123
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 05 Oct 2024
123 points (90.7% liked)
PCGaming
6527 readers
3 users here now
Rule 0: Be civil
Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy
Rule #2: No advertisements
Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments
Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions
Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.
Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts
Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments
Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Companies". As if it's some nebulous organism that's alive, as if the building it encompasses is independent of action.
Despite what some kangaroo american court, "Companies" are not living, independent people. They're made of people. And if a company does something shitty or acts toxic, that's because of the people who run it. The building, the logo, the "company" isn't what deserves I'll fate wished up - it's the assholes like the monetization director.
Yes and no.
You can't blame the director of monetization for doing his job. You can blame the owner and the board of directors for going that route.
Those decision makers are what I mean when I call out the company, not the developer that's just doing what he's paid for.
You can monetize in ways that can't be summed up as "gambling"
You wouldn't need a monetization CEO then when the mission wasn't to implement sleazy and addicting tactics.
Yes you can? I could probably find a job kicking homeless people, that wouldn't mean i wasn't an awful person for taking that job. I get doing bad things to make a bag when you're desperate, but that dude is no doubt a rich prick that could easily retire by now.