this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
183 points (98.4% liked)
Games
16538 readers
1178 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel for these studios getting treated like crap. With these shutdowns from corps like MS and Embracer, I can only hope that indie devs learn the hard lessons taught here that conglomerates can never be trusted to operate in the interest of their subsidiaries. All buyouts are to these corps is the addition of "assets" to their spreadsheet, to be ditched the moment it's more convenient than keeping them around.
Embracer at least had the excuse of fucking up their capital and shitting the bed in terms of having money on hand.
They were forced to shutter and sell things because they legitimately couldn't fund their operation.
It was still their fault, because they stupidly bought up developers thinking big investor money was coming, which then just didn't.
Microsoft has no such excuse. MS leadership has been asked multiple times why they did it, and they literally haven't said a single fucking word that makes sense.
I've heard its because of the games anti-corporate message.
But even as someone who blames their boomer-ass wintel admin coworkers for allowing AD to EEE its way into enterprise IT, I have a hard time buying that. That game was making too much money for that.
That's probably not it, lol. You think some execs care about a games anti corp message if they are making money off of it? I highly doubt it
Yeah that's why I said I don't really buy the excuse myself, its just the only thing I could think of that really even starts to make sense.
And even then its far-fetched as shit.
I would sooner believe it was some internal politics/dick swinging, they may have upset someone higher up and they swung their dick around and shut their shit down, just out of spite.
That makes no sense.
Vandeley wasn't always evil. Roxanne, Peppermint, Macaron, Korsica, all wanted the company to do good, and for a long while it did.
Vandeley only became "evil" because Kale mind-controlled Roxanne and made himself CEO.
I don't know how that's anti-corporate. A big part of the plot is that Vandeley grew so successful because it was a genuinely good company doing good things in the world, loved by all, before it became a dystopian world-conquering device at the hands of a villain.
Like I said that's only what I've heard, but I haven't played the Gamez and I doubt its true even if it did fit.
I feel like you're defending the wrong thing here. Wondering why MS shudder the studio is like asking a snake why it attacks its prey. It's a fucking snake. That's what it does. That's always what it does.
Embracer screwed up and let itself be absorbed into the Microsoft empire. They have their IP. They care about nothing else.
No it isn't. Microsoft makes money. Asking why they shuttered a successful studio is like asking the snake why the fuck it bit off the end of its own tail, and what the hell it thinks it's doing.
If they were shutting Tango down after they forced them to make a live-service clusterfuck that flopped badly, then you might have a point. But this is like if EA would have shut down Dice right after they made BF2, instead of funding BF3.
I feel like you're mixing up some companies, these sentences make no sense in the context of Embracer. Are you talking about Bethesda?
No. Microsoft.
That makes even less sense. What do you mean by this sentence?
Embracer is still around, they didn't sell anything to MS. They shut down a bunch of studios to stay solvent, and sold others, but MS didn't buy any.