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?
Well honestly, it's preferred because MP says it's preferred. I asked him why and he said "that's complicated" after a pause, which means there's about 50-50 odds he'll at some point write a Trilema post about it.
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.
Why are you in Bitcoin when so many reputable industry giants have flat out stated the many flaws in this system? Because reputable industry giants are idiots, perhaps? Because they have different incentive structures than actual functioning markets? Who's to know.
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.
No but look, this is mystiquizing. Nobody goes "let's make some cool shit" and then, after the cool shit is made, has meetings to establish if it will be sold as a Broadway musical, a make your own adventure book series or a line of branded sodas. The revenue model is established first, the thing that will sell is made within that model. Anyone is free to feel creatively superior to reality, but it's just a feeling.
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.
This is additive tho'. You're acting as if doing the business homework somehow automagically prevents doing the creative homework, as if brushing your hair guarantees you can't brush your teeth and now you'll get gingivitis AND DIE!!!
It's not a this or that. It's doing this well, and doing that well.
You have no way to prove to anyone what you develop won't suck.
Well yes, actually there is a way. Have a little patience now will you.
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.
Not really. In a well managed project the incentives are so aligned that this never happens. If the situation is of that nature management has already amply failed, and the designs weren't in all likelihood too bright either.
They oppose each other by nature. Ideally everyone would love a healthy fanbase and revenue model/stream to refelect one another
Only if what you mean by "fanbase" is people who want to use but not pay. If that's what you mean we disagree: the free-as-in-beer-and-only-free-as-in-beer types are NOT fans. They may call themselves fans but it's a misnomer, like calling strippers chaste or politicians leaders.
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.
At that time we were discussing, generally, what games S.MG may in time own/publish/distribute. There's really not much constraint, at the present time, like it or not. Maybe in time.
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.
Yeah well, sorry I can't be bothered to join that debate. I really don't care if they are or are not. I don't think anybody sane cares, for that matter, much like Moliere's bourgeois is pleasantly surprised he speaks in prose but doesn't really give a shit past that.
Now don't take this the wrong way, I understand you feel very strongly about all these topics, and in many places you raise interesting points.