Why Inzoi Failed

[tanstaafl]

The people that slurped up that EA slop is going to lap up all that AI slop also and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

You need to pay more attention to the forums. You're barking up the wrong tree with me on that one. I'm an AI defender.

 

[tanstaafl]

I just did a bit of a dive into Krafton out of curiosity. They are not the most kill happy of game companies, but they've shut quite a few games down due to poor performance. With the games they have under their belt, I'm guessing Inzoi's time is limited. Maybe a year or so if the numbers don't improve.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

I just did a bit of a dive into Krafton out of curiosity. They are not the most kill happy of game companies, but they've shut quite a few games down due to poor performance. With the games they have under their belt, I'm guessing Inzoi's time is limited. Maybe a year or so if the numbers don't improve.

Might be a case of early access was a bad idea... bucket of water over the fire. OR they were struggling, early accessed it to redeem some cash and see if it got traction before bailing?

 

[tanstaafl]

Might be a case of early access was a bad idea... bucket of water over the fire. OR they were struggling, early accessed it to redeem some cash and see if it got traction before bailing?

Inzoi sold a ton of copies when it first went on sale, I think that may buy them some leeway. So, it's not all doom and gloom.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Inzoi sold a ton of copies when it first went on sale, I think that may buy them some leeway. So, it's not all doom and gloom.

No mans sky turned it by releasing a shit ton of dlc for free, wonder if they will try that or try sell something else

 

[tanstaafl]

No mans sky turned it by releasing a shit ton of dlc for free, wonder if they will try that or try sell something else

A shit ton of good dlc. There's a key word in that sentence, lol.

 

[DuniX]

You need to pay more attention to the forums. You're barking up the wrong tree with me on that one. I'm an AI defender.

Then what is your fucking business my friend?

If the game fails or it magically ressurges, how is that your problem?
Do you need to warns of the "dangers" of the game being a flop or something?

I said before people are waiting for the Sex Mods and Modding capability in general, that's what would make or break the game.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

I said before people are waiting for the Sex Mods and Modding capability in general, that's what would make or break the game.

That requires interest to drive modders, you are missing step 1 of a 3 step plan. Who is going to mod a dead game? It needs a base to drive the interest to get mods to then increase interest.

 

[tanstaafl]

Then what is your fucking business my friend?

If the game fails or it magically ressurges, how is that your problem?
Do you need to warns of the "dangers" of the game being a flop or something?

I said before people are waiting for the Sex Mods and Modding capability in general, that's what would make or break the game.

I have no stake in this game, whether it fails or not is no skin off my nose, but I got curious after reading the thread. I looked up the data. It's bad. It's all bad. And no, porn mods aren't going to save this game. Only being good and good opinion can save this game. They have some work to do.

 

[DuniX]

That requires interest to drive modders, you are missing step 1 of a 3 step plan. Who is going to mod a dead game? It needs a base to drive the interest to get mods to then increase interest.

This is the reason why they are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Just because there is not a constant stream of pointless discussion doesn't mean that there is no interest.

This thread is a good demonstration of that, why are we discussing this? There is nothing to discuss until further updates.
How do you expect to have endless replies in this thread? Sure being wrong on the internet can get you some of that but at some point it gets boring and repetitive no matter how stubborn you are, so people will tune out.

This is fucking Natural, this is Common Fucking Sense, that Superpower.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

There is nothing to discuss until further updates.

But what about those who were excited? That excitement has burned out. The momentum is gone. Something has to refire it. You know, common sense.

If someone goes to show you an amazing magic trick, fucks it up, and has to reset. Are people going to applaud just as loud when it works the second time as they would have if it landed? Being drip fed is frustrating, and in your own words, makes people tune out.

Who is going to mod a game when the audience has already walked out, I mean checkout starfield...

 

[anne O'nymous]

I said proverbial 'you', as in addressed to no one in particular (the hypothetical 'you' in an example i.e. 'what you want to do when baking a cake etc.').

What is the use of the plural form... And doesn't change that you addressed an intent that have never ever been addressed in the discussion.

It's like if I started to say that "you" (plural) are wrong because companies are obviously not hiring animals to replace the robots that replaced their human workers. It would be totally out of place and refer to nothing that have been said previously.

Its far better to accept as the default position they will attempt at any opportunity to make money unless restrained by government & consumer choice.

Why should we accept as default position something that almost exclusively apply to (not even all) US based companies?

By example, when you used your LGBT+ flag example, you didn't considered that the logic behind can be at the opposite of the one you presented. Meaning that they don't use it in country where it will raise their sales, but remove it in country where it would decrease them. The flag is among their values, but they are rational and avoid to hurt their business; therefore they don't seek to maximal profit, but to minimal loss.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

What is the use of the plural form... but they are rational and avoid to hurt their business; therefore they don't seek to maximal profit, but to minimal loss.

You french fucker

There are so many nuances in what you say I miss I finally get one back

Proverbial is NOT plural. It is a colloquial term. Treat the 'you' as 'that guy'.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

The flag is among their values, but they are rational and avoid to hurt their business; therefore they don't seek to maximal profit, but to minimal loss.

And the money is king, rule 1 - make profit.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Treat the 'you' as 'that guy'.

So, "him"...

And the money is king, rule 1 - make profit.

Rule 1: Stay in business...

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

So, "him"...

No, its more an egotistical way of saying the proverbial 'us' but don't include yourself. you might be doing it or not, but its a them (as in other).

Rule 1: Stay in business...

& that was my point, at all costs. Trusting a (listed) company to care is pushing shit uphill. Its only one overpaid employee away from a 180 degree take.

 

[Jaike]

I will respond to your post as one because your ignorance of corporate structures is defeating your own argument.

Regulation (the playing field) should be the set by government. To allow companies to set their own morality is madness, a tire manufacturer should be manufacturing and selling tires, not running agendas.

These four things are very different:
Individual/sole trader
Partnership
Company (private)
Company (public) - this is what we are talking about

The laws around public entities are meant to STOP them from being a moral compass, McDonalds should NOT be taking sides. They are regulated, handed rules and forced to play within them & then they focus on trying to make money. Failure in regulation (government) is the issue you are looking at. Again take McDonalds, the ingredients list varies country to country, depending which legal framework holds them accountable for certain aspects such as hormones, chemicals, and animal cruelty. If you are angry then look at the failures in regulation.

A company is essentially a person (legally) but without being one (how do you imprison it). So the CEO is accountable (within obligations) but they are at the end of the day just working for the company. The company is a soulless, artificial construct designed to enable many people to own portions of a larger business, and this is VERY important because if you start allowing companies to dictate morals then they are no longer shackled business mechanics and they become something else (ala east India company ending up with a 200,000 strong army).

EDIT: In essence you WANT to restrict companies to being money making entities, and leave governance to governments.

That's cool, but despite the fact I'm not an economist at all, I do know a thing or 2 about some economical subject and I was familiar with all 4 of these... and I understood you were talking about publicly listed companies: "and that includes publicly listed companies"

Overall, it isn't strongly tied to the points I was making: companies have more than obligations to their shareholders, the idea that their obligation to shareholders is the most important one is a social construct, and one that's a big disadvantage for public welfare.

It's true that regulation is possibly a much stronger tool than society's expectation... if there's enforcement. But the other tool I mentioned, co-determination, is a very strong tool that works in another direction. There's often some relation between regulation and the desires and expectations in a democratic society, tho.

I wasn't saying companies are particularly ethical though, or that they should set ethics. They can try to meddle with that, but I'm not a fan, and I agree that a lot of their public image is fake.

However:

I will respond to your post as one because your ignorance of corporate structures is defeating your own argument.

and they become something else (ala east India company ending up with a 200,000 strong army).

You did NOT say that!

Adding in this:

My example of the East India Company was that once a company starts to get out of its box it becomes a very, very dangerous situation.

... The East India Company was a colonial megacorporation that was chartered by the English goverment, modelled on the Dutch counterpart. The Dutch Republic had a 2nd, smaller colonial megacorporation in the "West Indies" too, that's the continent America.

Those things don't suddenly evolve from publicly listed companies getting too ethical and setting their own ethics, but they were founded by colonising states that had a number of advantages over the territories they'd colonise, think sailing technology, firearms and infantry tactics, and explicitly set up to act as states with commercial interests. They were very weak too to the states that empowered them, and they were all nationalised in the end.

They're dangerous to the societies they colonise, but not to the ones that set them up.

Anyway, this is very offtopic and probably not a topic you want to get stuck in in a debate with me.

Most companies are running their own agenda. It's not necessarily a political, or moral, one, but it's still an agenda. It's what define their image in the mind of the public, and the reason why a company is preferred by young peoples, another by girls, and another one by conservatives, while all are selling the same product, but project different values.

This, companies do market with an image in mind, and often it's in some way related to their actual agenda. There's a lot of bullshit in the PR images they sell, but there's only so much room for bullshit until the bullshit changes the agenda.

By example, Benetton slogan is, since decades, "united colors of Benetton", that is a direct stand against racism, and there's absolutely nothing illegal in that.

It's a good example too because we can easily imagine a society where other values are promoted... by the goverment, by the public, by companies.

What have absolutely nothing to do with "making money", "agenda" and "taking side".
Plus it's not the list of ingredients that change, it's their origin. A Big Mac have the same ingredients whatever the country, but the beef used in one country will not have the same origin that the one used in another country, depending on the local regulation.
And, of course, this isn't enforced by McDonalds. Would they want it, that they wouldn't be able to use beef that can not be produced and/or imported in the country. They don't care to know if there's, by example, hormones in the beef they use, because it's their provided responsibility to not sell something illegal.

It's absolutely not what she said.

It's just, and she's totally right in this, that making money isn't the only reason why companies exist. They try to make benefices, yes, but not all of them focus on this, not all of them place those benefice in the first place; even among the biggest ones.
The world isn't limited to the USA, and in many countries there's regulations precisely to prevent them to focus on the benefices. Loot boxes are illegal in Belgium (it's hardly enforced, but it's the law). In the EU you can't call something "cheese", or "butter", if there's no dairy. And so on. Most of the tricks used in the USA to maximize benefices are illegal outside of the USA. And same goes for the dividends, with many countries having them partly or totally regulated, with by example the obligation to distribute a part of them to the employees.

People on social networks like to joke about the "pizza party" used as incentive or rewards for the employees, but if you look closely, 99% of those who do it are from the USA. In other countries really few companies would dare to try this, because they know that it would backfire in no time.
And when I say "really few companies", I mean it. While in the USA Amazon employees try hard to get some rights, in France they have double maternity leave, and can have 7,000€ (or 9,000€ don't remember right now) to train for another job; both being above what is provided for by law. This being mostly to fight the image of soulless exploiter that the company have had for too long in the country. Same for McDonalds who, in the 90s redone all its supply chain, switching to local origin (at county level, national level, and if really they can't do otherwise close European level) in order to counter the bad image it had at those time, especially among farmers.
For both, it isn't due to an explicit pressure from the employees, but to an implicit pressure from the public. Of course, it increase the production costs, and therefore reduce the benefices; especially since you need to spend millions in advertisement to promote those changes. But lower benefices are always better that amazing benefices that decrease years after years until you loose all your customers.
And the loose is real, even when you're a big actor. McDonalds had ~75% of the market when the mess started, and they lost ~15% of their customers in just one year. [no, I'll not search references for a 30+ years old purely local situation, especially at this time. So, believe me or not, I don't care.]

I'd say these are very good examples of how societies can differ in the social expectations they put on companies. That part about local sourcing to please farmers sounds very French to me, and people here wouldn't particularly care about that, but it would likely still be economical for McDonalds to often do that, with the insane production of meat and potatoes here.

Back in the 90s, even in to the 2000s the parties weren't a reward, they were just a thing companies did for everyone every once in a while. I wonder when it shifted.

I used to work for a company in the early 00s that had a regular schedule of events. There was no criteria or goals, it was just that they did things a couple times a month. They would rent out several lanes at a bowling alley or they would have a catered lunch (usually Italian food or pizza) for the whole company. There was never a "if we meet our goals" or "if we do better this quarter" it was just...a few times a months things would happen. A few times they had a catered dinner and brought in booze. One of the better jobs I had.

Edit: iirc there was over 1k employees. Enough to fill a large complex of buildings...each with their own purpose, etc.

When pizza started to cost 5,000 bitcoins each?

More seriously, yeah, I remember the holidays party at the end of the year. A way to celebrate both Christmas and New Year between co-workers. And, depending on the employer, a party when a big contract was secured; lived only one, not sure if it's because I used to works for lame companies or greedy ones.
We still have kind of this at my current job, but it's not the same. It's our boss ordering sweets and champagne that we share in the office. Nothing like the rented reception hall with an opened buffet that it used to be.

This being said, corporate spirit faded both side. It starts to be rare than someone qualify for a 10/20/30/40 years of service medal; if even it's still a thing.

Some possible causes are the rise of a more reward-driven corporate culture during the 90s, and the recession around 2008: "We need to save on expenses!"

And the shift to shorter term employment.

As I said, a company will ape certain behaviors if there is a perceived benefit. I will clarify agenda as its a pretty broad term (I mean without an agenda their meetings would be chaos )- I meant an agenda outside of running a business.


Referring to listed companies


AS above, a company will ape certain behaviors if there is a perceived benefit. I am not referring to a single country - you can take the US as a low regulation region and France (EU) as a much more regulation region. The mistake is thinking that a listed company actually cares, they don't. Gay pride flags in one country, nothing in another - they will mold to whatever suits their purposes.


Ingredients absolutely change - the preservatives, food coloring's etc. Right now RFK is looking at banning food coloring already illegal in the EU and other places. And if hormones in cattle is illegal, then the beef will not include that. This is what I was saying as an example of regulation being implemented that alter the companies behaviors (again government sets the playing field). So a company trading in two regions has vastly different behaviours in each.


No, I am not. Once unelected corporate entities start interfering with the electoral/governmental system you end up with an 'inmates running the asylum' scenario, where they can gain far far more autonomy to for example roll back safety standards, workers rights etc.

This is why I was saying you want them to pretty much just focus on business (within the governments rules) rather than outside of that. The morality should be dictated by either government regulation &/or a fear of PR backlash, not from their own compass (because then that compass may run at cross purposes with those other two things).


no, its not & that was not what I meant, I was a little unclear - that was a brief summary from me. the 'you' was the proverbial 'you' (not a particular user)


Again you have provided example supporting what I have said, in certain areas with more regulation, the standards are more inline with that society's expectations. This is the 'playing field' I was referring to (regulation/government). Without loot boxes the company will still look for another avenue to make profit, they don't just throw their hands up. Again this is exactly an example of what I was saying. Failure to comply = lost profits they will comply.


Again, this is regulation in your specific country mirroring your societal beliefs along with the company understanding (or not) that certain behaviors will cost them profits, so they Ape other societal expectations (even above and beyond regulation) to keep up PR. This is very different from SETTING societal expectations.

A listed companies actions are in pursuit of profit, by their very nature they HAVE to be because they are providing dividends to the shareholders rather than holding profits - this is why they go into liquidation so quickly, they generally do not hold vast reserves & once they become insolvent they collapse. You see it all this time - record profits for decades and then a bad year and collapse, for a relevant example in the gaming space look at the collapse of THQ.

This is not some 'capitalism good lolz' argument either, you want companies held in check, but you also want them to be able to conduct business without those requirements becoming too onerous. Its a fine balance. My example of the East India Company was that once a company starts to get out of its box it becomes a very, very dangerous situation.

Taking your earlier example of the US as a low regulation region and France (EU) as a much more regulated region, within the US the companies are showing far less restraint in pursuit of profits then in France. The Freedom is used to attempt higher profits, they do not self regulate or hold back/increase workers pay/rights etc. for any moral reasons (unless they see this is protecting or increasing profits).

to summarize my point a (publicly listed) company is 100% focused on profits - imagine a pile of gold & a man (the company) is told he can take as much as he can carry. In some regions he will grab as much as he can, in others one arm may be tied behind his back - that doesn't stop him from still trying to grab as much gold as he can with that restriction. In no region would a publicly traded company voluntarily take less gold (unless they reasoned the it would would profit them more than the gold they were leaving through optics or some other means).


Ahh the joys of the politics thread... this guy thinks that men should be responsible for women and control their financial decisions...
Here is an idea, why not leave gripes within the thread they belong rather than trying to stifle unrelated conversation in another?


Pretty sure it was a combination of taxation reforms (cant write-off massive parties), HR departments increasing (and the corresponding complaints & liabilities that arose) & the death of the 'career company man' concept (the 'gig' economy turning employees are a commodity).

Okay, this in many ways seems closer to what I meant. The things I'd disagree with are the concentration on regulation, the point about ethics, and still that view about companies' goals and obligations.

And well, the thing about the East India Company.

Your right to point out the different regulatory environments, and I agree these are shaping factors: "How companies behave in their home countries is contrained by society's expectations on corporate responsibility, consumer pressure like boycots, and by law or

You must be registered to see the links

if the other methods fail and there's a desire to act. And businesses as always like to fuck around more in the gray areas, but there's a positive to parliaments that can act when needed. Enforcing the same abroad has been difficult tho."

But where we clearly disagree is the larger cultural and political environment. The law's like the hard enforcer if that's even possible, there's a thing like an unenforceable law, but there are softer pressures too. And they don't all go in the same directions.

You rightly contrasted the US and France as regions with different levels of regulation. But that doesn't, like, come from their parliament like a black box: these reflect different political cultures, and these reflect different societies with different institutions and ideals.

The idea about delivering value to shareholders is an ideal too, with an origin at a certain time and place. It was articulated and championed by Milton Friedman, someone with economic beliefs that are incompatible with most Europeans', and many Americans' too btw. Now this didn't just influence the US, but it influenced the US more, and Europe in a way stuck with older ideals, tho these have developed further too.

Now I'd point out again, with a twist, that Friedman's view is more influential in the US, and the view I expressed is more influential in Europe, but in some other countries too. But it isn't the case that the maybe naive European view about social obligations led to a laxer regulatory regime than in Friedman's America: it's the opposite as you pointed out.

This post is way too involved with too much effort on all sides.

Guilty.

To articulate my point a little better (I was slightly intoxicated when I replied to Jaike, so apologies both if I was a tad belligerent & long winded) - I am not outright disagreeing, was badly stating that allowing the chance for companies to decide on their own morality is a step towards them self regulating, and that is a dangerous direction when they decide where the boundaries are, not the government.

Its far better to accept as the default position they will attempt at any opportunity to make money unless restrained by government & consumer choice. I wouldn't consider that 'giving up', I would consider it a sensible position to assume the worst & the alternative overly optimistic.

That's fine, and this is a much clearer statement of what you meant.

And there's no posting like drunk posting!

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

I still think it's a bit weird to say an early access game failed.

 

[tanstaafl]

I still think it's a bit weird to say an early access game failed.

Why? It's the most critical time. It's when the people who are going to ultimately be funding the game have the first chance to gauge the real public reception and reaction to the game. It's the make it or break it phase.

Do a quick google of the subject, the number of games that never make it past early access is not small.

Edit: And early access is a fairly new phenomenon in regards to the age of gaming overall.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

Why? It's the most critical time. It's when the people who are going to ultimately be funding the game have the first chance to gauge the real public reception and reaction to the game. It's the make it or break it phase.

Do a quick google of the subject, the number of games that never make it past early access is not small.

Edit: And early access is a fairly new phenomenon in regards to the age of gaming overall.

Would you call Phasmophobia a failure? That's all I'm saying. It's a bit too early to say it "failed" when it could easily bounce back.