Conflict, free will and limits of 'In Demand'

The game I previously pitched called In Demand would put the player in the position of a newly elected CEO of a company. The player would have the choice at the start of the game to decide the type of company they are running (cosmetics, clothes, industrial, entertainment, etc.). This choice will slightly alter the type of decisions the player would have to make. 

Once the player starts the game, they will see five icons with representing the different groups they will be striving to maintain good relationships with. These groups include the executive team, the board of directors, consumers, competitors, and the media. Each group has a different goal and way of reacting to various situations. 

For example, if one of the decisions to be made was regarding a product needing to be recalled, the player’s choice of choosing to discontinue the product all together might satisfy some (consumers and competitors) and anger others (executive team and board of directors). Essentially, the player would be presented with a decision to make each round (with four rounds occurring per quarter of the year). 

From the very first decision to the last, the player is faced with conflict. No matter what decision is made, some groups will not be fully satisfied and thus cause the relationship to lower. If the relationship with a group sinks too low, the game would end with the player being removed from the CEO in some form (firing, demoted, quitting, etc.). At that point, the player can choose to begin a new game and strive for a higher score and to last longer as CEO.

The story is essentially constructed by the game developer in terms of determining the types of conflicts the player will face. However, the choices and ultimately the end results lies with the players. They have the freedom to choose between two options per decision. This limits the player, but also grants them enough free will to decide how to best handle a situation.