+1 to this, I feel like having a ton of money is what corrupts leadership, not necessarily their technical background.
Maybe Spez and Zuck haven’t changed much, but I feel like some others started out as relatively reasonable people who were also technically brilliant, but eventually their companies started doing shitty things and they are both aware and apparently unwilling to stop it.
Perhaps corruption in the Soviet Union is a good example of how even people from normal hard working backgrounds (i.e. not billionaires who have never worked a day in their life) can still be corrupted by power and a lack of accountability.
I’ll add, though, that I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise of this article: maybe the portion of people passionate about game development (and software in general) has become a lot lower, so now leadership is more likely to be people just looking to maximize income, power, and success, rather than people who want to make the best possible products, or at least work on projects that they are passionate about.
But I did want to agree with the person I originally replied to: just because someone is from a highly technical background and doesn’t seem like some MBA looking to maximize profits, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll make good decisions.
I am really interested in hearing ideas for how to optimize for the kind of behaviour we want, without encouraging bad behaviour that simply optimizes around whatever incentives exist, sacrificing things that are not always obvious to the consumer.
Like if it turns out that the best way to get quality games was to actually promote people passionate about game development into management… how do you catch people who fake it? Or prevent people who may absolutely love developing games from ending up in development hell and never focusing on prioritizing a usable game, cutting corners where necessary, or possibly only working on the fun parts (e.g. Star Citizen? Or most projects I start for fun :( … )
It is discouraging that the current system… having people review games and just choose not to buy shitty ones clearly doesn’t work, given the state of AAA games right now. And to some extent I feel like this can be applied to democracy and the economy as a whole: the wrong things are being optimized for, to the detriment of important things that are harder to measure objectively.
There are some success stories though, I absolutely love Factorio and its recent expansion. And I think there are lots of other great indie games. Maybe there is nothing to complain about in game development, at least, where supposedly the indie game options are better than ever. Perhaps this post is not a great place to ask this kind of question, but I honestly don’t know where it would be more applicable. I feel like political or economic discussions on the internet (and especially Lemmy) get way too polarized.
+1 to this, I feel like having a ton of money is what corrupts leadership, not necessarily their technical background.
Maybe Spez and Zuck haven’t changed much, but I feel like some others started out as relatively reasonable people who were also technically brilliant, but eventually their companies started doing shitty things and they are both aware and apparently unwilling to stop it.
Perhaps corruption in the Soviet Union is a good example of how even people from normal hard working backgrounds (i.e. not billionaires who have never worked a day in their life) can still be corrupted by power and a lack of accountability.
I’ll add, though, that I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise of this article: maybe the portion of people passionate about game development (and software in general) has become a lot lower, so now leadership is more likely to be people just looking to maximize income, power, and success, rather than people who want to make the best possible products, or at least work on projects that they are passionate about.
But I did want to agree with the person I originally replied to: just because someone is from a highly technical background and doesn’t seem like some MBA looking to maximize profits, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll make good decisions.
I am really interested in hearing ideas for how to optimize for the kind of behaviour we want, without encouraging bad behaviour that simply optimizes around whatever incentives exist, sacrificing things that are not always obvious to the consumer.
Like if it turns out that the best way to get quality games was to actually promote people passionate about game development into management… how do you catch people who fake it? Or prevent people who may absolutely love developing games from ending up in development hell and never focusing on prioritizing a usable game, cutting corners where necessary, or possibly only working on the fun parts (e.g. Star Citizen? Or most projects I start for fun
:(… )It is discouraging that the current system… having people review games and just choose not to buy shitty ones clearly doesn’t work, given the state of AAA games right now. And to some extent I feel like this can be applied to democracy and the economy as a whole: the wrong things are being optimized for, to the detriment of important things that are harder to measure objectively.
There are some success stories though, I absolutely love Factorio and its recent expansion. And I think there are lots of other great indie games. Maybe there is nothing to complain about in game development, at least, where supposedly the indie game options are better than ever. Perhaps this post is not a great place to ask this kind of question, but I honestly don’t know where it would be more applicable. I feel like political or economic discussions on the internet (and especially Lemmy) get way too polarized.