This is why enough people outside of Japan knew what Shin Megami Tensei was to make it sell without translating the series' name anymore. Same goes for a game with as inane of a title as Live A Live selling perfectly fine. Piracy is the lifeblood of multiple series and remakes/remasters having any chance of selling in the West, as there wouldn't be much of any demand for them otherwise.
It has nothing to do with greed. The publicly traded for-profit model makes it so they must act as if they are greedy regardless of how any individual in the company feels. They are legally required to do whatever it takes to increase shareholder value even if that means unethical behavior or even breaking other laws.
Sadly, I can't even think of greed being the kind of fire I like. Warmth turned into an all-devouring, all-destroying wildfire, as you said.
Game studio heads making over $5,000,000,000 in a year is greed. No one needs that much money. (That's just what Adam Badowski, the co-CEO of CD Projekt Red made 3 years ago.)
Well, it's not like their servers and the storefront run and maintain themselves for free. Devs CAN sell their games online without giving Gaben a cut if they're so offended by Steam's demands.
Yes, there are people who act greedy within the publicly traded model, but that doesn't mean that one individual is the whole problem. Get rid of the greedy CEO, and a new one will take their place. The new one might not be as greedy, but they will continue to seek shareholder value first just like the last one regardless of what their pay is like.
yeah they can, but pc gamers don't come out of their steam cave so they have to suck it up
Iirc there's a legal precedent in the US which dictates that a CEO is beholden to the shareholders first and foremost so even if they wanted to 'do the right thing' they can't. I could be wrong about this.
Yet they only seek shareholder value to satisfy their own greed. Remove greed from the gaming industry and instead of chasing money for shareholders, game developers are allowed to make games solely to please the players, not to appeal to some 3rd party shareholder.
Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to. There's no removing "greed" from the equation when the system is built to make "greed" the required attitude.
You still don't get it. There's no greed in this; no human emotion whatsoever. This is cold machine logic. The system is set up by law to force publicly traded corporations to work on one thing only: increase shareholder value or be found guilty of the ultimate business crime: not making a strong enough effort to increase shareholder value. That's not even an exaggeration; that's what the law says. There's no removing "greed" without making the corporations privately owned, and once they've gone through their IPO, that's near impossible to turn back. Ben & Jerry's have been trying to do that for some time, and they haven't succeeded yet (and that's one of the more ethical publicly traded corporations).
Never said it wouldn't be difficult to make the switch. Pretending that greed isn't the driving force behind CEOs making decisions that benefit shareholders over consumers is counterproductive. Yes the system itself is flawed, but the system is set up that way because of greed. It's really simple, greed is the root of the issue. Obviously you can't just remove it, though the world would benefit greatly if we could, but I was answering the question of why companies do this. The clear answer at the core of the issue is greed.
Dude Capcom is definitely taking us PC players for granted and abusing our trust. More than 50% of their revenue comes from PC but the last 2 AAA games (DD2 and MHW) runs like absolute dogshit on PC. It's been a year now and they still haven't fixed DD2 and the main reason why I haven't bought MHW yet. They have lost trust from me after the horrible experience I had with DD2 so I can't agree with this take. Sorry.
My claim is far from surface level. In all likelihood, you didn't even know the law requires shareholders to be put first, or what a public-benefit corporation is before I mentioned them; most people don't, including some anti-corporate activists. Saying "it's just greed" is a massive oversimplification that lacks depth or understanding of why people who are not personally greedy are still acting as if infinite growth is not only possible, but the only thing to work towards.
Oh i am failure of this, but it seems to me that this is a chicken and egg scenario, as they need to garner sales to provide the return to the investors. And these investors will not invest unless the company can demonstrate growth, which is done for the majority in sales.
That was in old days. Now big companies receive free money from (((THEY))) and don't need the costumer anymore.
But then why the practice, are you saying the act of supply and demand, and share holder investment is a performance?
Thank you!
Yes. But also some companies like EA aren't playing the new game as of yet. You can tell which are by looking which ones have consultant companies hired.
I'm sorry to brake it to you. But Sega Sammy, Sega (an others like Atlus) parent company shutdowns any fan projects that aren't Sonic. The reason that Sonic is the exception is because they don't see it as a profitable brand anymore. And that could change with the success of the movies.
Well if they care about the piracy, then this could be an indication of protecting reputation, which in essence could be related to investor confidence. As they have a judiciary responsibility to make sure the company is profitable for said investor confidence and investment.
github.com
