It's concerning to me how the author generated AI images and gave them captions as if they are real depictions.
If I'm going to read an article about something real in society, I'm only interested in images that are true depictions of reality. They may not so perfectly capture what the author is envisioning, but the gap between "perfect for this article" and "real" is what makes a real picture interesting.
This article starts by repeating the same paragraph five times, then pretty much twice again with different wording. Was there even a human in the loop? I doubt it.
It doesn't matter whether a human made it or AI made it or some hybrid cooperation including a Siberian Husky. The end result shouldn't be a bunch of throwaway garbage.
It should not be underrated how much of this is intentional policy environment shaping by the Bank of Japan and the Japanese government, rather than some inherently wiser management philosophy.
And current Japanese government polices are killing off succession now in favor of PE M&A.
Slapping a 55% inheritance tax makes large portions of these heritage businesses unaffordable for the next generation - especially given that a number of them aren't neccesarily interested in continuing the family business.
This is terrific advice and more relevant than ever in the gaming industry, where Xbox is bleeding studios and employees, but Nintendo just gave everyone a 10% raise.
But Xbox very much tried for "long term over short term" They invested a ton in that. Just, badly and with miserable returns.
They tried to put full leash on studios, didn't worked, they tried to just "hey, you did good game, we buy you and just give you money to make next one" didn't work, they tried "buy studio that already is in progress of making anticipated game", didn't work either. And the one game that was actually successful above projections, they fired the fucking studio that made it!
Hell, one of their flops, Redfall, apparently "reviewed well internally". It just seems like they have nobody there that knows what a good game is
Nobody at Microsoft knows what a good OS is, or what a good dev toolchain is, or what a good videocall app is, or what a good AR headset is, or...
I'm being harsh. I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the org that have taste. And they have a lot of users. But MS is where products go to die (i.e. enshittify).
When you have monopolistic or near-monopolistic control over platforms and other key pieces of software such as office suites, taste is irrelevant since people are still buying licenses out of necessity. Now, Microsoft is capable of writing impressive, tasteful software; I have fond memories of the Windows 95-2000 era, and I also enjoyed Office 97 and Visual Basic 6.0. Even Internet Explorer wasn't bad when it was competing against Netscape Navigator. The problem is Microsoft has a tendency of getting complacent and lazy once acquiring dominance, which breeds bad software.
Apple is more tasteful, IMO, but Apple also has a tendency to abuse its users, taking the attitude, "What are you going to do? Switch to Windows or Android?" Adobe has taken a similar attitude since the Creative Suite became subscription-only. "What are you going to do? The GIMP? Seriously?"
cz they didn't have gamers in charge but your MBA kind / seasoned execs like Phil Spencer.
I bet you - if they had people like Facepunch [running independent studios] - then yeah Xbox would've been successful (they kinda already are, but fucked themselves over due to an incoherent strategy)
Unlike - Xbox - Nintendo have an identity. Fun games first, graphics second.
Xbox had an identify before - multiplayer/ live games. but now who knows what they're.
One of the bitter truths is that these types of things aren't easily replicated in other regions because of cultural differences. You have to have developed trust and accountability over decades or centuries in your culture that would support making long term decisions and both employees and customers believing you. It basically doesn't matter what Microsoft does, I would never believe them, and that disconnects their decisions from the outcomes.
> It just seems like they have nobody there that knows what a good game is
Because they hired the wrong people based on the wrong criteria. They don't hire gamers, they hire yes-men and activists[1] that agree with their own eco chamber and discriminatory political views[1]. They actually despise gamers and their goal is to "own the chuds" and hijack the medium to push their own toxic world views[1] and self inserts. And the out of touch execs tolerated this for a while during the ZIRP ERA because all stocks were going to the moon regardless, especially during covid. But now they finally got to see the output of those people they hired.
>Hell, one of their flops, Redfall, apparently "reviewed well internally"
Easy, they don't make games for gamers, they only make games for themselves full of self inserts. Except there's not many customers like them, so the game flops and mass layoffs happen or the studio gets shut down because that's the only way to get rid of the rot.
Just look at the people at those studios today vs what idsoftware, bethesda, blizzards was like back in the days. Polar opposites. If you want to make successful games, you need to hire the chuds back.
Most of these businesses are going to be acquired in the next 10-20 years though because most of these generational Japanese businesses are now in the midst of succession crises [0], MASSIVE inheritance tax bills [1] and family increasingly uninterested in taking up the mantle [2].
One of my friends is actually specializing in this kind of M&A in APAC now.
Edit: Taking a look at the article and the images, I think this is actually AI slop. A bit shook by how photorealistic AI pictures have become
> I think this is actually AI slop. A bit shook by how photorealistic AI pictures have become
makes me question your judgement about the slop term, and what else you've missed over the last 2 years or so if your interest in caring is based on something not involving generative AI
> if your interest in caring is based on something not involving generative AI
The core argument of the article still hold as does my point of contention irrespective of whether it was AI generated or an SEO listicle so it's not a big deal for me.
This article itself references a similar article I read years ago [0] so I see no reason in having it derail the rest of the convo.
It's concerning to me how the author generated AI images and gave them captions as if they are real depictions.
If I'm going to read an article about something real in society, I'm only interested in images that are true depictions of reality. They may not so perfectly capture what the author is envisioning, but the gap between "perfect for this article" and "real" is what makes a real picture interesting.
This article starts by repeating the same paragraph five times, then pretty much twice again with different wording. Was there even a human in the loop? I doubt it.
It doesn't matter whether a human made it or AI made it or some hybrid cooperation including a Siberian Husky. The end result shouldn't be a bunch of throwaway garbage.
It should not be underrated how much of this is intentional policy environment shaping by the Bank of Japan and the Japanese government, rather than some inherently wiser management philosophy.
And current Japanese government polices are killing off succession now in favor of PE M&A.
Slapping a 55% inheritance tax makes large portions of these heritage businesses unaffordable for the next generation - especially given that a number of them aren't neccesarily interested in continuing the family business.
This is terrific advice and more relevant than ever in the gaming industry, where Xbox is bleeding studios and employees, but Nintendo just gave everyone a 10% raise.
But Xbox very much tried for "long term over short term" They invested a ton in that. Just, badly and with miserable returns.
They tried to put full leash on studios, didn't worked, they tried to just "hey, you did good game, we buy you and just give you money to make next one" didn't work, they tried "buy studio that already is in progress of making anticipated game", didn't work either. And the one game that was actually successful above projections, they fired the fucking studio that made it!
Hell, one of their flops, Redfall, apparently "reviewed well internally". It just seems like they have nobody there that knows what a good game is
Nobody at Microsoft knows what a good OS is, or what a good dev toolchain is, or what a good videocall app is, or what a good AR headset is, or...
I'm being harsh. I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the org that have taste. And they have a lot of users. But MS is where products go to die (i.e. enshittify).
No, I don’t think you’re being harsh, I think you’re spot-on. What Microsoft generally lacks is taste. It’s evident across most product lines.
Some will point to “MBA types” but that’s a red herring. The engineers don’t have taste either.
When you have monopolistic or near-monopolistic control over platforms and other key pieces of software such as office suites, taste is irrelevant since people are still buying licenses out of necessity. Now, Microsoft is capable of writing impressive, tasteful software; I have fond memories of the Windows 95-2000 era, and I also enjoyed Office 97 and Visual Basic 6.0. Even Internet Explorer wasn't bad when it was competing against Netscape Navigator. The problem is Microsoft has a tendency of getting complacent and lazy once acquiring dominance, which breeds bad software.
Apple is more tasteful, IMO, but Apple also has a tendency to abuse its users, taking the attitude, "What are you going to do? Switch to Windows or Android?" Adobe has taken a similar attitude since the Creative Suite became subscription-only. "What are you going to do? The GIMP? Seriously?"
cz they didn't have gamers in charge but your MBA kind / seasoned execs like Phil Spencer.
I bet you - if they had people like Facepunch [running independent studios] - then yeah Xbox would've been successful (they kinda already are, but fucked themselves over due to an incoherent strategy)
Unlike - Xbox - Nintendo have an identity. Fun games first, graphics second. Xbox had an identify before - multiplayer/ live games. but now who knows what they're.
[0]: Facepunch - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facepunch_Studios
One of the bitter truths is that these types of things aren't easily replicated in other regions because of cultural differences. You have to have developed trust and accountability over decades or centuries in your culture that would support making long term decisions and both employees and customers believing you. It basically doesn't matter what Microsoft does, I would never believe them, and that disconnects their decisions from the outcomes.
> It just seems like they have nobody there that knows what a good game is
Because they hired the wrong people based on the wrong criteria. They don't hire gamers, they hire yes-men and activists[1] that agree with their own eco chamber and discriminatory political views[1]. They actually despise gamers and their goal is to "own the chuds" and hijack the medium to push their own toxic world views[1] and self inserts. And the out of touch execs tolerated this for a while during the ZIRP ERA because all stocks were going to the moon regardless, especially during covid. But now they finally got to see the output of those people they hired.
>Hell, one of their flops, Redfall, apparently "reviewed well internally"
Easy, they don't make games for gamers, they only make games for themselves full of self inserts. Except there's not many customers like them, so the game flops and mass layoffs happen or the studio gets shut down because that's the only way to get rid of the rot.
Just look at the people at those studios today vs what idsoftware, bethesda, blizzards was like back in the days. Polar opposites. If you want to make successful games, you need to hire the chuds back.
Indie studios are now where it's at.
[1] https://x.com/Black_D_Gamer1/status/2071879141754880384
Most of these businesses are going to be acquired in the next 10-20 years though because most of these generational Japanese businesses are now in the midst of succession crises [0], MASSIVE inheritance tax bills [1] and family increasingly uninterested in taking up the mantle [2].
One of my friends is actually specializing in this kind of M&A in APAC now.
Edit: Taking a look at the article and the images, I think this is actually AI slop. A bit shook by how photorealistic AI pictures have become
[0] - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/20/japan-succession-crisis-priv...
[1] - https://www.privateequityinternational.com/japan-tax-overhau...
[2] - https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3358837/jap...
> I think this is actually AI slop. A bit shook by how photorealistic AI pictures have become
makes me question your judgement about the slop term, and what else you've missed over the last 2 years or so if your interest in caring is based on something not involving generative AI
I could see how that might shake your identity
> if your interest in caring is based on something not involving generative AI
The core argument of the article still hold as does my point of contention irrespective of whether it was AI generated or an SEO listicle so it's not a big deal for me.
This article itself references a similar article I read years ago [0] so I see no reason in having it derail the rest of the convo.
[0] - https://asia.nikkei.com/business/companies/japan-s-oldest-co...
Flagged as AI slop.
once again AI slop permeating the front page of InsiderNews