What do you think of Gaming companies losing Billions?

[Corty]

Use condom!

I like it how I like my wrestling. R.A.W.

 

[MintiLime]

Indie games arise! The time is now!

 

[NotaNuffian]

Ecstatic for a brief moment.

Sadly, the ones that will get bent over the spanking bench and fired will not be the higher ups but rather, those that the parasites think isn't important to the companies, ie everyone else but themselves.

Also, Sony is still fucking Helldivers up the ass. The celebration for PSN fucking off was too early.

Human greed knows no bounds, we truly need a more effective Hell onto Earth, ones that actually burn the ones responsible.

 

[Siegburn]

The only problem with this theory is why has it happened before. Its about a fifty year cycle. It'll all happen again in another 50 years. Soon as Trump takes office, your gonna see the return of the 80s. Big shoulder pads, 3 day stubble, glorification of the police and civil order. Its happened before, it'll happen again. It was like this in the 1970s, the 1920s, and I would argue the American Civil War was just another blip on this macro trend. It cycles up, the system collapses, we return to sanity, then take it too far because America never reacts, we only overreact.

really?

 

[Daitengu]

Easy. SW Battlefront DEI Programers
Fallout 76 - DEI hiring of programers
WWE 2k20 - Wrestling just sucks.
WC3 Reforged - They LITERALLY DUMBED DOWN THE IN GAME ECONOMY SO THEY COULD GO FOR A DUMBER AUDIENCE. How is that not going after "The Wider Audience" ie the war cry of woke shit.
Cyberpunk 2077 That was just mismanged
Balan Wonderworld - Never heard of it.
Battlefield 2042 - That was just microtransationed into the ground.
LotR Gollum - DEI hiring of programers. They refused to hire certain programers because "Pale and Male Is Stale". That was a gigantic Shit Show.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I say what I mean and mean what I say.

I know what you said, and I think it's off, cause "socialism" is just the flag waved by authoritarians. Which both corpo execs and woke use to fake many things.

Examples:
SWBF2, you call it DEI hires, but the actual problem is EA execs telling the devs to micro trans everything including exp. Piss poor balance and P2W is what killed it.

Warcraft 3, Activision execs underpaid, meaning not enough workers, missing features, scenematics, and the main kicker, it installed over the original game. If it was actually woke Arthus and Jaina woulda been uglier and/or PoC. Like they did in the Diablo 2 remake.

Fallout 76, Todd Howard promised far too much, the Bethesda team didn't have enough time or experience in making a "live service" game, and the execs thought it'd be a good idea to scam the customers with a subpar bag, and a plastic shell for the booze bottle.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

I know what you said, and I think it's off, cause "socialism" is just the flag waved by authoritarians. Which both corpo execs and woke use to fake many things.

I speak of it in the economic sense only. Nothing wrong with socialism. It is how it is applied.

A family is socialism. A small business is socialism. A military is socialism. These are not bad things. It is when socialism is applied on the wrong scale that it gets out of hand. Communism is socialism married with politics and that's when it turns evil. This is why Communism hates family and small business. They are competitors. They are healthy forms of socialism and communism cannot stand that.

I know what you said, and I think it's off, cause "socialism" is just the flag waved by authoritarians. Which both corpo execs and woke use to fake many things.

Examples:
SWBF2, you call it DEI hires, but the actual problem is EA execs telling the devs to micro trans everything including exp. Piss poor balance and P2W is what killed it.

And who was telling the Devs what to do?

Warcraft 3, Activision execs underpaid, meaning not enough workers, missing features, scenematics, and the main kicker, it installed over the original game. If it was actually woke Arthus and Jaina woulda been uglier and/or PoC. Like they did in the Diablo 2 remake.

And why did they not have enough money? Where was the money going? How much was wasted on useless DEI training?

Fallout 76, Todd Howard promised far too much, the Bethesda team didn't have enough time or experience in making a "live service" game, and the execs thought it'd be a good idea to scam the customers with a subpar bag, and a plastic shell for the booze bottle.

Todd Howard has been phoning it in for a decade now. He's no longer the one calling the shots. You can blame him in so much as he doesn't give a shit.

really?

Well, do your own research. Basically, yes. Give or take. It fluctuates. Ironically, it also matches up with the length of women's skirts, the length of men's beards, the price of gold, and the sunspot cycle.

It's the textbook case of correlation does NOT indicate causation. Humanity is not random, persay.

 

[Lloyd]

From what I've heard a lot of developers are just shit libs now, so they design games using their gay ass worldview. Surprise surprise the games are all retarded and suck ass. Nothing can be done except change the culture, or you could start your own studio with only straight white men on the dev team, but that would probably get you sued into oblivion.
TLDR game devs are not immune to the declining standards in America

 

[Sabruness]

It's pretty obvious that in our current culture and world, companies are destroyed over public trading and investors who buy stock without even knowing or caring about the industry since many of them are just short term investors instead of long term ones.

i think you're on to a point there. it's not just short term investors, it's investors in general. investors seem to think that they can influence, through the corporate suits, what games the gaming populace wants and will play. a 'tail wagging the dog' situation, if you will. the trouble is they dont understand it at all, they just want the big dividends and cant comprehend that the gaming populace decides what succeeds or fails.
you only have to look at the two mega touchstones in the shooter space: CoD and Battlefield.
BF is terminal after the flawed BFV and the catastrophic 2042 and EA seems determined to double down on the decline by revealing that the next BF will also be live service.
CoD has been flailing for 10 years as they leaned way too hard into the MP side and yearly releases that barely change anything while letting the single player part decay and become a shadow of how it was back in the 00s at it's peak.

or for a more direct example of OP's assertions: the Saints Row Reboot. such snowflake edgy cringe combined with poor quality and shitass gameplay and systems that the fanbase was pissed off, the game flopped *HARD* and the studio was killed off as a result.

the market is not: investors>corpos>devs>players but in fact, the opposite: players>devs>corpos>investors. only when the corpos and investors understand that will the industry right itself and become long term sustainable.

I think what could lead to fixing this is video games being sold and defined as a product rather than a service as it is currently. Currently, video games are considered a service to provide, same with most media.

so, basically how games used to be before GaaS and live service because the corpo/investor mantra? GaaS can work reasonably well (just look at Helldivers 2 and the Division 2) but most have no clue how to run and sustain a GaaS.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

the market is not: investors>corpos>devs>players but in fact, the opposite: players>devs>corpos>investors. only when the corpos and investors understand that will the industry right itself and become long term sustainable.

You know, it's mostly BlackRock that came up with this idea with DEI loans. Anyway, I've come to the point of just not being reactive to what game companies want to do. If they want my money, they should make something I'd like to play. If they don't... I can spend the money on traveling instead. Or maybe I can put more money into investing instead of building a 10k computer every few years.

I also think a lot of gamers are realizing this as well. They don't have to buy stuff they don't like.

As for games as a service, I've pretty much stopped playing all Multiplayer games. Also, I've stopped buying COD since their campaigns have started to suck. I loved their older campaigns including Modern Warfare's original triligoy (I'd say it's way better than the current trilogy). I'd say I burnt out on multiplayer games because of all the new rules. When I was younger, we could say whatever we wanted to other people online and wouldn't get banned. Trash talking did make me angry as a kid, but it was also fun in it's own way.

If you ever watch those old videos of Team 3D in counter strike 1.6 they're screaming "fuck you" to their opponents in the live competition and not getting banned. Same with FGC, used to have a lot of cursing back in the day and now it's all "let's include everyone." I kind of feel it's not as fun to watch when people don't hate each other. As a competitor it's better if your opponent doesn't taunt, but as a spectator it's just not as fun.

 

[melchi]

FTC just banned non compete contracts, every major gaming company is having massive layoffs.

Looking forward to the massive influx of high quality indie games in the coming years.

Non compete contracts have been illegal for a long time. Remember those steve jobs emails and how a bunch of big tech companies had their wrists slapped because they got caught excluding people from their buddies from considering them as candidates?

Steve Jobs Sent This Chilling 'Smiley Face' Email After He Got A Google Staffer Fired

"On this specific case, the sourcer who contacted this Apple employee should not have and will be terminated within the hour."

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Sabruness]

As for games as a service, I've pretty much stopped playing all Multiplayer games. Also, I've stopped buying COD since their campaigns have started to suck. I loved their older campaigns including Modern Warfare's original triligoy (I'd say it's way better than the current trilogy

CoD just hasnt been the same since 2011 campaign wise. the last great one was the OG MW3. probably didnt help the ActiBlizz of the time screwed over the Infinity Ward founders (who also created CoD) for control and full ownership of CoD out of greed and a lot of staff left with them in protest.

I also think a lot of gamers are realizing this as well. They don't have to buy stuff they don't like.

yeah, i only buy games that interest me these days. even then, i mostly buy used or heavy sales (with the very rare occasion when i'll shell out for a complete edition of a game from a series i love and know will be good). even then, i have enough of a backlog to last me quite a while.

I'd say I burnt out on multiplayer games because of all the new rules.

i burnt out of competitive MP many years ago, when it stopped being just crazy fun and started being all about hyper-competitive edgewanks min-max'ing and metas and tryhard'ery. sucked any fun out. now i might only bother with co-op MP on occasion because you're less likely to come across aggro tryhards in co-ops.

Non compete contracts have been illegal for a long time.

functionally incorrect. while a few US states have long ruled NCCs as illegal (either totally or except for very few and very specific circumstances), it's only in the past 3 weeks that the FTC has ruled them illegal on a federal level. even then, the ban only begins on sept 4 this year ( and legal challenges are expected which will likely delay that).

 

[CarburetorThompson]

Non compete contracts have been illegal for a long time. Remember those steve jobs emails and how a bunch of big tech companies had their wrists slapped because they got caught excluding people from their buddies from considering them as candidates?

Some states already had laws banning them, including California, but now the ban is at a federal level

 

[AnonUnlimited]

functionally incorrect. while a few US states have long ruled NCCs as illegal (either totally or except for very few and very specific circumstances), it's only in the past 3 weeks that the FTC has ruled them illegal on a federal level. even then, the ban only begins on sept 4 this year ( and legal challenges are expected which will likely delay that).

It's one of the few things the FTC is doing that I like.
Either way, i hope it goes through. Companies shouldn't have a right to fire people and then not allow them to work for a competitor.
EDIT: Also, non-compete contracts are Anti-capitalism.

 

[J_Chemist]

I just want a good game to come out, man. A new Halo that we can make everlasting memories on. A game like COD that can inspire a competitive yet fun atmosphere (without being so toxic where you can't enjoy the game). A game like Fallout 3 when it first released, or something similar, that hits you with the "wow" factor and has you digging every corner of a map for its secrets.

Games these days just don't live up to the older games where teams put in plenty of TLC to their craft. Now it does just feel like a cash grab as companies milk those franchises. It's disheartening. I don't care too much about the companies being greedy, as we live in a capitalist society so I respect the bag, but if they're going to be greedy and trying to snatch up the pockets of players/gamers all around the world, at least give us something worth buying.

 

[Sabruness]

A new Halo that we can make everlasting memories on.

one thing that annoys me is that a helldivers like ODST game idea was proposed but turned down. the issue i think 343 has is that they're bordering on the same problem that Star Wars is mired in with jedi and sith: they're less open to exploring other aspects outside of the 'super characters' (spartans in particular).

H3: ODST was awesome and something oddball but fitting within the verse. Halo Wars is *chef's kiss*. The whole forerunner/AI plot of 4 and 5 just... like it was created just because they needed a huge all out war to keep going. the Kilo-Five trilogy of novels showed that, no, they didnt need a huge new war, when the covert shadow wars (both of the insurrection era as well as keeping the covenant races from becoming to powerful again) would be perfect.

hell, i'd love an insurrection era prequel that went into the shadow wars that prompted the spartan program as well as the major covert ops that spartans undertook against the insurrectionists.

 

[KonoKei]

Microsoft stock goes up the more people they fire. This is the case all over the tech industry right now. Their gaming biz isn't making much money now as it relied on mega hits from bethesda that DID NOT pay off. So now the brainless megacorp is firing as many game devs as they can, as like I said before, the more you fire the higher your stock rises. The game industry is making more money than ever and hits still happen in the indie and AA and even some AAA games.

 

[Daitengu]

I speak of it in the economic sense only. Nothing wrong with socialism. It is how it is applied.

A family is socialism. A small business is socialism. A military is socialism. These are not bad things. It is when socialism is applied on the wrong scale that it gets out of hand. Communism is socialism married with politics and that's when it turns evil. This is why Communism hates family and small business. They are competitors. They are healthy forms of socialism and communism cannot stand that.

And who was telling the Devs what to do?


And why did they not have enough money? Where was the money going? How much was wasted on useless DEI training?


Todd Howard has been phoning it in for a decade now. He's no longer the one calling the shots. You can blame him in so much as he doesn't give a shit.

Well, do your own research. Basically, yes. Give or take. It fluctuates. Ironically, it also matches up with the length of women's skirts, the length of men's beards, the price of gold, and the sunspot cycle.

It's the textbook case of correlation does NOT indicate causation. Humanity is not random, persay.

I'm ona phone, so pretty formatting is a pain so do forgive me for just going down the list.

1.

so·cial·ism​

/ˈsōSHəˌliz(ə)m/

noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

It would appear you can't have just economics when talking about socialism. I like unions, police, and the fire department. Decidedly socialist programs. And I think medical should also be there. Communism is in theory fine, but it requires everyone in the system, including leaders to not cheat. And that's just not gonna happen, so communism in reality is trash.

However we're talking about AAA game companies run by very rich people who often think everyone but themselves is expendable.

People like ex CEO Bobby Kotick of Activision/Blizzard who pays the Blizzard devs less money than if they worked at McDonald's. Blizzard has been trash ever since Kotick ran off the original teams because it's cheaper to get gullible new hires. It's also cheaper for him to cover up abuses, and be in contempt by ordering the destruction of evidence. The man was very much a Reaganomics kinda guy. So you were wondering who was telling the Blizz devs what to do? Now you have a good guess. Obviously Overwatch was a DEI mess, and you can guess why, Kotick got free money from Dink to do it. But we're talking Warcraft 3. The Activision execs just didn't care and pushed for the cheapest thing possible.

"And who was telling the Devs what to do?" <Looks at quote> Looks like I said the execs.

"Todd Howard has been phoning it in for a decade now. He's no longer the one calling the shots. You can blame him in so much as he doesn't give a shit."
Ya conveniently ignored everything else to say, Fallout 76 "Executive Producer", Todd Howard wasn't calling the shot? Ok, so what does an executive producer even do then?

 

[TheEldritchGod]

so·cial·ism​

/ˈsōSHəˌliz(ə)m/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I love it when people do this. Makes it easy to shred.

It would appear you can't have just economics when talking about socialism. I like unions, police, and the fire department. Decidedly socialist programs. And I think medical should also be there. Communism is in theory fine, but it requires everyone in the system, including leaders to not cheat. And that's just not gonna happen, so communism in reality is trash.

Uh-huh. So, explain to me what's political about pure socialism?

Look. The problem is, you're like most people. People spit a term at you and you just assume That's what it is! You don't think about what it implies or what the results are.

Two people meet. I have a gold nugget. He has cash. He gives me the cash, I give the nugget. What is that?
Capitalism.

So. WHERE IS THE POLITICS?

Two people meet. He is poisoned. I have antivenom. I give it to him and save his life without any agreement, arrangement, or exchange of goods or services and I have no expectation of compensation What is that?
Socialism.

Again, WHERE IS THE POLITICS?


The world has socialism and capitalism Ass Backwards. Socialism is a economic way of doing things that is best on a small scale. TWO PEOPLE CAN HAVE A SOCIALIST INTERACTION. But we don't think of it that way. Socialism is something BIG! It's something a GOVERNMENT DOES. But I challenge you to point to me a pure socialist government. There are none, because it's impossible. It is Socialism AND something else.

Just like capitalism is pure economics, so is socialism pure economics. It is what gets added on that makes it political.

Your family, I assume you had one, someone raised you at some point, right? Tell me, when did they hand you the bill? I mean, it costs a lot to raise a child. So, if the world was pure capitalism, then you'd be handed a bill at the age of 18 when you get kicked out, right?

But we don't.

So, since the raising of a child IS AN EXCHANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES, there is no WAY you can say a child isn't resource intensive, then WHAT KIND OF EXCHANGE IS IT? It's not capitalism (usually). It's socialism. Either way, it's some sort of internal economic system. Where is the politics? If there is any, it exists OUTSIDE the internal economy of the family unit. Dad makes money, Mom spends it, baby craps himself.

That's socialism.

See, Socialism works, on a small scale. In a family. In a small business. Anything under the Dunbar empathy limit tends to work. Why? PEOPLE KNOW EACH OTHER. Now, can it break down? Sure, but in general, families have been going strong for a long time, so usually it works out. The problem is when you try to scale it up.

However we're talking about AAA game companies run by very rich people who often think everyone but themselves is expendable.

And so we come to where capitalism breaks down.

On the small scale.

HOLD ON, ELDRITCH! I hear you cry and scream at your monitor! A triple-A game company isn't SMALL! They are huge employing THOUSANDS of people and have MILLIONS of dollars! THAT IS NOT SMALL.

Oh? Really? So... how many companies are there that are Triple-A?

Five? Ten? That's not a lot. The AMOUNT of MONEY is completely irrelevant. The number of employees is totally unimportant. Once a person is hired by a company, they become part of the company's INTERNAL ECONOMY, and most companies have an internal economy that is socialist.

I don't get a bill from the HR department for the cost of their services. I don't have to tip the janitor. The CFO does not charge me for handling the books. INTERNALLY, Everyone does according to their ability and receives according to their need. Once hired, the employee becomes part of the greater unit.

A unit of ONE.

Capitalism breaks down at small numbers. A few people in a market can control the market and cause all sorts of havoc. Most abuse of capitalism is when the market has no competitors. There may be thousands of employees and millions of dollars, but there is only a handful of triple-A game companies. This is where capitalism fails.

Isn't it ironic?

Communists keep pushing for BIG GOVERNMENT socialism, when that is the WORST situation to try socialism, whereas the Anarco-Captialists push for complete hands-off which usually results in ever decreasing number of actors until you eventually get monopolies.

How ass-backwards is that?

People like ex CEO Bobby Kotick of Activision/Blizzard who pays the Blizzard devs less money than if they worked at McDonald's. Blizzard has been trash ever since Kotick ran off the original teams because it's cheaper to get gullible new hires. It's also cheaper for him to cover up abuses, and be in contempt by ordering the destruction of evidence. The man was very much a Reaganomics kinda guy. So you were wondering who was telling the Blizz devs what to do? Now you have a good guess. Obviously Overwatch was a DEI mess, and you can guess why, Kotick got free money from Dink to do it. But we're talking Warcraft 3. The Activision execs just didn't care and pushed for the cheapest thing possible.

Yeah. There is no competition. Capitalism breaks down. Thanks for making my point.

As for DEI, like any socialism that has become political, it hates competitors. So when it moves into a company, large companies have few natural defenses against weaponized socialism, since they are already socialistic. A LARGE company is already pushing the limit of what socialism can handle and so when a strong ideology invades, it takes over.

Socialism, to function, needs to be near or below the Dunbar Empathy Limit or it starts to break down. In order to get socialism to work on a large scale, you cannot use social norms. You need something else. A creed. An Ethos. Some sort of 'Greater Power'. Be it, 'I believe in the cause!' or 'We work for GOD' or 'We are saving the world from Donald Trump'.

When you impose socialism on a scale above the DEL, and nobody has any cohesive ideology, the community/company is weak to an outside invade ideology. In this case, the Religion of DEI.

"And who was telling the Devs what to do?" <Looks at quote> Looks like I said the execs.

Who have fallen brey to an invading ideology because the company didn't have anything holding it together.

Perfect example: Apple

EVERYONE LOVED STEVE JOBS.

While Steve was in charge, his cult of personality allowed the company to operate above the DEL. However, when he died, there was no other replacement ideology. And so, the company floundered, started to become aimless, and DEI moved in.

"Todd Howard has been phoning it in for a decade now. He's no longer the one calling the shots. You can blame him in so much as he doesn't give a shit."
Ya conveniently ignored everything else to say, Fallout 76 "Executive Producer", Todd Howard wasn't calling the shot? Ok, so what does an executive producer even do then?

Todd Howard WAS like Steve Jobs, but somewhere along the way he said, Fuck it, sold the place to Microsoft, and surrendered control of his own company. He Does Not Give A Shit. Or rather, it is too late to change his mind and care now. Bethesda is paying the price on SO MANY LEVELS.

Bethesda lost their unifying ideology when Todd basically sold out and the DEI ideology of Microsoft invaded.

It's all rather obvious if you just stop accepting what you are TOLD something does, and look at what it ACTUALLY does. Pure Socialism does not have any politics. Pure capitalism doesn't have any politics.

Or maybe you can explain how an exchange between two people contains politics that is INTRINSIC to the nature of the economic exchange between them? Because if I can provide one baseline and common socialistic exchange that has no politics, then something else is going on.

SOCIALISM IS NOT INHERENTLY POLITICAL.

Socialism becomes political when something else is added to it.

 

[melchi]

To be fair, Bethesda was owned by zenimax years before it got bought by Microsoft. To complete the circle, bethesda bought the rights for fallout which was also originally owned by another company. So it is just people playing musical chairs with IP ownership, hoping the brand power will carry the day.

Anyway, a good read about how the insides of the gaming industry are backward is ken william's memoir. I'd suggest anyone check it out if they are interested in those things.

Not All Fairy Tales Have Happy Endings - by Ken Williams

This is the behind-the-scenes story of the rise and fall of Sierra On-Line, as it could only be told by the ultimate insider.

kensbook.com

 

[Daitengu]

I love it when people do this. Makes it easy to shred.


Uh-huh. So, explain to me what's political about pure socialism?

Look. The problem is, you're like most people. People spit a term at you and you just assume That's what it is! You don't think about what it implies or what the results are.

Two people meet. I have a gold nugget. He has cash. He gives me the cash, I give the nugget. What is that?
Capitalism.

So. WHERE IS THE POLITICS?

Two people meet. He is poisoned. I have antivenom. I give it to him and save his life without any agreement, arrangement, or exchange of goods or services and I have no expectation of compensation What is that?
Socialism.

Again, WHERE IS THE POLITICS?

Problem is, both of those are technically capitalist. You own the gold, and you own the antivenom. Your action doesn't matter. Privately owning something is required for capitalism. If socialism, you'd be handing the guy "our antivenom"

The world has socialism and capitalism Ass Backwards. Socialism is a economic way of doing things that is best on a small scale. TWO PEOPLE CAN HAVE A SOCIALIST INTERACTION. But we don't think of it that way. Socialism is something BIG! It's something a GOVERNMENT DOES. But I challenge you to point to me a pure socialist government. There are none, because it's impossible. It is Socialism AND something else.

Just like capitalism is pure economics, so is socialism pure economics. It is what gets added on that makes it political.

Your family, I assume you had one, someone raised you at some point, right? Tell me, when did they hand you the bill? I mean, it costs a lot to raise a child. So, if the world was pure capitalism, then you'd be handed a bill at the age of 18 when you get kicked out, right?

But we don't.

So, since the raising of a child IS AN EXCHANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES, there is no WAY you can say a child isn't resource intensive, then WHAT KIND OF EXCHANGE IS IT? It's not capitalism (usually). It's socialism. Either way, it's some sort of internal economic system. Where is the politics? If there is any, it exists OUTSIDE the internal economy of the family unit. Dad makes money, Mom spends it, baby craps himself.

That's socialism.

See, Socialism works, on a small scale. In a family. In a small business. Anything under the Dunbar empathy limit tends to work. Why? PEOPLE KNOW EACH OTHER. Now, can it break down? Sure, but in general, families have been going strong for a long time, so usually it works out. The problem is when you try to scale it up.

There's no pure capitalist government either. What kind of argument is that? Politics requires a group of people to decide things. It's literally in the definition of politics. What is socialism? A group deciding the communal distribution of things and work. Two people isn't a group, and that's why marriage isn't a socialist idea. However your church group deciding to pool together and hand out food to the poor is a socialist and inherently political activity. Small group politics is still politics.

Some cultures see having a kid as required for retirement, as it's the duty of the child to care for their parents when they are too old to work any more. So it really is a trade of sorts. I invest in my kid so they are more well off and can care for me in my twilight years. The more well prepared my kid is, the more well off I will likely be when old. Social security in the west(a socialist program) has eliminated much of that specific child to parent culture.

Five? Ten? That's not a lot. The AMOUNT of MONEY is completely irrelevant. The number of employees is totally unimportant. Once a person is hired by a company, they become part of the company's INTERNAL ECONOMY, and most companies have an internal economy that is socialist.

I don't get a bill from the HR department for the cost of their services. I don't have to tip the janitor. The CFO does not charge me for handling the books. INTERNALLY, Everyone does according to their ability and receives according to their need. Once hired, the employee becomes part of the greater unit.

Funny, that doesn't happen, because there are laws against it. As it use to be used to entrap people as a technical debt slaves. You call it socialist, but it's purely laws that prevent those companies from doing that to you.

Let's take a Chinese company for example. They hire you, provide a dwelling, and food. But they deduct if from your pay, and now you're only profiting about a couple of week's worth of pay, for a year's worth of work. This is an actual thing that happens. This "use" to happen in the US and Europe as well, but the governments were pressured by citizens to outlaw that kind of thing.

Capitalism breaks down at small numbers. A few people in a market can control the market and cause all sorts of havoc. Most abuse of capitalism is when the market has no competitors. There may be thousands of employees and millions of dollars, but there is only a handful of triple-A game companies. This is where capitalism fails.

That's a small group on a island. You're not keeping in mind the small numbers resources that a small group on a island can actually make. A small group can't make complex things, so really, most people can just make a slightly crappier version of what ever someone is offering, automatically creating a type of competition to the trade. You're stone tipped arrows may be better than mine, but I can still get by on self made fire hardened wood arrows. No small group is going to have a person that can somehow monopolize a resource like food, water, stone or a copper mine. And if they do, violence is often the deterrent to such behavior.

Yeah. There is no competition. Capitalism breaks down. Thanks for making my point.

As for DEI, like any socialism that has become political, it hates competitors. So when it moves into a company, large companies have few natural defenses against weaponized socialism, since they are already socialistic. A LARGE company is already pushing the limit of what socialism can handle and so when a strong ideology invades, it takes over.

Socialism, to function, needs to be near or below the Dunbar Empathy Limit or it starts to break down. In order to get socialism to work on a large scale, you cannot use social norms. You need something else. A creed. An Ethos. Some sort of 'Greater Power'. Be it, 'I believe in the cause!' or 'We work for GOD' or 'We are saving the world from Donald Trump'.

When you impose socialism on a scale above the DEL, and nobody has any cohesive ideology, the community/company is weak to an outside invade ideology. In this case, the Religion of DEI.

There would be competition, but the rich have paid of the state politicians to eliminate unions(collective bargaining, an actual socialist idea). A shame many of the unions that do exist have been taken over by corrupt people. But then again where there is power to be had, the corrupt come in and ruin everything, regardless of system.


I tell you what, if Steve Jobs was still around, he'd take that DEI money. The man was the cheapest of cheapskates when it came to products. Why do you think Iphones had the whole screen cracking issue for years? Glass tech kept getting better to fix the issue, but Jobs just said, make the screens thinner then.

I just plain disagree with you on Todd Howard as what you put down is baseless opinion. Simply because Fallout 76 came out 2 years before Microsoft bought Bethesda.

It's all rather obvious if you just stop accepting what you are TOLD something does, and look at what it ACTUALLY does. Pure Socialism does not have any politics. Pure capitalism doesn't have any politics.

Or maybe you can explain how an exchange between two people contains politics that is INTRINSIC to the nature of the economic exchange between them? Because if I can provide one baseline and common socialistic exchange that has no politics, then something else is going on.

SOCIALISM IS NOT INHERENTLY POLITICAL.

Socialism becomes political when something else is added to it.

Sorry mate, I don't know what you're on about, but you need to reread ANY encyclopedia on politics, and socialism. You've created some kind of new definition of politics and socialism so that you can defend the latter. And weirdly at that, cause it's not like I'm some full on capitalist and anti-socialist. I'm perfectly moderate, but you've been too hyped on emotion to see that.