kautau comments on Palworld Dev Says Massive Profits Are ‘Too Big for a Studio With Our Size to Handle’

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Generally that’s true but there are outliers. Valve for example continues to rake it in while not turning immensely shitty. (Not saying they aren’t without issue, but they are vastly better than many others in the industry)

Similarly, the route that Hello Games took. They started off with an unfinished product rushed to market, but took the money made and invested back into NMS, continuing to release big free expansions to this day.

I think a big part is “don’t go public.” As soon as you go public, your dedication is no longer to your product / your customers, but to quarterly growth / gains for shareholders

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I wonder if there are other forces analogous to that public stock commitment, even with private stock. When I’ve been in startup circles, I’ve met people who are “money experts” who have like zero conception of what quality is, or even the joy of work. It’s like a blind spot in their mind.

What I want to know is how do these people worm their way into positions of control? Is it a CEO getting invited to rich people dinners and they slowly get talked into what they “have to” do now that they’ve got big money? “Oh you’ve got to hire Dave he’ll help you navigate this money thing” and then Dave is soulless ghoul?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I would imagine it’s very common. “Serial entrepreneurs”, angel investors and the like are often like sharks but their blood is maximum ROI with minimum turnaround time, and I believe they do their best to get people into leadership positions who’s greatest goal is to exit as early as possible based on some minimum ROI, whether that exit be by acquisition or IPO. Especially if the original startup founder is more focused on the product. “Hey man, you focus on the code, let me and Dave handle the business side of things, we’ll keep the sharks off your back” when usually they themselves, are in fact the sharks

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

This makes me think there are (at least) two kinds of naïveté. One is about business and money. That’s the kind that people know they have. They think “Oh I do need this shark on my team because I’m not savvy enough”, because they think of themselves as naive.

But there’s also naivete about the nature of quality and morale. There are limits to how far one can get from “the tao”, ie their passion, ie the pursuit of beautiful quality, and still maintain contact with it.

I would say the sharks are even more naive about this (maybe?), and it’s on the founder to discover this for their self and to protect it. Like, it’s definitely not a childish thing, but a transition to adulthood to understand and take responsibility for the spirit of their company.

One must be ruthless about that.

I’m not really sure what I’m trying to say. Maybe that the ruthlessness of the sharks is what is needed, but not in service of the sharks’ usual goal of maximum ROI. One must be ruthless in ensuring they keep their eye on whatever X they originally set out to create.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent