4 ms·
This is hilarious and rather sad. How did Annapurna fumble such famous talent so bad?
by darby_nine 2y ago
This is hilarious and rather sad. How did Annapurna fumble such famous talent so bad?
- NotGMan 2y agoProbably through "line must always go up" mentality. Creative business, especially games, should really not be publicly traded or thought of as having major returns on investments. It might work on start, but sooner or later the "current hit game" will fade out of popularity and then people will get fired and crunch will become the norm etc... in order to satisfy the "line must go up" mentality, but since game dev is a hit driven business that clashes with the "Line must go up" concept at its core since, being a hit driven business, means that it's totaly unpredictable.
- thih9 2y agoDo we have any source or other data indicating that this happened here?
- darby_nine 2y agoIs this not the legally obligated line of thinking for american companies? You have some leeway to argue with only providing value to shareholders in some specific manner, but not much.
- shakiXBT 2y agoMost companies try to operate at a profit and actually increase those profits over time. That said, reasoning that Annapurna failed only because of that requires some impressive mental gymnastics
- jfengel 2y ago"Value" is whatever shareholders want it to be. In the case of a public company that is assumed to be profit, because the shareholders are a vast and ever changing group. Annapurna isn't public, so it serves whatever the private owners want. Even in a publicly traded stock, the company charter can specify something other than profit. The shareholders know that when they buy stock. In other words there is more leeway than we commonly give credit. The notion of a fiduciary duty to be greedy is pushed by psychopathic CEOs but isn't really what the law says.
- Beretta_Vexee 2y agoThe video game business is very similar to the film or literary publishing business. You need to publish ten novels for one to do well enough financially to pay off the others. Nobody really knows why that one worked. It's possible to do a few sequels, but the formula quickly becomes boring. No one can guarantee the commercial success of a novel, film or video game.
- ethbr1 2y agoThat's why equity investment in creative endeavors is an entire class of business. Possible to risk-balance adjustment, similar to anything else.
- flohofwoe 2y agoIt sounds like a good decision by the team tbh. Blurring the lines by 'integrating' functioning teams into a bigger entity which does completely unrelated things (TV, film and theater) never goes well. The team will most likely found their independent 'spin-off' company as they had planned already, no talent or knowledge is lost, only risk is financing for new projects.
- darby_nine 2y agoIt seems like all their other IP is derived from the game IPs, so I'm a little confused how this leaves Annapurna in a better position.
- crooked-v 2y agoIt doesn't. It's the people who actually did all the work who are benefiting, not the corporate entity. The coordinated mass resignations make it obvious that the former management is ready to immediately start up their own company in the office next door and hire on everyone who just quit Annapurna.
- tako 2y agoDr Dr
- darby_nine 2y agoAh yes you're correct, I misread the above comment.
- schlauerfox 2y agoAnd that's why you don't sign non-competes and they should be illegal to protect those with no leverage.
- wooger 2y agoClearly not accurate, they've produced quite a few famous and acclaimed films based on original ideas, Philip K Dick novels & real life events.