Except that what you wrote supports what I said.
AND what you wrote has nothing to do with the question I asked, which was asking the person who claims there was red flags
upfront that Larian ignored, and I was asking what they were.
Mind you, it seems you are approaching this as if I am a WotC apologist. I'm not.
What you seem to be missing is that, three months after that tweet, Vincke went on stage and ranted for some time about the greed of companies is what leads to layoffs, and how dumb and stupid it was - this was about the videogame industry in general, but the idea that he wasn't thinking of WotC when he said this, despite having tweeted about WotC doing precisely that was laughable.
Great, this was the one point I did say he said, so we're in agreement here. Though knowing about his rant on stage I would have worded it stronger. But that was an example of things after, not the things upfront the poster was claiming. So all you're doing is attacking an example of what were
not talking about.
Further, he hasn't said "multiple times" that it wasn't WotC AFAICT, he's said it once (or possibly twice), and it was very clearly an attempt to be diplomatic and reasonable.
First, "twice" is multiple times. I did a quick google search looking for what the other poster had said, that Larian had ignored red flags before taking it on. And instead I got two samples of Vin saying it wasn't WotC, and there were a bunch of other links. I didn't read them so I didn't confine it to "two" which could be inaccurate, I just went with the "multiple", which means more than one.
So, also correct.
Oh, and you can attempt to assign reason to why he was saying it, but unless you are specifically saying he was lying (and have support for that) it's immaterial.
But the problem for people who want to believe WotC are saintly angels here is that he's also contradicted another claim he made around when he said it wasn't WotC.
I'm with you here. Except confused that you seem to be trying to point that at me. I am
not a fan of WotC. That doesn't mean that I can't question what upfront red flags Larian ignored when I hadn't heard anything about that.
So please, do not try to tar me with a WotC appologist brush or assign motivations to me asking that are incorrect.
So, Swen's original story, his diplomatic story, was that he went to his employees, after BG3 and before they'd started on anything else, and asked if they wanted to keep making BG stuff, and they said no. He was vague about the timing of this.
Then more recently, I believe after he went on the "greed" rant about layoffs at a game show, he revealed that in fact Larian actually had started work on BG4, and was some way into pre-production when they decided not to make BG3, and the timing he indicated would be necessarily after WotC fired everyone they'd worked with.
So I find it laughable wishful thinking to believe that Larian abandoning BG4 after starting work on it (pretty early work, sure), and after WotC fired everyone, has no connection to WotC firing everyone, especially given the (admittedly later) context of the head of Larian ranting about how layoffs are the result of greed, had absolutely nothing to do with WotC.
Um, okay? Could all be true, but has nothing to do with what I was saying.
And others in videogames have been more direct - Josh Sawyer for example, outright stated that he'd never work with WotC, and he is not an intemperate or angry man - quite the contrary! To get him to make a statement like that would require considerable distaste.
Don't know Josh Sawyer. Did he say something before Larian started BG3 that was a red flag?
Really, I get your anger, but you seem to be ranting about things I didn't ask, assuming I'm a WotC appologist, and really doesn't have to do with what I asked.
If you've noticed, I've previously Liked a bunch of your comments in this very thread because my thoughts align with what you said. I'm not an enemy. We can be calm.
