Support NeoGAF

[D-X]

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with new companies getting into the videogame act. What I do have a problem with are evil bastard companies that are fucking up the world outside of games and toys. Sony, Nintendo, and EA don't really qualify in this regard, because they aren't interfering with our political system, screwing up our economy, and so on. If Panasonic decided to buy developers and/or make a system, I wouldn't be bothered at all. Haliburton? I'd be chewing on the ceiling.

Sony, Microsoft and News Corp got into (or are looking to get into) games each at a time when they saw the market was expanding. Of course the reasons for News Corp getting into the business is at the opposite end of the money grabbing scale compared to Sony. We all know Sony does its money grabbing from PS2s breaking down...

 

[Blazyr]

Relax.

I just listened to the entire webcast (3 cups of coffee to stay alert) to write the news story for 1UP.

In a nutshell:
Fox has a huge warchest and is getting asked about where they might spend it. He says games are big biz, but they aren't falling over themselves to get into it. Everyone in the studio biz remembers the 10's of millions they lost self-publishing games a few years ago. Plus, they aren't exactly upset they didn't get into the music business last year when everyone said they needed to do that.

 

[cja]

I think the, left leaning , Financial Times is making a big deal out of these comments.

http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/sbcitigroup/emt-2005/97111576.cfm
at 45:22 is the start of his videogame chatter. 43:13 for the original questioning.

Rather good talk as a whole if you're interested in the media industry. Talk of what they're going to do with PVRs, the couple of channels they're launching this year, next-gen DVD and the importance they put on copyright protection, economics of 24 and other programming on DVD and in syndication.

 

[ram]

I hate Rupert Murdoch.

yeah he is a pure kapitalist - even worser than all the ea stuff!

 

[Blazyr]

FWIW - other interesting bits:

They are still on the fence with next gen DVD format. Although involved with Blu-Ray they are playing the two against each other to push copyright protection.

Copyright protection was a big issue for him. He admonished the media to push the issue if they are responsible.

They hope to recapture some lost margin with the advent of hi-def DVD. Prices could be in $20-$25 dollar range at retail allowing them to make a dollar or two more per unit.

 

[User 406]

Sony, Microsoft and News Corp got into (or are looking to get into) games each at a time when they saw the market was expanding. Of course the reasons for News Corp getting into the business is at the opposite end of the money grabbing scale compared to Sony. We all know Sony does its money grabbing from PS2s breaking down...

You're still not getting it. I'm not angry that an outside company is getting into gaming. I'm angry because another company that I already despised outside of gaming might get into it. These are companies that I had already decided I would never support for moral reasons. Seeing them come into my hobby just increases the chance I might have to drop it, and that pisses me off.

Minotauro, having watched what Microsoft has been doing to the computer industry for the past two decades, I don't think that's the least bit unfair. Shades of Standard Oil and Ma Bell, only this time the government is on their side. It certainly isn't on our side. :/

And thanks Blazyr, I'm glad to hear we're overreacting over nothing.

 

[Minotauro]

Minotauro, having watched what Microsoft has been doing to the computer industry for the past two decades, I don't think that's the least bit unfair. Shades of Standard Oil and Ma Bell, only this time the government is on their side. It certainly isn't on our side. :/

But do you really think the business practices of Microsoft are any worse than some of the things Nintendo did to consumers, retailers, and developers alike during the 80's? Sure, Nintendo's actions weren't as high-profile but they certainly instituted some pretty draconian policies.

 

[User 406]

But do you really think the business practices of Microsoft are any worse than some of the things Nintendo did to consumers, retailers, and developers alike during the 80's? Sure, Nintendo's actions weren't as high-profile but they certainly instituted some pretty draconian policies.

Actually, I don't like Nintendo. Their franchises don't interest me. They're not very progressive. They have bizarre and stupid ideas about the direction gaming should go in. They did some very shitty and illegal things when they were on top. Their fans are obnoxious, and I too indulge in schadenfreude over their Sega-esque downward spiral of despair. I think the DS is dumb.

But to be honest, if by some miracle Nintendo ended up on top again, with all the games, I'd buy their system. I'd far prefer Sony to stay in that position since they cater to my tastes better, but hey, if that's where the good games go, then that's what I'll get. If EA comes out with a system and beats the pants off everyone, then I'll get EA. Shit, if Sega's retarded ass comes back from the grave and becomes the ONE CONSOLE STANDARD, I'd be cool with that.

If Microsoft ended up on top, I'd just quit.

So why do I hate them so much more?

Because Microsoft makes the operating systems that nearly all companies depend on to do their daily business. News Corp disseminates political propaganda disguised as news. Haliburton, well jesus christ, you can figure out the rest. These companies affect our world in IMPORTANT ways.

Nintendo, Sony, EA, et al MAKE FUCKING TOYS.

So you're damn right I think the offenses of the former are more important, and justify taking a stand. Some things are more important than videogames.


(By the way, it's funny how the argument equating the Nintendo monopoly to the MS monopoly comes up so often from people trying to defend Microsoft, but completely disregards how the sheer scale of Microsoft's history of wrongdoing completely dwarfs that of the little n. )

 

[Minotauro]

If Microsoft ended up on top, I'd just quit.

So why do I hate them so much more?

Because Microsoft makes the operating systems that nearly all companies depend on to do their daily business. News Corp disseminates political propaganda disguised as news. Haliburton, well jesus christ, you can figure out the rest. These companies affect our world in IMPORTANT ways.

Nintendo, Sony, EA, et al MAKE FUCKING TOYS.

It should be noted that Sony doesn't just make "toys" though. They're also involved in consumer electronics, film, and music. You could argue that the last two are as important as productivity software and the news media. This is all pretty subjective though so I can see where you might disagree. I will grant you that Nintendo and EA aren't really in a position to cause widespread harm to the world.

(By the way, it's funny how the argument equating the Nintendo monopoly to the MS monopoly comes up so often from people trying to defend Microsoft, but completely disregards how the sheer scale of Microsoft's history of wrongdoing completely dwarfs that of the little n. )

Yes but it's not like Nintendo is an inherently more moral company than Microsoft is. Ultimately, they're all about making money regardless of ethics. Microsoft has simply been in a better position to do that than Nintendo has. I can guarantee you that if Nintendo had been given the opportunity to act the way Microsoft has, they would have. Same with Sony.

Also, can you provide me with a specific list of some of Microsoft's major transgressions? I don't think they're heroes by any means but I think people tend to just accept them as this major destructive force without question.

 

[DDayton]

I can guarantee you that if Nintendo had been given the opportunity to act the way Microsoft has, they would have. Same with Sony.

Ah, yes. All companies are evil, of course. (cough cough).

I am confused by the sheer amount of hatred thrown at Fox/News Corp., though -- none of the media giants have a great track record, yet Fox is somehow "more evil" than the rest? Eh...

Oh well... I suppose anything that threatens to hurt EA (or Microsoft) can't be all bad.

 

[Deku]

I am confused by the sheer amount of hatred thrown at Fox/News Corp., though -- none of the media giants have a great track record, yet Fox is somehow "more evil" than the rest? Eh...

Cause Rupert and his Fox News are conversative creatures. I want to stay out of a political debate here but of all the giant media conglomerates, Rupert is probably the most successful at getting his politics heard, with FOX destroying the more moderate CNN and MSNBC inthe cable news area. Therefore quite a lot of people dislike him and he's become a sort of a symbol for neo-conservative media tide.

 

[AstroLad]

Ah, yes. All companies are evil, of course. (cough cough).

I am confused by the sheer amount of hatred thrown at Fox/News Corp., though -- none of the media giants have a great track record, yet Fox is somehow "more evil" than the rest? Eh...

You're not from the US, Britain, or Australia or follow much news out of those countries, right?

 

[UbiSoftologist]

Additional comment by GameDailyBiz on News Corp's interest in the video game market:

Good for both parties?

While the whole concept of outside corporations buying video game publishers may at first seem like an invasion, there is the possibility that such acquisitions could benefit both parties. If said corporation is truly interested in making its mark on the industry, that means more money to publishers and developers alike, which could generate higher-quality titles as well as the birth of new ones. It's also something that's been going on inside the video game business for quite some time; Microsoft purchasing Rare for a purported $375 million and EA's recent 20% purchase of competitor Ubisoft are prime examples. This is merely a case of the outside world looking in, and it's also a testament to how wildly successful the video game business has become.

The downside

Developers receiving higher budgets would be an ideal situation, but there's also a darkside to such business deals. Certainly, one of the worst-case scenarios would involve a company forcing its corporate will upon a publisher, a move that may stifle creativity, and issues such as this won't go away until entities such as News Corp. make their intentions known. The powers that be may be interested in nurturing game development, or, might be out to make a quick buck off a million-selling franchise. Either way, games as we know them will continue to evolve at a rapid pace. The only difference may be whether that bag of chips Wario is eating has Lays written on the package.

For the complete article, visit: http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=8704&section=feature&email=

 

[UbiSoftologist]

Chris Morris of CNN discusses the implications of News Corp's ambition:

But could the future of the gaming industry be traditional media companies? The money's certainly there to buy publishers, with the possible exception of EA (Research), which has an $18 billion market cap. And Murdoch's sniffing underlines the interest is there.

The big question is: Would this be a good thing for video game makers?

I'm not convinced it would be. Innovation is very much at risk these days – and if mainstream media conglomerates begin calling the shots, original properties could become as rare as the spotted owl.

One thing you could count on: The number of licensed titles would definitely balloon - and quickly.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a licensed title. One of the biggest surprises of 2004 was "The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape Fromy Butcher Bay," which proved to be a well-done, enjoyable game, rather than the shovel-ware everyone was expecting. But mainstream media companies don't have the best track record in deciding which properties are worthy of video game tie-ins. For every quality licensed title, such as "Riddick" and "Spiderman," there are a dozen bad ones, like "E.T." and "Austin Powers: Operation Trivia".

More worrisome would be the possibility of widespread unionization amongst developers, artists and others involved in the game creation process. This is an issue that has been discussed more seriously in the past several months, as the divide between developers and publishers has grown wider.

I've spoken with numerous developers over the past few months about the state of industry labor relations. While almost no one is happy with what they describe as unpaid overtime and managerial mistreatment, few like the idea of a video game union. The repercussions of forming one contain too many unknown factors – and they believe it could easily worsen the situation.

But it's hard to walk down the hall of any major media conglomerate without seeing members of at least two or three unions. Should those conglomerates become powers in the gaming industry, I suspect it would only be a matter of time before the formation of Texture Artists and Modelers Local 204.

There's a way for game publishers to avoid this fate: Diversify. EA has been the torch-bearer of this philosophy over the past year. While video games will always be its bread and butter, the company has found other revenue streams to help it even out the peaks and valleys that are inherent in this industry.

In November, EA created its own music label, with plans to license music in its games to films and commercials. And just last week the company signed a deal with the Arena Football League, giving it a share in the proceeds of future expansion team sales.

Why note take that a step further, with a game company buying a struggling film studio, helping to ensure its properties are done right when they head to the silver screen? Perhaps buy a small publisher firm and expand a game's universe into the written world?

It might not be a perfect solution, but if it saves us from another "American Idol" game, it's worth a shot.

For the full article, visit: http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/13/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm