Jimquisition: Companies Exist To Make Money

[Ryan Hughes]

Actually, the idea that companies exist to make money is relatively new. Adam Smith would have found the notion horrifying, as he would likely have said that companies exist to further moral sentiments and examples. In fact, in America you used to have to prove that your company benefited its community at large or they would revoke your incorporation.

Beginning in the 1800's, the idea the companies exist to make money began, but it really did not begin to take hold until the post-war era, reaching its zenith in the Regan era.

 

[Vault Citizen]

Are you sure a poop based sequel is a good idea? You just know that EA is going to microtramsaction the shit out of it, it would be the most anti consumer poop in history.

....


I'll go stand in the corner now.

 

[Ickabod]

Companies are entitled to a fair profit, if that profit didn't exist than we wouldn't have anyone making games. EA really is trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs though. It's shameful actually.

 

[WanderingFool]

I'd like to say: why is this up so early? And why do I have to keep reloading it?

Edit: Seriously you guys? First Escape to the Movies gets put out a whole DAY ahead of schedule and now this? This isn't the third season of My Little Pony you know.

What? I thought it came out on Friday like always...

OT: Companies dont merely exist to make money, they tend to exist to produce a give product or service which is associated with them. Thus I find the argument that "Companies exist to make money" inherently flawed.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

That poem was... um... disgusting. Anyway, the excuse "a company exists to make money" only goes so far. Esp. considering many of the decisions being made don't even make sense from a money making perspective. After all alienating your consumer base doesn't seem like a wise money making decision to me. Then again if enough of these idiots who keep trumpeting the "a company exists to make money" excuse keep shelling out their money to these companies then I guess I could be wrong.

It's not even a "true" argument. Companies exist for whatever fucking reason their owner deems they should exist for.
Sure it wouldn't be a bad idea to make money for a company to continue existing and doing what it does, but there are different core values that different companies put higher or lower. For instance for some companies customer service or the quality of their product is their highest goal (they could possibly make more money by producing mass-market products, but they want their brand to be known for quality, for instance some manufacturers of musical instruments). Or certain other companies, for instance "Oculus Rift" were made because their creator really wants something (like VR) to succeed and is trying to push it into the market.
There's even incorporated charities which's primary goal is expressly not to make money, but to help people.

I liked this example of a "rating scale" for corporations:

Level 0 ? Massive exploitation. Company provides no benefit to mankind whatsoever. Purely predatory and exploitive, may promote death and destruction (e.g., slave labor, etc.).
Level 1 ? Significant predation. Company?s predatory actions may result in financial ruin of others but the product or service may not be detrimental to mankind.
Level 2 ? Mildly predatory. Company has some redeeming value but profits are funneled to a select few.
Level 3 ? Somewhat humanistic. Company is interested in doing the right thing, but is caught up in mainstream capitalistic structure and protocol.
Level 4 ? Very humanistic. Company has a nice blend of beneficial products and services and demonstrates a propensity to share the wealth.
Level 5 ? Completely humanistic. Company exists only for the benefit of mankind. It is altruistic, philanthropic, promotes the general welfare, and makes just enough profit to innovate while serving its customers and employees.
Level 5+ ? The company is Level 5 with full financial transparency.

I'd say most video game publishers are at level 1.

 

[Sylocat]

This reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

Spoiler: What do you call a kid who has just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time?

What do you call a kid who has just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time?

A Libertarian economist.

 

[Thoric485]

I think this popular little phrase is one of the things that have lead to the oh so common Metacritic score bombings we see nowadays.

If "Companies exist to make money" it's quite easy to realize that "Companies don't give a shit about your feedback unless you hit them in the wallet", and constructive criticism achieves little in that direction.

So you see those bright red scores next to the 88 from journalists and the complete and thorough damning of specific titles, franchises, studios, publishers and gaming industry figures, until everyone knows they have a toxic reputation.

Sadly, it's the only thing that seems to elicit a reaction from gaming media and most companies. Even if it's not a satisfactory one, it's better than being ignored.

 

[veloper]

Jim took the easy way out by attacking what's basicly a strawman.

Only the weaker flamewarriors use the "Companies exist to make money" argument and leave it at that.
Most of the anti-crowds have learned to use this unassailable argument: "I don't care." Aslong as they use this line consistently they won't take a scratch in the flamewar.

 

[At_The_Gates]

Yep, companies need to make money to continue to operate. Funny thing though about alienating your consumers is some of them stop buying your products. Anyone notice ea's stock price over the last several years has hardly been enviable.

The people making the top level decisions at most big publishers just don't know their products. It's sort of like trusting a car company in the hands of someone who's never driven a car or even understood why someone might want to. It may not sound like the 80s again but it certainly rhymes.

 

[Xdeser2]

......It IS the only reasons companies exist. If they didnt make money, they would have to do something else for a living.

Now I've never used this as a defense for a company. There are companies that adhere to strict Ethics (IE. THE RIGHT WAY TO DO BUSINESS) and dont fuck over the consumer. But there are companies that dont. That will use any means to squeeze your wallet for cash.

Its not right. Its fucked up, and you have all the right to not buy it and call Bullshit. However they have the right to extend whatever shitty offer they please. And, to reiterate, no, its not right, moral, or ethical.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Well, the problem is that as consumers we keep buying the product.

I kind of understand the justification, but not phrased in such way. But as we know, survival and growth are not free. A company is like an organism that wants to survive and grow, they have mouths to feed and responsibilities to fulfil. Some companies go around it in better ways than others, but it's true that the future is starting to look rather grim in this respect.
As many people have said, that is the same conflict We can see in EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft and Capcom, but its not exclusive to them, always on DRM, banning the ability to play used copies, not enabling users to trade or give away virtual software licenses (yes even the holy Valve does this) are all nether tendrils of the corporate greed.

(as a sidenote, I've made the decision not to purchase any next gen console that denies you the ability to play pre-owned disks, since I sometimes trade games with a friend of mine, and I find it ridiculous to be denied the ablity to do what we can and should be able to do in ANY OTHER MEDIUM in existence today.)

I wonder why companies don't focus more in making quality games that people will treasure, rather than shamefully creating hellish entrapments that force the player to keep paying. I suppose creating actually good things is a risky business, it requires investment, and it might not be very well received, but filling up the market with mediocre expecting to get paid for great is profoundly disturbing, and in the end is killing the ecosystem.
We can see today, that there are very unrealistic expectations disconnected to the actual quality of a game 8as if Quality was a non-factor). When capcom says: Oh my god! how strange that Resident Evil 6 didn't sell as we expected, and determine that the failure was caused by not enough publicity, they miss the point entirely.

But what can we do about it?
Reviewers should punish companies harshly for their greed (other artistic mediums are extremely critical about it), and players should refuse to purchase such predatory products. It's the only way in wich they will fall short of their quota and wake up to the potential of the medium which they are tarnishing and milking dry.

 

[Alandoril]

As far as I'm concerned companies exist to offer a product or service. The making money part of it is just a side effect of that.

 

[The Grim Ace]

I always did find the "they only exist to make money" argument crazy. I mean, if I went over and stabbed a man in the dick and he asked me why I did it, he wouldn't accept, "hey, I exist to stab people in the dick," as a reason. That might be an extreme analogy but when I'm spending sixty dollars on a game and only getting fifteen hours of content, my wallet feels terribly abused.

 

[babinro]

I'm one of the few that have absolutely no problems with on disc DLC or day 1 DLC.

We all know a company plans out it's DLC along with the game.
Teams work on this material hand in hand with the official product so the content can be released in a timely manor.
It was all in the works during the game production and planned to be released as a paid extra.

Why should it matter to the consumer if the content is conveniently placed on the disc or released separately via download within a couple weeks of the launch?

 

[CatmanStu]

A company EXISTS to provide a product/service; a companies GOAL is to make a shit-load of money.
A more accurate combination of the titles words would be:

A company exists because it makes money.

When you look at the most successful publishers business practices, that statement becomes quite a sad condemnation.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I agree with the "companies need to make money" argument to an extent. For DLC like the ones for Fallout 3 and Borderlands, where it adds hours to the campaign, then I see no problem with charging for it. Same with purely cosmetic DLC (character/skin packs) because not buying them won't prevent you from enjoying the game anymore. Even the micro transactions I can tolerate because, nobody is making you use them. If you can get the same stuff in game as you could with paying for it, fine with me. I won't pay for it, but if someone wants to, power to them. Charging for on disc content is a bit stupid, though.

 

[IronMit]

I may have missed this when playing through the MGS series, but why exactly was Solidus using child soldiers in that war? Did it have to do with fighting the Patriot system, what?

New to MGS here

Raiden was one of the child soldiers. It was supposed to mirror the player (you), as a kid playing a crap load of shooters.
Or was Raiden's VR training supposed to mirror us playing the previous MGS title? Anyway I think that story was more thermatic then anything.

I'm just going to assume it was one of many wars in the military industrial complex the 'patriots' wanted to continue. Solidus couldn't of been waging war on them for that long -they let him become president. It was only then he realised he was still just a 'pawn' and rebelled.


I have played through the game many times but try not to think about it. MGS2 was some giant 4th wall breaking experiment where you are constantly questioning weather it is real or not. Many die hard fans decided it wasn't real but then MGS4 decided it was real.

VR THEORY:
http://metagearsolid.org/reports_vr_theory_1.html

in depth review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AVbjd94vc

 

[Gigano]

Videogame companies exist to make money, so it was foolish to ever suggest their anti-consumer policies are deserving of criticism while still handing over the money. It's like complaining that the local restaurant serves increasingly more distasteful food, while nonetheless returning again and again to eat there. If you do so, then obviously your criticisms of it can't be that severe, however hyperbolic they might be presented.

The only efficient form of criticism is to not buy the game/DLC/subscription. If you're not prepared to do so, then there's no actual reason a company should give you more than what's obviously sufficient to get you to hand over the cash. Actions speak louder than words, since in this case words don't really speak at all.