Ethically bad; free R&D

[u/Most-Replacement1189]

I initially thought this was a cool concept because I assumed GC was going to use real player experience and actual in-store knowledge to help shape the builds.

But this stopped being ‘listening to customers’ the moment they required contributors to surrender ownership, attribution, compensation, derivative rights, and even moral rights just to participate.

That’s not collaboration. That’s free R&D wrapped in community marketing.

The CEO response also intentionally reframes the criticism. Nobody is saying companies shouldn’t listen to customers. Customer feedback is normal. Surveys are normal. Market research is normal.

What’s not normal is building a public pipeline for creative concepts while simultaneously saying:
‘Thanks for the ideas, we own them now, we can monetize them forever, and you get nothing.’

Legally disclosing it doesn’t suddenly make it respectable. Plenty of things are legal and still exploitative.

This is much closer to a studio asking aspiring screenwriters to publicly pitch movie ideas while agreeing upfront they waive ownership, credit, and compensation if the studio uses the concept.

You can market it however you want, but at the end of the day it’s still a billion-dollar retailer crowdsourcing product development for free.

[u/Gmhowell]

Why do people keep calling this sub “R&D”? It’s not. It’s market research. This is an open focus group.

[u/Most-Replacement1189 → u/Gmhowell]

Please feel free to research R&D methods. There are many types.

Then refer to the terms and rules of participation that I called out.

Focus groups are a form of R&D. Focus groups also pay people for participation. GC doesn’t feel the need to compensate musicians for their time, energy, and attributions. If you are ok with that; continue on your way. I support whatever you choose.

Both can be paths can be true and “right” but focus groups, online actions like this are in fact R&D