If the theory is that PIF's involvement is the video game equivalent of sportswashing, this is pretty much exactly what we should expect – the Saudi's expected return on their investment is improved perception and more opportunities to exercise soft power, with less concern around financial returns.

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding capital and capitalism.

A “stagnant” company isn’t a failed one. It’s profitable. But perhaps it has saturated its market, or otherwise has no other avenues of growth without handicapping what it excels in. This is fine, as long as it continues to increase with inflation (as it should, if it’s increasing its prices to match so) it will stay profitable and increase your capital at a sustainable and normalized rate.

Or, you can force them to continually increase that profit rate infinitely in a closed system, an impossible ask.

This is literally the concept of “late stage capitalism”. What do you do when there is no more growth to sustain because you’ve saturated the closed system that is earth? You can either go hyperaggressive and eat into other avenues, hoping you can beat their incumbents (but either way, one is going to lose their own profit) or continually increase your profits by lowering quality and production costs. Thus why things like coke “used to taste better” or why Ford’s “used to be built better”.

Private capital isn’t beholden to that requirement. It’s an advantage, not a disadvantage. They simply need to remain competitive and everyone wins: the labor gets a stable job, the owners get a stable income, the industry gets stable (if not increasing, from better technology) products, etc.

The idea that people should be content with an investment that has 0% real return in a very risky environment (video game development) is not a serious argument, and not one that you would respect either.

If you have $100M tied up in a game company that (maybe!) returns 3% a year (matching inflation), why the hell wouldn't you sell it for $100M, and then go put that in bonds which will return 5% with much less risk and no work or time needed on your part?

Again, it's not fair to expect charity from owners (public or private) so you can stretch your dollar further. Whether we are talking about video games, napkins, coffee beans, or warehouse leases, it's all investments that give returns, and generally people with money are extremely smart about good and bad investments, just like you would be if you were in that position (i.e. not voluntarily taking 3% when 5% is easier and safer).

> The idea that people should be content with an investment that has 0% real return in a very risky environment

I literally outlined the return. You are receiving the profit from a very profitable firm, which compounds year over year. Literally, you could not call that 0% (or “near 0%”) even in the most reductive of arguments.

Let’s simplify it for you: I buy a magic well for 1000usd. It gives me 500usd/yr. In 10 years, I’ve gotten 5000usd. Somehow that’s 0%, in your math. Additionally, from here on out, I’m making pure profit off of the well.

Again, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of even basic capitalism. I suggest you read up on it, which might be difficult as you seem unwilling to read even the entirety of what you’re responding to.

Sorry if that wasn't clear, it would be returns matching a 3% annual inflation. So you are never growing except to cancel out inflation.

Which again circles back to the same question "Why should you voluntarily restrict growth to inflation (to appease others who want more for less) if other investments returned more (on top of inflation) with less work?"

I'd prefer you use actual examples than magic wells. We wouldn't have any problems in society if we had magic wells that printed a 50% ROI annually. We don't. Riskier assets usually land in the 10-20% ROI, but the risk dictates bad years too, so it's not really steady. Steady ROIs of 5-8% are obtainable. 50% ROI is penny stock/meme stock territory.

the owner of a company gets the profits, and that's what he lives off of. investors in public companies get a share of the profit as well, of course, but it's usually vanishingly small because it's split by every investor. So for privately traded companies the people who own them can make their living just based on the money left over after they pay all their expenses, but for investors in public companies the only feasible way for them to have more money at the end of the day is for the company to be worth more money at the end of the day because their potential profits from dividends are baked into the stock price. The owner doesn't take a hit, because his profits are (revenue - cost) not (value of company at buy-in) - (value of company at sell-out)

Yes, for a public company. We’re literally discussing the difference between public and private companies.

Dividends don’t exist for private companies. The dividend is the profit.

Dividends don't exist for a private company and I never said they did. And that's why a private company can exist without growing and a public company can't. If you look up the thread, you'll find that it's all in response to someone else posting "Private ownership can give you the benefit of operating at a stagnate revenue since it still represents a positive income stream for the owners", which is exactly what I said here. The owners of private companies profit when there's money left over after all the expenses are paid. The owners of public companies only profit when there's more money left over this year than last year because that will induce people to be willing to pay more for the shareholder's stake, and that increase in the value of the stake (which should reflect an increase in the value of the company) is the profit for a shareholder. So as a private owner if there's a million dollars left over after every year I make a million dollars but as a shareholder if there's a million dollars left over after every year I make more or less nothing.