I don’t think Poe is what LE should be worry about most. I think crimson desert is, if it is remotely as good as people said it is….
I think also dragonkin might surprise people, and I can see many arpg creators playing it over LE, if they are not playing crimson already.
From what I seen, it looks really really good.
LE season 4 need to be a Bangle . But let’s see.
So they need to walk like an egyptian? 
Haha, if ehg knew what the players want.
The season’s going to be manic on Mondays.
Even I know that while it’s often taken this way it’s not how that’s universally used for good reason. And my statement that I’m doing a thought experiment should’ve made the differention more then clear.
That’s not a mistake on my side in this case, other parts aside.
So circumstancial evidence without the position of taking it as it being ‘not the norm’… since it’s not the norm? It’s comparably very rare that it happens what you describe. Sure, it does… but it’s not the going practice.
You’re using an exception to talk against a general statement, if the outcome would be that more people do it this way it would actually improve situations as old&new handling would allow to see the differences in results easier.
But alas, sadly that’s not the case usually. And your statement of my assertion/belief being wrong with the argument that it’s not ‘generally’ playing out this way is not founded in reality, it’s only founded in yours from personal experience. It’s sadly not common practice.
Oh? So you’re stating that the ongoing situations are immutable like a physical law?
Well, if that’s the stance then there is no need to even discuss further, it’s a lost cause to achieve anything but a narrow view as a outcome.
Just because you don’t have the ability to change it directly now doesn’t mean that there is no possible situation happening where it can get to this. Not only that, it’s also far from unrealistic to state in our example ‘I have no sway at all’, which is factually wrong here as unless you’re a hermit you inherently change the thoughts and behaviours from those around you according to your actions.
Otherwise humanity as a whole would still be in the ‘might makes right’ position fully rather then only partially.
Oh, let’s check if it’s ‘helpful’ then, sure.
My argument was that the volume of remuneration isn’t based on a proper metric of ‘fairness’ as I’ve described it, including individual and social fairness in conjunction.
Do see if there is a alternative option which would cause it to be ‘more fair’ we cannot adhere to the ‘is’ state, we can only adhere to states outside of it.
So how would ‘making shit up’ (which by the way is how every single change happens universally, even if you talk down on it you should realize that) not be a viable option to explore the possibilities? Obviously if only one person talks about the ‘what if’ and otherwise it’s failed to adhere to it then there is no result. But that’s not from any lacking position of the one suggesting but from the one don’t interacting with it. As inside the thought construct which was imagined there hasn’t been a refute to my statements yet, just a persistent diversion from it.
That’s not how you create fruitful argumentation of any kind, that’s actively lacking.
In the case of Steam as a private company it actually is the reality.
Gabe has ‘near absolute’ decision power. He just doesn’t use it in every aspect, but he can.
Exactly, ‘depends on circumstances’ describes it aptly here.
Can or cannot be. Hence it is reasonable to expect that the example I provided can be a thing.
And it’s also repeatedly happening, if you cannot find those examples that’s also on you. They’re aplenty by now, especially in the gaming sector. Just look at Ubisoft as a prime example.
No u!
Once again, explain how instead of throwing out random stuff without value.
Not the salary up to that point.
And the sueing is up for discussion, could be or could not be.
That’s the reality of it. You can screw up the lives of dozens, hundreds or thousands of people and face no consequences beyond ‘I’m out of a job personally’.
Or do you want to deny that this is a reasonable possibility to happen?
Actually we can even look back as to why modern corporation CEO’s are running companies like they do. Do you know the story of ‘Jack Welch’ of General Electrics? In management circles he’s seen as the prime example of being a CEO, raising stock values of GE back then through the roof.
All based on short-term decisions though, in the 20 years he was there he caused personally the downfall of the whole corporation, nigh every department vied for recognition while avoiding accountability. It was a near universal situation. Overextension, disjointed product lines, a well oiled well running company completely dismantled over 20 years as a direct result from him.
His ‘punishment’? Over 100 million he earned for that. A high retirement package for ruining the business and no personal consequences at all.
That’s why he’s seen as a sort of ‘idol’ for CEO’s in modern companies. They’re directly following his management ways, which are directly causal to the outcomes.
So the only ‘fever dream’ here is denying it being a realistic existing possibility to happen.
Maybe you should actually take a second look at ‘how things work’ rather then argumenting in such a nonsensical manner.
That’s a factually wrong statement.
Conceptional analysis, Testing moral intutions, challenging/supporting theories, exploring possible spaces, generating new ideas…
All things you state do not exist here hence. I would recommend to rethink that argument.
To be entirely clear here, it is known that the senior leadership has a 0% stake. So that’s not an unknown.
Also autonomy is granted, but they’re a ‘independant subsidiary’ structuraly, which means while they can make their own contracts and decisions they are mandated to follow any decisions from the ‘parent’ company should it so desire.
Until 2033 there’s a total incentive of up to 60 million payouts for respective results set. But that’s it, a incentive. Which means until 2033 unless that is substantially interfered with by Krafton they have at least in that regard autonomy as far as it wouldn’t directly cause them to loose the ability to get those 60 million.
And given the way Krafton handles those ‘incentives’ with other companies under their umbrella like Unknown Worlds Entertainment it’s reasonable to expect that they’ll try to infringe upon it to their legal limits so they don’t have to pay a dime… or going vastly below the acceptable line, potentially while learning the limitations from their ongoing lawsuit.
To be entirely clear here, that’s the real situation without speaking against or for EHG here, just what the circumstances are.
If your argument was meant as a showcase how ‘how little’ I personally know in those regards then you’ve just shot yourself in the foot with it.
You’re right though that shareholders are not the same as boardmembers. But that also depends entirely on the respective structural setup.
In the case of Krafton and EHG we have Krafton as the holding company to be specific.
Krafton’s decisions of shareholders is limited to ‘big ticket’ items like acquisition, mergers, business scope changes and so on.
The board itself decides on any actionable things below those, hence individual project changes are fully decided from the board.
EHG itself is a autonomous subsidiary type of company, hence they have to abide by the decisions of Krafton’s board. The only legal limitation is interfering with outcomes for existing contracts, like the one for result payouts up to 2033, which to be quite clear here is what EHG was given as their ‘safety net’ to not be controlled entirely.
If you follow actual outcomes related to those contractual obligations and what actions infringe on it then you’ll easily see that EHG simply from a structural standpoint has a very very bad position. Unlike directly at fault (rather then indirectly, which would just be such a bad outcome on the side to loose the goals but save the 60 million, right?.. no legal consequences here and a playfield of 60 million missed goals to ‘break even’ still.) there is no infrigement and that security also vanishes entirely after 2033.
And you’re right that shareholders have some sway in terms of the board of directors. That’s absolutely true!
How much you should actually read up upon though: https://www.krafton.com/en/ir/governance/directors/board-regulations/
In reality what this means is that the shareholders can cause a director to abdicate the position, but who to get into the position instead? Krafton specifically works on a ‘majority’ voting system for the appointment of directors, not a plurality one.
Now where it gets even more interesting is that the chairman of the board (Byung-Gyu Chang) holds by himself over 15% of the votes. With the total board members holding over 22%.
The ‘general public’ holds 40% of the shares, those are nigh impossible to bring to action commonly. So we can ‘remove the from the total’ as a end-result, leaves 60% are actually the ‘100%’ voting power in reality, outside of very very extreme situations.
5,1% are ‘Treasury shares’ hence ‘owned by itself’, also to be removed as the company is not a person and has no voting right. So we’re down to 55%.
Hence in reality to even appoint a single new director nigh unanimously all non-board shareholders have to agree to it together to make it work.
So please… if you wanna rant against me then do your homework first. There is no substantial changes in the board of directors happening as the board is closing in on being totally self-controlled already. This is leading to the situation where the intended safety measures are having so little sway that they loose nigh all function. Some left… but it’s a hard sell to provide a reasonable situation which is so severe as to them kicking into action.
Actually that’s exactly what happens in most big companies. That’s a failure of knowledge to realize that.
Want a few examples?
Ubisoft: Chairman of the board has a measly 0,5%, basically nothing, right? Just too bad that he’s part of the Guillemot family which owns ~13,5%
So yes, this ‘golf-player & yacht enjoyer’ is telling the people how to do their job.
Activision/Blizzard before being taken over from Microsoft had Brian Kelly and Bobby Kotick as the highest shareholders on the board, nearly 25% for them alone. They’re close associates by the way.
Bethesda, also now Microsoft by the way had Robert A. Altman as the chairman with around 30% shares and Robert Weaver (creator) held also 30%, they’re close friends too.
So come on… that’s the common way it goes actually, which is the major problem when shareholders and board are the same individuals, hence the board being nigh infallible to be removed even with severe shortcomings.
Yes, you’re absolutely being told what to do by the yacht-club there.
As stated: That’s also wrong.
They are subsidiary of Krafton. EHG’s control once more is ‘0%’, it’s completely held by Krafton. They have the ability to tell EHG’s CEO ‘you have to do that’ and EHG’s CEO then… has to do that.
Yes, it’s actually that simple with 100% shareholder control, which is the case currently.
How would you even say otherwise? On what basis are you making that argument even?
As stated, companies are legally treated as a ‘person’, it’s not without reason called ‘corporate personhood’.
So legally: No.
Look into the legal definitions if you don’t believe it.
That answer is he same as ‘everything and nothing’.
There are universal guidelines as to what is the primary reasoning behind it. That’s what I was out for to check the knowledge base in that regard. It’s moving into psychology again there.
At big corporations actually anything but asset value.
For example the S&P 500 does only hold the price based on 10% assets, hence 90% imagination basically.
The common company has 90% ‘unrealized value’ pricing.
The stock market is since a long time not based on reality but based on hopes and dreams of the potential (and rarely actually happening) future. Which kinda makes the argumentation of ‘staying in reality’ regarding arguments kinda humorous actually.
Obviously they are! Doesn’t change that based on their entire internal system it’s not hinged on reality though but in prospective future results. We can see that clearly based on the chart for Krafton directly even.
After the initial major blunders their strong huge price dropped substantially without ever recovering. They were rather stagnant then until the large acquisitions started to happen regularly. Despite annual income not rising very substantially and actual assets becoming less related to that even the stock price soared up nearly 100% in a bit more then a year. Then the lawsuit happened, which doesn’t affect the actual assets held yet and the stock price obviously goes down, only with the acquisition of EHG stabilizing again and starting to recover a minimal amount.
It’s always the same crap cycle which is showcased. Heck… I made a good buck from those markers over the years because the whole system is inherently broken since over 100 years already, but especially so specifically since 1971 to give it a exact point in time with global markets not adhering to any gold standard anymore and hence all of it becoming a system which does create itself out of nothing as it’s not based on anything tangible anymore since then at all.
You mean the person which started the whole argument - me - and being answered to as the thought experiment was created as a premise was argued against with reality?
I mean… I hope you can showcase the capacity to realize how that’s completely backwards.
Llama… show some basic quality at least, ok?
‘No!’ so ‘Yes!’… what?
The reasoning for it was not included. You just stated ‘no, they cannot own itself’ with the first word… then followed with stating that they can. And followed with an explanation of how it works despite saying with your first word it doesn’t.
Umh… hello? Someone home there?
No? But I get the sentiment behind it. Since the entity has no voting right it doesn’t mean though that the last shareholder holds a higher percentile. Just holding a higher percentile of the rights then should be accompanied with the percentile share they actually hold.
I get the sentiment though there.
Was included already inherently though.
It cannot appoint or remove members anymore, which every individual leaving for whatever reason leaves a permanent hole which then causes the entity to be unable to act after a while, just the timeframe is open. But it’s got the death-sentence for actions.
That’s why even in the case the last shareholder dies a coroporation in such a situation becomes commonly state owned property. The situation isn’t even allowed to occur in the first place in most countries for a reason, so you don’t have to wait it.
Depending on country this leads to different outcomes. Usually dissolving it or it’s becoming state managed. But potentially they could also auction it off or outright sell it to new owners re-creating a proper shareholder owned position.
So… ownership includes no responsibility over the owned things? 
I dunno… in Germany that’s actually in the statutes of being the case as one example.
So don’t say ‘no that’s not the case’ when it is ‘yes, that’s the case’ already in reality depending on where you go.
So yes, they are potentially responsible from a legal basis.
And from a social basis they’re always responsible inherently as that’s a fundamental aspect of social structures inherent to them.
Also in US law you’re outside of a corporate entity also responsible for everything your possessions cause.
Your statement is factually wrong there, in reality.
If your house breaks apart because you’ve neglected it and it slams onto a passerby on a public road then you’re liable for it. Hence you have the responsibility to ensure it doesn’t happen. You’re not ‘free to do whatever’ with your belongings either. That’s a wrong assumption and hasn’t ever been the case in any society with laws. The last timeframe where this was the case was before individually lead groups, hence tribalism in the original form. Since then it doesn’t uphold.
But it’s not a crime if you have a loophole.
You didn’t do something illegal, you used a legal route to lead to a unwanted outcome for the system.
That’s a difference.
Also it’s going to be my last post related to the topic, be free to write whatever. As mentioned, it’s not interesting if basic conversation principles are not even followed and then terminologies are thrown around which aren’t even properly understood basing it on a false inherent premise of the position already.
It’s not circumstantial. Circumstantial means “information that suggests a conclusion through inference rather than direct, first hand proof”. What I gave is *direct, first hand proof". This is good quality evidence/information, not “I think society would be nicer if stuff happened like xxx”.
Unless you’ve got some proof, you might want to acknowledge the reality that disagrees with your “thought experiment”, take the loss & move on.
Unless you want to move the goalposts or use some other falacious argument.
Trust me bro.
No, I’m saying that your “thought experiment” has sufficiently departed from reality to be of no use.
Your argument can be boiled down to "I think how things currently work isn’t fair so I’m going to make some things up & then argue as though that was how reality works. That is of no use when discussing how things work IRL. If you want to have a discussion on how to make things fairer, that’s fine, but you’re arguring something different to what everyone else is.
It’s not. Gabe has that authority because he’s the CEO, not because he’s the majority owner. Two very different things that you appear to have significant difficulty getting your head around. And because he’s the majority owner he probably can’t be removed from his position of CEO.
It’s also reasonable to expect that it isn’t a thing.
Dude, you are the one arguring that investors should be held liable for the company they invest in over & above their investment.
Can you point to where I’ve daid that investors don’t sue management? You are also the one suggesting that management has no power, despite that being demonstrably not the case.
I have, you’re just taking the flat earther tactic of ignoring it.
Never said he would.
Maybe, maybe not. As I’ve said repeatedly. Just because some house slaves are treated not badly management may not be sued for negligence does not mean that they have no risk or consequences. In the US, if management sign a SOX report & that is found to be false, they can personally face jail time. Same for other scenarios (that I have to snooze through in the various annual corporate training refresher courses), I want to say AML/fraud/not being sufficiently pro-active on the risks & controls stuff.
But Kulze, you’ve earlier said that CEOs are powerless, it’s the individuals who own the company that actually wield the power!!! Please, make up your mind.
Yeah, I mean what would Heisenberg, Einstein, Feynman & the like know about that. They were clearly doing it wrong. I doubt anyone knows who they are now.
None of which is pertinent to what we’ve been discussing here, which is this trifling thing us who don’t live in ivory towers call “reality”. It’s messy, flawed & unfair, but it’s the only game in town.
Which SLT? SLTs in general? Nope, a demonstrably false statement. Plus, you don’t know the Ts & Cs of thecontract. I have personally seen sales contracts that specify that consideration (payment) is partially withheld & based on various metrics. So no, you’re assuming, based on nothing more than your feels & lack of experience/knowledge that they have 0 stake in EHG.
Oh, so they do have a stake in the performance?
Not really. You’ve said something with no proof or supporting evidence (though I choose to believe you) & then demonstrated your lack of understanding by saying that they have no stake in the success of the company despite apparently there being ~$60m dangling in the wind.
As I said, yes.
I wouldn’t expect the board to get involved in that level of minutia, no. Given my actual experience of it.
Yes, this is what I said.
That would be Krafton. Since there is a singular entity owner (Krafton), there is no plurality, since there’s only 1 entity making the decision.
That’s Krafton’s board, we’re talking about EHG’s board here. It doesn’t matter how Krafton’s board splits its votes, they make 1 decision (yes/no) which would be passed down to EHG. They wouldn’t say, well, 30% of us voted yes, 60% no & 10% abstained, the result of that would be a no.
No. If a vote requires a certain % to pass, that’s of the total votes, of only half of the public shareholders voted, the other half would be counted as either abstaining or voting with the majority (or whatever the byelaws say. You don’t get ot just ignore stuff 'cause it’s difficult to count.
Not quite. The treasury shares don’t have voting rights because the company itself bought them back, not because the company is a company. If a 3rd party company owned those shares (say, a pension fund), that would totally get to cast those votes.
Your maths & assertions are wrong.
Because he’s the chairman, not because he’s a shareholder!!! Why is this so difficult to understand???
Cherry picking is certainly an option. I’m happy you’re happy.
So, boardmembers… I refer you to my previous comment. Also, cherry picking.
Did I say that couldn’t happen?
Though Judd does have the option to not do that & risk the consequences (yes, CEOs have consequences). But the shareholders would have to jump through some legal hoops to get rid of him. They won’t just be able to wake up one morning, decide he needs to go & by the time they’ve showered he’s gone.
Experience & knowledge. It’s a thing.
This is what you said that I disagreed with because all of these things can happen in the real world, just maybe not in Kulze-world:
Can a company be sued? Absolutely!
Can a company enter into contracts? Absolutely! That’s the basis of the economic system & even your employment (unless you’re self-employed).
Can a company own property? Oh hell yes.
To say no to any of those things is to deny reality to the extent that maybe you’re a “sovereign citizen” or flat earther. Seriously.
I know, but unless you’ve forgotten what you were replying to (which is why I try to include some context), you were arguing for something that is demonstrably not true.
Yup, 'cause there’s no one size fits all answer.
No, they don’t own themselves. As I said, a share buy back is a way to give cash back to the investors & increase share price. That doesn’t mean the company owns part of itself. The investors still own 100% of the available shares (with the exception of treasury shares, I’ll give you that, bug they are not a common thing), it’s just that instead of 2 million shares (for example) in circulation, there may only be 1.9 million shares (for example) in circulation (which is why the price goes up).
It does. If a person owns 1 share out of 100, they have 1% of voting stock (ignoring non-voting shares). If there are only 10 shares, they have 10% of the voting power. Finally, if there were only 1 share available, they’d own 100% of the voting right. I, personally, call this “maths” (with an s), not sure if the name will catch on.
Now, that said, I have absolutely no idea if that scenario would ever occur rather than a % based buy back, so 
Nah, the management can still perform their day to day tasks. Plus I’m sure there’s something in Corporate law to deal with that weirdarse scenario, I just have better things to do with my time than try to find out.
I would argue that in that scenario, the share becomes part of the dearly departed’s estate & thus passed on. And I know that happens, shares are totally an inheritable asset.
So no, your lack of experience & knowledge has lead you down an erroneous path.
Only if the singular shareholder died intestate (without a will) & without any surviving relatives. please don’t say that’s common…
Depends.
So you’re saying that in Germany, if a company was convicted of murdering someone, the shareholders would go to prison. That is some fucked up shit.
So the German shareholders were legally sanctioned because Volkswagen had that diesel emissions scandal 10-20 years ago?
Yes, it’d be nice if you stopped that. You are not immune to doing this yourself, regurgitating google results is nit the same as knowledge, skill or experience.
Yep, was my mistake, didn’t think to the end.
Makes it only less realistic for a board-change to happen though, which goes against your arguments of ‘they can make it happen if not happy’.
Not gonna answer the other parts, a few bits are reasonable, a boatload is plain bullcrap though, like the ‘I don’t agree with the legal terminology of a corporation being treated as a person’. At which a ton of the answers hinge and are just wrong hence. Read up simply.
If you guys spend even half the amount of energy on something productive, instead of arguing about legal terms, who and what can be sued, and what is and is not fair and ethical business practices, this world would improve somewhat.
It’s frankly BIZARRE - I left the game a year and a half ago because it needed 1) POLISH and 2) CONTENT - I can see the polish (it’s much improved) but I still feel the CONTENT needs biggest improvement - we need IN MONO (or out, IDC) > COOL MECHANICS like abyss or breach in POE. THAT BEING SAID, I don’t get the HATE on the forums, it’s disgusting.
Yeah bro I started a year ago right before the long as update dropped where they added the cemetary stuff and uber then next release they added primordials and ancient eras and rift beasts as well as the new chapters and this time round in 2 weeks it’ll be omens (breach from poe) and item corruption and another new boss so it’s coming just gotta give it time when comparing it to a game that launched like in 2012/2013 vs 2019, few years behind with the content dropping lol
Why? They descided to make a game and publish an unfinished product in a bad state intentionaly. I compare it to every other game and if they can’t take the heat they should get out of the kitchen. EHG made their own bed and now they have to lay in it.
A lot of people told them “Give it another year it’s not in a good state.” and they released just to need a year to fix fundamentals and the game is still in a bad shape. So even optimists with experience like me were wrong when they told EHG they need another year because it looks like 2-3 years would’ve been more realistic.
I was referring to giving them time to add the content and the fact the other game mentioned has over 6 years of creating and launching new content each season. Don’t come at me for something I specifically and respectfully directed at someone else. D***.
But honestly, do whatever the f*** you want bro, compare away but here’s the thing - no ones making you play this game and no ones making you sit on these forums working yourself up into a fizzled little pile of sweat and rage so feel free to just go away and play something else. You won’t be missed, I promise you that. You’re not an optimist.
“give it time” - hopefully, optimistic, having a growth mindset, realistic patience.
“they made their bed now they have to lay in it” - this is resigned / fatalistic.
Basically you should move on with the other dozen or so negative poster boys on these forums who just hate on the game one dig at a time.
YEP 100% - I wasn’t happy, even after being a donator of much more than measly $34, just walked away for a bit, it seems MUCH improved. Take your hate and LEAVE
Again… so what? If you want to make a good game today you should make it in a way it lives up to the competition. D4 is in the same boat, heck even PoE2’s content amount is trash compered to PoE 1 and so on and so forth. Now chill out 
if you react like this when someone has a different oppinion then you you look like a fool with agression problems ^^.
i think its important that they know what they want AND what the players want and find the intersection. i think the players have told them what they want. and did actually did fulfill their part and gave player a huge lot of what they wanted.
players wanted more.
but players did not give ehg enough. ehg overcommitted to the players and ended up selling their game.
I want to clarified that the phase is mean for a cheeky joke on bangles classic song “if she knew what she wants”. Not my actual take.
As for your point of players not giving EHG enough time to cook. The issue, is EHG is (analogy) not the only sushi restaurant in town……and the other sushi restaurants make better sushi and more varieties….
EHG are just not cut out as a live service arpg game in 2026….
LE is not a bad game by any means, it’s one of the better arpg….the issue is live service games player tend to stick to one main game of a genre,
This is why so many good pvp games not kicking off, not becuase they are bad, it they cannot pull players from the big boys like cods, overwatch , Fortnite, voralant….
The thing is, if everyone who has any criticism about the game were to quit playing and leave, there would be not enough players left and Last Epoch would die. So yeah, they would be missed a lot.
That being said…
But weren’t you the one who said…
…So are you sure it’s other people who are the “little pile of sweat and rage”?
You are basically telling people that no one is making them play Last Epoch, and if they don’t like it, they should leave. Well, if you don’t like reading people’s post on this forum, by the same logic shouldn’t you say that no one is forcing you to read this forum, and so if you don’t like it you should leave?
tldr that can summarize a whole lot of discussion is this statement.
and i would still contend that d-likes can be a live service. just that for a new studio to pull it off, they need a huge amount of financial backing. that’s something ehg lacked.
No, I don’t think that’s the only way. In fact, EHG was on the right way before launch. The game was still compared to PoE but there was always the leniency of them being a smaller indie studio and that LE would slowly grow to someday be on the same level.
It was the huge launch hype and team growth that followed that basically placed them at the same level while removing the small indie status they had.
If they had retained that status, players would be much more lenient to the game and allow it more time to grow.
Words, hopes… none of these matters. Should judge by deeds.