A journal like this seems all the rage today, so why not one from me too ;-)
My 2 cents are pretty straightforward:
TLDR; I'm nervous, but I trust that Burnie/Matt et al are good at their jobs and are making good decisions; they've made many great ones to get to this point.
On his initial journal announcement Burnie has been answering a lot questions which has shown me something I could've guessed:
Burnie is very good at polished corporate speak.
While it could be unintentional, I personally think he's VERY smart and capable (see the amazing company/community he's helped build) and while its a little exasperating to see terms like acquired and partnership given equal weighting (they can't possibly BE less equivalent) he's just doing his job and I certainly don't think he's trying to be deceptive/deceitful. I think he truly believes (and again, he's very smart and talented, so he's probably, hopefully, right) that this acquisition will only mean good things for RT.
I think the perfect encapsulation of all of this is the following exchange:
While Burnie's obviously 100% correct (no one person has/had complete autonomous control, it was a collaboration) that's not the point. The point is that for a very long time (essentially since the start of the company 11+ years ago) the group collaborating has had a core that has always been present. Certainly they've added new people over the years, and roles/responsibilities have changed/shifted/grown, but the core was (I believe) always there. This acquisition adds a major new player/dynamic to that leadership, and while they may SAY they don't want to change anything, that could change in the future.
My nervousness then really comes from the fact that what they (they being RT, the group who collaborates to create the great content/keep the company growing/moving forward) have done is traded a certain amount of independence for the resources to continue doing what they've been doing, and more importantly do even more amazing things going forward. This is COMPLETELY reasonable, and in principle no different than any other monetization strategy - by exchanging money (ie sponsorships) for goods (ie shows) you become beholden to your audience in at least some small way (if they don't like what you create they leave and unless you get more/new audiences you have to stop). There is nothing wrong with this, and it is the way the wold, business, economies, etc work. My fear is whether they gave away too much independence, regardless of the value they got back. Obviously I can't actually KNOW if thats what happened in part because only time will tell and more importantly because I'm not privy to the details :-) But no matter what my concerns may be I have to come back to the fact that as Burnie pointed out in another comment:
"Fortunately, Rooster Teeth has a twelve year history of doing things outside the norm."
That you do Burnie, that you do.
So here's to much success for RoosterTeeth, Fullscreen, and anyone else this new absolute juggernaut of quality content/online media may eat on its way to world domination.
Maybe at some point the dynamics will be such that Fullscreen will essentially be swallowed up from the inside, with the RoosterTeeth "brand" becoming the face of everything with the two headed monster of Burnie/Matt at the head! Won't all the haters/worriers (myself included) be ashamed of their doubts then!