Well, if that's the first world nations just imagine how it goes in the 3rd world...

As we are already in October, would you like to talk about scary topics? Retirement payments!
That will be -us- being old, diminished, obsolete (?!),
and considering the way things in general are currently running and heading to:
A way more difficult reality. No need for SFX to get goose bumps!

The company exists, but the artisans who made Disco Elysium what it was are gone.

Wait. Weren't ZA/UM a bunch of communists?

Yeah, and they probably feel rather vindicated in their anti-capitalistic tendencies after this.

Until Kurvitz & Co maybe (hopefully) brew up their own spiritual successor, there's Esoteric Ebb (dubbing itself a "Disco-like", Teaser Trailer) and Sovereign Syndicate (inspired by Disco Elysium, among others, Trailer) to look forward to.

Maybe they'll team up with another publisher, those people leaving the gaming industry completely would be quite sad.

They'd have to find a trustworthy art house publisher which good luck!

11 bit studios would be good choice for them. They not only publish original products (Children of Morta etc.) but create them themselves (This War of Mine, Frostpunk etc.), so new Kurvitz project may fit their lineup.

That's an interesting idea, although if you apply that to the corporate sphere, you're going to run into a number of problems. You would be depriving a lot of high functioning individuals from the ability to earn a livelihood. The other issue is that most leaders and innovators sit somewhere on the sociopath/psychopath spectrum (I don't think that narcissism adds much, but there might be some creative industries where it is a helpful trait).

While you can argue about whether e.g. Tesla is a beneficial or problematical development in the transport industry, you can't argue with the fact that Musk has got himself into a position to drive forwards Tesla, SpaceX and the Boring company and you can make an argument that he is somewhere on that spectrum. While it's hard to establish a counterfactual, I don't think that eliminating these traits is beneficial - but I do think that people need to better understand them and how to work with people who have those traits (and how to better manage them in themselves)

High functioning people need not be excluded just because sociopaths are.

And Tesla? Really? The rich son of an emerald miner? Your best example?

I'll put it simply: What is the benefit of having a mayor whose metality is, "Screw you, I got mine"?

There are plenty of examples; I just picked someone that, as someone from America, you were more likely to have heard of. There is a statistically significant higher proportion of people displaying psychopathic tendencies in the C-Suite, and their traits are linked to strong and effective leadership. Other examples would be Steve Jobs (Apple x2, Pixar). Some people suggest Al Dunlap; he was highly successful at turning round failing businesses until he got caught in an accounting scandal. To a lesser extent, in politics, both FDR and Churchill had psychopathic tendencies (as did the leader on the other side). The key thing, like all personality traits is that it's a matter of degree and finding roles where they can add the most value - in the same way you wouldn't have someone hugely introverted as a senior leader, you probably wouldn't have someone scoring highly on the psychopathic spectrum as a HR generalist.

With sociopaths and psychopaths, the key thing is to make sure that their self-interest is aligned with growth in shareholder value - or in the case of a mayor - in the effective running of a city or other area. You usually achieve this through incentive plans. Like all resources, you just need to understand how to use them to best effect.

The problem with that is that if they get high enough on the power ladder, at some point, they often get to make the rules (its incredibly hard to get a system where different actors really share leadership and it works well without goodwill and forbearance) and then all that talk of tweaking the rules so that their self-interest aligns with that of the group becomes moot.

They just go straight to the most expedient path to the cookie jar.

I personally have a hard time trusting people who lack empathy. Its too much work to monitor them (way beyond how much you'd need to monitor most people). I'd rather keep them as far from any position of leadership as possible. They can contribute ideas, but they shouldn't be managing people or making rules without a filter.

Throw rocks at me if you want, but from what I heard, I don't think Steve Jobs should have been in charge of people. He should have been in an office somewhere throwing ideas with someone else taking those ideas and passing them along to the workforce. That's it.

Mmm, perhaps the use of the word involuntarily that I don t fully get.

Forced out. Basically fired in all but name.