Every article tag can be clicked to get a list of all articles in that category. Every article tag also has an RSS feed! You can customize an RSS feed too!
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

Ah yes, game industry consolidation is great isn't it. What could possibly go wrong when one company acquires a ton of others and then screws up?

Embracer Group are known for going on acquiring sprees and currently own the likes of THQ Nordic, Coffee Stain, Gearbox, Plaion (formerly Koch Media), Saber Group and all the studios they control like Flying Wild Hog, Warhorse Studios, 3D Realms, New World Interactive, Tripwire Interactive, Aspyr Media, Beamdog and the list just goes on and on and on. Their own website lists 850 IPs either owned or controlled.

Well, they're having a few problems. They announced in a previous revenue report that a "major strategic partnership that has been negotiated for seven months will not materialize", this deal included "USD 2 billion in contracted development revenue over a period of six years" - so it was a pretty huge hit to their plans.

Now less than a month later they're announcing a "comprehensive restructuring program", that will see amongst other things the closing of various currently undisclosed studios and terminating various projects. In an open letter the CEO Lars Wingefors mentioned their plan will "transform us from our current heavy-investment-mode to a highly cash-flow generative business this year".

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Misc
19 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
43 comments
Page: «3/5»
  Go to:

Mountain Man Jun 13, 2023
Sounds like one of those situations where the workers get screwed while the suits float safely to the ground on golden parachutes.
Arehandoro Jun 14, 2023
Quoting: denyasis
Quoting: Purple Library GuyFrankly, this kind of sounds like their buyouts were leveraged from the start

Well yeah, that's how, was far as I know, almost every industry works... On credit.

When I worked in construction, our company owner would joke "The entire industry would freeze if any one actually tried to collect their bills!!"

Even small business do the same. A deli owner friend of mine remarked how he didn't turn a profit for his first 5 years and how that was the average for his industry/region. That's 5 years with everything on credit and even if he did make some profit, the debt is still there.

I'm some cases, paying off debts is considered a waste of money as you get higher yields investing that money vs the savings from paying early (or at all), especially in during our past decade where interest rates were low.

Of course, that can bite people and companies when expected investments fall apart, as it seems to have done here.

Lovely capitalism.
Eike Jun 14, 2023
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: Purple Library GuyIf other people start restaurants and use debt to help finance their operations, and then I take out debt to buy some of those restaurants (along with the debt the restaurants already had), that means I'm stacking new debt on top of the old debt, but not adding any new productive activity.

I think there's a third variant: Companies aiming for world domination, that are not even trying to make profits. Uber is (was?) expanding and expanding while making billions of loss. The restaurant boss in contrast wants to make profit from the beginning, it's just not something that happens from day one. And they probably wouldn't open another restaurant before the first one works well.
Arehandoro Jun 14, 2023
Quoting: F.Ultra
Quoting: BalkanSpy"transform us from our current heavy-investment-mode to a highly cash-flow generative business this year"

Gotta love that corporate doublespeak. Which new gibberish will they invent next?

Not so sure exactly what it is here that you think sounds doublespeak? This just means that they have halted their expansion and will now concentrate on generating income instead.

They could have thought that the lack of funding, or not getting a deal, could happen and start being a highly cash-flow before that to prevent this. They could also give the middle finger to investors and say they won't be returning their money any time soon, and keep the studios and their workers. The high execs could also freeze their super high salaries for an X amount of time to palliate the problem.

But no, they directly prefer cutting costs to the expense of workers.

To me, the doublespeak is undermining the effect of these cuts on those affected, like if it was the most normal thing in the world, and the fact that they lost $2bn investment, by trying to positively say that it will allow them to be highly cash-flow generative.
Mountain Man Jun 14, 2023
Quoting: Arehandoro
Quoting: denyasis
Quoting: Purple Library GuyFrankly, this kind of sounds like their buyouts were leveraged from the start

Well yeah, that's how, was far as I know, almost every industry works... On credit.

When I worked in construction, our company owner would joke "The entire industry would freeze if any one actually tried to collect their bills!!"

Even small business do the same. A deli owner friend of mine remarked how he didn't turn a profit for his first 5 years and how that was the average for his industry/region. That's 5 years with everything on credit and even if he did make some profit, the debt is still there.

I'm some cases, paying off debts is considered a waste of money as you get higher yields investing that money vs the savings from paying early (or at all), especially in during our past decade where interest rates were low.

Of course, that can bite people and companies when expected investments fall apart, as it seems to have done here.

Lovely capitalism.

People being irresponsible with finances (and, yes, taking out huge loans that you can't easily repay is irresponsible) is not a feature of capitalism.
Purple Library Guy Jun 14, 2023
Quoting: Mountain Man
Quoting: Arehandoro
Quoting: denyasis
Quoting: Purple Library GuyFrankly, this kind of sounds like their buyouts were leveraged from the start

Well yeah, that's how, was far as I know, almost every industry works... On credit.

When I worked in construction, our company owner would joke "The entire industry would freeze if any one actually tried to collect their bills!!"

Even small business do the same. A deli owner friend of mine remarked how he didn't turn a profit for his first 5 years and how that was the average for his industry/region. That's 5 years with everything on credit and even if he did make some profit, the debt is still there.

I'm some cases, paying off debts is considered a waste of money as you get higher yields investing that money vs the savings from paying early (or at all), especially in during our past decade where interest rates were low.

Of course, that can bite people and companies when expected investments fall apart, as it seems to have done here.

Lovely capitalism.

People being irresponsible with finances (and, yes, taking out huge loans that you can't easily repay is irresponsible) is not a feature of capitalism.
Depends what you mean. In the sense that it's a bug rather than a feature, sure. Or, in the sense that it's not "intended", OK.
In the sense that a "feature of X" is something that inevitably goes with it . . . yeah, it's a feature of capitalism.
F.Ultra Jun 14, 2023
View PC info
  • Supporter
Quoting: Arehandoro
Quoting: F.Ultra
Quoting: BalkanSpy"transform us from our current heavy-investment-mode to a highly cash-flow generative business this year"

Gotta love that corporate doublespeak. Which new gibberish will they invent next?

Not so sure exactly what it is here that you think sounds doublespeak? This just means that they have halted their expansion and will now concentrate on generating income instead.

They could have thought that the lack of funding, or not getting a deal, could happen and start being a highly cash-flow before that to prevent this. They could also give the middle finger to investors and say they won't be returning their money any time soon, and keep the studios and their workers. The high execs could also freeze their super high salaries for an X amount of time to palliate the problem.

But no, they directly prefer cutting costs to the expense of workers.

To me, the doublespeak is undermining the effect of these cuts on those affected, like if it was the most normal thing in the world, and the fact that they lost $2bn investment, by trying to positively say that it will allow them to be highly cash-flow generative.

There is no way that a public company can give the finger to investors. Remember that the investors, aka the share holders, are the actual owners of the company, the CEO and other execs are only running the company per the will of the shareholders.

Still don't get how any of that turns the quote into doublespeak. It's quite clear what they mean and it also exactly describes the situation and what they are going to do.
Arehandoro Jun 14, 2023
From the article It’s a myth that companies must put shareholders first:

The notion that a corporation’s primary purpose is to look after its shareholders is widely believed and taught, but is in fact a myth with no basis in corporate law. The corporation is a separate legal entity. Because ownership of assets and liabilities are attributed to this entity, corporations are not “owned” by shareholders.

Instead, shareholders have limited legal rights, which do not include the right to directly control directors’ or managers’ behaviour. Indeed, shareholders have no special claim on a corporation’s economic returns. Their right to dividends is the same as a waiter’s right to tips: an expectation that is unlikely to be enforceable in court.


Quoting: F.UltraThere is no way that a public company can give the finger to investors. Remember that the investors, aka the share holders, are the actual owners of the company, the CEO and other execs are only running the company per the will of the shareholders

So, not quite true. Companies decide to allign with them.
Arehandoro Jun 14, 2023
Quoting: Mountain ManPeople being irresponsible with finances (and, yes, taking out huge loans that you can't easily repay is irresponsible) is not a feature of capitalism.

Capitalism thrives off irresponsible people. It's no a coincidence that day to day finances are not taught in school from very early age.

Someone's mysery is another's profit. Yeah, it is a feature.
Linux_Rocks Jun 15, 2023
Hopefully Limited Run Games doesn't get flushed. lol
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.