lives around and truly it would be a moral atrocity for the history books to sue or indeed even question them, etc.
So the information content of this is precisely zero.
From that you can't draw very much. Even if they had an iron-clad defense, they wouldn't necessarily have put it here for legal reasons, so I don't think you can conclude much at all.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoAll you really need to know is that one side of the dispute are a sociopathic corporation with a well earned reputation for flagrant lying. Flagrant even by the standards of sociopaths corporations. Bethesda's word against an artist is equivalent to Exxon's word against a climate scientist's. No trial needed, just issue a summary judgement against the corp. Seriously. I strain to even think of examples of corporations as dishonest as Bethesda, and I'm not even sure I managed it with Exxon.
- MrGilbert 4y agoAlso, to add to that: They are really, really proud of the previous collaboration, and nobody from any side should get attacked in any case. Yeah. Like: "We are still friends, and friends have their issues sometimes, you know?".