Ubisoft revenues decline 31.4% to €990m
Ubisoft revenues decline 31.4% to €990m
www.gamesindustry.biz
Ubisoft revenues decline 31.4% to €990m
You're viewing a single thread.
33 comments
-
It turns out consumers aren't totally mindless drones that just buy whatever you publish because you're Ubisoft, Ubisoft.
I swear they've been incredibly cocky in recent years while simultaneously producing bad games, and broadcasting their stagnation and unwillingness to take risks on anything that isn't a new revenue stream (as if being formulaic profit hounds is a strength).
I swear MBAs ruin everything. Infinite growth is a horrible horrible idea. I wish we could break out of this cycle of every big company trying to market themselves as the company that cracked the code on the infinite money glitch. The code is ... make a good product and be decent to your customers; it's an ancient code, and it's so annoying that so many C-suite folks can't see it.
-
I think about this post from last year a lot:
Navok noted that if a game costs $100 million to make over five years, it has to beat what the company could have returned investing a similar amount in the stock market over the same period.
-
... If he wants to be a hedge fund exec, he should just go do that. The point of a business, contrary to the Chicago School MBA nonsense, is not to generate profit. It is to make a good or service that would otherwise be impractical for an individual, in a financially sustainable manner.
-
Most investors are going to care about what kind of return they're making. It's the capital they provide that pays the paychecks.
If you want to do volunteer work on video games -- I have -- then that's not an issue. But typically games are made by paid workers, and those workers won't work without their paychecks. So they're going to need to attract investors.
-
Most investors are going to care about what kind of return they're making. It's the capital they provide that pays the paychecks.
Maybe that's the problem. Valve did pretty well for themselves, even before steam, without putting investors in charge of their direction.
If you want to do volunteer work on video games -- I have -- then that's not an issue.
I have indeed worked on my own and others projects without financial gain but that's orthogonal to my point.
But typically games are made by paid workers, and those workers won't work without their paychecks.
The games industry is full of chronically under-compensated workers. Again, nowhere did I advocate for people to work for free for commercial enterprises or anything of the like.
So they're going to need to attract investors.
That's a pretty good example of the False Dichotomy fallacy. There are numerous alternatives that don't involve prioritizing profit over the product or service that a business produces.
-
I get that when you spending 100m+ on game development, but a game needs to have actual value to the consumer, it has to be entertainment, and entertainment is art.
Very few things of all forms of entertainment cross the rubicon into beloved status that aren't obvious works of love and talent.
Turing out utter dross that has the same consistency as uncooked pink slime, and you can not expect to sell with any sort of long tail or expect repeat sales.
Sure, you can get away with a cheap cash grab once, may be twice, but over and over? Most people aren't that dumb
-
I get that when you spending 100m+ on game development, but a game needs to have actual value to the consumer, it has to be entertainment, and entertainment is art.
A side point on this: maybe some accounting transparency would help too. We know that that $100M+ isn't going to the developers as they are some of the most underpaid tech workers. How much of a given game's budget is actually going to compensate those directly contributing to it vs administration/execs?
-
-
-
-
Thinking about that quote, it sounds nonsensical
At the outset, all businesses seek to grow faster than the average/stock market. Five years later, half will do better than average, and half will do worse than average.
Saying that the half that did worse should have instead invested into the market, five years ago, is kind of meaningless.
-
What makes it make even less sense is imagine they could magically somehow have invested instead of creating something. Fast forward a few cycles of businesses swapping over from not beating the average and instead of actually creating anything, everybody is only investing. Except, none of them are actually creating anything.
-
-
-
33 comments