PC Master Race

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] sunsofold@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

For Bioware, no. It's too late for them. For the future, it'd prevent companies like EA buying up every half-successful dev company and feeding their IP into the machine to milk our nostalgia for profit.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (8 children)

But it wouldn't prevent them from buying the IP. The only thing that solves the problem is preventing ip from changing hands, but that would definitely cause problems

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] sunsofold@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

It would reduce it, at least. Part of what makes those deals appealing to devs is the idea that the umbrella corporation will handle the business so the devs can do the dev work they love. Many of them would be much more reluctant to sell off ownership of their concepts and work entirely, and the ubrella corps would find it harder to milk nostalgia when they've only bought the name and not any of the creative team that made it real. Not impossible, but harder.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

If buying a company is illegal, there's still no (practical) way to prevent the buying company say, "we'll put you in your own separate Bioware team, no management changes for at least a year, we'll hire anyone who wants to come over" etc. Basically, you'd have the exact same situation practically, just the legal bollocks would be different and it'd be slightly less convenient.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] sunsofold@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Good. So much of adjusting people's behaviour is just making it more convenient to do the right thing and less convenient to do the wrong thing. It's impossible to get people to behave perfectly all the time, but the more inconvenient you make it to do the wrong thing, the more the human tendency toward laziness will keep them passively on the right path. There are no desire paths in a hedge maze.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

But it will also make legit things slightly less convenient.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] sunsofold@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

How?

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Same way it makes this negative thing more inconvenient - there are legit reasons for a company to own another one, because it basically just helps organisation and accounting.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] sunsofold@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

What legit reasons? Seriously. What real world situations are there where allowing companies to own companies promotes a healthy society/economy/etc.? (Not just benefitting the shareholders, and not just the accountants. That's not enough.)

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago

Well not allowing it is just an inconvenience, as I said, so it's really a benefit for the accountants in this comparison. But if you're saying that has a big effect on discouraging the harmful form of ownership, the innocuous forms would be discouraged as well. That means also companies would be less likely to merge at all (regardless of resulting struxture) which would be unhealthy for the economy as it prevents synergising. But for the record I don't think it would have a massive effect on either case.