5 ms·

All of this is self-serving, even from the Stardew Valley dev. It’s win-win.

mjg2 10mo ago
I disagree. I think ConcernedApe is actually genuine with his charity and we should see this as a standard for corporations to follow.
- sneak 10mo ago
  Charitable donations that are self-serving aren’t non-genuine. The money still spends the same.
  - rvnx 10mo ago
    Look, it's really nice that you maintained WooCommerce for so many years. I know you might be tempted to move on to do something else, but I really need my shop to keep working. So, here is the deal: I am going to send you a 'donation' of 500 USD now, and then a monthly recurring 'gift.' Contractually? You have no obligation to work, and I have no obligation to pay. But if you stop working on WooCommerce, I will obviously have to stop the donations. Sounds cool? == The output of that is rather positive here though, but it would be naive to not see the self-interest.
    - _vertigo 10mo ago
      Every action is self-interested if you squint enough
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
- squigz 10mo ago
  I'm confused. What exactly makes his charity genuine vs Epic's charity "disingenuous"?
  - skibidithink 10mo ago
    Indie good, big company bad
  - mjg2 10mo ago
    Ostensibly what u/skibidithink replied. We should have a healthy distrust of international corporations giving for unapparent reasons beyond being in the same sector. We can gesture about how a gift has no obligations, but no one gets into business to not make money, and true charity is without obligation. ConcernedApe donated to give back to the foundation he came from, while Epic is out for global domination in the virtual entertainment sector.
    - 1123581321 10mo ago
      Tim Sweeney also has indie game developer roots; can’t he give to projects in the same spirit as how he started?
      - drfuzzy89 10mo ago
        Sure, and maybe he does. I think there's a difference between Epic doing it as a company, for which they would likely expect to extract some value from the contribution, and Sweeney doing it as an individual.
    - squigz 10mo ago
      Epic - like every other company in the world right now, particularly tech companies - was built on open-source software. Just because they may or may not have used those specific tools does not mean their desire to give back to that community is evil. I'm really still just trying to see the whole "Epic is donating money to take over the world!" argument here. What obligation do they get from these donations, exactly?
    - madeofpalk 10mo ago
      They’re both making self-serving donations. There’s nothing wrong with that.
  - 10mo ago

mjg2 10mo ago

I disagree. I think ConcernedApe is actually genuine with his charity and we should see this as a standard for corporations to follow.

sneak 10mo ago
Charitable donations that are self-serving aren’t non-genuine. The money still spends the same.
- rvnx 10mo ago
  Look, it's really nice that you maintained WooCommerce for so many years. I know you might be tempted to move on to do something else, but I really need my shop to keep working. So, here is the deal: I am going to send you a 'donation' of 500 USD now, and then a monthly recurring 'gift.' Contractually? You have no obligation to work, and I have no obligation to pay. But if you stop working on WooCommerce, I will obviously have to stop the donations. Sounds cool? == The output of that is rather positive here though, but it would be naive to not see the self-interest.
  - _vertigo 10mo ago
    Every action is self-interested if you squint enough
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
squigz 10mo ago
I'm confused. What exactly makes his charity genuine vs Epic's charity "disingenuous"?
- skibidithink 10mo ago
  Indie good, big company bad
- mjg2 10mo ago
  Ostensibly what u/skibidithink replied. We should have a healthy distrust of international corporations giving for unapparent reasons beyond being in the same sector. We can gesture about how a gift has no obligations, but no one gets into business to not make money, and true charity is without obligation. ConcernedApe donated to give back to the foundation he came from, while Epic is out for global domination in the virtual entertainment sector.
  - 1123581321 10mo ago
    Tim Sweeney also has indie game developer roots; can’t he give to projects in the same spirit as how he started?
    - drfuzzy89 10mo ago
      Sure, and maybe he does. I think there's a difference between Epic doing it as a company, for which they would likely expect to extract some value from the contribution, and Sweeney doing it as an individual.
  - squigz 10mo ago
    Epic - like every other company in the world right now, particularly tech companies - was built on open-source software. Just because they may or may not have used those specific tools does not mean their desire to give back to that community is evil. I'm really still just trying to see the whole "Epic is donating money to take over the world!" argument here. What obligation do they get from these donations, exactly?
  - madeofpalk 10mo ago
    They’re both making self-serving donations. There’s nothing wrong with that.
- 10mo ago