you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 days ago (1 child)

Except, game dev companies are not competitors for MS (meaning XBOX), but essential for their survival. What's the point of extinguishing your source of supply?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    They're probably banking on the fact that devs love making games, and when a bunch get laid off, some of them will inevitably go start some new studio that Microsoft can swoop in and buy again in 5-10 years, wring another game out of, then toss aside like trash again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago*

    It's the EA strategy. Wait for a studio to get public recognition, buy it out and milk it until the devs break for the exits, start a new indie studio, rinse the blood off and repeat. Frankly every "Creative Industry" since they invented the Victrola has operated the same way, and it's only a hair's breadth different from how noble patronage worked (and arguably more exploitative). And every time anyone tried to build a more co-operative style system, they burn it to the ground with market manipulation and regulatory capture.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    That seems like a bad business model to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Only 'working' to make a few rich cunts even richer, which is not what I'd call working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments