|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I think the concern that Tahirovic is that the whales and crybabies on the Paradox forums would bitch simply because they bitch about everything. Otherwise I completely agree with you. Pplaza crybabies crying is as static as Gaussian noise. My post was to explain why there's no real concern for an actual widespread backlash at a move like that.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Personally I wouldn't care but I think the backlash would be bigger than you say. Expecting them to be rational and realize how many hours per DLC/money they had is not something they'll see. They might get mad that "freeloaders" get all their toys too now. But I really don't see a way around it, if we want a better EU4. 2-3 more DLCs with the current theme and the game will be garbage. As it is people already disable DLC to get away from some of the bad tacked on things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Actually one of the common criticisms is that Paradox doesn't ever bundle their DLCs. And I doubt many players would complain if you made any of the DLC free The players probably wouldn't complain, but their whoever's in charge of sales/revenue would probably want a few words with them. They're not going to give away the DLC for free, and I think it's beyond naive to expect them to do so. They're a company; they sell products to make money. E: changed to not sound quite as dumb, but probably still dumb. AnoHito fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
How involved do you think external investors actually are? Investors having "a few words with us" makes literally no sense. The people who own enough to matter are the very people that would make the decision they would "have a few words about". I mean sure Fred is a bit eccentric but I wouldn't call him schizophrenic... Groogy fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Groogy posted:How involved do you think external investors actually are? Investors having "a few words with us" makes literally no sense. The people who own enough to matter are the very people that would make the very decision they would "have a few words about". I was using "Investors" to mean "anyone involved in the business side of things." I don't really know how that works at Paradox, and I'm kind of an idiot with words sometimes, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Groogy posted:How involved do you think external investors actually are? Investors having "a few words with us" makes literally no sense. The people who own enough to matter are the very people that would make the decision they would "have a few words about". Groogy posted:I mean sure Fred is a bit eccentric but I wouldn't call him schizophrenic...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I am going to make a blind guess here so I may be totally wrong, but he is probably referring to the fact that many publicly owned company have to make their investors happy every quarter and expect all measures to turn the biggest profit this quarter be taken. edit: Also among the last 10% under "others" you also have me and my few shares  AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I dont know who Fred is but I got a good laugh at this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Have you asked yourself "why"? I think maybe in USA there's a law requiring them to do that. Not saying we are not looking for better performance each year since being a company which in turn would fulfill this. But if you look at our corporate page, the biggest share holders are people who work here or are on the board, minus maybe Tencent and a bank. Groogy posted:Our CEO and largest share holder in the company.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Groogy posted:I think maybe in USA there's a law requiring them to do that. There is not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Then I don't understand the "Paradox is ebil they only look for profit for investors". Of course things changed, but we had share holders before we became publicly traded and we liked profit back then as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Maybe people are just scared you'll head down the Ubisoft, WB or EA etc path.  Imagine EU4 if Firaxis had been the ones making it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Then I don't understand the "Paradox is ebil they only look for profit for investors". I think people are trying to reconcile things like: a) Mandate's changes haven't been toned down b) Prices for DLC remaining pretty static c) Systems (like army professionalism) are starting to feel bolted on And an easy answer is that there's limited profit incentive in changing any of them. Not trying to gang up on you or anything, just explaining where they're coming from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
I would also add that I don't think very many people think Paradox being public is any real cause of these issues (and that kind of goes down into weird conspiracy territory, imo), just that Paradox is a company, and compaies tend to like making money. Paradox isn't unique in that regard (as seen in like literally every other major studio having worse policies), nor is it even evil at all. Well, at least not more evil than capitalism 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
I, for one, am deeply offended that Groogy gets paid as much as he does (however much that is). (But yeah, someone at Paradox involved with EU4 dev acknowledging the fact that the Mandate of Heavy feature in the Mandate of Heaven expansion does very a-historical and rather un-fun things to the game would be great)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with making money but there are wrong ways to make money. For example, only caring about making money and not at all about anything else. Obviously fun and good games are not a problem. lovely and rushed, unpatched, day 1 dlc, pay to win, microtransaction and lootbox hells are wrong. 
Poil fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
I wanna try a Native American start, what are some good pointers? Like, how do I balance trying to get close to a colony to reform my government off it, without putting myself in a really bad position to get invaded by a European power?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Eldred posted:I think people are trying to reconcile things like: It's also a bad answer that falls apart when you realise that paradox devs play their own games so they deal with poor mechanics and design as much as we do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:It's also a bad answer that falls apart when you realise that paradox devs play their own games so they deal with poor mechanics and design as much as we do. Again, I think the concern from so many people on this forum is that we have not seen anyone at Paradox acknowledge that the Mandate of Heaven mechanics gently caress with the game in an un-fun way. If they came out and said "working as designed" or "we are looking at it, no promises" I think a lot of people would be happy to at least have heard something. My personal concern is that they are rolling off more DLC without even an apparent second look back at what they just recently released and its affect on my ability to have fun with the game and then therefore spend more of my hard earned money on Paradox products. edit: I'm not saying "Paradox ebil dey only luk for $$$" I'm just saying I hope that this whole Mandate thing does not start a trend...I love their games (except Stellaris) and I hope they continue to make great games for me to buy; they are harder to come by than they should be. I hope this makes chill dudes like Groogy rich. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:I wanna try a Native American start, what are some good pointers? Like, how do I balance trying to get close to a colony to reform my government off it, without putting myself in a really bad position to get invaded by a European power? the new world is super easy for natives now that attacking colonial nations doesn't bring in the overlord
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
I just wish the DLCs would stop feeling so scattershot so you don't have to buy otherwise unrelated expansions for minor features associated with the aspects of the game you're most interested in. Like colonization? Get the cossacks-themed expansion to unlock those native policies! If you're going Protestant then you need Common Sense but if you're forced to be Reformed instead then better hope you have Wealth of Nations! Want to play as the Ottomans? Then better grab Cradle of—wait, Rights of Man??? But also Cradle of Civilization too. Man, it's loving exhausting. edit: but yes, bundles or price reductions on old content would be great. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
ThisIsNoZaku posted:There is not. This is 100% untrue. In the United States of America, officers of the company have a fiduciary duty to maximize the profits of shareholders, and can be sued if they are doing anything else. This was established in 1916. http://www.professorbainbridge.com/...areholders.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:I wanna try a Native American start, what are some good pointers? Like, how do I balance trying to get close to a colony to reform my government off it, without putting myself in a really bad position to get invaded by a European power? Like others said it's a lot easier now that you can fight colonial nations directly without their overlords getting involved. You can attack them, take all their provinces but one, and any provinces the overlord colonizes will keep getting added to the CN, effectively colonizing for you. The main challenge I think is that you're going to be poor as dirt for the majority of the game, especially after you reform and you lose all your native bonuses and buildings. Best way to solve this is to push into Mexico and steal all their gold provinces. Also I'd definitely suggest converting to Protestantism when you have the chance, especially if you're going for No Trail of Tears.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I've gotten the impression lately that they are focused more or multiplayer, though, so different circumstances may make even obvious things harder to notice. Agree with this, until someone comes out and says "turns out the Mandate system / Tributaries are a bit poo poo in practice and we're going to rework them at some point because they make the game worse to play and less historical" I'm going to assume that they think that these things are fine. Since these things are extremely obviously not fine, I no longer have faith in their ability to continue to develop EU4 DLC in a way which actually improves the game, so I'm not buying any DLC. Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I just wish the DLCs would stop feeling so scattershot so you don't have to buy otherwise unrelated expansions for minor features associated with the aspects of the game you're most interested in. Like colonization? Get the cossacks-themed expansion to unlock those native policies! If you're going Protestant then you need Common Sense but if you're forced to be Reformed instead then better hope you have Wealth of Nations! Want to play as the Ottomans? Then better grab Cradle of—wait, Rights of Man??? But also Cradle of Civilization too. Yeah this is kind of poo poo as well, I always wanted East Asia to not suck but the one thing which made me get MoH immediately on release was the diplo macro viewer. Gating such a huge UI improvement behind an otherwise quite region-specific DLC doesn't sit terribly well with me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:This is 100% untrue. the claim was that they were required to maximise short-term profits, which they definitely are not
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:the claim was that they were required to maximise short-term profits, which they definitely are not No but when talking about things lijke microtransactions and loot crates / gambling becoming the norm in the industry, they are basically compelled to include them. If having microtransactions would increase revenue and you can't directly articulate how it will be a problem long term (nothing to point to, no studies, just "people might not like it) then guess what, the game will have microtransactions. It's not like any one group of officers came to this conclusion, Microsoft did, 2k Games did, Warner Brothers did, Ubisoft did, Blizzard did, welcome to the new - and it's because they are required to maximize shareholder revenue, and that's what microtransactions do. It's never directly short term profit, but what it means is that you can not prioritize some vague abstract long term profit over profits that are tangible and on the table. And so what that means is that short term, demonstrable revenues don't get you sued and stuff you say might happen but doesn't will. Why get sued? Just go the safe route and make the easy choice. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:This is 100% untrue. They are obligated to serve the interests and wishes of the shareholders, which may coincide with profit maximization but doesn't make them the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
ThisIsNoZaku posted:They are obligated to serve the interests and wishes of the shareholders, which may coincide with profit maximization but doesn't make them the same. They are obligated to maximize the profit of shareholders, point blank. That is their duty and whenever they are acting against that duty the shareholders can sue them. This can be portrayed as a good thing, in the case of management being forced to accept an acquisition offer that is favorable to the shareholders but costs them their jobs. Thing is, that doesn't happen. the way it actually shakes out is that if someone else is making money doing a thing [outsourcing, lovely remakes, DLC practices that suck] you become liable to a lawsuit if you do not include the same thing and generate the same kind of returns for your shareholders. You are leaving money on the table and failing in your duty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
money was a mistake
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:No but when talking about things lijke microtransactions and loot crates / gambling becoming the norm in the industry, they are basically compelled to include them. quote:As the law evolved, corporate altruism began to be seen as proper so long as it was likely to provide direct benefits to the corporation and its shareholders. Applying the business judgment rule, moreover, many courts essentially presumed that an altruistic decision was in the corporation’s best interests. Shlensky v. Wrigley[5] exemplifies this approach. Shlensky, a minority shareholder in the Chicago Cubs, challenged the decision by Wrigley, the majority shareholder, not to install lights at Wrigley Field. Shlensky claimed the Cubs were persistent money losers, which he attributed to poor home attendance, which in turn he attributed to the board’s refusal to install lights and play night baseball. According to Shlensky, Wrigley was indifferent to the effect of his continued intransigence on the team’s finances. Instead, Shlensky argued, Wrigley was motivated by his beliefs that baseball was a day-time sport and that night baseball might have a deteriorating effect on the neighborhood surrounding Wrigley Field.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:this is wrong and the post you linked explicitly contradicts you on this Because it's offering a nuanced take that you are reducing to one sentence to call me wrong, if you just google "shareholder lawsuit" you can find examples of where the shareholders feel the management is not acting in the best interest of the shareholders, it's a constant thing. Let's put it another way: If you decide to include microtransactions or loot crates and generate an extra billion dollars in revenue, you won't be sued. If you don't, you take a risk. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-lawsuits-targeting-stock-drops-are-on-the-rise-1503307800 It's just that simple and why the option of least resistance becomes to include the potentially shady thing and maximize revenue, saving yourself any potential problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Because it's offering a nuanced take that you are reducing to one sentence to call me wrong, if you just google "shareholder lawsuit" you can find examples of where the shareholders feel the management is not acting in the best interest of the shareholders, it's a constant thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:this is the rare use of "nuanced" to mean "my source says the exact opposite of what I claimed it says, oops" It is possible to go to court and argue in front of a judge decide whether in that specific instance your actions were ok on the axis of "shareholder profit vs corporate growth" then sure, go ahead. Yeah it's not hard and fast and you can find like 5-10 examples of people doing it and succeeding. The vast majority do not and will err on the side of staying employed and not getting sued, which they can guarantee by going the path of least resistance. Officers have personal liability in any case where shareholders feel their profits were not maximized. Those situations are generally not mysterious, as the shareholders can communicate their requests and requirements to management, which they do, at shareholder meetings. Please don't fixate on something that you seem to not really be able to parse properly and try to look at the overall picture. Or let's find some way that I can educate you on the issue since the link I provided seems to be really, really messing up your ability to understand what's going on. This became an issue to the point that B corps and Social Purpose Corporations had to be set up, structures that explicitly allow management to specify other reasons to consider in their decision making other than maximizing shareholder revenue, and with shareholder approval, these categories would shield them from lawsuits when acting within those pre approved purposes. An example is Tom's Shoes. That company is allowed to give away shoes as part of its charter, but it cannot start distributing money to people on the street without a lawsuit. If B corps and SPCs are the only structures that legally allow management to consider other things than shareholder profit, making the bold claim that for INCs "management's job is to maximize shareholder profit" is in fact simply true dude. [edit]It would be cool if I didn't have to write this many words to help someone that is both ignorant and belligerent, but here we are Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:It is possible to go to court and argue in front of a judge decide whether in that specific instance your actions were ok on the axis of "shareholder profit vs corporate growth" then sure, go ahead. Yeah it's not hard and fast and you can find like 5-10 examples of people doing it and succeeding. The vast majority do not and will err on the side of staying employed and not getting sued, which they can guarantee by going the path of least resistance. your original, false, claim was "No but when talking about things lijke microtransactions and loot crates / gambling becoming the norm in the industry, they are basically compelled to include them." (actually, your original, even falser claim was that it was "100% wrong" to say that US law doesn't require maximising short-term profits) I don't really care about the new claim you're trying to retreat to, since you've stated it vaguely enough to make it impossible to falsify e: Ham Sandwiches posted:If B corps and SPCs are the only structures that legally allow management to consider other things than shareholder profit, making the bold claim that for INCs "management's job is to maximize shareholder profit" is in fact simply true dude. okay cool now you've retreated to something that literally no-one disagreed with at all, gj dude Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:It is possible to go to court and argue in front of a judge decide whether in that specific instance your actions were ok on the axis of "shareholder profit vs corporate growth" then sure, go ahead. Yeah it's not hard and fast and you can find like 5-10 examples of people doing it and succeeding. your own source posted:Despite its strong rhetoric, Dodge does not stand for the proposition that directors will be held liable for considering the social consequences of corporate actions. To be sure, having found that Ford had failed to pursue shareholder wealth maximization, the court ordered Ford Motor to resume paying its substantial special dividends. Invoking the business judgment rule, however, the Dodge court declined to interfere with Ford’s plans for expansion and dismissed the bulk of plaintiff’s complaint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:your original, false, claim was "No but when talking about things lijke microtransactions and loot crates / gambling becoming the norm in the industry, they are basically compelled to include them." (actually, your original, even falser claim was that it was "100% wrong" to say that US law doesn't require maximising short-term profits) Let's try to put this on a constructive note if possible: Is management required to maximize short term profit, like profit this quarter at all costs? No. Like, there's no requirement that THIS quarter be the best quarter ever, and that's not the issue that leads to DLC or microtransactions or loot crates. Sorry that wasn't clear at the start. In the united states, Management has to consider shareholder revenue as their sole concern when running the company. Microtransactions, loot crates, all of them will enter games over time for US publicly traded corporations because they maximize shareholder revenue, despite people not liking them. It's US law that management has to maximize the revenue of shareholders. I believe Groogy was saying that was not the case in Sweden. What that means is non US companies can more easily decide to have sustainable business models, whereas US companies do risk shareholder lawsuits when not including features that could potentially raise the revenue of the title.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Can we take the corporate bullshit arguing to another thread, please?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Let's try to put this on a constructive note if possible: Ham Sandwiches posted:In the united states, Management has to consider shareholder revenue as their sole concern when running the company. Microtransactions, loot crates, all of them will enter games over time for US publicly traded corporations because they maximize shareholder revenue, despite people not liking them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Alright guys I didn't mean to start a war over American law. My point was that we are under Swedish law and the relationship ia not necessarily the same with share holders. And on the mandate of heaven, I honestly haven't played in the area lately but I am planning a Sikh ironman game so who knows what I'll face. Playing as Russia Ming just became a nice "end boss"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Alright guys I didn't mean to start a war over American law. My point was that we are under Swedish law and the relationship ia not necessarily the same with share holders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:You're now probably going to get at least a dozen replies about what is wrong, just FYI. I know, I've been to the internet before
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:32
|
|