Kingdom Come: Deliverance II

Kingdom Come: Deliverance II

View Stats:
Bee Jan 19 @ 5:05pm
7
4
6
5
2
11
You're about to get Bud Light-ed
And you don't have the resources that InBev has, to live through it.

All you gotta do is not. Don't be weirdybeardy. Cut your compromises to the 2012-2022 culture. Figure out what changes you made for DEI, and walk them back. Your audience can smell what they are, so don't try to slip this stuff past them.

Just be honest, and normal, and true to the core beliefs that helped the original KC:D sell so well. I bought it because of the forthrightness of its worldview, and I would bet a lot of other people did too. Please recapture that mindset--truth.
< >
Showing 46-60 of 331 comments
Bee Jan 19 @ 9:35pm 
lol I love how your entire thing here is

NONONO SMALL company buy BIG COMPANY

NOT

big company buy SMOL COMPANY

how wuld that do

durr durr durr new york stock exchange tell me thing i belive thing i know not other thing durr durr america
Last edited by Bee; Jan 19 @ 9:36pm
Originally posted by Haddon:
Originally posted by Bee:
Everything you say is dumb and wrong, and you have an OP post complaining about people not wanting to buy this game because of woke ♥♥♥♥♥.

Everyone here already knows everything they need to know about this, and about you.

How about you just try shutting up?
Proven wrong again and again, and just can't accept it. It is really, really sad.
Tell me, if InBev was the parent company of a subsidiary rather than a merger that used the higher-valued stock...
why are they using BUD stock?

so far you guys proof nothing, defending the game you have not play yet. we asked question from dev and they gave us BS answer.
Haddon Jan 19 @ 9:41pm 
Originally posted by Bee:
lol I love how your entire thing here is

NONONO SMALL company buy BIG COMPANY

NOT

big company buy SMOL COMPANY

how wuld that do

durr durr durr new york stock exchange tell me thing i belive thing i know not other thing durr durr america
No.
Not buy.
Merge.
With the deal being they would use the BUD stock.
Because it was worth more.
You don't know what a subsidiary is, do you?
Last edited by Haddon; Jan 19 @ 9:46pm
Originally posted by Scorpios Society:
Originally posted by Haddon:
Proven wrong again and again, and just can't accept it. It is really, really sad.
Tell me, if InBev was the parent company of a subsidiary rather than a merger that used the higher-valued stock...
why are they using BUD stock?

so far you guys proof nothing, defending the game you have not play yet. we asked question from dev and they gave us BS answer.
Be quiet you yankee, nobody cares about you sensitive americans lol
Bee Jan 19 @ 9:49pm 
Originally posted by Haddon:
Originally posted by Bee:
lol I love how your entire thing here is

NONONO SMALL company buy BIG COMPANY

NOT

big company buy SMOL COMPANY

how wuld that do

durr durr durr new york stock exchange tell me thing i belive thing i know not other thing durr durr america
No.
Not buy.
Merge.
With the deal being they would use the BUD stock.
Because it was worth more.

LOL okay then

BIG company

"merge"

with SMOL-er company

because nasdaq and other assorted buzzies because no matter what america first

Seriously, is "America corpo is obviously the biggest in the purchase because America" seriously the position you want to take here?

It was a buy, you huge ghey. The Belgian globohomo company bought the American company. Everyone alive at the time and remotely economically literate knows this.
So if i’ve got what you’re saying right… you’re gonna ♥♥♥♥♥ about it being woke and how you’ll never play the game only to later be caught playing it? That’s how the Bud Light thing went.
Bee Jan 19 @ 9:54pm 
Originally posted by Mjr.Death:
So if i’ve got what you’re saying right… you’re gonna ♥♥♥♥♥ about it being woke and how you’ll never play the game only to later be caught playing it? That’s how the Bud Light thing went.

Sort of, except that 90% of purchasers of the thing noped out and just didn't anymore and never got "caught" doing a dang thing because statistics exist. Because despite what Destiny told you, that's how the numbers are actually going down. A brand shrinking to a tenth its previous value is a hard thing to hide.

From people who aren't retarded. Which means you might get there. Eventually.
Originally posted by Bee:
Originally posted by Mjr.Death:
So if i’ve got what you’re saying right… you’re gonna ♥♥♥♥♥ about it being woke and how you’ll never play the game only to later be caught playing it? That’s how the Bud Light thing went.

Sort of, except that 90% of purchasers of the thing noped out and just didn't anymore and never got "caught" doing a dang thing because statistics exist. Because despite what Destiny told you, that's how the numbers are actually going down. A brand shrinking to a tenth its previous value is a hard thing to hide.

From people who aren't retarded. Which means you might get there. Eventually.
You're not very smart, are you? lol
Bee Jan 19 @ 9:57pm 
Originally posted by MangorushZ:
Originally posted by Bee:

Sort of, except that 90% of purchasers of the thing noped out and just didn't anymore and never got "caught" doing a dang thing because statistics exist. Because despite what Destiny told you, that's how the numbers are actually going down. A brand shrinking to a tenth its previous value is a hard thing to hide.

From people who aren't retarded. Which means you might get there. Eventually.
You're not very smart, are you? lol

You'd be surprised how many people who get their rhetorical stool pushed in say exactly this.

*edit Of course, you'd be surprised by a remarkably-colored butterfly gliding by at any given moment, so this isn't exactly a landmark occasion.
Last edited by Bee; Jan 19 @ 9:59pm
Haddon Jan 19 @ 9:59pm 
Originally posted by Bee:
Originally posted by Haddon:
No.
Not buy.
Merge.
With the deal being they would use the BUD stock.
Because it was worth more.

LOL okay then

BIG company

"merge"

with SMOL-er company

because nasdaq and other assorted buzzies because no matter what america first

Seriously, is "America corpo is obviously the biggest in the purchase because America" seriously the position you want to take here?

It was a buy, you huge ghey. The Belgian globohomo company bought the American company. Everyone alive at the time and remotely economically literate knows this.
No.
They acquired.
And merged.
So yeah, that answers that question, you have no idea what a subsidiary is vs a corporate merger.
A subsidiary means that the acquired company has no more control over themselves. They usually lose their stock, though not in 100% of cases. Often their board members get positions on the board of the parent company if they were a huge acquisition, but not if they were a small one. InBev paid 52B for the rights to all of AB's properties and all shares.
Then merged.
In a merger, there is an agreement beforehand about buying out the shares AND retaining control over products, usually by combining boards.
Which is why they became Anheuser-Busch InBev. The company is not named InBev. It is Anheuser-Busch InBev.
And they retained the stock of BUD as a distinct stock, rather than combining it with their own, because it was of higher value. Why was it higher value?
A FRACTION the number of shareholders. Each share was worth more.

And he thinks he is "economically literate". You have never learned any economics whatsoever. I would be legitimately astounded if you had ever stepped foot in any college classroom.
Last edited by Haddon; Jan 19 @ 10:00pm
Bee Jan 19 @ 10:02pm 
Dude what the hell are you even doing. You cannot re-write the history of companies buying companies through mere opinion.

InBev bought A-B, and that is a fact. You can look at the people in charge, and this will confirm who got bought by whom.

You cannot argue via wikipedia what reality is. It is what it is.

What you said it is is wrong and dumb. What it actually is is writ in reality. Just shut your stupid wrong-hole already.
Haddon Jan 19 @ 10:10pm 
Originally posted by Bee:
Dude what the hell are you even doing. You cannot re-write the history of companies buying companies through mere opinion.

InBev bought A-B, and that is a fact. You can look at the people in charge, and this will confirm who got bought by whom.

You cannot argue via wikipedia what reality is. It is what it is.

What you said it is is wrong and dumb. What it actually is is writ in reality. Just shut your stupid wrong-hole already.
And.
Then.
Merged.
How do you not even understand the difference between an acquisition as a subsidiary and a merger?
Literally why they are named Anheuser-Busch InBev.
Why they use BUD stock.
You still haven't answered that simple piece of proof, why would they use BUD stock if they were a subsidiary?
Creative Assembly is a subsidiary of SEGA for instance. SEGA is their parent company. If SEGA wants to shut them down, they can do so without giving any reasons.
Anheuser-Busch MERGED with InBev after acquisition. 1/4 of their board is made up of people from AB, and must be for the next 33 years (unless this has changed since the acquisition).
It was a merger of two multi-national corporations. InBev paid 52B for the merger...and are now worth 87B.
Holy jesus. This is not opinion. This is fact, from their own public sources.
"Anheuser-Busch was established in 1852 in St. Louis, Missouri, US as Anheuser & Co. It is the largest brewing company in the United States and employs over 30,000 people. It was the world's largest brewing company based on revenue, but third in brewing volume, before the acquisition by InBev announced 13 July 2008. The division operated 12 breweries in the United States and 17 others overseas."
From the wikipedia you refuse to even look at.
Last edited by Haddon; Jan 19 @ 10:13pm
Haddon Jan 19 @ 10:13pm 
Originally posted by Bee:
Dude just wiki it.
InBev was a big deal before it acquired A-B.
Just do the work.
"Anheuser-Busch was established in 1852 in St. Louis, Missouri, US as Anheuser & Co. It is the largest brewing company in the United States and employs over 30,000 people. It was the world's largest brewing company based on revenue, but third in brewing volume, before the acquisition by InBev announced 13 July 2008. The division operated 12 breweries in the United States and 17 others overseas."
Holy jesus ♥♥♥♥.
Bee Jan 19 @ 10:15pm 
DUDE INBEV OWNED BASICALLY THE ENTIRE WORLD'S ALCOHOL PRODUCTION BY 2000 JUST GET OVER IT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THIS IS A REAL THING
Haddon Jan 19 @ 10:16pm 
Originally posted by Bee:
DUDE INBEV OWNED BASICALLY THE ENTIRE WORLD'S ALCOHOL PRODUCTION BY 2000 JUST GET OVER IT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THIS IS A REAL THING
"It was the world's largest brewing company based on revenue,"
How are you just ignoring this after saying "Read the wiki"...that you didn't read?!
AB
Was
Worth
More
Smaller company.
Higher value.
Like, you thought they were just some small American company, when they had more breweries OUTSIDE of the US than within. When they had breweries on every continent.
Last edited by Haddon; Jan 19 @ 10:18pm
< >
Showing 46-60 of 331 comments
Per page: 1530 50

Date Posted: Jan 19 @ 5:05pm
Posts: 331