Microsoft Buys Rare 619
Phwoar writes "Microsoft have announced their buyout of the games developer Rare. After a $375 million payoff Rare will now produce games solely for the Xbox. After Rare's recent releases for the Nintendo systems bombed, Nintendo decided to sell their 49% stake in the company last week rather than buy the company themselves.
Google News has a nice collection of links to articles regarding the announcement." You might be reminded of Microsoft's purchase of Bungie a few years ago.
No Great Loss (Score:3, Insightful)
When Microsoft bought Bungie, it was to buy a "killer app" for the X-Box and nerf it's simultaneous PC development for fear it would show up the X-Box.
Rare on the other hand has a whole one game announced and a legacy of Nintendo titles. Ultimately, it's just another shot fired in the console wars, rather than a loss to PC gaming, this time.
I would buy an X-Box, knowing Bill loses as much money as I spend on each one sold - but he has more money than me and so is going to win that war.
that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad day for nintendo fans (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact is, beside the lack of games and the silly controller, the Xbox is a superior system. If you have ever played one you would know. The graphics on the PS2 just can't come anywhere close to the Xbox. The built in hard drive is a brilliant feature. It has an MP3 (or maybe it's WMA) ripper built in, as well as the ability to play your MP3s in certain games. It's got built in networking. People also like to bitch about how you have to buy a remote to watch DVDs on the Xbox. But with the PS2 you have to buy a network adapter to play online, a multitap for 4 player games, and a memory card just to be able to save.
Quit dissing the Xbox. It actually is pretty cool, even if it is from Microsoft.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of graphics quality for games with good gameplay, stories, variety, etc.
And as far as having a hard drive, that's a main reason that I didn't buy an X-Box. Your X-Box is gonna die loooong before my PS2. In case you've never owned a computer, the hard drive is *always* the weakest point.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm.. and what, perchance, do the people who purchase console systems use the most?
Here's a hint: graphics != gameplay
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that the Xbox, for all of it's bells and whistles, just isn't that solid of a system. I have not seen any title on the Xbox that had graphics so compelling to persuade me to declare that the Xbox is the top graphical powerhouse. It is all about how much memory developers can use, how easy it is to program for, and how many special gimmicks you can get out of the system.
For example, the little GameCube has cranked out a few graphically amazing and all out awe inspiring titles with Mario Sunshine, the Resident Evil remake, and Animal Crossing. Resident Evil has the best graphics that I have seen in a new generation game. Mario Sunshine is amazingly complex, big, and fun. Animal Crossing is just fun as hell to play, innovatiuve with it's real time clock and animal people that remember things, and interactive capabilities with the Gameboy Advance.
The majority of game players, myself included, had jumped the gun on the GameCube and declared that it would never have any kind of real potential. We were proved wrong. A lot of people, myself included, origionally touted the Xbox as the premiere system once it hit. Well, it turned out to be not all that great (comparatively) after all.
P.S. we are sick and tired of hearing about Halo. It ain't all that.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing is, when you are Microsoft with a monopoly-built legacy operating system, everything looks like a "blank" PC. And if that blank PC doesn't have a hard drive, damn it, we're going to add one so that we can stuff our OS on it. :)
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2, Insightful)
Case rested.
Re:Please Buy an X-Box! (Score:2, Insightful)
1) The amount of money Microsoft loses per machine is unknown right now, but the number has probably shrunk considerably from initial estimates made a year ago due to economy of scale.
2) Microsoft has a LOT of money in cash. They can afford to lose a few billion if they think it's in their long-term good.
3) In the long-term, Microsoft selling a lot of X-Boxes that nobody buys games for could screw them over...But in the short-term if X-Box hardware sales suddenly spiked, developers would assume that gamers were buying these X-Boxes. That would make more developers make X-Box games, which would make more actual gamers buy the X-Box, which would increase X-Box games sales, which would help Microsoft take over the video game console market long-term.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Please Buy an X-Box! (Score:2, Insightful)
Brilliant. Let's all bankrupt MS by giving them $200 and inflating the sales figures that they show to developers and investors. That'll learn 'em!
< tofuhead >
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has $60 billion in cash reserves, or something like that. $200 x 10,000 is 2 million dollars (evil pinky finger to lips).
Microsoft is well known for throwing lots of money at lost causes until either:
1. They know for sure no one will ever want what they're trying to sell
2. They finally get it right and it takes off like wildfire
Most of the time, the result is #2. (I'm using Internet Explorer right now, as a matter of fact.)
They're not a monopoly for games (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me guess - it's not "dirty tactics" when they do it, right?
Stupid Business Model, too! (Score:5, Insightful)
When Microsoft bought Bungie, it was to buy a "killer app" for the X-Box and nerf it's simultaneous PC development for fear it would show up the X-Box.
Throwing away money to assure exclusivity, same as with their acquisition of rights to FASA's BattleTech video game development (IP value, if nothing else... too bad they don't roll out Ralph Reed's BattleMech!)
Rare on the other hand has a whole one game announced and a legacy of Nintendo titles. Ultimately, it's just another shot fired in the console wars, rather than a loss to PC gaming, this time.
More good money after bad. Seems apparent, to me, that without their monopoly they couldn't shoot fish in a berrel. I can't recall where I've seen this strategy of spending money like crazy on to prop up a dying horse, but I do recall it's unusual in the extreme to see it succeed. They're hemmoraging cash and the estimates (from CNN [cnn.com]) are they'll get 1.5 million units into the Europe-Middle East-Africa market, and Sony/Nintendo will cover the remaining sales of 12.7 million units.
IMHO Sony and Nintendo are smarter to leave much game development out of house, in the hands of garage developers everywhere, which fosters more creativity than:
It's practically a guarranteed failure.
What next? Steve Balmer running around on a stage, getting all sweaty and telling us how great the new X-Box Solitaire is? Actually, that might sell...
Exclusivity (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Now all of a sudden a lot of really good games that may have been produced and released on different platforms are only going to be for the X-Box. I was hoping to see the PS2 doing a sequel to Perfect Dark or Conker's but I guess that won't happen.
2. This is EXACTLY what Microsoft needs for the floundering X-Box. So far the machine has had only a handful of decent games that are exclusive to the machine, and a whole lot being developed for all platforms. If I own a PS2, why should I bother getting an X-Box for a game that is available on my machine? The more imaginative developers jump on to the X-Box bandwagon (or in this case are lassoed and pulled onto the bandwagon) the better it is for the platform.
Whether any of this is a good thing I guess remains to be seen. Considering that nothing spectacular has been heard to be coming from Rare (at least any time soon), maybe this won't make a difference worth mentioning. Anywho, just my 2c. Agree or disagree?
well.. (Score:1, Insightful)
______
Re:Foolish Purchase??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also this adds up. MS will need over 1 billion PER YEAR just to keep XBox alive.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it has better graphics capability than the PS2. Of course, so did the Dreamcast vs the Playstation and the Nintendo 64. Didn't save Sega any. Yes, I have played many an Xbox game. Matter of fact, I helped set up the Xbox demo stand at my local game store when they finally got their demo machine in. I didn't notice a whole lot of difference on any regular NTSC TV between it and the PS2's graphics capability. Fewer noticable polygons. However, I can't tell any difference between the graphics quality of a GameCube and an Xbox on a regular NTSC TV, which the vast majority of the planet still has. You can afford an HDTV? In this economy? Wow, man, good for you. Go wild.
Yes, it has built-in networking. However, as many news outlets have made us aware of, not many people have broadband. Many of those that do are not allowed to have more than one machine connected to their broadband service, and don't have the knowhow, funds, or both to set up an internal network and hide that from their ISP. You're going to buy broadband just to play Xbox games online? If someone has the cash to be throwing at a broadband internet connection every month, they'll have the ability to save up for the network adapter. If they don't want it, they don't need it. Need 4 player out of the box? Ever actually look at a GameCube? And I bought an off-brand multitap for my PS2 for $10 at my local EB and it works just fine. My friends even chipped in for their own GameCube controllers. They didn't have to for the multitap, because Sony had the foresight to allow old-school PSX controllers to be used on the PS2, so they just bring those with them.
This is all, not to mention the fact that you can play each and every PSX game ever made on a PS2, loading faster and sometimes better looking than the original with the Fast Disc and Texture Smoothing options.
"...beside the lack of games and the silly controller"
So what do you use to actually PLAY these games with, eh? Your mind? Oh yeah, the silly controller, that's right. If I can't stand the controller or my hands hurt using it, I ain't gonna play with it. And if there aren't any games, what exactly are you going to play ON your Xbox? Slight oversight? Maybe? I actually can name you a handful of games that I'd love to play that are coming out Xbox only, but I can name at least 20 that are PS2 only already, and more to come. And as far as GameCube is concerned, do you think there will ever be a Mario, Metroid, Resident Evil (Capcom signed the series remakes over the the GameCube), Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, or Pokemon for the Xbox?
Yes, Nintendo, Sony, and even Sega for that matter, are heartless, faceless, evil, and ruthless corporate bastards. So are all large game corporations in case you haven't been watching. However, they aren't trying to extend any monopolistic empire to, say, computing operating systems. That's enough for me. It's enough for a lot of people.
Re:Exclusivity (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism at its worst indeed. But, the goal of a competetive market is to, well, compete. It has to be hard for companies to do that without crushing their competition. Imagine if there was no restrictions to that effect? What kind of monopoly would MS have today? *shudder*
You're very correct regarding the Nintendo thing, I totally forgot about how they rampaged through the 80's. The SMS was a pretty cool system too, had some neat games.