Tencent Takes Majority Stake in League of Legends Developers

February 7, 2011 -

On late Friday, China-based Tencent Holdings announced that it had acquired a majority stake in Riot Games, makers of League of Legends - a DOTA-style online multiplayer game. Riot Games CEO Brandon Beck talked to Gamasutra about the deal extensively, revealing what his company expects to happen under the auspices of the Chinese company known for its diversified operations including instant messaging services, social networking, and online games. According to some reports, in 2010 Tencent held a 20 percent market share in the online games space.

Beck tells Gamasutra that the deal is "technically" an acquisition - in that Tecent now holds a "majority stake" in the company- but that he does not expect that Riot will become the U.S. operations. He also adds that Riot Games will remain independent of its new majority stakeholder, allowing it to continue to develop and grow its popular online game.

"Riot is going to remain completely independent. There are no redundancies, no layoffs, no synergy fishing, no leadership change," Beck said. "Nothing is going to change other than they're dramatically increasing their holding in the company. They see this more as an investment in a partner."

"We've been working together for a long time -- over two years," he continued. "Tencent and Riot share a view of the game industry. As important as technology and IP is, the most important thing in the industry are the people and the talent, particularly when you're trying to innovate and trailblaze. To keep people exited, motivated, hungry to succeed, and maximize creativity, you have to have a really independent and autonomous structure."

Of course, Tencent might see the great potential that a game like League of Legends has in China. By owning more of the company that makes it, Tencent earns more profits in the long run and makes setting up deals for creating pro-gaming leagues and televising events in the region a lot easier.

On a side note, AllThingsD reports that Tencent will end up paying a little less than $400 million to buy out other investors such as Benchmark Capital and FirstMark Capital. These investors, along with "angel investors," have reportedly invested around $18 million into Riot.

Source: Gamasutra


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician