this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
371 points (97.7% liked)
Games
32518 readers
1167 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The base game having less content than its predecessor isn't the greedy part. It's the fact that taking advantage of that market inelasticity wasn't enough for Paradox and judging it acceptable to release a product in this state on top of that.
It's the kind of decision you make when you run out of cash to keep funding development.
Paradox and Colossal Order have said they literally ran out of cash?
No, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Everyone ran out of cash in this industry. Investment dried up, and they knew what state their game was shipping in. That doesn't mean you're wrong to be upset as a consumer either.
Paradox is extremely healthy.
If we're both going to be speculating here, I'm going with the more likely consideration for a publisher with record performance. In early August, they saw an early access game get its full release in an unfinished state to massive acclaim and sales (along with similar, larger trends) and decided to test their market with the same.
I don't even have a dog in this fight; I'm not a city management sim fan. I'm just calling it like it is.
And perhaps that health is because by that point they already started releasing multiple games far too early for a cash injection, one of which ended with them cutting Harebrained Schemes loose. I'm also calling it like it is. I don't see healthy companies sacrifice their long term fan base and development throughput for short term gains. It smells a whole lot like trying to stop the bleeding. As for assigning The Chinese Room to sequel a beloved RPG, I don't even know where to start there.
New to Capitalism?
No, hence my conclusions.
You've never seen a corporation sacrifice its long-term health to report short-term profits, to meet an upcoming quarterly report?
Ever?
I've never seen one I would call healthy.
Well, most people believe that all publicly traded corporations, healthy or otherwise, only focus on their next quarterly report profits, and that long-term strategy and growth goals are rarely if ever considered.
Granted, I'd much rather live in your world than mine, but I don't think you're correct on this one.
You don't see Take Two shoving GTA6 and Judas out the door for profits now, for instance. Paradox abiding by the same MO to burn good will for multiple games and then getting developers off their books is a move you make when you're out of better options.
And all the other corporations out there?
Remember your stance was that all healthy corporations would never sacrifice long-term health for short-term profits.
You're not really addressing my point, but instead skirting around it...
Our original disagreement was on if a healthy corporation would focus on the quarterly profits over long-term goals in the same way that an unhealthy corporation would. Your stance was that any healthy corporation would not.
Correct. We've seen tons of layoffs in this industry because their business models weren't healthy. So they'll make cuts, or push out games like Cities: Skylines II or Skull and Bones when they're not ready or will do long-term damage to their brand because they need to take the least bad option, but meanwhile, Take Two and Nintendo can push back marquis products another few quarters because they've got a moat of security around themselves. At times, those companies were not, and one day will not be, healthy, but then they sacrificed or will sacrifice something or other in order to survive to be healthy another day.
So, just to confirm, your opinion is that no healthy corporation in any industry on this planet would ever focus on short-term quarterly reports and financial gain to satisfy their shareholders, over long-term goals and stability, yes? That only unhealthy corporations would do so?
I'd say it's a sign of an unhealthy company, since their reports must be truthful but can present the rosiest picture possible. You don't have to force this to be some absolutism. The rest of the industry came on hard times simultaneously to these games releasing unfinished, as well as games from their peers doing the same. I don't think my conclusion is farfetched.
Not all corporations on the planet are unhealthy, but all focus on the quarterly report more so than long-term, if they're publicly traded.
You keep focusing on a few game companies, where my original comment, and my recurring comments, are about corporations in general, as a discussion on Capitalism as a whole.
It's well known and believed that all corporations that are public and that have shareholders focused primarily on the next quarterly earnings report and returns, and not long term results, regardless of their health.
Your conclusion is purposely not answering the point I'm asking you, which is what this conversation is about.
It blows my mind you're not willing to acknowledge that, which is why I keep interacting with you, trying to get you to speak specifically to that point, but you keep referring to just two game companies over and over again only.
You're looking for an argument that I'm not interested in, and it's not what this conversation was about. Paradox sure looks like it released some games early, knowing that they were underbaked, because they couldn't feasibly keep delaying them to give them the time they needed. We can agree to disagree there and go our separate ways.
Going to leave it with this...
You're purposely not answering the point of the conversation, and trying to label it otherwise is not an answer in and of itself.
The conversation was about healthy corporations focusing on short-term profits or not. Not one game company who's unhealthy focusing on short-term profits.