Shadowzone's findings on KSP2 history

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

4 hours ago, Skorj said:

And all that fiduciary duty  really means in practice is the board can't legally do deals that favor the board members personally over the shareholders, it's not otherwise particularly restrictive.  They can certainly favor reputation or employees as simply "best for the long term", since it usually is; they just make other choices instead.   The Devil isn't where you think he is here, and the system as a whole can't be understood through oversimplification.

Thanks for bringing this up. It's a big misconception that the company is legally obligated to maximize profits but all they need to do is to act in the shareholders best interest and this can and often is not just maximizing share value at all costs. They can and often do just that, but it's not like a swat team busts through the roof if the CEO chooses the second cheapest provider due to say ethical reasons or whatever. It's exactly what you said, the devil is not in the legislation but embedded in the practices and structures of how companies work.

[steveman0]

6 hours ago, Temporal Wolf said:

You need look no further than KSP2's own forced release in the last month of FY23. Even if KSP2 development had been going well, forcing a release prior to finishing generally has a net negative impact on it's value, despite driving short term profits.

Do you have research or studies to cite for this or is this just speculation?

[Grenartia]

7 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

Thanks for bringing this up. It's a big misconception that the company is legally obligated to maximize profits but all they need to do is to act in the shareholders best interest and this can and often is not just maximizing share value at all costs. They can and often do just that, but it's not like a swat team busts through the roof if the CEO chooses the second cheapest provider due to say ethical reasons or whatever. It's exactly what you said, the devil is not in the legislation but embedded in the practices and structures of how companies work.

 

I'd say the real devil is in shareholder complacency and apathy. If more shareholders were willing to forego temporary gains for long term sustainability, or ethicality, and were willing to voice that concern in shareholder meetings, then that would shatter the presumption that short term stock price gains is what is in the best interest of the shareholders. To be fair, there is probably also a degree of lack of knowledge on the part of the shareholders. Nobody knows there's a problem until its too late. 

Take our situation, for instance. Nobody anticipated T2 screwing over the customers, IG (and apparently even PD) until the WARN act notice dropped. Any action from here on to remedy the situation would involve overcoming significant institutional inertia (which isn't to say it can't be done, if enough shareholders told T2 to reverse the closure and reinstate everyone's jobs, it could happen), and the only action that would have immediate results is shareholders demanding the firing of the executives that made the decision. 

Edited June 1 by Grenartia

[GigFiz]

19 hours ago, Skorj said:

The board has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, the executives typically don't (and, again, it's the executives who make all the daily decisions about operating the company).  And all that fiduciary duty  really means in practice is the board can't legally do deals that favor the board members personally over the shareholders, it's not otherwise particularly restrictive.  They can certainly favor reputation or employees as simply "best for the long term", since it usually is; they just make other choices instead.   The Devil isn't where you think he is here, and the system as a whole can't be understood through oversimplification.

Anyhow, like I've said, IMO the answer in gaming is to look for smallish indie teams led by someone with a passion for the subject of the game, attached to non-AAA publishers.  Regardless of the reason, huge publishers will ruin everything except their true passion: very profitable cash shops.

Fair enough. While I still think public trading does more harm than good, I don't claim expert understanding, and know that was a simplified version of it, so thank you for the clarification/expansion.

And I think, as far as the primary topic of game development and publishing goes, you and I pretty in agreement/on the same general page, anyway.

[Lisias]

On 6/1/2024 at 6:56 AM, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

but it's not like a swat team busts through the roof if the CEO chooses the second cheapest provider due to say ethical reasons or whatever. 

Of course not, they will send ninjas in the darkest of the night to "discuss a corrective measure" in the dude's restroom - in the darkness of high profile condos, no one cares if you scream!

We are completely forgetting the Board of Directors. Just look what they did in Unity a few months ago.

Edited June 3 by Lisias
Kraken damned auto-correctors!

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

On 6/2/2024 at 5:25 AM, Lisias said:

Of course not, they will send ninjas in the darkest of the night to "discuss a corrective measure" in the dude's restroom - in the darkness of high profile condos, no one cares if you scream!

 

There's the Chief Executive Officer and then the less known Chief-Execution Officer.