Rumours, speculation and hearsay? “Interesting” at least.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Not every big conglomerate is just a relentless fuckup machine. Baldur’s Gate 3 was made by (edit: a Tencent subsidiary) a studio partly owned by Tencent. I’m not saying they won’t fuck it up, just that there’s no reason to assume out of the gate that they automatically will. And, it’s legitimately a little hard to see them doing worse than Hasbro has been so far.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean, just a quick glance at this list shows some things that seem at least competently managed. They’re not a relentless crew of counterproductive own-dick-trippers-over like Hasbro.

        That said, the point that they may turn it into a microtransactions bonanza that makes them money but in no way resembles what DND should be is a pretty good one, yes. I was envisioning this future where they realize that the way to make money with it long-term is to just let it be its own thing, but I think there’s a pretty good chance that that idea is as absurd as everyone here seems to think it is.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            Hm, you are right. The story described it as “owns and has huge holdings,” but that is wrong – for Blizzard it’s 10%, Bluehole 5%, etc.

    • keefshape@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Tencent owns 3% 30% of Larian shares. This does not make them a subsidiary, or fully owned.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s 30%. The point is pretty valid though, and I did have it wrong in saying subsidiary – I edited my comment to reflect my learning.