Kotaku rebuts everything it’s published in the last 6 years by accident
The Article. Read it or don't, you know what the general gist is. The meat I want to get to is the following quote that Nathan Grayson decided to highlight from the game developer:
“We’ve been told nonstop throughout this about how we must treat ‘consumers’ or ‘potential customers’ a certain way,” he said. “I understand the relationship people think they might be owed when they exchange money for goods or services, but the people using the terms consumers and potential customers here are doing so specifically because we’ve never actually sold them anything and don’t owe them anything at all… Whenever I’ve mentioned that we, as random people happening to be making a game, don’t owe these other random people anything, they become absolutely enraged. Some of the most apparently incendiary screenshots of things I’ve said are all along these lines.”
…
Nathan, you are a cognitive dissonance God.
YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT ABOUT INCLUSIVITY IN VIDEO GAMES IS THAT ALL GAME DEVELOPERS OWE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS SOMETHING, YOU CLODWAFFLE.
Think about the words you just wrote. That argument is that the game developers should not do anything that they don't want to do just because other people might want it. That they shouldn't bow to public outrage. THAT THEY DO NOT OWE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT PURCHASE THEIR GAME A GOD DAMNED THING. Do you grasp that if developers adopted this philosophy, your social justice push in games would be dead in the water?
Okay, venting done, lemme just explain to you that we absolutely see through your defense of this particular hill. The game developers that produce social justice games have discovered that there is no one to buy the games they are making. That the 'indie developers' that are just in this for the money have discovered that they can't use their connections to game review sites to trick people into buying their games. We see that the reason you're so supportive of Epic's is that those exclusivity deals are, for all intents and purposes, the cash buyout that is all some developers want.
It also rings of the attitude of the entitled poser artist, that their idea is so great that they deserve to be successful with it, even if the plebian lepton masses can't grasp the brilliance. If the masses cannot grasp what you are laying down or outright reject it, then what you've produced isn't art, it isn't influential and it's certainly not brilliant; it's trash. And if you have the attitude that as long you had a 'bold idea', it doesn't matter that the masses don't get it as long as you get paid, you're not a woke crusader for all that is good, a brilliant auteur, or a highly gifted artiste; you're trash.
Submitted August 06, 2019 at 08:33PM by ShredThisAccount
via reddit http://bit.ly/2KAr1r2
