undefined | Better HN

0 pointssReinwald7mo ago0 comments

You're absolutely right that named credit has tangible career benefits that go well beyond feelings. But I think Vincke threaded that needle well with the anonymous public credit - it creates a documented public record of innovative work at the company level while preserving the engineer's privacy.

The engineer can still leverage this (LinkedIn, internal promotions, industry networking) without being forced into a public-facing role they might not want. When they're interviewing or networking, they can point to Vincke's public acknowledgment and say "that was my project" in contexts where it's professionally relevant, without having their personal social media permanently associated with it.

Considering Vincke was impressed enough to publicly acknowledge this individual's passion and initiative, there's no doubt in my mind that this engineer could get named credit or something that would acknowledge their role in the project if they wanted it.

But to go a bit meta: I think it's strange that we are discussing this in the context of a CEO publicly acknowledging one of their engineers (even if anonymously). Vincke is, at least in the context of the broader industry, going above and beyond. I doubt you'd see Ubisoft, EA, or Blizzard publicly acknowledging a single engineer's after-hours passion project in this way.

Feels a bit like misdirected energy, I guess? Why are we debating about the nuances of named vs anonymous credit and recognition when industry leaders don't give any?

It's like calling someone out for only tipping 10% while ignoring the guy in the top hat who's tipping 0. If you want gaming companies to get better about giving credit and recognition, you should support the companies that are at least moving in the right direction. I know it's easy to be cynical, but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

0 comments

dbspin7mo ago

I'd cite that as an example of the tyranny of diminished expectations. To be clear - I was criticising not providing named recognition. Of course providing some recognition is better than none. Perhaps you're right, perhaps the engineer involved can leverage this in interviews (or perhaps not, it might be difficult to prove / DNA'd etc), but you're giving the CEO the benefit of the doubt here.

I very strongly agree all creative workers should receive fair recognition (and compensation) for their work. I disagree with directionality as a moral framework. Doing something similar to the right thing is not necessarily doing the right thing. In this case my immediate assumption would be that the CEO is boasting about their anonymous hardworking impassioned employees as a way of 'glazing' the company, rather than shielding them from public criticism. It's impossible to know, but CEOs are not generally known to be good and ethical people. Larian may well be exceptional in this regard, but giving the benefit of the doubt to CEOs in general is a poor heuristic.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dbspin7mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse