this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
917 points (99.1% liked)

memes

15628 readers
3382 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Justdaveisfine@midwest.social 154 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The unfortunate truth is there are likely a lot of very talented developers at most big studios who ultimately don't have a say on what goes into the game.

Many don't turn around and try making a start-up game though, most just burn out of the industry forever.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Many don't turn around and try making a start-up game though, most just burn out of the industry forever.

I think a big reason for this is because they need to have some kinda airtight clandestine OPSEC if they want to work on anything themselves that they plan to show anybody.

It's been common practice for AAA's to say "Anything you make while you're employed here at all is ours." Sometimes even if you're not AT the studio when you do it.

They just simply assume entitlement to your creativity.

So, quit and make that indie darling, right? But then you need a financial "runway" set up, which sets a hard time limit on production and adds a ton of stress, and you'd better hope it sells well enough to make back the lost income.

The indie successes we've seen are nothing short of extraordinary, but also a textbook example of survivorship bias in action. For every success, there's a million projects that never got off the ground, much less sold successfully.

Facing all this...I celebrate the efforts that beat the odds, and love genuinely good games that simply didn't sell enough to keep the ball rolling.

But I don't fault anybody for just going into something more stable before burnout hits, and they would be destroyed from the inside out.

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The way business is structured in the modern day completely strangles progress and innovation by ignoring and sometimes even punishing workers trying to improve. Companies should be run by workers not businessmen so that there's a focus on the product rather than profit

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I worked at a company run by a SWEngineer.

He was code-smart for code, but really bad for business.

You need to get a real CEO who does management, but keep that person in firm check by mandating half the board be stacked by engineers. Even as advisory roles, like if your company makes widgets you should have some Serious Fucking widget people dominating the board for big decisions.

"You make one thing" is like "you had one job."

(And if you make two things so disparate, spin one off into a sub)

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 day ago

My argument is not "have someone better in charge" rather it's "we should have less hierarchy in the workplace"