Having read the article when it was posted earlier, I initially thought it was measured in offering statements from both Quantic Dreams and the journalists who have covered it, although I was uncomfortable with how much of the article was just a mouthpiece for David Cage to complain about being the victim of journalists and people who cared too much about abusive workplaces. The person who posted the thread for that article was selectively quoting and made it look even more supportive of Quantic Dream and David Cage than that article actually was.



The main questions that jump out at at me are about the accuracy of information that was supposedly pulled from French sources; ideally someone can post some quotes and break them down a little for those of us who used Babelfish to get through French class in elementary school.



Specifically, these are the things that jumped out at me:



- Dean Takahashi's article largely frames this as being one rogue employee looking for a big payout, but it also mentions a few other employees quitting due to the same incident. Is there a reason why all of these people would quit together?



- The list of questions supposedly asked by French journalists. One of them was about how Quantic Dreams' workhours make people who don't work as much uncomfortable, which seems like a question that someone would only ask if they're trying to reframe discussions of crunch as actually being just lazy workers. It would be a pretty horrendous question for journalists to ask.



- Are the organizations that Cage said had evaluated Quantic Dream actually in the position to do so? From what I could find, one was more of a tax collection company, and another was either a warehouse management software company or an electronic voting company.



- Posts in the thread claimed that the article misinterpreted statements by the judge about whether or not the material being shared in Quantic Dreams was sexist, racist, or homophobic. What was the original statement?