Jump to content

Bruce Everiss Vs Stuart Campbell


Swainy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think it's a mistake to judge someone's 'wisdom' on an argument with Stu and a misfiring humour piece. He's written much more insightful stuff.

He is obviously non-technical in the same way Stu has a somewhat 'unconventional' grasp of physics.

I'm not getting into the 'Stu' debate, but it's irrelevant anyway. I didn't judge his 'wisdom' on an argument with Stu: I was thinking his post about 'fanboys' showed little wisdom (or modesty); it had nothing to do with the piracy post or the ensuing debate. But 'humour' can misfire for several reasons, and this one just betrayed a poor attitude to his customers.

I haven't read any of his other stuff. It may be brilliant for all I know, but I found his attitude in the piece I mentioned distasteful. I think it's him making the mistake there and it betrays - be it attempted humour or not - a poor attitude. It's also very badly written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was that one?

from memory..

tomb raider legend. cut scene where lara jumps out of a moving truck, forwards onto a moving car..while spinning around and shooting the truck driver.

stu argued she'd be catapulted back instantly. rest of western world argued she would have momentum of the truck on her side. rest of world included qualified "scienticians" who do physics. actual formula were employed as evidence of correctitude.

stu employed standard siege mentality arguing process. lock, ban, delete, IM RIGHT.

tears on eyes of world mother etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about where bruce says loads of tapes were returned as faulty where in fact they were fine? He says that cost them a load of money. Sound like piracy to me.

Selling good stock and having it returned because the kids are tape-to-taping them is worse than not selling them in the first place.

So Imagine had to deal with a load of good stock which they had already sold and accounted for once, but were not paid for.

Didn't see Stu retort to that. Sound like a pretty legitimate reason for going under that wasn't their fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about where bruce says loads of tapes were returned as faulty where in fact they were fine? He says that cost them a load of money. Sound like piracy to me.

Selling good stock and having it returned because the kids are tape-to-taping them is worse than not selling them in the first place.

So Imagine had to deal with a load of good stock which they had already sold and accounted for once, but were not paid for.

Didn't see Stu retort to that. Sound like a pretty legitimate reason for going under that wasn't their fault.

The argument against that is: presumably every other company suffered the same problem too, and they didn't go bust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about where bruce says loads of tapes were returned as faulty where in fact they were fine? He says that cost them a load of money. Sound like piracy to me.

Selling good stock and having it returned because the kids are tape-to-taping them is worse than not selling them in the first place.

So Imagine had to deal with a load of good stock which they had already sold and accounted for once, but were not paid for.

Didn't see Stu retort to that. Sound like a pretty legitimate reason for going under that wasn't their fault.

He'd probably say that why was kids returning tapes a problem for Imagine but not for other developers? Personally I haven't got a clue as I was 2 years old during their demise.

Either way, I thought that was a great little debate until it got derailed. The solution to videogame piracy (assuming there is one) is a fascinating topic. Stu is by far the better debater and the evidence is on his side, in this case.

Some of Bruce's other articles on piracy are shockingly poor, band-wagon stuff. He's very much in the marketing man's mindset that piracy = lost revenue, therefore piracy must be destroyed. I doubt a million Stu's could shake him from that belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'd probably say that why was kids returning tapes a problem for Imagine but not for other developers? Personally I haven't got a clue as I was 2 years old during their demise.

Because Imagine's games practically begged you to believe they were faulty?*

* Disclaimer: I've never played any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bruce was "there" so he knows best. he was in a bubble and understands computers as much as i understand how cars work..but HE WAS THERE.

stu's nailed him to a cross.

From reading the link, it seems like 'being there' in the boardroom of Imagine is just about the least qualified position to actually identify what went wrong.

He was nailed to the cross, after supplying his own nails and hammer. For added authenticity he also carried the cross on his own back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart's crap at debating this issue, he keeps being sidetracked and can't focus an attack properly. All he needs to do to nail Everiss on this is to keep asking, Paxman style - "IF PIRACY WAS THE MAIN CAUSE OF YOUR DOWNFALL, WHY DID IMAGINE FAIL AND NOT ULTIMATE?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart's crap at debating this issue, he keeps being sidetracked and can't focus an attack properly. All he needs to do to nail Everiss on this is to keep asking, Paxman style - "IF PIRACY WAS THE MAIN CAUSE OF YOUR DOWNFALL, WHY DID IMAGINE FAIL AND NOT ULTIMATE?"

disagreement-hierarchy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bruce cant and wont admit a single thing. stu's even winning the argument by not being there. i dont think (bruce) has the knowledge to grasp what hes even discussing, yet he thinks hes a senior exec. hell, in employment terms, he is.

reminds me of that old fast show sketch with the band and mr. wells at the record company.

he's the very definition of deluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link to the article Stu posted on a Speccy site about the BBC camera crew being there at the companies demise is a lot better read than the old-man-bitchfight.

Had a very interesting read of it last night. Fascinating stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone remember that 'Traintracking' game released a while ago by a small independent, and that a certain website decides that they should host the game for free because it's like another older game? Well, a cursory google shows that the independent games company no longer exists. I'd say that piracy was bad in that case!

Of course, they probably spent all their cash on women and fast cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think either of them are employed at the minute.

The blog is Bruce marketing himself.

guess it worked then. i wondered how they both had the time to carry an argument across forum, blog and newspaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone remember that 'Traintracking' game released a while ago by a small independent, and that a certain website decides that they should host the game for free because it's like another older game? Well, a cursory google shows that the independent games company no longer exists. I'd say that piracy was bad in that case!

Of course, they probably spent all their cash on women and fast cars.

(that website) kinda had a point on that one, seeing as they ripped off his former companies work. im defending him despite being banned until 2034 from WOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;)

Fair play to Bruce, at least he's kept the majority of Stuart's posts. Despite the fact he's been seriously PWNED.

One thing that's always puzzled me about Stuart is that he only digs into his apparent vast wealth of knowledge on the subject to correct someone, in a rather unpleasant fashion instead of a/ making a decent point, and enlightening people, or b/ writing a definitive book on the subject. There are plenty of people who would doubtless be interested in such a thing, but I sometimes get the impression that he's happier wallowing in his own self pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.