It shouldn't be allowed to buy up studios left and right if you close them down by the dozens.
Every day steam gets 80+ new gamesI need to know what games were cancelled.
74.
SEVENTY FOUR.
Love or hate her, but Steph did a great video on this two months ago.
Yeah, it literally reminds me of Quake 3 "IMPRESSIVE" when on a kill streak.Not even EA has such an impressive kill count.
They can sell IPs they own. I would love to see a list of cancelled games and IPs they gobbled up.If IPs die with this can they ever be resurrected or bought or what happens in those situations?
They didn't try to do shit. It would seem their only plan was to acquire IP and somehow leverage that, later on down the line. I don't see any other reason for their buying spree, other than that.Embracer tried to extend the industry but ended up extinguishing.
Many of these studios would have closed on their own in that same time period (if not sooner.)
That there was a central holding company which they were all gathered under lets us have one great big villain to hate in the public square. (In fact, a good number of these developers were already bought up or aligned with companies before their parent company got picked up by this even bigger conglomerate.) The alternative would have just been a quiet autumn of game companies dying and blowing away as dust in the business world wind, and most of these deaths would have never been noticed.
Me too - is there a resource somewhere that would show? Great ideaThey can sell IPs they own. I would love to see a list of cancelled games and IPs they gobbled up.
Many of these studios would have closed on their own in that same time period (if not sooner.)
That there was a central holding company which they were all gathered under lets us have one great big villain to hate in the public square. (In fact, a good number of these developers were already bought up or aligned with companies before their parent company got picked up by this even bigger conglomerate.) The alternative would have just been a quiet autumn of game companies dying and blowing away as dust in the business world wind, and most of these deaths would have never been noticed.
It's cathartic and sometimes fun to hate on Embracer's failure (there are certainly many titles in their catalog I worry about or rue their cancelation,) but Embracer was a certain type of game development factory business which doesn't much exist anymore. Look at the output of most other major publishers and look at the difference in how many titles they produce now versus 10 years ago; then look at the size of the Embracer / THQ Nordic catalog in that same time period. If it had gotten its desperately-needed cash infusion and avoided the tech collapse, (although that seems highly unlikely even if the money had come through; the business still needs to run, and the global economy was going the wrong way,) its survival and output would have been good for mainstream games. They don't make the best product, but they make a lot of it, in genres which have been forgotten by the billion-seeking core publishers. Or at least, they used to.
4) Pay yourself a hefty bonus1) Buy a ton of studios
2) Mismanage them
3) Close studios and fire thousands of people
The CEO was trying to pull a scam
and get Saudi money by massively inflating the balance sheet. Saudis figured it out and backed off.
Is that really the only reason?
If you look at Embracer's catalogue, there are a lot of games / IPs whose latest spin-offs just weren't that great. So I'm not surprised if they weren't the big hit.
Scam or not, Embracer with a million studios and products tried to replicate what giant consumer good companies achieve. Shitloads of employees, brands and products. You can have a lot of dogs, but as long as the other million products sell decently, it's pretty hard to fuck it all up. That's why most of these big companies always make money and pay a dividend to boot because the cashflow and profits they get are steady. You can have entire floor of employees turnover year after year and it may not even make a difference. The products sell themselves for 5, 10 or 20 years. They sell essential kinds of products, most are cheap, and steady sellers.Many of these studios would have closed on their own in that same time period (if not sooner.)
That there was a central holding company which they were all gathered under lets us have one great big villain to hate in the public square. (In fact, a good number of these developers were already bought up or aligned with companies before their parent company got picked up by this even bigger conglomerate.) The alternative would have just been a quiet autumn of game companies dying and blowing away as dust in the business world wind, and most of these deaths would have never been noticed.
It's cathartic and sometimes fun to hate on Embracer's failure (there are certainly many titles in their catalog I worry about or rue their cancelation,) but Embracer was a certain type of game development factory business which doesn't much exist anymore. Look at the output of most other major publishers and look at the difference in how many titles they produce now versus 10 years ago; then look at the size of the Embracer / THQ Nordic catalog in that same time period. If it had gotten its desperately-needed cash infusion and avoided the tech collapse, (although that seems highly unlikely even if the money had come through; the business still needs to run, and the global economy was going the wrong way,) its survival and output would have been good for mainstream games. They don't make the best product, but they make a lot of it, in genres which have been forgotten by the billion-seeking core publishers. Or at least, they used to.