Entire staff of game publisher Annapurna Interactive has reportedly resigned(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Entire staff of game publisher Annapurna Interactive has reportedly resigned
https://www.theverge.com/games/2024/9/12/24243317/annapurna-interactive-staff-reportedly-resigns
236 comments
There is another way to look at this.
Annapurna Pictures in Dec 2022 produced Nimona for Netflix which debuted at #9 globally and was as high as #3 i.e. it was a massive hit.
So they now have the Stray IP which could be extremely lucrative and are looking at how CD Project Red handled their successful Cyberpunk integration on Netflix as a model. Which is where you cross-promote a game add-on or sequel with the movie.
Which means for the gaming side they really wouldn't have any control over their direction as it would be entirely driven by the movie side. Not exactly compelling for them hence why they want to leave.
With the success of Fallout, The Last of Us, Cyberpunk Edgerunners etc there's definitely big money to be made from video game IP.
Annapurna Pictures in Dec 2022 produced Nimona for Netflix which debuted at #9 globally and was as high as #3 i.e. it was a massive hit.
So they now have the Stray IP which could be extremely lucrative and are looking at how CD Project Red handled their successful Cyberpunk integration on Netflix as a model. Which is where you cross-promote a game add-on or sequel with the movie.
Which means for the gaming side they really wouldn't have any control over their direction as it would be entirely driven by the movie side. Not exactly compelling for them hence why they want to leave.
With the success of Fallout, The Last of Us, Cyberpunk Edgerunners etc there's definitely big money to be made from video game IP.
IP, content, blobs - container words - a sure-fire indicator in any conversation that , that the parties involved areunable to accurately value, evaluate, organize and produce, the valuables that should reside inside the container. So here the daily reminder, that logistics is a commodity now, but producing something of value, is not.
“Content” is an advertising term for whatever fills the space between all the ads
I've always had an intense visceral distaste for referring to podcasts, videos, and long-form writing as "content," especially when creators use the term. No matter how well-meaning or neutral its usage might be, I always involuntarily picture an old-timey cartoon farmer dumping slop into a giant trough when I hear phrases like "bringing you better content" or "being an influencer producing the type of content you want to see." I think you've just helped me solve the puzzle — hopefully, this will help me shed my negative association with the term. Many actually respectable internet personalities I follow use it, and I don't like being "that guy."
I share your distaste for "content". To me the word speaks of a lack of interest, understanding, or even respect, for what creators are making.
To some extent it does serve a useful purpose in that it makes it clear that it is in fact the ads that are the main event on these platforms, and that the "content" is merely a palatable delivery mechanism for adverts... which is a pretty depressing realisation.
To some extent it does serve a useful purpose in that it makes it clear that it is in fact the ads that are the main event on these platforms, and that the "content" is merely a palatable delivery mechanism for adverts... which is a pretty depressing realisation.
RMS has a nice write-up about it https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content
in 2024 there are so many one-click-install adblockers for your browser, phone's DNS, router... anyone still seeing a sizable amount of ads these days has to be the most complacent, easily manipulated, lucrative demographic imaginable
Or maybe some people have moral qualms with simply taking without giving back.
Viewing an ad is not “giving back” in any meaningful sense. Modern adtech primarily benefits the infrastructure providers, rather than providing a service to its “clients” or a revenue stream to site owners.
Adblocking is the only meaningful objection that the consuming public can raise to the inefficient and wasteful adtech situation. Depending on how you feel about your obligations with regards to civil society, you might view it as a moral imperative.
Adblocking is the only meaningful objection that the consuming public can raise to the inefficient and wasteful adtech situation. Depending on how you feel about your obligations with regards to civil society, you might view it as a moral imperative.
> Viewing an ad is not “giving back” in any meaningful sense
What you declare to be meaningful isn't really the issue. It's how the thing you're getting chooses to pay for itself.
What you declare to be meaningful isn't really the issue. It's how the thing you're getting chooses to pay for itself.
Your other option is not consuming ad-supported content. There's no natural entitlement you should be able to view all content in a form that suits you.
In the context of certain YouTube communities - a couple of examples I'm aware of are synthtube or watchtube - "content" is also an advertising term for advertising, since this is really what many of the demo or "review" videos are.
People hawking products on Instagram, TikTok, or wherever fall into the same category. The reality is that the whole influencer industry is pretty much just hawking products and services to people.
People hawking products on Instagram, TikTok, or wherever fall into the same category. The reality is that the whole influencer industry is pretty much just hawking products and services to people.
I like that definition a lot. Another thing that stuck with me is that content is a commodity.
IP has pretty clear connotation in games. I don't really think it shows what you say. Characters and worlds are IP and that IP can be used across media types. Gameplay is not IP. A game project can swap or take in IP.
In context of the discussion here - people who are talking about "content" or "IP" mark themselves out as not having a nuanced understanding of what intangible assets they hold.
I think what you mean to say is:
- writing and depictions of characters are copyrighted
- writing and depictions of worlds are copyrighted
- some of the names involved can also be registered trademarks
They are intangible rights that someone can own. The insidious term "intellectual property" is used to reframe the understanding of rights granted by copyright, patent and trademark law by comparing them to real property, which they are not.
When was the last time someone was allowed to live in your house, legally, because they're making a parody of it? When was the last time someone was allowed to take your house apart to find out how to make something compatible with your house's design? Owning a copyright is not like owning property and does not give you carte-blanche control over your intangible asset like real property law more-or-less does.
Some examples:
- I can write a book or game about a boy wizard who goes to a magical school, as long as I didn't base it on Harry Potter. JK Rowling can't stop me.
- I can write about a pirate who acts like an aging rockstar, provided I didn't copy Johnny Depp's depiction of Captain Jack Sparrow. Disney can't stop me.
- I can write about a martial force voyaging through space by analogy to a similar force on the Earth's seas, so I can call them space marines. Games Workshop® can't stop me, provided I don't implicitly or explicitly claim they are Games Workshop® Space Marines®
I think what you mean to say is:
- writing and depictions of characters are copyrighted
- writing and depictions of worlds are copyrighted
- some of the names involved can also be registered trademarks
They are intangible rights that someone can own. The insidious term "intellectual property" is used to reframe the understanding of rights granted by copyright, patent and trademark law by comparing them to real property, which they are not.
When was the last time someone was allowed to live in your house, legally, because they're making a parody of it? When was the last time someone was allowed to take your house apart to find out how to make something compatible with your house's design? Owning a copyright is not like owning property and does not give you carte-blanche control over your intangible asset like real property law more-or-less does.
Some examples:
- I can write a book or game about a boy wizard who goes to a magical school, as long as I didn't base it on Harry Potter. JK Rowling can't stop me.
- I can write about a pirate who acts like an aging rockstar, provided I didn't copy Johnny Depp's depiction of Captain Jack Sparrow. Disney can't stop me.
- I can write about a martial force voyaging through space by analogy to a similar force on the Earth's seas, so I can call them space marines. Games Workshop® can't stop me, provided I don't implicitly or explicitly claim they are Games Workshop® Space Marines®
Assuming that “property” is always short for “real property” will lead to some interesting errors, as illustrated above.
Proprietary rights are varied. If one kind of property relates to a kind of right that doesn’t apply to another kind of property, that’s not a good reason to decide that one kind is not actually property.
Proprietary rights are varied. If one kind of property relates to a kind of right that doesn’t apply to another kind of property, that’s not a good reason to decide that one kind is not actually property.
While property has a number of meanings, including "intrinsic quality of a substance" and "something that can be owned", I think it tends to bring about an image of tangible objects in the listener's head.
I prefer the term "asset" to describe owned intangible things of value, such as rights, licenses, financial instruments, etc.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#The_term...
> Criticism of the term intellectual property ranges from discussing its vagueness and abstract overreach to direct contention to the semantic validity of using words like property and rights in fashions that contradict practice and law. Many detractors think this term specially serves the doctrinal agenda of parties opposing reform in the public interest or otherwise abusing related legislations, and that it disallows intelligent discussion about specific and often unrelated aspects of copyright, patents, trademarks, etc
I prefer the term "asset" to describe owned intangible things of value, such as rights, licenses, financial instruments, etc.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#The_term...
> Criticism of the term intellectual property ranges from discussing its vagueness and abstract overreach to direct contention to the semantic validity of using words like property and rights in fashions that contradict practice and law. Many detractors think this term specially serves the doctrinal agenda of parties opposing reform in the public interest or otherwise abusing related legislations, and that it disallows intelligent discussion about specific and often unrelated aspects of copyright, patents, trademarks, etc
It might be useful to stop looking up “property” in dictionaries and encyclopedias, and instead learn what the word means.
[deleted]
I really cannot follow how anything you said supports the idea that using the term IP means you don't understand this or that.
If you use a catch-all term like "content" when you could've said "prose", "video", "music" and so on I'll assume you either don't know about the difference or you don't care - or indeed both.
The same goes for "IP" when you could've said trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets and so on, whatever is actually relevant.
The same goes for "IP" when you could've said trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets and so on, whatever is actually relevant.
IP is the standard way of describing pre-existing content e.g. games, books that is available to turn into movies, TV shows etc.
You can go on and on about whether this is accurate or not but no one cares. Because this is the term that the entire industry has adopted because getting into the specifics of trademarks, copyrights etc is irrelevant for most parts.
You can go on and on about whether this is accurate or not but no one cares. Because this is the term that the entire industry has adopted because getting into the specifics of trademarks, copyrights etc is irrelevant for most parts.
If it's a standard you should be able to able to point people to the standard specification document/laws or etc.
Else it's just a habit some people have. (and potentially a lazy and problematic one.)
Else it's just a habit some people have. (and potentially a lazy and problematic one.)
Games have prose and video and music and characters and worlds and proper names and the list goes on and on and on so we just say IP.
I can assure you that the accountants and executives at these studios can absolutely value, evaluate, organise and produce the valuables that should reside inside the "container".
It's what the entire movie and TV industries have been about ever since the idea of sequels e.g. Aliens, Terminator and worlds e.g. Marvel took off.
It's what the entire movie and TV industries have been about ever since the idea of sequels e.g. Aliens, Terminator and worlds e.g. Marvel took off.
? Everyone of these products, took of as a high risk venture- a risky bet, mostly guided by the assumption of the success inherited with a producer - aka the talent. The sure-fire successstory brand names they became after the risky bet paid off. Which makes them - yes, transportable, containerize-able, high-value "content", in hindsight.
And hindsight is not the same game, with all information revealed. And mass-producing them, has steadily deteriorated the value shipped in the containers. Which made more of them necessary, better organized, cheaper. Which looks like a great success until you realize that the value of anonymous goods traded in the standardized box has deteriorated and the impressive need for volume is a sign of decay.
And hindsight is not the same game, with all information revealed. And mass-producing them, has steadily deteriorated the value shipped in the containers. Which made more of them necessary, better organized, cheaper. Which looks like a great success until you realize that the value of anonymous goods traded in the standardized box has deteriorated and the impressive need for volume is a sign of decay.
> how CD Project Red handled their successful Cyberpunk integration on Netflix as a model
A reminder that Cyberpunk IP holder is Mike Pondsmith, not CD Project.
A reminder that Cyberpunk IP holder is Mike Pondsmith, not CD Project.
I don't think that's true anymore, I believe Mike sold the IP to CD Project and has a stake in the company now, but I need to find a source to confirm this.
My understanding is Mike sold media rights to Cyberpunk to CD Projekt but not the IP itself
How can anyone hold IP over an abstract vibe?
Cyberpunk != cyberpunk, unfortunately.
Cyberpunk 2077 is set in the Cyberpunk RPG universe that was created by Mike Pondsmith in 1988.
It was named after the vibe without changing the name...
Also a helpful article: https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2019/8/7/20756548/cyberpunk-...
Cyberpunk 2077 is set in the Cyberpunk RPG universe that was created by Mike Pondsmith in 1988.
It was named after the vibe without changing the name...
Also a helpful article: https://www.polygon.com/reviews/2019/8/7/20756548/cyberpunk-...
The vibe already overloaded the name of a different story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_(short_story)
In this context is referring as Cyberpunk the role playing game, rather than just the genre. Cyberpunk 2077 has a setting based on the role playing board game (that’s where some characters come from, like Silverhand), and that setting is the original IP.
It's like how Microsoft owns Windows, but not windows.
If you got a few of those motorized windows and hooked up a laptop running MS’ operating system to control them all, but only during certain times of day, there would be a window where your windows would be Windows windows.
You could set up a sweepstakes to install them with some complicated terms. Then you could explain to the local Vietnamese baker how the rules work — in other words, when does Nguyen Doughs win doze Windows windows?
Damn corpos will try to control anything to make a buck
// How can anyone hold IP over an abstract vibe? //
Same way somebody can hold a patent to a cartoon drawing of a mouse. It's not any individual picture of Mickey Mouse which is (solely) copywrited; even if you draw Mickey Mouse from a different angle, or upside down, or turn it into a plush toy, or a popsicle.....or if you drew Mickey's twin brother, or even his younger brother who bore a family resemblance....
...what do all those things have in common? If its not a "vibe"--a certain essence of Mickey-Mouseness.
Same way somebody can hold a patent to a cartoon drawing of a mouse. It's not any individual picture of Mickey Mouse which is (solely) copywrited; even if you draw Mickey Mouse from a different angle, or upside down, or turn it into a plush toy, or a popsicle.....or if you drew Mickey's twin brother, or even his younger brother who bore a family resemblance....
...what do all those things have in common? If its not a "vibe"--a certain essence of Mickey-Mouseness.
You can't hold a patent to a cartoon drawing of a mouse (that you're implying is the character Mickey Mouse)
You can hold a design patent for the look of a tangible object - e.g. the rounded corners of an iPhone. You can also hold a design patent for particularly novel typefaces (fonts), the layout of a screen (e.g. like Norton Commander's twin directory listings on the left and right) and for computer icons, but that only covers them when they're displayed on screen.
So you could get a patent for the stylised depiction of a mouse as an icon, but only in that context.
If you wanted to flex ownership of a fictional character design, you get that by copyright, not patent. And the copyright law on derivative works is what protects that fiction character design from being copied or evolved by others. But it can't stop them parodying your design in order to ridicule it (specifically), so you don't have absolute control over it.
This is why I don't like the use of the term "IP" or "intellecual property", as it completely muddies the waters as to what your actual rights are, and what limitations of "ownership" there are.
You can hold a design patent for the look of a tangible object - e.g. the rounded corners of an iPhone. You can also hold a design patent for particularly novel typefaces (fonts), the layout of a screen (e.g. like Norton Commander's twin directory listings on the left and right) and for computer icons, but that only covers them when they're displayed on screen.
So you could get a patent for the stylised depiction of a mouse as an icon, but only in that context.
If you wanted to flex ownership of a fictional character design, you get that by copyright, not patent. And the copyright law on derivative works is what protects that fiction character design from being copied or evolved by others. But it can't stop them parodying your design in order to ridicule it (specifically), so you don't have absolute control over it.
This is why I don't like the use of the term "IP" or "intellecual property", as it completely muddies the waters as to what your actual rights are, and what limitations of "ownership" there are.
// You can't hold a patent to a cartoon drawing of a mouse //
No, cartoons are protected by copyright, not by patents. And if I'm not mistaken, the original comment which wondered if a general vibe could be intellectual property was talking about something which would be protected by copyright as well.
But the same principle holds for patents. E.g. patenting an algorithm. It doesn't matter what language the algorithm is implemented in, whether you are running it on a binary computer or on some kind of a Chinese room set up, etc etc.
Think about how different two turing machines can be which implement the same algorithm. They don't even have to use the same symbols or states. They could print their outputs in English, French or any other natural language. The only thing that all Turing machines which implement the same algorithm have in common is a "vibe". Same kind of general vibe which the original commenter was talking about.
But the same principle holds for patents. E.g. patenting an algorithm. It doesn't matter what language the algorithm is implemented in, whether you are running it on a binary computer or on some kind of a Chinese room set up, etc etc.
Think about how different two turing machines can be which implement the same algorithm. They don't even have to use the same symbols or states. They could print their outputs in English, French or any other natural language. The only thing that all Turing machines which implement the same algorithm have in common is a "vibe". Same kind of general vibe which the original commenter was talking about.
You definitely can't patent or copyright "a general vibe". You can copyright a specific expression; "Harry Potter" is copyrightable but not "boy wizards".
You can patent the novel parts of an invention (and in the US, business processes), but most things are not novel, and fictional things are not patentable.
You can patent the novel parts of an invention (and in the US, business processes), but most things are not novel, and fictional things are not patentable.
Can you make a movie set in the Harry Potter Universe? No, as it is copyrighted. What is that but copyrighting a vibe?
The "Harry Potter Universe" is a collection of specific characters and specific locations. That is what's protected by copyright. You can totally make your own original story about a boy wizard, a school for magical people somewhere in the Scottish Highlands, and so on. You can totally repeat the "vibe" if you like, provided you don't base it on the specifics of Harry Potter.
To give some concrete examples:
Sherlock Holmes (and the "Sherlock Holmes Universe" if you like) used to be protected by copyright. While it was, there were thousands of competing books about detectives, including Maigret (with his distinctive pipe and overcoat, really rather a lot like Holmes), Miss Marple, Poirot, Lord Peter Wimsey, and so on. "The vibe" of detective fiction was very much not copyrightable.
Furthemore, Dracula was a specific book, and certain works like Nosferatu did copy it. However the "vibe" of Dracula is vampires, and vampires are ancient folklore. There have been countless works of vampire fiction not infringing on Dracula's copyright. They just didn't copy Dracula. It's not that hard to do.
Musicians can copyright the melody and lyrics of their music, but they can't copyright the harmony, rhythm, and arrangement. If they could, we just wouldn't have music. An entire genre - blues - uses the same chord progression to produce hundreds of thousands of unique songs, but all within the basic structure. They are not copying each other, they're following the rules of a genre -- a "vibe". You can't copyright a vibe.
To give some concrete examples:
Sherlock Holmes (and the "Sherlock Holmes Universe" if you like) used to be protected by copyright. While it was, there were thousands of competing books about detectives, including Maigret (with his distinctive pipe and overcoat, really rather a lot like Holmes), Miss Marple, Poirot, Lord Peter Wimsey, and so on. "The vibe" of detective fiction was very much not copyrightable.
Furthemore, Dracula was a specific book, and certain works like Nosferatu did copy it. However the "vibe" of Dracula is vampires, and vampires are ancient folklore. There have been countless works of vampire fiction not infringing on Dracula's copyright. They just didn't copy Dracula. It's not that hard to do.
Musicians can copyright the melody and lyrics of their music, but they can't copyright the harmony, rhythm, and arrangement. If they could, we just wouldn't have music. An entire genre - blues - uses the same chord progression to produce hundreds of thousands of unique songs, but all within the basic structure. They are not copying each other, they're following the rules of a genre -- a "vibe". You can't copyright a vibe.
Patents only last 20 years in most countries. Design patents for 15 years in US (I think 25 years in EU.) Mickey Mouse has be around for a lot longer than that.
I was going to say. Patents expire. Copyright effectively extends beyond human lifespan and doesn't, making them forever. Patents are more useful because the public gets access once they expire.
It also goes back, when CP2077 TV show premiered, sales and number of players skyrocketed again, same for Fallout.
This seems like the same way to look at it. The only disagreement between these two comments is if the potential integration is motivated by a lack of success, or the outlook of even greater success. Those are is, at least economically, identical motivations.
That seems to be the goal of their partnership with Remedy Games, whose games are already pretty much interactive movies.
They were too successful for their own good?
I hope whatever entity these people reform has the same magic.
Every single game they published had something unique. Outer Wilds, Telling Lies, Twelve Minutes, Edit Finch, Neon White, etc.
They didn't develop these games, but they have an eye for talent.
Every single game they published had something unique. Outer Wilds, Telling Lies, Twelve Minutes, Edit Finch, Neon White, etc.
They didn't develop these games, but they have an eye for talent.
I agree. They are like the A24 for games. They don't make the product themselves but invest and promote some really good games. Outer Wilds being one of my favourites of all time.
Outer Wilds is top three all-time for me. And hands-down, the most underrated game and at least one generation.
it’s a good point that the publisher does have an eye for talent.
it’s a good point that the publisher does have an eye for talent.
PSA: Outer Wilds is not Outer Worlds, which is a completely unrelated game from Obsidian.
I’m aware. Outer Worlds got all the attention but it was a 1/2 expectation Fallout clone.
Outer Wilds was a masterpiece.
Outer Wilds was a masterpiece.
Thanks, I made that mistake.
There really is nothing out there like Outer Wilds. It’s an extraordinary masterpiece of a game.
I’m trying very hard to make myself wait a full 5 years before I replay it, I want to experience it all over again, and I’m really really hopeful that I can find someone new to the game to play through it with me, because I am HUNGRY to feel those feelings again!
I’m trying very hard to make myself wait a full 5 years before I replay it, I want to experience it all over again, and I’m really really hopeful that I can find someone new to the game to play through it with me, because I am HUNGRY to feel those feelings again!
Outer wilds is such a unique experience. Not only from other games, but I mean it as well as once you complete the game you wont experience it again.
Did you play the DLC as well?
In their nascent years I played two of their early games, both mobile games - Florence and Gorogoa. Both beautiful. I still play Florence once in a while and it really evokes emotions. Gorogoa is a great puzzle game that the HN crowd would love. Highly recommend both if you haven't tried them!
Both games are incredible but Gorogoa is a masterpiece. It attempted to communicate something about humanity that couldn't have been expressed in any other form.
I adored Donut County, it had everything I could possible want from a game about trash pandas and LA county donut culture.
It's probably the best donutlike I've played
Donut County is my favorite game to sit someone down and watch them play through in a single sitting.
Everyone has their favourites, but have you not seen Katamari Damacy ?
I agree. Seeing the Annapurna logo in a game has become a signal to me that I will really enjoy that game and that it has a unique, fresh perspective to offer.
What kind of lift is there in just becoming a publisher from scratch?
I'm trying to imagine what their role is ... if you can just "be a publisher" or if you need a lot of cash up front or what.
I'm trying to imagine what their role is ... if you can just "be a publisher" or if you need a lot of cash up front or what.
I don't know the answer, but I imagine that the execs and staff that left as a block have some plan lined up.
I don't know either, but it seems like approximately 100% of the reason game studios opt not to self-publish in this day and age is that lift. Annapurna's name alone carried a lot of clout.
(Side note: continue to be disappointed that they didn't brand themselves as "Annapurrna" on the Stray opening screen.)
(Side note: continue to be disappointed that they didn't brand themselves as "Annapurrna" on the Stray opening screen.)
I would add a couple games that moved me (Hindsight, A Memoir Blue). but I also have to mention not all of their titles are smash hits IMO -- I disliked Florence, Last Stop, If Found, and Open Roads.
That said, I agree that their good games have made me a fan, and I hope the original staff keeps going in some form.
That said, I agree that their good games have made me a fan, and I hope the original staff keeps going in some form.
I feel the same way! Annapurna Interactive consistently published games with something special
They were one of the few publishing companies that people liked as a _publishing_ company.
They were a top indie publisher who you could rely on releasing interesting and quality game. Sad loss for gaming.
Absolutely. "Annapurna Interactive" essentially made anything an instant buy for me. Very disappointed to see what sort of undead monster the label will become.
Good for them!
There's a lot to be said about certain large publishers but this publisher's list of games includes some very good titles. Just knowing they worked with the developers to release certain titles makes me very interested to see who they'll work with next. They seem like a group who will become a household name with a little luck in their marketing.
I understand why Annapurna would not want to spin off such a successful division but it sounds like the only leverage they had was existing IP, which the employees probably understand as a sunk cost. I'm glad they were all able to realize they could just do what they do under a different name; I get the feeling the developers they've worked with will remember them and they know it.
There's a lot to be said about certain large publishers but this publisher's list of games includes some very good titles. Just knowing they worked with the developers to release certain titles makes me very interested to see who they'll work with next. They seem like a group who will become a household name with a little luck in their marketing.
I understand why Annapurna would not want to spin off such a successful division but it sounds like the only leverage they had was existing IP, which the employees probably understand as a sunk cost. I'm glad they were all able to realize they could just do what they do under a different name; I get the feeling the developers they've worked with will remember them and they know it.
> “The report, which IGN can confirm based on conversations with our own sources, states that Annapurna Interactive president Nathan Gary had recently been in negotiations with Annapurna founder and billionaire Megan Ellison to spin the gaming segment off as its own company. However, Ellison eventually pulled out of negotiations, at which point Gary resigned. Almost 30 other individuals, including division co-heads Deborah Mars and Nathan Vella, as well as the entire remaining staff of Annapurna Interactive, joined him.”
From IGN — https://www.ign.com/articles/annapurnas-entire-gaming-team-h...
I don’t blame them. I’d rather negotiate my arm out of a shark’s mouth than the cost of a hot dog with Larry Ellison, or his daughter. You don’t get that awful rich by ever believing you’re awful rich enough.
From IGN — https://www.ign.com/articles/annapurnas-entire-gaming-team-h...
I don’t blame them. I’d rather negotiate my arm out of a shark’s mouth than the cost of a hot dog with Larry Ellison, or his daughter. You don’t get that awful rich by ever believing you’re awful rich enough.
This is what people with talents should do if they don't agree with the super riches who don't do anything substantial but inherit a shit ton of money.
Imagine having to negotiate with Larry Ellisons nepo daughter, how can you even keep a straight face. "It says here you are a film producer?"
I only found out recently that animated film company Laika was created after Nike founder Phil Knight bought his son a new career after he failed at being a rapper.
He bought into Will Vinton studios and then forced Oscar winning animation pioneer Will Vinton out of his own company.
There's a whole documentary, sad and interesting.
He bought into Will Vinton studios and then forced Oscar winning animation pioneer Will Vinton out of his own company.
There's a whole documentary, sad and interesting.
If I recall, it turns out that his "failed rapper" son had some sort of natural talent for this and has got nothing but accolades even from other animators ever since. Although I do get your point.
Yes, they did produce this great movie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubo_and_the_Two_Strings
He also directed Bumblebee, perhaps the only great film in the Transformers universe.
f me that movie was so great, only to be overshadowed by Coco a year later.
[deleted]
Wow, I didn't make the last name connection until reading this thread. The Wikipedia page[1] for Annapurna Pictures doesn't even mention that the founder is the child of a billionaire. It just kind of implies the founder dabbled in film school for two semesters, went off to travel the world, and then -poof- a media production company is conjured into existence. Pretty rosy depiction of nepotism.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapurna_Pictures
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapurna_Pictures
Until she got bored, anyway. You know, I also feel I have "grown secluded" from my day job.
> After a series of underperforming productions, in 2019 Ellison had grown secluded from Hollywood, leaving Annapurna to be mostly ran by Nathan Gary, who led Annapurna Interactive before being promoted to president. She left to Lanai, a Hawaiian island owned by her father, and remained there as the COVID-19 pandemic forced people to remain isolated.
> After a series of underperforming productions, in 2019 Ellison had grown secluded from Hollywood, leaving Annapurna to be mostly ran by Nathan Gary, who led Annapurna Interactive before being promoted to president. She left to Lanai, a Hawaiian island owned by her father, and remained there as the COVID-19 pandemic forced people to remain isolated.
Not really nepotism. Megan is one of Hollywoods best producers. Far better than her father in his job.
It's just as weird that it happens twice in Hollywood today. Another of Larry Ellison's nepo baby heirs runs Skydance, which has had a bit more success in "blockbuster" terms (and has recently been flirting with buying CBS Viacom aka Paramount).
It says this is the company that produced, among other films, She? Did Megan Ellison have anything to do with it?
"Producer" == $WALLET
Her
I don't follow? Why is that funny? Why wouldn't she be able to be a film producer?
On average, those who enter a field using money are less accomplished than those who enter a field using experience. Obviously.
I think it has to do more with being honest about ones core competencies.
There are tons of people who enter a field because they're rich, hire great people, connect those great people with money, and do very well.
There are also rich people who believe wealth qualifies them as subject matter experts, which tends to go less well...
There are tons of people who enter a field because they're rich, hire great people, connect those great people with money, and do very well.
There are also rich people who believe wealth qualifies them as subject matter experts, which tends to go less well...
Isaacman seems to have his shit together.
Also a nice guy. Perhaps not unrelated.
Branson is supposed to be a really decent chap.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with who you surround yourself with, and how much agency you give them.
One word that rich people almost never hear, is “no.” Even really nice ones don't hear it often.
That means that almost any rectally-sourced, harebrained idea they squeeze out, is treated as genius, by their entourage.
I know a number of fairly wealthy people, and some of them won’t have anything to do with me, because I say the “N” word. Others, actually ask me what I think.
People rapidly learn that asking me for my input means getting an answer that is honest, but not one they might want to hear (and that answer might be "I don't know.").
They don’t always give it much weight, but at least they ask.
Those folks are not always the ones you might consider “nice,” though.
Just anectdata, though, and the community we share has some traits that reward Honesty and seeking counsel from others.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with who you surround yourself with, and how much agency you give them.
One word that rich people almost never hear, is “no.” Even really nice ones don't hear it often.
That means that almost any rectally-sourced, harebrained idea they squeeze out, is treated as genius, by their entourage.
I know a number of fairly wealthy people, and some of them won’t have anything to do with me, because I say the “N” word. Others, actually ask me what I think.
People rapidly learn that asking me for my input means getting an answer that is honest, but not one they might want to hear (and that answer might be "I don't know.").
They don’t always give it much weight, but at least they ask.
Those folks are not always the ones you might consider “nice,” though.
Just anectdata, though, and the community we share has some traits that reward Honesty and seeking counsel from others.
> Branson is supposed to be a really decent chap.
Do yourself a favour and read the Tom Bower biographies of him, e.g. Branson: Behind The Mask
In fact, you can a get a good understanding of him indirectly through the testimony in Tubular Bells: the Mike Oldfield story https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=877&v=UQLDGpcgNTM e.g. John Giddings says of Branson "He was a chancer. He was prepared to gamble and go for it. He was percieved as a visionary, putting it all together, but really he was importing records illegally and flogging them, right? He was a second-hand car salesman."
Do yourself a favour and read the Tom Bower biographies of him, e.g. Branson: Behind The Mask
In fact, you can a get a good understanding of him indirectly through the testimony in Tubular Bells: the Mike Oldfield story https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=877&v=UQLDGpcgNTM e.g. John Giddings says of Branson "He was a chancer. He was prepared to gamble and go for it. He was percieved as a visionary, putting it all together, but really he was importing records illegally and flogging them, right? He was a second-hand car salesman."
Fun Fact: Richard Branson had such an antagonistic relationship with Mike Oldfield, that Oldfield included a segment in one of his albums where he plays a guitar with staccato notes that spelled out "Fuck Off R.B." in morse code[1], recording under Branson's own label.
1: https://www.mikeoldfield.org/amarok
1: https://www.mikeoldfield.org/amarok
That doesn't necessarily mean he was a not-nice person.
He's actually fairly well-known for treating his employees well. One of the reasons his TV show wasn't so popular, was because he wasn't into pitting the contestants against each other, and firing the losers.
He's actually fairly well-known for treating his employees well. One of the reasons his TV show wasn't so popular, was because he wasn't into pitting the contestants against each other, and firing the losers.
The comment did not make clear she bought the position. It almost seemed more like it was implying anyone who is family of some rich guy can't accomplish anything themselves.
Is this really true? Arguable lance stroll is better than Logan in f1.
Arguably Logan was in F1 to draw American audiences and sponsors, also his uncle is a billionaire.
Another lawnmower is born.
For those who don’t get the lawnmower reference, take 5 minutes and have a hearty laugh: https://youtube.com/watch?t=1980&v=-zRN7XLCRhc
(Start at the 33 minute mark if it doesn’t jump you there.)
(Start at the 33 minute mark if it doesn’t jump you there.)
That rant is famous, but I always wonder at the naivety of Cantrill and friends. Ellison was already known for being a shameless shark since the '80s, 20 years before the SUN acquisition. Believing he would leave your little blade of grass untouched was always going to be fanciful - particularly when they were a loss-making part of the company with no-future already.
I think there's plenty of people who the internet or gossip circles hate where that hate is unjustified. At the same time, a lot of the worst people are initially quite personally charming and keep that face even as they screw you over. And I think when people come into contact that they've only heard about in gossip in person, there's quite often an attempt to be like "well that's the caricature of Larry Ellison, maybe he's not actually that bad". Face to face contact can weight quite heavily compared to "people on the internet".
Combine the two of them and you get a recipe for people to give Larry Ellison the benefit of the doubt, taking a "well we're adults, let's handle this more maturely than immediately doubting our counter party" stance, even as people who by their own accounts had heard otherwise. Ultimately in this case, Cantrill's experience proved "the internet" right, but I think even that might not prevent someone else repeating the same situation in the future.
Combine the two of them and you get a recipe for people to give Larry Ellison the benefit of the doubt, taking a "well we're adults, let's handle this more maturely than immediately doubting our counter party" stance, even as people who by their own accounts had heard otherwise. Ultimately in this case, Cantrill's experience proved "the internet" right, but I think even that might not prevent someone else repeating the same situation in the future.
This is extremely well articulated, and is exactly true in my experience.
People take gossip as "gossip"- an unrealiable approximation and gross-oversimplification of an individual. Thus give people with poor reputations the benefit of the doubt, believing themselves to be open minded. (which is true).
When they are shown just how 1-dimensional some people can actually be, and that the gossip depicts people precisely, it can be jarring. Especially as, like you mention, many people are very personable, charismatic, charming etc;
People take gossip as "gossip"- an unrealiable approximation and gross-oversimplification of an individual. Thus give people with poor reputations the benefit of the doubt, believing themselves to be open minded. (which is true).
When they are shown just how 1-dimensional some people can actually be, and that the gossip depicts people precisely, it can be jarring. Especially as, like you mention, many people are very personable, charismatic, charming etc;
Idi Amin could be quite charming. Same for another dictator, who will not be mentioned, at the risk of Godwining the conversation.
He could talk to a family, leave them smitten and hopeful, then whisper "Kill them" to the guard, on his way out.
He could talk to a family, leave them smitten and hopeful, then whisper "Kill them" to the guard, on his way out.
Just think about the exceptionally gifted "10x" engineers we all meet from time to time. There are people equally gifted in charisma and manipulation, they can predict what people are feeling and steer them where they want them with high success rates. This is what I think of whenever I see a politician on video or meet one in person.
I joke that Larry is from that evil Star Trek universe and somewhere in the multiverse a clean-shaven, teddy bear of a man is trapped in a universe full of assholes because he was tricked into swapping with this Larry.
It's a funny joke, but I think it downplays how much of our world is led, run, and inhabited by assholes. It's more likely that we are living in the Asshole Universe and there is a parallel universe out there where being the asshole is an outlier.
It’s why I now doubt the motives of all people that seem too personable :/
"Motives are rarely unselfish". That's good enough.
From murders to politicians to CEOs, nearly every impactful predator has a lot of positive qualities as well.
You don't rise to the top of the food chain without having some really sociopathic/narcisisstic traits.
But, you also don't rise to the top of the food chain solely by being terrible all of the time. And IMO/IME lot of those "good traits in bad people" honestly are genuine, not just facades.
This is not to excuse the bad people of the world. It's just... honestly, as a middle-aged person myself... it has been the hardest thing for me to wrap my head around as an adult. The rest of the stuff, I was prepared for, on some level.
You don't rise to the top of the food chain without having some really sociopathic/narcisisstic traits.
But, you also don't rise to the top of the food chain solely by being terrible all of the time. And IMO/IME lot of those "good traits in bad people" honestly are genuine, not just facades.
This is not to excuse the bad people of the world. It's just... honestly, as a middle-aged person myself... it has been the hardest thing for me to wrap my head around as an adult. The rest of the stuff, I was prepared for, on some level.
Yah.. it was well known but when it happens to you it's hard to really not try to be open minded. That is why his rant is so famous.
I was rolled up into Oracle through a series of acquisitions a few years before Sun.. it all went down the same way. You know what's going to happen but it's still a shock when a manager you knew before you joined Oracle and wouldn't have behaved the Oracle way instructs you to lie to a customer cause "that's how it's done here and we're going to have to go along with it."
You also don't realize how shocking it's going to be to see the office re-decorated until they come in and rip everything down and put up pictures of Larry's boats and airplanes and other toys.
When we were acquired Larry Ellison got on a big conference call we were all allowed to join and we could raise a virtual hand and ask questions. To his credit he answered everything 100% truthfully and transparently, and the questions were answered exactly the way the Internet expects he would answer.
I was rolled up into Oracle through a series of acquisitions a few years before Sun.. it all went down the same way. You know what's going to happen but it's still a shock when a manager you knew before you joined Oracle and wouldn't have behaved the Oracle way instructs you to lie to a customer cause "that's how it's done here and we're going to have to go along with it."
You also don't realize how shocking it's going to be to see the office re-decorated until they come in and rip everything down and put up pictures of Larry's boats and airplanes and other toys.
When we were acquired Larry Ellison got on a big conference call we were all allowed to join and we could raise a virtual hand and ask questions. To his credit he answered everything 100% truthfully and transparently, and the questions were answered exactly the way the Internet expects he would answer.
Well at least he has been honest. Honesty is a luxury merchandise you can purchase with a few billion dollars for sure.
To be a billionaire you need colluders.
Given the situation that IP was in at the time, I'm not sure it was a "believe" so much as a "hope". There wasn't much of an alternative.
It would have made so much more sense to sell to IBM though, and I don’t even like IBM. I respected their R&D at the time, but their global services division is a blight on society.
I can’t recall, did the feds block that option?
I can’t recall, did the feds block that option?
IBM was only interested in Java and lowballed the price.
Oracle was interested in hardware too, and offered more money.
IIRC, reports were that IBM negotiated the price down with a stinky "who else is ever going to buy you" attitude, and were blindsided once Ellison came into the picture offering more cash.
Oracle was interested in hardware too, and offered more money.
IIRC, reports were that IBM negotiated the price down with a stinky "who else is ever going to buy you" attitude, and were blindsided once Ellison came into the picture offering more cash.
I thought Sun was just a little misguided and naive and then they sold to Ellison and I realized they were a bunch of fucking morons. WHY? WHY DID YOU DO THIS??
Cantrill and friends just worked there, but the board presumably knew what they were doing.
There was a Wired article that told me everything I needed to know about Larry, the way your blind date being mean to the waiter tells you not to make a second date. It was about the best smart homes. It came out during the DotCom boom, before Sun folded. Larry had one of the smartest homes in America. It had a remote control. One Saturday evening, the article reports, he got furious with the system because it wasn’t working, so he threw the remote and smashed it.
Then he called the company and demanded a new one. Someone had to drive, 45 minutes if memory serves, to his house to deliver a new remote, on their Saturday night, because some petulant man-child had a temper tantrum and couldn’t wait until Monday.
Fuck that guy.
How much of a pain in the ass you have to be in the interview process for a writer to drop that anecdote into the article? You know we are only getting part of that story.
Cantrill and friends just worked there, but the board presumably knew what they were doing.
There was a Wired article that told me everything I needed to know about Larry, the way your blind date being mean to the waiter tells you not to make a second date. It was about the best smart homes. It came out during the DotCom boom, before Sun folded. Larry had one of the smartest homes in America. It had a remote control. One Saturday evening, the article reports, he got furious with the system because it wasn’t working, so he threw the remote and smashed it.
Then he called the company and demanded a new one. Someone had to drive, 45 minutes if memory serves, to his house to deliver a new remote, on their Saturday night, because some petulant man-child had a temper tantrum and couldn’t wait until Monday.
Fuck that guy.
How much of a pain in the ass you have to be in the interview process for a writer to drop that anecdote into the article? You know we are only getting part of that story.
> I thought Sun was just a little misguided and naive and then they sold to Ellison and I realized they were a bunch of fucking morons. WHY? WHY DID YOU DO THIS??
Whatever you think of Oracle and the One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison, IBM as a company are likely worse. Sun had a "west coast wheeler-dealer" vibe, as did Oracle. IBM had an "east coast button-down shirt" vibe. IBM had first dibs and Sun said "no, I may be desperate but I'm not that desperate"
If Sun had to be sold (which it did because it was consistently losing money hand over fist) and there was a choice of IBM, HP and Oracle to sell it to, and only those three, which would you pick?
If you've never experienced the IBM culture, this is a great essay about Don Estridge (father of the IBM PC) which will give you a good flavour of the company: https://every.to/the-crazy-ones/the-misfit-who-built-the-ibm...
Whatever you think of Oracle and the One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison, IBM as a company are likely worse. Sun had a "west coast wheeler-dealer" vibe, as did Oracle. IBM had an "east coast button-down shirt" vibe. IBM had first dibs and Sun said "no, I may be desperate but I'm not that desperate"
If Sun had to be sold (which it did because it was consistently losing money hand over fist) and there was a choice of IBM, HP and Oracle to sell it to, and only those three, which would you pick?
If you've never experienced the IBM culture, this is a great essay about Don Estridge (father of the IBM PC) which will give you a good flavour of the company: https://every.to/the-crazy-ones/the-misfit-who-built-the-ibm...
I wonder if Dell’s story arc would have been different if they bought Sun. And I wonder how different the Cloud would be if they had. Did they even have the cash then?
IBM needed one thing from SUN: Java.
Oracle needed two things from SUN: Java and hardware.
Nobody else had the money or the inclination to buy the company. Going with Ellison was the least-worst option.
I just find it funny how people who very obviously had it coming (i.e. Solaris, various opensource projects, etc - stuff that very obviously wasn't making money and would likely never make money), didn't see it coming.
Oracle needed two things from SUN: Java and hardware.
Nobody else had the money or the inclination to buy the company. Going with Ellison was the least-worst option.
I just find it funny how people who very obviously had it coming (i.e. Solaris, various opensource projects, etc - stuff that very obviously wasn't making money and would likely never make money), didn't see it coming.
"Don't anthropomorphize Larry Ellison"
Funniest thing I've heard in a while!
Funniest thing I've heard in a while!
Larry Ellison is the only person I can think of that I instantly know what video is being linked when someone shares a link.
PSA: it’s a link to Bryan Cantrill ranting about the Sun / Oracle acquisition. I couldn’t make it through 5 minutes of his ranting to get to an accurate summary of the joke though.
> You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle.
> "Oh they wanted to kill OpenSolaris!" No, the lawnmower doesn't care about OpenSolaris, the lawnmower doesn't think about OpenSolaris, the lawnmower _can't_ care about OpenSolaris. The lawnmower can't have empathy.
[deleted]
The lawnmower joke is here: https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?feature=shared&t=2303 at the 38:23 mark.
I should have read this thread, it would have saved me the couple of minutes to get the exact same link you just did!
I named my lawnmower Larry.
I named my lawnmower Larry.
You grow up an Ellison, I figure you either end up just like daddy, a social justice warrior with means, or like Mary Trump, a psychologist. Just so you can unpack your fucked up family and help others.
Or like Abigail Disney
She seems to be leaning toward the sjw trope.
And then there’s Sarah Winchester, who instead of becoming the psychologist, became a case study in psychology.
And then there’s Sarah Winchester, who instead of becoming the psychologist, became a case study in psychology.
"Don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison!" bahahah
Or don't waste 5 minutes on this for that.
Direct links pointing closer, and the transcript are available in this thread. (At the bottom, for some reasons.)
Direct links pointing closer, and the transcript are available in this thread. (At the bottom, for some reasons.)
Counterpoint: That was an excellent use of my 5 minutes.
Hardly a waste, unless you hate to be entertained.
Rinzler89(2)
This is hilarious and rather sad. How did Annapurna fumble such famous talent so bad?
It sounds like a good decision by the team tbh. Blurring the lines by 'integrating' functioning teams into a bigger entity which does completely unrelated things (TV, film and theater) never goes well. The team will most likely found their independent 'spin-off' company as they had planned already, no talent or knowledge is lost, only risk is financing for new projects.
It seems like all their other IP is derived from the game IPs, so I'm a little confused how this leaves Annapurna in a better position.
It doesn't. It's the people who actually did all the work who are benefiting, not the corporate entity. The coordinated mass resignations make it obvious that the former management is ready to immediately start up their own company in the office next door and hire on everyone who just quit Annapurna.
And that's why you don't sign non-competes and they should be illegal to protect those with no leverage.
Ah yes you're correct, I misread the above comment.
Dr Dr
Not the parent company, but the game team that resigned is in a better position. They can continue focus on building games, instead of being 'integrated' with the TV, film and theater people (I bet most of that 'integration' is about 'outsourcing' CGI work to the 3D artists in the game team - e.g. a distraction from making games).
You're not quite there. Annapurna does not make games, it publishes them. There's no significant number of 3D artist working there. Even on the movie side, they don't directly make the movies.
They do (did?) have an in-house team working on a Blade Runner game, I haven't seen any mention in news coverage if that team is out as well
https://annapurnainteractive.com/en/games/blade-runner-2033-...
https://annapurnainteractive.com/en/games/blade-runner-2033-...
From that page:
> From Annapurna Interactive, ...
Sounds like it's the same group. I doubt they're leaving with the IP but I also doubt that Annapurna Productions is going to make a game with it.
> From Annapurna Interactive, ...
Sounds like it's the same group. I doubt they're leaving with the IP but I also doubt that Annapurna Productions is going to make a game with it.
Clearly not accurate, they've produced quite a few famous and acclaimed films based on original ideas, Philip K Dick novels & real life events.
Ah, my bad.
in particular, media mergers have a long history of going south pretty quickly because company culture is so fundamental to media production.
AOL+Time Warner is up there in the history of worst mergers.
AOL+Time Warner is up there in the history of worst mergers.
Probably through "line must always go up" mentality.
Creative business, especially games, should really not be publicly traded or thought of as having major returns on investments.
It might work on start, but sooner or later the "current hit game" will fade out of popularity and then people will get fired and crunch will become the norm etc... in order to satisfy the "line must go up" mentality, but since game dev is a hit driven business that clashes with the "Line must go up" concept at its core since, being a hit driven business, means that it's totaly unpredictable.
Creative business, especially games, should really not be publicly traded or thought of as having major returns on investments.
It might work on start, but sooner or later the "current hit game" will fade out of popularity and then people will get fired and crunch will become the norm etc... in order to satisfy the "line must go up" mentality, but since game dev is a hit driven business that clashes with the "Line must go up" concept at its core since, being a hit driven business, means that it's totaly unpredictable.
The video game business is very similar to the film or literary publishing business. You need to publish ten novels for one to do well enough financially to pay off the others. Nobody really knows why that one worked. It's possible to do a few sequels, but the formula quickly becomes boring.
No one can guarantee the commercial success of a novel, film or video game.
No one can guarantee the commercial success of a novel, film or video game.
That's why equity investment in creative endeavors is an entire class of business. Possible to risk-balance adjustment, similar to anything else.
Do we have any source or other data indicating that this happened here?
Is this not the legally obligated line of thinking for american companies? You have some leeway to argue with only providing value to shareholders in some specific manner, but not much.
"Value" is whatever shareholders want it to be.
In the case of a public company that is assumed to be profit, because the shareholders are a vast and ever changing group. Annapurna isn't public, so it serves whatever the private owners want.
Even in a publicly traded stock, the company charter can specify something other than profit. The shareholders know that when they buy stock.
In other words there is more leeway than we commonly give credit. The notion of a fiduciary duty to be greedy is pushed by psychopathic CEOs but isn't really what the law says.
In the case of a public company that is assumed to be profit, because the shareholders are a vast and ever changing group. Annapurna isn't public, so it serves whatever the private owners want.
Even in a publicly traded stock, the company charter can specify something other than profit. The shareholders know that when they buy stock.
In other words there is more leeway than we commonly give credit. The notion of a fiduciary duty to be greedy is pushed by psychopathic CEOs but isn't really what the law says.
Most companies try to operate at a profit and actually increase those profits over time. That said, reasoning that Annapurna failed only because of that requires some impressive mental gymnastics
Any idea why the previous is flagged?
Most company personnel changes are not particularly interesting (in the sense of there's not much 'intellectually curious' conversation to be had about them) and are also extensively covered and discussed elsewhere.
This story is clearly interesting to the community, or the original wouldn't have gotten 40 points in an hour at night time. There was absolutely nothing toxic going on in the comments either.
Calling it a "personnel change" is also reading as brazenly disingenuous.
Calling it a "personnel change" is also reading as brazenly disingenuous.
the original wouldn't have gotten 40 points
Everything is interesting to someone and HN doesn't really work strictly by points, you can find explanations of this in lots of the moderator commentary and in the site faq under 'how are stories ranked'.
Calling it a "personnel change" is also reading as brazenly disingenuous.
That is certainly one exciting reading.
Everything is interesting to someone and HN doesn't really work strictly by points, you can find explanations of this in lots of the moderator commentary and in the site faq under 'how are stories ranked'.
Calling it a "personnel change" is also reading as brazenly disingenuous.
That is certainly one exciting reading.
> HN doesn't really work strictly by points
People were interested nonetheless. 216 points on this post with 89 comments is pretty conclusive, strict point system or no.
> That is certainly one exciting reading.
Accurate too.
People were interested nonetheless. 216 points on this post with 89 comments is pretty conclusive, strict point system or no.
> That is certainly one exciting reading.
Accurate too.
216 points on this post with 89 comments is pretty conclusive
Lots of things with piles of points and comments are poor HN submissions. Happens all the time and is not in any way conclusive. That's basically the explanation, for there to be some kind of conclusion you'd have to make an argument that isn't about points and comments of a thing that's on the fp. Everything on the fp gets points and comments.
Lots of things with piles of points and comments are poor HN submissions. Happens all the time and is not in any way conclusive. That's basically the explanation, for there to be some kind of conclusion you'd have to make an argument that isn't about points and comments of a thing that's on the fp. Everything on the fp gets points and comments.
I didn't want to "quote the old magic" to you, but this story is squarely within the HN guidelines. It's interesting, stimulating, important, tech related, true, timely etc.
The argument that a games company losing their entire staff to resignations isn't 'suitable' because "most company personnel changes are not particularly interesting" is false equivalence.
This thread is full of comments describing what people are finding interesting about this. Dismissing that with 'every fp story has comments' is a really odd and (dare I say) out-of-character move.
The argument that a games company losing their entire staff to resignations isn't 'suitable' because "most company personnel changes are not particularly interesting" is false equivalence.
This thread is full of comments describing what people are finding interesting about this. Dismissing that with 'every fp story has comments' is a really odd and (dare I say) out-of-character move.
I agree with you and I know a lot of other people do too but are afraid to speak up in support. Really sick of the arbitrary censorship on this site.
I think this is incredibly relevant for HN readers, maybe seen as "subversive" by _bosses_.
Yes, for every single thing posted on HN, someone thinks it's "incredibly relevant". It could well be! But that in itself doesn't tell you anything.
maybe seen as "subversive" by _bosses_.
I don't see it on the agenda in any recent or upcoming boss meeting.
maybe seen as "subversive" by _bosses_.
I don't see it on the agenda in any recent or upcoming boss meeting.
HN mods are just as biased/arbitrary (and terrible) as the worst Reddit mods. The two companies are basically one-in-the-same as they are both deeply backed by MIT and thus the CIA/military intelligence apparatus.
Both HackerNews and Reddit are interested in shutting down conversation/information.
Both HackerNews and Reddit are interested in shutting down conversation/information.
I don't mean to diminish their work and I don't know much about the matter but the company founder is some billionaire's daughter. I fear ever having a boss like that just because of the fundamental difference in perspective and life experiences. I'm sure I won't be able to communicate with them.
For the curious, the daughter of multibillionaire Larry Ellison, the cofounder of Oracle.
"but the company founder is some billionaire's daughter. I fear ever having a boss like that just because of the fundamental difference in perspective and life experiences. I'm sure I won't be able to communicate with them."
Imagine invalidating a person as a potential colleague and declaring your incompatibility with that person remotely based on a quarter inch deep evaluation of their background. I think this kind of take is in really bad taste.
Imagine invalidating a person as a potential colleague and declaring your incompatibility with that person remotely based on a quarter inch deep evaluation of their background. I think this kind of take is in really bad taste.
It's "boss", not "colleague"; and they're your boss based purely on having a lot of money from their parent, hardly a "quarter inch deep" evaluation.
I was looking forward to Blade Runner 2033. It's nice to have moody adventure games in this era. I imagine that this will delay it at the very least, but likely worse.
I hope the staff land on their feet...
and move on.
They produced the best games out there and that, remains patent.
What happens next is corporate wrangling less to do with creativity and more to do with profits.
and move on.
They produced the best games out there and that, remains patent.
What happens next is corporate wrangling less to do with creativity and more to do with profits.
The stranger thing in this thread is how many people are breathlessly defending nepo babies. They really don’t need your help guys. They are fine.
aw man these people made Sayonara: Wild Hearts, which is hands down the best iPhone game I have ever played.
Every time I hear thr name Annapurna, I think about the ARM SoC maker...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapurna
Just in case anyone is unaware, it's a mountain in Nepal. The 10th highest in the world.
> The mountain is named after Annapurna, the Hindu goddess of food and nourishment, who is said to reside there.
The first eight-thousander that was summitted, as well as the name of the book that Maurice Herzog wrote. Which book is well worth reading.
Every time I hear it I think of the restaurant on Capitol Hill in Seattle.
Annapurna is a god of food and nourishment in Hinduism; a manifestation of Parvati.
I bet the way people in the US say it is nothing like the (traditional) way it is said in India.
I think it’s supposed to be “un-na-poorna” with a nasally rn sound.
I think it’s supposed to be “un-na-poorna” with a nasally rn sound.
AFAIK an r sound is always nasalized when followed by an n sound in American English.
It is also the name of a mountain in the Himalayas which I believe is the most familiar meaning to Americans.
Bong shop in Berkeley, CA
Makes you wonder, did the last person to leave turn off the lights?
I am a big fan of Stray! The atmosphere was both haunting and beautiful, and the emotional connection you feel as you guide the cat through puzzles, etc. Hearing about the uncertainty at Annapurna Interactive feels personal a little
I have feelings about Stray... What an awesome game it could have been!
I played it with one of my daughers. Lovely father/daughter playing session. Guiding the cat through the maze/puzzles. Cat can't fall, it's just calm and nice.
And then, out of nowhere - blinking screaming wildly stressful and awful rats come chase us.
My daughter dropped the controller, I played it through. But after that the game lost its charm. The second time the rats came, she left. We never played it again.
I checked if there was some "please don't ever give me rats" setting, but nope. I checked with a friend and they said the rats appear throughout the game.
So I'm really sorry, but stray is a 1/10 game for me. Remove the rats and its 9/10.
What is the purpose of the rats? It's an arcade moment in a game that was nice, calm, cute and relaxing. Totally breaks the contract that I felt was established with us as players.
I played it with one of my daughers. Lovely father/daughter playing session. Guiding the cat through the maze/puzzles. Cat can't fall, it's just calm and nice.
And then, out of nowhere - blinking screaming wildly stressful and awful rats come chase us.
My daughter dropped the controller, I played it through. But after that the game lost its charm. The second time the rats came, she left. We never played it again.
I checked if there was some "please don't ever give me rats" setting, but nope. I checked with a friend and they said the rats appear throughout the game.
So I'm really sorry, but stray is a 1/10 game for me. Remove the rats and its 9/10.
What is the purpose of the rats? It's an arcade moment in a game that was nice, calm, cute and relaxing. Totally breaks the contract that I felt was established with us as players.
> Totally breaks the contract that I felt was established with us as players.
Lots of people like surprise and excitement. The game is rated: Age 12+ Violence
Lots of people like surprise and excitement. The game is rated: Age 12+ Violence
It seems you just wanted a different game than what Stray is.
Not OP, but surely yes.
To expand a bit, there's not that many _good_ games where you can explore, follow the story, enjoy a beautiful world and don't need good reflexes or emergency reactions skills.
In particular, gamers with decent skills will praise and give exposure to truly beautiful and well detailed games, and people with little to no action skills won't get past the tutorial.
We can look at it as a fact of life, and expecting all games to be accessible at any skill level is just impossible, but there's a sad part to it when it's so close.
I got my family to play Monument Valley and it was magical. Journey ? they got stuck on the more finicky paths and gave up the controller, while still enjoying the bit they could clear and watched the rest as I played.
Stray was on the same path, where they could probably deal with everything except the few time limited sections. If there was a "no action sequences" switch, it would be truly wonderful.
Also it probably would sting less if there was more games with a path for very low gaming skills.
To expand a bit, there's not that many _good_ games where you can explore, follow the story, enjoy a beautiful world and don't need good reflexes or emergency reactions skills.
In particular, gamers with decent skills will praise and give exposure to truly beautiful and well detailed games, and people with little to no action skills won't get past the tutorial.
We can look at it as a fact of life, and expecting all games to be accessible at any skill level is just impossible, but there's a sad part to it when it's so close.
I got my family to play Monument Valley and it was magical. Journey ? they got stuck on the more finicky paths and gave up the controller, while still enjoying the bit they could clear and watched the rest as I played.
Stray was on the same path, where they could probably deal with everything except the few time limited sections. If there was a "no action sequences" switch, it would be truly wonderful.
Also it probably would sting less if there was more games with a path for very low gaming skills.
Yes. Exactly this.
Monument Valley was awesome!
And I had the exact same experience with Journey - good the first... 10 minutes? Then nope.
The Witness was also wonderful, that one worked. A Monster's Expidition was ok.
Monument Valley was awesome!
And I had the exact same experience with Journey - good the first... 10 minutes? Then nope.
The Witness was also wonderful, that one worked. A Monster's Expidition was ok.
My kids had a similar experience. They had more luck with Little Kitty Big City, which has a more cartoony vibe but fewer sticking points.
> Little Kitty Big City
+1. This game was adorable and relaxing from beginning to end.
+1. This game was adorable and relaxing from beginning to end.
How old are your kids? Stray is rated 12+ for violence.
A better mental model could be "can a retired housewife play it ?"
Violence is less of an issue than the tighter action sequence. I got stuck on the elevator bit for a good 15~30 min, and didn't feel much fulfilment from clearing it at the end TBH.
Not every game needs to be accessible, but Stray has so few action sequences, they feel quite unneeded (it would actually be excellent if they could be avoided through sheer cleverness). It reminded me of the random bed scenes in 90s movies.
Violence is less of an issue than the tighter action sequence. I got stuck on the elevator bit for a good 15~30 min, and didn't feel much fulfilment from clearing it at the end TBH.
Not every game needs to be accessible, but Stray has so few action sequences, they feel quite unneeded (it would actually be excellent if they could be avoided through sheer cleverness). It reminded me of the random bed scenes in 90s movies.
They are not rats and they are quite essential to the story so they would not be easy to remove.
Played through with my 7yo daughter. She loved the game, but would freak out when chased by the "rats". It was a good opportunity to show her how to try to keep playing when you're stressed! She found it exciting after a couple of goes. You didn't mention how old your daughter is, but that is surely the key factor.
I'm still hopeful for a "Stray 2" - or whatever they can do now the devs lost the IP. My daughter cried when at the game's ending (no spoiler)
I'm still hopeful for a "Stray 2" - or whatever they can do now the devs lost the IP. My daughter cried when at the game's ending (no spoiler)
stray has a pretty dark and foreboding atmosphere, the rats fit right in imo. seconding the other commenter who recommended little kitty big city though, i didn't expect to enjoy it as much as i did.
I think the purpose of the rats was probably to introduce a sense of danger and urgency, adding some challenge. Yet are there any other games you and your daughter enjoyed together?
Sad to see, Outer Wilds is probably the best game I've ever played. But I'm sure the staff will continue doing great work in whatever they decide to do next.
This is the publisher, not the developer, of Outer Wilds imploding. The people who actually made the game are still working at the studio.
[deleted]
* Annapurna Pictures (the parent company of Interactive) had some financial issues previously at least (see [0] from 2019) while Annapurna Interactive was doing well for itself.
* Annapurna Pictures wanted to integrate the gaming division in-house (possibly to prop up the rest of the company)
* Staff and exec at Annapurna Interactive wanted to be spin off (see [1])
* Negotiations fell through, so most exec and staff at Interactive left
[0] https://variety.com/2019/film/news/annapurna-resolves-more-t...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-12/annapurna...