quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
Yes, GC should have done their homework better. Their aim was as off target as that of a certain gaijin who wanted to pound on company doors in Japan to get new games for translation. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/wink.gif[/img]
TouchÈ. Though I was talking about dealing with companies and not with customers. In my opinion customers are a lot more fickle and easier to tick off. Flash enough promise of money in front of most companies and they are more forgiving, once again an opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
In a Western-style company that is certainly true. Initiative and independent thinking are strongly encouraged. Not so in Japanese firms. New ideas must percolate upward and gain approval all the way to the top before any change in public policy occurs. The "executive staffs" remain in control at all times.
So even if they see that something is working, like the promise of a patch, if it did not come from the top they would stop it? Once again it is probably the difference in culture, but if it works it works, just do what some of those in charge here do, take credit for the idea after it's already out there and working then no one will know if it came from the top or not and the top still keeps power.
quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
Companies have to adjust their business plans to stay in operation. Their original forecast may have predicted higher revenues. They're left with a choice of raising prices and squeezing their regulars even harder or recruiting more customers. Whether VM is will achieve that goal remains doubtful, but it is at least a rational choice.
I cannot disagree with the need to adjust business plans to stay in operation. A company still working under a 1920's plan wouldn't stand a chance, however, did their original forecast focus only on the amount they wouldn't lose if they stop the pirates then assumed those people would buy the game, or what? It does not seem to have taken into account the human equation (the backlash) that with hindsight at least seems to be a massive oversight.
quote:
Adopting a system that you "know doesn't work" would truly be an irrational decision. I give them more credit than that. They probably were shown a lot of case studies from Japanese companies where VM achieved at least partial success. Maybe it was some kind of a 'sweetheart deal' between the two companies. Whatever the reasoning, they must have had some confidence of success since they moved on it so quickly.
True it would be irrational if it is known not to work, but is a partial success then even worth the effort with this system or is it better to try something brandnew more geared to the other market? I also agree it seems like it could be one of those "brother-in-law" contracts at least in relation to the V-Mate system.
quote:
That I have no way of knowing. They do seem to be trying to expand their business, and new growth requires new revenue. If they thought they'd make enough money by continuing with things the way they were, they'd have left it alone. I'm guessing they are being driven by a need to show greater profitability, but as with everthing else I've posited here, it's speculation.
But to me that makes a difference, if it is to increase revenue to expand that is wonderful, but even a non-business major such as myself who has "unique" views on how to get new markets, knows whatever you try it at the very least should have enough thought put into it that you know you will not endanger the market you already have, though this too is just speculation.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-22-2004).]