194
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
194 points (98.0% liked)
Games
16403 readers
1833 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Buying something and shutting it down shouldn't be possible. You don't want to own it anymore? Great, they're independent, good luck have fun. But you didn't do anything, to say it stopped existing. It is a purely theoretical act. No factory was torn down, no warehouse was liquidated. A video game studio is just a bunch of folks who come in to work on the same thing every weekday. Games are made of labor. If the money stops flowing, that's a problem, but it shouldn't be a light-switch existential termination.
If the studios had the resources they could easily become independent. But the corporate side owns the rights to their works, so the now independent studio doesn't have any incoming revenue.
The average employee won't work for scraps or nothing. So it's effectively over if big corpo cuts them off.
'They could but they can't' is certainly almost a take.
Misrepresenting what I'm saying is not nice of you.
Missing the point of is versus ought is just bewildering.
Why even engage if you're not interested in discussion?
That is not what happened here. I am saying: buying a studio and saying whoops you don't exist anymore should not happen. You are saying: but it does. Because copyright? Even for shit that's not out yet. A bunch of these closures involve killing unreleased projects, which are obviously never going to go anywhere in the hands of whichever robots own them. Tell me their ownership matters and you will see what backlash looks like.
Thanks for explaining. I was not arguing the point that closures happen, just expanding on why it's not easy for the studios to get back on their feet again as independents.
There will likely be non-disclosure agreements, non-competes or simply IP rights to take into consideration if we want to argue why these studios can't continue their work. In the end it comes down to legal stuff and money. The IP rights even for unreleased products very likely are with the parent corporation. The same goes for the codebase.
So yeah. The studios are left with nothing, except a severance pay if they're lucky.
Normative statements are a novel concept to some people.
Pointing to all that and going AND THAT'S HORSESHIT is not a factual argument - it's a moral judgement.
I'm not saying it's untrue. I'm saying it's unacceptable.
In short:
Fuck.
That.
Well, you can only win against big corpo if you shoot them with their own guns.
Or literal guns.
That's an amazing amount of naivety on display.
This sort of empty shit comment is worse than telling anyone to go fuck themselves.
In that case go fuck yourself and learn some basic economics before you open your hole again.
bAsIc eCoNoMiCs is even less meaningful than just scoffing about naivete. Which you misspelled.
I'm making a normative statement about how this studio - which successfully made a beloved and profitable game, as a product that over a million people paid for - was still treated like it failed, lost money, and ruined everything. And that statement is, if success isn't good enough, that's fucking bullshit.
And the thorn that puts in your side is... that it's not capitalist enough? My guy, do you think the children's introductory textbook version of supply and demand has a footnote about destroying successful companies for shits and giggles? Or maybe you only spit that libertarian shibboleth at anything besides line-go-up. In just two words, you've assured that I don't know and I don't care.
If a misspelled word is your opening argument the rest of your pointless essay isn't worth reading. Go back to school.
It wasn't, but cling to whatever shields your ego.
And consider your own advice - "basic" doesn't mean "fundamental." It means "for children." Try advanced economics.