r/Endfield • u/30000lightyears QIANYU MY WIFE • 4d ago
News Hypergryph has rented a 37-floor high, total 90k square meters building as its new HQ, and estimated to move in at 2027
https://www.shobserver.cn/staticsg/res/html/web/newsDetail.html?id=1167317358
u/Provence3 4d ago
No company whose games are supposedly dying does this.
426
u/ScumCommander 4d ago
Bungie.
98
59
u/foxhound012 4d ago
Damn, that hurt to read
4
u/SinglePlayerGamer93 3d ago
If you accepted that the Bungie of today is only in name only and the people who actually made Bungie and it's IPs great have long gone years ago, it doesn't hurt as much
58
26
17
12
24
u/RaccoonOne 4d ago
Bungie got huge bag from Sony
38
u/Antares428 4d ago
Bungie started moving and building well before Sony bought them. IIRC their new HQ was almost ready when pandemic started.
5
u/RaccoonOne 4d ago
True, but destiny 2 wasn't really dying at that time.
14
u/Antares428 4d ago
Destiny 2 wasn't, but from what we have learned from various people that left Bungie later on, Bungie itself was.
These decisions have stretched their finances so thin, that if Sony wouldn't have bought them, they would have sunk around that point.
2
3
4
14
21
5
u/AngryChurchill 4d ago
No but 37 floors is a lot of fucking employees. My company has a 55 floor building and there is room for 12,000 employees in the tower. A 37 floor building able to hold 5,000 employees easily, which hypergryph does not have
16
u/lietnam 4d ago
Grifters will say its rented instead of bought
56
u/Putrid-Butterfly334 4d ago
Ugh isnt it common for big corpos to rent a building on a lease or something instead of outright buying one? Like 99% companies do it right
30
u/eidjcn10 4d ago
Yes, very common. Buying vs renting is still a business decision but deciding to rent doesn’t really tell you anything about the company’s finances alone.
25
u/DJCzerny 4d ago
I've never heard of big companies actually buying office buildings; they are not real estate companies, after all. Usually a big office building has multiple companies in it all leasing from the landlord.
5
u/No_Pineapple2799 4d ago
I've heard of (relatively) big companies owning an entire building but most of them probably do rent from another party. Even then, the ones I know rent out unused floors anyway
7
u/DukeTestudo 4d ago
It used to be big companies would try to own the real estate - nice stable asset that usually appreciates over time. But, in some countries (I don't know if China is one of them), it's cheaper to rent because of regulations and the way it affects corporate taxes.
1
u/MadocComadrin 4d ago
That really depends on your type of company too. An company with office jobs that expects to increase in number is probably renting the office space, but big companies that want to gather top talent and give them incentives to "live" at the office will own large campuses. Big factories are usually owned afaik. The really funny one is fast food: e.g. McDonald's #1 is often jokingly said to be real estate and not hamburgers given how much land they buy, own, and sell just to maybe plop down a McDonalds at some point.
13
u/_Bisky 4d ago
Apple ownes the apple campus.
But like that's atleast 50% used as a status symbol for them.
10
u/Provence3 4d ago
Apple has 166k employees, Hypergryph has 2.5k
I wouldn't call Hypergryph "big" in that regard. Maybe in the gaming world (Capcom for example has around 4k, Nintendo has just below 9k), but not in general and especially not compared to Apple.
1
u/oneevilchicken 4d ago
Yes because it’s usually far more cost effective capital wise to just rent for a large company.
7
2
u/Fatbollocks1994 4d ago
Who actually thinks this game is dying?
4
u/Krivvan 3d ago
You see people concern trolling now and then about how if their pet issue isn't resolved immediately the game will die because the revenue is cratering because it made $9.7 million on a 1 banner month on extremely iffy mobile-only estimates instead of $10 million on a 2 banner month.
39
u/-xKeita- 4d ago
moving again after all the work on the new office lol, then again they seem to be recruiting and hiring nonstop
they better get more cat rooms there at least
16
41
u/nuraHx 4d ago
Surely it’s not the full 37 floors right? Because that sounds like an insane amount of floor space and employees to fill. Unless I am just really bad at visualizing how many people that would be
68
u/Provence3 4d ago
For reference, Hypergryph has around 2.5k employees.
12
u/repocin 4d ago
Holy shit. That's far, far more than I ever would've expected.
It thought they were somewhere in the hundreds.
That's a lot of people. No wonder their games are so good!
28
u/Krivvan 4d ago
They are in active development on 4-5 titles at the moment so it makes sense. We know small bits about their unannounced projects.
2
6
14
u/OneWayToGodJesus 4d ago
Lowlight saw people calling his self proclaimed dream game "EOSfield" and said let it ride bozos
8
5
u/MadocComadrin 4d ago
The real reason they did this is because they needed more space to house all the OG+Endfield operators.
12
u/Gloomy_Efficiency680 4d ago
Dumb question is that why do they just not buy it.
66
u/BadGladeCrazy 4d ago
Office buildings are almost all constructed on mass by landowners with the knowledge companies will move in and out. They're not for sale.
19
u/SpicedWithWolf 4d ago
Of course there's upsize/downsize, and the pain in the ass to mange the building, but there's also whether you want that asset to be on your balance sheet. For instance, if you have a big valuable building on it, then you become a partial real estate company too. If you need funding, investors will need to value the building too, etc. You don't want banks to be worried if your firm's valuation gets meaningfully affected by a real estate crisis, such as the one China is going through.
It's just always cleaner to not own what's not core to your business.
25
u/CrimsonRunner 4d ago
Multiple reasons, really.
- Owner might not want to sell. Why sell when you can rent into perpetuity and sell only if you really want that big lump of cash?
- As a company, renting is a much smaller lump cost even if long-term it's more expensive. It's easier to take $100k out of the yearly budget than to set aside $10m or take a loan for that amount, especially since the money you make you generally want to invest back into the company so it keeps growing.
- speaking of growing, you want your company to grow. Or it might shrink. The point is, the office space you want in 2026 might not be the office space you want in 2027. Or more reasonably, in 2028 or 2029. You can have multiple buildings of course but at a small enough scale companies tend to prefer having everyone in one place because distance creates some bridges in need of crossing.
- distance and bridges might exist, but there's also the factor of creating offices in completely different cities or even countries that spending that huge amount of money on a building makes more difficult. If you already had to save money to purchase the first building then are you going to wait years to save for the next? Or take yet another loan?
renting is simpler short term. The companies that buy office buildings for their own use are pretty much only the really really big ones that have existed for decades.
And this is why office-building investors that are frequently also company investors made a really big push for getting all those office workers out of home and back into the office buildings. They were losing serious rent money and their hundred-million-dollar properties were losing tens of millions in value. And that's while there was still an expectation people will eventually return to the offices. Numbers from US perspective ofc, in different countries those values change but the fundamentals are the same.
18
u/30000lightyears QIANYU MY WIFE 4d ago
It is simply not a need for them.
-10
u/Gloomy_Efficiency680 4d ago
I mean they have money, and the bulding is great, just buy it one time and you don't have to think about pay rent for it.
27
u/QueenVanraen 4d ago
While yes, that comes with its own costs. They probably crunched the numbers and renting came out cheaper for their calculated duration of use.
22
u/DannieBlack 4d ago
Tax deductions, no maintenance burden and its easier to relocate, expand or downsize (since we all know endfield is dying haha guys, EOSfield amirite ?). And maybe something something real estate or whatever
7
u/White_Shadow7 GILBERTA LOVE 4d ago
Buying is not financially viable for growth. If their team outgrows the space they have to sell the place and move.
This is what my company did, we outgrew the place and just rented another building.
7
2
u/Pankurucha 4d ago
One possibility could be simply because once you own the building you are not just a game development studio, you are a property manager. This way they can focus on game dev instead of having to hire facilities managers, repair people, security, trash removal, and all the other expenses that come with property ownership.
1
u/MadocComadrin 4d ago
Adding on the the other explanations, there's also long-term flexibility. When their lease is up in however many years (usually 10-20 years in the West but I have no clue in other places), they can move to a bigger or smaller place based on their needs.
2
1
1
u/xJetStorm 3d ago
Man, 37 floors is ridiculous unless they plan on making a bunch of floors into shared facilities (e.g. cafeterias). It's better for the city to have a small ground footprint, but the amount of elevator time per day is crazy.
1
u/PunkHooligan 3d ago
I wonder if renting whole huge ass building is better than to buy one. I'm sure they could afford it. Can't imagine rent price.
1
u/InsideSoup 2d ago
B-b-but the game is supposed to be doing poorly. They can't be upgrading with only half a billion dollars in revenue, what am I supposed to do with all my narratives now.
1
153
u/pokemonfish1 4d ago
God damn this building has everything; a gym, game room, sleep pods that are separated by gender, physiotherapy room, mother-and-baby room.
Lowlight, I would like a job please.