Whereas what I’m saying that him being a monster could very well be removed from his corporate decision thinking, as this article presents nothing asshole-ish at all about the process. If we didn’t know who was behind this - and from what I can read, nothing about that evil seeped through here - then it wouldn’t have…

Extremely disagree. When I look at this article, I see some supremely normal corporate behind the scenes stuff at work. That the guy was a monster changes nothing, because this article describes very little except one facet of one standard for signing off, and I would expect this sort of thing- and have seen as much -…

How he’s a monster has no bearing on the internal planning dynamics for a company, and I can separate how FP&A/project mapping for a large corporation might be removed from how someone might be a POS within that structure.
The two components are entirely unrelated; I would expect this exceedingly normal cancelation…

No, he said it should meet that standard in at least one regard, and then shut it down for reasons we don’t have full visibility on. That doesn’t mean he meant it literally, or that we know all the ins and outs of the planning. Success with meeting one high standard among likely many doesn’t mean that everything else…

I disagree. Not only do I think Tolkien has been surpassed - I mean, he’s fine - I’m sure this wasn’t some sort of weird quantifiable metric to be taken extremely and unprovably literal. It’s like when a boss says they want the floors “so clean I can eat off it”. What I’m guessing actually happened is that the guy…

I’m sure that the “better than Tolkien” thing was some form of casual shorthand used as an ideal, not that he literally wanted it to be better than Tolkien. I mean, how is that measured? Do people think Tolkien hasn’t been surpassed, like, ever? This isn’t a question of “thinking well” of someone, this is pointing out…

Sounds to me like he had a high bar; nothing wrong with that. People hired for specific purposes fail to live up to that all the time. This also speaks nothing to “every turn”; it said nothing came of a few projects, nothing else about any sort of involvement or other barriers put up besides “high quality”. Repeatedly…

Slices like ham? What, with a knife? Ham slices like anything else: into slices.

Yeah, nothing screams “ambitious” like a tales of knights and legend.

Well, no; I also take issue with the answer, on account of it being a useless statement that tells us nothing. It’s not the end of the world or anything, and like I said, places like Blizzard or CDPR say this sort of thing too, but at least they seem to realize it’s a circular, meaningless answer.

Putting something on the backburner means they can’t release it yet because some other project is taking their resources. Companies which do that also seek to release as soon as they can. “Can” is incredibly vague. It may have been part of a large suite of questions, but this article is about that answer in…

I mean, what information is this supposed to convey? Do other companies just hang around when developing their games? Call it cynical, but way I see it, this is a rather circular story which doesn’t really tell us anything. It’s like when Blizzard says their games are done “when it’s ready”, like, yeah, no kidding. I…

Oh, see, I would have thought that they were going to get it all ready and then delay it for no reason, but now that I know they’ll be releasing it “as soon as they can” well that about changes everything.

Bankruptcy is not at all the favorable outcome to a PE firm, and in fact, research has shown that it is often a positive event.

The vast majority of the time, “PE shareholders” *is* the private equity firm itself. Still, they don’t drown, because yes, the PE firm is themselves not the owner of the debt.

Dividends and recaps - the “sucking up” of profit you mentioned - are the less commonly used, secondary way of realizing gains on a purchase. The primary method through which PE works is that the target company does very well for itself and the PE firm can sell it off several years later. It is in the interest of both…

LBO companies would very much prefer if their companies survived, because the entire business model of a PE firm is fundamentally predicated on selling it for more in a few years time. Liquidation is a last ditch effort to reap *some* benefit for a purchase; it is absolutely not the ideal goal.

As an investment banker who works with private equity companies to structure these deals, yes, you never hear about the success stories, which is a fairly common occurrence. It is an immensely profitable business.

It really does boggle the mind. Every time they try this I just get more and more embarrassed; at east now I know not to watch too much. Blah blah blah “it’s a parody” yeah well it’s still manages to consistently be the most cringe stuff every year so I don’t know what to tell you.

That’s a fair point - the Sky stuff is a whole article all by itself, between his “ignorance” of all the pedophilia that was happening in his house, to financial and emotional manipulation of absolutely everyone, to his live explosion on Twitch, to his beyond the pale threats of violence for money. And now the latest…