IGN acquires Humble Bundle(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
IGN acquires Humble Bundle
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/13/ign-acquires-pay-what-you-want-game-shop-humble-bundle/
175 comments
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.
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.
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.)
(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.)
in a time long before 'indie games' was a valid genre
Humble Bundle would not have made any sense nor would have had much to sell if indie games weren't a 'valid genre' in 2010.
Humble Bundle would not have made any sense nor would have had much to sell if indie games weren't a 'valid genre' in 2010.
In my opinion it had pretty significant role in making it "valid" genre by proving that people will actually pay for such games.
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
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=indie%20...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=indie%20...
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.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...
You seem to be confusing the label with the market
I think you might be confusing typing things with a rebuttal.
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"?
Uh, they sell games. They continue selling games. That's the value proposition. I fail to see how they are not serving their old customers.
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.
Every game in the latest Indie bundle had Linux support.
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/05/humble-indie-bundle-18
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/05/humble-indie-bundle-18
The Indie Bundles sure, but most of their bundles now are strictly not cross-platform.
So they still do indie bundles, they still do pay what you want pricing, they still do DRM free, they still have support for charities.
But on top of that they've added a lot of sales that breaks any of those principles.
I think they did well to keep the core of the platform there but at the same time offering other things less noble that keeps them afloat.
But on top of that they've added a lot of sales that breaks any of those principles.
I think they did well to keep the core of the platform there but at the same time offering other things less noble that keeps them afloat.
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.
do you have poll results handy detailing what most gamers think, or did you determine it using the jedi paternity test method?
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.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/1999/nov/29/10
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.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/1999/nov/29/10
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe he's retiring. I don't know, it's a contrived scenario. Replace "farm" with "frobnication lab". Reduce the margin until you feel comfortable.
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.
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). ;)
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). ;)
To be honest DreamWorks had been stuck in the sequel mud for some time before it's aqcuisition.
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.
Pixar have made 18 films. Dreamworks Animation have made about 35 films, over roughly the same time.
I like most of the films from both of them. There's a lot of just terrible content for children, and these companies generally avoid that.
I like most of the films from both of them. There's a lot of just terrible content for children, and these companies generally avoid that.
Of Pixar's 18 films Cars 2, Cars 3, Finding Dory, Monsters University, Toy Story 2, and Toy Story 3 are sequels. (6 sequels out of 18 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.
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.
That could be. Why has YouTube not showed up as a Twitch competitor?
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.
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?
They take a bit of a cut when people buy “bits” too (twitch local donations).
Youtube is rolling out a twitch-style subscription payment system to all channels, starting with gaming channels first.
I don't know what's taking so long, but it's coming. Also, YT Red viewers still give money to demonetized but still partenered videos.
I don't know what's taking so long, but it's coming. Also, YT Red viewers still give money to demonetized but still partenered videos.
YT Red still isn't available in most countrys.
Lots of counter examples with products that greatly improved post acquisition:
- Google / YouTube
- Facebook / IG
- Facebook / WhatsApp
- Tencent / Riot Games
- Tencent / Supercell
- Amazon / Twitch
- Google / YouTube
- Facebook / IG
- Facebook / WhatsApp
- Tencent / Riot Games
- Tencent / Supercell
- Amazon / Twitch
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.
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.
That's not a lot compared to the ones that did not go well.
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.
Google / Android
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.
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.
The first few bundles actually made a point of Linux support including support for porting games that didn't support it.
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.
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.
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.
They'd been selling out a while, some would call it "growth", but what it was was distance from what made it great.
History tells us that acquisitions are almost always bad for the acquired company.
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.
Companies are required by law to maximize profits for the Shareholders. Because of this reason alone, the acquisition will be a guaranteed fail.
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.
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.
Only publicly traded companies.
fierarul(2)
I have purchased a fair amount from Humble bundle, and have been a subscriber to the humble monthly bundle since it's inception. Suffice it to say, I have a great appreciation and admiration for the way Humble Bundle works (worked?).
Meanwhile, IGN has been around a lot longer, and has earned a terrible reputation for selling reviews and generally being shameless. I lost all respect for IGN long ago, and I absolutely refuse to contribute to it in any way, so I've cancelled my humble bundle monthly subscription.
Is there a name for the feeling you feel when you're watching a movie and the bad guy wins? That's what I feel now.
Meanwhile, IGN has been around a lot longer, and has earned a terrible reputation for selling reviews and generally being shameless. I lost all respect for IGN long ago, and I absolutely refuse to contribute to it in any way, so I've cancelled my humble bundle monthly subscription.
Is there a name for the feeling you feel when you're watching a movie and the bad guy wins? That's what I feel now.
> has earned a terrible reputation for selling reviews
IGN editorial is separated from the rest of the company like just about every other media outlet and those extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One or two anonymous allegations does not a "reputation" make. When someone puts their name to it and brings evidence to back it up, we'll talk. As-is, this is just a meme among the angrier gamer community.
(n.b.: I don't read IGN or care about the company, but I do care about mendacity a little bit.)
IGN editorial is separated from the rest of the company like just about every other media outlet and those extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One or two anonymous allegations does not a "reputation" make. When someone puts their name to it and brings evidence to back it up, we'll talk. As-is, this is just a meme among the angrier gamer community.
(n.b.: I don't read IGN or care about the company, but I do care about mendacity a little bit.)
Its got the reputation, calling that reputation a meme is you going out of your way to use a term other than reputation. Whether or not its true is a separate thing.
I think that you failed to pick up what I was putting down, and that is that the important bit of that sentence is not meme, but rather the angrier gamer community--the side of the community that is so very worried about ethics in games journalism except only when women or black people are involved and who are so very mad at Bethesda for making a game about shooting Nazis--who are the source of that meme.
It is not credible and it should be roundly shot through when it pops up because of that incredibility.
It is not credible and it should be roundly shot through when it pops up because of that incredibility.
also been subbed since first monthly and will be cancelling. Humble Bundle had earned plenty of good faith from me where IGN has none.
It's worth noting that Humble Bundle is YC W11 and raised $4.7M in venture capital in 2011.
I am assuming this is not a 10x exit.
I am assuming this is not a 10x exit.
That's a curious way to phrase "Congratulations on making a company which has sold several hundred million dollars of software."
I don't get why HN, of all the places in the world, would seek to tear down software companies, literally started on HN, which produce a service that people love and which achieve a successful outcome for all concerned.
I also don't think we should teach people that a middlebrow dismissal passes for financial analysis, so some toy math using their public data: they report ~$106 million in charity. Their users probably don't alter their split materially, so if one models their bundles as their main revenue source (which, knowing nothing about the internals of the business, I would), that implies $106M / .15 = $700M in gross sales. Their cut of that is 20%, or ~$140M over the lifetime of the company. I model them as being a rather briskly growing business, so I'd estimate last year's revenues in the ~$30 million range. I'd also estimate probably ~60% margins.
You want the lower on a $47 million acquisition price on a quickly growing software company with $30 million a year in revenue? Yeah, I'll take the upper. Not a hard call. This was clearly a very successful outcome for all concerned.
[Edit to add: Above paragraph is incorrect because I misread the parent as raising at a valuation of $4.7M. If they raised $4.7 million the valuation was probably ~$20M. Do I still think 10x is plausible on that? Plausible, not nearly a given.]
Disclaimers: no non-public information used above, no commercial relationship, although I did pitch them on a consulting gig once. I have paid them a few hundred dollars over the years for video games.
I don't get why HN, of all the places in the world, would seek to tear down software companies, literally started on HN, which produce a service that people love and which achieve a successful outcome for all concerned.
I also don't think we should teach people that a middlebrow dismissal passes for financial analysis, so some toy math using their public data: they report ~$106 million in charity. Their users probably don't alter their split materially, so if one models their bundles as their main revenue source (which, knowing nothing about the internals of the business, I would), that implies $106M / .15 = $700M in gross sales. Their cut of that is 20%, or ~$140M over the lifetime of the company. I model them as being a rather briskly growing business, so I'd estimate last year's revenues in the ~$30 million range. I'd also estimate probably ~60% margins.
You want the lower on a $47 million acquisition price on a quickly growing software company with $30 million a year in revenue? Yeah, I'll take the upper. Not a hard call. This was clearly a very successful outcome for all concerned.
[Edit to add: Above paragraph is incorrect because I misread the parent as raising at a valuation of $4.7M. If they raised $4.7 million the valuation was probably ~$20M. Do I still think 10x is plausible on that? Plausible, not nearly a given.]
Disclaimers: no non-public information used above, no commercial relationship, although I did pitch them on a consulting gig once. I have paid them a few hundred dollars over the years for video games.
I didn't read GP's comment as tearing down. Also, I learned something new - didn't realize HB went through YC, or that it even was VC-funded.
> I don't get why HN, of all the places in the world, would seek to tear down software companies, literally started on HN, which produce a service that people love and which achieve a successful outcome for all concerned.
Well, the company got bought by a third party with dubious reputation, which will most likely lead to "service that people love" deteriorating and possibly getting cancelled. This is not a good news for people who were fans of the service. It definitely doesn't look like a success for all concerned.
Basically, HB is seen by many (myself included) as a great service to have, not as a great trick for some people to get rich.
> I don't get why HN, of all the places in the world, would seek to tear down software companies, literally started on HN, which produce a service that people love and which achieve a successful outcome for all concerned.
Well, the company got bought by a third party with dubious reputation, which will most likely lead to "service that people love" deteriorating and possibly getting cancelled. This is not a good news for people who were fans of the service. It definitely doesn't look like a success for all concerned.
Basically, HB is seen by many (myself included) as a great service to have, not as a great trick for some people to get rich.
Not tearing down; I am legitimately curious about the VC perspective and no one else had mentioned it so far. (Not even in the article!)
> Congratulations on making a company which has sold several hundred million dollars of software.
Correction: "software that it not theirs".
Correction: "software that it not theirs".
If everyone had to sell their own software themselves, a lot of good software would never be made. Don't discount the value of a curated marketplace.
By all accounts the quality of their curation has significantly dropped in the past 2 years. Lots of junk bundles nowadays.
Indeed. Hopefully the founders and employees were somewhat reasonably compensated for their risk and trouble.
10x exit for a company with the word "Humble" in their name would be very ironic.
To be honest, I haven't cared for Humble Bundle for a very long time. The first few were amazing: all cross platform, great stuff. Since then they've branched out... Into becoming a glorified Steam sale. It may be a viable business model, but I don't find it terribly enticing.
I kept their emails in my inbox for a long time, even after being burnt out of their offerings for some time, just like you.
Recently I saw a humble book bundle that included a book about the healing power of crystals.
At that moment it became clear (crystal clear even!) to me that it is no longer what it used to be, and I finally unsubscribed.
Recently I saw a humble book bundle that included a book about the healing power of crystals.
At that moment it became clear (crystal clear even!) to me that it is no longer what it used to be, and I finally unsubscribed.
The crystals only work if you let them in, man.
Same here.
They've not been humble, indie, or a bundle for a long time.
Par for the course. Similar disingenuous commercialization is rampant through the games industry: see what Valve has done to Steam, and what major publishers have done to their titles vis monetization.
Unfortunately the games industry is floating in too much money for another crash to clean house.
They've not been humble, indie, or a bundle for a long time.
Par for the course. Similar disingenuous commercialization is rampant through the games industry: see what Valve has done to Steam, and what major publishers have done to their titles vis monetization.
Unfortunately the games industry is floating in too much money for another crash to clean house.
I think that's not really fair, only a few bundles a year are actually labeled "Humble Indie Bundle", and those do usually fit the bill and check all three boxes.
There were 13 Humble Indie Bundles since 2010 and 94 other types of bundles (not counting the Weekly Bundles). And those other types often include audiobooks, ebooks, comics etc. that one could claim are at least indie, or some indie games sprinkled in with the AAA titles.
There was also extremely commercial stuff such as the 2K bundles, but hey, it's always labeled as such.
There were 13 Humble Indie Bundles since 2010 and 94 other types of bundles (not counting the Weekly Bundles). And those other types often include audiobooks, ebooks, comics etc. that one could claim are at least indie, or some indie games sprinkled in with the AAA titles.
There was also extremely commercial stuff such as the 2K bundles, but hey, it's always labeled as such.
I think this feeling is due to evolution. Humble Bundle started as Humble Indie Bundle, only later it turned into a brand.
It's kind of similar as with GOG, on which games are neither exclusively Good nor Old anymore ;).
It's kind of similar as with GOG, on which games are neither exclusively Good nor Old anymore ;).
As long as GOG keeps it DRM free, they will remain the only distributor that gets any more of my money, aside from direct, DRM-free sales by creators. Steam destroyed all rationalization I was using to be ok with DRM by locking my account for 3 weeks shortly after I opened an account.
> not counting the weekly bundles
I think this was where it went downhill for me. That’s 107 bundles, plus 200 odd weekly bundles. They’re not special any more, and especially now that the bundles aren’t pay what you want, they’re pay above the average, which is higher because they hide some items behind a minimum price. It’s lost it’s allure to me, and most of my friends too.
I think this was where it went downhill for me. That’s 107 bundles, plus 200 odd weekly bundles. They’re not special any more, and especially now that the bundles aren’t pay what you want, they’re pay above the average, which is higher because they hide some items behind a minimum price. It’s lost it’s allure to me, and most of my friends too.
Completely agreed.
There really isn't any confusion on the website about any of that. And the book and audiobook bundles have been fantastic, too.
There really isn't any confusion on the website about any of that. And the book and audiobook bundles have been fantastic, too.
I have 1 major issue with Steam, you cannot share individual games in your library and play a different one yourself. If you have 200 games in your library and want to share one with your kids, you cannot play any other game at same time.
Interested to see what other criticisms you have.
Interested to see what other criticisms you have.
Actually, you can (I assume you use Family Sharing). Either you or your kids Steam client needs to go "offline" and you'll be able to play games from same collection simultaneously.
I don't believe you can, as of a few weeks ago in any case.
When you drop offline, any shared library you had access to will drop off. When changing connectivity during a session, your games terminate within 5 minutes.
When you drop offline, any shared library you had access to will drop off. When changing connectivity during a session, your games terminate within 5 minutes.
[deleted]
That's why I largely moved to board games. They are by definition optimized for multiplayer and finished in one seating. Dedicated servers by default. "Spawn" system like in StarCraft 1 by default (one person owns the game, everyone plays). Board games practically don't get outdated. Good ones are still widely played decades later. There's high innovation in game mechanics. Many of them aren't even turn-based. There are dexterity games and real-time games. There are games with simultaneous turns, where you only wait for the slowest player. And you get to make friends.
This is assuming that the game opts into family sharing, or else you don't get to share nil.
I've been using Steam as the main means of communication with a lot of people, but these days the chat client is slow, outdated, lacking in basic features and tends to insert annoying redirections before shared links (or remove them outright when you're using a shady site like, I dunno, Google Docs). Hence I'm trying to figure out how to get everyone to migrate to discord.
I've been using Steam as the main means of communication with a lot of people, but these days the chat client is slow, outdated, lacking in basic features and tends to insert annoying redirections before shared links (or remove them outright when you're using a shady site like, I dunno, Google Docs). Hence I'm trying to figure out how to get everyone to migrate to discord.
> Steam [...] the chat client is slow
> Hence I'm trying to figure out how to get everyone to migrate to discord.
ouch!
> Hence I'm trying to figure out how to get everyone to migrate to discord.
ouch!
I know why you're being sarcastic, but the Discord client DOES feel more responsive to me in daily usage. Especially if you're planning on clicking any links, which in Steam does a background API call to the Steam servers to check whether you should see the pointless redirection screen. This sometimes takes several seconds, and there's zero UI indication of what's going on. If you're impatient and you click the link several times, it will the open in multiple tabs at the same time.
Okay, the chat itself in Steam is pretty fast (unless you attempt to send an emote). The problem is, there's zero message delivery guarantees, and the client doesn't even care to inform you whether the message has been successfully sent. If you're on an unreliable internet connection, your best bet is to close and re-open the chat window to see whether the messages made it to the server in the mini chat log that shows the last 2-5 messages (that's the extent of the client's chat history feature by the way). It's an usability nightmare.
This isn't about how fast Discord is but about how bad of a job Valve is doing (I'm not even certain present tense applies here given that the chat client has essentially not received any major new features for like a decade).
Okay, the chat itself in Steam is pretty fast (unless you attempt to send an emote). The problem is, there's zero message delivery guarantees, and the client doesn't even care to inform you whether the message has been successfully sent. If you're on an unreliable internet connection, your best bet is to close and re-open the chat window to see whether the messages made it to the server in the mini chat log that shows the last 2-5 messages (that's the extent of the client's chat history feature by the way). It's an usability nightmare.
This isn't about how fast Discord is but about how bad of a job Valve is doing (I'm not even certain present tense applies here given that the chat client has essentially not received any major new features for like a decade).
The UX for Discord around group chat is also miles ahead of Steam's. Unlimited history, granular notification options with @mentions, rich media embedding, third party integrations, and seamless voice chat support (and now with video chat and screensharing to boot). Meanwhile Steam's chat client has been stagnating in terms of both features and UX for what feels like a decade.
They do have more than just games like e-books https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14791255
> The first few were amazing: all cross platform, great stuff. Since then they've branched out... Into becoming a glorified Steam sale.
100% agree with this. I got in a bit late, but the first bundles were still pretty fantastic. I loved the fact that they had Linux games. But eventually quality started slipping.
For example, their claims that a game runs on Linux are very unreliable.
Some games just work out of the box with no sweat at all. Some of them work after some tweaking (installing packages, etc). But I have at least 8 games that either don't work on Linux at all (fail to start due to errors or segfaults) or have some serious issues (random crashes, game breaking bugs). Windows versions of those games worked on wine, so I just swallowed the loss, but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth.
But this is just sloppy quality control. Most of the problems I have mentioned would be detected immediately by simply running the game on the recommended configurations.
All that said, I have since moved on to GOG and so far I have been pretty happy with their claims of Linux support. Had one hiccup ("X3: Terran War Pack"... that was a wasted weekend), but everything else (~30 games) just works. Their quality control seems to be a bit better, and their community forums are helpful (so far), so I'm happy. Pity that they don't have more Linux games I like.
100% agree with this. I got in a bit late, but the first bundles were still pretty fantastic. I loved the fact that they had Linux games. But eventually quality started slipping.
For example, their claims that a game runs on Linux are very unreliable.
Some games just work out of the box with no sweat at all. Some of them work after some tweaking (installing packages, etc). But I have at least 8 games that either don't work on Linux at all (fail to start due to errors or segfaults) or have some serious issues (random crashes, game breaking bugs). Windows versions of those games worked on wine, so I just swallowed the loss, but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth.
But this is just sloppy quality control. Most of the problems I have mentioned would be detected immediately by simply running the game on the recommended configurations.
All that said, I have since moved on to GOG and so far I have been pretty happy with their claims of Linux support. Had one hiccup ("X3: Terran War Pack"... that was a wasted weekend), but everything else (~30 games) just works. Their quality control seems to be a bit better, and their community forums are helpful (so far), so I'm happy. Pity that they don't have more Linux games I like.
They did an O'Reilly books sale a few months ago that was like 6 or so books for £12, which I felt was a pretty good deal.
But yeah in terms of games the last bundle I bought was probably more than 2 years ago
But yeah in terms of games the last bundle I bought was probably more than 2 years ago
Yeah, I got a similar deal for a bunch of no no starch press ebooks about a year ago, i'm not a gamer but much appreciate their book sales.
I think they've done rather well for themselves, given their success. They still support charities in a major way, and haven't given into DLCs the way Steam has. Overall, GOG > Humble Bundle > Steam if I must have a game not on GOG, so in that sense, glorified Steam sale, yes.
After the original bundle, I've gotten a few in the last year: Intergalactic, Freedom, Star Wars, and Civilization. All have been great values, if you know what you want. Even if you don't, you're giving to charity and you can gift the games to someone.
After the original bundle, I've gotten a few in the last year: Intergalactic, Freedom, Star Wars, and Civilization. All have been great values, if you know what you want. Even if you don't, you're giving to charity and you can gift the games to someone.
N.B. Humble has been as much a traditional retailer as it has been a charity focused pwyw shop for quite a while.
As well as no longer caring if games are cross platform.
I mean I still shop there because it's as good a retailer as any but they are no longer significantantly different than GOG or Steam.
As well as no longer caring if games are cross platform.
I mean I still shop there because it's as good a retailer as any but they are no longer significantantly different than GOG or Steam.
I honestly had completely forgotten about their charity contributions. In my mind they had become another digital game shop.
I'm curious, does it say somewhere what the total amount they have contributed to charity over all the years?
EDIT: Found it on wikipedia:
> By September 2017, the total charitable amount raised by the Bundles exceeded $100 million across 50 different charities.
That is pretty impressive.
I'm curious, does it say somewhere what the total amount they have contributed to charity over all the years?
EDIT: Found it on wikipedia:
> By September 2017, the total charitable amount raised by the Bundles exceeded $100 million across 50 different charities.
That is pretty impressive.
> As well as no longer caring if games are cross platform.
As a Linux gamer, the fact that some of the non-Humble Indie Bundles contain games I can't run is annoying (I am fine with these being offered, just don't mail me about them unless I can run them), but the Humble Indie Bundles tend to contain exclusively or nearly exclusively cross-platform games, like they always have.
As a Linux gamer, the fact that some of the non-Humble Indie Bundles contain games I can't run is annoying (I am fine with these being offered, just don't mail me about them unless I can run them), but the Humble Indie Bundles tend to contain exclusively or nearly exclusively cross-platform games, like they always have.
Steam too annoys me in this respect, would be nice to have the option to hide all promotions (and indeed content) about games one can't run.
At the very least, GOG is an independent game retailer. For most of the games you'll see on the Humble Store, what you actually get is just a Steam key for that game. There's a few indie games where they've funded porting work for one of the Humble Indie Bundles, but I doubt many of those are exclusive to the Humble Store.
I was looking through today's GOG sales and I saw they've started to introduce DRM on some of their titles, so buyer beware, they're starting to go downhill too.
https://www.gog.com/game/aliens_versus_predator_classic_2000
https://www.gog.com/game/aliens_versus_predator_classic_2000
Eh, I'm not sure that I consider controlling access to their servers the same as DRM. The lack of LAN multiplayer is bad, but is GOG responsible for that?
From what I can tell, the original retail release had support for LAN play, direct connections, and various third-party server browser options, all of which they removed so they could lock multiplayer behind a DRM wall that requires the GOG Galaxy client.
Right, but the game wasn't released by, or even exclusively on GOG; it's also on Steam, for example. So I doubt the decision was theirs. And while it may suck, I don't think it can be considered DRM.
The official blog post from Humble Bundle is here: http://blog.humblebundle.com/post/166366386976/humble-bundle...
It was posted earlier today but didn't get much attention (possibly because the title didn't make it clear it was an acquisition): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15468583
It was posted earlier today but didn't get much attention (possibly because the title didn't make it clear it was an acquisition): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15468583
That HN submission was softkilled almost immediately (it fell of the front page near immediately, presumably by flags by people who aren't interested in random gamer stuff). And now the story is #1 on Hacker News.
This is a case where HN's rule of original titles can be somewhat annoying.
This is a case where HN's rule of original titles can be somewhat annoying.
Whats the actual strategic thinking behind this? IGN expanding into retail? Why? They're effectively media company. I dont see any sense in this acquisition. And that worries me. Do they understand what made HB so successful, are they going to give it managerial autonomy, what are their plans?
Damn, I hope they won't close the section that lets you buy (most) Steam games all year round. Unlike regular Steam, it doesn't have the frustrating "geolocation-locked" limitation the Steam store has in Germany (which is very frustrating when you're not German, just an expat).
At least Apple's AppStore lets you buy from your own country's store instead of assuming the country from geolocation.
At least Apple's AppStore lets you buy from your own country's store instead of assuming the country from geolocation.
This makes me apprehensive, but as long as I can still move that slider to 100% charity, it's probably not too big of a deal.
Is there any possible way to make all my Humble Bundle e-mail and information not be shared with IGN database ?
I bought several indie game bundles when they were for Linux and/or DRM free. Sadly I had trouble getting most of the Linux games running, at least on Debian (thanks multiarch). I have also bought a few titles off their web store, all you get there is a Steam key. However, I have bought games from the store specificaly hoping that Valve gets less of the cut (PUBG being the latest).
However, I just bought two book bundles over the past month. They are still fantastic. 10-15 books DRM free for about dollar or so each, and a portion of that money I specified to be donated to FSF.
Hopefully post IGN aquisition the book bundles will continue.
PS. I bought Cuphead week of release on GOG to show my support. It may be Windows only but it was DRM free at launch.
However, I just bought two book bundles over the past month. They are still fantastic. 10-15 books DRM free for about dollar or so each, and a portion of that money I specified to be donated to FSF.
Hopefully post IGN aquisition the book bundles will continue.
PS. I bought Cuphead week of release on GOG to show my support. It may be Windows only but it was DRM free at launch.
Valve get nothing when you purchase a steam key from another sales platform. They allow the free use of their drm and content delivery platform to acquire new customers, and keep existing customers locked in.
Interesting. This is the closest source I found with a quick search: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
Phil Fish who created the indie game Fez (which I also purchased) stated Steam & GOG take a 30% cut whereas Humble only took 5%. http://www.pcgamer.com/steam-and-gog-take-30-revenue-cut-sug...
Personally DRM free takes precident. I haven't bought a AAA game through steam since Portal 2. I buy games through GOG to get a DRM version - for example I bought Firewatch from GOG and played it in Linux. DRM free Humble Bundles next. Humble store steam keys as a last resort.
Phil Fish who created the indie game Fez (which I also purchased) stated Steam & GOG take a 30% cut whereas Humble only took 5%. http://www.pcgamer.com/steam-and-gog-take-30-revenue-cut-sug...
Personally DRM free takes precident. I haven't bought a AAA game through steam since Portal 2. I buy games through GOG to get a DRM version - for example I bought Firewatch from GOG and played it in Linux. DRM free Humble Bundles next. Humble store steam keys as a last resort.
I wonder how much of this is IGN wanting to get into a SaaS business and see this as a way to acquire there way there, and take on Steam?
That could add a nice revenue stream and help let them diversify from the advertising model which is increasingly facing downward pressure on RPMs from companies like FB and Google.
Interestingly enough, if built up sufficiently, it lets them better align their interests with their users. Instead of making the experience slower and more cluttered with additional display ads, they can focus on creating an awesome UX (if you become a subscriber of course).
As a gamer, I have my doubts about this happening given IGNs history, but one can always be hopeful.
That could add a nice revenue stream and help let them diversify from the advertising model which is increasingly facing downward pressure on RPMs from companies like FB and Google.
Interestingly enough, if built up sufficiently, it lets them better align their interests with their users. Instead of making the experience slower and more cluttered with additional display ads, they can focus on creating an awesome UX (if you become a subscriber of course).
As a gamer, I have my doubts about this happening given IGNs history, but one can always be hopeful.
In the words of Adam Jensen - what a shame.
Though HB says: "We will stay the same", I'm sure practically everyone knows that that won't be the case. IGN, the go-to place to get sponsored reviews of AAA games.
Though HB says: "We will stay the same", I'm sure practically everyone knows that that won't be the case. IGN, the go-to place to get sponsored reviews of AAA games.
I'm a monthly bundle subscriber since inception. I don't check the monthly bundles regularly (more like two-three-four times a year), but always find games that I enjoy and wouldn't have discovered otherwise. For $150/year, that's a pretty good value for a very casual gamer like me, i.e. someone who doesn't follow the gaming industry and just spontaneously decides to play something from time to time.
Best of luck to them.
Best of luck to them.
Actually, over the pas month I was hoping Humble would return to the old days, not in terms of qantity but in therms of quality. The first bundles had some great titles like Braid and World of Goo, but later on there were some gems (like Stardew Valley), but in general there were a lot more mediocre games.
Sadly, I doubt that IGN has increasing the quality as the prime target in mind.
Sadly, I doubt that IGN has increasing the quality as the prime target in mind.
I just bought their crypto book humble bundle - first for a long time - decent price for 11 ebooks... about 1.50 each if you want all 11.
I can't wait for IGN to put their name all over stuff like they own it, like they did with almost everybody's cheat codes submitted to the old cheat codes site that they bought, including codes I had submitted. Any they've never bothered to fix them even after notification, either.
Just wait and see. The garbage self-marketing begins now.
Just wait and see. The garbage self-marketing begins now.
I doubt this will be good for the little guys. Personal experience in the games industry here. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe.
I collect my bargain-basement digital library, $1 at a time.
Wish I could pay for multiple bundles at once.
Wish I could pay for multiple bundles at once.
If someone wants to create a new bundle store:
How about bundeling every Feral Interactive release (AAA cross platform) with about 5 indie cross platform titles?
How about bundeling every Feral Interactive release (AAA cross platform) with about 5 indie cross platform titles?
well it was a good run.
for a while it will be ok due to them wanting to have good pr.
but slowly over time it will get worse and crappier. eventually paid placement, advertising, spin and death by blandness.
for a while it will be ok due to them wanting to have good pr.
but slowly over time it will get worse and crappier. eventually paid placement, advertising, spin and death by blandness.
I guess we can say goodbye to any kind of Linux support then.
a (imo sketchy) media company that reviews games will now own a retail outlet that sells them. i wonder how that will impact their behavior.
Wasn't IGN almost Steam in a previous life?
You mean GameSpy? Yes, that merged with IGN and subsequently went into oblivion.
They did own Direct2Drive to buy, download, and (manually) install games, FilePlanet to (manually) update games and download demos, and GameSpy to chat with friends and find multiplayer servers. That covers most of Steam's functionality, I guess.
But it was all spread out and I don't think they ever made any moves towards trying to pull it all together into a single offering. It was just a bunch of separate websites / programs that happened to be owned by a common parent company. Which might be a good sign for Humble's continuing independence, if IGN is still running things the same way (but OTOH, all of those separate sites eventually just withered and died under IGN's ownership).
But it was all spread out and I don't think they ever made any moves towards trying to pull it all together into a single offering. It was just a bunch of separate websites / programs that happened to be owned by a common parent company. Which might be a good sign for Humble's continuing independence, if IGN is still running things the same way (but OTOH, all of those separate sites eventually just withered and died under IGN's ownership).
I don't think so. Pretty sure IGN was still a vaguely independent-ish (or at least not owned by any specificly video game concerned parent company) reviewing site between the launch of Steam until it's inescapable crowning as the default bway to buy games.
It was good while it lasted.
GG
"Pay-what-you-want" isn't exactly how I'd describe "pay what you want, but unless it's at least X, we won't give you the merchandise". That's more "ordinary commercial transactions".
That's a change that's happened in the last year or two. Before they decided they needed to be running 2-3 bundles at a time all the time it was actually pwyw.
IIRC, it’s always pay what you want (even a penny) in the bundles, but paying more gets you more games.
They had to add a dollar minimum because of abuse.
Only for Steam keys. $0.01 still nets you DRM-free downloads.
The OP may be talking about the bundles that have "pay what you want, get 3 titles, pay more than the average, get 3 more etc".
Which is not exactly pay what you want. Especially since "pay more than the average" will actually bring the average up across the life of the bundle.
I used to pay significantly more than the average for a bundle when they were new and truly pay what you want. Now I happily get the lower tier of games for $1. If I bother.
Which is not exactly pay what you want. Especially since "pay more than the average" will actually bring the average up across the life of the bundle.
I used to pay significantly more than the average for a bundle when they were new and truly pay what you want. Now I happily get the lower tier of games for $1. If I bother.
So, if you can get a bunch of games for $1 you'll happily pay $5, but if you can get a bunch of games for $1 and even more games for $5, you'll pay $1 and gripe about it?
I'm not sure I follow your logic.
I'm not sure I follow your logic.
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.