Shadow of War developer dies & WB Games intends on profiting from his death.

[GearSolidMetal]

This is a seperate issue from all the other DLC/Microtransactions/LootBoxes controversies related to the upcoming release of Shadow of War, developed by Monolith and published by WB Games.

This deserves its own thread, because it sets a new low for business practices within the gaming industry.



Summary - The game's Executive Producer, Michael Forgey, has tragically passed away at the young age of 43.

To honor such an important member of Monolith, a Day 1 DLC has been developed and named after him, and a portion of the proceeds will go to his family (Wife & 3 kids). $3.50 of every of the $4.99 DLC purchase.

[Sounds good so far, it'd be better if the full $4.99 went to the family, but I'd be cool with this. But then the devil is exposed in the fine print.]

At the end of the DLC trailer, shows a bit of detail left out of alot of the mainstream gaming articles published today about the DLC...

Donations will be made on purchase from any 1 of the 50 US or D.C. (Excluding purchases made from AL, HI, IL, MA, MS, and SC) void where prohibited by Law. Your purchase will not be tax deductable.

Translation - Purchase of the DLC outside of the US, and within the mentioned states, will result in the full amount ($4.99) going to the publisher, with no proceeds going to the family of the Executive Producer who passed away.

And this detail is barely mentioned anywhere... in fact no where... other than in the very small print of the DLC trailer. Not in the articles, like this one by Eurogamer, who has given endless praise to Shadow of War in their coverage since the game has been announced.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-cancer-immortalised-as-an-in-game-orc-slayer

And over twitter, they did confirm only proceeds from the DLC purchase from within the US (44 states) & D.C. will go to the family.



Given the huge international hit this game is going to be, the DLC is going to be still $4.99 throughout the world, all of it being kept by WB/Monolith, and only $3.50 of the $4.99 within the 44 states & D.C.

It's a probability that more money will be made for WB/Monolith, with them taking $1.50 of each purchase within the 44 states & D.C. and every dollar and cent of the $4.99 purchase made from every other nation but the US....

...for a DLC that is supposed to honor the memory of a valued member of the development team, and contribute to the well being of his family.

This is setting a new low for business practices within the games industry. Exploiting the death of a man, for profit.

 

[Madmick]

If this doesn't get traction, here, I'll move it to the War Room, GSM, specifically because as you say it isn't really so much about the game. I know that political gamer threads that I think will track better in here actually don't (ex. my Riot Games thread on Edgar Davids). The guys in the War Room actually care about the politics of videogames more than gamers themselves. Gamers just want to game.

Only political thread I ever saw get traction in here was the #GG scandal. That was epic.

 

[God_Emperor_Of_Mankind]

Tbh i don't see a problem, a lot of them must have contributed to the making of the dlc hence some share should go to others as well .

It's a private org and they don't have to do anything but they are still giving him most of the proceeds. Also the exclusion in certain states is because they are bound by regulations, there's no getting around that.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Tbh i don't see a problem, a lot of them must have contributed to the making of the dlc hence some share should go to others as well .

No, it won't.

It's a private org and they don't have to do anything but they are still giving him most of the proceeds. Also the exclusion in certain states is because they are bound by regulations, there's no getting around that.

Some of the portions, not most.

As for the state regulations, yes, I'm sure the developer and publisher are heartbroken they're going to be forced to keep the entire purchase, and not give any of it to the family.

 

[Swing]

Tbh i don't see a problem, a lot of them must have contributed to the making of the dlc hence some share should go to others as well .

It's a private org and they don't have to do anything but they are still giving him most of the proceeds. Also the exclusion in certain states is because they are bound by regulations, there's no getting around that.

Even considering that, the issue is that they're hiding this from people, telling consumers that their money will go to support this guy's family when in many (maybe most) cases it won't. They're preying on people's good will to boost sales. If they were upfront about this I doubt there'd be an issue. All they had to do was outline which states would be able to donate to the guy's family while explaining that everyone is still able to purchase the dlc.

 

[Bob Gray]

IMO, there's nothing wrong with profiting from charitable acts. I'm not certain, but my understanding is non profit charities rely solely on donations.

I think one of the biggest things being overlooked is that it seems like this content is being developed by Monolith by their own choice. I doubt WB is forcing them to do it so it's a choice on the developers part as much as anything. Are we assuming this whole arrangement is the developer fiendishly profiting of the death of their friend and co-worker? Because there's no way around including them in this. Do we include Valve as well? Since they'll profit off it as well, assuming it's on steam.

More than that, we aren't privy to whatever legal issues affect them. There's obviously reasons behind thier control regarding the selected states. If someone can provide insight into the international regulations, it would be most welcome.

No, it won't.



Some of the portions, not most.

As for the state regulations, yes, I'm sure the developer and publisher are heartbroken they're going to be forced to keep the entire purchase, and not give any of it to the family.

And I'm sure the family of the deceased is perfectly happy with the arrangement. So it would appear everyone directly involved is happy about the arrangement. While the only people complaining will be those that aren't affected at all.

Even considering that, the issue is that they're hiding this from people, telling consumers that their money will go to support this guy's family when in many (maybe most) cases it won't. They're preying on people's good will to boost sales. If they were upfront about this I doubt there'd be an issue. All they had to do was outline which states would be able to donate to the guy's family while explaining that everyone is still able to purchase the dlc.

Hiding it how? It was shown in the vid and when asked directly about it they answered completely honestly.

 

[Swing]

Hiding it how? It was shown in the vid and when asked directly about it they answered completely honestly.

There's a reason "you forgot to read the fine print" is a punch line. I watched the video on my HDTV, and I wouldn't have been able to make out the words from my couch unless I specifically got up to read them. And sure, when asked directly they clarified. My issue is obviously with how this caveat wasn't up front and center before they were asked for clarification.

Some people clearly want to give them the benefit of the doubt; I don't feel inclined to is all.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

IMO, there's nothing wrong with profiting from charitable acts.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

And I'm sure the family of the deceased is perfectly happy with the arrangement. So it would appear everyone directly involved is happy about the arrangement. While the only people complaining will be those that aren't affected at all.

You're sure... based on what?

 

[Thunderflash500]

Do we have a reason why? Maybe there is some law or tax regulation we don't know about. Either way it seems like the family will make a lot of money.

 

[Swing]

Do we have a reason why? Maybe there is some law or tax regulation we don't know about. Either way it seems like the family will make a lot of money.

I've heard/read speculation about laws concerning giving the money to individuals vs. something like a charity, which seems plausible.

 

[jefferz]

If this doesn't get traction, here, I'll move it to the War Room, GSM, specifically because as you say it isn't really so much about the game. I know that political gamer threads that I think will track better in here actually don't (ex. my Riot Games thread on Edgar Davids). The guys in the War Room actually care about the politics of videogames more than gamers themselves. Gamers just want to game.

Only political thread I ever saw get traction in here was the #GG scandal. That was epic.

I still don't know what gamer gate was all about. I tried reading through the threads and other news stories, but the discussions were teenage girls fighting level to me.

 

[Bob Gray]

You're sure... based on what?

Based on people tending to like free money. C'mon, now. You have to know this is a pretty weak counter argument to the assumption that a family is happy with charitable donations.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that the family of the deceased is happy with the arrangement theyre getting. You have evidence to the contrary, you go ahead and present it.

You completely avoided my point about Monolith developing the content. Are you accusing them of profiting off the death of their friend and co-worker? If not, why the double standard?

And like I said earlier, will this be on steam? Valve takes a cut. Do we blame them?

An interesting side note, what is valves cut? Would it be $1.50?

The point is there are variables here we aren't knowledgeable about.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Based on people tending to like free money. C'mon, now.

Yeah, so they'd rather have $3.50 from the purchases of DLC in 44 states, than $4.99 from all 50 states and the rest of entire world.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Do we have a reason why? Maybe there is some law or tax regulation we don't know about. Either way it seems like the family will make a lot of money.

It all depends on how much 'alot' is to support a single mom raising three kids, and that 'alot' is supposed to last them until the kids are grown.

 

[Thunderflash500]

It all depends on how much 'alot' is to support a single mom raising three kids, and that 'alot' is supposed to last them until the kids are grown.

what is even your point. Answer the important part, why are they doing what they are doing? Do you know? If not why are you outraged? I can see a mob of people getting angry over this and yet not having any clue what the truth is.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

what is even your point. Answer the important part, why are they doing what they are doing? Do you know? If not why are you outraged? I can see a mob of people getting angry over this and yet not having any clue what the truth is.

My point, is in the OP, stated right there.

If the subject matter isn't offensive to you, that's your problem.

 

[Thunderflash500]

My point, is in the OP, stated right there.

If the subject matter isn't offensive to you, that's your problem.

So you are mad but don't actually have a reason. More of a hunch that something may be bad, but you don't know.

 

[Bob Gray]

Yeah, so they'd rather have $3.50 from the purchases of DLC in 44 states, than $4.99 from all 50 states and the rest of entire world.

Wow. You're still avoiding every question I ask you.

You completely avoided my point about Monolith developing the content. Are you accusing them of profiting off the death of their friend and co-worker? If not, why the double standard?

And like I said earlier, will this be on steam? Valve takes a cut. Do we blame them?

An interesting side note, what is valves cut? Would it be $1.50?

The point is there are variables here we aren't knowledgeable about.

Yoy just completely avoided all that. Literally all of it. It's like you don't have a decent answer to any of the questions.

I'm sure the family would "rather" be getting zero dollars and have their family member alive and well. But that's not what's happening.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

So you are mad but don't actually have a reason. More of a hunch that something may be bad, but you don't know.

Try reading the OP, again.

If you've read it in the first place.