For the purpose of this thread, the term shareholder or investor will refer only to those big enough to have an influence on the company. Executives/"suits" etc will be lumped under the same name.

About ten months ago this exchange at a Nintendo shareholders meeting sparked a lot of discussion. The most popular opinion among many gaming communities was that it was a stupid question to ask. Some of the other users (who probably had investment experience) posted less popular comments stating that this was perfectly legitimate question to ask; which I'd like to point out is the truth, but I digress.

“It's not like investors need to be sold on video games, they need to know how much money there is to be made; these types of meetings are not like E3 conferences.”

I feel like that statement is quite important. The majority are in it for the money (obviously) and not in it because they are fans of the industry. (Side point: But what would happen if fans ran the industry? Perhaps with the surging emergence of Kickstarters, we shall find out).

Many gamers know this and have developed a stigmatic view of shareholders, more or less attributing or faulting many of their pet peeves about video games to them. The "gamer's" opinion on shareholders and investors is what I would like to discuss.

Here are some frequently voiced claims and annoyances that I have come across:

• Investors limit the vision of game developers by controlling their output, which results in stale releases and stagnation from AAA developers.
• Investors/shareholders know nothing about the industry.
• Investors push for mobile gaming since that is where the money is.
• They are the driving force behind money-grabbing ventures like remasters and rehashes/annual releases.
• They cause the quality of public companies to be inferior to private companies like Valve, who "do not have to bow to the pressure of investors".
• They have caused big name developers to split from their companies because of creative differences.
• Basically they have been branded as a bunch of ignorant old farts who are a cancer to the industry.

Some of these statements have been echoed by game developers like Ethan Levy, who wrote this editorial in response to community backlash of his SMB3 F2P mobile vision. I'd recommend reading it; it has some interesting points from the perspective of a small game developer.

I am not saying that these statements are true, partially true, or completely false. I just want to bring them up.

Question Time:

1. What is your opinion of big video game investors/shareholders? Are they really the cancer of the gaming industry, and can we rightfully blame them for all the things we don't like about it?
2. What is the alternative? Would you rather have investors who were more concerned with being fans of video games than they were the future of the business? What would the industry look like if more emphasis was put on the "future of video games" instead of the possibility of future profit? What would happen if developers perhaps had a lot more creative freedom, and how sustainable would that business model be?
3. Would you be willing to continuously contribute money out of your own pocket to Kickstarters for games, in exchange for devs having the freedom to do whatever they want? Is this the direction in which the game industry is inevitably headed? Is it a healthy direction?

All are welcome to share their views. My knowledge on investing and business models is pathetic at best, and I would like opinions from all sides.

Brainfart. Will be edited accordingly.

A couple points, not directly answering your questions but relating to them:
-Shareholders are often ignorant and only interested in short term gains, ignoring the cost of those gains. From the perspective of someone outside of a business, with no experience in the space that business occupies, it is difficult to take their suggestions seriously. The idea of taking ideas from shareholders seems very much like trusting a businessman over a doctor when it comes to medical issues.
-As shareholders are a very short term proposition, they often lead companies into accomplishing short term gains as opposed to looking into long term strategies.
-The future of video games does not only include creative potential but business potential. It is very important as a business to understand the potential of emerging technologies and how they will affect both the creative space and the business space. Discussing this in shareholders meetings is no different than any other business discussing its future. Nintendo is a video game company, and its future stands alongside the future of video games.
-Shareholders can be seen as a necessary evil. While I don't claim to understand the ins and outs of the financial system, I acknowledge why they are needed, but that does not mean that they should pilot a company.
-Kickstarter is not the direction video games are headed. For large productions, finding a publisher will always be the better route because Kickstarter has a ceiling and that ceiling isn't anywhere near the required budget for a game.

Not really an answer to your question, but I find it amusing that there is a general hatred towards publishers because they aren't patient/creative and rush games out. But oh lord, if a kick starter ever needs more money or doesn't deliver on time you never hear the end of it.

I have to think that if these forum armchair publishers were to actually have money on the line they would have a lot more sympathy for publishers.

Thank you. This is the type of answer I was looking for

Just look at Apple when it was controlled by investor full of douche, Finaly Apple able to stand a gain when Steve Jobs get the Apple back.

On the shareholders, a lot of what has happened is that in the seventh gen, when AAA gaming was at its zenith, people looking for a long term stable investment bought in, expecting companies like Nintendo, EA, etc to be "blue chip stocks" that would be stable at high values for very long periods. But it turns out the gaming industry is just as volatile as it has ever been and these people, who weren't interested in risky long term investment, are scrambling to achieve and maintain those previous values. Most shareholders in most companies honestly don't meddle; they know what they are in for. And especially in more volatile markets, most investors who buy in for the long term are actually interested in what's going on in that industry. But when a situation like the seventh gen to eighth gen shift occur, you often have shareholders wind up in for a wild ride they never wanted to be on. At least, that's my take.

Hmmmm an interesting take

ehm no? a short term gain is not what someone with money on the line wants. they want longterm gains.

the big publisher will go down in some years, and the people with mone on the line will lose alot of money.