Gaming

30544 readers

490 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Can somebody explain why game makers don't start their own companies together? (programming.dev)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It seems like every other week a game studio is massively laying off employees; sometimes after years of development. What I'm reading is that it's a quick way to lower expenses and pad the investors' pockets, flooding the market with developers and reducing their value, to then hire them back a few months later at lower salaries.

So, what's holding back gamedevs from banding together to either unionize or start their own companies with better conditions that the purely money-driven studios? Why aren't they trying to be better? Nobody willing to invest in them? Does starting a company together mean they will now be the bosses who have to answer to the investors, ensure returns, and fire employees? Is the world just an entire shit-cake?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Probably because the owners want to take all of the profit and employees do not have the capital to make the investment.

It takes a certain benevolent capitalist to convert their business to employee owned (Bobs Red Mill intensifies). Such businesses only represent 12% of the private sector

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

That's a much higher percentage than I expected.

Benevolent capital is out there, especially in the startup phase. I find it arrogant and ignorant, but available. It does require risk-sharing which I find doesn't fit the vision of the borrower.