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.
Re:No Great Loss (Score:5, Informative)
the legacy of nintendo titles is just that- a legacy... not really an asset.
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...
Primates (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Primates (Score:2, Informative)
this actually is a good thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:this actually is a good thing. (Score:2)
EA owns the 007 license now (and has since Tomorrow Never Dies). They do release some games from that license on the GameCube.
Re:Sega made (past tense) awesome games (Score:3, Interesting)
There's not much that's more fun (at least when it comes to video games) than getting three friends together and playing Monkey Fight 2 for a couple of hours.
that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Rare makes another Goldeneye.
2) Rare's new game makes MS $5 million
3) 10,000 people buy X-Boxes just to play this game. Conversely, these people DON'T buy PS2s and Gamecubes because those systems don't have this cool new game.
4) MS increases user base.
5) ???
6) Profit!
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:2)
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:2)
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Rare makes another Goldeneye.
2) Rare's new game makes MS $5 million
3) 10,000 people buy X-Boxes just to play this game. Conversely, these people DON'T buy PS2s and Gamecubes because those systems don't have this cool new game.
4) MS increases user base.
5) ???
6) Profit!
Microsoft buys Rare for $375 mill. Microsoft sells $5 mill in games for 4 million in profit. They sell a bunch more consoles at some unkown loss per console.
Looks to me like Microsoft is still out $370 mill at least. Sure doesn't look like a profit to me.
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:3, Funny)
6) Bankruptcy!
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:2)
The result will be one giant leap into world domination. From there they'll buy countries and governments (oh wait, haven't they done that already?). Open source will be outlawed, and consequently a revolt will ensue. The corporation will be the governor and the people will be slaves. The true hackers, free thinkers, and idealists will be outlawed.
[ Fill in your own ending here ]
Be very afraid my friends. Mark my words.
MSFT Shills feel free to challenge this post. We already know who you are.
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.)
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the game companies make between $5 and $10 on each $50 game. In order for MS to make $5million, they need to sell more than 700,000 copies (that is, of course, disregarding the loss they incure with every sale of an Xbox). In order to make the $375 million Rare cost them, they must sell somewhere in the order of 60 million games (this is still disregarding the loss on every Xbox). Rare cost Microsoft way too much.
Good one Nintendo. You pulled a fast one.
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:3, Informative)
Rare's titles have sold an average of around 1.4 million each throughout their history. Let's suppose they manage to do half that in future. Revenue for MS from each Rare title might therefore be around the $14-21M range.
Suppose Rare ship another 5 titles over the lifetime of the Xbox. That's getting up to $100M in revenue. Now factor in the extra bonus of having more quality titles on Xbox - which should increase console sales and therefore revenue for all other games sales. Suddenly, it looks like MS's increased revenue as a result of the purchase might be quite substantial, and the purchase price of $375M looks like not a bad deal at all.
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games (Score:3, Informative)
The whole point of the sale was so the owners could get out of it and retire. They offered to sell the company to Nintendo first, but they decided they weren't worth the money, hence the sale to Microsoft.
Double take (Score:5, Funny)
More proof that speed-reading CAN cause heart attacks. Or (insert soft drink of choice) to be spit all over the monitor, at any gate.
Now that MS owns Rare.. (Score:2, Funny)
It will be "rare" to have games from them that are "well done"!
If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:3, Flamebait)
It's a last-ditch effort by Microsoft to take control of more game developers in an attempt to slow their continued decline in 3rd place.
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:5, Informative)
Shrug.
Tim
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2)
Colour me stupid, but I tend to think that a superior game console that doesn't have games is best defined as a paperweight.
Nah, Paperweights don't cost $200
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2)
Then again, they'll sing songs and ionize your air too while they're at it...
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, Interesting)
Sometimes, the superior systems don't "win".
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2)
More like, "systems that succeed have different strengths than systems that fail."
PSX pushes polys far faster than Sega Saturn. Same with PS2 (although textures aren't as good) vs. Dreamcast. 2-D graphics on Sega's consoles far surpass those of Sony's, but nowadays, the trend is 3-D games (to the point that it's more common to find 2-D emulated in 3-D via cel-shading than it is to see a home console game that uses only 2-D graphics).
But most importantly, hype over Sony's offerings in the American market killed both systems here. In Japan, Saturn did very well against the PSX, as would have the Dreamcast against PS2, had Sega not been bleeding money, forcing them out of the hardware business.
In short, PSX and PS2 have the Sony name to thank for their success, as well as Sony's ability to gauge market trends better than Sega. Too bad for me, since both of these Sega systems tie with SNES as my all-time favorite consoles.
< tofuhead >
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Sega Saturn was inferrior. (Score:3, Informative)
The PSX won because of its games, possible because 3rd party people had an easy-to-use developer kit which provided easy MPEG playback for cut scenes, an easier to write for 3D engine (triangles vs. quads againt, remember the NV1? It failed because it was quad-based), and because it was easier to write UMP games than SMP ones (although Yu had Virtua Fighter running with each processor computing one of the players' characters, this was the exception).
Sometimes, superior systems do win even if people seem to think something else was superior (although the PS2 is another discussion
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2)
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)
What a lot of people don't realise is Microsoft is third in the current generation. Third. Nintendo is pulling away fast and though the GameCube will probably never catch the PS2 in terms of the number of consoles sold, it will do quite well overall.
People tend to disregard Nintendo too. They're not a small company, they're huge. Nintendo have made the most money out of all gaming companies year after year for the last decade. The GameBoy Advance has a monopolistic grip on the handheld market that'd make Microsoft jealous.
So people, when you're talking about the PS2 vs the Xbox, remember there's a tiny purple cube in the middle and it's kicking some pretty serious arse.
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:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Nintendo is not a lesser evil.
http://www.gamersgraveyard.com/repository/odditie
Sure they're a lesser evil. (Score:2)
No. Nintendo is not a lesser evil.
http://www.gamersgraveyard.com/repository/oddit
Yes, there are some stupid lawsuits listed there, but I don't see anything comparable to enforced DRM, abuse of monopoly power against software companies, abuse of monopoly power against hardware manufacturers, undocumented routines built into the OS to cripple applications from competitors, etc.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2, Insightful)
Case rested.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2)
This can't be said about Microsoft, and it has nothing to do with their evil quotient. =)
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:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2)
You can get memory cards for the XBox too, if you want to take them from house to house. I have one.
I don't doubt PS3 will have a hard drive, but I have a strong suspicion XBOX has a hard drive because they had trouble running W2k without one
Just like Sony appears to have a lot of problems running network games without one. Oh, and it's not W2K.
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. (Score:2)
It does have it beat on CPU power, but not memory bandwidth. Developer tools are a bonus. I'd wager it doesn't matter too much anyway... except if you want to use DirectX.
Sad day for nintendo fans (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sad day for nintendo fans (Score:2, Informative)
And let's not forget that Capcom has given Nintendo the sole rights to the Resident Evil series. There are a ton of good games available now and some in the pipeline, so this news doesn't bother me as a GCN owner.
This was unexpected.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Its getting harder and harder for Nintendo by the day...I hope they don't fall like Sega did.
Re:This was unexpected.... (Score:5, Informative)
YES! Microsoft got screwed! (Score:3, Interesting)
MS have bought a lemon. Nice!
Re:YES! Microsoft got screwed! (Score:2)
Someone pressed the big red PANIC button? (Score:2)
This seems as a panic attempt to keep developers on Xbox since its release has been anything but successful. If they dont gain more share developers will develop mainly for Sony and Nintendo instead. To buy developers is just to buy time.
For a developer its the size of the platform that counts the most.
Stick a fork in 'em! (Score:2, Funny)
I can't wait for "Clippy Kong".
Cyclic links (Score:5, Funny)
Google News: "Microsoft Buys Rare [slashdot.org] - Slashdot - 11 minutes ago"
Slashdot: "Google News has a nice collection of links [google.co.uk] to articles regarding the announcement."
Google News: "Microsoft Buys Rare [slashdot.org] - Slashdot - 11 minutes ago"
Slashdot: "Google News has a nice collection of links [google.co.uk] to articles regarding the announcement."
Google News: "Microsoft Buys Rare [slashdot.org] - Slashdot - 11 minutes ago"
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
Forget the Nintendo -- what about the Speccy? (Score:2)
I weep... (Score:2)
Does anybody else smell desperation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone know how many employees work at Rare? I know it's not distributed evenly but they must be pretty happy about it on the average.
Especially so for those whose stock is already vested.
-scsg
Money buys quality-but its too late (Score:4, Funny)
Anyway, Rare doesn't have as much of a pedigree as Microsoft probably thinks it does. I'm betting most people associate Perfect Dark, Donkey Kong, etc more with Nintendo than Rare. They are going to have to shout from the makers of perfect dark on any future commercial advertising Xbox titles by Rare if they expect anyone to care, or even notice...
Foolish Purchase (Score:5, Interesting)
With the delay of Panzer Dragoon Orta to 2003 the Xbox's Christmas lineup is also fairly lackluster and sales this Xmas could be very poor. Of course, if MS keeps pumping marketing dollars into it maybe they can convince America that the console is doing great.
I'm not trying to start a console flamewar (I go where the games are in most cases, and I will probably pick up an Xbox at the next price drop), but with Xbox's sales figures for Japan (the-magicbox.com) showing that in some weeks even the PSOne is outselling it, I wonder if the Japanese game studios will be abandoning what little development they already do on Xbox and concentrating on the two surviving consoles instead.
Re:OT: Its effect not affect. (Score:3, Interesting)
I keep an N64 around just for that one to be played in multi-player mode once in a while.
Re:Foolish Purchase??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also this adds up. MS will need over 1 billion PER YEAR just to keep XBox alive.
Bungie, Rare, ... Sega (Score:5, Interesting)
Just think, if they could claim exclusive rights to Sega's line of sports games, including NFL, NBA, NHL, baseball, tennis, and college football lines. They could be the premiere sports games for the Xbox Live online service, for example. And a Virtua Fighter would put Xbox squarely in the sights of many fighting game fans, since then DoA, VF, and Soul Calibur would all be available on one system. Add online opponents and tourneys, and they could potentially hand out more hats of money. Then with Sonic and those cute little Super Monkey Balls, they'd have a possible in with children and youngsters that aren't necessarily into the older games. Make all of these exclusives, and the Xbox looks a whole lot better of an investment.
You know they've thought about it, and now we know the stakes: $3.75e8 dollars for someone like Rare that doesn't have the rep or the library of Sega. Sega's gotta be worth what...twice that...in franchises and development talent alone.
While we're talking numbers, how many units of games does Rare have to sell to be worth it to MicroSoft? Or, perhaps more importantly, how many monthly online subscriptions? And how long is it going to take them to pay it off, given that they're going to incur more costs, in terms of development and promotion, just to get a game out the door?
The usual disclaimer: I'm not an Xbox or MS fan. Read my blog and you'll see where my interests lie. I'm just commenting on the situation as I see it...
Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega (Score:5, Informative)
They already have tried:
http://www.redherring.com/insider/2002/0716/sega0
And after that they tried to buy Nintendo for 25Bn(I think to remember 2.5Bn,
but in the news sites I found it says 25Bn!):
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1131308 [vnunet.com]
http://gameinfowire.com/news.asp?nid=263 [gameinfowire.com]
I don't remember much, I just found this links by looking in google for less
than one minute, I'm sure you can find some better info elsewhere in the net.
My favorite part of this history is the answer of Nintendo: "We weren't sure
what to think when Microsoft made the offer. In fact I was surprised - we
didn't need the money. I thought it was a joke."
hehehe...
I wonder what will they try next, it's obvious that they are desperate for
finding some other business now that the software licensing is going to become
obsolete thanks to opensource, I think they should stick to what(only) they are
good at: mouses
\\Uriel
Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of Microsoft buying things... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Speaking of Microsoft buying things... (Score:2)
rare's best game (Score:3, Interesting)
R/C Pro-AM!!!!
sorry, had to. i looove that game.
siri
Re:rare's best game (Score:2)
Re:rare's best game (Score:4, Informative)
and one they should update for the XBOX..... R/C Pro-AM!!!! :)
IMO Rare's best game was Underwurlde [ultimate-wurlde.com], produced when they were still called Ultimate and produced games for 8-bit computers. ;) Sabre Wulf [ultimate-wurlde.com] was not bad either, and I guess Knight Lore [ultimate-wurlde.com] was pretty good, but I never saw it. All these games were mentioned on rareware.com, but sadly the information seems to have disappeared since. But you can get all that information on the Ultimate-Wurlde [ultimate-wurlde.com] and get either nostalgic, enlightened about history or just plain bored. ;)
Nintendo, Rare come out ahead; MS breaks even (Score:5, Interesting)
Nintendo sells their shares in Rare and top-off their coffers. They win.
Rare makes off with MS money, the finest money that money can buy. They win too.
MS gets a development house that used to turn out hits, but has floundered in recent years. Tim and Chris Stamper are leaving. That leaves Conker, Perfect Dark, and that's about it. No Donkey Kong or anything else owned by Nintendo.
About the only _real_ downside to Nintendo consumers (IMO) is that any sort of RC Pro-Am sequel will be an xbox exclusive. Boohoo. On a lot of the gamer website forums, this has been a huge non-issue for the past few days, since Rare hasn't been playing with the big boys in terms of game quality/quantity for quite a while.
< tofuhead >
There's one company MS needs to buy... (Score:2)
How appropriate... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft is always buying companys (Score:2)
Please Buy an X-Box! (Score:2, Interesting)
With MS losing between $100 - $200 per machine, they are counting on people buying lots of games to make their money back.
Take the opportunity to get a nice $199 DNS, e-mail or web server.
Microsoft has money to burn -- give them the opportunity.
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:Please Buy an X-Box! (Score:2, Insightful)
Brilliant. Let's all bankrupt MS by giving them $200 and inflating the sales figures that they show to developers and investors. That'll learn 'em!
< tofuhead >
If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is? (Score:2, Troll)
not saying that SONY would not, if they had the money to do it -- oh wait, they DO have the money to buy a couple outside developers just for shits and giggles, but didn't.
Same story has happened before, guys... I remember back in the days when M$ literally parked a "hiring booth" in front of Borland and basically said "if you sign up right now, we give you 150% of what you are making and then a huge bonus (6 figures, maybe more)." look what happened to Borland.
As much as the Xbox is a better system (technology-wise) I would not buy it on principle. doing so is to encourage more of the bloodshed in the world caused by M$ that's already way-too-much. to paraphrase it -- Microsoft is the sickle that harvest the souls of computing.
Anyone who don't think you are suffering because of this game developer buy-out thing: remember: Halo was supposed to be released for PC first. and now Halo 2 is about to come out... where is the PC version?
Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is (Score:5, Informative)
What kind of crack are you smoking, exactly?
Nintendo bought Rare, as well as a few other houses.
Sony bought Psygnosis (Wipeout), Square (Final Fantasy; major shareholder), Polyphony Digital (the guys who did Gran Turismo), Incog (Twisted Metal), Verant (Everquest), Red Zone (989 Sports), Naughty Dog (Crash Bandicoot), The Station (Online game center), RTIME Inc. (online game infrastructure company), Millennium (Medievil), Arc Entertainment Inc., Sugar and Rockets Inc. (Kurushi), and Contrail Inc.
(Wild Arms).
So, I guess Sony's customers are suffering because of this game buy out thing?
Or do you still claim that sony DIDN'T do this?
Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is (Score:3, Informative)
At least in this case, they were buying into the company to help them out of the sticky situation they got themselves into by making a poor and very expensive film, which put Square into dire financial difficulties. Can't blame Sony for that, IMHO
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?
Hmmmm.....Is it. (Score:2, Funny)
2) Makes Games
3) Profits.
4) Slashdotters get pissed because the question mark is missing.
Who is "Rare" - what do they make? (Score:2)
Phew (Score:2)
You can't Buy the TALENT!!! The talent flees! (Score:2, Funny)
You can't Buy the TALENT!!! The talent flees! Even with golden handcuffs and stock options most flee like hell and create other startups or go contractor.
The companies languish. Halo took eternity to ship. Still is 3 years late for mac system! It was demoed in 1999.
Its hilarious.
The "visionaries" "art directors" "designers" all have locks of stock as do the vps, but the core grunt talent-gods do not... and they flee.
then the companies churn through "Directors of Technology" one per year like clockwork as they flounder.
ALL GOOD GAMES are made by high IQ people with a knack for talent at game coding and these quirky guys are rarely compensxated correctly or despise golden handcuffs and shackles... many of which do not AUTO-VEST if the companies are sold!
The idiotic firms think lack of auto-vesting options will keep their talented prima-donnas.... WRONG!!!!!! They do not do everyting in life for money.
They get the hell out and fast.
Then the companies imploded.
Companies REFUSE to give proper respect and rewards to the most vital talent, primarily from IQ envy, or agism against youth.
Its the "peter principle" incarnate.
I have kissed off millions of dollars a few times in my life. And i dont give a rip. I laugh at the dead companies I once worked for. All dead dead dead!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (and their stock worthless to the very end).
It's NEW news....only recently became OFFICIAL (Score:2, Informative)
I need new glasses. (Score:3, Funny)
They're not a monopoly for games (Score:2, Insightful)
in other news... (Score:2)
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?
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.
Re:Awesome (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mistake. (Score:2)
Yes you are totally right, then again if you consider Microsoft as the current Borg incarnation, as so many
Re:There is a reason Nintendo sold off its stake (Score:2, Interesting)
As a side note, you are right, Rare has not been a big money make lately. Just to get Star Fox Adventures off the ground, Nintendo had to:
A. Wait a year or so for the development of some game called "Dinosaur Island" to grind to a halt in Rare development hell.
B. Spend money on the dead project to revive it with research and added development.
C. Bring in some new developers, who tacked on the Star Fox franchise as a good idea. Nintendo later spent time and resources on trying to hide this fact (why, I don't know), which failed and flooded game fan-boy eweb sites everywhere.
D. Pay for the closing development, which took forever and a fair penny.
How did I become privy to such useless info? Because me is pals with the local Nintendo sales agent. :)
Re:What games bombed? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't this what Apple does...? (Score:2)