395
Stop Killing Games is a new campaign to stop developers making games unplayable
(www.gamingonlinux.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
395 points (98.5% liked)
Gaming
2546 readers
190 users here now
The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community
For news, discussions and memes!
Community Rules
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
- No NSFW content
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
- Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
- Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
- Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
- Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
- Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Publishers and corpos are ruining games. Not developers.
Agreed, if anything developers are the reason games are playable!
So why is it the devs are the ones to decide to end support for a game finally killing it? All a publisher can do is delist it so it can’t be sold by them anymore, sometimes the dev can find a new publisher or reself publish if the game was good enough. But by then there would be almost no point, since there wouldn’t be any more meaningful amount of sales coming in.
They aren't.
?????
It isn't the developers making those kinds of decisions. It's the bean counters and executives.
It’s still the ones at the development studio than the publishers. Every company can have assholes….
You’re mixing game studio company and the developers working for that company.
Errrmmm no…? that’s still a development studio, the terms mean the same thing. If you want to be technical it would be a game development studio.
You literally said the “devs” working for them, that’s still a dev company… and still the ones deciding to pull the plug….. a game development studio, is the developer of the game, they also have developers (employees, not type of business) working for them.
I’m a software developer for years and I’ve never done any business decision ever. I just do what my managers says. I don’t think this reality changes for game development.
You’re using “developers” for development studio, which is still a company with managers. So real people devs are not responsible for anything.
And I never said that now did I? The developers did decide to shut it down, I’m sorry words have multiple meanings, why would you assume I meant the specific employee, instead of the company like my comments specify? Thats on you.
Edit Maybe you’re confused since Ubisoft has both development and publishing studios…?
I don’t care your own word meanings. Your original comment is just wrong. Even if you mean the development studio it is still Ubisoft executives. The company hierarchy doesn’t matter.
My own words…? It’s literally a term used to describe a studio that develops software. It’s an industry term…
It’s the development studio, the hierarchy does matter. Since it changes from the publisher who controls sales, to the development studio, who controls the development and service. A developer can always choose to use their own funds to keep a game alive, it’s just never worth the cost, so why would even the employees want to burn money on that, since they know it’s a waste of a paycheck in the end? Good employee developers would inform upper management that it’s not a wise decision, if they didn’t, well that’s on them still now isn’t it?
Yea thats not how things work. A developer company doesn't have only developers. The good ones will have managers and such that may have been developers in the past or have a good working knowledge of whats going on, but its not the developers making the overall decisions.
Did I say otherwise…?
Of course, why are you assuming I don’t know this?
Huh, it’s almost like I’m talking about a company instead of employees…. Where did I specify employees? Because it’s quite obvious I am talking about the development company here……
Maybe you’re confused since Ubisoft has both development and publishing studios…?
Not everyone in a game studio is a developer
Nope, but it’s still a game development studio that makes the games and I never claimed otherwise…
You intentionally leaving out a term to describe the company doesn’t suddenly make you right. These developers also have programmers, designers, artists, etc. working for them. To ignore them in the argument and circle on just developers is disingenuous as hell.
I think the world "developers" means the studios here, which is mostly because the suits who know how to extract value from stuff others create like to cosplay as experts in the industry they are leeching off of.
Look at Musk, he's a rocket scientist / web developer / automotive engineer / civil engineer. Of course he is.
sometimes these words are used intechangeably, i think most people are aware the suits are to blame
Sometimes? A company that makes video games is literally called the developers of the game….. a game can’t be made without some company developing a game, they also have developers, as well as a host of other jobs completed by other employees, like artists, designers, actors, etc. So to not include all the others is extremely disingenuous.
In fact, an employee developer already has another term for them, programmers, so why they are trying to use another specific industry term to refer to their craft (programming) is just fucking wild.
Words have multiple meaning, developer means multiple, but a programmer trying to say a game development studio isn’t a a developer, but they are, is just pedantic as all fucking shit….
A publisher is also an entirely different company, a developer can also publish though too. Publisher and developer cannot be used interchangeably, unless they WERE both. But sometimes it’s different divisions, as in the case as Ubisoft, they have both development, and publishing studios.
Funny that, I don’t make games but my job title is developer or software developer and my degree is in software development. It seems to me that the employee and corporation title being the same word is a quirk of language more than anyone insisting on taking the others name. The same thing happens to some degree with consultants, architects and dentists. I don’t think either of them conspire to flip the meaning, and I know that no developer I’ve ever talked to definitely doesn’t either.
It’s the developers killing off a 10 year old game when their third finally comes to steam. (Literally in the article and it’s only a couple paragraphs…)
Publishers and corpos don’t decide when to end support, that is entirely a dev decision.
So no one is immune to sucking.
What are you basing this on? Publishers fund development, and that funding dictates where development time is spent. Publishers also absolutely can decide when support ends, see WB getting ready to delist a bunch of games adult swim games published from steam. The devs have no say over that.
Not every game needs funding and lots are self published.
And how many of those devs have made their own effort to get their games back out there? Lots. Publishers only control where the game is sold. It would make zero sense for these devs to spend the money to republish on their own since they would never recoup the costs. That’s why they have been listing them for free or providing a link to download them for free. They couldn’t before since the publisher controlled sales and they could t just give it away either.
Unless the dev sold the rights to the game, the can choose to spend their own money on continuing it, why would they need external funding for that?
Yes, obviously games without publishers aren't controlled by publishers. Even in those situations funding dictates development, because devs have to eat.
So even with funding a dev studio should have profits coming in, they can either choose to pocket all of that, or save some for literally saving their game.
So it’s the publishers fault the devs spent it all instead of using some to protect their IP? I think you’ve just shot your argument in its foot with that last comment.
No, the dev should have revenue coming in, revenue that pays salaries that allows them to survive. If those salaries aren't put towards efforts that will bring in more revenue then the revenue will stop and the business will no longer be sustainable.
And if the studio doesn’t profit and have a slush fund they won’t be able to spend a little money to protect their game with their own funds… don’t spend every cent, and you would be able to use some for this good will everyone expects.
This is a circular argument that’s not going to go anywhere, everyone can be an asshole, but it’s the devs that decide if they can support the game or not. They always have a way, whether they thought ahead or not is another story entirely….
Just to make sure I'm on the same page with you, when trying to understand what you're saying, when you use the words 'dev' or 'developers', do you mean the computer programmers who write the games, or their business managers (all of which work at the same development studio)?
Who do you believe is responsible for the decision to add to the game the 'always connected to the Internet' functionality, as well as to discontinue the game servers/support, the computer programmers, or the business managers?
Please answer without using the word 'dev' or 'developers' in your answer. Thanks.
Just to make sure, you are asking me to specify if my comments specifically talking about development studios are about development studios…?
Please don't be invasive, I'm being honest with you in my inquiry.
I'm asking you to define a subset of people inside of a development studio. Can you do that for me?
Are you speaking of the computer programmers/coders, or the business managers, inside of the development studio, when you use the words 'dev' and or 'developers'?
The company itself. Employees who don’t speak to their upper management about issues are just as responsible as them. At the end of the day, they all want all the money out of the company, the employees obviously want more wages as well. So who’s to blame for there to be no money left to do what customers want, and for not programming it that way to begin with.
Everyone always wants to blame someone else, but you can’t want more wages yourself, than get mad when there’s still no money. Don’t like upper managements decision? Well if it’s bad enough they won’t find people to replace everyone who quits. Who wait, that’s right, no one would quit a job out of morals since they still want that paycheque…. Hrmm….
How so? Are you expecting them to tell the managers what to do, and for the managers to actually listen to them?
Management would eventually catch on when everyone quits everytime, but no one has the balls to do it, since they need the money more than they want to stand up for their morals.