Entire staff of game publisher Annapurna Interactive has reportedly resigned
theverge.com
theverge.com
* 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...
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.
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.
What you declare to be meaningful isn't really the issue. It's how the thing you're getting chooses to pay for itself.
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.
I made you some content
Daddy made you your favorite
Open wide
Here comes the content
It's a beautiful day
To stay inside
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 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®
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.
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
The same goes for "IP" when you could've said trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets and so on, whatever is actually relevant.
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.
Else it's just a habit some people have. (and potentially a lazy and problematic one.)
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.
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.
A reminder that Cyberpunk IP holder is Mike Pondsmith, not CD Project.
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-...
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
it’s a good point that the publisher does have an eye for talent.
Outer Wilds was a masterpiece.
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 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.
(Side note: continue to be disappointed that they didn't brand themselves as "Annapurrna" on the Stray opening screen.)
That said, I agree that their good games have made me a fan, and I hope the original staff keeps going in some form.
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.
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.
(Start at the 33 minute mark if it doesn’t jump you there.)
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.
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;
He could talk to a family, leave them smitten and hopeful, then whisper "Kill them" to the guard, on his way out.
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.
I can’t recall, did the feds block that option?
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
Funniest thing I've heard in a while!
Direct links pointing closer, and the transcript are available in this thread. (At the bottom, for some reasons.)
And then there’s Sarah Winchester, who instead of becoming the psychologist, became a case study in psychology.
I named my lawnmower Larry.
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.
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...
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.
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."
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
No one can guarantee the commercial success of a novel, film or video game.
https://annapurnainteractive.com/en/games/blade-runner-2033-...
> 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.
AOL+Time Warner is up there in the history of worst mergers.
Calling it a "personnel change" is also reading as brazenly disingenuous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
maybe seen as "subversive" by _bosses_.
I don't see it on the agenda in any recent or upcoming boss meeting.
Both HackerNews and Reddit are interested in shutting down conversation/information.
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.
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.
I think it’s supposed to be “un-na-poorna” with a nasally rn sound.
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.
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.
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.
+1. This game was adorable and relaxing from beginning to end.
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.
Lots of people like surprise and excitement. The game is rated: Age 12+ Violence
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)