"Especially in America, “company town” has a pretty negative connotation. It’s seen as being synonymous with companies controlling the lives of their workers and making it hard for them to leave. Is that intentional?
"Well, I’m not saying that my monthly trips to Redmond up at [former employer] Microsoft were any inspiration. You’re never quite sure where inspiration comes from, but it certainly felt a little bit like that. You know, everyone, you went to the gym and everyone in the gym, you know, worked for Microsoft. And you know, I’m English, so going into the changing room and then being naked in front of any human being is just a deep, terrifying thing. And that was even more terrifying when you realize there’s [former Microsoft CEO] Steve Ballmer over in the corner and there’s someone else over there and you know, you realize that, “Oh my god, I’m part of this family.”
:agony-4horsemen:
The question before that is pretty revealing, too:
Is it fair to describe Legacy as a game where you are building and running a company town?
Yeah, that is. If you want to see a perfect example of this, if you look at Bournville, there’s this company called Bournville Chocolate. And when they founded the company, they founded it and paid people in Bournville Chocolate tokens. They built all the houses for the people to live in, they built all the schools. So everybody in Bournville was employed by the chocolate factory, and that is the real inspiration. If you look at something like China, I know a lot of the Chinese companies, the owners of the companies design the houses for the workers to live in. So even in today’s modern world, there are examples of it.
I've been trying to wrap my mind around NFT/blockchain games for the last week and I still don't get it. If the only way for you to make money is to sell to the next sucker buying in, it's essentially a Ponzi scheme that collapses once the game is no longer popular and growing. Beyond that, why would someone want to buy someone else's factory as an NFT? The NFT concept was already pretty stupid in the first place, but now we're doing it for pieces in a game that might not be around in a couple years? :whywhywhywhywhy:
The terminal stage of libertarian ideology: the freedom to subjugate others, in this case with a game that has company towns and indentured servitude built right in.
NFTs are selling the dream of rent-seeking for those that don't own real estate, and additional rent-seeking for those who do. :mao-wtf:
Beanie Babies except they're the harbingers of societal collapse.
Building housing for workers is the same thing as paying workers in funbucks that only you accept.
I think they're trying to recreate TF2's lightning-in-a-bottle hat 'economy'. The trouble is, TF2 was an engaging game first. The digital marketplace only works as a supplement to an already successful game.
It’s supposed to sit in the same broad “play to earn” [...] with the kinds of moral choices and management systems for which Molyneux is known.
As in, "known to be shit". This man wants to make movies, and he keeps trying to use videos game to do it.
I actually paid money for TF2, I'm that old. The hats.... uh... were not the best thing to happen to gamming.
He gives it away at the very end. They don't want to use a central database because they want people to have to pay to sell their stupid in game shit. Nothing about crypto really has anything to do with this, but it's clear that they're convinced that the window dressing will be enough to trick people.
they're both memes
Peter, for literally never delivering on his ambitious visions
Stefan, for hiding in a vent to spy on his wife's patients and coveting Taylor Swift's ovaries like Dr Robotnik with chaos emeralds
The consequences of not guillotining all the bankers after 2008 have been a catastrophe for the human race.
Yeah, that's not a human being. This Peter Molyneux guy? Not a person. Putting this guy under a guillotine would be doing him a favor. This is just somehow the most idiotic, dystopian thing I've seen in a hot minute.
"Oh, you know what was bad about selling stuff in Diablo? It didn't cost anything. So we're slapping this Blockchain thing on and killing a few extra trees to trick people into accepting that."
:gui-better: :gui-better: :gui-better: :gui-better: :gui-better:
I assume that isn't there and you're joking, but then again, we're dealing with Stefan Molyneux.
Picture Steve Ballmer going to the gym because he wasn't sweaty enough.
Which Fable had that enlightened centrist neoliberal nonsense where the game forcibly requires you to be "just evil enough" to finance the happy ending and there's no way to get that happy ending without enough evil to make :hillary: smile?
