I guess the anti-woke crowd is having a hard-on rn. I don’t play ubisoft’s games but I know a lot of good persons who work there around Quebec, and many of them fear losing their jobs.
This isn’t about being diverse. It’s about making bad games.
As a matter of fact, the new assassin’s Creed is so offensive that the Japanese government is in an uproar about it.
Ubisofts attempt to be so inclusive and sexually neutral is what’s making their games bad because they’re stifling good game design in the process.
That’s not to say that it’s not possible to make a good game while adhering to diversification and inclusion.
Hellblade and horizon zero Dawn are two excellent examples of incredibly good games that don’t expound sexism. Hell, look at destiny 2. They handle these kinds of situations perfectly!
But to simply imply people are upset because they don’t like “woke politics” is a gross over simplification of what’s happening to Ubisoft!
In response to the whole bit about the Japanese government, it seems that the quotes were taken way more seriously than they should have been. Pretty cookie cutter responses that also say that It isn’t really their concern.
Neither of us said that people are ONLY upset because “woke politics”. Original comment is saying that those people are probably celebrating right now because they were “right” and I’m simply pointing out that whenever this happens, the anti-woke crowd think that it’s because of the woke politics. There are plethora of reason to be upset with Ubisoft, just like there were plethora of reasons to not play concord.
Nah, the Japaneses government doesn’t care about fictional characters in a videogame. Neither are French-Canadians mad about being depicted as mimes with bread sticks in South Park.
Oh and “it’s about making bad games” . The GAME ISN’T EVEN OUT YET. Just don’t buy it and stop crying because there’s a black character in fictional universe or because you don’t want to fuck the main protagonist of Star Wars game (I personally find here damn hot btw lol).
They already delayed the release due to so much negative feedback. It’s going to be a bad game. There should never have been a black person in this game at all. It’s 1600s Japan. It makes no fucking sense!
There are so many layers as to why Ubisoft is going through what it’s going through I don’t have the energy to express it here in this comment.
I can assure you, however, if they worried more about making good games and less of inclusion politics their stock would be worth a lot more than 2 bucks!
Why can’t you people can’t just fucking move on with you life and play other games? The fact that there’s a new Assassin or Star Wars doesn’t erase the previous ones, go play the previous ones, the “good” ones.
It’s going to be a bad game. Says who? Your just a rando on the internet who has not played the game, why do you think your opinion maters?
There should never have been a black person in this game at all. It’s 1600s Japan. It makes no fucking sense! IT’S A GAME, nothing makes fucking sens. Why do accept it when it’s some white dude becoming the chosen one and saving a bunch of indigenous, but rip you shirt the when a black guy (based on a real life character!!!) is one of the protagonist of a game set in a FICTIONAL Japan. It’s not real dude, people have the right can make up stories inspired by real things.
I don’t have the energy to express it here in this comment. Nobody ask you too lol. We all have youtube, if we want to hear some white dude’s (with no expertise in nothing) ridiculous outrage about a stupid videogame company, we know where to find it.
I really don’t get you gamers people. There are dozens of causes that are worth defending, why is the only fucking thing that makes you active is when there’s a black man or a woman you don’t feel like fucking in a game? That’s pretty sad and pathetic if you ask me. Just go play something that fits you narrow world view. Meanwhile, Steam rips off all creators of 30% of their revenue while employing 20 people, but you people get wet whenever your hear their name. If you want to be mad at capitalist business, at least try to find something else than “black charcater” doesn’t make sens in a universe where you can walk on walls and kill 20k people by yourself.
So let’s just address the meta here real quick. There was a comment on Lemmy to which I responded. In context the genesis of this comment is in reference to Ubisoft and the general state of inclusion politics in gaming today.
You are questioning the fundamental motivation as to why I have an opinion on the subject matter that is presented to me under the protest that “it’s just a game”.
I mean why even have an opinion? Why formulate thoughts? Why have any kind of discussions?
I am abreast of what is happening generally in gaming and the industry surrounding it because I’m interested in these things. I like playing video games.
I also have other interests. For example, I’m fairly good at playing the guitar, so there’s a lot of content in my social media about guitars and music.
I also find it entertaining to watch flat Earth debunking videos on YouTube to pass the time.
The reason I care about assassin’s Creed in particular is because I’ve been playing the game since the very first one. I like the franchise. I like the video games and watching it get ruined because of inclusion politics is heartbreaking.
Moreover, they already have the game. It’s already been made. Therefore I have the right to criticize it. Simply stating “it’s just a game” isn’t helpful.
I don’t care if there’s black people or women or LGBT people in video games. I could absolutely care less about that as long as it’s relevant to the game. If they’re just including it to be inclusive, then it’s a meaningless gesture. It brings down the game. It brings down the IP and it brings down the company that does it.
Furthermore, people play video games for a reason. Either it be escapism or immersion or simply to pass a small amount of time till whatever else they have to do. Seeing these inconsistencies in the game breaks that immersion it no longer becomes entertainment. It becomes a political statement which I have very little interest in when it comes to my entertainment.
You can pretend to be on your high horse all you want. I have no interest in seeing inclusion politics in my entertainment. It serves no beneficial purpose except to elevate the egos of people like you to make you feel as though something is being included.
Pure nonsense.
Also the new Star wars game which I don’t even remember the name of sucked universally. It didn’t make any money because people didn’t have any interest in it specifically and exclusively because of the inclusion politics added into the game. Also the main character is fucking ugly.
I included Fall Guys because I liked it. I included Fortnite because it’s one of the most popular games ever made. It would be weird not to include it.
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.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne