Comment on Can somebody explain why game makers don't start their own companies together?
HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 6 months ago
Beyond just game studios, why aren’t there more employee owned companies?
When Starbucks was unionizing I made the comment that if I were the corporation I would just get out and let the employees run it. I got flamed for this attitude. What is so terrible about employee owned companies?
Probably because the owners want to take all of the profit and employees do not have the capital to make the investment.
It takes a certain benevolent capitalist to convert their business to employee owned (Bobs Red Mill intensifies). Such businesses only represent 12% of the private sector
That’s a much higher percentage than I expected.
Benevolent capital is out there, especially in the startup phase. I find it arrogant and ignorant, but available. It does require risk-sharing which I find doesn’t fit the vision of the borrower.
Hades II just dropped by SGG, which is basically what y’all are calling for. This system is viable once you’ve had your first quasi-successful game. That first game is the problem though - it’s a massive hurdle. So many groups seek bigger companies to support them. After that, your theirs. Especially if you make a hit.
There are also other factors such as running a studio means running a business. If you’re a developer, you might have very little interest in that. So you instead get hired by a company which enables you to get a paycheck as you do the thing you actually enjoy.
Additionally, there is marketing and distribution. Do not underestimate how much connections matter when marketing and distributing your game. And yes, everyone needs to market. They can’t all be Hi-Fi Rush (which yikes they weren’t safe either) shadow dropping. Though they also had a big studio to help them capitalize so lol
They don’t fulfill the fantasy of being a rent-seeking social parasite.
So you are saying employees in employee owned companies are rent seeking social parasites?
No? I said the opposite of that.
The question I was answering was “why aren’t there more employee owned companies?” And the answer is it’s a lot harder to get seed money for those, because the rent seeking parasites don’t want them to exist.
So what I am now hearing is it is hard for them to get seed money.
The system literally disincentives and makes coops less competitive.
Opening a coop is harder, more expensive, have less subsidies or tax benefits, less opportunities for investments/loans etc.
And all of this makes running coops more expensive, thus less competitive, thus the ones that do manage to open either can’t grow or die.
To me the opposite appears true. Beyond economy -of-scale can you give me some examples?
Like the literal law. In most places it’s a much more involved and expensive process to even open a coop compared to a traditional private company. It takes more paperwork, more fees, more capital funds etc. Also, getting investors in (when they can’t own the coop, as they are not workers) or even loans from private or state banks/institutions is much harder. There are several programs incentivising people to open private companies, giving them tax credits, making the application and approval process easier, giving access to funds and education etc. How many there are for coops? In most places around the world there are 0. In what ways does it appear the opposite to you…? Like this all seems very self-evident to me.
I don’t know where you are located. I am in the US and a co-op is just a corporation so all the things that apply to a private corporation apply to a co-op. When applying for grants there are no differentiators that I can think of. One advantage for a co-op here is that there are no passive investors.
Employee owned companies are more stable in economic downturns but they also require much more diversification to replace the owner/manager roles where there is actually shit to do. Big item being the book keeping.
I'm not following on why manager roles are different from traditional companies.
The book keeping? You mean splitting the profit? Why wouldn't you assume everyone has a % stake?
Not splitting the profits, tracking bills, making sure they’re all paid on time, making sure the company is getting paid on time depending on your business plan, tracking any special taxes you gotta pay, tracking price increases in long term contracts, list goes on
I’m a better bookkeeper than I am a coder. I would join.
So many roles can be fractionalized that it seems doable.
Strategic leadership and consensus might be difficult. Design by committee could be the biggest enemy.
millie@beehaw.org 6 months ago
People literally buy into the idea that they wouldn’t know how to do anything if they weren’t being told what to do. They think that value comes from above.
They think that when a company sells them raspberries, they invented the raspberry bush. They don’t realize that the raspberries were already there. They certainly don’t realize that they themselves are another kind of bush. Or that the labor bush operates without a company to own it and sell its labor berries.
HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 6 months ago
What can be done to change this?
I think a lot of people need someone to blame for their own unhappiness, too. I would like to see this change, but I am not sure how it can be done.
millie@beehaw.org 6 months ago
Grow a bunch of labor bushes and make it incredibly clear that it’s not about them being owned, but about them being labor bushes.
HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 6 months ago
This is kinda off the subject but do you live this life? Would you like to code something for no money that would help people?