Engadget⁠40%

ZA/UM announces layoffs two months after the launch of Zero Parades ⁠76%

By Jackson Chen⁠42%

7/18/2026, 5:55:18 PM

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 67.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (5,269 of 21,203 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.20% 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: 4.2%Engadget: 3.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Jackson Chen: 2.0%Engadget: 1.4%Anchoring Bias8.1%This article: 10.7%Jackson Chen: 4.4%Engadget: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.6%Engadget: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 1.3%Engadget: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Jackson Chen: 10.4%Engadget: 6.0%Framing Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 1.1%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.5%Jackson Chen: 1.2%Engadget: 0.8%Status Quo Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 1.0%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.5%Engadget: 4.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 2.9%Engadget: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Jackson Chen: 10.4%Engadget: 7.0%Negativity Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.9%Engadget: 1.6%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: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.5%Engadget: 1.9%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: 3.5%Engadget: 1.8%Recency Bias12.8%This article: 6.8%Jackson Chen: 2.0%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: 8.1%Engadget: 4.9%Appeal to Authority10.3%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Jackson Chen: 4.2%Engadget: 5.3%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 2.5%Engadget: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.5%Engadget: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.4%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.8%Jackson Chen: 5.7%Engadget: 2.7%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: 1.3%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: 1.0%Engadget: 2.3%Anecdotal6.8%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.1%Jackson Chen: 3.6%Engadget: 2.4%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: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 40.6%Jackson Chen: 7.8%Engadget: 2.9%Unattributed Quote40.6%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 2.1%Engadget: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.8%Jackson Chen: 4.4%Engadget: 7.5%Biased Writer Voice3.8%This article: 0.0%Jackson Chen: 0.7%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: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

234 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker41%attributed speech139writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageZA/UM Studio • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageZA/UM Studio • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageZA/UM Studio • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
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…

Analysis

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