Unmasking "Capes": Damage Control and… Dubious Collaborations at Spitfire Interactive
In a recent statement by Penta, the Community Strategist for the publisher of Capes, Daedalic Entertainment (the very same company behind publishing the infamous Golem game), which represents Spitfire Interactive, the developer of the "Capes" game, they take a very defensive tone, clearly showcasing a company caught in their own web of missteps and ‘questionable’ decisions.
As allegations swirl around their collaboration with Sweet Baby Inc. (SBI), and how they tried to hide it; Spitfire's response, far from being clarifying, is far more of an exercise in damage control and playing the victim.
But how can we trust words from a publisher that was caught actively trying to hide their connection with Sweet Baby Inc. after they knew it would destroy sales? Instead of being forward with the community and honestly explaining, they chose to hide it, suppress it, and hope no one would notice… but when the entire Sweet Baby Inc. organization showed up in the end credits… the cat was out of the proverbial bag.
Administrative Titles and Developer Roles: Misleading or Misguided?
Penta's clarification about not being a developer but a community strategist highlighted at the outset of the statement could also be looked at as a tactic to sidestep real accountability. The community's backlash stems not from title misinterpretations but from the transparency of Spitfire's actions. Penta's insistence on administrative technicalities seems less about clearing up confusion and more about diverting focus from the substantive issues at hand.
Listing Full Companies in Credits: A Standard Practice?
Penta's explanation that listing an entire company in game credits as industry norm strikes me as peculiar and quite... out of touch. As someone who has been a game tester at Sony, this is not a standard industry practice I'm familiar with. Generally, credits are reserved for individuals who have contributed directly to the project. This broad-strokes crediting approach could set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing those with minimal or no actual input to gain undue recognition... and get to positions they would have never attained without. This practice dilutes the contributions of those who genuinely work on a project and may enable mediocrity.
The Collaboration with Sweet Baby Inc.: A Necessity or a Misstep?
The statement's weak justification for continuing the collaboration with SBI, based on a lack of foresight about future controversies, fails to convince me in particular. According to Penta, if they had known in 2022 what they know in 2024, decisions would have been different.
This deflection points to a reactive rather than proactive ethical stance, which does little to reassure stakeholders of Spitfire's commitment to integrity. The suggestion that SBI was merely involved in finding voice actors seems dubious... at best. Given the controversies surrounding SBI and the apparent depth of their involvement, as hinted by the game trailer, it's reasonable to suspect that their role went well beyond the mere recruitment of voice actors.
Playing the Victim: A Tired Strategy
Most telling is the tone of victimhood permeating Penta's 'statement'. In a not-so round about way, accusing YouTubers and critics of 'harming' an indie studio diverts from the legitimate concerns raised about Spitfire's decision-making and transparency. This strategy of playing the victim is not only tiring, but also... ineffective in an era where consumers demand and value corporate responsibility and transparency. None of which touches upon how the publisher Daedelic Entertainment is purportedly deleting any dissenting comments from the Steam forums...
A Call for True Accountability
Instead of meaningful engagement with the criticism, Spitfire Interactive, through Penta’s words, has chosen to shield itself behind the same old veneer of misunderstood intentions and industry norms that do not hold up under scrutiny. For a game like "Capes," which could have potentially soared on the merits of artistic vision and innovative gameplay, it's a disservice to see it mired in controversies that reflect a lack of foresight and ethical consideration.
In light of all this, it becomes imperative for Spitfire to reevaluate not just its collaborative practices but also how it addresses criticism. Only through genuine accountability and transparent practices can Spitfire hope to someday regain the trust of its audience and ensure that its future projects do not fall prey to similar pitfalls... But as it stands right now, its a terrible look for the whole organization.
~Smash