• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Totoki: "We create infinite realities"; He wants to promote DEI, combat climate change; Sony's profit growth will be driven by PlayStation (margin of

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
Western AAA gaming is cooked. They would rather lose money on flop after flop than not pander to resetera crowd. Can’t wait to see how they jam DEI talking points into a fuckin Wolverine game.

c37.gif
 
That's where the accountability comes in to play. If your work doesn't met the standard, then your out the door. That is how it should be.

It's one thing I think a lot of people don't understand that everyone has a bias. You subconsciously give people like yourself extra brownie points rather you realize it or not. People intuitively like the familiar. I think at the most basic level, I believe the idea DEI is an attempt to even the playing field. But it seems to have an issue of letting extremist go unchecked in some situations (Concord) to the detriment of everybody.

At the end of the day, ability to do the job should be at the top of list in hiring people, then evening the playing field after that with heavy accountability throughout is my opinion.

If you hire the best based on merit you won't have a bad product for people to get fired for to begin with. Plus these people never get fired. Their mediocrity is rewarded. So you can pretend this accountability will happen when we all know it won't and hasn't happened, or you can just hire based on merit to begin with.
 
I hope their DEI initiatives cause them to lose record amounts of money. People have been clear for a while now: nobody wants it.

I will enjoy seeing this idiot being shown the door when he loses them even more billions.
Unless people stop buying hardware this guy isn’t going anywhere. Hulst would take the fall for games not performing. The way to send this guy a message would to avoid buying PS5 and PS5 Pro…
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
I just find it all crazy to be honest, all of it.

Started gaming in 84, hooked. Gamed all through till now. I remember being called a geek, nerd, you name it. Only about three or four people were gaming in my class, probably about 7 in the whole school in 91. Still called geeks, nerds, weirdos, just for gaming :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Now look at the absolute state of it!

What even is this? The real weirdos got hold of it in the end :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Man. The one true hobby I had, trashed.

Thank christ for the 'against the grain' developers still trying to hang on to some semblance of normality

You're heroes in my eyes 🫡
It's in every single western industry, institution and government on the planet. You can even track the investors doing it. But that must be a "conspiracy theory."
 
Last edited:

StereoVsn

Member
Except Microsoft and Xbox are literally full steam ahead with DEI/ESG with BlackRock and Vanguard being their largest shareholders. Probably more so than Sony.
Note that Vanguard recently dispensed with the ESG investment for the most part. Not sure about Blackrock.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member

I don't know the scale of this.


Either way even if iam wrong with Microsoft this sucks anyway 🤣
Yes, but it's already culturally engrained now. They don't need the dead weight team anymore.

Prove me wrong MS. Please.
 

PatientGamer

Gold Member
What people in this thread have failed to understand is that this DE&I prioritisation is unlike the approach Ubisoft and others are taking.

This seems geared towards making sure people aren't being treated like shit in their workplaces. There are laws in place at governmental level to reduce disenfranchisement at work.

How could anyone be against that is mind numbing.

It's got nothing to do with the content they're producing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no insinuation in this document that their content will be affected.

The censorship & DE&I aspects of their content appears to be at the discretion of their Studio heads who feel like hiring consultancies like SBI immediately makes them an 'ally', and their soul, "free of white guilt."

I'm open to being proven wrong though. Just want the industry to get back to making great games and cut out all the BS from both sides.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
This. We do DEI at our company and it's done some good, sensible stuff.

They don't say they'll hire based on race and gender though.
Thats literally the definition of DEI.
Because the human race is very diverse. If you want to attract/develop/retain the best talent, you need to cast a wide net).

Depends on how Sony does it. The right way is to do DEI and hire based on merit.
Nah, thats BS. The 'right' way to increase visible diversity and get more varied backgrounds in your company is to define a set of desired activities, mindset, and traits for successful inclusion within your company and then establish pathways for various folks to attain those desired attributes and LEARN YOUR CULTURE to be a part of your enterprise. Expecting companies to radically redefine themselves to encompass characteristics that are often totally at odd with traditional values within that business (show up on time, support your lead, be accepting of criticism within certain parameters, seek opinions, but execute plans when a decision is made, etc) just to check off "hey, look at what the company photo looks like now versus 10 years ago when we built this company up!" is a foolish and ultimately losing plan.

There is merit to the argument that certain groups are excluded from high level participation in some businesses because they have no pathway to excel nor 'in-group' mentors to guide them. Hey, guess what, that actually isn't the fault of the business, it's the fault of those groups for not adapting to the environment they want to be a part of. Learn the game, win the game, then you can circle back around and pull in others. Don't whine to change the rules.
 

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
*stealth kills 10 guards on my way to checkpoint*

*activates the witcher vision and kills 10 more guards with my adamantium claws*

*climbs a ledge and drops on a guard decapitating him*

*slaughters 20 henchmen in the boss room then kills the boss*

“You know what I always say Jean, blacks lives matter and free Palestine”
 
I have a question… With this kind of shittie policies. They choose a individual because the diversity over a individual with more talent at their job? This is what this meant?
 

Dr.Morris79

Member
It's in every single western industry, institution and government on the planet. You can even track the investors doing it. But that must be a "conspiracy theory."
Exactly what I was saying in my post in another thread

Why though? This just doesn't make any sense by any normal metric

Are we the crazy ones? :pie_thinking:

I mean it's getting to the point where we have to question our own bloody sanity here..

None of this is normal from any business stand point. None!
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Exactly what I was saying in my post in another thread

Why though? This just doesn't make any sense by any normal metric

Are we the crazy ones? :pie_thinking:

I mean it's getting to the point where we have to question our own bloody sanity here..

None of this is normal from any business stand point. None!
They openly tell us why, most just choose to not let it register, or defend on tribal marching orders.
 
Last edited:

Quantum253

Gold Member
I have a question… With this kind of shittie policies. They choose a individual because the diversity over a individual with more talent at their job? This is what this meant?
It could be several things. Points assigned during the interview process. 1 pt military status, 1 pt under privileged community, etc. I think when this was implemented, it was a equity over equality thing and they used 3 people of different sizes (kids/adult/teen) with different size boxes to look over the fence. Basically, you must build up to meet the highest so all are on the same ground.

There could be other policies too where if you do contract work that unless you hire x amount of diverse status people then you can't do business with that company.
So it's not necessarily that every higher will do poorly is just the likelihood is greatly increased and not always the best candidate it's chosen because you need to fill quotas
 

Woopah

Member
Thats literally the definition of DEI.

No it's not. For example, I've been involved in a project to make our company more inclusive for people who have disabilities or long term illnesses. That doesn't mean we're going to give people jobs just because they have a long term illness.

Likewise we've also done some work around paternal leave. Doesn't mean we're going to hire someone because they are a Dad.

Nah, thats BS. The 'right' way to increase visible diversity and get more varied backgrounds in your company is to define a set of desired activities, mindset, and traits for successful inclusion within your company and then establish pathways for various folks to attain those desired attributes and LEARN YOUR CULTURE to be a part of your enterprise. Expecting companies to radically redefine themselves to encompass characteristics that are often totally at odd with traditional values within that business (show up on time, support your lead, be accepting of criticism within certain parameters, seek opinions, but execute plans when a decision is made, etc) just to check off "hey, look at what the company photo looks like now versus 10 years ago when we built this company up!" is a foolish and ultimately losing plan.
Yes I fully agree. This a good thing to do and DEI shouldn't be a checkbox exercise.

I would also say that whether diversity is "visible" or not shouldn't matter. Diversity of thought is very important for example.

There is merit to the argument that certain groups are excluded from high level participation in some businesses because they have no pathway to excel nor 'in-group' mentors to guide them. Hey, guess what, that actually isn't the fault of the business, it's the fault of those groups for not adapting to the environment they want to be a part of. Learn the game, win the game, then you can circle back around and pull in others. Don't whine to change the rules.

If "the game" means we miss out on talent then it's in our best interest to get rid of it. We should hire/promote the best people for the job, not the people who are the best at being in the "in crowd".
 
It could be several things. Points assigned during the interview process. 1 pt military status, 1 pt under privileged community, etc. I think when this was implemented, it was a equity over equality thing and they used 3 people of different sizes (kids/adult/teen) with different size boxes to look over the fence. Basically, you must build up to meet the highest so all are on the same ground.

There could be other policies too where if you do contract work that unless you hire x amount of diverse status people then you can't do business with that company.
So it's not necessarily that every higher will do poorly is just the likelihood is greatly increased and not always the best candidate it's chosen because you need to fill quotas
🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
 

Woopah

Member
I have a question… With this kind of shittie policies. They choose a individual because the diversity over a individual with more talent at their job? This is what this meant?
It can mean this if its done as a tick box exercise. Which is why it shouldn't be done as a tick box exercise.
 

ap_puff

Member
No it's not. For example, I've been involved in a project to make our company more inclusive for people who have disabilities or long term illnesses. That doesn't mean we're going to give people jobs just because they have a long term illness.

Likewise we've also done some work around paternal leave. Doesn't mean we're going to hire someone because they are a Dad.


Yes I fully agree. This a good thing to do and DEI shouldn't be a checkbox exercise.

I would also say that whether diversity is "visible" or not shouldn't matter. Diversity of thought is very important for example.



If "the game" means we miss out on talent then it's in our best interest to get rid of it. We should hire/promote the best people for the job, not the people who are the best at being in the "in crowd".
Here's the problem: people hate being lectured to and told that they're bad. The most ardent proponents of DEI all have the attitude that people who disagree with them are bad and aren't shy about screaming about it. And they aren't respectful about other cultures either, many of them are guilty of the white savior syndrome that they say they hate. It's also a huge distraction from the real problem of our current power structure, which is that the wealthy and powerful (read: top 0.1%) continually grab more and more of the wealth and power share away from the rest of the population, who see their earning and buying power eroded, their job security in question, and the future of their kids in doubt. The DEI stuff is great in theory but isn't nearly worth as much effort and attention as it's getting in the workplace.
 
Top Bottom