this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
71 points (98.6% liked)

Games

16737 readers
579 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. 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:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 51 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Well, Ubi is piece of shit nowadays, so it wouldn't be such a loss in this regard. But hell, no more monopoly pls, tencent is huge enough already...

[–] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Taking it private just means taking it off the stock market (the news of it possibly going private has already cause the share price to spike).

Honestly, public trading of games companies sucks anyway and is what drives all the shit you see from the likes of EA, Take Two, Roblox etc.

Under private control, and less drive to bleed every drop of value out of every property might mean we can get classics like Beyond Good and Evil again.

[–] wrekone@lemmyf.uk 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My personal experience with buyouts from private equity investors is that they will milk every single cent out of the company as they crush its soul. They're looking to make a huge profit, relatively quickly. Yes, the stock market is also looking to profit, and big share-holders have a lot of sway, but publicly traded companies don't have to answer to a small number of ultra wealthy puppeteers in quite the same way private equity held companies do. Also, there are certain employee protections, particularly around layoffs, that apply to publicly traded companies but don't apply to privately held companies. This seems to be one of the key strategies in the PE playbook:

  1. Buy the company / take it private
  2. Slash costs everywhere, including yearly layoffs.
  3. Push the remaining employees to adopt a "lean" or "customer first" mindset, which really means "do more work, faster, for less reward".
  4. Profit?

As much as I dislike Ubisoft, I don't dislike anyone enough to wish that process upon them.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ding ding ding. People hear "going private" and think "mom 'n pop shop". But PE firms are vultures. Actually no, that's mean to vultures.

How Private Equity Consumed America - Wendover Productions

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It always amuses me when a certain type of person hears "private company" and thinks that means "better than public"

Like the concentration of wealth makes it more moral or intelligent.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Well "Going private" doesn't mean anything. It can mean PE. It can mean "traditional" personal/family ownership (e.g. Musk with Twitter). It can also mean moving to a co-op model (theoretically I don't think anything stops a bankrupt publicly-traded company being bought by its workers). "Private" doesn't sit anywhere on the political spectrum; even Marxists can generally agree that co-operatives are in principle better than publicly-traded companies.

Unfortunately PE firms are usually the ones who win the bid when a company "goes private" because the PE business model is driven by speculation and leveraged buyouts, and (at least in the US) supported by advantageous tax rates. Even from a purely capitalist perspective it's an objective failure that harms the macro-economy. It's not even capitalism anymore; it's oligarchic.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)