| DirtyP2002 said: Just being on topic: Do you think this might be a Gamescom announcement? Like 5 studios at e3 and 1 for gamescom. |
It would make sense to use a media gathering to announce it.
| smroadkill15 said: The problem with everyone's statement against the purchase is, now you've made it clear that you think MS should simply never buy up any new developers and become a better first party studio themselves because you think that will be the end for those developers. Clearly Phil Spencer is trying to change MS stigma of, "lack of good first party studios and games." How are they suppose to do that if they don't get at least some quality developers? It seems like it's a lose-lose situation for some of you, which is a bit annoying honestly for those that do want to see MS get better. |
Well they bought 4 and opened 1, I would guess if they had opened more than bought the image could be a little different.
smroadkill15 said:
I do not live and breath MS. I game on other systems as well. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but 4 of MS first party developers (5 if you include MS Casual Games) were created and 5 were picked up. I would say that is pretty good on them. I'm all for MS creating new studios, but which is more time consuming, cost more, and will take longer to get a product out? Creating a new studio of course. If you have been paying attention, you would know MS just created a new studio, but we likely won't see anything from them in the next 3-4 years. In the mean time, MS can purchase a studio such as Obsidian and get games pumped out quicker and with general knowledge of knowing it will likely be high quality. It seems like Obsidian is looking for a publisher to pick them up. Would it be cool if some 3rd party publisher got them? Sure. I would have zero problems with that because they will get more exposure on more platforms. If they decide to become a first party developer for MS, this was their choice. MS didn't hold a gun to their head and force it. MS isn't some bad guy in this transaction, which you make it seem like they are the ones running the show. Obsidian could easily decline to MS. Btw, MS will not shut down Obsidian if they release good games for their platform or waste valuable resources with no results. |
I just want to correct you on being cheaper to buy than to make, that is completely faulty.
When you buy a company you not only pay for its structure, personnel, IPs, etc but also for some period in time of expected revenue (like 5 years). Building the new company you would have to pay for structure and personnel.
Otherwise why would anyone sell a company (unless it's on bankrupcy, but still you will pay for the debts and such).
So it would be cheaper, perhaps a little slower and certainly quality could be variable.
Chazore said:
No, but you imply it via defense, "the best offense is a good defense". Mirror retorts do not work here either, so drop those now while you still can. Why don't you first?, you talk big now because I'm onto you after you jumping before, so why don't you calm it first for a change? ("I'm not the one acting like I've been paid by Valve here"). If you want competition proper, then you'd want MS to take the pages from GoG and Steam, rather than "we don't need those pages because I don't care about them". It's odd to you, but your's is also just as odd. The argument became about mods because you went on cramming in that "competition makes everything rainbows" speech. Something with the actual competition ignores (Which Bethesda is actually picking up on, but wants to control it, which kills it's general appearance of "caring"to begin with). Competition works when the rest want to compete and when they actually tackle what the others have been putting out. I made a thread specifically talking about the clients that are currently out there and the lack of Driving competition needed for the rest of those clients to get on Steam's level of factual features, not some poppycock "paid by valve" "opinion", get off that high horse bullshit. When someone has a feature and the other does not, that becomes a fact, not a "shills" sodding opinion. I want actual brutal competition, but so far that's not been happening on PC for years. Definitely not in the way that the client data shows. |
Generally competition is better, but not always.
Like in console gaming, there is very little reason to imagine that having 10 closed platforms with companies buying exclusives would be better to the customer than what we have now.
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. |
I want to acknowledge that your criticisms on GT were valid (even when I disagreed) and didn't sound off as someone just making them for hate of Sony nor to prop up MS on Forza. So even if I and others can see you have a preference for MS, that doesn't go to the realm of senseless defense.
Chazore said:
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.
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. |
I would say there are couple or more on this thread that have defended MS buying but not blindly.
Azzanation said:
Chazore I want to keep this civil between us, so I am going to ask you a few questions to the bolded parts to your post. *No, pumping out in short time periods is what it is.* Where do you assume that MS buying Obsidian means games will be rushed out the door in short bursts? Halo Infinite has been in the making for more than 3years as well as Sea of thieves 3years, State of Decay 2 3years, Halo Wars 2 3years, Halo 5 3years, Crackdown 3 20years etc. I don't see the short term approach here, not with there track record lately. 3 Years is more than enough time to make a good game, unless.. you want to use the Forza series as the only example of games put out on the regular.. but even Forza games take at least 2 years to make and there building upon the foundations from there previous games. *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* Why are fans from NT disappointed? We haven't seen a game from NT under the MS banner yet so how can there disappointment be validated? have you also seen the amount of fans that are happy for the purchase? That also goes both ways. Not that it matters. *MS is not neutral* Why do you assume MS is not neutral? They allow cross play with Nintendo, they brought Minecraft and allow that game to continue to sell on rival platforms, MS offer there own games on Steam, how do you see them as not neutral? They seem to share more in the gaming industry than any other platform maker. If Nintendo or Sony brought Minecraft, you can bet your life that those brands would force lock there games on there own platforms. How do we know that NT or Obsidian might not be the next Naughty Dog under MS? Instead of looking at it as a pure negative, lets look at the positives as well, funding, Job security, access to company assets etc. NT and Obsidian might be struggling we don't know for sure, they are the ones that choose to sign the agreements. MS are rebuilding there Xbox brand, these purchases are set for the long term not the short quick fix. That's why MS are going for the talent not so much size or quality. |
I will just say that some companies have won benefit of doubt depending on the subject. MS are still to win it on the 1st party front, keeping developers alive making diverse IPs with quality and success. So criticism on their decisions and expectations of outcome are valid. Same as if let's say PD decided to make a FPS, and you said you don't expect the game to be good, since they haven't earned a reputation for good FPS your expectation is totally fine and not really born from hate of PD.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
