I think you are perhaps reading a little more into one (vague) sentence than is warranted.
Maybe I am, but I literally just finished an article in GameInformer on microtransaction/RCE video games, titled "Red Flags". Perhaps not the best magazine to take gamedev advice from, but the fact even GameInformer is touching on the issue, means it's pretty mainstream.
Maybe I did read into it a bit too much, but it feels like you guys took a quick look at the marketplace, said "RCE based games seem to be the winners!" and are running with that without further research.
Maybe I'm underestimating the depth in which MP's research has gone into this, but with some of the blanket statements you've made, it definitely isn't showing.
If we are developing de novo, the preferred model is RCE. I thought that was stated sufficiently clearly, but perhaps not.
Why is it preferred? Because it seems more fiscally sound based on what you know about the game industry as of right now, or because it really is the best option?
The RCE model is something most will cite in their essay: "What is wrong with modern video games?" Why MG is pursuing this model when so many reputable industry giants have flat out stated the many flaws in this system baffles me completely.
Are you really too cool to stick to fundamentals? You happen to be taller than everyone else and can dunk, so you have no reason to learn to shoot free throws? One day you'll be at the line, in a tied game, with no time on the clock, wishing you had practiced more free throws.
I'm confused as to what you mean by that? Everything starts with the revenue model, this isn't fanfic.
You're confused because you have never worked for/with a game company. There's no way in hell you can convince anyone with a brain in the game industry that a revenue model is more important than a game that will sell. That's exactly how the Atari brand failed multiple times.
Squaresoft (of Final Fantasy fame), made several games before creating the first Final Fantasy. None of these games sold. They had a solid revenue model, solid business plan, solid team. Yet no one wanted to play their games. Okay, so they give it one last shot, an RPG: their Final Fantasy. The game sells very well, generates a pretty big fanbase. It alone saved the company from imminent doom.
What do I mean by this? You can focus all day on your revenue model, solid business plan, etc. But if your game sucks, no one is going to willingly play it. In game development the traditional business process is in reverse, you start by making sure your game won't suck, then do everything else.
You have no way to prove to anyone what you develop won't suck. So lets suppose your game does suck that you spent a year, maybe 2, or perhaps 3 years, and some thousands of BTC developing. Any and everything you planned for it, including your RCE model, and overall revenue plan is irrelevant.
Then you join the ranks of Team Bondi.
You can dodge details all you want, but from the gist of what you've posted it sounds like you're creating a business plan around, "fuck the user as long as we get paid."
Why do you suppose the revenue plan and the players becoming fans are divorced topics?
It's not particularly divorced, but they hang in a balance for a game company. There will be many a decision that helps the revenue stream, but hurts the fanbase. They oppose each other by nature. Ideally everyone would love a healthy fanbase and revenue model/stream to refelect one another, but that's rarely the case. Every time someone has the bright idea to merge the two topics, they may end up making a bunch of money, but turning away a long term fanbase (EA), or growing a large happy fanbase but going defunct due to lack of revenue (Sega).
Why is Nintendo so successful? In short it's because of long term fans. People who grew up with Super Mario Bros. on the NES are buying Mario Galaxy for their kids today. They didn't always put the fans first, but it was certainly one of their top priorities.
At the end of the day you'll be given choices that are divorced, "do I piss off the fans, or do I hurt the cash flow". There has to be a balance.
Money is not really the issue, however.
Creating a AAA title requires intensive long term labor, and large teams. Mainly due to issues revolving around structuring the game engine for the title. You either have to purchase licensing (which is $1 mn off the bat), or you have to spend n years developing an inhouse engine. As well, you usually have to put together resource allocation which amounts to a small-med animated film depending on the game: voice actors, animators, concept artists, motion capture, etc.
Lets say John Carmack didn't have access to capital, or any leverage at all. Carmack, I would say is a very skilled programmer. You ask him to develop a triple AAA title. There is no money to be found. He can't recruit a team based soley on "dreams". It'll take him a decade to create everything on his own.
The monetary budget reflects the scope a game may reach.
Yes, they can still create a great game despite lack of funds, but the scope will be drastically cut in comparison to something like Alan Wake.
So let me rephrase: MP has both the capital and leadership ability as a producer to congregate a team together capable of creating a title to compete with current AAA titles.
My statement was simply a refusal to go into detail. You can't read into that some detail of your own choosing and then argue with it...
I'm pretty sure you said
More importantly, why is it so important to establish conceptually what is or isn't a game?
That either means you literally don't know, or you don't care. Perhaps you don't have to know or care because you aren't designing the games. But it is an important distinction to make.
...at some point you'll have to notice that all you do at the computer as long you're not typing is move the mouse and click the mouse
So at some point I should also look at a masterpiece painting and notice it's just oil and pigment on a canvas? Is a good book just ink on a piece of paper? Sure that's all it is, but at the same time it's much more. The whole is more than just the sum of the parts...
You clearly asked, even if rhetorically to deflect "going into detail", "why is it so important to establish conceptually what is or isn't a game?" while spearheading the PR for a game company. You represent S.MG no? S.MG = Video Company. No game company worth mentioning, in their right mind, would say such a thing, even as a joke. That was my point.
Every year at the GDC, you'll have schmuck saying the same thing when arguing "games aren't art" which has been debated for years, becoming the new micro/monolithic kernel flamewar for the game industry. Yes your brain is just making you click a mouse or press buttons on a controller. What your brain does in between seeing the screen/hearing the sounds, and pressing buttons is what matters, not the action itself.
Like the painting, gameplay is a representation of something else. Play as a cultural phenomenon in itself is a representation.
You refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. However as your team comes together, if any of them are worth anything of value to the industry, someone will bring it up.
Edit:
John Carmack not Richard Carmack. Yesterday twas a long day.