Warner Bros. is Now Erasing Games As It Plans To Delist Adult Swim-Published Titles (polygon.com) 42
Michael McWhertor reports via Polygon: Warner Bros. Discovery is telling developers it plans to start "retiring" games published by its Adult Swim Games label, game makers who worked with the publisher tell Polygon. At least three games are under threat of being removed from Steam and other digital stores, with the fate of other games published by Adult Swim unclear. The media conglomerate's planned removal of those games echoes cuts from its film and television business; Warner Bros. Discovery infamously scrapped plans to release nearly complete movies Batgirl and Coyote vs. Acme, and removed multiple series from its streaming services. If Warner Bros. does go through with plans to delist Adult Swim's games from Steam and digital console stores, 18 or more games could be affected.
News of the Warner Bros. plan to potentially pull Adult Swim's games from Steam and the PlayStation Store was first reported by developer Owen Reedy, who released puzzle-adventure game Small Radios Big Televisions through the label in 2016. Reedy said on X Tuesday the game was being "retired" by Adult Swim Games' owner. He responded to the company's decision by making the Windows PC version of Small Radios Big Televisions available to download for free from his studio's website. Polygon reached out to other developers who had worked with Adult Swim Games as a publisher. Two studios responded to say that they'd received a similar warning from Warner Bros. Discovery, but they are still in the dark about what it means for their games. [...]
Polygon reached out to 10 studios and solo developers who had their games published by Adult Swim Games to see what they've heard. Some say they haven't been contacted by WB Discovery, but they expect to. "From what I've heard from others, I will probably be hearing from them soon," developer Andrew Morrish, who published Kingsway and Super Puzzle Platformer Deluxe through Adult Swim, told Polygon. "It's not looking good." Molinari said that if and when his game Soundodger+ is pulled from Steam, he'll republish it there "with as little downtime as possible between the two versions." The game is also available from Molinari's itch page.
News of the Warner Bros. plan to potentially pull Adult Swim's games from Steam and the PlayStation Store was first reported by developer Owen Reedy, who released puzzle-adventure game Small Radios Big Televisions through the label in 2016. Reedy said on X Tuesday the game was being "retired" by Adult Swim Games' owner. He responded to the company's decision by making the Windows PC version of Small Radios Big Televisions available to download for free from his studio's website. Polygon reached out to other developers who had worked with Adult Swim Games as a publisher. Two studios responded to say that they'd received a similar warning from Warner Bros. Discovery, but they are still in the dark about what it means for their games. [...]
Polygon reached out to 10 studios and solo developers who had their games published by Adult Swim Games to see what they've heard. Some say they haven't been contacted by WB Discovery, but they expect to. "From what I've heard from others, I will probably be hearing from them soon," developer Andrew Morrish, who published Kingsway and Super Puzzle Platformer Deluxe through Adult Swim, told Polygon. "It's not looking good." Molinari said that if and when his game Soundodger+ is pulled from Steam, he'll republish it there "with as little downtime as possible between the two versions." The game is also available from Molinari's itch page.
Why oh why? (Score:2, Funny)
Why oh why did I not sell this turd the very day it was spun off from ATT in the first place? For that matter why do I hold ATT; but that's different. As a bag holder, fuck management. This is certainly not going to make us money. Where are the big gorilla activist share holders? Proxy fight. Fire the whole damned board.
Can someone explain the logic to me? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can someone explain the logic to me? (Score:5, Interesting)
The server itelf is probably cheap, but employees arent.
Re: (Score:1)
While it's likely that in a few cases certain dumbfucks forced it so "your" game hinged entirely on an invisible Mother May I...
...it sounds like the real purpose is WB now gets to claim tax breaks for whatever contrived reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
That's probably it. Some of the games are multiplayer, like Duck Game. It's a fun little game, but if they're cutting off multiplayer services, it would be wise of them to delist it now since it's still for sale.
Re:Can someone explain the logic to me? (Score:5, Informative)
It's more than that, because many of the studios are asking WB to transfer the games to them - something that only takes a few clicks in the Steam administration interface. WB has refused to do so - so it can't be maintaining servers if the studios are wanting to take on the server hosting.
The CEO though is well known to kill projects and wipe them off the planet - there have been several movies that were basically at the "awaiting release date" stage and were completely axed. You would think if a movie was done, you might as well release it an recoup the money, but nope, the movies were axed even though they were complete or near completion.
Likewise the same is probably happening here - he's axing the games and pretending they don't exist anymore. No reason to do it - you could just give the game back to the studio and let them deal with it, but no. WB is deliberately removing the games from existence.
Re:Can someone explain the logic to me? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, both an massive arsehole and an idiot at the same time, anyone with half a brain would realise that these decisions are money losers. Share holders should be asking for CEOs head before they do more damage.
Lowering the Cutting Floor. (Score:2)
So, both an massive arsehole and an idiot at the same time, anyone with half a brain would realise that these decisions are money losers. Share holders should be asking for CEOs head before they do more damage.
A CEO in the 2020s chose to NOT release movies that were essentially done.
Within the context of the utter shit that Hollyweird has put out in the last few years, perhaps we should hold judgement against this CEO. He might have just saved us from being exposed to the shit that was THAT bad.
Re: (Score:2)
would realise that these decisions are money losers
It is not about the money bro. It is about YOU not having something. In other words, 'control'.
This dude is more than an arsehole, he is actually evil.
Re:Can someone explain the logic to me? (Score:5, Interesting)
Its a tax thing.
Sadly from a purely corporate finance point of view it might actually be worth more for them to axe the movies before they are released as it means they can write off the total cost against tax and not have to pay and manage royalties/residuals to everyone involved in making them. If they release it they may have to pay out potentially more than they themselves would make in the long term.
That's also likely why they are pulling down the games as in doing so they can write off any remaining potential value from sales that they have. They also probably have some creative way such as counting employee costs, as well as the value of the overall brand to claim that value is way more than it realistically would have been.
If they just 'gave' the rights directly to the studios there would be different tax implications as it would not be considered a write-off as there would still be actual value in the movies and games as far as the government is concerned.
Ultimately the board are just trying to make a temporary bump in the company value by paying less tax for the next couple of years and bleed every cent out of the company for shareholders including themselves as well as probably bumping their own pay which is likely based on the financial performance of the company.
Re:Can someone explain the logic to me? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know some folks who work in the industry and had their show binned specifically for this reason -
For their pilot they put in hundreds of hours of their own time with no guarantee it would ever make them a dime - they got picked up after getting good peoples choice votes and the series got greenlit but of course that means the network got the rights and then when it wasn't making boatloads of money RIGHT NOW they shitcanned it for tax reasons after 1 season.
It was worth more to the network as a tax write off as a total loss than to keep the rights and consider releasing on DVD in the future or sell the rights back to the creators to let them continue it elsewhere
But when a studio writes it off like that they can never use it again due to the rules (or they can get in big trouble tax wise)
This is why some really great shows that could have become cult classics just never got DVD / Blu-Ray releases etc...
Late stage capitalism sucks. The whole system sucks.
Frankly I'm surprised they are still willing to work in the industry at all. Then again if I had an ounce of their talent.. maybe I'd be playing a different toon (bad pun intended).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I read a few vague speculations about how it is all for tax purposes but the articles didn't elaborate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is it something to do with the Adult part?
Maybe these games have too much sex and not enough violence for the incoming "Christian" administration in 2025...
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the tax thing is plausible though. I don't know the exact details, but if you have more than one failing business there's some megacorp-tax-loophole type trick where you can scuttle one of them on purpose (but make it look like an accident) and then use the tax write-off to save the other one. I learned this trick from some utterly evil and incompetent jackasses I used to work for, though if I'd known that was their plan I wouldn't have bothered taking the job. I have no idea if that's what's going on
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Rick and Morty as well as Samurai Jack should have a long shelf life.
Re:Can someone explain the logic to me? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost to Warner Bros to keep these on Steam should be minimal. What do they gain by delisting this way?
Word of mouth? Free advertising? Is there anything in the article about WB giving up claims on its profits? Because I read "decision not to transfer ownership back to developers."
Re: (Score:3)
Except that's badly worded because they are only the publisher and they don't own the games, thankfully the developers own the games, this is just a publisher being as shitty as it can get.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that's badly worded because they are only the publisher and they don't own the games, thankfully the developers own the games, this is just a publisher being as shitty as it can get.
I don't know what was in their contracts. Certainly publishers have some control over what can happen with the games. Maybe that was misstated as "ownership," maybe not. IANAL.
Publishers are in it for the money. "Being shitty" is not sufficient for money-making. There must be more to the story.
Re: (Score:3)
The developers have responded saying they can simply re-publish their games but the downside is they have to re-make a new store page and previous players will likely lose some functionality such as the ability to share screen-shots.
"there must be more to the story" Implies there are not idiots making this decision, idiots exist and many are in management, this is a stupid decision that will prevent developers ever wanting to use WB as a publisher in the future and it fucks gamers over for no reason good en
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but just calling them idiots almost always means "I don't understand and I don't like it."
WB also pulled a bunch of streaming content. This seems to be an intentional series of steps.
Some of the developers listed can self-publish. At least one sounds like they can't. Honestly, that sounds like enough of a mess to clean house. Maybe new "idiot" management is doing that.
Re:Can someone explain the logic to me? (Score:4, Interesting)
The new idiot management is David Zaslav who is an arsehole who has already pissed off Christopher Nolan enough that Oppenheimer is a hit for Universal Pictures and not WB. That has cost WB hundreds of millions alone.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of other games for people to play. What does it matter if they can't play these?
Re: (Score:2)
You say that until it's a game or show you like. Remember, in predatory capitalism, you will own nothing and like it ... while paying out the nose for whatever garbage they shovel at you.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, in predatory capitalism, you will own nothing and like it ... while paying out the nose for whatever garbage they shovel at you.
Remember you’re speaking to the audience who still has their original Duke Nukem install CD, and listens to offline music via wav file. Predatory my ass, Sonny..
Re: (Score:2)
Any game, any show, and movie, and music.....if it isn't available, then meh....I'll do something else. No big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the worst argument ever, ISIS could use that argument for destroying ancient monuments - "there are plenty of other ancient monuments to look at, what does it matter if we destroy these ones.
Also it is unlikely that buyers of the games would lose them from their Steam libraries, the games would just be delisted from the Steam store and multiplayer would likely stop working. The games would still be playable for people who already purchased them asides from the multiplayer aspects.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me something specifically you like so we can take it away from you. I wonder if you'll change your mind.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm just not hung up on stuff I guess.
But the Democrats are working hard to take away everything worth having. They will probably get there eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost to Warner Bros to keep these on Steam should be minimal. What do they gain by delisting this way?
I don’t honestly know, but my head hurts trying to follow the ownership trail. Makes a money laundering operation from a drug kingpin look like a lemonade stand. Will the real IP owner please stand up?
”..the game was being "retired" by Adult Swim Games' owner. He responded to the company's decision by making the Windows PC version of Small Radios Big Televisions available to download for free from his studio's website.”
Defintion of owner is a bit unclear as the answer was to give the game away? Thats your definition of “erasing” a game? Really? Should I even ask what “retired” means, or do I need someone skilled in wetwork?
Re: (Score:2)
It largely seems to be a "IP" issue where the words "Adult Swim" are in the credits. What warner wants is to remove "Adult Swim", and because it doesn't want to pay money to transfer the games or patch the games to remove the words "Adult Swim" from the credits, it would rather destroy the games.
I don't know this seems like corporate malicious compliance more than anything. "We sold of X part of company, therefor anything with that branding has to be erased" without knowing you can patch games to change or
Purposely Destroying a Brand? (Score:1)
Physical media (Score:2)
Tell me again why digital downloads are superior to owning physical media.