Not sure I can support that take. Kinda focussed on the headline there and ignores the fact that other people work there also, that are probably relying on the success of this game for their paychecks and ability to keep making games. The dev industry in general is not in great shape atm.
Let the courts sort out shady business practices imo.
Support a decent game (if it is decent).
Certainly don’t preorder. Looking at you internet denisons.
other people got paid already. they most likely wont loose money or portfolio if you boycott. its rare that lower level devs and artists are getting any percent of the sales numbers. This talking point from you is coming straigt from bigger publishers all the way to stockholders that have nothing to do with the product.
but the people are already kicked… Look if bob works at “bob studios” and i love his work and want to support him, i can buy his game. but if bob got fired long ago, he wont get the money i give to “bob studios”. You are supporting a buisness construct and not the artist in this case here. almost all workers in the game dev field loose their job post project anyway, so you are not even helping them. So i stand by point that this is capitalist propaganda. Its sad but videogame artists get abused by the scene a whole lot. i think it makes sense to show support witht the individuals who make the games you love, rather than the legal steuctures trying to milk them.
Are you saying that only the 3 people that got let go (and potentially shafted), are the only people that worked on the game? I don’t believe that’s the case but I could be wrong of course.
Companies only answer to profit and unfortunately we get to see the results. Can’t have those proles making 250 million dollars now. That would eat into the profits of our shareholders.
The three people were replaced with a guy who used to work at EA. And one of their first announcements was an unprompted “we wont put loot boxes in the game”…
You can’t typically get punitive damages for contract disputes. Also, there is a very real possibility that the contract hasn’t been breached by the new owners’ actions. It sounds like they used their superior bargaining power to put a lot of questionable yet enforceable provisions in the contract.
Ive heard of it once where the defendant litterally wrote a book on how to use overseas buisness to pull off scams like the one he was being accused of
Typically, conduct would have to rise to the level of fraud to justify punitives in a contract based dispute. That’s a very high hurdle in most jurisdictions. Also, at that point the conduct complained of would likely be based in tort, not contract.
Probably not really feasible - it will require constant connection to a back-end server to play or some bullshit like that.
But even if you can, that’s not the answer. The proper action is to deny them entirely. Don’t play the game, don’t play PUBG, don’t do anything that expands their reach, money or not.
They need to suffer with NOBODY playing this game. They need to suffer by people deleting their Battlegrounds accounts. Software piracy is what makes games legendary.
That’s not what they think, that’s just how their law lackeys justify horrendous fines. Their market analysts will still see the „talk“ about the game, by people who played, legally or not.
bin.pol.social
Najnowsze