726
submitted 10 months ago by simple@lemm.ee to c/games@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 186 points 10 months ago

Larian Studios does technically have a single shareholder in Tencent—which owns around 30% of the company. However, an important piece of context is that Tencent appears to own what's called a "preference" share, meaning that Tencent doesn't have voting rights when it comes to Larian's decision making. The rest of the company belongs to CEO and Founder Swen Vincke and his wife.

Interesting, did not know that.

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

This is great but my fear is that one day he will go public and not share the profits with the employees. I worked at a company like that. Said they would never sell until they did for a record amount that they didn't really share with the employees.

[-] pantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 10 months ago

The US needs more mutual companies in general but it could work for a gaming company too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 67 points 10 months ago

You know, they got a point. You gotta believe in the project, and when you do it properly, you will make the money back, and much more.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago

Okay, but where's that money coming from? Someone has to upfront pay for things. Larian are lucky, they have a majory investor that was not looking for any control, they released in early access and had runway money from previous projects to go with. They are the exception, not the rule, unfortunately.

Publishers no longer publish third parties for the most part, so everyone who isn't a subsidiary of a large company has to find funding somewhere.

[-] Enoril@jlai.lu 36 points 10 months ago

From me for example. I follow this studio and team since many years and i've participated to the funding of Divinity: Original Sin (DOS) more than a decade ago...

They got money from several sources but mainly because (or i should say thanks to) they delivered good products, they have being able to survive and work on BG3. Luck is not the reason, they've worked hard to achieve that...

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

They have, I've been playing their games from their first divine divinity game. But they are still in a lucky situation, privileged from the reality that everyone else has to go through.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Indy studios exist and some self fund. They're not going to be releasing AAA games, but they're not expected to.

But yes, if you want to create the game equivalent of an MCU film, you need significant starting capital.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 10 points 10 months ago

You want tell me that to run a good business, one has to be able to negotiate preferable terms with investors?

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

If the implication is that they should be negotiating better terms. Well, good luck with that. I've been a part of many teams involved with investor negotiations. You need their money a hell of a lot more than they need your teams risk.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago

I don't say it's easy. But if you want to make a good creative product you have to be able to keep the creative control, that is part of your job and what makes realization of creative ideas, especially on big scale, more difficult. It's the same with other creative media like movies.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I'm saying it's not just "not easy", it's impossible unless you are an already established entity that has some cards to hold in negotiations.

Put yourself in the position of a new company, you've a great idea, a great team. How are you going to fund development in 2024?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] bozo@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Building games that are actually fun is going to make you the most money, that's it.

Say it louder for the publishers in the back.

It's infuriating how game design is devolving into engagement treadmills instead of simply being fun, concise experiences. The industry needs more Hi-Fi Rushes and less Suicide Squads.

[-] flumph@programming.dev 6 points 10 months ago

Also, does the point of creating a game have to be making the "most" money? Isn't it enough to make something awesome and a profit?

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago

I don't really enjoy their games, but I love them as a studio

[-] Flumpkin@slrpnk.net 26 points 10 months ago

The problem is publishers and the huge risk you're selling to create a hit. You still have shareholders. Those who take the risk in financing a game development and those who own the IP.

Unless you got extremely lucky and can gamble with your own cash you always have shareholders in game development.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
726 points (98.9% liked)

Games

32980 readers
1036 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS