Experimental RPG developer Summer Eternal: ‘We’re giving away 5% of our studio to you, the Players’ in order to ‘mend the trust broken in this industry a thousand times over’
Summer Eternal, an experimental RPG studio founded by former Disco Elysium developers, is giving players a 5% ownership stake through a new non-profit organisation. The initiative aims to rebuild trust between game developers and audiences by giving supporters a formal role in the studio’s governance.
People who pre-order the Summer Eternal Anthology can join the organisation and vote on representatives, studio strategy and community decisions. Players will also receive development updates and, once the game Red Rooster becomes profitable, decide democratically how to use 5% of its profits.
- Players will collectively own 5% of Summer Eternal.
- Anthology pre-orders grant access to the Players Non-Profit.
- Members can vote on governance and future profit spending.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Summer Eternal's initiative represents a genuine attempt to restructure the relationship between creators and audiences in an industry where trust has been repeatedly eroded. By offering formal ownership, voting rights, and profit-sharing rather than empty promises, the studio acknowledges that players deserve agency in decisions affecting their experience. This concrete model—where supporters gain governance voice and material benefit—distinguishes sincere commitment from corporate lip service and potentially establishes a template for more accountable creative industries.
The case against
Whilst the gesture is admirable, a 5% stake raises questions about substantive versus symbolic change. With the studio retaining 95% of ownership and control, players' formal influence remains marginal in practical decision-making. Democratic governance by a diffuse player base could also impede the focused artistic vision necessary for creative excellence, as creative works often benefit from clear authorial direction rather than committee-driven choices.