Discussion Money wise, do you think it would make sense having a second 3d Zelda team?

[balgajo]

After seeing tons of discussions between people who prefer old 3d Zelda template over Botw template on a lot of forums(fami, installbase, era, gaf...), I was wondering if Nintendo could release Zelda games to satisfy both demographics and improve Zelda release gap for people who like the two types.
Do you think it makes sense for Nintendo to invest in a second and smaller in-house 3d Zelda team (like they did with 2d/3d previously)?

I listed some characteristics I see in common between people who prefer a more focused 3d Zelda over a very open one.

• Balance between openness and linear content(not as open as botw nor linear as ss)
• Backtracking (item or new abilities revealing secrets on visited locations)
• Items(no need to be found inside dungeons or required to beat all dungeon bosses, like Zelda 1)
• Complex dungeons
• More focused story
• Reduced scope (map size between oot and tp)
• Few characters (with this they could have more depth and it's easy to keep track and care about everyone)
• Almost to none modern open-world common mechanics(crafting, durability, camps, loot, different weapons)
• Shorter adventure (20~30 hours)

With this, they could:

• Share ideas between the two teams
• Sharing the same engine and maybe some assets
• Experiment acceptance of new mechanics between releases
• As usually happens, sharing team members near deadlines
• Avoid software drought for Nintendo fans who mostly buy only Mario and Zelda(ok, it's a very specific niche I participate....XD)
• Mainline Zelda releases every 2 ~ 3 years
• Motivate developers who prefer designing complex dungeons
• Having more mainline Zelda releases could make the new audience who jumped with BOTW experiment with traditional Zelda and also make people who love traditional Zelda more receptive to the new approach.

Target sales would be between 5 ~ 10 million so their budget needs to take this into consideration.

I would love to see the evolution of traditional Zelda without being formulaic(agree with a lot of it becoming stale criticism). Imo a good starting point would be ALBW in 3D, like Oot was to ALTTP.
My suggestion would be Twilight Princess 2 where Link goes into Twilight after Midna. It would be nice for people who want to take a break from Hyrule and also redeem TP for the sequel it was robbed...

 

[Mr Doggo]

no

 

[Superstarxalien]

I can't answer this question and neither can 99% of the people in this forum because it requires having in-depth knowledge of both game development and how Nintendo operates as a company
were it not for that though I would obviously have 98 zelda teams

 

[SpaceGodzilla]

no, and I know this is a thinly valid discussion about wanting 3D Zelda to go back to the pre-BOTW days

 

[ngpdrew]

no

This user put a lot of work into this post. This is rude.

To answer the question, maybe? It isn’t unprecedented for there to be two studios working on one franchise. There would be some risk of diminishing returns, of course, but I think it would be positive in the same way that it has been good for Resident Evil to simultaneously remake classics and push the franchise forward elsewhere.

 

[Jencks]

It would make more sense to have a separate 2D team that may at some point eventually work on 3D projects. The main open world Zelda team is probably not big enough as it is, if I'm being honest. Think about how long it took for TotK to release.

 

[balgajo]

This user put a lot of work into this post. This is rude.

Thanks!

To answer the question, maybe? It isn’t unprecedented for there to be two studios working on one franchise. There would be some risk of diminishing returns, of course, but I think it would be positive in the same way that it has been good for Resident Evil to simultaneously remake classics and push the franchise forward elsewhere.

Yep, and one of my lines of thought is exactly Zelda remake selling some millions without afftecting BOTW and probably not TOTK.
From personal experience I know that building interdisciplinary teams is a great effort and takes a lot of time. Convincing management about returns, losing some senior from old team to have a clear direction, finding new leaders, hiring new people....

 

[Johna X]

I think to the average demo the differences aren't stark enough while the preference is simuataneously too clear if that makes any sense, like BOTW style sells way more but there's also not some sense of it being some giant difference on any level besides just "being open world"

2D on the other hand has a more clear difference in feel, so I'd say go there. Perhaps could over various camera angles while still being built around the top down view?

 

[Mr_No_U]

I wouldn't want the old style to disappear completely, but that’s mostly nostalgia talking. Can’t blame them if they decided to just double down on the formula that revitalized the franchise. Series was in freefall (relatively speaking ) before BotW.

 

[balgajo]

I think to the average demo the differences aren't stark enough while the preference is simuataneously too clear if that makes any sense, like BOTW style sells way more but there's also not some sense of it being some giant difference on any level besides just "being open world"

2D on the other hand has a more clear difference in feel, so I'd say go there. Perhaps could over various camera angles while still being built around the top down view?

Based on sales I'd say we have the following scenario:

Majority of people who likes BOTW wouldn't buy a traditional 3d Zelda.
Majority of people who likes traditional 3d Zelda also likes BOTW.

So the second group would be the target demographics for this new 3d Zelda.

 

[Machrider]

If each new Zelda takes like 6 years to make ... this probably actually isn't a bad idea, if you had 2 teams working in a staggered manner you could have a new Zelda every 3 years for example.

 

[MondoMega]

I just want somebody to be working on 2D Zelda somewhere. For the old style of 3D Zelda though, given the vast sales gap between BotW and all prior Zelda games, I don't think Nintendo has any motivation to not triple down on the "open air" style. We'll definitely get remasters of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess down the road to get every 3D Zelda on one hardware ecosystem though.

 

[balgajo]

I wouldn't want the old style to disappear completely, but that’s mostly nostalgia talking. Can’t blame them if they decided to just double down on the formula that revitalized the franchise. Series was in freefall (relatively speaking ) before BotW.

Considering TP was the best selling Zelda game before BOTW and it came just before SS I wouldn't call it a freefall. It's more like a SS problem, mixed with Wii twilight years and requiring a Wii Motion Plus.

I just want somebody to be working on 2D Zelda somewhere. For the old style of 3D Zelda though, given the vast sales gap between BotW and all prior Zelda games, I don't think Nintendo has any motivation to not triple down on the "open air" style. We'll definitely get remasters of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess down the road to get every 3D Zelda on one hardware ecosystem though.

Me too. But 2d Zelda is the kind of project they can produce together with some talented (maybe indie) studio out there. Like they did with Oracle games and Minish Cap.
3d one feels like something that Nintendo would only allow to be done in-house.

 

[sanstea]

It's not like there is a set limitation by Nintendo on how many games they can release for a franchise.

They just do not have the staff needed to make that happen. Just look at mainline 2D Mario which has been MIA for even longer than mainline 2D Zelda. This holiday it will be six years since the last mainline 3D Mario game.

 

[Johna X]

2d mario has had a dedicated team seperate from 3d for a while though, unlike Zelda. And said team even did Mario Maker so I honestly think it semi counts for them? Obviously can't replace even the NSMBUD port outsold both Makers but

 

[Dark Cloud]

We can’t answer this question. None of us work at Nintendo nor know what the costs would be to accomplish a feat like this.

 

[MondoMega]

Me too. But 2d Zelda is the kind of project they can produce together with some talented studio out there. Like they did with Oracle games and Minish Cap.
3d one feels like something that Nintendo would only allow to be done in-house.

Honestly if they were to return to the older style of 3D Zelda, I think there's a higher likelihood of it being handled by a studio like Grezzo than by Nintendo internally; given their work on OoT and MM 3D. Though it's a tough call to make, since Grezzo are working on a brand new IP on their own right now; with no definitive sign proving they are also still working on Nintendo contract titles.

 

[sanstea]

2d mario has had a dedicated team seperate from 3d for a while though, unlike Zelda. And said team even did Mario Maker so I honestly think it semi counts for them? Obviously can't replace even the NSMBUD port outsold both Makers but

It's not really a dedicated team (EPD doesn't work like that) as the same group also does the Pikmin franchise. And in terms of counting Mario Maker, then you may as well also count Triforce Heroes and Age of Calamity.

 

[meatbag]

I could see Nintendo putting together a second team for Zelda, but not necessarily 3D Zelda. That is to say, you would have a team focusing on open air Zelda, and you have a team that can experiment with Zelda, whether it's a more linear 3D title, a top down game, or even spinoffs with wildly differing gameplay mechanics. Top-down Zelda seems like it has the best chance for coexistence, since Nintendo can delegate that work to Grezzo.

Money-wise, the more traditional Zelda titles sold well enough, so really it's more a question of manpower.

 

[balgajo]

I could see Nintendo putting together a second team for Zelda, but not necessarily 3D Zelda. That is to say, you would have a team focusing on open air Zelda, and you have a team that can experiment with Zelda, whether it's a more linear 3D title, a top down game, or even spinoffs with wildly differing gameplay mechanics. Top-down Zelda seems like it has the best chance for coexistence, since Nintendo can delegate that work to Grezzo.

Money-wise, the more traditional Zelda titles sold well enough, so really it's more a question of manpower.

Yep, I think that hiring talented people would be the biggest challenge.

 

[Jahranimo]

I'm not entirely sure. I guess there would have to be an extremely strong desire internally at Kyoto office to produce these two types of 3D Zelda games to cause such a shake up at EPD.

I guess if Nintendo ever wanted to buy Grezzo then that could be our first sign.

...I think that's all I could think of as a gamer. Thanks for reading?

 

[GamerJM]

I don't know enough about Nintendo's internal budgeting to know. I don't think anyone does.

It probably makes sense to hire more teams to put out more software than they currently do, idk. Though their current strategy is "safer," since they don't have to pay anywhere near as many people and what they have now seems to consistently sell very well.

 

[meatbag]

Yep, I think that hiring talented people would be the biggest challenge.

It probably makes sense to hire more teams to put out more software than they currently do, idk

They underwent a massive internal expansion a while back, so hopefully we'll see some of the results from that in the coming years (2026 at the earliest I reckon?). I figure having a team of relative newbies take a crack at Zelda could work. Train them with titles with more limited scope so as to not overwhelm them, and hone their sense for game design.

Overall, a more traditional 3D Zelda is definitely in the cards. We're talking about a company that's willing to bring back 2D Metroid, Advance Wars, freaking Famicom Detective Club.

 

[Mr_No_U]

Considering TP was the best selling Zelda game before BOTW and it came just before SS I wouldn't call it a freefall. It's more like a SS problem, mixed with Wii twilight years and requiring a Wii Motion Plus.

If you look at the series sales as a whole, things were starting to look quite dire just before BotW launched. Again, relatively speaking. I bet Nintendo wishes Metroid and Xenoblade sold half as well as old Zelda did

I grew up with traditional Zelda and don't want it to go away completely (not that I think it will, as Nintendo has proven they are wiling to given the nichest of niche franchises another chance.) If it were up to me, I'd alternate between old style and new style, peppered with remakes and spin offs here and there. But it's hard to deny that the formula had grown stale, and on track for niche status. Once people who grew up with BotW and TotK make up the overwhelming majority of the franchise, it's entirely possible Nintendo will think the ROI for old Zelda just isn't there.

 

[Deleted member 887]

There are two Zelda teams. There is the Zelda team, and then whatever external team is making the spinoff/remake of the year.

I'll keep buying them until a couple of 'em suck in a row, which honestly put the franchise in a precarious place for a bit, so maybe relaxing quality control by having Auonuma split focus isn't the best bet?

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

It probably makes more sense to continue their current trajectory with the Zelda franchise:

• 3D Zelda
• Spin-off/remake

Perhaps they can find resources to do a traditional 2D Zelda. There are just too many resources (manpower/time) probably needed for another separate 3D Zelda title.

 

[Yoshifan31]

I just don’t think the sales argument is substantial, people saying that BOTW expanded the fanbase make it sound like Zelda wasn’t already one of the most popular and beloved gaming series in the first place. Think about it, for example, FFVII sold like 10 million on PS1, something like 2,4 millions more than OOT sales on N64. However, those 10 million copies were mostly from people that played alone in their dark rooms. Meanwhile, each copy of OOT was played by multiple family members. That’s why Zelda is the more popular series with tons of merch and Triforce tattoos and whatnot, meanwhile you can only meet a FF fan irl though actual geek circles. So back to BOTW, it was a 30 million + Pokemon-like hit because it actually positioned itself to be one. It was a launch title, it was THE game to get a Switch for (TP on Wii wasn’t the same because there was Wii Sports bundled with it, which was enough for many. If you were buying a Switch at launch you had basically no reason to do so besides playing BOTW). Switch is also a handheld, it might not have a single save file like older Pokemon games but it’s still a console that is mostly individually bought, like the people that grew up with OOT are now college students/young adults with no kids that live in tiny apartments and do rooftop parties. Very different situation from the Zelda games that sold much more modestly due to coming out late and requiring external hardware (MM and SS)

So while you could still bring the money argument, that Nintendo has no reason to make non “open air” Zelda games… Well first off, I don’t think a separate team is the answer. I also don’t think that the money and reviews arguments justifies excusing every single design decision from open air Zeldas, including very obviously fixable design issues like the whole healing thing discussed in the other thread. The thing with videogames is that it’s a creative work, series will always have to innovate and try new things. By the logic that “BOTW style is here to stay”, it’s like saying that every future Metroid game needs to be action/horror like Dread (and Fusion) because Dread sold more or something. The thing about open air Zelda is that there is this backlash from either Zelda fans, or fans of other open world games that treat open world as a genre so they start comparing it to games that aren’t even the same genre (Rockstar, Bethesda, Ubisoft, Elden Ring). For Zelda fans it’s just too big of a change as it pretty much trades freedom for things like gameplay density and pacing. It’s like if Zelda was a tree the games are multiple branches going in different directions (OOT is epic and dungeon heavy, MM is more personal and sidequest heavy, etc) but BOTW is a whole other tree that kind of touches a few branches but it’s still a very different gameplay loop that doesn’t succeed in replacing the things that older Zelda offered. BOTW got away with its Ubisoft open world inspirations (games that basically never hit 90+ MC) by being an actually fun game. TOTK is looking like it will get away by having very creative new mechanics. Once open world fatigue becomes more widespread, Nintendo will start noticing that people want dense Zelda games too and will start adressing the fundamental design issues with open world games, that are honestly not acknowledged enough nowadays

 

[LukasManak22]

No. Laughted at the part "mainline releases every 2-3 years".

It's not like EPD has that much recourses to do something like this, they also need to do other projects, staff is fluent. Not to mention that project leads would need to be split in half.

 

[Jencks]

I just don’t think the sales argument is substantial, people saying that BOTW expanded the fanbase make it sound like Zelda wasn’t already one of the most popular and beloved gaming series in the first place. Think about it, for example, FFVII sold like 10 million on PS1, something like 2,4 millions more than OOT sales on N64. However, those 10 million copies were mostly from people that played alone in their dark rooms. Meanwhile, each copy of OOT was played by multiple family members. That’s why Zelda is the more popular series with tons of merch and Triforce tattoos and whatnot, meanwhile you can only meet a FF fan irl though actual geek circles. So back to BOTW, it was a 30 million + Pokemon-like hit because it actually positioned itself to be one. It was a launch title, it was THE game to get a Switch for (TP on Wii wasn’t the same because there was Wii Sports bundled with it, which was enough for many. If you were buying a Switch at launch you had basically no reason to do so besides playing BOTW). Switch is also a handheld, it might not have a single save file like older Pokemon games but it’s still a console that is mostly individually bought, like the people that grew up with OOT are now college students/young adults with no kids that live in tiny apartments and do rooftop parties. Very different situation from the Zelda games that sold much more modestly due to coming out late and requiring external hardware (MM and SS)

So while you could still bring the money argument, that Nintendo has no reason to make non “open air” Zelda games… Well first off, I don’t think a separate team is the answer. I also don’t think that the money and reviews arguments justifies excusing every single design decision from open air Zeldas, including very obviously fixable design issues like the whole healing thing discussed in the other thread. The thing with videogames is that it’s a creative work, series will always have to innovate and try new things. By the logic that “BOTW style is here to stay”, it’s like saying that every future Metroid game needs to be action/horror like Dread (and Fusion) because Dread sold more or something. The thing about open air Zelda is that there is this backlash from either Zelda fans, or fans of other open world games that treat open world as a genre so they start comparing it to games that aren’t even the same genre (Rockstar, Bethesda, Ubisoft, Elden Ring). For Zelda fans it’s just too big of a change as it pretty much trades freedom for things like gameplay density and pacing. It’s like if Zelda was a tree the games are multiple branches going in different directions (OOT is epic and dungeon heavy, MM is more personal and sidequest heavy, etc) but BOTW is a whole other tree that kind of touches a few branches but it’s still a very different gameplay loop that doesn’t succeed in replacing the things that older Zelda offered. BOTW got away with its Ubisoft open world inspirations (games that basically never hit 90+ MC) by being an actually fun game. TOTK is looking like it will get away by having very creative new mechanics. Once open world fatigue becomes more widespread, Nintendo will start noticing that people want dense Zelda games too and will start adressing the fundamental design issues with open world games, that are honestly not acknowledged enough nowadays

I've been hearing talk of Open World fatigue since The Witcher 3. It's not happening. These game will continue to be wildly popular. It's not like those who want denser experiences aren't being serviced.

 

[balgajo]

...

Considering all first 3d Zeldas of a console consistently sold around 60 to 70% of their 3d Mario contemporaries I could see TP doing around 20M if it were launched alongside Switch. But I think at least 10M players out there just got into the franchise because of BOTW.

 

[Mr_No_U]

Think about it, for example, FFVII sold like 10 million on PS1, something like 2,4 millions more than OOT sales on N64. However, those 10 million copies were mostly from people that played alone in their dark rooms. Meanwhile, each copy of OOT was played by multiple family members. That’s why Zelda is the more popular series with tons of merch and Triforce tattoos and whatnot, meanwhile you can only meet a FF fan irl though actual geek circles

Honestly, aside from being a weird tangent, this is also uncalled for.

 

[Tamantayoshi]

I'm not sure why not, have grezzo make a 3d zelda or something (also please do it nintendo lol, I love botw but I want something traditional too).

 

[Forkball]

I think it would be way better to have a dedicated 2D Zelda team. These games can be more accessible to younger/casual gamers yet still appeal to the growing Zelda fanbase. LA remake sold six million, which doesn’t touch BotW numbers but certainly higher than any sort of spinoff.

 

[balgajo]

If you look at the series sales as a whole, things were starting to look quite dire just before BotW launched. Again, relatively speaking. I bet Nintendo wishes Metroid and Xenoblade sold half as well as old Zelda did

I grew up with traditional Zelda and don't want it to go away completely (not that I think it will, as Nintendo has proven they are wiling to given the nichest of niche franchises another chance.) If it were up to me, I'd alternate between old style and new style, peppered with remakes and spin offs here and there. But it's hard to deny that the formula had grown stale, and on track for niche status. Once people who grew up with BotW and TotK make up the overwhelming majority of the franchise, it's entirely possible Nintendo will think the ROI for old Zelda just isn't there.

I really fear that time. Also the time where old Nintendo designer are retired an nobody knows how to do great dungeons anymore...XD

I've been hearing talk of Open World fatigue since The Witcher 3. It's not happening. These game will continue to be wildly popular. It's not like those who want denser experiences aren't being serviced.

I'm part of the problem. Every time I take the bait thinking that this new shine open world will be different. Then I have great 10~20 hours and everything starts becoming repetitive. After that I go online complaining about them until I take the bait for the next one...XD

 

[Dolce]

we don't need more of Nintendos resources going to just one franchise.

 

[balgajo]

we don't need more of Nintendos resources going to just one franchise.

10 years ago I tried to fool myself into thinking I'd like Nintendo to try different franchises. But nowadays, when they do, I only buy Mario and Zelda....XD
I came in terms that I like Mario and Zelda much more than Nintendo itself.

 

[Johna X]

However, those 10 million copies were mostly from people that played alone in their dark rooms.

Ok Yamauchi ("Japanese gamers like to be alone in their rooms and play depressing games")

Also if this is the case why did Mario sell so much better and then now on switch actually sold a tad worse then Zelda

 

[Dolce]

10 years ago I tried to fool myself into thinking I'd like Nintendo to try different franchises. But nowadays, when they do, I only buy Mario and Zelda....XD
I came in terms that I like Mario and Zelda much more than Nintendo itself.

oh yeah, I understand it. but after decades, that's the thing, everyone has different stuff they like from Nintendo, and of course they still make new IPs all the time. if this were 20 years ago, I wouldn't mind a new Zelda team but games just take a ton of resources now.

 

[eye0h]

I have no way to answer this but more frequent Zelda releases would be really cool as long as the quality was there!

 

[Yoshifan31]

Honestly, aside from being a weird tangent, this is also uncalled for.

That’s the obvious Yamauchi joke but the geek part isn’t even pejorative (geek is not an insult like nerd) like it’s true. Zelda is almost a household name. People that know about FF are the type that are really into games or go to anime conventions and the like. Point is Zelda was always more relevant than certain other series that had sold more in raw numbers

I've been hearing talk of Open World fatigue since The Witcher 3. It's not happening. These game will continue to be wildly popular. It's not like those who want denser experiences aren't being serviced.

First off you rarely see dense/linear/wide linear games to have the kind of level design/gameplay loop/gameplay variety that 3D Zelda usually has

As for open world games, the thing with them is that people always look forward to them with the hope that it actually delivers on making exploration meaningful. Of course people will always get hype on the idea of an open world game. But in practice, how many of those actually have critical reception, like 90+ MC. When you analyze their game design, how many of them are just huge grinds, are aimless, or have diminishing returns in their gameplay loop. Even if they keep selling, that doesn’t mean that they are good precedent for game design

 

[ngpdrew]

I just don’t think the sales argument is substantial, people saying that BOTW expanded the fanbase make it sound like Zelda wasn’t already one of the most popular and beloved gaming series in the first place. Think about it, for example, FFVII sold like 10 million on PS1, something like 2,4 millions more than OOT sales on N64. However, those 10 million copies were mostly from people that played alone in their dark rooms. Meanwhile, each copy of OOT was played by multiple family members. That’s why Zelda is the more popular series with tons of merch and Triforce tattoos and whatnot, meanwhile you can only meet a FF fan irl though actual geek circles.

Objection, your honor. This is wild speculation.

 

[Yamanoi]

Snip

 

[Jencks]

That’s the obvious Yamauchi joke but the geek part isn’t even pejorative (geek is not an insult like nerd) like it’s true. Zelda is almost a household name. People that know about FF are the type that are really into games or go to anime conventions and the like. Point is Zelda was always more relevant than certain other series that had sold more in raw numbers


First off you rarely see dense/linear/wide linear games to have the kind of level design/gameplay loop/gameplay variety that 3D Zelda usually has

As for open world games, the thing with them is that people always look forward to them with the hope that it actually delivers on making exploration meaningful. Of course people will always get hype on the idea of an open world game. But in practice, how many of those actually have critical reception, like 90+ MC. When you analyze their game design, how many of them are just huge grinds, are aimless, or have diminishing returns in their gameplay loop. Even if they keep selling, that doesn’t mean that they are good precedent for game design

In the past 5 years the "consensus GotY" (ugh) has been:

• 2018: a linear action adventure game with basically the same structure as OOT style Zelda, runner up was an open world
• 2019: an open world game focused on traversal
• 2020: a linear action game with dense level design
• 2021: a linear puzzle platformer
• 2022: an open world with a similar structure to BotW

 

[Mekanos]

Zelda is almost a household name.

In North America and Japan, sure. The rest of the world? Not really so much until BOTW. Zelda's popularity has been mostly concentrated into the Anglosphere for most of its existence, especially Ocarina Of Time given that it was an N64 game.

It's pretty much impossible to argue a game that sold more than triple the previously best selling game in the series didn't expand its audience drastically. Like, the math isn't in your favor there.

 

[Nickle]

I think that's a valid way to go these days, considering games take so long to make. I would love a new 3D Zelda game in 3-4 years rather then waiting another 5-7 years. I don't think there is a risk of oversaturation with a 3 year wait, that's how long it used to get new Zelda games and people didn't get tired of that schedule.

 

[Deleted member 2062]

BOTW outsold every previous 3D Zelda game combined, from a business perspective it makes sense to put all the resources into these games.

At the end of the day, people that prefer linear Zelda are just a very loud minority.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Even if they did want to have two Zelda teams working on games, and there is a argument to doing so because of how long the games take to make now, .... They still wouldn't be sensible to waste one of them working on linear Zelda.

If they were going to have two Zelda teams, they'd have them both working on open air style games and having them release one every ~3 years instead of 6. It cannot be overstated enough how much of a expansion of the series BOTW was.

 

[Mango]

I really reeeeaaaally think people are reading too much into the success of BOTW. I don't think it's impossible at all that what comes after ToTK could easily blur the line of traditional and new and appease both sides of the fandom.

ToTK is just super similar to BOTW because it's a direct sequel. Thus no two teams is unnecessary.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

A 2D and a 3D team makes more sense.

 

[switchum]

I’d be lying if I said I had any clue. I feel like some level of business understanding is required to have a truly productive conversation about this, so I personally don’t have an opinion.

It’s an interesting question, though.