3 ms·

I don’t think “money doesn’t come from (in the sense of originate from) rich people” does much to address the question of “how do you propose that game developm

by drdeca 5y ago

I don’t think “money doesn’t come from (in the sense of originate from) rich people” does much to address the question of “how do you propose that game development projects involving many people be funded?” . The question is not “what is the ultimate origin of the money”, but “by what mechanism does it come to be allocated to the project”. I think some would answer “the funding for the project should be democratically allocated by the employees of the company, from previous company income”, which, I suppose is coherent, though I think some substantially overestimate how much of a benefit it would have.

danaris 5y ago
Most game development is not funded by a rich person just handing a development studio a chunk of money and saying "build this". It's funded either off the profits of a previous endeavor, or, these days, through Kickstarter. And while I certainly support worker cooperatives as a company model, even that doesn't require funding for new initiatives to be "democratically allocated by employees of the company". There's still usually at least some form of hierarchy. We really need to get over the worship of rich people in this country. Having more money than God doesn't mean they should be treated like gods. In fact, what it means, in almost every case, is that they exploited workers in some form or other to get their fortune. The only exceptions I know of are people like MacKenzie Scott, who got their billions from someone who exploited workers to get their fortune.
- drdeca 5y ago
  > Most game development is not funded by a rich person just handing a development studio a chunk of money and saying "build this". I didn’t think they were; I thought we were just talking about people who own (controlling shares in), or lead, companies, and their influence over the processes of the development of the games (both in terms of the working environment, and the content of the game). Perhaps I read over a previous part of the thread too quickly? I’m confused as to what the disagreement is about? It is in some way about “capitalists” and game development funding, but like, everyone understands that games aren’t funded by a single person paying a group of people to develop a particular game. What is the actual disagreement here? ____ Regarding the worship of the wealthy , that would, of course, be idolatry, and bad. I’m confident that I’m not doing that. ____ Regarding “exploited workers” : perhaps due to me being perhaps strongly biased, I don’t really, feel compelled by this phrase. It means very little to me. When people say “exploited workers”, as far as I can tell, all it means is “profited by employing people” + the speaker disapproves of that. The emotive language doesn’t compel me to agree with their disapproval.

by drdeca 5y ago

danaris 5y ago

Most game development is not funded by a rich person just handing a development studio a chunk of money and saying "build this". It's funded either off the profits of a previous endeavor, or, these days, through Kickstarter. And while I certainly support worker cooperatives as a company model, even that doesn't require funding for new initiatives to be "democratically allocated by employees of the company". There's still usually at least some form of hierarchy. We really need to get over the worship of rich people in this country. Having more money than God doesn't mean they should be treated like gods. In fact, what it means, in almost every case, is that they exploited workers in some form or other to get their fortune. The only exceptions I know of are people like MacKenzie Scott, who got their billions from someone who exploited workers to get their fortune.

drdeca 5y ago
> Most game development is not funded by a rich person just handing a development studio a chunk of money and saying "build this". I didn’t think they were; I thought we were just talking about people who own (controlling shares in), or lead, companies, and their influence over the processes of the development of the games (both in terms of the working environment, and the content of the game). Perhaps I read over a previous part of the thread too quickly? I’m confused as to what the disagreement is about? It is in some way about “capitalists” and game development funding, but like, everyone understands that games aren’t funded by a single person paying a group of people to develop a particular game. What is the actual disagreement here? ____ Regarding the worship of the wealthy , that would, of course, be idolatry, and bad. I’m confident that I’m not doing that. ____ Regarding “exploited workers” : perhaps due to me being perhaps strongly biased, I don’t really, feel compelled by this phrase. It means very little to me. When people say “exploited workers”, as far as I can tell, all it means is “profited by employing people” + the speaker disapproves of that. The emotive language doesn’t compel me to agree with their disapproval.