this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
53 points (100.0% liked)

games

20837 readers
268 users here now

Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.

Rules

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Nakoichi@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
jack@hexbear.net
gaystyleJoker@hexbear.net
Sulv@hexbear.net
53
Don't try to sue your competition (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 week ago by NoahFuel@hexbear.net to c/games@hexbear.net
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The publishers of Drug Dealer Simulator are suing Schedule I because it's a better game.

apparently they are mad that game kind of has a similar theme.

Here is one of the latest player reviews: "Game was mid at best when it first released. Lots of empty promises that were never delivered. I also can not support a company who would rather sue an indie developer than actually fix their damn game."

"we are obligated to perform this investigation"

No you are not. It's bullshit. Use your resources making better games, instead of being cooperate asshats and suing people who do

"It is not our intention to prevent TVGS from selling or developing their game"

where have I heard that before? oh, maybe when Nintendo/TPC tried to sue Palworld/Pocket Pair

And to say "there is no Lawsuit" but then continue to explain why they are investigating (to build a lawsuit) is not a good look.

Sorry Byterunners, but I will be boycotting anything handled by Movie Games, this is ridiculous.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CarbonScored@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

As a public company, they are legally obligated to pursue maximum returns for shareholders. Given that suing a successful game could potentially bring in more profit than focusing on their own game, there's definitely an argument to be made that they are legally obligated to at least investigate the possibility.

Still absolutely fucked, but yeah, it is illegal for a public company to not pursue profits. It's also possible their contracts obligate them to investigate, though if that's the case, they presumably could waive such a thing with agreement from the developers.

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Weird. It's almost like the problem is capitalism or something.

[–] shath@hexbear.net 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

~~are they publicly traded~~

yes
[–] MoonElf@hexbear.net 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

that is an oft repeated mythunderstanding, public companies are not legally obligated to pursue maximum returns for shareholders in the united states.

[–] CarbonScored@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

1 - Movie Games are not an American company.

2 - Yes, there's no law saying "jail the guy who does not make the profit", but by a variety of implicit and explicit contractual and legal obligations, it's still true. If the goal of the company is make money and you are neglectful in that duty, you are in legal breach of your duty.

If a Director of a publically floated company was proved to have deliberately pursued moral good over the best interest of the company, they could be fired, sued to oblivion, and possibly subject to criminal charges, depending on context. Extra liabilities and duties to which directors are held will also often be specified as part of the employment contracts.

Fiduciary duty is a very real thing and breaching it is absolutely punishable by law.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 1 week ago

Investor B could sue the company arguing that pursuing this frivolous court case made them lost money. So, suing or not can be seen as "maximizing profits" depending on the opinion of the board and the Investors.