I realize this is about a million times easier said than done - not least because I am trying to do it and it is in fact very hard - but you refute it by doing it better yourself.
I think we've all kind of internalized this idea that you have to be a shark to do business. But insofar as businesses are profitable (and many are), every dollar of profit represents a dollar of ruthlessness that that company didn't have to execute. If a company has a 10% profit margin, they can be 10% less ruthless, and that turns out to buy their way out of a lot of the worst abuses. Or at least it could if the company's leadership wanted it to.
But there is absolutely nothing stopping you, in principle, from starting a company of your own, choosing not to hand de facto control over it to shareholders, and making the executive decision not to screw people for an extra dollar. You can do that. In fact, the Flappy Bird guy did exactly that - it's just that in this case he got outmaneuvered by predatory jerks. (Or, if you want to frame it differently: he got outcompeted in the legal arena, as obviously wrong as that is in this instance.)
The only problem here is that he lost, so...you know, don't lose. Be as much of a shark as you need to be to do business and defend yourself against the other sharks, but no more than that, and you'll be doing a lot better than the status quo.
>I have to give Dong Nguyen credit for pulling the game when he started to believe it caused more harm then good.
If he thought the game's design was "evil" why did he make the game in the first place? If you want to make a game, you need to actually sit down, come up with a game concept, prototype it and then produce it and finally publish it. He did all that but believing nobody or very few would play it but in reality Flappy Bird was sleeper hit and when it became viral he melt down. Whacky media headlines drove him "crazy" not bad or addictive game design of Flappy Bird.
If you want to be a creator of any kind you need to be open to all sorts of feedback; both bad and good, crazy and kind etc. etc.
>Unfortunately, greed and money always wins.
They don't....if he wanted to protect whatever was left of Flappy Bird's brand he should've copyrighted it and let it rest in peace and not left it for grabs.
> If he thought the game's design was "evil" why did he make the game in the first place?
It is such a simple game, who would have thought it would inspire such overreaction? Tetris was much more addictive, and it was seen as an interesting phenomenon, but these days communication is so manipulative and violent, it seems any minor problem gets magnified into yet another crisis.
Think about it: Flappy bird is ruining lives. It was said with a straight face in many infotainment shows. Anything in excess can ruin lives, should we avoid cars, knives, alcohol, smartphones, videogames, food, water, etc.?
Flappy bird was never the problem, IMO the author likely withdrew it because the media magnificaton was becoming scary.
>Think about it: Flappy bird is ruining lives. It was said with a straight face in many infotainment shows.
They said the same thing about World of Warcraft, Dota, League of Legends, Fortnite and countless other examples. People and I believe all mammals are prone to the addictions, that's why you need to teach yourself self-control or find somebody else who can teach you that or perhaps help you to control yourself.
>Flappy bird was never the problem, IMO the author likely withdrew it because the media magnification was becoming scary.
Exactly, sensationalistic media headlines made him depressed not Flappy Bird as a game.
Unfortunately, greed and money always wins.