The lead writer for Mass Effect 3... I suppose it's possible he learned from it, but I question whether the person who wrote (or at least had to sign off on and approve) the ending of ME3, which killed the franchise and disappointed most players should be allowed to ever do anything related to writing again...
Mnemnosyne
joined 2 years ago
Yeah, if I remember correctly. He sold the rights straight up to the developers of the game, no royalties or percentage or anything because of his anti-game bias, then when the game was successful and that decision bit him in the ass, he tried to change the deal and get more money out of them. As I understand it he lost and still receives no revenue from the games.
Even then they're still benefitting him tremendously because while he was popular in Poland, it's the games that have really made his work popular overall, and people are buying his books and all because of it.
It might actually work if the requirement was a year instead of 30 days.
Also mandate minimum font size for it and that it must be displayed along with the current price anywhere the current price appears.
Blizzard, back in the day, was willing to simply can games, even highly anticipated ones, when they didn't meet their standards, even after a couple years of work. StarCraft: Nova, Lord of the Clans...
And Square-Enix managed to take an MMORPG that was already released, tear it down to bare bones and completely rebuild it to make it good, with FFXIV: A Realm Reborn.
So it is possible to completely redo something if it doesn't work out...
That is something that should be a goal, but it's an eventual goal, and not something I could reasonably ask of the government today.
I do want those things guaranteed today, but guaranteed in the sense that if someone must work a reasonable amount to obtain them, they can do so without difficulty.
I was trying to encompass a lot of stuff in that phrasing, and I get the impression it came out very poorly.
My meaning is along the lines of including things like the ability to freely reach the necessary places for desired social engagement, access to whatever modern communication and interaction systems there are and so on, without limiting it to current technology or physical structure.
I didn't want to say 'a vehicle and internet' since those may not be necessary depending on other things. Even this explanation doesn't really cover it; there's a bunch of stuff in my head I want the government to be ensuring for us and it would take a huge essay to cover it all.
President specifically, nothing. Government and a political party as a whole? Fix the problem.
There's lots of ideas as to how to fix the problem, and though I have my own and have preferences, all that ultimately matters is that every single person in the country has a good place to live, food, and healthcare, and generally speaking, the ability to participate in society as much or as little as they choose.
Why? How is it better for society and people overall if they have the power to do this?
Allowing the creators to profit is understandable and necessary in our current system, but what benefit is gained for the public by them being permitted to stop distribution altogether?
If there is a benefit to the public and society that I am not seeing, then ok, but 'they created it so they should control it' is harmful to the people at large, and that should be prioritized over a creator's ego or desire for control.
I'd say generally yes but maybe not in every instance. Consider it an overall principle rather than a hard no exceptions rule.
That said, copyright/creator control is not the correct tool to use to do so.
Like, people should be allowed to remove stuff from the Internet that they've created if they want,
No, no they shouldn't. This is antithetical to the generally good intention behind copyright.
The point was not to allow people to take away things they have created, but to permit them to profit in order that they might choose to make more, and be able to support their life in a capitalist system. These intentions are largely good.
Allowing people to take away what they have created is the opposite of this intent, and harmful to the public good, which benefits from as many works as possible being accessible to the public.
Not just let him. Forced him to buy it. He was fucking around and made a joke offer and the court decided we they really, really wanted him to own Twitter so badly they would require him to buy it.
Ah, I recalled he didn't win, I suppose I should've assumed it was settled, that's usually how that goes down.
Personally I think he should've lost and had to pay CDPR's legal costs, the whole thing was absurd. He admits he made a stupid mistake but wants money out of them anyways despite having been an arrogant shithead to start with.