The whole game got bought out by 2K, so I’d believe it.

> Terribly poor negotiation tactics on their part, but still quite shitty of the owners not to give them a massive bonus after the huge success of the game.

If the game failed to gain traction would we be asking the devs to give a refund of their salaries?

> Given those ethics, I wouldn't believe a new team got better conditions without solid proof.

There’s nothing unethical with not sharing the bounties of success with those that aren’t sharing the costs of the risks.

Without knowing the details, the fact that multiple core developers quit seems to be some evidence that they were treated unethically. That's not something that happens in normal conditions.

Multiple "core" developers left Uber in waves in the past few years, I wouldn't say that means there is "some evidence" they were treated unethically.

In fact it's evidence of the exact opposite.

Timing is vital in these contexts. I've worked at a job in a team of 3 under terrible conditions (terrible from a "western" perspective of course, nobody was whipping or pointing guns at us, but you get the point). Complaining with management -the worst bunch of incompetent idiots I ever encountered in my life- was 100% ineffective so that after just a few months one of my colleagues left, then a bit later I left. The company suddenly panicked realizing how the project was likely going to tank in a spectacular way and promptly turned their tactics literally burying the only left member with money, benefits and much better working conditions so that he kept the job for years. Same company, same project, same team, but asking to 2 different people could have yielded very opposite opinions.

It's selfish on an unfathomable level. And on top of that, it is self defeating. This is a stunt that you can only pull of once. Who in their right mind would ever want to work for, or even with, such horrible people ever again? How many who would've gladly paid them, will now pirate without the slightest remorse? I'm quite sure this move did cost them a lot of money in the long run.

>Who in their right mind would ever want to work for, or even with, such horrible people ever again

See: Pretty much everything Donald Trump has ever been accused of doing as a business man before his presidential run, and the history of Microsoft.

> It's selfish on an unfathomable level. And on top of that, it is self defeating. This is a stunt that you can only pull of once.

This “stunt” (ie paying what you agreed upon) is pulled by every company that hires contractors which covers just about successful startup.

> Who in their right mind would ever want to work for, or even with, such horrible people ever again?

Perhaps it’s a mindset difference but I don’t feel entitled to other’s gains simply because they’re more successful than originally anticipated.

That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of other reasons not to work with someone or some place. From what I’ve read the working conditions at KSP for the devs were quite bad.

> How many who would've gladly paid them, will now pirate without the slightest remorse? I'm quite sure this move did cost them a lot of money in the long run.

Software pirates, in particular pirates for games, don’t care about your supposed morals. If they’re going to pirate a game they’ll do it anyway.

The only way to get people into such "I get everything and you get nothing" arrangements is to either take advantage of an incredibly desperate situation, or through deception.

Core developers of the game were being paid about $200 a month. Does that sound ethical to you?

I don't see any ethics in the subject at all. If that's how much they were being paid then they're likely terrible negotiators but that doesn't make any part of the contract unethical.

If they were promised equity, a bonus, or some other extra compensation that was not subsequently delivered then not paying that out would be unethical. But agreeing to a lowball amount and then complaining about it being a lowball amount isn't ethics related. It's just sour grapes.

It's the same in the opposite direction. If a contractor charges a company 10x his normal rate and a company accepts those terms, there's no ethics involved either.

Nobody has a proverbial gun to their head to accept a deal either way. If they do then sure there's ethical issues but I haven't seen that in this situation. Just very poor negotiations on the part of the original dev team.

You’re assuming the owners did everything according to contract and above-board. Maybe they didn’t. Ever considered that? Even if they did, perhaps they just got lucky and were able to convince smart developers to work against their interest. Regardless, defending them does you no favors, as evidenced by the comments on here, nor was it the best long term move for them, because I won’t be buying anything pushed out by that leadership team and will encourage others to do the same. Given the comments here, I suspect others will, too.

Violence isn't the only way to coerce people into doing things against their interest. If there was an implication that bonuses would be available, or something to the effect, it's unethical to say, "haha, you didn't have an iron-clad contract". Using fine-print in contracts to get one over on people who aren't lawyers is pretty much the textbook definition of unethical.

The point people are trying to make is that the people who quit said they were treated unethically. By disputing that it was unethical behavior, you're calling those people liars. Being "more right leaning" doesn't make you an asshole, but calling people liars without evidence does.

> Violence isn't the only way to coerce people into doing things against their interest. If there was an implication that bonuses would be available, or something to the effect, it's unethical to say, "haha, you didn't have an iron-clad contract". Using fine-print in contracts to get one over on people who aren't lawyers is pretty much the textbook definition of unethical.

None of the comments I've replied to describe anything like that. They simply refer to the (paltry) amount. I'm not disputing there's more to the story, I was simply commenting on the bit that's actually in front of me.

> The point people are trying to make is that the people who quit said they were treated unethically. By disputing that it was unethical behavior, you're calling those people liars. Being "more right leaning" doesn't make you an asshole, but calling people liars without evidence does.

I never said they were liars. I said that the $200/month doesn't on its own make the agreement unethical.

Apparently that distinction is beyond the grasp of today's commenters.

This isn't a theoretical, "if all cows were spherical, then friction would be disregarded" sort of scenario. It's a real thing that happened for which details are available online.

If you haven't informed yourself on those details outside of this thread, then I guess to your perspective, that's on you.

Not sure why the downvotes..

Why do I get downvoted for saying I didn't understand why someone downvoted a post?

Is it the way I phrased my comment that is downvoted? Or my lack of understanding?

Because HN crowd seems to be more left-leaning

No. They just aren't assholes.

Well I see some correlation between being left-leaning and not being asshole to employees ;)

Well, my anecdata is the exact opposite. ;)

I never said that the owners aren't assholes, but still, it was the developers' free choice to sign that (asshole-ish) agreement. Being more to the right than the HN crowd doesn't mean being an asshole.

No, but throwing around political accusations as epithets in a non-political discussion might.

I'm not accusing anyone, being left leaning is nothing wrong; it's just a different viewpoint on the issue of allowing people to freely sign contracts even though it might not be a good deal. This is a political discussion, we're talking about regulating something. I replied to a comment that asked why is a seemingly OK comment being downvoted and because there are no other obvious signs, the logical conclusion is that it's because of political disagreement.