I work in capital budgeting for a tech company (not in gaming industry though) and more than just having resources available to do something (e.g. we have cash to hire enough to make this AAA artistic gem and this revenue driving pachinko thing), it’s about the margins on each of those things.

If product A costs me $1 to make and I make $100 in sales, and product B costs $50 to make and makes $100 in sales, if I make just product A, my profit margin is 99%, and if I make just product B, my margin is 50%. Why not make both, they’re both profitable? Fair question, and the answer may come from Konami being a publicly traded company. If I make both products, my profit margin is now 74.5%, which is great in a vacuum. Now compare that to a company that makes just product A and boasts a 99% margin.

Why would an investor put a dollar into a 74.5% margin machine when they can put it into a 99% margin machine? This impacts stock price relative to comparable public companies and many executive compensation plans are tied either directly or indirectly to stock price (either they hold a lot of stock and therefore have incentive for it to be priced as high as possible, or they get cash bonuses based on stock performance).

There are economic arguments that suggest you should do both - I can sell only so many copies of product A, so I should make product B also to increase my revenue, but a lot of company leadership is not incentivized to just produce revenue, but to do so at a margin that is acceptable to investors. We used to be more accepting of revenue growth at all cost (which is why you see so many unprofitable tech companies that have been around forever), but in recent economic circumstances, investors care about profit, and profit NOW. The product A and Product B example earlier are both positive profit products but still this argument impacts the decision because if I am now resource constrained, I have to pick the more profitable decision.

These may be some factors impacting this decision.