Many of your assertions have already been addressed in prior posts. But let me review them here:
I think the game is working as intended, to my understanding it’s meant to be a approximate replica of real world markets, at least as close as a single dev can get in a browser game. Now my reasoning for why it’s working as intended is that, as many of us know, in real world economics when working in a capitalist system...
There are many assumptions behind this, one being that it couldn't really get better/closer to reality. Fact is, I am asking for *more* realism.
It may be "working as intended" (i.e. as designed), however, I think that design is flawed, not least because there isn't any Economies of Scale - this is a fundamental aspect of our real world capitalism.
...it’s the people that pioneer and take a risk starting whole new industries with new products or better ways of production that usually win out, often even surpassing long established companies. Think google overtaking older web browsers, or apple outpacing established phone companies. This isn’t always the case, but as it stand most new industries added to sim companies have been more profitable then the last...
Though I understand your example, keep in mind we are talking about manufacturing and retailing (not services, especially ones as abstract as providing a search engine for the internet). I can think of examples in that world that corresponds to your point, though given the unrealism of this game, it is not a fitting analogy, and "as it stand most new industries added to sim companies have been more profitable then the last" is unrealistic in itself.
In these types of industries, economies of scale are a core part of the benefits of growth.
What has happened, because of this design flaw, is that, in these new game industries, the majority of profits accrued to those on the end of the supply chain. It is one reason why SOs had been the dominating AS building and a rather large percentage of the buildings most of the top 50+ (100?) players have (still are after Food upg?). That is also why, out of the Food industry, Restaurants are dominant amongst those same players (just don't see the same number of buildings for Catering, Food Processing, etc).
If any of the supply chain upstream were as profitable, we'd see a great many more players with concentrations in those as suppliers in the top ranks.
This is FAR from realistic. Look at the companies on this website
companiesmarketcap.com/ - there is significant diversity by industry in the top 50. At least 3 are semiconductor / chip mfrs, and plenty of other examples there.
In this game, every step in the supply chain for each industry should have the opportunity to be as profitable as the next. Now THAT would be far closer to reality than we have currently.
...and usually they also require more time investment to get those increased profits, AS was more profitable then car and gas retail but required more management and knowledge of the game to make money, as well as more risk when starting out. Now we have food which takes more time and knowledge then even AS does, and for that time and experience you get slightly more money then AS.
This is just plain wrong. While it is generically true, it is wrong in the specific.
It is knowledge and mastery of their particular step in the industry that allows them to make money. SO doesn't need depth of knowledge of or investment into the entire supply chain in AS - all that is needed is to know who is supplying the product and what should that price be to maintain profitability.
Maybe they would like to go a little deeper to understand their make vs buy decision. But that is the same in other industries too, and for each step other than the primary suppliers (e.g. mining, power, research), who have no suppliers for their product.
Just because the supply chain is longer, or has multiple inputs, doesn't mean it is a whole lot more complicated for one to manage their step.
SOs handle 6 inputs. Electronics Retail Stores handle 6 inputs.
SO supply was artificially made more difficult because one couldn't go to the Exchange for supply. That shouldn't justify the extraordinary profits that were made (in fact, it created a barrier of entry for players like me who could not dedicate the time to canvas suppliers throughout the day as orders come available). In fact, it is this very difficulty that meant one needed to invest into an inventory to cover the possibilities in the demand at any one time. Given the price point for the products, this created another artificial barrier to other players joining in (they didn't have the money to invest, even if they could afford to purchase enough for any one given order they'd received - so, back to -> not enough time to dedicate to game).
Ok, I understand that capital for investment should be a realistic barrier, but how "realistic" is making it difficult to find your supplier? And, is that deserving of higher level of profit?
Understanding the demand mechanism is different to be sure. Not sure what about it inherently requires those extra profits.
The dollar value of those items are more. Well, then the dollar profit is understandably more, but why should the percentage of profit from that revenue be so much higher?
Is this really "real world" or "close" to it?
(Another unrealism is that the demand mechanism for SOs allows for a far faster inventory turn than any other retail building in the game - i.e. investment is recovered and reinvested incredibly fast, possible for several times in a real day. Electronics Retail could never turn investment that quickly - best case is for an amount that is a tiny tiny tiny percentage of what AS could do.
A third unrealism is that the demand for AS products at the end point allowed for essentially unlimited quantities in the game world - reality is populations and economy only grows so much, so how many jumbo jets can there really be a demand for? The demand function for all retail stores are limited by an algorithm. The competition aspect in Restaurant demand generation is an attempt to address this last part - looks like it was too loose at start.
I know there has been changes to these for AS, but I don't know how much they were tapered back.)
Maybe restaurants still need some balancing but even then I think the people that risked it all early and dove in head first deserve the increased profits, especially considering there were no in depth guides, or nuggets of helpful info when they start, all they had was a basic introduction to work with and they made it work, so I see no issues with those that made money with the industry. If you have a problem with that fine, but you can’t invoke “fairness” when everyone had the exact same opportunity to join the industry
You argue about the "realism", I presume as the basis for this last set of statements.
Clearly, that is faulty. It is a game!
A game needs to attract players long term. It promises them something. What is that?
Is SimCompanies promising a long term build or is it short term race?
I contend the intention is long term build - particularly since major introductions are so few and far between.
This is relevant because of what transpired. What does this all tell the players?
I understand that some players risked and went all in on something new. Not sure anyone is saying that shouldn't be worth something.
But, many players have spent 12+ months building a business and growing. Even if not all in on playing the game 24/7, there is a significant amount of time invested.
What does it tell them when in a matter of a couple three weeks those player's companies adopting the new industry leapfrog rank from ~900 to 110 - a $320M improvement in CV? That is winning the lottery level profits, not a reasonable return for risk.
"Fairness" is defined by what you assume this game is to be. All fair if it is a race. Not so much when it is a long term build.
when everyone had the exact same opportunity to join the industry
You did tell us that one player spent several weeks preparing.
I posted somewhere above why I don't think it was the "exact same opportunity". But, let's take that at face value...
Another aspect to "fair" based on "exact same opportunity" comes from my personal experience in getting blindsided by a change that came with the Food Intro.
Seems the Electronics Retail industry took a nerf and I understand it was related to the Food intro.
It was not announced that this would happen. Several of us were impacted significantly / direly.
I'm not even sure the rationale for it really. I mean, how important was it to nerf Electronics Retail? Was there really an "imbalance" that needed "correcting" - when juxtaposed to the extremely short term unicorn profits made in Food, it just doesn't seem like there is a plausible explanation for it, other than it was a mistake.
And, if it wasn't a mistake (it is yet to be corrected), then it is more ominous (unless this game is a short term race). The implication is that ANY long term build is at risk to unannounced changes that could impact their work.
By your continued repeat of this, I imagine you haven't read my thread on this either:
simcompanies.proboards.com/thread/1761/impact-electronics-retail-observed-introIn the end, debating about the "realism" and the "fairness" really skirts around the point of this suggestion - multiple game worlds. In fact, it is a case study for why this is needed.
It keeps mistakes and introductions isolated.
There is no "preparation" one can do, or other incumbent advantages.
Everyone starts materially from the same point - they only bring their own knowledge, skill and contacts.
Ability is what gets one to the top of the ranks.
Many of the points we are debating here are addressed by this.
It also mitigates the race vs long term build issue - we all know that a new world is coming and we can try something different, while nobody is locked into an advantageous position if they win the lottery because of a flawed introduction.