​

The developer behind Yooka-Laylee, a Kickstarter-funded spiritual successor to the beloved Banjo-Kazooie series plans to remove the Youtuber Jontron (Jon Jafari) from the game's cast of voice actors via a Day 1 update after his recent series controversial tweets regarding ethnic minorities in America. Jontron was always a big, vocal fan of the series and was invited to collaborate on the project back in February 2015. Many might say that he was pivotal in reviving the interest in Banjo-Kazooie through his content, both on Game Grumps and his own Youtube channel. Playtonic explained their position in an interview with Gameindustry.biz:

"We recently became aware of comments made by voice artist JonTron after development on Yooka-Laylee had been completed (...) JonTron is a talented video presenter who we were initially, two years ago, happy to include as a voice contributor in our game. However, in light of his recent personal viewpoints we have made the decision to remove JonTron's inclusion in the game via a forthcoming content update. We would like to make absolutely clear that we do not endorse or support JonTron's personal viewpoints and that, as an external fan contributor, he does not represent Playtonic in any capacity. Playtonic is a studio that celebrates diversity in all forms and strives to make games that everyone can enjoy. As such, we deeply regret any implied association that could make players feel anything but 100% comfortable in our game worlds, or distract from the incredible goodwill and love shown by our fans and Kickstarter backers."

This recent development in the Jontron controversy raises an important question regarding Free Speech. I can fully understand Playtonic's position - they're distancing themselves from Jontron in order to prevent any damage to their brand. On the other hand, one could argue that Jontron is free to voice his views on his own platform and shouldn't be penalised for them elsewhere.

Naturally this is a very controversial issue, so I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the matter. What's your opinion? Tell us in comments below!

Update: Jontron acknowledged the decision via his Twitter and although he finds it unfortunate, he understands it and wishes the developers a successful launch.

"Unfortunate to see Playtonic remove me from Yooka Laylee, but I understand their decision. I wish them the best with their launch!"

~https://www.twitter.com/JonTronShow/status/845038284967493638

Source (Gameindustry.biz)

 

[KevinLSX]

What the hell. I never knew he was going to voice in it

 

[the_randomizer]

It's funny this whole thing, like, no one knew he was going to voice in the game, and now that it's know, WTF?

 

[Pluupy]

We can go on and on in circles forever m8 but at the end of the day, they've done exactly what i've said for exactly why i've said it.

"Present as many valid arguments as you want but I will not acknowledge any holes in my stance because my ignorance is a blissful existence" is basically what you are saying.

And let's be real. You statement was just as much conjecture to their reasoning as to mine claiming it was a publicity stunt. At least acknowledge it was conjecture than parade it around like fact.

Tactlessness in debates like this is the reason why Jontron got into this mess in the first place. Jontron can chew the fat on Game Grumps and his channel but not in professional interviews.

And please have some self respect. Don't come into an argument spewing shit as facts and then just digress, claiming your opinion is the absolute. Fuck off with your alt news please.

 

[linuxares]

Is it me or is maybe something else behind this? Like Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft etc. went to Team17 and went "Oi! Lads! We can't sell this because person X is causing comotion. Fix it or you cannot sell your game on our platform!"

 

[Whole lotta love]

Is it me or is maybe something else behind this? Like Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft etc. went to Team17 and went "Oi! Lads! We can't sell this because person X is causing comotion. Fix it or you cannot sell your game on our platform!"

What's your evidence for thinking that?

 

[linuxares]

What's your evidence for thinking that?

None? Just how business works today.

 

[Pluupy]

Is it me or is maybe something else behind this? Like Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft etc. went to Team17 and went "Oi! Lads! We can't sell this because person X is causing comotion. Fix it or you cannot sell your game on our platform!"

...that's true. Yooka Laylee will be releasing on multiple platforms. The possibility the platform manufacturer would deny entry because of this event is plausible. I didn't even think of that.

Your statement admittedly reminds me of the anime, Welcome to the NHK. The protagonist of that anime suffers from being a hikikomori and in his cabin fever believes the Japanese broadcasting company "NHK" is plotting against him. He believes NHK is behind most misfortunes in his life. Everything is a conspiracy.

 

[Whole lotta love]

None? Just how business works today.

just curious if you knew something i didn't

 

[linuxares]

...that's true. Yooka Laylee will be releasing on multiple platforms. The possibility the platform manufacturer would deny entry because of this event is plausible. I didn't even think of that.

Your statement admittedly reminds me of the anime, Welcome to the NHK. The protagonist of that anime suffers from being a hikikomori and in his cabin fever believes the Japanese broadcasting company "NHK" is plotting against him. He believes NHK is behind most misfortunes in his life. Everything is a conspiracy.

Not to get political but damn... that hits home with a lot of big political leaders today doesn't it?

 

[Ericzander]

Let's make a comparison here. Let's say you are a manager at a big retail store and one of your employees says a bunch of rude things to a customer. Maybe he calls him a racial slur, maybe he calls him retarded, maybe he insults his mom, or maybe he was just very rude.

Would you fire the employee? If not, then what do you do if the behavior continues? The first amendment protects your ability to say what you want but it does NOT say there won't be repercussions. Playtonic had every right to remove JonTron from the game. I wouldn't want someone with those views to represent my company either. I think JonTron is hilarious, both on GameGrumps and his own channel (especially the Starcade series) but like Platonic, and Arin before them, I would kick his ass to the curb if he was in any metaphoric project of mine.

 

[Foxi4]

Let's make a comparison here. Let's say you are a manager at a big retail store and one of your employees says a bunch of rude things to a customer. Maybe he calls him a racial slur, maybe he calls him retarded, maybe he insults his mom, or maybe he was just very rude.

Would you fire the employee? If not, then what do you do if the behavior continues? The first amendment protects your ability to say what you want but it does NOT say there won't be repercussions. Playtonic had every right to remove JonTron from the game. I wouldn't want someone with those views to represent my company either. I think JonTron is hilarious, both on GameGrumps and his own channel (especially the Starcade series) but like Platonic, and Arin before them, I would kick his ass to the curb if he was in any metaphoric project of mine.

If I insulted a customer during my work hours? Sure - I'm wearing the store's uniform, I literally represent the brand. If I insulted a random guy in the middle of the street, that's a whole different story - that's my private life, I don't owe it to my employer. They'd still have a right to fire me if my contract had such a specific stipulation, but it wouldn't make the whole affair any less idiotic. Jontron made the comments on his own platform, not Playtonic's, so your comparison is really reaching far, to the point of being non-applicable.

 

[TobiasAmaranth]

You're putting that employee in uniform in that situation. People have a private life, and he was in no way trying to have such opinions be associated with the business. O.o

 

[Zense]

Now they just need to remove him from Kingdom Hearts cuz his levels have been getting on my nerves since Kingdom Hearts 2... /s

I find it more interesting comparing this to when Sega removed Micheal Jackson from Sonic 3's soundtrack because he got into the paedophilia mess around the same time. The difference was that MJ was only accused of something, whereas Jambjon openly said the stuff that made Playtonic do what they did. Sega did this stuff pretty much in silence which is very different from how Playtonic is handling it. Their different approach could just be a coincidence. There's no evidence for anything. The problem is that both of these are celebrities, that is public figures, and whatever they do publicly will be judged on them no matter if they're performing as Jontron or as the private person Jon Jafari (or whatever his real name is). People aren't capable of having you appear publicly as two different characters. They see the same face and therefore judge it as the same thing and person. That's how Jafari's opinions affect Jontron's reputation. It's sad but true.

It's hard to say that Yooka-Laylee is a bad game before anyone has played the full game yet, but people are right in saying that there is a possibility they're just trying to get easy money from knowing that people are nostalgic and easily throw their money on anything with 3D platformer written on it. I don't blame them for doing business though, since this is how they earn money. I would judge it differently if it was a project they worked on in the evenings after work as hobby. No one's evil for deciding on making a game cuz they see there's a market for it. In addition, it's in their best interest to make a good game for their reputation. I believe that is what we're seeing No Man's Sky devs do now after the arguably controversial launch their game had.

Also, who the hell wants to think about politics when playing this game, or let alone Banjo Kazooie? I just wanna collect stuff and listen to awesome cheerful music. Some of you guys have grown up to a point of no return, it seems, when you refuse to play a game based on the developers opinions and actions. Still, you have all the right to, I'm just saying how I disagree with you.

 

[TobiasAmaranth]

Isn't it worse to refuse to play a game because of the actions of a single contracted worker or even volunteer than to judge the developer?

 

[aljpn91]

i really don't know what they're trying to accomplish by telling everyone they're cutting ties with guy, if anything this will only hurt sales, because like foxi said, it's a really shitty move on their part and some people will not want to support them after hearing about this

 

[Foxi4]

Isn't it worse to refuse to play a game because of the actions of a single contracted worker or even volunteer than to judge the developer?

As a customer I have the power and I get to choose which companies to support - how I make that estimation is within my own discretion. I disagree with the choice of the developers and the only punitive action available to me is not buying their product. The relationship between the company and the customer is two-sided - the company provides the customer with goods and services and in exchange the customer pays. If I disagree with the company's conduct, it makes absolute sense to boycott their product. It's a calculated choice between how much a customer wants the product versus how much the customer disagrees with a given business practice. I disagree with this practice, thus it would be hypocritical of me to give the company my custom - there are other games for me to play out there, not that I was terribly interested in the game in the first place.

EDIT: I may have misconstrued or misunderstood your post, who are you replying to?

 

[Zense]

No, it's not. As a customer I have the power and I get to choose which companies to support - how I make that estimation is within my own discretion. I disagree with the choice of the developers and the only punitive action available to me is not buying their product. The relationship between the company and the customer is two-sided - the company provides the customer with goods and services and in exchange the customer pays. If I disagree with the company's conduct, it makes absolute sense to boycott their product. It's a calculated choice between how much a customer wants the product versus how much the customer disagrees with a given business practice. I disagree with this practice, thus it would be hypocritical of me to give the company my custom - there are other games for me to play out there, not that I was terribly interested in the game in the first place.

I agree with you having the right to and that in your case it's the right choice. To delve further into this, by buying their game and essentially adding to the sales that make this company get bigger, you support and show that you allow other companies to follow their business model and form of conduct, creating a possibility of this behavior, which you don't agree with, becoming the norm or at least more normal in this business sector. It's your only way of physically expressing your opinion, and it's what you should do in this case.

 

[TobiasAmaranth]

I was replying to the post immediately above me. I just don't think it's fair to judge a company based on the irrelevant opinions of an employee that aren't being expressed in relation to said company. If a company chooses to make itself a social entity and tie their socio-political stances to their business, then that's one thing (a'la Chik'fil'a, which even then doesn't bother me), but if I say something opinionated in my own personal time, and I'm not working ~IN~ PR, and I'm not saying 'company I work for supports my opinion' or anything like that, and I'm not doing it while INSIDE their store... then fuck off. People can have a private life while still respecting a company they work for. *shrug*

This never should have had any link created between the two entities involved.

 

[Foxi4]

I was replying to the post immediately above me. I just don't think it's fair to judge a company based on the irrelevant opinions of an employee that aren't being expressed in relation to said company. If a company chooses to make itself a social entity and tie their socio-political stances to their business, then that's one thing (a'la Chik'fil'a, which even then doesn't bother me), but if I say something opinionated in my own personal time, and I'm not working ~IN~ PR, and I'm not saying 'company I work for supports my opinion' or anything like that, and I'm not doing it while INSIDE their store... then fuck off. People can have a private life while still respecting a company they work for. *shrug*

Spot on. Sorry, I always get things mixed up without embedded quotes, that's my bad.

 

[TobiasAmaranth]

NP. If I'm replying really quick to someone straight above me, I will generally leave them off. Also, it's pronounced "My mistake." Don't embrace ghetto-speak.