I'm not sure I understand why they're committing to such a long term refactor for a game which has already reached the tail end of its sales curve. As far as I know there are no internal monetization schemes in Factorio, and I really doubt further updates will boost sales anywhere near enough to justify the dev salaries.
They're working on an expansion for Factorio, and this refactor may have something to do with that.
Maybe they just want to leave their code in good shape so they (or someone else) can come back to it at a later time and pick it up relatively quickly.
Expansion packs typically depend on the base game, so improving the base engine is likely directly contributing to the work on the expansion. The expansion is likely changing things about the base game, and they'd want tests to assert both with & without the expansion are still working as intended.
Worth pointing out something that they said in the post (emphasis in italics is mine, the full quote is given for context)
> Imagine you have a company that goes slower and slower every quarter, and then you confront the shareholders with the statement, that the way to solve it, is to do absolutely no new features for a quarter or two, refactor the code, learn new methodologies etc. I doubt that the shareholders would allow that. Luckily, we don't have any shareholders, and we understand the vital importance of this investment in the long run. Not only in the project, but also in our skill and knowledge, so we do better next time.
This isn't necessarily the full explanation, but it's certainly something to keep in mind.
Sounds like a good deal for customers: either the dev team delivers, in which case they get better product, or they don’t, in which case they can keep using the current version.
Oh god, you should really think about what a freedom of speech is (suggested reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair). People should have right not to be involved in political discussions, and so they should have the right to tell people to take it elsewhere, even harshly.
I am no right-winger (in fact, I am a socialist), but I understand why Kovarex said what he said, and I think he had a right to do it. Yes, civilized discourse is important, but it's also important to respect individual freedom not to be pushed into such discourse from random Reddit hecklers.
I suppose it offends your sensibilities not because Kovarex did anything immoral, but because of his word choice. And honestly, I hate this surface level of analysis, where we judge the morality of a person by looking only at the words they use. It's counterproductive to addressing real problems, as there are far too many real villains in this world that are very nice in person.
> Oh god, you should really think about what a freedom of speech is.
You're free to read my comment history on this subject matter rather than just making an assumption and patronizing me. You'll probably find that it's more persuasive to actually engage with people than treat them like an idiot right out of the gate.
> but I understand why Kovarex said what he said, and I think he had a right to do it
Who claimed that he didn't have the right to say that? This is a weak straw man; nobody is claiming that he can't say that, merely that he shouldn't.
> I suppose it offends your sensibilities not because Kovarex did anything immoral, but because of his word choice.
... yeah? That's kind of how people work. How you communicate matters. Pretending that we should all just ignore him telling a fan to "shove it up your ass" is to basically ignore how humans actually work and think.
> And honestly, I hate this surface level of analysis, where we judge the morality of a person by looking only at the words they use.
As compared to what, mind reading? Literally all I have is his words online, and they're toxic and combative.
I also really dislike that you're upgrading this to "morality" when my original point was about whether I wanted to do business with him. I feel like this is a neat way to side step my freedom to not do business with him.
> It's counterproductive to addressing real problems.
So what, I can't make my own decisions based on someone else's behavior because there are other issues? I'm obligated to give him money after he behaved like an asshole because reasons? How absurd.
I see nothing objectionable (at least by kovarex) there; perhaps you should link to the supposedly-ass-bearing comment rather than (or in addition to) the general thread?
> nobody is claiming that he can't say that, merely that he shouldn't
No, there is no practical difference between the "can't" and "shouldn't", if your intent is to participate in the punishment for what someone does. (Maybe you feel, as an individual, you cannot influence it. But in fact you can easily become part of the mob that does have the real power of punishing somebody.)
> Pretending that we should all just ignore him telling a fan to "shove it up your ass"
Yes, of course we should ignore it, it was just a heckler. Even a heckler can be a fan. Everybody can be an a* sometimes, and deserves to be called out about it.
> As compared to what, mind reading?
Compared to his actions, of course. If you don't have additional information, only words, think twice about acting upon such information.
> you're upgrading this to "morality" when my original point was about whether I wanted to do business with him
It's of course up to you. But why wouldn't you want to do business with him anymore for other reason than to uphold a moral standard? It isn't like he cheated you, in fact we probably agree that Factorio is a great product. The morality comes into it from reasoning about your response.
In any case, I was speaking in a larger context. People do this all the time. For example, there are people who think Linus Torvalds is worse than Bill Gates because of the harsh words he sometimes uses (in public).
To me, that is a very superficial way of looking at things. And same here, I think Kovarex is one of very few capitalists who actually deserve all the money they got.
And that's so sad about all this "cancel culture" thing. It's boycotting people who are not necessarily the worst, just easy targets.
> So what, I can't make my own decisions based on someone else's behavior because there are other issues?
You can do whatever you want, all I am saying is you "shouldn't".
> No, there is no practical difference between the "can't" and "shouldn't", if your intent is to participate in the punishment for what someone does. (Maybe you feel, as an individual, you cannot influence it. But in fact you can easily become part of the mob that does have the real power of punishing somebody.)
Oh the irony of attacking free speech in order to protect it. How, prey tell, do you intend to differentiate between those who are using their speech legitimately and who is part of "the mob"?
I don't think anyone in these kinds of discussions is trying to make any provision for limiting speech, or your ability to not buy a product out of protest. People are free to do whatever they want. There is no objective criteria that makes your actions "wrong" or his "wrong".
These arguments really just boil down to people disagreeing about each other's reactions to things. What somehow gets obscured by oblique discussions of ethics and politics every time I see this kind of exchange online, is that it's simply two sides disagreeing about what a reasonable response is. There's nothing really to discuss about that. I (and the other guy, probably) think your decision to not buy the game because of the developer's comment is a dumb decision. You think otherwise. There's nothing to argue about here.
I don't think I need to do it (why would I have to?), but it seems pretty straightforward. The online lynching mobs cross the line when they cause real world consequences for the lynched. (However, it is hard to predict in advance that the mob will happen and what the consequences will be. That's why people should be generally cautious about such participations.)
In other words, the punishment should be proportional to the crime. Kovarex got his comment deleted and that should close the issue and end the drama.
Yeah, that's what I expected, a proposal to silence the speech of some people to protect others. Maybe you haven't thought enough about free speech, not me?
I think Ken White covered this dichotomy best, in this case a few years ago over a guy name Pax who got fired for his intemperate speech. See below.
> The foundation of "witch hunt" rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, Pax's) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing Pax and his employer) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail.
I simply think there is a difference between criticism (saying you disagree or even cursing someone) and punishment (withdrawing funding, getting somebody fired).
And I also think that the whole point of free speech is to be free of societal consequences of it, whether they have government authority stamp or not, because it's IMHO impossible to discern that either (and I think the former Soviet regimes, which started in good faith of inclusive community, and ended up authoritarian, show exactly that problem).
> I simply think there is a difference between criticism (saying you disagree or even cursing someone) and punishment (withdrawing funding, getting somebody fired).
What an extremely weird take. Are you saying I don’t have the right to decide who to do business with based on what they say, or that that’s somehow inappropriate? Restraining the right of free association to protect free speech is an awful idea.
> And I also think that the whole point of free speech is to be free of societal consequences of it
You are wrong. Full stop.
Free speech is about the right to say what you want without the government punishing you for it. This also includes the freedom to express disapproval or opprobrium. The ability to express disapproval is fundamental to free speech, any attempt to curtail that is in fact an attempt to curtail free speech itself.
If you wish to speak without social consequences, speak anonymously. This is the exact reason why the Supreme Court has held that anonymous speech is a right, to speak controversial ideas without suffering social consequences.
Also, you’re criticizing me for considering not buying a future DLC. Under your own theory, aren’t you being anti free speech for criticizing me?
> whether they have government authority stamp or not,
If you can’t tell the difference between government action and individual people expressing an opinion, that seems like a problem specific to you and not this society.
> and I think the former Soviet regimes, which started in good faith of inclusive community, and ended up authoritarian, show exactly that problem
Ironic, given that you’re proposing authoritarian responses to protect free speech.
