Microsoft Buys Lionhead Studios 73
Grench writes "The BBC has an article on Microsoft's purchase of Lionhead Studios. They focus in particular on Peter Molyneux, and the kind of talents and expertise that he can bring to Microsoft's future gaming efforts. A sequel to Fable was mentioned as a probable endeavor." From the article: "Some of the giants of the games industry, such as Electronic Arts and Ubisoft, were reported to have been interested in acquiring Lionhead. But Microsoft has emerged as the victor, adding the studio to its roster of British gaming talent. In 2002, it acquired developers Rare in a $375m deal."
EA was never realistic (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, it'll be interesting to see if it's any easier at Microsoft. They make pains to say they won't be excercising creative control, but another 2 failiures like B+W2 and the movies and you wonder how long that will survive.
Re:EA was never realistic (Score:2, Interesting)
It's really quite an interesting title; I'm yet to play it myself, but it's just the sort of innovative game I'd expect from someone like Peter. Not sure why it hasn't sold all that well. Shame.
Not suprized (Score:2, Interesting)
I really wish that MS can give Pete the time to let some of his ideas come to fruition...I really was dissapointed when some of thefeatures i really wanted in Fable got cut. ( i.e. raising a family, multiplayer) I'm hoping we'll get a Fable sequel (mabey prequel?) that delivers all the promises of Fable 1 that didn't happen.
Bill Gates (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There goes another good game co to hell... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having lived through the Microsoft buyout of a game studio, perhaps I provide some insight into why acquired studios seem to lose their mojo. Disclaimer: This are my opinions only, and come from the individual contributior perspective, not that of the studio management.
First off, Microsoft corporate culture does not map well to a typical successful game studio, and no matter what assurances are given that the studio's culture and operations are going to be left intact, within a couple years the studio becomes fully integrated into the 'Microsoft Way'.
Probably most destructive are the Microsft one-size fits all HR policies such as stack ranking. Game development is truly a team effort, and successful studios have managed to create teams where most of the performers are above average. Instead of being able to reward people fairly, a pre-determined number of people each year have to be given a "poor" review which includes no compensation increases of any sort, and the warning that if they fail to improve by next year, they will be on the list of people to be 'managed out'. On the other end, a smaller pre-determined number of people will be rewarded handsomly no matter if they have not produced anything to merit such. So a culture of teamwork, focus on the product,and pride in the company will quickly morph into a culture of individual self-promotion, politicts and backstabbing, and a disdain for the company.
Additionally, as part of Microsoft, the studio no longer has the urgency to make the next game great and complete it in a timely manner. With Microsoft's billions insuring financial stability if a game is cancelled, and no direct financial upside to producing a hit game, the pressure of living close to the edge that was present in the old culture that helped the team focus is supplanted by a devil may care attiude that creeps into the 'rank and file'.
As a result, many of the developers tranform from passionate, competitive people who strive for excellence into someone who just 'does their job' and goes home at 6pm sharp. Others just leave for greener pastures. Management gets thier large bonuses in any event.
There are other issues of course, such as loss of control over future projects, headcount restrictions that prevent a studio from hiring desperatly needed people, and so on.