3 ms·

Probably through "line must always go up" mentality. Creative business, especially games, should really not be publicly traded or thought of as having major re

Probably through "line must always go up" mentality. Creative business, especially games, should really not be publicly traded or thought of as having major returns on investments. It might work on start, but sooner or later the "current hit game" will fade out of popularity and then people will get fired and crunch will become the norm etc... in order to satisfy the "line must go up" mentality, but since game dev is a hit driven business that clashes with the "Line must go up" concept at its core since, being a hit driven business, means that it's totaly unpredictable.

thih9 2y ago
Do we have any source or other data indicating that this happened here?
- darby_nine 2y ago
  Is this not the legally obligated line of thinking for american companies? You have some leeway to argue with only providing value to shareholders in some specific manner, but not much.
  - shakiXBT 2y ago
    Most companies try to operate at a profit and actually increase those profits over time. That said, reasoning that Annapurna failed only because of that requires some impressive mental gymnastics
  - jfengel 2y ago
    "Value" is whatever shareholders want it to be. In the case of a public company that is assumed to be profit, because the shareholders are a vast and ever changing group. Annapurna isn't public, so it serves whatever the private owners want. Even in a publicly traded stock, the company charter can specify something other than profit. The shareholders know that when they buy stock. In other words there is more leeway than we commonly give credit. The notion of a fiduciary duty to be greedy is pushed by psychopathic CEOs but isn't really what the law says.
Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
The video game business is very similar to the film or literary publishing business. You need to publish ten novels for one to do well enough financially to pay off the others. Nobody really knows why that one worked. It's possible to do a few sequels, but the formula quickly becomes boring. No one can guarantee the commercial success of a novel, film or video game.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  That's why equity investment in creative endeavors is an entire class of business. Possible to risk-balance adjustment, similar to anything else.

thih9 2y ago

Do we have any source or other data indicating that this happened here?

darby_nine 2y ago
Is this not the legally obligated line of thinking for american companies? You have some leeway to argue with only providing value to shareholders in some specific manner, but not much.
- shakiXBT 2y ago
  Most companies try to operate at a profit and actually increase those profits over time. That said, reasoning that Annapurna failed only because of that requires some impressive mental gymnastics
- jfengel 2y ago
  "Value" is whatever shareholders want it to be. In the case of a public company that is assumed to be profit, because the shareholders are a vast and ever changing group. Annapurna isn't public, so it serves whatever the private owners want. Even in a publicly traded stock, the company charter can specify something other than profit. The shareholders know that when they buy stock. In other words there is more leeway than we commonly give credit. The notion of a fiduciary duty to be greedy is pushed by psychopathic CEOs but isn't really what the law says.

Beretta_Vexee 2y ago

The video game business is very similar to the film or literary publishing business. You need to publish ten novels for one to do well enough financially to pay off the others. Nobody really knows why that one worked. It's possible to do a few sequels, but the formula quickly becomes boring. No one can guarantee the commercial success of a novel, film or video game.

ethbr1 2y ago
That's why equity investment in creative endeavors is an entire class of business. Possible to risk-balance adjustment, similar to anything else.