761
Baldur’s Gate 3 boss says gamers don’t want mass subscriptions
(www.pcgamesn.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
761 points (100.0% liked)
Games
32521 readers
698 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The thing is that this guy is not the head of a public company where shareholders demand massive and continually growing profits. So he acts in the interests of the consumer, the customer, the gamer. But if this was a public company, shareholders would buy shares and then demand he do something to grow that share price, so they can sell the shares later for profit.
When that happens we see that CEOs do everything they can to maximize profits, like promising release dates in earnings calls.
The difference between private and public companies is the single biggest threat to us all because as soon as the company acts in the exclusive interest of profit, everything else gets fucked. And most do.
That means employees, customers, everyone. Only the 1% benefit from the gutting of everyone else.
I mean yes, but also no. I work at a private company and profits seem to be the only thing to get anyone with a title to move their ass.
Most Directors or below have their teams, or customers, or the product front of mind. But once you get to VP seats they just.. don’t, it seems.
And this is super anecdotal, I know, but.. basically my point is private vs public doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
This guy is just a good guy. He knows what matters to people and speaks from his heart, not his wallet.
Thats either because your boss privately wants to hoard wealth, or is trying to set the books up for a clean sell.
Public means you sacrifice everything in the name of profit.
Private means you operate on the ideals of the private owners.
A private owner can have ideals of profit. A public company cannot have idealistic shareholders.
Technically public still means you act in the interests of the owners, aka shareholders (at least in germany anything else is illegal), it's just that naturally that will always be profit for the majority.
Publicly traded, aka private property, means you operate on the ideals of private owners, sacrificing everything in the name of profit.
Publicly owned means almost the opposite, but almost nothing is publicly owned in the US at this point.
Private property ≠ personal property.
I dont think you responded to the right comment, Im talking about the difference between types of companies, not property.
I'm also talking about different company structures, and how they relate to the type of property that they are.
Ah, in that case I dont think you understand the convo at all
It's clear from context that he was discussing publicly-traded companies because, like you said, there basically are no public companies in the US. Your post is unnecessary and pedantic.
There should be public companies in the US. Especially utilities.
Those top level folks are sometimes "incentived" by bottom line targets and other end targets. So sure, you do get greedy people inside private companies.
I don't think shareholders driving for infinite profit is easily disregarded.
I agree — some gamers do not understand that the gaming industry is grown up now, or at least old enough to play in the big boy money league. And the big boys are not in the business to make games; they are in gaming to make business. Inherently different decision-making process.
Also, before someone buys something, someone has to sell out. So why do we always have a problem with the buyers, aka investors, whose intentions are clear but not the sellers?
Indeed, the game devs aren't "In it for the art" anymore, they aren't John Romero and John Carmack making Doom "Because it's cool" or Wolfenstein 3D "because I liked that Castle Wolfenstein game on the ZX Spectrum or whatever"
It's Cigar Munching old men who don't know what a Mario is, and don't care, they just know that the chart goes up when they release a product with a trending name, regardless of content.
I mean, the Doom guys were also doing it for the money, at least as a big motovator. But it was less profit-drivem, way more small and less corporate, with way less money on the line.
Nah. One does not build a company to provide a service but to earn money. "Well-being of the company" only matters if you are sure you can sell it for more if you grow it more
There are a hundred different reasons to start a company other than to make profit. Don't be fooled by the lies of market capitalism. Some people want to create a legacy that generates income for themselves and their employees, maybe even their children. Not everyone is looking to sell to the highest bidder. With that said, the bigger the company, especially if they plan to go, or already are, publicly traded, or are owned by private equity firms whose sole focus is profit and value of the entity the more likely the assumption is true.
There are many different reasons than to pursue continually escalating profits.
Maybe turn the AAA stock into a meme stock, have gamers buy that shit up and give reduced game prices to stock holders to incentivise gamers to buy them. Et voila, No demand for profit that costs quality in the gaming experience.