By shutting down a studio instead of selling it off or even letting it buy itself out, Microsoft ensures that no studio it has ever owned can become viable competition. Who cares about a diverse industry when you can keep all the IPs developed under your umbrella and shelve them for decades, instead of letting the studios that made them go on to work on their creative visions?
Article also mentions that it breaks the employees of those studios up so there is less chance of a competitor that makes another successful IP
Ironically if the developers band together and start another studio they would probably have Microsoft knocking on their door with an acquisition offer in a few years.
The trouble is the upfront capital though, but at the same time another publisher would surely bite at the thought of getting a talented studio’s staff in one go?
The real culprit is, surprise, late stage capitalism and unbridled greed. Who would’ve guessed?
An article that recognize the problem with our current economical system and didn’t circle around the issue? Color me surprised
EEE (embrace, extend, extinguish)
That’s what I was thinking the whole time. I mean, it’s not that far of a guess.
I know a lot of indy game developers do their thing hoping to get rich from it. And there’s nothing wrong with that. And they don’t all do that. Some people just really love coding and creating, and just want to make a cool game. Nothing wrong with that, either.
But for once, I’d love to see some brilliant founder create a game studio that has some kind of poison pill clause that prevents it from ever going public or it’s IP ever being purchased by a large mega-corp. And in my wettest of wet dreams, that idea becomes a meme.
Something tells me that here in the United States of Greed, such a thing is ‘un-possible’, legally speaking. Our whole corrupt system is set up to make half a dozen business bros get wealthier. They won’t tolerate anything that jams a wrench into that machinery.
Something tells me that here in the United States of Greed, such a thing is ‘un-possible’, legally speaking.
It’s not only possible it happens reasonably often. So often in fact that the “poison pill” idiom was created by companies who were doing just that.
I had heard of this, and I appreciate the link to the paper. It’s one reason I used the term. My understanding of it is that these seldom actually work in practice. It did not help Twitter, for example. I appreciate the counter-argument. I definitely want this to be a thing.
There are plenty of small indie studios that won’t sell out, we just don’t know who they are.
I don’t know that they have a poison pill clause but Gabe is a billionaire who doesn’t seem to have interest in having external people direct the company. Thanks to Steam, valve can do what it wants. There is little benefit for them to go public given the extra scrutiny that comes with being a public company.
There are two ways to solve for this: private ownership by a dedicated individual, and worker cooperative ownership with a strong culture.
Glad you brought up worker cooperatives. I have watched a few Richard Wolff videos and they sound awesome to me.
There’s also this guy, who looks legit on paper, but I can’t figure out if he really is legit or not. I hope he is…
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/employee-ownership-life-changing-for-family-60-minutes/
I am Lemmy’s token syndicalist lol. I love democracy so much I think we should have it at work too.
I mean, Larian is pretty much that. Instead of just doing Baldur’s Gate 4 although Hasbro fired all their contact people and probably would have urged Larian to rush a sequel, they are instead during an IP of their own next and refuse to go public and/or get bought.
I mean, I got upset like everyone else at the news that they wouldn’t be making more BG, but the longer I think about it, the longer I feel like it’s the healthier choice. Like you said, Hasbro might have pressured them to rush out the next game, instead of giving them the creative space to make that game live up to the expectations.
I’ve been doing some market analysis on the viability of indie projects. My brother and I are starting to develop a game after he’s finished up his computer science degree (Im a graphics major BTW). Anyway I slice it, the only way to remain profitable would be to have a small team as possible.
I have no idea why a lot of these companies think that growth is actually going to be better for them in the indie space.
My older liberal banker brother asked me, small business owning tradesman, why I don’t just go start some small community in Montana and live without the dollar, yada yada.
I laughed, he said he’s serious, I said “yea, the bankers that own the feds are serious too, and they use that to control what kind of society we decide for ourselves. We don’t have the freedom to choose. We have the freedom to choose but only from these two choices. We won’t even allow Cuba to do that shit, still today, 60years under embargo. And they’re their own country! The bankers would erase me in a heartbeat”.
This is why I don’t care about IPs anymore. As soon as one gets traction some suit shows up and fucks it up. Indie one-offs are best.
