Engadget⁠65%

ZA/UM announces layoffs two months after the launch of Zero Parades ⁠68%

By Jackson Chen⁠63%

7/18/2026, 10:55:18 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Recency Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 40.6% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 393 faulty-reasoning hits from 234 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (9,440 of 29,350 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.80% of the article peer group.

Layoffs in the video game industry just keep coming. 
In a post on social media, ZA/UM Studio, the developer and publisher of Disco Elysium and more recently, Zero Parades: For Dead Spies, announced that it "served redundancy or at-risk notices impacting up to 32 of our colleagues across all departments at ZA/UM Studio." 
The news of the layoffs comes only a few months after the studio's latest game was released in May. 
ZA/UM Studio attributed the layoffs to the weak "commercial performance" of Zero Parades: For Dead Spies, which "has not enabled us to sustain a studio of our current size." 
According to SteamDB, the espionage RPG hit an all-time peak of 3,177 players around the time of its release, but has steadily declined since. 
For diehard Disco Elysium fans, the news of layoffs may not come as a total surprise. 
After the success of the narrative-heavy RPG in 2019, ZA/UM Studio went through a series of conflicts including the firing of the game's core team, a lawsuit involving intellectual property theft and accusations of a hostile work environment for women. 
Former devs with ZA/UM Studio subsequently made their own studio called Longdue, which is also working on a "narrative-first" game. 
As for the latest layoffs, ZA/UM Studio said it's still "continued to consult and work with representatives of the ZA/UM Workers' Alliance." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 3.7%Engadget: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Jackson Chen: 1.7%Engadget: 1.3%Anchoring Bias8.1%This article: 10.7%Jackson Chen: 3.8%Engadget: 2.9%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.5%Engadget: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 1.1%Engadget: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Jackson Chen: 9.2%Engadget: 5.5%Framing Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 1.0%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.5%Jackson Chen: 1.1%Engadget: 0.7%Status Quo Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.9%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.4%Engadget: 4.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 2.6%Engadget: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Jackson Chen: 9.3%Engadget: 6.4%Negativity Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.8%Engadget: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.4%Engadget: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.8%Jackson Chen: 3.4%Engadget: 1.6%Recency Bias12.8%This article: 6.8%Jackson Chen: 1.8%Engadget: 0.4%Primacy Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.3%Jackson Chen: 7.2%Engadget: 4.5%Appeal to Authority10.3%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Jackson Chen: 3.7%Engadget: 4.9%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 2.2%Engadget: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.4%Engadget: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.3%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.8%Jackson Chen: 5.0%Engadget: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.8%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 1.1%Engadget: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.8%Jackson Chen: 0.9%Engadget: 2.1%Anecdotal6.8%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.1%Jackson Chen: 3.2%Engadget: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.1%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 40.6%Jackson Chen: 6.9%Engadget: 2.6%Unattributed Quote40.6%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 1.8%Engadget: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.8%Jackson Chen: 3.8%Engadget: 6.9%Biased Writer Voice3.8%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.6%Engadget: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.6%Engadget: 3.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

234 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker41%attributed speech139writer words
Selected voice

ZA/UM Studio

100%flagged-word coverage
95 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%ZA/UM Studio: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%ZA/UM Studio: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.