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.
The US needs more mutual companies in general but it could work for a gaming company too.
Few people do because Larian keeps lying about it. Part of me understands you don‘t go around telling people a Chinese government asset has big money in your company, given the ongoing genocide and all (speaking of toxic work environment eh) but it‘s publicly accessible information anyway. They‘ve been so consistently dishonest about it that I can‘t take them all that serious about anything anymore. Because alternatively to lying they could just… shut up and keep making great games. They don‘t need that sugar coating.
Did you not read the article?
Tencent own preference stock. They could sell their stock, which could potentially harm the company, but they hold no voting rights and carry no decision making power.
I am not a fan of China, nor Tencent, but spewing bile without understanding the context does NOT help this discourse.
Can’t see how it would harm the company. Stocks and shares are just a way to raise money in a company. I’ll sell you x% for $yk and own that amount now.
Even with normal shares 30% is a minority stake especially if a single entity owns the other 70% (ie. You can express your opinion but I outvote you every time). Unless Larian are planning to raise additional funds by selling equity and need the stock price to remain high for that reason, Tencent are free to sell their portion without any impact to Larian. (Heck a drop might even let Larian buy itself back)
It’s so irritating to see how eager people come to defend Larian on their lies every time someone calls it out. You’re acting like I said Tencent has Larian on the leash. I mean you’re not even disagreeing with anything I said. Tencent holds shares. They are shareholders, as the article states. Maybe read it again? Do you also claim Larian didn’t receive funding from Tencent? Because Larian was very vocal about not receiving any funding, playing dumb when people wondered how Larian even made such a huge game.
Rumors have it Hasbro’s gonna sell D&D and Tencent is the most likely buyer. We’ll see how much of Larian’s soul will be left when they get approached to make a huge D&D mobile gacha or whatever Tencent comes up with.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
It’s worth noting the vast gulf we are talking about here between the “self funded” indie studios and even A games, not even AA, just A.
The self funded indie game made by one person in their spare time that 200 people play (and occasionally a standout hit that 8 million people play) really isn’t under contention here. We’re talking about the responsibilities when starting a business.
We are not talking about making an AAA game, an equivalent of an MCU film (as those are limited to the deep pockets of large companies).
Most companies that aren’t making AAA games, are also taking funding because people have to make rent, and workers deserve to get paid a wage.
You want tell me that to run a good business, one has to be able to negotiate preferable terms with investors?
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.
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.
I don’t really enjoy their games, but I love them as a studio
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.
