You know what this is called? A healthy and competitive market.
Yeah, I get there’s layoffs, but that’s mainly at AAA studios and is a symptom of a previously unhealthy, highly consolidated market. The job losses suck, but now diversity and competition is coming back, and that’s generally a good thing for consumers.
Whenever investors get involved things go downhill. If the only two parties are a buyer and a seller, the only way the seller can make money is by making a product the buyer wants to buy. But investors don’t care about the product. They may not even understand the product. They only care that the product makes money.
AAA studios are failing because they want to please investors, not buyers.
and it’s always worth distinguishing between executives and investors.
Executives are going to push the problem, but the core issue is shareholders. In the US, where most of these companies are based, a publicly traded company is expected to make money for its shareholders. Shareholders have subplanted customers in the companies ethical obligagions. The law has been used to make this national policy. Controlling shareholders can (and do) vote to remove company leadership that won’t act how they want. It is not just that they have to generate revenue, they have to generate as much revenue as possible as determined by shareholders. It’s corporate cartel tatics. Fail us and die. Do well and you’ll get rewarded with some of the take.
If a company goes public, It’s only a matter of time until it’s product goes to shit.
It was my understanding that it was a misconception that companies are legally bound to have an ROI or whatever. Not an economist so IDK. I just remember hearing that from several places. Regardless, the buyer-seller relationship is “I give you money, and you give me a product or service”. The investor-seller relationship is “We give you money, and you give us more money, and we don’t care how you do it.”
It was my understanding that it was a misconception that companies are legally bound to have an ROI or whatever. Not an economist so IDK. I just remember hearing that from several places. Regardless, the buyer-seller relationship is “I give you money, and you give me a product or service”. The investor-seller relationship is “We give you money, and you give us more money, and we don’t care how you do it.”
Only very technically. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. still made the shareholder a priority over the product or the customer (technically it only set the precedent). It’s a misconception that actual profit is the legal requirement. I suppose I’m guilty of furthering it, but it’s easier to keep the oversimplification than to explain the nuances when the outcome is the same. The controlling shareholders are the ones that create this issue because their votes affect company policy, and if they don’t like the way the company operates, they have more direct legal avenues to change and challenge it than you or I would.
Well then they are simply stupid. Because if they did care that the product makes money, they would care about what the buyer wants to buy, because thats how you make the money.
In their mind they can just take their money and invest in something else. They don’t care about long term value, just milking it for all its worth. Pump and dump, then move onto the next cow.
You know what this is called? A healthy and competitive market.
Yeah, I get there’s layoffs, but that’s mainly at AAA studios and is a symptom of a previously unhealthy, highly consolidated market. The job losses suck, but now diversity and competition is coming back, and that’s generally a good thing for consumers.
Whenever investors get involved things go downhill. If the only two parties are a buyer and a seller, the only way the seller can make money is by making a product the buyer wants to buy. But investors don’t care about the product. They may not even understand the product. They only care that the product makes money.
AAA studios are failing because they want to please investors, not buyers.
It’s this.
and it’s always worth distinguishing between executives and investors.
Executives are going to push the problem, but the core issue is shareholders. In the US, where most of these companies are based, a publicly traded company is expected to make money for its shareholders. Shareholders have subplanted customers in the companies ethical obligagions. The law has been used to make this national policy. Controlling shareholders can (and do) vote to remove company leadership that won’t act how they want. It is not just that they have to generate revenue, they have to generate as much revenue as possible as determined by shareholders. It’s corporate cartel tatics. Fail us and die. Do well and you’ll get rewarded with some of the take.
If a company goes public, It’s only a matter of time until it’s product goes to shit.
I want to upvote this one million times
It was my understanding that it was a misconception that companies are legally bound to have an ROI or whatever. Not an economist so IDK. I just remember hearing that from several places. Regardless, the buyer-seller relationship is “I give you money, and you give me a product or service”. The investor-seller relationship is “We give you money, and you give us more money, and we don’t care how you do it.”
Only very technically. Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. still made the shareholder a priority over the product or the customer (technically it only set the precedent). It’s a misconception that actual profit is the legal requirement. I suppose I’m guilty of furthering it, but it’s easier to keep the oversimplification than to explain the nuances when the outcome is the same. The controlling shareholders are the ones that create this issue because their votes affect company policy, and if they don’t like the way the company operates, they have more direct legal avenues to change and challenge it than you or I would.
Well then they are simply stupid. Because if they did care that the product makes money, they would care about what the buyer wants to buy, because thats how you make the money.
In their mind they can just take their money and invest in something else. They don’t care about long term value, just milking it for all its worth. Pump and dump, then move onto the next cow.