But investors in S.MG (should) want whichever will give the best return on investment - the company's focus should NOT be on "what will make the most players happy" but on "what will make the most profit for our investors". And I'm VERY certain MP is on the side of investors not players.
None of which to say the two (pleasing investors and having satisifed players) are mutually exclusive - it's just that it's far easier to develop something that focuses on one of them than to try to deliver to both.
I disagree here.
Even if investors care only about profits and not happy users, unhappy users will not bring profits in the long term, and likely not even in the short term (though that may happen).
If your game is horrible it won't sell, no matter if it has a good business model (actually, having a bad game is a bad business model itself). Furthermore you'll alienate players for your future games.
If instead your game is great but it doesn't have a sound business model, it may be a financial failure, but at least will give you a head start for your next one (assuming you manage to try to make one).
So, both of these failures bring you no money, but while one gives you an advantage for an eventual next try, the other gives you a penalty!
You're not disagreeing with me at all.
If making a bad game or having unsatisfied/unhappy customers makes less profit then a profit-driven company won't do that. But the reason they won't do it is because it hurts profit - not because of an overriding desire for good games or happy customers.
There's no denying the two things are linked - and that producing horrid games is bad on every score. Where the distinction matters is on more marginal decisions - where there's a choice between making customers more happy or making more profit. Most of the time the two are in general alignment - but by no means always. You could probably make customers happier by halving all prices - but unless that increases overall profit (i.e. increase in volume outweighs loss of margin) a company shouldn't do so (a simplification of course).
Your second example relies on the company having sufficient capital to make a second game after financial failure on the first. If they do - and it it's planned - then it's generally known as a loss-leader and it a perfectly sound profit-driven decision to make. If a company unintentionally makes a loss then that's normally going to be bad management however you cut it.