8 ms·

My gut reaction any time a beloved company/product is bought by a “big” or “old” company, particularly in gaming or media or tech, is “oh no, they sold out” or

• TylerE 9y ago
  Didn't Humble Bundle essentially sell out long ago? They just sell indie games in bulk, and generally the stuff on offer these days is nothing special.
  • baddox 9y ago
    I couldn’t say. I haven’t followed them for at least a couple of years. I seem to remember them branching out into other digital media like books and music. I still admire their ideas (although I’m not sure if they’re still in place), like adjustable payments, charity contributions, DRM-free (or even open source) games, and games supporting Linux and OS X. I’ve been away from the gaming scene for several years, so I’ll admit to being very out of the loop.
    • Avshalom 9y ago
      They have in the last bit here (don't quote me on an exact time frame) stopped caring about Linux/osx support and frequently offered things that are only playable through steam. I mean like I said elsewhere, I still shop there because: why not, if it's cheaper; they don't have any noticable mission statement anymore though.
      • boomboomsubban 9y ago
        >They have in the last bit here (don't quote me on an exact time frame) stopped caring about Linux/osx support and frequently offered things that are only playable through steam. The Humble Indie Bundles still focus on things supporting Linux, every game in the one earlier this year was available there. At some point they decided that was only a focus for the "Indie" bundles though.
    • Figs 9y ago
      Most of their games are not DRM free, and haven't been for a long time. Almost everything they sell these days is Steam-only. You're better off shopping at GOG if you care about DRM-free.
  • rodgerd 9y ago
    Their main things has always been the charity aspect of their work. The folks obsessed with the idea they exist for Linux games or whatever seem to miss that point.
    • Avshalom 9y ago
      The first few bundles actually made a point of Linux support including support for porting games that didn't support it.
    • em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
      Well I think they did at a time exist for Linux ports and I think they were somewhat successful in causing the industry to often support Linux. In that respect, by creating the expectation that game devs should offer linux ports, they have been a success. Sometimes it takes someone to blaze the path.
• fierarul 9y ago
  This is a very odd comment. The whole purpose of the comment section is for people to discuss their take on the news, including if this is a good or bad sign. So... your top comment is preemptively trying to funnel that discussion as well as a meta-discussion about any such news. It would have been simpler to just say your mind: > I confess I feel it here [...] “oh no, they sold out” [...] “uh oh, that’s the beginning of the end.”
  • baddox 9y ago
    Fair enough. I thought it would be a useful contribution to describe my gut reaction, but with a clear disclosure that I recognize my own impulsivity. Your suggestion is much more concise, and brevity has never been one of my gifts.
    • nindalf 9y ago
      For what it's worth, I liked your meta comment. I had the exact same reaction ("oh they sold out") but once I read your comment I realised I had nothing to back up that feeling. A person being up front about their own ignorance is refreshing, especially on HN when everyone is so sure about everything.
      • baddox 9y ago
        I appreciate it. I try to remember to follow up every opinion with a disclaimer and a challenge: this opinion is loosely held, so please change my opinion with logic or data or alternate interpretations!
  • jwdunne 9y ago
    I think his comment was fine and by the looks of things a few others feel it was fine too. The purpose of the comment section is discussion. Interesting meta discussion is discussion and still in some way relevant. Some of the best threads have evolved into meta discussions or taken things to a higher level.
    • 9y ago
• ajmurmann 9y ago
  I share the same reaction. I can think of many examples in which a company that made something I cared about got acquired and the product got ruined. Pretty much the only counter example I can come up with right now are Disney's acquisitions of Marvel and Star Wars.
  • yurishimo 9y ago
    I think Amazon has done a fairly good job with Twitch. Adding features and such. Maybe it’s because there really isn’t another big competitor to twitch right now so nobody jumped ship when it was acquired.
    • baddox 9y ago
      That could be. Why has YouTube not showed up as a Twitch competitor?
      • Arcsech 9y ago
        They could be, but a) YouTube hasn't been doing much to market its live streaming services to Twitch's audience, and b) Twitch does a way, WAY better job of allowing streamers to make money than YT does. YT has been demonetizing videos at the drop of a hat, much to many creators' frustration, without providing any tools for creators to make alternative revenue, including locking down the ability to link to Patreon unless you already have a very established channel. Compare that to Twich, which has multiple ways to support streamers right in-app and available to even pretty low-viewership streamers.
        • baddox 9y ago
          Good points. I don’t have a good idea of how Twitch streamers make money now, but my impression is that it’s mostly through subscriptions (through Twitch) and donations (not through Twitch). Even back 5 years ago streamers talked about how most of their audience (being tech-savvy) used Adblock, and I suspect that situation hasn’t gotten any better. Is Twitch making most of its money from cuts of subscriptions?
• c3534l 9y ago
  Companies often acquire other companies for the purpose of running them into the ground. They take a few of the best workers and assets,kick everyone else out, move the office, and it's almost as if the company never existed in the first place. It's the purchasing company that sets the rules, and they typically want their acquisition to assimilate into the borg collective. There would probably be a very different outcome is Humble Bundle bought IGN.
  • baddox 9y ago
    I don’t think I would call it the “purpose” of an acquisition. “Intent,” perhaps, or “acceptable worst-case scenario,” but not “purpose,” unless of course the purpose was merely to eliminate a future competitive threat (which seems doubtful in this case).
    • moron4hire 9y ago
      Say you know a farmer who you think has land and equipment worth $1 000 000 on the secondary market, he only clears enough to cover his operating expenses every year, and he's willing to sell the whole thing for $500 000 (maybe he doesn't know what he has). You'd absolutely buy with the intention of liquidating and it'd have nothing to do with "competitive threat". Markets are "efficient". If one entity is not using a resource in the most efficient way, there is a chance for someone to buy them out. It's another form of arbitrage.
      • TeMPOraL 9y ago
        It's important to understand the "efficiency" here, though. Companies that operate ethically and provide actual value to customers are not usually at the peak of efficiency. A farmer from your example might be only breaking even because he farms sustainably, making sure not to diminish the fertility of the soil. A more efficient buyer would instead extract all the value from the soil and then sell it off as construction ground. Similarly, in the realm of Internet businesses, a business that employs massive tracking, shady advertisement and plethora of dishonest and anticonsumer practices will be more efficient at exploiting the market than the one which does not. Which is to say, peak market efficiency is not always something good to have.
• colechristensen 9y ago
  They'd been selling out a while, some would call it "growth", but what it was was distance from what made it great.
• rkachowski 9y ago
  The humble bundle concept sold out a long time ago. The first incarnation was "The Humble Indie Bundle" - which raised an unexpectedly large amount of money for independent game developers (in a time long before 'indie games' was a valid genre). After seeing that this was a successful formula, they went on to raise funding in 2011 and pushed for larger publishers / developers to target with their acquired audience of heavily engaged gaming fans (mostly indie people). There was quite a strong note of sourness at the commercial interests being spun out of what was originally a charity + grassroots initiative. Now, as many other people have mentioned in this thread, they've largely fallen into another same again steam sale outlet. My attitude is more of indifference - they sold out long before being acquired by some big old company. I feel they put too much emphasis on aggressively acquiring new sales at the expense of their old customers.
  • pvg 9y ago
    in a time long before 'indie games' was a valid genre Humble Bundle would not have made any sense nor would have had much to sell if indie games weren't a 'valid genre' in 2010.
    • dfox 9y ago
      In my opinion it had pretty significant role in making it "valid" genre by proving that people will actually pay for such games.
      • pvg 9y ago
        That's quite different than the idea that 2010, when Humble Bundle launched, was 'long before indie games were a valid genre'. Braid was a giant hit on XBLA in 2008, the very existence of a platform like XBLA from a major publisher suggests Humble Bundle didn't have much to do with creating or validating this market. It's certainly become a substantial player in it.
        • rkachowski 9y ago
          Braid was never marketed as an "indie game". Outside of tigsource and the IGF, "indie games" as a category didn't really take until a few years later (with things like Super Meat Boy and it's inclusion in 'Indie Game : The Movie'). The term was largely unknown until 2010 or so https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=indie%20games https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=indie%20...
• _nedR 9y ago
  The gaming industry is replete with examples of original creative studios with blockbuster IPs being bought up by the likes of EA and Ubisoft and being shutdown a year later. Or worse they buy a studio and milk its franchise dry without taking any of the same risks and innovations that made the original franchise a success in the first place. In many cases the original staff of the studio are laid off or are merged in to the larger sweatshops which the gaming industry is notorious for. In fact here's a list of studios axed by EA. https://kotaku.com/an-updated-list-of-studios-ea-has-bought-and-then-shut-1689498614 https://kotaku.com/an-updated-list-of-studios-ea-has-bought-... So if you were wondering why you dont see a new Command and Conqueror or Wing commander game, now you know why.
• x5486 9y ago
  Companies are required by law to maximize profits for the Shareholders. Because of this reason alone, the acquisition will be a guaranteed fail.
  • criddell 9y ago
    No they aren't. Optimizing for something other than profit isn't a crime. Secondly, there are all kinds of corporations. Basically, what matters is the corporate charter and what promises the board and executives make to shareholders. As long as they act in accordance with their charter and the guidance they give to investors, they are fine.
  • CryoLogic 9y ago
    Only publicly traded companies.
• Pxtl 9y ago
  I generally disagree with the gaming community Zeitgeist, but this reaction seems fair. Gaming is a cynical industry full of talented idealusts, much like music and film... But even worse because they innovate a lot harder and faster on business models, to the detriment of the consumer. Consumers are right to be concerned, it's born out many times how idealistic creative small companies get absorbed into huge cynical businesses that are focused on extracting the maximum value from the asset, and the customers lose out.
• wpietri 9y ago
  Years ago in the Economist I read about a study that has stuck with me since. According to a study of public company mergers, "Only a disappointing 17% of mergers had added value to the combined company, 30% produced no discernible difference and as many as 53% actually destroyed shareholder value." [1] That certainly matches my impression. My subjective opinion through friends is that acquiring companies rarely fully understand what they've bought, and pretty regularly kill what makes the acquired company special. Not on purpose, really. I imagine an enthusiastic cartoon monster running around trying to hug people it takes a fancy to. Some it squishes to jelly, some merely end up bruised, and some it neglects or drops when its whims turn elsewhere. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/1999/nov/29/10 https://www.theguardian.com/business/1999/nov/29/10
  • ashleyblackmore 9y ago
    The monster imagery made my day, and yeah, it would match pretty well my own impression of many acquiring companies. I doubt Yahoo fully understood Tumblr for example, and even after promising not to ruin it, weren’t able to help themselves from giving it a damn good bruising
  • shalmanese 9y ago
    That's not as bad as it sounds. You would expect acquisition outcomes have a power law distribution. For well run companies, their top acquisition usually adds more value than the total spent on all acquisitions (like Google's acquisition of Doubleclick, ~100B value add) and, for an industry as a whole, the top acquisition should just about cover the entire industry spending on acquisitions (like Apple's acquisition of NeXT, ~600B value add).
    • wpietri 9y ago
      Huh. Even if there's a power law distribution, I don't think that explains more than half being negative. And even if it did, you're only taking the perspective of investors of the acquirer. From many other perspectives, like that of founders, employees, and customers, those numbers are exactly as bad as they look. As an aside, I think it's egregious to credit NeXT with 600B value add. What they actually bought, aside from making Jobs feel successful, was a decent replacement for their desktop OS. So you can possibly credit the Mac sales from circa 2000 on. But the iPod had nothing to do with NeXT. iOS had a little to do with NeXT, but not a ton. If they had bought BeOS, I don't think the path would have been materially different.
• rhizome 9y ago
  History tells us that acquisitions are almost always bad for the acquired company.
  • cannonedhamster 9y ago
    Not to say anything of the customers of the acquired company. Most Humble customers are now the product and not the customer when dealing with a media conglomerate.
• shmerl 9y ago
  Many old media companies have a bad reputation attached to them. Support for corrupt schemes like DRM and copyright driven censorship, undemocratic policy making and etc. So such reaction is understandable. I can't say anything about IGN though, I'm not familiar with them at all.