A stock would never drop to zero because the company would be liquidated before that happened. If the stock actually dropped to zero they would have no money they need to call bankruptcy before that point.
Are you being paid by someone to be especially stupid today, or is this your normal level of comprehension? I hope so because right now you seem like this the sort of person that would find stairs confusing.
Jesus fuck no, it’s a valid graph. It shows the relative trend over time and the sudden change. It may show less of a change if it was zero based, but a drastic change that is well off the normal trend is important to visualize. Also like, all exchanges have a toggle to flip to the zero based.
Look at this thread and realize that it’s just a lie. You can show the exact same information with a starting at zero graph, but won’t be able to push the “stock is tanking!” panic point. Publishers and marketers do this on purpose to manipulate headlines. This is why the stock market is mostly just high stakes gambling. No one involved is making rational decisions, just moving from panic to mania like psychotic patients.
You can see right there at the top of the graph it’s down 20% in the given timeframe. There are ways to make graphs misleading, but there’s nothing misleading at all about zooming in on the data in this chart
Percentages are also misleading. The timeframe will always stretch the percentage. Sure, a 20% drop on the same day is significant, but it still says absolutely nothing about the overall situation, nor why it happened. It is a significantly smaller drop when compared to their year long performance, and a significantly larger loss if only the last month is taken into account. There’s research on this, observing day to day changes on stock prices to describe a company is just as effective as describing people’s personalities through astrology. It’s bullshit.
Yes, and that’s literally all this post is trying to convey. This post is not a news report or a economist’s dissertation, this is a screenshot of the pre-bell stock price posted to Lemmy
It’s already being called the lowest price in a decade. Technically true, but honestly disingenuous since the massive price bump to over €100 was an anomaly caused by the pandemic that swept the entire industry, not just this one publisher. Also drivel to generate engagement. Just like this post, here we are discussing it, despite the fact that it is misleading and poor characterization of the entire picture.
It being at its lowest price in a decade is literally true. I don’t have a clue why you’re bringing the pandemic into this since this stock reached its peak in 2018. Ubisoft stock has been on a precipitous decline for 4 straight years now, wtf are you even trying to convey here?
If you are not in for the dividents or the voting privileges stocks are always a game of “I hope someone is dumb enough to pay more than me for these shares”.
The stock is tanking. 20% is a huge drop for any massive company. Do you know how much money disappeared overnight because of this? From my very rough calculations, Ubisoft just lost about 300 million dollars because of this drop. That’s more than any fine they’ve had.
The worst day in Stock Market history was Black Thursday, the beginning of the Great Recession. The market only dropped 11% that day. (Somebody call me out if I got those numbers slightly wrong, that’s from Wikipedia). These are massive numbers, that I don’t think you fully appreciate or understand. The stock market usually deals in single digit or more likely fractional amounts of change. Double digit changes are a huge deal.
Do you know how much money disappeared overnight because of this?
I do know, none. Not a single cent disappeared. Because stocks aren’t liquidity. That money was never there in the first place. Some paid some money to get those stocks, that money was real and it entered the company’s liquidity. Then they spent it on something. Those stocks are but the promise of paying some dividends, some time in the future or giving some power inside the company. Their virtual fluctuations of price over time are nothing but smoke and mirrors, people exchanging virtual titles over those rights like little kids trading collectible cards. Some people cashed out for a low price (that was already grossly overinflated from the pandemic days, so they probably still made bank) and it pushed an already correcting stock to accelerate for today. That money didn’t come from the company, it was exchanged entirely by third parties, public traders. Ubisoft didn’t participate at all in whatever pushed the price drop. No matter how much I want it to, Ubisoft is not in any more danger today than it was in yesterday. They are still filthy rich, if anything the biggest danger for this is that it gives them lee way to layoff another group of underpaid developers or gut another studio to appease the stockholders. Who are already in a frenzy for blood because Outlaws didn’t make all the money.
If you were to compare Ubisoft today to Ubisoft 2 years ago, you would see they dropped nearly 93%. Dear golly, how is this poor boutique family company in business after such a massive loss? /s
Ubisoft just lost about 300 million dollars because of this drop.
So they have 300 million dollars less to spend? They’re going to fire 300 million dollars worth of talent? Their bank account changed by 300 million dollars?
I’d argue it doesn’t accurately show the relative value at a cursory glance. The chart shows the area under the curve having decreased over 90%, but when looking at the y-axis, you can see that initial assessment was misled.
In a speculative industry like finance, shouldn’t we try our best to make charts less… alarmist?
If you are trying to show year-over-year profit and you have $100 million give or take a few thousand, then starting your y-axis at zero is going to be a pretty worthless graph
There is no point of starting the chart to 0 since it doesn’t give any information other than the share price, which is already communicated by the Y axis anyways.
Every time BTC crashes I say to myself, “I shouldn’t bet on it coming back, this will surely be The One.” Nope, currently higher than it was before the last one.
There’s always someone betting it will go up, just as much as someone is betting to go down, but right now, Blackrock and Fidelity own a lot of BTC, and are selling it to investors via actual, official ETF funds.
You can go on Fidelity and buy into this fund without ever touching BTC, and follow the price along with the holders, just like a gold or oil stock.
things are going to be interesting over the next few years. BTC has entities invested in it’s future. I don’t expect a crash below the ETF price, which… from memory was around $50k, because then investors are in the red.
I’m not in BTC, but it’s a fun thing to watch. Personally, I think the mining of it is a cancer to society, but once you strip all of that way, it’s just another index fund as long as private entities can manipulate the waves in their favor.
I like gold more. You can make stuff with it, buuut Gold is at an ATH… buuut if Kamala wins, BTC will dump and Gold is a sanctuary hold for a lot of BTC holders, so, man what a year it’s gonna be.
I saw an anecdote from someone who used to work there and they said their infrastructure and resources were outdated as hell. Basically zero support or investment from leadership. Those corpos are intentionally just trying to milk them and the customers dry before total collapse or a buyout.
DirectX, OpenGL, Visual C++ Redist and many other support libraries in software programs typically require the same major version of the support libraries that they were shipped with.
For DirectX, that major version is 9, 10, 11, 12. Any major library change has to be recompiled into the game by the original developer. (Or a very VERY dedicated modder with solid low level knowledge)
Same goes for OpenGL, except I think they draw the line at the second number as well - 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4.
For VC++, these versions come in years - typically you’ll see 2008, 2010, 2013, and the last version 2015-2022 is special. Programs written in the 2013 version or lower only require the latest version of that year to run. For the 2015-2022 library, they didn’t change the major version spec so any program requiring 2015+ can (usually) just use the latest version installed.
The one library that does weird things to this rule is DXVK and Intel’s older DX9-on-12. These are translation shim libraries that allow the application to speak DX9 etc and translate it on the fly to the commands of a much more modern library - Vulkan in the case of DXVK or DX12 in Intel’s case.
Edited to remove a reference to 9-on-12 that I think I had backwards.
I know I’m a bit late, but here is some more info that may be of use to some.
OpenGL/GLSL
OpenGL, is a set of “extensions” (currently 160 as of OpenGL 4.6), which is a subset of features that has to be implemented by each vendor/manufacturer driver.
To be considered compliant with OpenGL 4.0, you have to implement all its extensions. This base serves as the first stepping toward the next step, OpenGL 4.1, which is basically 4.0 with some more extensions, and so on untill the current OpenGL 4.6.
But as everything in OpenGL 4.0 is also in OpenGL 4.6, a driver for 4.6 will run any 4.0 games. But if you used an extension found in the 4.3 spec, your game won’t work on a 4.2 level driver… Well, most of the time, as it may already have implemented the extension you need, but did not implement yet enough of them to reach the 4.3 specs.
To complicate things even further, you have the cut-to-size versions, aka OpenGL ES, which targets embedded devices with a stripped down version of OpenGL.
As an example of this, you can find here the compatibility matrix for the open-source Mesa collection of drivers : mesamatrix.net
DirectX
DirectX, in contrary, is a monolithic spécification. You either support DX11, or you don’t.
Part of it is implemented in the NT kernel (Linux équivalent in Windows) by MS, through its libraries, and the other is implemented by the GPU manufacturer, in their drivers.
DX version are often tied to Windows versions (DX12 with Windows 11), for multiple reasons. It requires the right features available in the NT kernel, the right hardware to be run, and, lets be honest, it is a great sale argument to try to push users to get the latest Windows version. Same goes with hardware manufacturers, it is a great way to make sure your customers upgrade for a GPU that support the latest DX version.
Subsequent versions are not compatible with each other, that’s why, if you play a DX9 game, you have to install the correct driver that (still) supports DX9, and the DX9 libraries.
To convert or not to convert to new API version ?
To convert a game from DX9 to DX10, you have to rewrite part of the underlying engine, which mean putting ressources and money into it.
Most publisher won’t bother, as the return on investment isn’t good enough to motivate such work. The new features won’t be used, and even though it usually give a substantial boost to performance, those games are often old enough to work exceptionally well on the current era hardware anyway.
So, once again, why bother ?
The specific case of DX12 (and Vulkan)
DX12 is to DX11 what Vulkan is to OpenGL. Both are a dramatic philosophical shift in the graphical API world. Previously, graphical APIs where at a higher level in the stack, which reduced their complexity, at the cost of bigger overhead.
Now with those two new beasts, you get a lot lower in the stack, which mean a lot closer to the hardware itself. You loose some of the ease of use in exchange for a lot less overhead, and thus potentially better performances.
But if your game worked on previous APIs, your are out of luck, as the changes are so radical you’d probably have to rewrite the whole engine renderer. It cost a lot, so only very few games goes this way, mostly the very successful ones, and probably mostly to gain experience with those new paradigms before starting to go all DX12/Vulkan for future games.
Thanks! I learned something new today, and that makes today a good day. I’ll strike out a few relevant parts of my answer when I get a minute to open the beast.
l haven’t played Planet Coaster, but my impression was it’s more of a coaster builder than a theme park manager? A lot of “hardcore” players play OpenRCT 2, and for a slightly more modern take on the genre there’s Parkitect. But classic RCT hasn’t been replaced
I wouldn’t know, I’m a filthy casual. Parkitect never did it for me, but Planet Coaster did. The point is nobody’s making a new Rollercoaster Tycoon under that name, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t worthy successors from competitors.
Cities Skylines is a better example, I remember how much Sim City sucked, but Cities Skylines knocked it out of the park
Skylines is ok, it never clicked for me, consider it more of a city painter than a management game… That plus Paradox’ DLC policy made the game quite unattractive to me rather quickly. And it was very car-centric.
Unfortunately, I’m unaware of a serious contender.
I am curious if the games community has anything positive to say about major publishers at this point.
It’s fun to laugh at one failure, and it’s nice we still get occasional great indie hits. But when most major publishers fail to turn out anything of interest, and even Sony is kind of reaching vanishing expectations amid remasters of remasters, it becomes hard to even suggest what to buy an unknowledgeable kid for Christmas.
I appreciate them for the effort they put into bankrupting companies that make AAA corpo slop. Ubisoft could not have stopped Ubisoft without the help of Ubisoft. If were lucky EA could hop on board and bankrupt EA by acting like EA.
God deadlock is so good though I have to say. I have hundreds of hours already. This is coming from someone who HATED mobas and would still probably never touch dota or League
Agreed. As someone who doesn’t really like shooters and never got into League or DOTA, I had mixed feelings about playing a ‘hero shooter/moba’. I’m actually blown away at how good it is. They did phenomenal job. 10/10.
It’s a invite only alpha and as I write this it’s #7 on the steam rankings of current players, 6 if you wanna exclude Banana which is it’s own hilarious thing
I don’t think there’s that many big-budget releases you can invest in if you care about Denuvo. Even the Ace Attorney games, re-releases of old DS visual novels, have been getting Denuvo’d.
The point is that it’s not just them paying the price, though. With continuous years of NO publishers putting out anything interesting, we’re at a point where people are just less interested in anything that’s coming out.
It’s a carrot and stick problem to some degree. They know now we hate microtransaction-laden live service games, but it’s harder to define what players would enjoy. Keep in mind, there’s many cases of simply letting the developers cook that haven’t worked out either.
I fully understand your first point and that is how I feel. That’s why I made my comment; I and others have been dealing with endless AAA slop that mostly hasn’t been intriguing for a long time. Even if its a certain game franchise I’m not interested in, I understand other people’s pain of it been driven into the ground with micro transactions and buggier and buggier games.
I agree when it comes to taste-specific stuff. I’m playing Steamworld Heist 2 and have Tactical Breach Wizards in my wishlist, so indie tactics games have been satisfying me - they’re certainly good and interesting, as you say.
But, those aren’t games I’d recommend to everyone. It does mean not much water cooler discussion since no one is playing the “same” games in most social circles. It used to be, a big release like Halo came out and everyone was talking about it, playing it, and discovering things together.
I mean that’s everything. There isn’t a “movie of the summer” anymore really, no I Love Lucy / Cheers / Friends / Simpsons that basically everyone is watching or familiar with. It’s been true for longer with books/music because of the lower gateways to entry and being able to be a “local artist”, but not by much, and even for them it’s exploded since the Internet became mainstream.
The democratization of publication has dramatically broadened the type and quality of things being made and no industry titans really have figured out how to promote around that. At least not consistently.
90% of the games I play are now made by indie or medium sized studios/publishers. I’ve bought several AAA games in that time frame, but almost universally they’ve failed to hold my interest and I typically regret my purchase. I can’t remember the last AAA I bought that I would consider a ‘favorite’.
Also I’m growing more and more detached from what modern, AAA games even feel like. Opening up a game like fortnite or COD where they’ve shoved dozens of different game modes into an all in one program is confusing and overwhelming. It’s off putting to me and I feel like having a ‘get off my lawn’ moment.
There’s probably a whole thesis or five to be written on the subject.
The “traditional” AAA pipeline is “make big games with loooots of assets and mechanics, maximize playtime, must be an Open World and/or GaaS”. Both due to institutional pressures (lowest common denominator, investor expectations for everyone to copy the R* formula, GaaS are money printing machines) and technical reasons (open worlds are easy to do sloppily, you can just deliver the game half finished and have it work (e.g. Cyberpunk), GaaS/open worlds are a somewhat natural consequence of extremely massive development teams that simply could not work together on a more narrowly focused genre).
That’s not to say there aren’t good expensive games being payrolled by massive studios like Sony or Microsoft. But AAA is a specific subset of those, and blandness comes with the territory. However if I was a betting man I’d say we’re nearing the end of this cycle with the high profile market failures of the last few years and the AAA industry will have to reinvent itself at least somewhat. Investors won’t want to be left holding the bag for the next Concord.
Japanese publishers retain staff because every Japanese company does, they don’t pay as well but you get life time job stability. Capcom is on a roll, Sega still has RGG, Bandai Namco has Fromsoft. They have the chokehold on jrpgs. And finally Nintendo is still king
bin.pol.social
Aktywne