That's why Amazon's game division died after the New World failure.
That's why Amazon's P R E S T I G E T V division died after Rings of Power wound up being a long dragged out expensive wet fart.
That's why Embracer Group ceased to exist after destroying more games in development than releasing finished games.
Love to see one of the biggest producers of hobby boardgames (aka, not that big of a company) purchased by this giant firm and then spun back off as its own company again but with several other companies' debts piled onto it so it's guaranteed to fail.
But don't worry, all of the "stakeholders" agreed to it and none of them are being wronged, it's actually a great financial move for them.
Wait, people could lose their jobs in a very small and difficult industry when the company fails? And fans of beloved boardgame franchises will lose all access to them when nobody at all has a right to make them?
Don't worry, the stakeholders of a boardgame company aren't people who play boardgames or people who make a living making them, it's the wealthy investors who own part of the holding company that temporarily acquired the company.
That's why capitalism requires and feeds the largest direct and indirect empire in world history to create global hegemony so the markets are kept safe. Because it loves risk.
Playing rdr2 recently and so pissed about the enshittification of its MP.
It could have been the perfect cowboy coop simulator and they killed it because they tried to do the same bullshit gtav did but worse.
You forgot to add "and come out profitable."
I bet there are people who have taken out darn big risks and failed to never be heard of again. Mostly because they didn't have trust funds or rich benefactors to give them another chance.
Ok, sorry to make points in this comm but....
Think about that claim "Under capitalism, risk is rewarded"
That's just the definition of risk. It doesn't indicate what features the economic system has.
Risk = that which is sometimes rewarded, often punished.
If there was a system where a certain behaviour was not randomly rewarded-or-punished, then that behaviour would cease to be risk.
So the claim makes no sense.
