14 réponses à ce sujet

[Necroscope84]

  I just wanted to get everyones thought on a subject.  What do you'll think about these independent game companies that were seemingly in good standing selling to larger companies and why do you'll think they did it?  For instance Bioware sold to EA and Blizzard sold to Activision.  Both were grade A independent gaming companies that were well off financially (as far as I know)  Both companies had very good store placement for their products.  Heck every store in the world had Diablo II in it before they sold to Activision - and they still do, likewise every WAL-Mart and gaming store carried NWN, KOTOR, IWD I and II, BG I and II, etc.  so store placement is not an issue.  Personally I wish neither company had sold. I loved the idea of independent developers beating out the big boys by doing what these big companies couldn't and wouldn't do and that's was by putting out a great product that isn't rushed, has great features and was well polished.  Both companies did this time  and time again.

  Am I missing a reason for them to sell?  Blizzard was and is literally making hundred of millions per month on WoW alone before they sold, obviously they didn't need the money.  Also with that kind of money how much were they bought for?  With ten million subscribers at fifteen dollars a month it = 150 million a month (and they actually had more than that) so that's literally billions of dollars if it keeps that up over the next decade or so.  But then again, nothing lasts forever and maybe they wanted to get out while the going was good and the guys on top could sell and settle back to a life of luxury and no more work.  To me that seems the most likely reason.  

  The good thing is that so far neither company has seemed to change any although I'm very unhappy with EA's dismantling of Pandemic.  When I'd heard that Bioware owned Pandemic I was so happy.  Why pay so much money for them and then just get rid of them, especially after only one failed game.  If Dragon age had tanked would Bioware still be around?  I truly wish these independent companies could sell with some kind of stipulation that if the company wants to dismantle them then it reverts back to the original owners - minus all previous assets that were made while under the parent company so basically Pandemic could still keep it's name and work on new titles but receive little to no compensation for past projects, but then again without that money they'd probably just have to fold anyway.  I don't know, I for one am sad to see these two great companies owned by larger companies that I truly do not trust yet.  I was just starting to like EA again when the whole Pandemic thing happened.  I understand business and that's what companies do I just don't like it. I happen to be a loyal gamer who will buy most products from a company if I like them - yes even the bad ones. I rarely go off of reviews. I find myself time and time again enjoying games that got horrible reviews and also disliking others that got good reviews so I just play them for myself and be the judge of whats good or bad.

  What are everyone's thoughts on all of this?   

[Skellimancer]

Shareholders.

[mrofni]

I would rather have several small companies then a few big companies. Big companies tend to create monopolies, which is kind of anti-capitalism.



As far as why they do it, its because more money is more power. EA and Activision are bigger companies then Blizzard and BioWare. By combining with those companies it allows them to pool their money for extra buying and lobbying power. They could buy out more companies, giving them a bigger monopoly, and spend more money on sending people to Washington to get them better deals for their industry. Once again, very anti-capitalism.

[I Valente I]

Skellimancer wrote...

Shareholders.

yep. Gaming is a business. Also, in in Bioware's case, they are benefitting massively thanks to EA's marketing ability. Since the merger you see TV commercials, massive booths at conventions, gaming sites giving massive coverage. Of course you also get the negatives with it too

Modifié par I Valente I, 18 janvier 2010 - 08:52 .

[Beerfish]

mrofni wrote...

I would rather have several small companies then a few big companies. Big companies tend to create monopolies, which is kind of anti-capitalism.

As far as why they do it, its because more money is more power. EA and Activision are bigger companies then Blizzard and BioWare. By combining with those companies it allows them to pool their money for extra buying and lobbying power. They could buy out more companies, giving them a bigger monopoly, and spend more money on sending people to Washington to get them better deals for their industry. Once again, very anti-capitalism.

Not really.  The whole idea behind capitalism is to reduce the competition so you can make more money.  A happy side effect of some economies is competition in a market but the idea behind capitalism is not to have competition.

In some cases the big buy the small to buy market share.  Whether it is beneficial or not depends on the situation.  In some cases it is the worst thing for the small company, in others it is a life line.

[mrofni]

Omg. You have the completely wrong idea about what Capitalism is. Capitalism principles is more competition, not less. That with a free market, and as little as interference with business as possible, that there would be multiple businesses competing on the same product. The better businesses would win out, because of their innovation, and the bad ones will fail. This creates a better market place because good businesses remain. However, this is dependant on having a free market, with businesses allowing to open up. When you get government, or groups of industries teaming up, you can create situations where new companies cannot be formed. Without the ability to create new companies, monopolies are inevitable and then they won't care if they are good or bad. What you are thinking of is what, sadly, the U.S. is currently.  That is Corporatism.

Modifié par mrofni, 18 janvier 2010 - 09:15 .

[NvVanity]

 Game companies that sell out usually do end up going downhill. Modern Warfare 2's online is a prime example of how much time Activision would allow IW to perfect their product.


And yeah there is a difference between Corporatism and Capitalism. Don't get them confused like Michael Moore.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

mrofni wrote...

Omg. You have the completely wrong idea about what Capitalism is. Capitalism principles is more competition, not less. That with a free market, and as little as interference with business as possible, that there would be multiple businesses competing on the same product. The better businesses would win out, because of their innovation, and the bad ones will fail. This creates a better market place because good businesses remain.

Nice to see somebody so idealistic about it, but do you really think capitalists are actually happy about the emerging of new competition?
"Hurrah, now I finally have a chance of being sifted out."
Capitalism is an open arena of people trying to gain the upper hand and act without the meddling of competition.
How then, when somebody finally comes close to realizing this goal, can you call the situation the opposite of capitalism?

[v0rt3x22]

I work in the industry - and we're in the entertainment money making business. simple as that.

[Dewnis]

mrofni wrote...

Omg. You have the completely wrong idea about what Capitalism is. Capitalism principles is more competition, not less. That with a free market, and as little as interference with business as possible, that there would be multiple businesses competing on the same product. The better businesses would win out, because of their innovation, and the bad ones will fail. This creates a better market place because good businesses remain. However, this is dependant on having a free market, with businesses allowing to open up. When you get government, or groups of industries teaming up, you can create situations where new companies cannot be formed. Without the ability to create new companies, monopolies are inevitable and then they won't care if they are good or bad. What you are thinking of is what, sadly, the U.S. is currently.  That is Corporatism.

Actually true capitalism is no restriction on private companies..
Monopoly is an inevitable future in true capitalism. Because it is all about the private owning of companies. Without regulations

If it weren't for the state regulations over companies, some companies would have even greater power  due to capitalism, and any successful company's highest and most wet dream is to be alone on it's market so that they can regulate the prices themselves. And therefore they would want to buy or in other ways eliminate all other companies until they can do so.(Buying all smaller-companies who have made one+ games with decent sales is the way EA-games work)

This is Capitalism nothing else.
A true capitalist-utopia would also contain slavery, seeing as it's the most cost efficient method of having workers.

Modifié par Dewnis, 22 janvier 2010 - 06:06 .

[Dennis Carpenter]

mrofni wrote...

Omg. You have the completely wrong idea about what Capitalism is. Capitalism principles is more competition, not less. That with a free market, and as little as interference with business as possible, that there would be multiple businesses competing on the same product. The better businesses would win out, because of their innovation, and the bad ones will fail. This creates a better market place because good businesses remain. However, this is dependant on having a free market, with businesses allowing to open up. When you get government, or groups of industries teaming up, you can create situations where new companies cannot be formed. Without the ability to create new companies, monopolies are inevitable and then they won't care if they are good or bad. What you are thinking of is what, sadly, the U.S. is currently.  That is Corporatism.

In spite of what everyone may think ...YOU...are correct what we have crrently going on in the united states is corporate greed which has sprung and grown from the roots of capitalism. Were it not for capitalism I could never have opened my own cosmetic company........(failed after one year due to my lack of management skills and business education)......but I got that opportunity because of the free market capitalism is founded on.

Capitalism....NOUN....An economic system in which the means of production and distribution
are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to
the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

[Mordaedil]

Because Atari was pretty bad at giving Bioware the freedom they wanted while EA can.

[Default137]

Games cost millions to make.

Even if every game you make is solid gold, even if they are still on the shelves of nearly every store, even if you are the greatest thing since sliced bread, you will still find it amazingly hard to self finance one game through production, let alone two or three at the same time, even Blizzard would have been unable to work on SC3, and D3 at the same time without Activision backing them just because they could not make enough money fast enough.

Thats where companies like EA and Activision come in, they offer you those millions in exchange for a piece of the pie, and their brand name on everything, they offer to help with ads, help with getting things running, everything, they basically offer to take all the problems off your shoulders, and allow you to just make the games, which is what most devs want to do, they don't want to handle all this business junk. For companies like Blizzard or Bioware, thats a damn good deal, as rather then be the guy who gets stepped on, your the guys who can request more time making your games, because they know you can put out a gold product if given enough time.

Modifié par Default137, 22 janvier 2010 - 09:59 .

[Trajan60]

Default137 wrote...

Games cost millions to make.

Even if every game you make is solid gold, even if they are still on the shelves of nearly every store, even if you are the greatest thing since sliced bread, you will still find it amazingly hard to self finance one game through production, let alone two or three at the same time, even Blizzard would have been unable to work on SC3, and D3 at the same time without Activision backing them just because they could not make enough money fast enough.

Thats where companies like EA and Activision come in, they offer you those millions in exchange for a piece of the pie, and their brand name on everything, they offer to help with ads, help with getting things running, everything, they basically offer to take all the problems off your shoulders, and allow you to just make the games, which is what most devs want to do, they don't want to handle all this business junk. For companies like Blizzard or Bioware, thats a damn good deal, as rather then be the guy who gets stepped on, your the guys who can request more time making your games, because they know you can put out a gold product if given enough time.

Agreed. The parent companies don't have as much influence on games as players think. The only thing EA and Activision offer to smaller devs is some development capital and to handle the marketing and distribution for them. It's a win win for both companies.

[Deran2]

Blizzard hasn't been independent for a very long time. Not since the mid-90s actually. They were bought by Sierra in 96 and Sierra (well the company that owned Sierra) was bought by Vivendi's Games later on. Activision didn't just buy Blizzard, they bought Vivendi's entire game devision.



Anyway, EA's CEO John Riccatello was a co-founder of Elevation Partners, the company that invested some 300 million into Bioware-Pandemic. Its likely he used his connection with them to initiate the buy-out. Bioware was also a huge studio before the buy out and I don't think there are many publishers that would be able to help fund all of their development and give them freedom.



I can't imagine the reasons for developers selling to publishers are any different from the ones that happen in every other industry. Money, plain and simple. Whether its a need for more of it to supply the company, or a need for it to pay off debts incurred over the years it all comes down to some need for money and the right offer being made.