EA aquires CRITERION!!!
- Thread starter boutrosinit
- Start date
Sea Manky:
No, I explicitly mentioned that EA's intentions were not being argued. Knowing them, Renderware will become just another of their parallel operations and won't become much of an issue. They'll probably contribute resources toward improving it from their own development yet not integrate it as the base for their operation.
There's always risk that a platform manufacturer will withhold tools/information to give themselves an advantage (like SEGA and Nintendo in the 16-bit generation). The difference here is that the existence of the XDK and Direct X is already a given and that XNA just broadens that. If this was a topic about control of XNA being moved from a small company to Microsoft, the increased potential for danger would apply to them, too.
jarrod said:
I haven't seen word one about licensing to platforms that aren't running Microsoft OSes. At any rate, that last dig was probably a bad idea since XNA isn't even middleware like Renderware, but just some nebulous "It'll make things better!" FUD attached to what so far appears to be a collection of preexisting Microsoft development tools. But I couldn't resist.
Lazy, the company could have decided to operate differently. Simple as that. They aren't forced to ship game product before middleware update. They could ship them in lockstep with each other. Or they could choose to ship no game product at all. They could, instead of creating their own game content, contract out their game development talent as support services in conjunction with Renderware licenses. Etc. But, Criterion chose to A) compete with their clients by releasing their own game content and B) release that content out of synch with the company's Renderware product.Lazy8s said:
Didn't say it was. Just making sure it wasn't overlooked.
I think you've got this the wrong way around - being a smaller developer means that any advantage they can give themselves is bound to have a more significant effect on the outcome for them than for a large company like EA. If first dibs at the latest otpimizations can be measured to give Criterion a $1 sales advantage and the same for EA, who benefits more from that dollar? Criterion, obviously, since it would be a larger percentage of their bottom line.
And yet, you seem dismissive of the XNA conflict of interest, simply because it does not involve a move from small company to big company:
Who cares if the potential for danger has increased or not if the potential was already high? My point from the beginning of this thread has been that this conflict of interest that everyone is suddenly wringing their hands about has been rife at all levels of the game industry for years. If you're going to be worried about the potential conflict of interest, why tolerate it at any level?
Mr_Furious
Member
Datawhore said:
First off, when did I say that current devs can drop Renderware from their games being developed? If you read my post carefully, I'm saying that it's never too late to investigate other options once current devs are completed, especially with the more powerful engines springing up from the companies I mentioned before. [/brokenrecord]
MaddenNFL64
Member
:O
WTF is the big deal again?
EA is cool. Criterion is cool. Both equal more cool. We all win.
WTF is the big deal again?
EA is cool. Criterion is cool. Both equal more cool. We all win.
Mr_Furious
Member
MaddenNFL64 said:
Depending on how EA decides to handle their Renderware business other developers may lose.
Jonnyboy117
Member
MaddenNFL64 said:
Madden 64 didn't have the NFL license.
MaddenNFL64
Member
Jonnyboy117 said:
NFLPA is good enough
. I just put the NFL for continuity with the rest of the series. I know it wasn't in the title.kaching:
They couldn't very well operate a game division at all if it was continually interrupted to serve the licensees of a different division. The operation of the Renderware team is independent and not contingent upon the contributions of the game division anyway.
The main benefit that tactics like these can accomplish is in improving the brand image from the consistently higher standard of quality in the titles versus those of competing licensees. The more product that is released, the more this can be taken advantage of.
That move is, of course, the subject of this topic. Dismissive of Microsoft's control, no - it's just a separate topic. EA's control of a platform is certainly not inherently worse than any other large company's.
It's not a question of tolerance; it's an unavoidable consequence. Doesn't mean the risk isn't increased when a larger company comes into the picture.
Sea Manky said:I haven't seen word one about licensing to platforms that aren't running Microsoft OSes. At any rate, that last dig was probably a bad idea since XNA isn't even middleware like Renderware, but just some nebulous "It'll make things better!" FUD attached to what so far appears to be a collection of preexisting Microsoft development tools. But I couldn't resist.
Perhaps it's because you didn't look.
And yes, my M.O. is to pick with what I percieve to be weaknesses with people's posts. Mostly yours.
This topic is about the implications of the EA-Criterion deal, specifically the control over Renderware going from a small developer to the largest publisher. That's why XNA, an initiative to combat the rising complexity and redundancy in next-generation software development, was mentioned as an effort to slow the growing reliance on always turning to middleware (which would, of course, still be useful for more specific aspects of development implementation since XNA isn't a middleware suite). There wasn't any argument that Microsoft's - or with any big manufacturer in general - support of Xbox licensees and their own Xbox game development somehow presented less potential for conflict of interest.
inpHilltr8r
Member
It's vaporware.cybamerc said:
Matlock said:And yes, my M.O. is to pick with what I percieve to be weaknesses with people's posts. Mostly yours.
And once again in your eagerness to find fault with me to make yourself feel better, you screw up over semantics. What are you now, 0 for 4?
This is clearly not an invitation for Sony and Nintendo to license XNA tools. What it is is more of the same posturing Microsoft has made of late, where they have been insinuating that only they understand that software is key, and saying that Sony is overly focused on hardware. This of course is a complete reversal of their stance earlier this generation when it was all about "the power of the Xbox". So publically calling on their competitors to follow their model is just FUD to make people think that they're on the right path, and their competitors arent, and that they're so unselfishly concerned with the industry that they genuinely want their competitors to be as enlightened as they are.
Bullshit.
This smacks of the same condescending "we must change the tone" rhetoric Republicans in congress spouted after four years of mudslinging during the Clinton administration.
Anyway, better luck next time, Matlock.
Sea Manky said:
And you can't tell a joke from a serious statement, even whenever I go to the lengths of tossing in a wink to make it blaringly obvious.
By following the model, it could very well mean using the same ideas. XNA, by most accounts, is a standardization of hardware and software support to make it easier to port from the PC to Xbox. Now, with the "You should join us" speech, it can be easily inferred that they want their grubby paws dipped firmly into Sony and Nintendo's pies.
Or, as an old interview states...
Lots of ways to take that, but it can be fairly assumed that Microsoft wouldn't pass up a quick buck.
Matlock said:
The thing I don't get about this speech is this. By saying follow us are they saying Sony and Nintendo should create tools to make it easier to ports titles from the PC to their respective systems?
I say why the fuck bother? I don't see any compelling PC titles that I just HAVE to play on my home console quite honestly... That who chasing the PC developers was MS attempt to bolster their 3rd party support... Sony doesn't have a problem with 3rd party support and Nintendo... hell they go their own path....
Matlock said:
Simply put I find it HIGHLY unlikely that MS has now created a tool that allows you to create software easier on their platform and makes it easier to port the title to other competing platforms.
I find the fact that you actually suggested that to be incredibly humorous.
Is it possible? I guess.
Likely? You'd have a hard time convincing me so.
Hey, I'm just guessing and gleaning from the PR-speak here. Although, you're missing a vital point, which is much like the Criterion situation. If MS owns the scheme to do this, much like EA owning Renderware, their competitor's goods would be more easily made...but...but!
They'll still get money out of it.
They'll still get money out of it.
Matlock said:
Yes, I can tell a real joke from a CYA joke from a stalker who got caught out before. Try following me up with genuine ideas and not semantic nitpicking sometime.
Matlock said:
It can be fairly assumed that you're grasping at straws, and that a flippant comment during a PR interview is not a commitment to actually licensing it out.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
So I guess we should start seeing a lot more games on the MacOS and Unix platforms thanks to the power of XNA right?
Sea Manky:
People that claim Microsoft somehow changed their thinking buy too easily into brand image and miss the fact that the Xbox platform is and always has been one based on the incarnation of their proprietary, standardized API.
Every manufacturer brags about the "power" of their machine in some way or another relative to their launch. Coming out last, it has to be an important part of brand strategy in a technologically driven field. But, as with any other company not completely shortsighted and especially with MS whose empire is built on it, it's always been about the software/network/application/whatever non-physical implement.
People that claim Microsoft somehow changed their thinking buy too easily into brand image and miss the fact that the Xbox platform is and always has been one based on the incarnation of their proprietary, standardized API.
Matlock said:
It's pretty convenient that EA just picked up Criterion....lord knows what reasoning you'd use to back up this line of thinking.
The EA deal is too new to know what's going to happen there... so it's a bit early to use that as an example. From what I understand it still has to be approved.