this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
412 points (98.4% liked)

Linux Gaming

15274 readers
194 users here now

Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.

This page can be subscribed to via RSS.

Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.

Resources

WWW:

Discord:

IRC:

Matrix:

Telegram:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Plenty of games without publishers are designed to destroy themselves in this exact way, because there's money in it.

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In that case, the developers are the publishers.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Then why make the distinction when A can often be B? People like to paint a picture of the little guy being bullied by the big guy into making a decision that players didn't like, but we've seen plenty of times that developers will be the ones making the decisions we didn't like. If there's an incentive to do the bad thing, developers will do it without being told to.

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That's a strawman argument, sorry. You're arguing as if all developers are publishers. You just said it "A can often be B," but A is not always B.

Publishers do this bullshit. Period. And in small shops, developers are the publishers, sure. But when they make those decisions, they don't make them in their roles of developers. They do so in their roles of publishers. And also, not all publishers and not all developers-turned-publishers are dicks.

But I understand what you're saying. When they are dicks, they are dicks.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Developers can and have made this decision on their own even when they've got a publisher, because publishing deals come in all sizes, and online connection requirements that inevitably lead to a game's death are pervasive in the industry right now.

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, not really. You just said it, man. "Publishing deals come in all sizes." Publishing. Publishing. So, it's the publishers who make those decisions. Not developers. That developers must accept them is one thing. But the publishers made the decision.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

All sizes meaning that those deals also come with the absence of that decision, leaving it up to the developers.

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If developers make those decisions, then they're the publishers.

Are we going to continue going round this circle?

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, because your axiom is false, and I'm not going to argue with that.

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

It is not false, but if that's what you want to believe, go ahead. Have a nice day.