MICROSOFT IS BUYING BLIZZARD! Noooooooooo! :( - Page 2

BustaMike · January 24, 2003, 17:04

The best thing about this buyout... they're making a sequel to the best arcade racing game of all time - Crash Team Racing. Crash Nitro Cart is due out sometime around November and I can't wait.

I personally think that Microsoft's buyout of Vivendi is a good thing. The Xbox is the superior system in all hardware aspects. Now maybe it'll become the superior system in terms of developers also

.

monolith94 · January 24, 2003, 17:10

I will say this for Microsoft - they have great taste in game developers!
First Bungie, now Blizzard? I wonder which will be the next to go?
I don't think that this will stifle innovation, really. The best that can happen from this is that these game developers who have, at times, had to struggle with monetary resources (Bungie in particular) will have all the money they need to create their masterpeices (I'm thinking of Halo 2 here!

).
It looks like if I do ever get a console, the X-Box (as much as I hate to admit it) has the games that I am the most interested in (I've already finished GTA3: vice city & Final Fantasy X) - Fable, Halo 2, Halo, etc?

SnowFire · January 24, 2003, 17:18

Frankychan: No such contract was signed. Sony simply bought up some of Square, and might have helped keep it from totally jumping ship, but Square is publishing for the GC now too. Or will be very soon.

MS would certainly NOT publish any games for the PS2 or Gamecube...you're smoking something if you think they will.

MS publishes stuff for the Mac, right? (Sure, they do own a good chunk of Mac too, but...) Anyway, it's possible MS will do that, but it's bad PR and bad for your relations with your newly bought liscenses. Annoy them too much, and THEY might jump ship. MS certainly wouldn't tell in-house studios (like Bungie or Gas Powered) to develop for the PS2, but other studios that MS just happens to publish the games of (even if they do technically own them now)...

At least relating to Starcraft: Ghost, Blizzard has always had a strong tradition of independence from its publisher. They've said "we sell a zillion games, you should consider it an honor that you get to publish them, not the other way around that we get to use you. So lay off us and let us miss our release dates." If that's still there, then I'm guessing MS would be smart enough to leave the ball in Blizzard's court about whether to continue porting or not.

General Ludd · January 24, 2003, 17:27

It's not the monolithic corporations and publishers that stifle creation, it's the customer base that does it. If people didn't keep buying up all the crap they pump out these days, they wouldn't do it. If the "casual gamer" wasn't so painfully stupid, they wouldn't have to dumb-down and simplify games like they have with Civ3 and, as it seems, MOO3.

Sava · January 24, 2003, 19:10

sigh... American capitalism is ruining the video-game industry now... no more small developing companies that make innovative, fun games... now we've got a handful of big software powerhouses cranking out the same game with updated graphics every year. Microshaft sucks...

JCG · January 24, 2003, 20:34

...But on the good side, as has been said, if someone at M$ wants Starcraft 2 to be made, it'll probably be done (So Go! Corporate Pressure Go!).

I don't care what exclusives the X-Box gets, as long as they at least get PC ports....

Asher · January 24, 2003, 20:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
sigh... American capitalism is ruining the video-game industry now... no more small developing companies that make innovative, fun games... now we've got a handful of big software powerhouses cranking out the same game with updated graphics every year. Microshaft sucks...

You obviously don't have a clue what's going on, do you.

MS is buying Vivendi's game division. Blizzard, Sierra, etc. are already owned by a megacorporation.

Vivendi being a huge French company burdened by debt and not very profitable.
Microsoft being a huge American company with billions of dollars sitting around doing nothing.

Vivendi couldn't give lots of the development houses the budgets they needed since cash is very tight around there, MS is throwing gobs of cash at any game developer under their umbrella that asks for it...

Snowfire:

Quote:

MS publishes stuff for the Mac, right? (Sure, they do own a good chunk of Mac too, but...) Anyway, it's possible MS will do that, but it's bad PR and bad for your relations with your newly bought liscenses.

Again, this wouldn't make sense for MS to do. MS wants people to buy the Xbox. If they start releasing good games on other platforms, the incentive to buy the Xbox naturally decreases. This is the complete opposite of the PC/Mac world. The reason MS releases Mac software is to keep antitrust whining to a minimum, plus they aren't trying to gain marketshare there. The Xbox is about gaining marketshare -- you don't gain marketshare by publishing games on competing consoles!

Quote:

If that's still there, then I'm guessing MS would be smart enough to leave the ball in Blizzard's court about whether to continue porting or not.

MS will throw a pile of cash at them, tell them they only need to worry about one platform, and go for it.

There is simply no way, no how, that MS is going to publish PS2 and GCN games -- at any time, for whatever reason. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Quote:

I will say this for Microsoft - they have great taste in game developers!
First Bungie, now Blizzard? I wonder which will be the next to go?

And don't forget Rare. And Tim Schaffer's company, and Chris Taylor's company, and Brian Reynold's company...

Buck Birdseed · January 24, 2003, 21:43

I want an XBox so I can play Psychonauts.

Tim Schafer is god!

But Asher, you only need to look at other, adjacent industries to see that originality is rarely the preserve of the biggest corporations. Look at the music industry or the film industry, barely any interesting new trends or people originate from the big studios or publishers. Big corporations are big, stodgy, immobile, slow to respond to trends, uninterested in the small scale, unwilling to engage in long-term low-appeal projects and stuck in previously healthy profit patterns. The innovation is thereafter.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 21:51

It costs many millions of dollars to make a modern game, Snapcase, you can't go and compare that to music where the costs are a fraction of that.

The film industry is also weird, and many indy films are indeed innovative, but the vast majority of them suck ass accordingly. You can also make films on shoestring budgets when possible (see Blair Witch).

Games require years of work, teams of people, and lots of testing.

You need big backers to do a big game, innovative or not. And smalltime studios are going to have a hard time finding funding unless they have a big daddy parent company who brings in the dough.

Buck Birdseed · January 24, 2003, 21:59

I dunno, most of the really good games I've played recently have been freeware games on zero budget.

Sharpe · January 24, 2003, 22:03

I somehow see this ending up in court - the last thing Microsoft should have done was to make such a large acquisition such a little while after being convicted of being an illegal monopoly and having "restrictions" placed on them.

If buying a $ 2 billion dollar division to gain a dominant presence in the gaming industry (this makes them more powerful than EA for sure! if they already weren't more powerful) is an example of the "restrictions" placed on Microsoft, they really are useless...

Somehow I don't see EA or Sony or the other major gaming companies letting this happen without a fight...

Asher · January 24, 2003, 22:03

That's obviously not part of the video game industry.

And I know there's lots of free games out there. I coded and administered a text-based sci-fi game with 300 players. It was like Trade Wars meets X-Wing, all online.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharpe
I somehow see this ending up in court - the last thing Microsoft should have done was to make such a large acquisition such a little while after being convicted of being an illegal monopoly and having "restrictions" placed on them.

If buying a $ 2 billion dollar division to gain a dominant presence in the gaming industry (this makes them more powerful than EA for sure! if they already weren't more powerful) is an example of the "restrictions" placed on Microsoft, they really are useless...

Somehow I don't see EA or Sony or the other major gaming companies letting this happen without a fight...

This is ridiculous, MS doesn't even come close to having a monopoly in the video games industry. Vivendi offered the division to a number of companies: Sony, EA, and MS -- Sony and EA *BOTH* have higher marketshares in the video game industry than MS. If MS didn't snag them up, EA or Sony would have.

Not to mention the fact that there's nothing remotely illegal about this tactic. MS uses money from its other businesses to enter this market. That's what Nintendo did with its trading cards back in the 80s, that's what Sony did with its consumer electronics in the 90s, and that's what MS is doing with its software business in the 00s.

It's not illegal, it's business.

Drake Tungsten · January 24, 2003, 22:20

If MS starts using predatory pricing to gain marketshare in the console market, then it will be illegal. Anyone else heard the rumors of the Xbox going to $99?

DinoDoc · January 24, 2003, 22:21

No response from Blizzard yet.

Sharpe · January 24, 2003, 22:22

Actually Asher I didn't say it was illegal, just that there will likely be legal action because it will be interpreted by some parties as illegal.

I think though that you will admit that acquiring all of Vivendi's gaming companies will make them the dominant PC game producer by far. That won't sit well with EA and others for sure - and result in more legal action.

Now course, if Microsoft didn't have any restrictions - they would probably buy EA and most of Vivendi...

Asher · January 24, 2003, 22:24

EA & Co wouldn't have a case that'd even make it into court...

It's a non-issue.

They can feel free to waste their time trying to get a case but they know nothing will come of it.

And in the process they'd piss MS off. Pissing off MS when you're trying to do something even remotely related to computers isn't a very bright idea.

Skanky Burns · January 24, 2003, 22:25

Sounds good - MS buying Blizzard, provided that they continue to release games for the PC. I refuse to buy a console.

Sharpe · January 24, 2003, 22:39

Quote:

EA & Co wouldn't have a case that'd even make it into court...

Actually they could have or at the very least they could try.

Asher, you are a very good computer expert not a legal expert, but you are entitled to your opinion

as am I - except it isn't my opinion firsthand of course.

After I read about it here I called a lawyer friend of mine who worked in the US and has been following the MS case closely. His response was "Are they nuts? This will result in legal action for sure!", though admittedly he hadn't read about it yet.

Quote:

And in the process they'd piss MS off. Pissing off MS when you're trying to do something even remotely related to computers isn't a very bright idea.

Not likely that MS would do anything. The moment they did anything that seemed predatory MS could be broken up into several pieces.

Asher · January 24, 2003, 22:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharpe
Actually they could have or at the very least they could try.

Oh come on.

EA and Sony are more monopolistic in their industries than MS is in the industry this is dealing with.

If EA or Sony brought antitrust problems up with MS' purchase, they'd be laughed out of the courtroom so fast...

Quote:

After I read about it here I called a lawyer friend of mine who worked in the US and has been following the MS case closely. His response was "Are they nuts? This will result in legal action for sure!", though admittedly he hadn't read about it yet.

Yeah, of course...

Quote:

Not likely that MS would do anything. The moment they did anything that seemed predatory MS could be broken up into several pieces.

Not while George W. is in charge.

EA is the world's largest games publisher, and still will be after MS buys Vivendi's game division, why on Earth do you think they'll be stupid enough to try some antitrust case on MS buying Vivendi? Why on Earth do you think Sony, who has an effective monopoly on the game console industry, would have some antitrust case on buying Vivendi?

All three companies can purchase Vivendi's division and have been offered the division, MS gave the best offer. Simple, 100% legal.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about this.

Sharpe · January 24, 2003, 22:54

Interesting debate, but some counterpoints:

Quote:

EA and Sony are more monopolistic in their industries than MS is in the industry this is dealing with.

You make it sound like they are different types of industries - by that logic MS has many monopolies in many industries (Operating software, Office suites, internet browsers)- in which many of them they illegally maintained their monopolies.

So what is an "industry"?

I can easily see a judge thinking that the videogame "industry" and the PC gaming "industry" are in fact one industry which MS is either dominating or is seeking to gain dominance in - or the judge could view games as part of the software industry - and it is well known that MS has a near monopoly on that industry.

Perhaps EA and Co would try to convince a judge that MS should not be allowed to buy all of Vivendi's gaming companies - they should only be allowed to buy Sierra but not Blizzard or vice versa. Since Blizzard is the crown jewel of the Vivendi gaming companies, I suspect that they might not want it in MS's hands.

By the way, since I own many Sierra and Blizzard games, MS buying them might be good - lots of money and all (especially compared to near bankrupt Vivendi - thanks a lot J6M

) - as long as they continue to produce PC games and not move them all to their Xbox system - especially as I don't have one and don't intend to buy one !!

Asher · January 24, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharpe
You make it sound like they are different types of industries - by that logic MS has many monopolies in many industries (Operating software, Office suites, internet browsers)- in which many of them they illegally maintained their monopolies.

The court ruled that they were indeed a monopoly, and that they did engage in some anticompetitive behavior that abused that monopoly. They certainly did not say the monopolies were illegally maintained, just they did some naughty things with it.

Which is why the punishment was a joke, really.

Quote:

So what is an "industry"?

I was using the word as you were, you tell me...

Quote:

I can easily see a judge thinking that the videogame "industry" and the PC gaming "industry" are in fact one industry which MS is either dominating or is seeking to gain dominance in - or the judge could view games as part of the software industry - and it is well known that MS has a near monopoly on that industry.

If the judge viewed it all as a simple software industry, he'd be stupid as all hell.

MS doesn't dominate the PC gaming industry. Unlike console games, MS doesn't see a dime for every PC game sold. Sure, 99% of PC games run on MS' OS, but it's a very different market than a video game console. For one, the sales are far lower and it's a market in a state of decline. Two, MS doesn't receive royalties for software released on its platform. Three, MS doesn't control what can and can't be released on the PC.

MS has a monopoly, as you said, in the OS, internet browser, and office suite market. It certainly does NOT have a monopoly in the games market.

The people closest to having a monopoly are Sony and EA, which is why I find it ridiculous that they'd even consider legal action for MS' perfectly legal move...

Which would explain why no articles, analysts, or legal people have actually publically objected to it.

There's simply nothing illegal about it.

Urban Ranger · January 24, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
And competition doesn't cause people to innovate, it causes people to clone eachother's games.

Oh my side hurts! Where's that rolling laughing smilie?

Asher · January 24, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Oh my side hurts! Where's that rolling laughing smilie?

What? It's true.

Have you seen all the GTA3 clones coming out? Driver 3, Mafia, True Crime: Streets in LA, etc. It's ridiculous.

Innovation comes from creativity, from new ideas and good developers implementing them. Consumers are the type to buy what's proven to be good, in general -- they HARDLY encourage innovation.

Corporate competition in the game market tends to lead to a bunch of games that are indistinguishable from eachother. They all see a market for a specific type of game and plunge head-first into it creating their own clones.

Competition has no effect on innovation, but rather how many games are simply clones of competitor's products.

Urban Ranger · January 24, 2003, 23:10

Yeah there are lots of clones, but clones don't sell, only the innovators do. If you look at Black and White, which is pretty stupid, but at least it got something new. Ditto with The Sims. Even SimGolf is a bit innovate.

Clearly, not everyday you get the sort of XCOM innovation, but clones don't sell. Not for long.

Sharpe · January 24, 2003, 23:15

Quote:

Competition has no effect on innovation

- oh boy - don't take any business studies Asher - you would be laughed out of the class for a statement like that...

As far as what is an industry - there is no easy answer to that - it is subject to interpretation and I could quote from several business case studies but they are SO boring that you would fall asleep reading them (or at least I nearly did

)

Rockefeller (sp?) tried to say in Standard Oil that oil was a different industry than refining - well that didn't really work now did it - neither did the other robber barons in arguing that steel and railroads weren't connected - didn't work either...

Asher · January 24, 2003, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharpe

- oh boy - don't take any business studies Asher - you would be laughed out of the class for a statement like that...

I'm not talking about a business model, I'm talking about a game design model.

It's like saying the more major label record companies there are, the more innovative music we're going to get.

There's zero correlation between innovation and competition in fields like music and games...

They wait until something becomes a fad, then clone it, then wait till the next fad...

Innovation takes place regardless of how many game companies there are directly competing with eachother.

Sharpe · January 24, 2003, 23:22

Well maybe not zero correlation but admittedly much less than usual as cloning is common in entertainment fads.

Gee have to keep editing due to my poor English - must be getting tired...

tinyp3nis · January 24, 2003, 23:23

This really sucks, if SC 2 will ever be created it might be "dumbed down" for the "Americans" (in this case console players) like the hollywood movies are. Good bye balance and Longevity. I guess SC will remain the best rts in history forever, since blizzard is giving in for the money too.

Well the Warcraft 3 wearing down of the skill factor did happen before this, but now they have even more excuses to make something that just sells well. It is business like Asher said. Oh well this is the worst scenario maybe it turns out fine...

Asher · January 24, 2003, 23:24

I don't get the dumbed down comment.

Most MS games are far more deep than Blizzard's games...

Compare Age of Mythology to Warcraft III...