Chebucto Regional Softball Club

> I get that when you spending 100m+ on game development, but a game needs to have actual value to the consumer, it has to be entertainment, and entertainment is art. A side point on this: maybe some accounting transparency would help too. We know that that $100M+ isn't going to the developers as they are some of the most underpaid tech workers. How much of a given game's budget is actually going to compensate those directly contributing to it vs administration/execs?

> Most investors are going to care about what kind of return they're making. It's the capital they provide that pays the paychecks. Maybe that's the problem. Valve did pretty well for themselves, even before steam, without putting investors in charge of their direction. > If you want to do volunteer work on video games -- I have -- then that's not an issue. I have indeed worked on my own and others projects without financial gain but that's orthogonal to my point. > But typically games are made by paid workers, and those workers won't work without their paychecks. The games industry is full of chronically under-compensated workers. Again, nowhere did I advocate for people to work for free for commercial enterprises or anything of the like. > So they're going to need to attract investors. That's a pretty good example of the False Dichotomy fallacy. There are numerous alternatives that don't involve prioritizing profit over the product or service that a business produces.

... If he wants to be a hedge fund exec, he should just go do that. The point of a business, contrary to the Chicago School MBA nonsense, is not to generate profit. It is to make a good or service that would otherwise be impractical for an individual, in a financially sustainable manner.