
Originally Posted by
Vanshilar
I don't know why people are so eager to see heads roll. My initial reaction would be "spend some time in a corporate environment before you try to dictate corporate decisions."
Things don't always pan out the way they were supposed to in corporate meetings. Mistakes happen. Engineers (and the executives that gave them their duties) don't always see the potential for misuse and abuse of the software they create. If you're so concerned about problematic software, just look at...oh, I don't know, any version you want of Windows.
You like to mention costs. Here's some more:
Fire the engineer responsible for coding this in. Now need to get HR to hire another software engineer to take over his duties. COST
Have lawyer make sure this is not grounds for a wrongful termination suit, given that the engineer was most likely just following directions and his employee contract most likely did not have a "you should make sure your code cannot be misused, even if you're just following directions" clause in it.
Wait until a new engineer is hired, in the meantime the duties are not fulfilled. COST
Need to have an engineer take time to teach new engineer how the code works, thereby not getting own duties done. COST
I can come up with a variety of costs no matter whom you think is responsible, whether it be marketing, relations, legal, analysis, planning, executives, etc. Just looking for heads to roll because of a mistake is...well I guess some group leaders just like to throw out the healer if someone dies, or something. Maybe Phil Jackson should make Kobe Bryant leave the game when he misses a shot.
Also consider another cost. Presumably the offer wall is the culmination of a series of internal brainstorms, studies, research, etc. Presumably the analysis said that once the system is developed, the system would net a profit (that is, Turbine would get more money from third parties paying to give players TP than Turbine loses from developing the system, supporting the system, player complaints, etc.). Turbine has already sunk the costs into developing the system. That cost cannot be recovered. Yet on the eve of when the profits were supposed to start rolling in (changing the investment from a net negative to a net positive), they pulled the plug on the system...and thus guaranteed that it will not be making money by virtue of being shut down. COST.
Turbine presumably reevaluated how many problems can occur with the system, and reevaluated the strength of negative player feedback, and made the change after two days. Yet some people want Turbine to engage in self-flagellation rather than finding ways to improve the system. I guess put another way is, the constructive criticism that's offered is to fire whomever was involved with the project?
As for the overall offer wall thing, I suppose for Turbine's post-mortem the main issue to clear up is why the account name, email address, and userID all needed to be transmitted. The packet data already gives a userID, in which case the account name and email address are extraneous and do not need to be given out. It's possible that this was a conceptual problem, i.e. the software engineers didn't consider setting up the system using *just* the userID. For example, once an offer is completed, the third party can transmit to Turbine the userID and the number of points awarded, and Turbine then emails the receipt to the email address and credits the TP to the account name. Only the userID was given out to the third party; the account name and email address stay within Turbine. This would eliminate concerns about privacy. Consider this a learning experience for the software engineers. It's also possible that this was a contractual problem, i.e. the third party made the email address (for example) a condition of doing business with Turbine (since the given reason for needing the email address was to give a receipt). In which case, Turbine should know that players' account names and email addresses should more or less be considered sacred in the future, on par with their credit card information (or Turbine employee passwords) and that such businesses are likely more or less just looking for a way to harvest email addresses and should not be partnered with. Consider this a learning experience for the marketing/legal/executive guys. Players are very cognizant about how their privacy data can be used or misused, and an eye toward this should be given in future development projects.
I for one do not mind filling out surveys and such to get TP, *if* my personal information stays put within Turbine and do not leave the system. If this condition limits the pool of companies that Turbine can partner with, then Turbine should consider that those are likely the companies that pose the least risk of liability in public perception and reputation, and least likely to draw player complaints -- and thus the best companies to draw in players and derive profits for Turbine.