zlacker

>>lopesp+(OP)
The elephant in the room is the size distribution of "other people's kingdoms". Having oversized kingdoms and overbearing kings is not a god-given parameter, its down to regulation, political and economic choices. Its not for nothing that the current digital world has been called neo-feudal.

The real solution is to force these kingdoms to build permanently open gates and roadways that connect the land, increase all around traffic and opportunity.

Only when people turn from digital vassals to digital citizens will we emerge from the middle ages we are currently in. In this sense the most important development in the online world is still ahead if us.

>>openri+El1
I live somewhere that has a lot of castles - there are 3 (possibly 4) within 2km of where I am sitting writing this.

I don't think any of these castles were built directly by kings - although I suspect their construction was either approved by a king or by someone who had delegated authority from a king. NB I can also see a large castle about ~11 km away that was a royal castle (and still has a military garrison).

I suspect that most castles are probably in other people's kingdoms.

>>arethu+zB1
So, you should build your castle in someone else's kingdom iff that kingdom either

1. Has strong norms against castle seizure or abandonment of the king's duties in kingdom upkeep

2. Has a federation of non-king castle owners strong and unified enough to force the former point.

>>khafra+gH1
3. You are strong enough to provide a serious and credible threat to the king if he implements a policy that threatens you.

Example: Valve in the early 2000s before or as they were building Steam to challenge the video game publisher model. 20 years on and Valve is still printing money, while Sierra Online doesn't exist.

>>hooray+2s2
Also Valve has always been a private company tightly controlled by insiders, whereas Sierra had already been a public company since 1989, subsequently acquired by CUC in 1996 for $1.5bn, and embarked on a non-stop acquisition spree in pursuit of short-term growth, which usually ends badly (think Gateway, AOL, Time-Warner, etc). Esp. pre-Sarbanes-Oxley.

Moreover, Gabe Newell always had a controlling stake in Valve ever since 1996, so that prevents any shenanigans. There are comparatively few shareholders (than a public company) and they were all long-term, since Valve will likely never go public, certainly no year soon, or even be privately acquired; while Newell controls it.

In this instance your complaint is about corporate governance rather than tech; (how far back did tech people stop being in control at Sierra?)