we have this disagreement as to whether ‘the company’ made the game or whether ‘the people who made the game’ made the game. i can understand that, but i have a couple questions i’m curious about.

i dont have any research behind this or anything, but i *suspect* that if you gathered up the people who designed, coded, wrote, animated, composed, tested etc for, say, fire emblem: path of radiance, and you asked them “hey would you be cool if this game were put on a nintendo switch virtual console for like 10…

i like your term ‘creative ownership,’ but i’m not sure it applies in a case where a billion dollar corporation (not actual creators) dictates what can be played and how.

to me this is kind of like ‘a guy shot me. but, if he hadnt shot me, he would have stabbed me. so it’s not about the gun, it’s about the guy’

but in reality it is about both. it certainly is about the guy, but it is also about the fact that he chose a very effective weapon. confronting the nature of that weapon can be…

I do think that those are all motivated by the same desire people have for ‘disambiguation’ though. So I think it is fair to lump them in together.

This stuff is all very subjective so it’s not necessarily fair to go after an individual game for loredumping or whatever. That can be fine in a vacuum. But I do think…

comments like “they should have expected this” or “this is not surprising” are odd. of course it is not surprising. does that mean we should agree with it? 

there are a couple issues with this.

#1, yes, people with millions of dollars would be upset if some of that money were stolen. the villains from robin hood hate robin hood of course. nonetheless, i dont exactly find myself rooting for them

#2, the money that nintendo has made was not earned by ‘nintendo,’ it was earned…

u telling me this guy was singlehandedly destroying nintendo’s ability to make money? do u have any sources for this

i think the quotes are there because ian is quoting them. like, it’s a quote

dizzying levels of bootlicking demonstrated in this comment

sure i have no major problem with saying it’s ‘socialism lite’ or ‘pink’ etc. i just think there needs to be some clear distinction between a state that actually is working to build socialism vs state that is just rich and has decent social safety net

“As for a my perspective. I have experienced real life socialism for a good part of my life, I do not need anti-communist sources to explain it to me.”

so now i’m just confused. in this sentence, do you mean ‘real life socialism’ as in the stuff you described from sweden? or do you mean ‘real life socialism’ as in an…

i think it’s more like... capitalism gives us this bizarre idea/standard of ‘luxury’ that was never reasonable in the first place. “we should all as individuals be able to have extremely high-status cars” is not tenable or desirable. it is *this* that socialism would and should take away from.

sweden is not socialist, it is capitalist— this is basically the main point of this issue. people are calling people and countries socialist when they really are not socialist at all.

yes, which is part of the problem. someone can say ‘i believe rich people should be taxed more’ and be held up as some kind of socialist thought leader when they’re not even actually a socialist

yes, but this is like saying “a comedian who says offensive things says these offensive things because his audience wants him to.” true, the audience may want that, but he’s the one who cultivated that audience in the first place.

if youre a gamer and are against everything in games going to shit, consider helping destroy capitalism

the point is not that it’s surprising, the point is that although every day people have had their lives destroyed or made worse by the pandemic, for rich people it’s the exact opposite, which is bad

read a couple lines and ya i’m not reading the rest. hope you figure things out one day though. i mean that sincerely but i also kind of doubt it

re: “The problem with revolutions”: