>>1079197
While a publisher needs to keep the devs in check, to avoid going over-buget or releasing bad games, they also shouldn't sabotage them when they try to make their dream game(see Dragon's Dogma 2) in order to put them back on the plantation, and they should dissolve studios just to put them onto the plantation(see Activision studios, with the exception of Blizzard, all being put on the CoD farms). There should be a balance somewhere.
>>1079162
Going back to the Final Fantasy discussion, when people talk about XIII, XIII-2, Lighting Returns, XIV(the original one), XV and XVI, they don't complain that it's not Final Fantasy VII, they complain that they are bad games, badly mismanaged games, or bad games that were badly mismanaged. On the other hand, when people praise XII, IX and X, they don't praise them for not being VII, they praise them for being good games, with good stories, characters, gameplay, music and so on. I never really hear people say "You know I really liked the world and characters of XII, but it would have been better if that game had never been made, and instead release a sequel to VII",
though I do hear Xenogears fans lamenting that the budget of that game was cut short to fund VII. My point is that if the later FF games were well managed, had a release every 1-3 years, and were good games, fans and casuals would have been happy.
>but it would not have sold as much as VII
First of all, you don't know that, and second of all, as long as they are profitable, that's all that matters to investors. Furthermore if they were able to make shitty Final Fantasy games, then they were just as likely to make shitty VII sequels and remakes that would have sold like shit, and then what would have been your argument? That now, after they completely milked the cow to death, they should make a new world only for it to be milked as well? Is that really good for consumers, buyfags and pirates included?