My gut reaction any time a beloved company/product is bought by a “big” or “old” company, particularly in gaming or media or tech, is “oh no, they sold out” or “uh oh, that’s the beginning of the end.” This type of reaction seems to be the dominant “hot take” in online communities as well. I don’t think this is necessarily a reasonable reflex, but I confess I feel it here, even when the buyer (IGN) is a company I trusted and enjoyed for many years for video game reviews and news (in this case, from about 2002-2012).
I welcome interesting arguments for why my reaction is inappropriate, or for that matter, appropriate. It’s pretty easy to enumerate acquisitions that went well and others that went poorly, but I certainly wouldn’t claim to have sufficient data to make a reasoned prediction about how this will go.
The humble bundle concept sold out a long time ago. The first incarnation was "The Humble Indie Bundle" - which raised an unexpectedly large amount of money for independent game developers (in a time long before 'indie games' was a valid genre).
After seeing that this was a successful formula, they went on to raise funding in 2011 and pushed for larger publishers / developers to target with their acquired audience of heavily engaged gaming fans (mostly indie people). There was quite a strong note of sourness at the commercial interests being spun out of what was originally a charity + grassroots initiative.
Now, as many other people have mentioned in this thread, they've largely fallen into another same again steam sale outlet.
My attitude is more of indifference - they sold out long before being acquired by some big old company. I feel they put too much emphasis on aggressively acquiring new sales at the expense of their old customers.
> Now, as many other people have mentioned in this thread, they've largely fallen into another same again steam sale outlet.
Except that a large chunk of the proceeds still go to charities. That's always been a selling point to me. Whether the games are indie games or older games, knowing that some of the funds are going to a charity is a large incentive for me.
Same. I like that I can buy more video games I don't need and not feel bad about it because I'm helping prevent malaria.
(This is also why the Humble Monthly Bundle is disappointing. Only 5% going to charity is pretty weak. Compared to the 100% you can do with regular Humble Bundles, at least.)
That's quite different than the idea that 2010, when Humble Bundle launched, was 'long before indie games were a valid genre'. Braid was a giant hit on XBLA in 2008, the very existence of a platform like XBLA from a major publisher suggests Humble Bundle didn't have much to do with creating or validating this market. It's certainly become a substantial player in it.
Braid was never marketed as an "indie game". Outside of tigsource and the IGF, "indie games" as a category didn't really take until a few years later (with things like Super Meat Boy and it's inclusion in 'Indie Game : The Movie'). The term was largely unknown until 2010 or so
That graph doesn't show what you think it shows. Google has a topic for this (which would be odd, if it was unknown in 2010) and if the trend graph measured how well something is known (which it doesn't) then 'Indy Game' as a topic was about as 'unknown' in the US this July as it was in February 2008. Which is obviously silly.
Braid was one of the three games included in "Indie Game: The Movie." What exactly would Jonathan Blow have needed to do to "market it as an indie", giant glowing arrows on the title screen saying "this is an indie"?
Most gamers distinguish games made by a small indie team and those made by Ubisoft, THQ, etc. Had the Ubisoft bundle been Humble Bundle's first ever bundle, they would have came across as a very different organization.
The Humble Indie Bundle also once only included cross-platform (Windows, Mac, and Linux) and DRM-free games. It was a huge impetus for a lot of Linux ports of indie games.
I don't really see the need for 'indie' to be a brand qualifier since most games nowadays due to mobile have sub-aaa production values anyway. It's cool to have a few guys in a garage hitting it big, but the production methodology or distribution does not engage me. FTL and Witcher are very different sort of entertainment and I like them both.
Not to mention Humble Indie Bundle is only one "bundle" that Humble offers. They also do Humble book bundles, comic bundles, big publisher bundles, textbook bundles, PC software bundles, etc.
Eh, sure, but for me the appeal early-on was I could discover a lot of quirky, well-curated indie titles for a crazy cheap amount of money, including some that didn't have any marketing budget but were remarkably good to play. It was exciting. Then big publisher sales entered the fray and it felt less about discovery and more about an opportunity to buy more formulaic games that were well past their prime for crazy cheap prices. It was just another sale.
Years ago in the Economist I read about a study that has stuck with me since. According to a study of public company mergers, "Only a disappointing 17% of mergers had added value to the combined company, 30% produced no discernible difference and as many as 53% actually destroyed shareholder value." [1]
That certainly matches my impression. My subjective opinion through friends is that acquiring companies rarely fully understand what they've bought, and pretty regularly kill what makes the acquired company special. Not on purpose, really. I imagine an enthusiastic cartoon monster running around trying to hug people it takes a fancy to. Some it squishes to jelly, some merely end up bruised, and some it neglects or drops when its whims turn elsewhere.
That's not as bad as it sounds. You would expect acquisition outcomes have a power law distribution. For well run companies, their top acquisition usually adds more value than the total spent on all acquisitions (like Google's acquisition of Doubleclick, ~100B value add) and, for an industry as a whole, the top acquisition should just about cover the entire industry spending on acquisitions (like Apple's acquisition of NeXT, ~600B value add).
Huh. Even if there's a power law distribution, I don't think that explains more than half being negative.
And even if it did, you're only taking the perspective of investors of the acquirer. From many other perspectives, like that of founders, employees, and customers, those numbers are exactly as bad as they look.
As an aside, I think it's egregious to credit NeXT with 600B value add. What they actually bought, aside from making Jobs feel successful, was a decent replacement for their desktop OS. So you can possibly credit the Mac sales from circa 2000 on. But the iPod had nothing to do with NeXT. iOS had a little to do with NeXT, but not a ton. If they had bought BeOS, I don't think the path would have been materially different.
The monster imagery made my day, and yeah, it would match pretty well my own impression of many acquiring companies. I doubt Yahoo fully understood Tumblr for example, and even after promising not to ruin it, weren’t able to help themselves from giving it a damn good bruising
Companies often acquire other companies for the purpose of running them into the ground. They take a few of the best workers and assets,kick everyone else out, move the office, and it's almost as if the company never existed in the first place. It's the purchasing company that sets the rules, and they typically want their acquisition to assimilate into the borg collective. There would probably be a very different outcome is Humble Bundle bought IGN.
I don’t think I would call it the “purpose” of an acquisition. “Intent,” perhaps, or “acceptable worst-case scenario,” but not “purpose,” unless of course the purpose was merely to eliminate a future competitive threat (which seems doubtful in this case).
Say you know a farmer who you think has land and equipment worth $1 000 000 on the secondary market, he only clears enough to cover his operating expenses every year, and he's willing to sell the whole thing for $500 000 (maybe he doesn't know what he has). You'd absolutely buy with the intention of liquidating and it'd have nothing to do with "competitive threat".
Markets are "efficient". If one entity is not using a resource in the most efficient way, there is a chance for someone to buy them out. It's another form of arbitrage.
It's important to understand the "efficiency" here, though. Companies that operate ethically and provide actual value to customers are not usually at the peak of efficiency. A farmer from your example might be only breaking even because he farms sustainably, making sure not to diminish the fertility of the soil. A more efficient buyer would instead extract all the value from the soil and then sell it off as construction ground.
Similarly, in the realm of Internet businesses, a business that employs massive tracking, shady advertisement and plethora of dishonest and anticonsumer practices will be more efficient at exploiting the market than the one which does not.
Which is to say, peak market efficiency is not always something good to have.
I’m not sure how appropriate that analogy is. Why would the farmer be so off on his estimate of the value of his farm? That seems unlikely, unless the buyer has some ability to re-sell that the farmer lacks, or an emergency situation where the farmer needs to liquidate very quickly and can’t afford researching or looking for competing buy offers.
The gaming industry is replete with examples of original creative studios with blockbuster IPs being bought up by the likes of EA and Ubisoft and being shutdown a year later. Or worse they buy a studio and milk its franchise dry without taking any of the same risks and innovations that made the original franchise a success in the first place. In many cases the original staff of the studio are laid off or are merged in to the larger sweatshops which the gaming industry is notorious for. In fact here's a list of studios axed by EA.
https://kotaku.com/an-updated-list-of-studios-ea-has-bought-...
So if you were wondering why you dont see a new Command and Conqueror or Wing commander game, now you know why.
I share the same reaction. I can think of many examples in which a company that made something I cared about got acquired and the product got ruined. Pretty much the only counter example I can come up with right now are Disney's acquisitions of Marvel and Star Wars.
That’s a decent counterexample, although in my opinion Disney didn’t look at all out of touch with consumers just before their 2009 acquisition of Marvel or their 2012 acquisition of Lucasfilm (Star Wars and Indiana Jones). Oh, and don’t forget Disney’s 2006 acquisition of Pixar, who has continued to do quite well commercially, critically, and in my humble opinion.
My gut reaction would have been far worse if a brand with very negative consumer connotations (like Comcast) had acquired Marvel or Lucasfilm or Pixar. Let’s be real, DreamWorks hasn’t made anything as wonderful as How to Train Your Dragon since their 2016 acquisition by NBCUniversal (owned by Comcast). ;)
IMO, Dreamworks always seemed like Burger King to Pixar's McDonalds. They made some good films, but they always seemed a little more "gimmicky" (not quite the word I'm looking for, but it'll have to do) compared to Pixar's best films.
The 2000s were definitely Pixar's golden age. They made great films before then (e.g. Toy Story), and they've made great films since then (e.g. Inside Out), but the 2000s were an incredible run of very original stories executed impeccably.
Interestingly, of the Toy Story series, Toy Story 3[1] is considered by many to be the best of them (and one of the best Pixar movies overall as well). Sequels can be done well, even if they often aren't.
1: Just thinking about the ending now is making me tear up a little. I think the older you are, the more aspects of your life it will likely relate to.
It may not be perfect, but Trollhunters on Netflix is “okay” at the least. My five year old likes it and it doesn’t make me constantly cringe like their recent movies so I’d say they still have hope yet.
I think Amazon has done a fairly good job with Twitch. Adding features and such. Maybe it’s because there really isn’t another big competitor to twitch right now so nobody jumped ship when it was acquired.
On the other hand, Amazon's acquisition of Comixology has been awful, as the first thing they did was go out of their way to make it harder for you to buy comics on an Android device.
They could be, but a) YouTube hasn't been doing much to market its live streaming services to Twitch's audience, and b) Twitch does a way, WAY better job of allowing streamers to make money than YT does. YT has been demonetizing videos at the drop of a hat, much to many creators' frustration, without providing any tools for creators to make alternative revenue, including locking down the ability to link to Patreon unless you already have a very established channel.
Compare that to Twich, which has multiple ways to support streamers right in-app and available to even pretty low-viewership streamers.
Good points. I don’t have a good idea of how Twitch streamers make money now, but my impression is that it’s mostly through subscriptions (through Twitch) and donations (not through Twitch). Even back 5 years ago streamers talked about how most of their audience (being tech-savvy) used Adblock, and I suspect that situation hasn’t gotten any better. Is Twitch making most of its money from cuts of subscriptions?
I don't think the HN community would agree with the Facebook / Whatsapp acquisition.
Going from a payable service at exceptional value, to what is now which is a free service at the cost of your meta data collection and Facebooks general business practice, have not been a positive benefit to WhatsApp viabilty or presence.
Improved? In ways directly beneficial to their customers? I think those companies have been able to make a lot of money, but they haven't improved in any way that I care about.
I think it's fair to assume it's "not a lot" because they weren't attempting to create an exhaustive list of mutually beneficial mergers and acquisitions.
I generally disagree with the gaming community Zeitgeist, but this reaction seems fair.
Gaming is a cynical industry full of talented idealusts, much like music and film... But even worse because they innovate a lot harder and faster on business models, to the detriment of the consumer.
Consumers are right to be concerned, it's born out many times how idealistic creative small companies get absorbed into huge cynical businesses that are focused on extracting the maximum value from the asset, and the customers lose out.
Didn't Humble Bundle essentially sell out long ago? They just sell indie games in bulk, and generally the stuff on offer these days is nothing special.
Their main things has always been the charity aspect of their work. The folks obsessed with the idea they exist for Linux games or whatever seem to miss that point.
Well I think they did at a time exist for Linux ports and I think they were somewhat successful in causing the industry to often support Linux. In that respect, by creating the expectation that game devs should offer linux ports, they have been a success. Sometimes it takes someone to blaze the path.
I couldn’t say. I haven’t followed them for at least a couple of years. I seem to remember them branching out into other digital media like books and music. I still admire their ideas (although I’m not sure if they’re still in place), like adjustable payments, charity contributions, DRM-free (or even open source) games, and games supporting Linux and OS X. I’ve been away from the gaming scene for several years, so I’ll admit to being very out of the loop.
They have in the last bit here (don't quote me on an exact time frame) stopped caring about Linux/osx support and frequently offered things that are only playable through steam.
I mean like I said elsewhere, I still shop there because: why not, if it's cheaper; they don't have any noticable mission statement anymore though.
>They have in the last bit here (don't quote me on an exact time frame) stopped caring about Linux/osx support and frequently offered things that are only playable through steam.
The Humble Indie Bundles still focus on things supporting Linux, every game in the one earlier this year was available there. At some point they decided that was only a focus for the "Indie" bundles though.
Most of their games are not DRM free, and haven't been for a long time. Almost everything they sell these days is Steam-only. You're better off shopping at GOG if you care about DRM-free.
Many old media companies have a bad reputation attached to them. Support for corrupt schemes like DRM and copyright driven censorship, undemocratic policy making and etc. So such reaction is understandable. I can't say anything about IGN though, I'm not familiar with them at all.
Not to say anything of the customers of the acquired company. Most Humble customers are now the product and not the customer when dealing with a media conglomerate.
No they aren't. Optimizing for something other than profit isn't a crime.
Secondly, there are all kinds of corporations. Basically, what matters is the corporate charter and what promises the board and executives make to shareholders. As long as they act in accordance with their charter and the guidance they give to investors, they are fine.
For what it's worth, I liked your meta comment. I had the exact same reaction ("oh they sold out") but once I read your comment I realised I had nothing to back up that feeling. A person being up front about their own ignorance is refreshing, especially on HN when everyone is so sure about everything.
I appreciate it. I try to remember to follow up every opinion with a disclaimer and a challenge: this opinion is loosely held, so please change my opinion with logic or data or alternate interpretations!
I think his comment was fine and by the looks of things a few others feel it was fine too. The purpose of the comment section is discussion. Interesting meta discussion is discussion and still in some way relevant. Some of the best threads have evolved into meta discussions or taken things to a higher level.
Thanks! I didn’t even intend to have what I would call a “meta discussion.” I intended to express my opinion, but with a disclaimer that I recognize my opinion to be a gut reaction and that my mind is open.
With respect: given the way that HN works (and that's not bullshitting--you've been here even longer than me!), I think that any discussion that is remotely interesting or useful (or both) will be a "meta discussion". There is not much to say textually given the way current politics or belief systems are structured. There's no oatmeal-middle statement that actually means anything. And, to that end, I would not run away from the "meta discussion" as the original poster who led to it.
I intended to spark a discussion about the expectations of this acquisition, rather than a discussion about the way we and our online communities react to news like this. Of course, this very comment clearly counts as both “meta discussion” and “meta meta discussion.” :)
But you get what I mean, yeah? Like, nobody has any interest in "the merits of the acquisition". It's all feels-based. It's whether you like conglomeration or not. (Spoilers: I don't, don't, don't!) To that end, your original question would totally sprout up the discussion it did. It couldn't not.
I wouldn’t say I’m inherently against conglomeration, except that that word has negative connotations. I have certainly at times been excited about companies I like getting acquired by other bigger companies I like, simply because of the vast resources that can be made available to the smaller company.
I think it's a useful discussion to be had. I think where you have put forward your feelings, there will be 10 or 20 more that don't feel they can for the same reason.
Acquisitions are a genuine thing to fear when it's a service you know and love. I'd say the gut reaction is natural. I don't think this is a case of aquire the talent and dump the service, the worst possibility for service users, but there's always a risk Humble Bundle won't be the same due to corporate demands and undisclosed strategy behind it.
I welcome interesting arguments for why my reaction is inappropriate, or for that matter, appropriate. It’s pretty easy to enumerate acquisitions that went well and others that went poorly, but I certainly wouldn’t claim to have sufficient data to make a reasoned prediction about how this will go.