Reading through the OP, thinking the buildup and suspense is drawing longer than I’d expect before just announcing a name… Wait, it isn’t… -skip-skip-skip- oh, of course it is.
When I first saw the name, I truly felt a moment of heartbreak. All that emphasis and pride placed in steadfastly enduring the difficulty of investment hunting without giving ground on your values, only to gamble the perception of them on such a stigmatized name.
As I imagine is the case for most of us here: I know little about investing, and I have never managed a software development company. But that’s the point. The focus of response is almost entirely on image and perception, which you clearly knew it would be given the preamble before dropping the bomb. So, let’s unpack that image as someone might perceive it: in four years after a kickstarter you’ve made sales of game copies and supporter packs with an aura of excitement constantly surrounding the game, while apparently turning down hoards of investment opportunities for the sake of developer values and control, but before even making it to 1.0 you sell out to… them… as the “right investment partner?”
I won’t list issues with that company here, but I’m definitely reading all about them again right now. My evil-o-meter isn’t registering high enough enough today (aka, anymore or yet) that I would boycott my two favorite games over it. Financial security is understandably a huge deal, and I’m sure the outrage will fade like it did for GGG. So long as you continue to stand your ground for your team and vision as you have thus far, I will continue to support and have faith in the game’s future. Despite the much larger stake, GGG and POE are still in that boat, and I still support them, too.
However, back to perceptions, where is the line drawn on compromise? Just from this post:
When trading stake in the company for monetary investment, you are NOT willing to:
- relinquish any control of design and development
- accept stipulations
- let the investor dictate operations
- back down from what you think best for the company
- compromise your team of amazing people
However, for security with an investor agreeable to those terms, you ARE willing to:
- dump the company name in the same bucket of blood as so many others
- allow ROI buy-in from a company that may use it to fund ethically questionable activities
This says to me that you believe the game is more important than money (good), and that EHG’s people and ideas are more important than company image (also good). It also probably says you believe the game itself will carry the company regardless of stigma (also good, at least for morale). But this additionally says, despite a strong stance seemingly to the contrary, that the ends justify the means, which is generally a negative connotation and slippery slope. Having apparently reached a point where sacrificing image for security was a better outcome than remaining options, words like “risky” and “volatile” start to rumble.
Maybe, and hopefully, we’re all wrong and Tencough’s future is all sunshine and rainbows. And maybe this partnership is entirely double-plus-good for the game. However, since it seems neither of those is anywhere close to current perception, I just wish more could have been done before getting here. I mean, couldn’t you have just asked me to buy the creator pack again? I would have.