Oh no, I’m gonna copy the folder a million times, I added ('murican) medical debt to someone’s net worth!
If you and a friend shared the same car, you stole a car from the manufacturer. /s
But you and your friend wouldn’t download a car now would you…
That’s nothing, someone hosted an unauthorised Smash Bros tournament and everyone at Nintendo died
everyone at Nintendo died
Sounds like a net gain for the gaming community.
But then theres no one left to sue us right?! Pirate all the (nitendo) things!!!
Also it’s not like the workers typically get the long tail of profits. Most labor is only paid a salary, and the “owners” get to keep profiting. Workers should be entitled to the profits of their labor.
So kinda like royalties
I would be a bit careful with this.
- It is incredibly hard to define each worker’s contribution to any particular profit.
- It means that the worker’s compensation depends on the overall success of the product which may have little to do with their work (for example bad management tanking a project or it getting cancelled before release).
- Accounting can move profits around in a lot of cases. Look at how every movie makes no money.
In many ways having it be a transaction (work x hours get paid x dollars) is nice. I means that the employee knows exactly what they are getting upfront.
I’m not the person you replied to at any point in the thread, and I agree that there is potential for a slippery slope in a similar way it happens with tipping culture.
But my understanding of the original comment was that workers should also get a share of profit after the game is released, with no changes to the salary they received during the production stage which is just covering for labor as it happens everywhere else. Upfront payment and royalties, proportional to profit. (This type of arrangement is unusual but exists, or used to exist, in publishing, for both authors and illustrators).
The idea wasn’t to change it one for the other but hypothetically add it, but we know greed won’t allow that to happen, which is used as a moral point for piracy: you are not hurting the people who did the hard work at all
You could also have salaries 🤷
The problem to solve is a handful of people who aren’t really doing much work get most of the profits. There may be other solutions.
I don’t know if I really buy “not doing much of the work”. Middle management maybe but to own and run a company is serious work. Especially starting a company is huge risk. So if you take the risk you get a lot of the reward.
IMHO ways to help even this out are:
- Higher taxes on the wealthy. Keep that progressive tax curve going (and not regressing). I think these people do deserve to be rewarded, but up to a point. Honestly I think the tax rate should approach 100% as you approach the very highest percentile of income.
- Universal basic income. Make it so that people don’t need to work. They get to choose to work when the compensation is worth it to them. This makes explotation much harder and makes it much easier for people to negotiate fair compensation (whether that is salary, profit sharing, a mix or something else).
I would also like to see some way to change the natural goal of a company from “make as much money as possible” to “bring as much value to people as possible”, but I think these two things would be a good start.
I agree with you. Something I noticed and wanted to add: When I mention UBI to people, a lot of them are hearing it like a guarantee that everyone gets enough income to be happy or be comfortable.
I have found that people who interpret basic income in this way tend to become strongly opposed to UBI on the grounds that it could never be funded and would lead to social collapse due to limited resources.
Idk what you picture, but I imagine a person on UBI affording to eat rice and beans in a studio apartment somewhere in a low cost-of-living and low property value geography (though perhaps among pleasant neighbors and like minded folks).
So I kind of think the name “Universal Basic Income” needs to be reworked so it sounds more harsh, almost like a necessary evil. Something like “Rock Bottom Income”, idk.
I don’t have the perfect answer, but do you think conservatives would get on board if it was like “The poors can’t complain, they can take their complaints straight to Bean Town if they don’t like the wages” or do you think they’d still find it unpalatable?
If you own the company (or a lot of shares), you gain wealth by doing literally nothing if the company’s value increases. On top of probably just keeping the profits. Plus the “use my stock as collateral, give me a low interest personal loan, that’s not taxed as income lol” wealth back.
I’m not talking so much about the petit bourgeoisie that’s working hard every day making donuts to sell. I’m talking about big C Capital that buys something and just takes the profits.
The CEO at my old job can’t code. He can’t do UI design. He doesn’t do sales or customer service. He sometimes talks to other rich assholes to fundraise, but mostly he makes questionable decisions and hurts morale. But if the company goes big, he’ll get filthy rich and the people who actually built the thing will not.
That said, higher taxes on the wealthy (plus closing loopholes like the loan thing) would help. So would universal basic income.
It’s funny because conservatives cry about “welfare queens” that just take money for nothing, but it’s the rich who can do that. If you have a few million, you can just coast on investments. Little to no risk. Once again, projection.
Ironically that might boost productivity. And would lead to something closer to meritocracy
But then what incentive would keep the owners owning everything?
How would you quantify ongoing projects where workers come and go and each of their specific contribution might not be easy to measure? Do they all also assume financial responsibility for any failures or lawsuits?
How would you quantify ongoing projects where workers come and go and each of their specific contribution might not be easy to measure?
Probably some sort of collective ownership, profit sharing, with negotiation and consensus building. Other people more well read than me have spent a lot of time thinking about this. My starting position is that the standard capitalist model of “I pay you $10 to make a widget, and I sell it for $1000 and keep all the profits” is not okay.
Do they all also assume financial responsibility for any failures or lawsuits?
Do the owners assume financial responsibility now? I think that’s what LLCs and other corporate structures are for- to shield individuals from liability and responsibility.
If that upsets you, kids, tell your dad to make a game worth paying money for in 2025, or to make his 1995 game easily accessible at an appropriate price.
Best i can do is an ai texture flip and a “remastered” version for 40€
I don’t mind remasters per se. Diablo 2 Resurrected was absolutely awesome, and they didn’t really change that much. Just modernised the graphics and made som some qol adjustments.
They killed LAN after beta and made it always-online. Still, a better rework than many others.
i had forgotten about the d2 remake. This reminds me why I never got it.
I think LAN is still dead but offline single player works fine.
D2R is decent, but there is also warcraft 3 reforged, which is an abomination (there is now a startcraft 2 mod that is better than reforged)
I’m glad you enjoyed it. They are not for me usually, but it’s neither here nor there
Or accessible at all!
This is so sad, Andrew Wilson - lay off 400 employees :(
Also, keeping and playing your old games you paid for is theft.
I’m bringing home the rain. Theres no supper on the table. The babies crying in the cradle.
I just wanted to see my boy Joseph Kucan in his prime again. I didn’t mean to destroy your family!!!
You did not mean to, but did you care?
Given that this EA guy clearly is against the Brotherhood or Nod, I wouldn’t care.
