this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
183 points (98.4% liked)
Games
16812 readers
519 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel for these studios getting treated like crap. With these shutdowns from corps like MS and Embracer, I can only hope that indie devs learn the hard lessons taught here that conglomerates can never be trusted to operate in the interest of their subsidiaries. All buyouts are to these corps is the addition of "assets" to their spreadsheet, to be ditched the moment it's more convenient than keeping them around.
Embracer at least had the excuse of fucking up their capital and shitting the bed in terms of having money on hand.
They were forced to shutter and sell things because they legitimately couldn't fund their operation.
It was still their fault, because they stupidly bought up developers thinking big investor money was coming, which then just didn't.
Microsoft has no such excuse. MS leadership has been asked multiple times why they did it, and they literally haven't said a single fucking word that makes sense.
I've heard its because of the games anti-corporate message.
But even as someone who blames their boomer-ass wintel admin coworkers for allowing AD to EEE its way into enterprise IT, I have a hard time buying that. That game was making too much money for that.
That makes no sense.
Vandeley wasn't always evil. Roxanne, Peppermint, Macaron, Korsica, all wanted the company to do good, and for a long while it did.
Vandeley only became "evil" because Kale mind-controlled Roxanne and made himself CEO.
I don't know how that's anti-corporate. A big part of the plot is that Vandeley grew so successful because it was a genuinely good company doing good things in the world, loved by all, before it became a dystopian world-conquering device at the hands of a villain.
Like I said that's only what I've heard, but I haven't played the Gamez and I doubt its true even if it did fit.