Sweet Baby Inc. and the Steam Curator Group Conspiracy - The company that is responsible for the diarrheic video game writing.

[Milkshake Sniffer]

View attachment 6476221
So, the concept of malinvestment seems to have been left out of Ahmad's economic education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malinvestment

What this means is that investors, in this case investors who had a lot of pro-woke bias, had a lot of cheap money to invest all over the place. It was so much money that they didn't vet their investments very well. Recently, the money supply tightened, so they can't just throw more cheap money at bad investments and the investments they do have which are failing has turned into a big problem for the gaming industry.

It didn't have to be woke it could have been any number of bad trends that attracted this malinvestment. However, in this case it was the woke stuff that got the investment dollars. Woke, however, had the advantage of pro-woke evangelists talking up the investments. Also, the pro-woke people are still in place at the investment firms, they just have less money to invest and have to worry more about projects being profitable.

It's worse than that. Ahmed throws in "capital owners" just like all the muh capitalism 'tards. Capital owners are not making those decisions. When Disney, Sony, Blackrock and all the others make those decisions it's senior officers of the company and board members making decisions about other people's money (capital), whether shareholders or investors in funds and pensions. The poor smucks who actually own the capital have no say in the matter. In theory the decision makers have their fiduciary duty to the actual owners/investors but that's rarely enforced.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

In theory the decision makers have their fiduciary duty to the actual owners/investors but that's rarely enforced.

In practice the decision makers have their fiduciary duty to the government
And you can make the logical argument that the government surely acts like the actual owner
If 100% of your labor involuntary going to someone else is slavery, at what percentage does it stop being slavery?

 

[KissMyTaint]

they just have less money to invest and have to worry more about projects being profitable.

So in other words they can no longer afford to fuck up royally with every project (i.e. Concord) with what small bit of money they have?

 

[Judge Dredd]

So in other words they can no longer afford to fuck up royally with every project (i.e. Concord) with what small bit of money they have?

Yes, but the part he was getting at (I think) is the reason why they only have a "small bit of money", while the last decade they seemed to have infinite money.

To over simplify it, they relied on "free money" from various places. The "free money" pool has dried up. Not only that, they have spent a bunch of money expecting the "free money" to be there to cover the cost, but it's not. So now they have a bunch of expensive projects in the works and no way to pay for it.

 

[Mr Processor]

Yes, but the part he was getting at (I think) is the reason why they only have a "small bit of money", while the last decade they seemed to have infinite money.

To over simplify it, they relied on "free money" from various places. The "free money" pool has dried up. Not only that, they have spent a bunch of money expecting the "free money" to be there to cover the cost, but it's not. So now they have a bunch of expensive projects in the works and no way to pay for it.

Yes, in the past the way I've phrased it is, "Companies are treating investment money like it is income or profits," though that was back during the dotcom boom. Eventually investors are going to want some kind of return on investments.

 

[TrainWreckWatcher]

Yes, but the part he was getting at (I think) is the reason why they only have a "small bit of money", while the last decade they seemed to have infinite money.

To over simplify it, they relied on "free money" from various places. The "free money" pool has dried up. Not only that, they have spent a bunch of money expecting the "free money" to be there to cover the cost, but it's not. So now they have a bunch of expensive projects in the works and no way to pay for it.

"We can no longer afford adult daycare for the nepo babies we have flooded the industry with."

 

[AnOminous]

It's not really a boycott when I haven't thought Assassin's creed has been good since like 2010 and I'm more shocked that Ubisoft still exists as a company despite the fact they only seem to put out rancid underperforming garbage.

I'm mad I never get to virtue signal by boycotting something because it seems everything made by people I hate enough to want to boycott them is such utter shit I'd never buy it in the first place.

On a tangential note, I wouldn't be surprised if this is perceived by the Japanese as American imperialism being imposed upon them yet again.

No further comment needed.

 

[Judge Dredd]

"Companies are treating investment money like it is income or profits,"

They are also spending profits before they've actually sold the thing in question. Though that could be standard and not a new thing? I'm not sure.

This is why "falling short of expectations" is so damaging. I think Red Letter Media explained it as movie studios allocating the money from movies before they hit theaters, so the next film will be in production by the time it releases and they have a constant revenue stream. It seems like AAA has picked up this habit and is why Ubisoft is bleeding out. The failure of Skull and Bones hurt Star Wars Outlaws, the failure of Outlaws is hurting AC Shadows, and the impending failure of AC Shadows might tank the company.

 

[Mr Processor]

They are also spending profits before they've actually sold the thing in question. Though that could be standard and not a new thing? I'm not sure.

This is why "falling short of expectations" is so damaging. I think Red Letter Media explained it as movie studios allocating the money from movies before they hit theaters, so the next film will be in production by the time it releases and they have a constant revenue stream. It seems like AAA has picked up this habit and is why Ubisoft is bleeding out. The failure of Skull and Bones hurt Star Wars Outlaws, the failure of Outlaws is hurting AC Shadows, and the impending failure of AC Shadows might tank the company.

With dotcoms investors would invest in a bunch of different startups because they honestly had no idea what was going to hit big. The idea was that if one of the dotcoms became a money printer it would make up for all the failed ideas. However, the dotcom bust happened because not only did a lot of the ideas fail, but a bunch of other stuff happened at the same time. For example, startup management basically spending the minimum on the projects so they could spend more on themselves. Even an actually good idea could be crippled like that. Now lets consider Ubisoft projects. What did Skull & Bones have to do with the government of Singapore?
https://geekculture.co/report-says-...t what started out as a pipe dream would soon

But what started out as a pipe dream would soon become the nightmare of developers, as Skull & Bones continues to stumble into its eighth year of development with little to show. Originally slated for launch in late 2018, the game has since undergone four delays in three years – sometime in 2019, after March 2020, before March 2020, and now March 2023 – which is already a huge, huge red flag. The worst part of this development hell? The project has to be completed, courtesy of an agreement with the Singapore government.

According to a report by Kotaku, Skull & Bones cannot be scrapped as part of a deal with the authorities. The company, in exchange for generous subsidies, is required to hit a certain hiring quota and launch original IPs in the next few years, making it imperative that the title gets shipped by hook or by crook – final look notwithstanding. The other reason can be attributed to the game’s shift to a live service approach that proves to be an important and lucrative part of Ubisoft’s portfolio in recent times.

 

[Lone Star]

No further comment needed.

Apparently more comment is needed, shitstains on X are already trying to twist this to mean that he's mad at conservatives for censoring their games. Wish I was making that up.

 

[Here to Gawk]

They will just hide it from the marketing and the early game until after you cannot refund. BRILLIANT PLAN!!! BRILLIANT I SAY!!! If you just ignore of all the flaws in it that is. The flaw that insiders/leakers exist. The flaw that such a plan prevents virtue signaling. The flaw that this tactic works at best only once. The flaw that many people wait for their favourite (possibly anti-woke) YTers to review games. AND YOU JUST KNOW THAT THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES GENIUSES FOR COMING UP WITH THAT PLAN!!!

It's impossible for them to hide it any longer. They can't hide game devs with pronouns in bio and/or danger hair. They can't hide bad casting choices. Just look at the reaction to Ghost of Yotei. Less than 24 hours after one small trailer was released, the game was already being slammed on social media based solely on their casting choice of a militant woman Leftist. You don't need to see anything else from the game—the warning signs are already there months before the game is even released.

 

[Incecticyder]

It's impossible for them to hide it any longer. They can't hide game devs with pronouns in bio and/or danger hair. They can't hide bad casting choices. Just look at the reaction to Ghost of Yotei. Less than 24 hours after one small trailer was released, the game was already being slammed on social media based solely on their casting choice of a militant woman Leftist. You don't need to see anything else from the game—the warning signs are already there months before the game is even released.

Tell that to the studios. They think their attempt to hide their wokeness is some MGS mission and think they can outsmart the public. They can, maybe for a little while but the public will just change buying habits again. Look at pre-orders trends, AC:S only had a fraction of AC:V 's pre-orders. People believed Ubisoft when they said they were making a course correction with AC:V but when that was proven a lie, AC:S' sales suffered because people felt burned by the previous game.

 

[Asian tech support]

People believed Ubisoft when they said they were making a course correction with AC:V but when that was proven a lie, AC:S' sales suffered because people felt burned by the previous game.

I feel like this has been the narrative surrounding every AC game since Syndicate, maybe even before, and the only one since then that people actually liked was Origins, despite coming out at the height of AAA's obsession with shoehorning lootboxes into everything. The thing that surprises me the most is that these games continue to be profitable, even Mirage was profitable.

 

[⋖ cørdion ⋗]

Even if Sugar Baby made every game 500x better, the general concept of hiring someone to fix your writing is nuts and reeks of insecurity. The greatest pieces of medias come from people who learned and mastered their craft not for the sake of it, but cause it was required to produce their masterpiece.

Nobody wanting to create a masterpiece would PAY someone to interfere.

 

[FedPostalService]

I feel like this has been the narrative surrounding every AC game since Syndicate, maybe even before, and the only one since then that people actually liked was Origins, despite coming out at the height of AAA's obsession with shoehorning lootboxes into everything. The thing that surprises me the most is that these games continue to be profitable, even Mirage was profitable.

I liked them up until Valhalla. I’ve completely tuned out now. That wasn’t an Assassin’s creed game. I’ve not even finished it as I hated it that much.

I might give Mirage a go in the future. I’m completely ignoring Assassin’s Creed: Afro Samurai

 

[Gamepads]

I feel like this has been the narrative surrounding every AC game since Syndicate, maybe even before, and the only one since then that people actually liked was Origins, despite coming out at the height of AAA's obsession with shoehorning lootboxes into everything. The thing that surprises me the most is that these games continue to be profitable, even Mirage was profitable.

Compared to the others, Mirage played it excessively safe, both mechanically and developmentally since it was made exclusively during covid.

Guess they really couldn't rein in that arrogance anymore for Shadows.

 

[Judge Dredd]

I feel like this has been the narrative surrounding every AC game since Syndicate, maybe even before, and the only one since then that people actually liked was Origins, despite coming out at the height of AAA's obsession with shoehorning lootboxes into everything. The thing that surprises me the most is that these games continue to be profitable, even Mirage was profitable.

I'm not sure about that. I remember Syndicate being slammed for things like having door knobs and child labour before it was a thing, and as you say no one cared.

However, AC Shadows has 7% of the pre-order numbers of Valhalla. It could even be worse depending on what you believe. Some big box retailer claimed they have 800 pre orders across the states.

And all of this assumes people are even telling the truth. Ever since this SBI drama began, Alan Wake 2 was used an example of SBI making profitable games, a narrative that only stopped when it was revealed Remedy still hasn't made enough on Alan Wake 2 to cover the costs.

 

[Asian tech support]

Compared to the others, Mirage played it excessively safe, both mechanically and developmentally since it was made exclusively during covid.

Mirage was supposed to be a grand return to traditional form and wound up being boring, empty, and mechanically inferior, or at least that's how I've seen it framed. Fuck if I'm ever going to bother playing it to find out.

I'm not sure about that. I remember Syndicate being slammed for things like having door knobs and child labour before it was a thing, and as you say no one cared.

Also have to remember Syndicate came hot off the tail of Unity which was a technical disaster and the butt of jokes for a month. This was when Ubi was pumping these out annually. At the time, people were skeptical if Origins was going to be yet another cash grab because of some pay real money to open loot crates you found in game controversy but I think that was either scrapped or overblown. It's hard to believe that happened almost a decade ago.

And all of this assumes people are even telling the truth. Ever since this SBI drama began, Alan Wake 2 was used an example of SBI making profitable games, a narrative that only stopped when it was revealed Remedy still hasn't made enough on Alan Wake 2 to cover the costs.

It blows my mind that Alan Wake 2 didn't make money. That game was plastered everywhere. I guess they took too long and it faded from the discourse despite all their games existing in the same universe.

 

[AnOminous]

It blows my mind that Alan Wake 2 didn't make money. That game was plastered everywhere. I guess they took too long and it faded from the discourse despite all their games existing in the same universe.

The fact that it was already being called "Alan Woke" before it was even released probably had something to do with it.

 

[Gamepads]

It blows my mind that Alan Wake 2 didn't make money. That game was plastered everywhere. I guess they took too long and it faded from the discourse despite all their games existing in the same universe.

On top of the development time, they put themselves in debt towards Tencent. Imagine making a AAA game, but your biggest hurdle is paying off loans.