At which game companies has he worked?
According to his own website, he appears to be quite skilled in Asian calligraphy, somewhat skilled in portrait photography (less skilled in photoshop), and his earliest work on Artstation featuring blender work is around 4 years ago.
So, if he’s got a ton of experience being paid in the game industry - as an artist, not “blender teacher who had game employees as a BlenderBros student” - he’s doing a good job at keeping it under wraps.
I thought it was something he said in one of their videos which described the relationship between him and Josh as Ponte being the experienced one when it came up. Perhaps I’m misremembering or he’s exaggerating but yeah, I can’t find any info to back it up now either.
I suspect you are not remembering it badly. Understatement isn’t one of their marketing strategies.
I have alot of the HSM tools that the Blender Bro’s often promote
Hardops ,Boxcutter Decal machine.
and some they do not, such as Randomflow
and the machine tools add-on that effectively changes to way you navigate the blender interface to a great degree.
Hardops has some great tools for making complex HSM’s
with sharpening to cleanup shading artifacts and the addon dev says they are good for modeling game assets.
I frankly do not know what would qualify an HSM asset as ” fit for distribution.”
I personally am a Character animator/Filmaker who only needs my HSM’s
(scifi rooms,gadgets etc.) to look look good in my personal renders because my commercial distribution products are animation/ragdoll data for specific Character ecosystems such as DAZ, Iclone etc.
I only mention all of this because if the Blender bros are engaging in bad practices for professional DISTRIBUTION assets it is not necessarily due to the quality of the Add ons they are often use & promote.
I have discovered ,quite recently, that many people who sell these “courses” get EXTREMELY DEFENSIVE 
when anyone suggests an alternative method particularly in an open forum/comment section populated by oozing Fanbois who take their every word as canonical gospel.
In case it seemed otherwise - I’ve no criticism at all for the addons they use.
Hardops is a cool tool. So is boxcutter, etc. Neither of those tools prevents the user from doing dumb things… And honestly, some of the weird things I’ve seen in their videos were not even involving an add-on… it was just a native blender operation.
It’s their technique (and their complete disregard for other techniques, that they characterize as irrelevant) that I’ve issues with, not the toolset. I’d make a similar critique if someone was using - I don’t know, Zbrush - to create “production-quality machine designs for the automotive industry”.
And then portray themselves as “experienced in the industry”, because they drive a car past the BMW factory every morning.
You can look at blender bob’s first videos on modeling and you’ll see another approach.
Personally I think it’s more useful to dig a bit deeper and see what’s the difference between one approach and another.
Sometimes you just need a props and quick and dirty modeling can do fine.
When using booleans + bevel you’ll need to spend some time cleaning, when using subdiv modeling you’ll spend some time doing proper topology.
Now in a project where the asset goes from hand to hand, might be rigged, exploded on houdini, and stuff like that, you might want to take less risks as possible and do something cleaner.
One problem in complex field like CG is that everyone do things in a way because they were told it’s how it should be done.
But when you spend the time learning why it’s done like that you’ll see that it’s really depending on the project type and it’s never one rule that applies everywhere.
If it doesn’t bend or explode, and perfect shading can be achieved without quads at a fraction of the modelling time, then that’s usually the approach I would take.
If those factors are unknown, then definitely good topology is necessary. Having said that, even the guy who invented topology (creator of Gollum), no longer does it manually. He uses auto retopo in 3d Coat I think he said (well before he went all in on AI), although nower days I think most opt for quad remesher, because you can draw guides where you want a specific quad flow.
I plan on releasing an AI remesher for Blender at some point if I can get adequate training data.
I’d say this mostly comes down to what you intend to do with the model. If it’s for a personal project, or only intended to be used for one project, then it’s fine to model it however you want. Go with whatever works.
If you’re selling it as a generic asset though, you’ll probably want to use quads, since the people who buy it might be (and likely will be) intending to do some editing on it to tailor it for their own project.
This is pretty much the beginning and end of the conversation on the issue for me.
Honestly, I am so jaded as this point I don’t even mind someone’s exaggerated Bluster about their “knowledge” in YT videos until they start selling “courses” to unsuspecting noobs.
I am glad that we have so many more learning resources than we did since the old days of just Gnomon,Full sail university and Digital Tutors etc.
Sadly the rise of youtube ,social media and easy access to the high end software suites has fomented the rise of the grifter class of “experts” with just enough surface level knowledge and Nerdy McNerd technobabble to peddle ”courses” of near Zero usefulness if any.
You see this often in the Unreal engine community where I see people promoting themselves as “virtual” filmmakers and selling “Unreal engine filmmaking” courses
when all they have ever produced are short 30-60 second software feature demo clips with canned unreal market assets.
yes, we agree. I think it’s OK to sell non quad based, providing the topology is evident so people can make sure it matches requirements 
What do you guys think of Aidy and Gleb’s Hard Surface Modeling In Blender here…
I know it’s out of date, but they do a deep dive into the various techniques and the problems with them. Also how to fix the problems when you come across them.
My rule of thumb: if anyone self identifies as a ‘bro’… avoid them.
Also true for ‘master’, ‘expert’, and especially ‘guru’.
Hello, my name is Guru Bro, and I…
…am The Master Expert.
Okay. I’ll get my coat. 
: sad Peanuts piano music :
I have always assumed that what these guys are doing is concept design and concept modelling. They never unwrap their models, just throw some procedural shaders or textures with trip-planar projection on it and call it a day as you would do with a quick concept design.
If that assumption is correct, then they are not doing anything wrong by disregarding topology, what counts is that the model looks good and the shading does not break.
The workflow they teach is perfectly fine for that as it is fast and allows to concente on creating shapes quickly and not getting slowed down by thinking too much about topology, similar to a sculpting workflow.
I certainly can’t do both at the same time.
But of course this means that there is another step necessary to create proper topology.
If they present their results as game ready or fit for an VFX shot it certainly is problematic and misleading.
Booleans is essential to how you model in most 3D MCAD software, but those use specific model kernels different than our DCC’s. Still those models are often imported in our DCC for product rendering and in edge appearance they don’t look good but might in rendering.
The problem with booleans in our “faces/polygon/mesh” DCC software is that they have being horrible for 20 or so years. But i am seeing recently interesting results.
The point it is, it is irrelevant the edge mesh appearance if the render is okay.
How many times I had to fix a bad model I received from a client who got it from an external guy… And now the artdirector wants to animate it, swap baked textures or vertex paint on it…
Hours of fixing, and figuring out how to rebuild the model so that the shape looks identical to the original client approved.
I would say topology always matters since you never know what is going to happen with the model further down in the production. Otherwise someone else will have to clean up your mess spending overtimes…
You tell me. 
https://www.blenderbros.com/the-blender-bros-hard-surface-game-asset-course-2-0
And apparently endorsed by NASA (somehow I doubt this)…
Not a great sign that every single review/testimonial is from their own private Discord server… or that’s there’s no way whatsoever to verify that any of their students actually work at the places claimed. Surprised they stopped at NASA, I would have thrown Boeing and Lockheed Martin on there personally if I was trying to scam convince people with no proof