Microsoft rumoured to purchase Obsidian Entertainment

[Chazore]

flashfire926 said:

I'm sorry for that, it was a distasteful comment on my part. I'm sorry.

Thanks for filling me on the situation of mods. I don't care for them but I fully well know that there are a lot who do care, I don't want corporations taking entire control of them. 

Although is Bethesda trying to get ALL mods to go through creation club? I always thought it was only for a select few mods, and the rest being free, making it harmless for the most part. 

Though I don't get how defending this acquisition makes me a ms "defend them to literal death". That would be ignoring when I heavily criticized MS for the launch of the X1, or for them making  Forza 5 a microtransaction-fest, or them forgetting past ip's like Project Gotham Racing and Banjo Kazooie.

It's fine, it's just that firing that back at me is going to end up with me firing back at you.

I didn't specifically call you an exec hat, I meant that for people that care only for the company in mind, that what the company can do and what it can do for others.

As much as I like Steam and it's features and mod support, I care very little if the company gets wounded in any way, simply because they are not my friend and they do not see me as one (no company ever does), it's what the company has done that gets my attention. The feature set and mod support is an action and a service that really resonates with an open platform, something that is really important for others to make use of and to also see it flourish. The competition doesn't want any of that and that is honestly what I feel would breed honest and healthy competition, not the kind where one rich guy buys out a load and says "look at what I got guys!". I want to see each and every client working towards what Steam has laid out, I mean they did after all take a page from Origin with the refund system, yet Origin hasn't taken anything from Steam, nor has Blizzard, Ubisoft or anyone else. GoG made a client and are very, very slowly improving it, but it still has to serve a specific goal in mind, which is for it to remain 100% optional, because GoG are to be DRM free, and obv trying to make their client a must have would go against that, since the client is a client.

At least you admit you don't care for them and acknowledge their existence. Most out there don't care for them and wouldn't care if the competition simply ignored what that community and talent was doing. 

Bethesda's earned good rep from the modding community, and as such they've decided to now control it via Creation club. Yes it is meant to be a club designed for the modding community to pay modders, but in essence it becomes a system where it's pay or you don't get access to the mod, which is effectively charging to gain access to the mod itself, not making it free and thus becoming yet another horse armor piece of content (which has been proven by the modding community vs CC's lack of quality mods vs free mods). What they are doing is controlling that side of the community that has given them free ideas and free fixes for years. Now they want to control how it works and make money off it while appearing like modders make the most change out of it. That itself is something I don't really agree with and it has fractured the modding community as a result, all again because one company wanted to filter and control a community which should not be controlled (just like an open platform).

Well so far, each and every turn that has been given and thrown towards MS has been deflected each and every time. I haven't seen one person who loves MS to bits admitting that it might not be the best idea to purchase them, but instead it's been met with defensive counter-points, which in the end show that the side that likes MS thinks it's good all the way and that nothing bad can come from it versus the group that just wants Obsidian to remain as they are (free from control and ownership). If there was some middle ground or an agreement with the purchase being bad, that would have showed itself by now, but all I've seen is one group arguing against another, not one group arguing against the other and the other side putting down the counter-points.

smroadkill15 said:

5 for 5 is good with me, Thanks.

When I say, pumping out games, I don't mean any quicker than they already are. I mean, compared to starting from scratch. I have no problem with them spending 2-3 years developing a game. I like my games to be high quality, believe it or not. I know Obsidian can and will make great games. This is why I believe having a developer, like Obsidian, could change MS reputation into something positive on the first party front. 

 MS is neither a good guy or bad guy. They are a company, which has made made good and bad decisions before. Buying Obsidian can be looked at from both perspectives, even if you think there is only one. 

Half full is fine for you, but for me, I'd rather the full glass since they can afford it.

No, pumping out in short time periods is what it is. If you want to assume that each game not under a publisher takes 10-20 years to make then you're underestimating indie devs and other studios entirely. 3-4 years is ample time to get a new game up and running, rather than 1-2. I like games to be of higher quality and of a higher standard, but we don't seem to get many of those these days (unless you aren't looking and judging technologies, physics, AI and texture details, which we do see people gloating with, yet not studying them deeply).

I don't believe it will change MS, it'll just become another studio MS paid to join their Xbox side of gaming, rather than MS creating something on their own and really trying to stand out from the crowd. I've already seen the disappointment from fans of NT when MS bought those guys, and yes that disappointment is and will always be validated, because not everyone likes one rich company buying up a smaller studio, not everyone has to agree and can judge and find fault with those deals, even if the smaller studio thinks it's amazeballs, even they can made a wrong decision as no human is perfect.

MS is not neutral, that;'s something I can never agree with and not in the  opinionated sense, I really mean they are not neutral due to their usage of their infamous EEE strategy, whether it be in the past present or future, they are not considered a neutral company. YOu think them as such because it makes it easier to argue and vouch for them.