MICROSOFT IS BUYING BLIZZARD! Noooooooooo! :(

[Lonestar]

I hope it doesn't kill the WC3 expansion..........

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Asher
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...

Back from the sauna... So never played this Age of Mythology, how competitive it is?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I hope it doesn't kill the WC3 expansion..........

I played WC3 for a while, but managed to get the word from the progamers how the game goes when you are advanced enough... The random factor is n^10 of SC, so I knew better not to devote more time to WC3. Wand of gg and such. Thus I think expansion is not for me even if no MS.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm not talking about a business model, I'm talking about a game design model.

What game design model?

Originally posted by Asher
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...

That's business model, nothing to do with game design.

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

Cite?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I hope it doesn't kill the WC3 expansion..........

Why on Earth would MS be that stupid?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What game design model?

You know, the one where somebody thinks up a game design idea, sits down with the team, discuss it, plan out the game, start developing the game...

The innovation that happens here will happen regardless of how many other people are huddling together throughout the world making games.

That's business model, nothing to do with game design.

Um. Hmm. Why is this so hard to understand?

Game publishers like Vivendi Interactive straddle the line between business model and game design. They want to make money, the current "it" thing is GTA3 -- so they set some of their teams up working on GTA3 clones.

My whole point is innovation doesn't necessarily increase with the more companies you have doing it. Innovation is largely independent of market conditions.

Cite?

Cite? WTF?

Game design is an art. Just...think...about...it...

Music innovation doesn't necessarily increase the more major record labels you have, game innovation doesn't necessarily increase the more major game companies you have.

People will have ideas and implement those ideas regardless of market conditions in things like game design and music...sometimes the corporate suits get in the middle of it and tell people to "make a game like blahblah, only different".

There's just no real correlation between people thinking that large companies like Microsoft and Nintendo will reduce innovation.

Company size doesn't have anything to do with it. If anything, they're more likely to take risks since they've got the money...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
You know, the one where somebody thinks up a game design idea, sits down with the team, discuss it, plan out the game, start developing the game...

The innovation that happens here will happen regardless of how many other people are huddling together throughout the world making games.

That was a rhetorical question.

Originally posted by Asher
Um. Hmm. Why is this so hard to understand?

Game publishers like Vivendi Interactive straddle the line between business model and game design. They want to make money, the current "it" thing is GTA3 -- so they set some of their teams up working on GTA3 clones.

So that's a business decision, not one made by game designers. Not that they have any say anyway.

Originally posted by Asher
My whole point is innovation doesn't necessarily increase with the more companies you have doing it. Innovation is largely independent of market conditions.

So competition doesn't change the market conditions?

Originally posted by Asher
Cite? WTF?

Game design is an art. Just...think...about...it...

Music innovation doesn't necessarily increase the more major record labels you have, game innovation doesn't necessarily increase the more major game companies you have.

You keep saying this, but you don't have any argument to back you up. On the other hand, for what competition can do to companies, just look at Detroit. If it weren't for the Japanese, you think they still would have made such drastic improvements in their cars?

Originally posted by Asher
People will have ideas and implement those ideas regardless of market conditions in things like game design and music...sometimes the corporate suits get in the middle of it and tell people to "make a game like blahblah, only different".

What makes music and computer games different from cars and home electronics?

Originally posted by Asher
There's just no real correlation between people thinking that large companies like Microsoft and Nintendo will reduce innovation.

Detroit. 'nuff said.

Originally posted by Asher
Company size doesn't have anything to do with it. If anything, they're more likely to take risks since they've got the money...

It's not the size, it's the number of companies.

[Asher]

What makes music and computer games different from cars and home electronics?

Music and computer games are art, cars and home electronics are not.

Simple stuff.

It's not the size, it's the number of companies.

Are you paying attention to this thread?
His assertion was that all of these large companies assimilating the small development houses are stifling innovation. The number of actual developers isn't going down by this, but he's saying that because they've got rich and large parent companies innovation will be stifled somehow.

You can't stifle innovation or encourage innovation based on how many companies there, or even how large they are. I don't need to "prove" that, you need to prove the opposite -- that the amount of large companies determines how innovative games are.

That is, after all, what you're saying.

[MRT144]

i agree with asher...when youre selling popular art innovation matters little to the majority of the companies. they wait for one company to innovate and then copy and sell.

[Dis]

how much more proof do we need that microsoft is evil.

Although I'm not sure I like the direction blizzard was heading even though they are a great company. Perhaps this will do good things for it.

[ixnay]

Bump... it seems Vivendi has rejected an offer from EA:

http://www.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?T...pUABUiVml2ZW5k

Also from that article:

Microsoft Corp., which has been mentioned in press reports as a possible buyer for Vivendi Universal Games, isn't in talks with Vivendi, Les Echos said, citing Microsoft's Robert Bach, who heads the Xbox game console division.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Asher
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.

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.

Asher please try to limit your comments to areas that you actually have a clue about. The most popular online game right now: Counter-Strike. Did not cost millions to make. In fact, it's a mod, but is now sold as a stand-alone. The developers released beta versions online for free. The game was great because it built a loyal base of fans that had direct contact with the developers; many of whom were fans to begin with. Your formula for how games are made is severly flawed as there are many more exceptions to that rule.

Sure, big fat software companies spend millions making crappy games (most of them on consoles). But the best games come about not because of the amount of money thrown their way, but the dedication, talent, and creative vision of their creators. Case in point, the game that this website is dedicated to... CIVILIZATION.

So stick to being a MS fanboy...

[Asher]

Asher please try to limit your comments to areas that you actually have a clue about. The most popular online game right now: Counter-Strike. Did not cost millions to make.

I knew someone would try this.

CounterStrike is a mod. The core engine itself was developed by Valve, and a couple Canadian college students modded it in their free time. Sure, it's a game, but it's actually not a commercial product (yes, I know they sell it in the stores now, but it's still free). We're talking about commercial games -- think about it. Your were *****ing about MS buying Vivendi's game division, ranting about lack of innovation, etc. Clearly, there will always be lots of fun free games and mods being made like CS, but they're not full-fledged games ala Half-Life (which provided the engine, which is by far the hardest part...).

I'm not sure if I made that clear or not. You were the one *****ing about megacorporations ruining the game industry and discouraging innovation, and now you just tried to use CounterStrike as an example against *ME*. Don't you see the problem? CounterStrike is a mod to a game published by Sierra, developed on an engine former MS bigwigs, and owned by a megacorporation: Vivendi.

Of course mods and freebie games are easier. You don't need to code your own damn engine and do all sorts of testing. THAT is what I'm talking about, true commercial games. THAT should be obvious. Mods and freebie games are also completely independent of your rant of megacorporations ruining the industry...

But I do enjoy your pathetic attempts to insult me, especially when you use an example like counterstrike when you're trying to prove your point about megacorporations ruining the industry.

[monolith94]

"The reason MS releases Mac software is to keep antitrust whining to a minimum, plus they aren't trying to gain marketshare there."
If Apple keeps pulling out all the stops, they may eventually be forced to?
Like I said before, Microsoft has incredibly good taste in who to buy and who to invest in. let's look at their track record.
Apple
Bungie
Blizzard
I guess microsoft's motto is 'if you can't beat them, join them!'

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by monolith94
Like I said before, Microsoft has incredibly good taste in who to buy and who to invest in. let's look at their track record.
Apple
Bungie
Blizzard

Much better.

[monolith94]

What's wrong with blizzard?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by monolith94
What's wrong with blizzard?

Nothing. However Microsoft hasn't bought them and apparently never was in talks to do so.