EA and Ubisoft use the smaller developers they absorb until there's nothing left and then they liquidate them. No company should agree to be involved with them.
- 1
Paradox, Never Sell Out
- Thread starter General Karthos
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Say, maybe we all can buy up some shares here and there as a way to help Paradox along. X3
- 1
In your silly hypothetical that would never happen EA is Hitler and Brad Wardell (Stardock owner) is basically Mussolini.
Mergers are almost always messy (RIP Compaq) and there would be no benefit for Paradox to do such a thing.
- 1
- 1
in an IPO there is both new shares and old investors cashing out. Nevertheless a broadening of the ownership base is a good way to help forestall any hostile takeover. (good luck EA etc to negotiate separately with 5000 fanboys
)
I dont think we have anything to worry about, until the day where Fredrik Wester decides he needs a bigger house, or a new boat, or something, and sells off enough stock that he is no longer the majority owner
Oh don't worry my friend. It most likely won't do WHF justice
- DLC Chaos
- Major races DLC
- No modding, courtesy of geedubs
- Usual CA buggy broken AI tomfoolery
If you want a warhammer game, go grab Geheimnisnacht, a mod for CK II.
- 1
If paradox goes public, I will just buy some its shares, and you should do so, too.
Its a strategic investment!
Its a strategic investment!
- 2
Because Games Workshop did the game justice by totally changing it and turning it into that "Age of Sigmar" shit?
- 1
Yeah the memory of "Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning" (which imo was a great action/adventure/rpg) and the subsequent fate of it's developer is still fresh in my mind... (RIP Big Huge Games & 38 Studios)
That's actually quite interesting. Hope they've thought about this
That said, I was aiming for people to realize they could be the share holder
You could go about to form an association for fans of paradox that held a larger amount of the stocks, to be "the United voice of the fans" in the Corporate AGM. That association could have online votings and physical AGMs to dicide what to do with the portfolio. And you could regulate in the statues of that association that the stock is never to be sold (or only in certain very specific conditions and so on) and a bunch of other non-profit important stuff.
Been a part of similar setups in other cases in the past, and also has a not so small degree of experience with mulit-national associations and non-profit organisations. It's doable, but a bit late maybe. These things takes time to set up, a year at least.
- 1
IIRC, the laws regarding this in Sweden states that info that could influence the price of the stock, need to be published so that everyone can obtain that info simultaniously.
If you have a Twitter-account that anyone can read (or if your Twitter-feed is shown on the Company website), that should be ok. But I can't really recall any legal precidence in Sweden about potentially course-altering info in social media.
Last edited:
- 1
If and when Paradox goes public, I'm gonna buy in as big as I can afford (which, given that I work as a cook, is not a lot). I trust the company, I trust their products, and the more shares I own the less the chance there is of EA or Ubisoft or some individual idiot investor sweeping in and trying to ruin the company.
I've also been pushing for them to sell me some shares since like 2012, so I'm pretty jazzed that this is finally happening.
I've also been pushing for them to sell me some shares since like 2012, so I'm pretty jazzed that this is finally happening.
Well, I don't know the story, but it's very personal for you. I'm not asking you to give me a history lesson on that.
But you are sounding like a condescending jerk. You said that being merged with Strardock would be WORSE than being swallowed by EA, and I dispute that point. Especially as seeing how EA has destroyed many of my favorite game franchises and studios over the last decade and a half. As well as ushering in many anti-gamer practices in the businesses, or at least solidifying them.
Did I say I want a merger? No. I support Paradox's continued Independence, because it gives them creativity and freedom not available under a big Publisher like, say, EA or Ubisoft, or... Activision. But in my hypothetical scenario (which is all this thread has been about), if worse came to worse, I'd rather them merge with Stardock then be swallowed by a company like EA.
- 1
This is a thread of underinformed folks hyperventilating over an action that likely will never happen and you take a bit of my flippant sarcasm - added with a touch of my personal feelings towards Stardock - as me being a condescending jerk?
Um, backwards much? I'm well aware of the issues, parties, and possibilities here - likely more than most. Being unable to get over my comment and continuing to lecture me on your views is both jerk-ish and condescending. But that's what I should expect from a thread that really has zero business in this particular subforum.
- 1
"As for mergers, your ability to jump to conclusions on minuscule data remind me of a former D&D player I ran with. Got tons of parties killed by skipping steps B-G and going straight from A to H. But, to help you better understand consider that I'm against any aqcuisition of Paradox. EA buys Paradox = bad. Stardock buys Paradox = bad. Ubisoft buys Paradox = bad. Following basic math: ANYONE buys Paradox = bad."
I believe you were the one jumping to conclusions, here. Yes, your comment did sound condescending. I can do basic math and I know that anyone buying out Paradox is bad.
As for feelings on Stardock, I do not care to know, as you said, you don't wish to go into it, and I respect that. But again, your comment did come off as condescending and jerk-ish.
"But that's what I should expect from a thread that really has zero business in this particular subforum."
That I will agree on.
I think just about everyone here, myself included, agree on that. And that gets into my point...there aren't flavors of bad here, just bad. Even if a white knight company were to pick up a Paradox that left itself vulnerable it would still drastically alter - if not kill - the company culture we all love. Which is why, ultimately, it wouldn't matter to me who would be the buyer here...it'd suck badly and likely be fatal to a company I love dearly.
It appears I failed to convey that concisely or even clearly, and I apologize on that.
- 1
And I apologize if I came off as rude. I don't want to see Paradox merge or get bought out anymore than you do. Competition is good, and buying out Paradox would, as you say, kill them. Their culture, gone; creativity extinguished. We've seen that with studios like BioWare, Westwood, Maxis, Bungie (independent, but now locked with Activision), etc.