There are industries where that works. In business software, that’s incredibly common, in part because people buy the same software every year, or on a subscription. So the company makes a half decent product, hires an insane amount of people to market it while firing the vast majority of the developers, sells a ton of subscriptions, then coasts for a decade or two. Any time a competitor starts forming, buy them, lay off the staff, and coast on that too.
It’s the business model of the vast majority of business to business software/service products out there.
Cool, that sounds exactly like how people want game companies to run. Just make a subscription based game, fire a bunch of people that actually made the product, and kill any innovative competition!
I do think they should actually downsize. Stop pushing out a new Assassins Creed every year or 2. Reduce the magnitude of the games a bit. First few Assassins Creeds were special. Far Cry games used to be great too. Now they just feel like a grindfest. As do the AC games.
But I don’t think Ubisoft leadership would be capable of doing it right. They’d probably just lay off everyone who actually does work, and expect a similar amount of games.
Those are good ideas, but their advisors will probably have them take out a massive loan and use it to buy another game studio, then lay off the staff at that game studio, to briefly appear profitable, before crashing into bankruptcy to be bought by Microsoft.
Good point. But that’s no reason they can’t still waste a few million dollars on an aquisition to reduce competition in case they change their minds under their next CEO.
Close another studio? Cancel some more games? That’s the best way to make more money, right? Lay everyone off and stop making products?
There are industries where that works. In business software, that’s incredibly common, in part because people buy the same software every year, or on a subscription. So the company makes a half decent product, hires an insane amount of people to market it while firing the vast majority of the developers, sells a ton of subscriptions, then coasts for a decade or two. Any time a competitor starts forming, buy them, lay off the staff, and coast on that too.
It’s the business model of the vast majority of business to business software/service products out there.
Hey! Don’t go calling Norton out like that, man
Norton may have pioneered the technique, but Intuit perfected it.
I’m glad to say I’ve never had dealings with Intuit by that measure then.
Cool, that sounds exactly like how people want game companies to run. Just make a subscription based game, fire a bunch of people that actually made the product, and kill any innovative competition!
Doesn’t sound fucking deplorable at all.
I do think they should actually downsize. Stop pushing out a new Assassins Creed every year or 2. Reduce the magnitude of the games a bit. First few Assassins Creeds were special. Far Cry games used to be great too. Now they just feel like a grindfest. As do the AC games.
But I don’t think Ubisoft leadership would be capable of doing it right. They’d probably just lay off everyone who actually does work, and expect a similar amount of games.
This is why the reform needs to start at the top. Ubisoft is doomed until the leeches are gone.
Release a new Splinter Cell game!
Those are good ideas, but their advisors will probably have them take out a massive loan and use it to buy another game studio, then lay off the staff at that game studio, to briefly appear profitable, before crashing into bankruptcy to be bought by Microsoft.
Only MicroSlop is out of gaming and into something else these days.
Good point. But that’s no reason they can’t still waste a few million dollars on an aquisition to reduce competition in case they change their minds under their next CEO.
Could try pachinko like konami
More microtransactions into the slop they are putting out soon.
Sadly it usually does result in a stock price increase, because less expenses