@GenePark@wolfyvelvet Geoff at his core is a reflection of the access journalist/PR friendly/pro corporate style of gaming news which I just can never really get behind.
@GenePark@wolfyvelvet At the very least front of my mind when it comes to the game awards are things like Geoff refusing to actually take a stand in 2021 for workers, playing off winners in 2023, and the awards process itself which is not really ideal vs peer nominating
Some billionaires (or their foundations) do fund certain areas of basic research.
Examples: Simons Foundation, Moore Foundation, Sloan Foundation, Keck Foundation, Schmidt Sciences, and several others.
But most of them are in biomedicine: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, Wellcome Trust, and many others.
However, this is all small compared with federal funding: around 25% of academic funding is from philanthropy, and over 50% from federal grants. This proportion is much lower in STEM than in biomedicine, and much lower in less prestigious universities.
So historical evidence that fundamental research can be helped, but not entirely funded, by philanthropic billionaires.
@Strife212 This is honestly kind of a strange argument because the counter is just to add maybe a handful of prompts that are inputted consistently with a basic program on top and voila.
Lower game dev budgets also allows for the follow:
-Tighter team culture/cohesion
-Less risk in experimenting w new ideas
-Less management oversight
-Faster experimentation/iteration time
I can't overstate how paradoxically a big budget can negatively affect the end product, as well as the long-term viability of a studio.