• @uranibaba
    link
    36 days ago

    I don’t follow. How would no IP give more money to the workers? How would no IP change how the company was run?

    I’m not arguing IP here, I just seems to me that you are mixing two different things. You can have a employee owned company and still have IP.

    Or am I missing something obvious?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      16 days ago

      I think their point is that if the people making the games were given fair compensation that they would be more willing to sacrifice IP rights.

      I don’t see what makes them think that other than their own personal feelings on the matter, but I think that’s the message.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        36 days ago

        That couldn’t have been the point.

        Companies use (read: abuse) IP to keep an artificial, government-sanctioned monopoly they use to extract money from users. Add to that skins, microtransactions, lootboxes, yearly releases and all the other vilest shit you can find in a modern videogame and you’ll see it isn’t about the studio staying afloat - it’s abuit the publisher raking in the $$$.

        People who are creatives take it as a point of pride when their work is spread, remade and remixed. What they do not like is if that remaking and remixing is done by a soulless company in the vilest and most soulless way to generate profits. Oh, and except for thise with the best deals, IP stays with the company.

        It’s not about cratives “not being paid enough” so they need IP protection - it’s the very same companies whose IP is protected who don’t pay their workers enough. IP doesn’t bring money to workers directly nor does it protect workers from anything since again - the IPs are owned by the studio/publisher.

        Call it “personal feelings”, but it’s how the world works.