This misses the point in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start… but here goes:
That is how you ensure people’s skills are being utilized where they are needed/wanted.
Except that that’s the opposite of what happened here; their skills were wanted by many people, to the point of profitability and sustainability, but other people, who didn’t care about the skills or how they were utilized, decided that whatever the product was, it wasn’t good enough. Their skills were literally not part of the consideration here at all.
And yeah, it is conceivable that the video game industry would have to shut down at some point in response to developments happening in society. Other forms of entertainment becoming more preferred. Or things going sideways so the focus becomes meeting more basic needs. That kind of flexibility is a good thing.
Except that’s not what we’re talking about either. Once again, this was not a situation where the actual demand for the product was not present due to media evolution, or product quality, or lack of consumer discretionary spending; it was. The product was both in-demand and in fact profitable.
That kind of flexibility is a good thing.
This was not flexibility, this was- again- the opposite of that; a rigid metric that did not consider anything beyond cash growth, despite the fact that products are the point of a company. Without products, the company will not generate any profit. Without companies generating profit, the market as a whole will not grow. Without market growth, there is no ability to invest elsewhere.
That’s why this (and all the other hyper-growth-minded investment planning) is so short-sighted; sustainability ensures continued operation, which enables future profits. Demanding unsustainable growth ensures collapse, which precludes future profits. And eventually people who have been burned by this will start cutting investors out of the equation, which also precludes profits (for investors).
If you have people investing millions of dollars into something, it isn’t art but business.
No, it is both if it is a business that creates art. Without the art (product), it would not have a business.
MiddleKnight@discuss.tchncs.de 5 months ago
Sorry about deleting the post. Couldn’t remeber if beehaw was one of the instances with rules again dissenting opinions after some time away from Lemmy (I’m pretty sure there was one which would rather be without).
But I think you managed to quote most of it.
Being wanted/needed should be viewed in relation to everything else you could do with the resources available is my point. Not only your particular hobby/interest.
And I still maintain that if you want pure art, you are better off lowering your expectations for professionalism and find people who do it for reasons that are not financial.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 5 months ago
Except that this is a red-herring; they invested in a company (e.g. Squenix) in the first place because they believed it would outperform other investment choices. They gambled, and they lost, and they are trying to make that out to be the company’s fault instead of their own.
No thanks. I’ll just continue rejecting the premise that profit is a good thing to measure all things in life by. This is just another variation of labor devaluation that Capitalism does to all things that it can’t (easily) exploit to enrich the Bourgeoisie.