By J-dawg
To recap in Part I we began addressing the origins of (U.S.) Copyright & Patent, the fact that companies owning Intellectual Property on their own is newish, and that lately games veer increasingly in the direction of style over substance. Resolving that this probably distresses and disappoints people as it becomes more of A Thing. And the fact that some people, fatcats in particular, probably (definitely, but degree varies) aren't helping.
How does this all relate together?
Not just through the fatcats though, ironically enough! They are a symptom of the problem. Not its source! Yes, we're going back to the beginning! The purpose of patent and the cause of copyright IS to promote creativity and improvement in quality-of-life! When these purposes are corrupted and turned in on themselves, you get the opposite of creativity and improvements in quality-of-life (including entertainment products like video games!) You get imitation and deprivation instead. (i.e. DLC and micro-transactions!?) Fatcats show up because of the screwed up scene; they don't make it worse without our letting them!
I submit to you that the mishandling and abuse of protected Intellectual Property by corporate owners who lack the passion, focus and direction of a small team or that of a leading visionary who will chaperone it through its development hell(s) is the story of our age! Missing too often now is someone who will ensure sequels show fidelity to the concepts set down in the original(s.) Who will deny concepts that don't belong part of the production. It's now an old story for that not to happen! Now real people-owners (or 'the Principal(s)') screw up sometimes too [Ed: see George Lucas!] This is found to be the case less often in the world of video games though.
Remember- it used to be that Intellectual Property was held by living people, not corporations. (Star Wars started out this way!) If you look back many more credible, useful, and artistically merited inventions were devised in those times! Now it is true that they may have had difficulty getting them to market (manufacture, distributing) the products then. Due to this the rise of monopolies was excused. It eventually gave us corporate ownership of IP. Getting products to market is not really the problem anymore with industrialization, radio and the Internet bringing the spread of information, if not to say knowledge far and wide!
Thus the proprietor-owner [Principal] model does not only benefit customers directly at the end of product delivery (like at an arcade for example!) Where the owner can probably tell you what's going on with the games in their shop and has a direct interest in keeping you as a customer. They benefit us all since the creators are closer to the consumers. Something the fatcats don't care much about, and many games now show that indifference laid out!
Sometimes in the past owners could not find buyers for their products too. The means of marketing and selling games is nowhere near as tough as it once was. Even so, small studios did find ways! The fact is for all the good large corporations and middle-persons have done for the world of gaming, we might be better off with garage studios making most our games! That versus the armies of commercial artists, orchestras and celebrities, analysts and consultants, spokesfolk and lawyers now involved!
They really don't add anything that isn't taking away from what ought to be fundamentally a game in the first place, not a production in which you play the role of somebody in the Teacup at the Teacup Ride at Disney. As long as you're willing to go along with it it's fine for a while. After that though you may actually want to do something. Amusements have limited and select durable entertainment value. Games, like live performances (think Broadway) offer a bit more than that with a degree of greater and more personal involvement. From the moment that corporations seized the reins in Intellectual Property to now, we've witnessed a pretty steady decline in overall quality of output. Games are no exception to the rule, just the latest casualty.
Today the law doesn't really allow holding companies accountable for producing crummy software as a rule. What's also true is that those laws are very old and very out of touch with the realities governing the modern software ecosystem. They're due to be revised one of these days. It's going to be people with a great deal more experience in the world of gaming for one that will have input on how those laws are changed! The law today says corporations can own any Intellectual Property sold to them! Well, a person can have an idea. A company can't. Therefore the relationship to the ends of copyright is parasitic one, no matter how great a production they occasionally put on.
Fundamentally innovation requires dedication to something greater than capital. It requires commitment to an idea. That is something a corporation can never do even if it demonstrates it momentarily. People lead, corporations follow. Let's lead them somewhere better than where we are right now and get those good games again!
Copyright GBAMFS 2020
:)
Comments