Submitted 2 months ago by GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee to [deleted]
I don’t understand how this works. How does delisting a game make or save money? It’s already spent in the creation. Now sales don’t cost anything. There’s no goods to ship. Steam copies the files to you, WB doesn’t do anything.
“As more developers confirm, it looks likely that ALL Adult Swim Games titles will be removed by May” cross-posted from: lemm.ee/post/26167118
This. Sucks. I really love games like Duck Game, Kingsway, and Super House of Dead Ninjas.
Im not in the business, but i think they are playing the long game. People don’t want to pay full price for an old game or a remaster. And unless there is a crazy fan base they won’t get hyped about a remake of a game.
They want their new releases to not be competing with their older, cheaper games.
That would be an entirely new level of unethicality. Not only does it fly in the face of preservation, it’s a stab in the back to the developers who trusted them to publish their game. Imagine having made a game that you’re proud of and want to share with people, but you’re not allowed to sell it or even give it away because the megacorp that promised to do the business side of things and let you focus on development turned around and decided it will be buried forever.
Yes that’s true, but have you considered the shareholders? Those sweet, innocent shareholders…
That makes zero sense whatsoever.
People buy these from steam and other game stores. Not going to warner bros site and buying them.
Getting rid of fist puncher on steam to try and make your new game stand out and get bought when there’s literally over 14,000 other games on the platform you’re selling on makes no sense.
What does make sense is bullshit tax write offs you can abuse after a business merger.
Now they can compete with everyone else’s games and lose.
This sort of makes sense but not for quite the same reasons. This may be an attempt to simplify their licensing arrangements so they can resell them. It’s easier to cancel all the licensing agreements in one go so they can then make a fresh exclusive arrangement with a single company.
It’s less about competing with the existing games (which they already control through licensing) and more to do with being able to sell or use the licensing cleanly without worrying about pre-existinf commitments.
Like, for each new game either you do legal compliance to make sure you’re not breaching your previous agreements OR you cancel all the agreements in one go and you never have to bother worrying about it. Saves money but also makes you the sort of company businesses will be wary doing deals with. But they probably have a deal with a big publisher lined up or intend to take the whole thing in house.
If I’m not mistaken, Steam will still keep the games on their servers. Sure, you can no longer buy them, but I’m pretty sure if you own the game you can still access it, and steam keys from the grey market should still work.
Copyright, licensing, and derivatives.
Many games, like GTA San Andreas, had licensing deals fall apart over time, and certain assets (like music) were removed and replaced.
When a game gets sold, the publisher has to figure out who all has to get paid, which means you’re paying for people who work in accounting figuring out where all this money is supposed to go.
In other words, sometimes it’s a lot cheaper to just not sell the game anymore.
GTA being a bad example with its popularity, but in another instance where assets need to be replaced, if its an unpopular game, easier to just delist it than pay someone to work on it and replace assets. Further, when you no longer have to pay other people for their involvement in the game or for licensing, suddenly you have fewer people you have to pay to do the job of figuring out where all the money goes.
Delisting frankly cuts costs across the board.
They’re going to write it off on their taxes when though the titles aren’t even games that they own.
Taxes. When you have products sold you have to pay taxes on their commercialization and on the revenue they produce. By removing all sort of properties, from games to movies and series from distribution, WBD can write them off and thus reduce the tax amount they have to pay on them. This is just Warner addressing an internal liquidity and budget issue. They’ve been using this strategy for a year now because they were, according to them, short of cash. By removing old properties that are no longer selling well, they reduce the tax burden for more recent and profitable products. This of course sucks for users and consumers who can no longer access them on streaming or buy old games.
I see “taxes” a lot but I have never seen someone explain the mechanism by which this is supposed to work.
The only thing I can come up with in my head is that they have capitalized the development costs and are currently depreciating the resulting asset. And that by cancelling/delisting the games it may allow them to immediately depreciate the rest of it, thereby recognizing a large expense for the current tax year, reducing profit, and therefore taxes.
Is that how this is supposed to work?
Pretty much. The delist is presented as a big operating “loss” to tax authorities. An asset that they will no longer have and will no longer make them revenue. The only thing they are retaining is the copyright. This was their 2022 strategy.
But it is also about cost vs. revenue. If it cost X amount to keep a property in a streaming service (servers, programmers, bandwidth, etc.) But it brings in less than X in revenue, that revenue still has to pay a lot of passives (residuals, licensing, fees) and taxes. Then that property is a net loss for the company and other products have to pick up the slack to pay the full X costs. By delisting the whole company runs a financially healthier profit. They over spent and the most recent merger was left holding the bag of debts.
NPR did a piece on it. npr.org/…/popular-titles-are-vanishing-from-hbo-m…
when you do a merger there are weird special tax laws that apply temporarily
This. And layoffs.
Corporations don’t always have to make sense it looks like during a meeting they concluded that games don’t generate significant profit so they decided to exit that entire market. They don’t want to have any employees to look over the account, or having to update is something or have any lawsuits (perhaps have offended someone, or formatted computer), I am not saying those could happen or make any sense, but essentially execs say they don’t want to have ANY liability and the lower employees comply the best they can.
Execs don’t care about users, to them this is just business.
If users were priority company for example could just make the games public domain, but that would be too much work, and no way back if (in very unlikely case) they wanted to bring the games back.
Delisting is the end effect. They might have other contractual obligations that cost them money to license the game.
It sounds more like they’re trying to close adult swim games.
And on top of the tax breaks everyone’s talking about, they also don’t have to keep developers, community staff, or support on the payroll anymore.
tyler@programming.dev 2 months ago
It’s due to tax breaks. NPR did a piece on it. npr.org/…/popular-titles-are-vanishing-from-hbo-m…
Kissaki@feddit.de 2 months ago
the relevant quote:
underisk@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
so it’s essentially a perverse incentive at work.