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.
I don’t think my conclusion is farfetched.
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.
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?
You don’t see Take Two shoving GTA6 and Judas out the door for profits now, for instance.
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.
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.
You’re not really addressing my point, but instead skirting around it…
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.
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.
I don’t see healthy companies sacrifice their long term fan base and development throughput for short term gains.
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.
Instead of getting hung up on an actual age number, consider it as older society versus the current newer society.
We can all argue the details, but today’s consumer who purchase games seem to be a lot more willing to accept an inferior product, than those of the past.
I feel really bad for the developers and their frustration with their publisher/management they must have to have dealt with, and the long haul in front of them that still exists.
If I was working there I would have quit and try to find work somewhere else. That crap they must have gone through and still have to deal with is just too much.
I get the testicular fortitude that someone has to have to make that kind of comment here on Lemmy, that has very hardcore Linux tech-based audience, but still, the general electronics using public would agree with what I’m saying.
TIL that typing in a username, server address and hitting ‘Connect’ is a bad UX.