“the company had appointed advisors to review and pursue various transformational strategic and capitalistic options to extract the best value for stakeholders”.
Companies should focus on extracting the best value for consumers not stakeholders… when it was created the stoke market was supposed to be disconnected from real economy to prevent that situation where companies tries to give priority to the stakeholders (who don’t produce anything and don’t increase GDP) over consumers. When that rule started being ignored in the beginning of the XX century and provocked the 1929 krack they should have take it at a warning and stop doing that instead of continuing that heresy.
The private equity that would control it after it goes private, in all likelihood, would be the same family who controls it today and always has controlled it. They’re not interested in stripping it for parts, but they’re also not interested in scaling their operations down and learning some hard lessons to make a sustainable video game company.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
that’s the problem:
“the company had appointed advisors to review and pursue various transformational strategic and capitalistic options to extract the best value for stakeholders”.
Companies should focus on extracting the best value for consumers not stakeholders… when it was created the stoke market was supposed to be disconnected from real economy to prevent that situation where companies tries to give priority to the stakeholders (who don’t produce anything and don’t increase GDP) over consumers. When that rule started being ignored in the beginning of the XX century and provocked the 1929 krack they should have take it at a warning and stop doing that instead of continuing that heresy.
Are you thinking of shareholders?
Stakeholders and shareholders are different. Consumers are stakeholders in this case.
hum yes, English is not my main language, sorry ><
Ubisoft will likely be a private company soon, and I doubt the situation will change much in the aftermath.
Yeah the difference between being public and private disappears when the “private” part just means a private equity firm.
The private equity that would control it after it goes private, in all likelihood, would be the same family who controls it today and always has controlled it. They’re not interested in stripping it for parts, but they’re also not interested in scaling their operations down and learning some hard lessons to make a sustainable video game company.
Giving some Weird Al vibes with that mission…