zerocrossing wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:00 am
Jace-BeOS wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:24 pm
I hate the goal to kill physical media, I hate the release quality of so many games in “AAA” publishing, and I refuse to subscribe to every goddamned subscription service just because every damned publisher wants a piece of the rotten pie that is the “games as live services” market fad (you can only cut a pie into so many pieces before the pieces are so small that they aren’t worth buying). When publishers complain about 200 MILLION DOLLARS in profit being “disappointing”, and when Wall Street shits on a stock because of said “disappointing sales”, well, f**k that whole system.
I don’t like the games INDUSTRY
itself. But I like games
I’m in the game industry, and I’d like you to imagine if you worked incredibly long hours on something, say an album, released it, and then people started buying used copies of your album where you don’t get a dime.
How is that a problem? What entitles me to insert myself into an exchange of goods between private individuals with whom I have no relationship?
In what industry has an original manufacturer ever been able to justify inserting itself into the exchange of property between private individuals that have zero relationship with the manufacturer?
Only the software industry dares to go there. The industry that doesn’t actually sell OR WARRANT anything (except the media, where enforced by law, so let’s stop using physical media).
This industry has invented a model of commerce (licensing the usage of intangibles) that’s entirely unique to itself. It has used that model to engage in special pleading when taken to task over its incongruity with the rest of global human commerce. The industry uses this logical fallacy to justify and enforce entirely unreasonable anti-consumer behavior. The EULA is one of the most “spirit-of-the-law”-unlawful & consumer-abusive inventions ever devised by capitalists seeking to make the most profit while taking the least-possible amount of responsibility for their own goods.
Law in the USA has not done anything to protect consumers from this abusive model of commerce, due to the makeup of our governing bodies (being mostly privileged old men who know nothing about computer technology, and can hire others to deal with it when confronted by it in their daily lives) and lobbying. Computer industry lobbyists are why we have corporate-protectionism laws like the DMCA, pretending to be defending intellectual property (just try using the DMCA to protect your intellectual property when you’re an individual artist who’s work is being sold for profit by others who’ve stolen it from you; you need an army of lawyers who are legal representatives of you to use this law to compel another business to restrict the illegal commerce of stolen IP; software industry and recording industry lobbyists had zero concern over this because they were representing armies of lawyers representing massive corporations).
Lobbying lawmakers to support its “unnatural” model of commerce has resulted in some companies in other industries pulling a “if they can do it, so can we” move, in regard to supporting their products (“we aren’t responsible for how it works, because it runs on software that we do not warrant”, regardless of the fact that hardware without software is useless).
Hell, the computer industry entirely ruined the patent system by successfully lobbying to force the patent office to accept software as legitimate inventions (something the patent office rightly refused to do until forced).
Wall Street loves this responsibility-devoid model of commerce so much that “investors” have pressured every corporation everywhere to apply this model as much as possible. Services instead of goods. Minimal infrastructure. Look at how the telecoms have latched on to the notion of “wireless everything”, which is a pathological technological goal because there isn’t enough spectra for wireless everything (well, not usable, and not for everyone). But they don’t care about the long view; only the quarterly profits. “Investors” can just abandon a corporation that “disappoints”, causing “investor panic”, slashing stock values, sending that corporation into rounds of layoffs (and vast executive benefits packages).
I am no fan of public ownership. It’s the catalyst that turned computer industry pathology into an economic system-destroying, metastasized cancer.
zerocrossing wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:00 am
Better yet, imagine if there was something about that album where it didn’t work on all new CD players or media players and you had to support all the people who bought your album used.
In every other industry/market, support is limited to warranty periods. This varies from country to country (with the USA, seat of the computer industry, having some of the fewest consumer protections among first-world nations). In many cases, a warranty is only available to the first owner of a product. After a warranty period is over, paid first-party or third-party support is at the consumer’s discretion.
Third-party support is relegated to workarounds (“don’t use that feature”) or no solutions at all (still costing consumers money to discover this fact). In the software industry, because the software industry hates the notion of source code availability, there’s no actual remedy for consumers who find that the developer is unwilling to correct known design flaws.
Ultimately, it always boils down to using special pleading as an argument for why the software industry should be excused from reasonable expectations. Software is too complicated for reliability, they say... and it sure as hell behaves that way!
It’s a fact that you, as a developer, are subject to the bad design choices of thousands of developers before you. You have to make your stuff with other people’s tools, and your product must work on other people’s equipment. The computer industry is a disaster of incompatible trash that is “supposed to work” based on inconsistently adhered-to standards. Various computer types, made up from various components, various versions of operating systems, peripherals, embedded software, third-party drivers, dev tools, etc.
It sucks. I don’t envy that position.
The correct solution to that problem is NOT “charge ahead full speed anyway, use social engineering to convince people that this is the natural order of things, and profit”. The solution is bigger than you and I. The conversation is not.
NOTE: I am not blaming YOU as an individual game developer for any of this. Whether or not you are actively engaged in perpetuating these issues is immaterial to my rant at this point. As far as I’m concerned, you’re just another musician on KVR who works in this industry and I’m not targeting you as a cause of any of this. I did want to respond to your analogies because of not carrying them to their logical conclusion (via computer industry special pleading).
We are probably not going to have a good time discussing this with each other if you, as a game developer, are absolute in your position of your industry doing no wrong and/or view yourself as a victim of your users.