Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SarahVeraVicky t1_j5gwtxw wrote


Sadly there will always be some random "devil's advocates"/"rabid fans"/"corporate dogs" that will always be on their side, saying many of their loved reasons:

  • "People will still buy it anyways"
  • "They're making a shitton of money, why would they change that?"
  • "Look at how many awards Skyrim got, so you have zero right"
  • "It's a AAA game, it requires all that time and effort"
  • "You don't run the company"
  • [my 'favorite'] "They have to maximize their profits, it's REQUIRED BY LAW" [no it's not.]

At the end of the day, I would prefer:

  • Games announced at most 1 year before release
  • Decent profit, aim to spread the game so more people can enjoy it, not trying to squeeze every last cent.

rpkarma t1_j5h0fqd wrote

People seriously misunderstand fiduciary duty lol


SarahVeraVicky t1_j5kuxb0 wrote

The key part is to 'act in the best interests of [the company]'. Maybe loss leaders helps build the user base, or helping another company means building a future portfolio that spreads the influence of the company. Both of these would be seen as a death sentence if "maximize profit" was the only goal.

It could be argued that killing the company for a single quarter's highest profits could be seen as an act against the best interests of the company, but proving that can be impossible (unless the person in charge ends up parachuting out immediately afterwards, and even then they would have to have some hard proof against them.)