The thing they want

submitted by xoenix from (files.catbox.moe)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It does not matter if the franchise is destroyed as long as they sold it out and keep selling it out. Banks will pay. Content harm is secondary to loans and debt renegotiation. Companies know what they are doing and its a race to see just how much they can squander their intellectual property to the highest bidder.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Okay, that's a slight pivot, but it returns to my original point: That's earning investment and loans by following the ESG guidelines, but that seems secondary when whole companies are closing down due to it. An example - Luminous Productions were shut down following their game, Forspoken, crashing and burning. The Rings Of Power got such low viewership, such negative reaction and so few people who started watching it will finish watching it that they've packed up the whole production and moved it out of New Zealand for whatever remaining seasons they are contracted to complete. ESG scores earning you loans to create new products is great, but when none of your products return a profit, why keep doing it?

As to the idea of them selling the property on? I don't see much evidence of that. Disney aren't selling Star Wars to someone to recoup the losses of making these dozens of shows that fail. Nobody is buying Snow White after they nearly released a film that was crashing and burning so hard they tried to CGI in Dwarves at the last second. Once these brands are tarnished, selling them on isn't going to cover the loss they made. There must be something else. "True Believers Of The Cause" is my first assumption?

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The people involved will stay in the sector and ruin other franchises. The companies will rebrand. Its too much of a gold mine to be left alone, the banks incentivize it too much.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You keep saying this, but I keep pointing out that it isn't correct: There isn't a gold mine. There's no gold in this practice. Those franchises lose money, the companies lose money and even the largest ones are starting to suffer as a result, as we can see with Disney being called out for lying about their profits on these franchises at their earnings call, having battles over board positions and closing down whole sections of their parks that cost billions to create.

I understand that ESG ratings impact loans, but, one again, I point out that a loan option is no good if your company is gone. With this in mind: Why crash a company over this?

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The company is never gone. You dont seem to realize the scheme is deeper. There are thousands of zombie companies out there surviving on loans with little profit. They exist solely to secure a niche in the market. What makes you think the banks dont want to control the gaming industry by zombifying triple-A companies into making products they want? Stop being so naive.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You sure said a lot of things there without actually saying anything. "Secure a niche in the market" is some of the most meaningless buzz language I think I've ever heard, as if owning a company that makes towels means there's no room for other companies to make towels, even though your towel company is bleeding money.

Look, I get it, you don't have a good answer to my question. That's totally cool. I don't either, that's why I asked it. Getting all "Don't be naïve" doesn't help. If your point is they are "True Believers", that's fine. That was one the original points I offered up.