• 0 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 31st, 2023

help-circle
  • theparadox@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldKotaku being Kotaku
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Just reiterating what others have said but… if you have an IP you like and want more of it in the future (regardless of medium!) then its success in any other medium will likely impact whether or not you get more.

    Unfortunately, we live in a world where:

    • Money matters more to most IP holders than the IP itself

    • New IP is seen as risky

    • Those in charge don’t have to take responsibility for their failures

    If there is a commercial failure of an IP, there is a good chance that its failure will be seen as the IP generally failing or falling out of poluarity instead of the failure to best utilize the IP that likely occurred. As a result, priorities will often shift away from the IP to something else in all mediums (ex. ASOIAF/GOT). Unless the IP is absolutely gangbusters in all other mediums, it will suffer. Similarly, success will likely lead to more utilization of the IP in any medium.

    It’s unlikely that the IP owner will sell or license the IP in the near future because at one point it was popular and new IP is hard to make. It would be better to hoard IP and maybe try again in a decade when they need a trick up their sleeve. Plus, another failure might damage the IP even more.

    Admittedly, I’m not attached to any brands or IP in particular and so I’m not invested really. I just makes me a little sad when some IP I thought well of has this happen… or when the person who benefits from the IP turns out to be a person I’d rather not give money to. Occasionally I’ll ponder what might have been if things had gone differently and feel a little bad.



  • Fundraisers and charities, when you have a lot money, are rarely acts of charity. They tend to be PR campaigns and power plays.

    Honestly, even when the acts have good intentions, they are often quite damaging. The involvement of the wealthy in charity is very similar to their involvement in politics. Their wealth buys influence and gives them a disproportionate say that allows them to ignore and overrule the will of the people and sometimes even reality.

    For example, look into the impact of Bill Gates’s “acts of charity” in the education space. He poured money into charter programs that negatively impacted public education. Later studies showed that his programs were not particularly effective.

    Let’s say, hypothetically, that a very rich person is convinced by some charlatan that they found the a means to produce free energy. The wealthy person throws tons of money at the idea. How many talented people will be taken from other legit programs because the paycheck at Bullshit Energy Nonprofit is better? These rich people are successful and think they know bestr. Their money ensures they get treated like experts because money makes things happen whether or not those things are helpful.


  • Then stop funding them with tax payer money.

    The big ISPs? I agree - they can’t be trusted. However, in most cases access wasn’t happening at all without grants. The big guys just came in, strutted around promising the sun and the moon, then took the money and sat on it.

    I want to see small towns do community infrastructure as an alternative to the terrible single ISPs that are normally present.

    In many communities, it isn’t possible to do that without the help of grants… running cable or fiber isn’t cheap.

    …but we can agree on this. I’d love to see municipal broadband break up these ISP monopolies.

    Unfortunately, many states and municipalities have stupid laws still on the books that explicitly prohibit municipal broadband or force them to jump through hoops like getting ISPs to bid to provide the services first or some other bullshit. Its irrational fear of government run programs and socialism or whatever. Those laws are starting to get repealed.

    Edit: I have mixed feelings about StarLink. I don’t trust that they won’t act just as terribly as the rest if given the chance and they are throwing a lot into the atmosphere without considering or planning for the consequences.


  • It is crazy to try to force pricing or other free market values.

    The US government has, on multiple occasions, spent many many billions of dollars subsidizing the expansion of broadband internet. Often the ISPs would take the funds and under deliver, drastically. Like “Sure, we’ll take $ to provide broadband in these areas” then provide it for like, a neighborhood within that area, mark that area as having access to broadband now, and cash their check.

    …Or they’ll lie about covering areas or planning to cover areas to prevent rival/startup ISPs from getting similar funding to expand access to an area without access. Imagine you don’t have broadband and your ISP lied to the FCC so a rival ISP could not get grants/subsidies they’d use to fund their broadband expansion to your area.

    They lie and cheat to steal government and customer money and maintain their anticompetitive monopolies. Its not a free market.