Will GGG sell out?

"

Lyralei wrote:

There's more to life than money. Would you know? I don't think so.

Off topic here but this cliche always amuses me. Maslow would disagree you see.

Individual people will never fully realize their concern for other people or their actual passion for whatever until they stop worrying for their safety and security.

So until you reach a state where you solve your personal money problems you will never fully self actualize. For most people life will in fact mostly be about money because only by having money is there truly more to life than just money.

well, in the sense.. everyone does have their price. however, GGG has made it this far, pretty much with a god damn good game to i must say, why not see it through to the end and be the one to write yourself that check, instead of someone else writing it for you.....this game is big money, really big money, that is a great compliment to ggg. I'm betting that no they wont sell out, they are all smart people, and see this also.


sell out for 50m?


or sell yourself for continued profits above x amount?


the turtle win's the race (obviously not in poe race's lol)



STAY STRONG GGG, YOU GAVE US ALL A PLACE TO CALL HOME!!!!!!!!!!

"

LunacyPolish wrote:

Boy I sure hope GGG doesn't take out the passive skill tree change all the monsters to teddy bears, reskin all the characters as pink unicorns, change all the attack animations to hugs and rename the game "My Little Pony Wraeclast Adventures".

Seriously worry about stuff like this when it happens not before. The thing is even if someone wanted to buy the company because they thought the game was going to do well as an investment:

1. They are only going to offer so much money and there's not a lot of incentive to offer more than it's worth on paper, it's not Diablo or something most consumers recognize. It has to make financial sense to buy it. I just don't see anyone shelling out the cash to make the GGG people go "Hmmmm yeah that's more money than we were ever going to make with it, we'll take it". The game just doesn't have that kind of "star power". PoE is very niche, it only appeals to a certain mindset, and it has no real franchise name recognition.

2. The whole point of investing in something like this would be to buy the goodwill of the company. If you "take over" too aggressively you'd ruin your investment. Sure it could happen but someone smart enough to see the profit potential would hopefully be familiar with the PC gaming industry to the point they'd realize the consumer appeal of the developer, which leads to:

3. The most likely buyers would be people with a big pile of money and nuanced knowledge of the industry. There's not a lot of people who have both and most of the people who would fit this profile probably offer competing games.

Any smart investor will look to take over a company that is mismanaged and which can be "salvaged" and put on the right track. If that is not GGG's case (i don't know the numbers and such), then GGG would lose more than it gains in the case of a sell. Remember, money is not everything in economy. The idea of "value" matters a lot. What other companies can try is to influence the market such that GGG loses some value overall (by e.g. "borrowing" some of their ideas from Path of exile, and implementing them in their games - games that attracted many more players and such, for example Diablo 3 - just because it should've been a continuation of D2 in the minds of the players <=> high potential value).

So, if GGG has some managers that know their stuff, they won't sell. Not now at least. Or would consider selling at a price that no one is prepared to offer.

"

LunacyPolish wrote:

Individual people will never fully realize their concern for other people or their actual passion for whatever until they stop worrying for their safety and security.

This is true, but the cliché itself is generally aimed at people who have unknowingly breached the threshold of financial security and traipsed dumbly into the realm of financial motivation for its own sake.

If one is going to invoke the hierarchy of needs (and hey, Wikipedia has a handy reference for it), it needs be said that everyone has a different idea of security, and a different idea of what ensures it in a financial sense.

This is not as off-topic as you might think. It is well-known that Chris Wilson used to work in Internet security and made a small bundle from doing so. His 'security' at a personal level is pretty much set, although it is also known that he himself helped finance GGG to no small degree. I'm sure he's not fool enough to put the lot down, but the entire venture still smacks of gamble and risk.

So we can say that Chris already passed the stratum of safety.

I can't comment on the family/love stuff but I think he wouldn't have gotten this far without emotional support from the right quarters.

Self-esteem, self-respect, respect of others. I would say he has those too, perhaps not universally but in sufficient quantities to be substantial.

So what's left? The needs of self-actualisation: morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem-solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts. It would seem to me that someone who spends 15+ hours a day on their passion, their life's work, is definitely satisfying those.

Thus if we say to Chris Wilson, 'there's more to life than money' and point to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, he'd be well within his rights to just smile and agree.

In this light, I think 'selling out' is an interesting concept. It wouldn't be for his personal needs, but the needs of the company. Because Chris Wilson is not GGG, even if he's the most public face of it.

...I'm sort of cheating here, because he and I have discussed this and it should come as no surprise that these larger financial decisions are based much more around the welfare of his employees than his own personal well-being.

He's the boss. That's how good bosses think.

Chris is well supported. The only worry if his unnamed backers/investors force his hand or sell their stake in GGG.

I heard Peter Jackson showed some interest. Rumour says he wants to put hobbits in it as a playable race.

ha ha - Maslow, now that's a name I haven't heard since the days of my Master's in info sec :) Charan always finds good shit to make valid points :)

"

Jojas wrote:

I heard Peter Jackson showed some interest. Rumour says he wants to put hobbits in it as a playable race.

And that right there is pretty much the sum of so many people's knowledge of New Zealand.

"

Udja wrote:

ha ha - Maslow, now that's a name I haven't heard since the days of my Master's in info sec :) Charan always finds good shit to make valid points :)

To be fair I was piggybacking Lunacy. I personally don't subscribe to the hierarchy of needs -- I skipped a few steps on it too many times rather successfully. And I'll leave it up to your imagination to decide which.

"

Charan:

To be fair I was piggybacking Lunacy. I personally don't subscribe to the hierarchy of needs -- I skipped a few steps on it too many times rather successfully. And I'll leave it up to your imagination to decide which.

People are needy and greedy and, as a general rule, think only of themselves. Pavlov ring any bells??? Granted there are the exceptions to the rule but I think that humans, as a species, are "hard-coded" in the ways that both Maslov and Pavlov describe.