Eidos being bought by Murdoch (News Corp)

[Malladine]

Link
This sucks.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Malladine
Link
This sucks.

i don;t think Eidos was doing that well . . . . they were looking for a buyer . . . .

anyway there is a little good news from the article:

The deal is arguably a best case scenario for Eidos, which will be able to continue functioning as a publisher under the News Corporation umbrella - whereas had the firm been sold to a rival publisher, it was widely expected that much of the publishing end of the business would be shut down, with only the valuable IP and studios being retained.

"Everyone within Eidos knows that when it gets sold, it's going to be sold as a group with a new flag on it," our source confirmed this morning. "It's not going to be broken up in the same way Criterion was."

 

[Malladine]

I suppose. But it's still "under the News Corporation umbrella"

Mergers and buyouts involving giant corporations make my stomach turn anyway, and New Corp. is one of the worst there is. IMO this opens the door wide open for in game advertising and is possibly just the start of the control of game content by the Man.

*twitch*

Though I suppose publishers are hardly the good guys anyway? Now if development houses start being bought out...

 

[apoppin]

it's the way of corporate America . . . . i don't like the way it's going either.
:thumbsdown:

 

[Bearcat14]

Originally posted by: apoppin
it's the way of corporate America . . . . i don't like the way it's going either.
:thumbsdown:

It's called capitalism, and if you can come up with a better system, please let everyone know.

Besides, the article said Eidos was looking for a buyer...it's either this or they go out of business and everyone loses their jobs. I'm willing to bet Eidos is pretty happy about it.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: apoppin
it's the way of corporate America . . . . i don't like the way it's going either.
:thumbsdown:

Isnt Murdoch australian?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Bearcat14

Originally posted by: apoppin
it's the way of corporate America . . . . i don't like the way it's going either.
:thumbsdown:

It's called capitalism, and if you can come up with a better system, please let everyone know.

Besides, the article said Eidos was looking for a buyer...it's either this or they go out of business and everyone loses their jobs. I'm willing to bet Eidos is pretty happy about it.

unchecked, it's called runaway captalism:evil:
:roll:

and that thread would belong in P&N 😛

i already pointed out that Eidos wanted to be bought relatively intact . . . . it sure is irritating to be quoted out of context. :disgust:

 

[tribbles]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: apoppin
it's the way of corporate America . . . . i don't like the way it's going either.
:thumbsdown:

Isnt Murdoch australian?

Yes.

And he lives in the most expensive (just over $50,000,000) penthouse in New York, courtesy of the fruits of capitalism.

 

[BenSkywalker]

unchecked, it's called runaway captalism

Much better to layoff all of the people they employeed, it's always great to see a company shutdown and have small children with no food or toys.... giant corporations are ruining it far too often now 🙁 😛

In reality, if Murdoch hadn't stepped in then they would be in the loving EA family and instead of having no toys or food, they would only have to give up their parent that worked there. Yeah, this is real bad news.

It is heartening to know that most people on these forums that come up with these ideals based statements aren't responsible for other people's lives. Think the whole thing through- suggest what would have been better for the publisher if you can, but to simply lament what appears to be the best scenario Eidos could have hoped for because a giant corporation was involved really is quite childish.

If anything, as gamers we should take this is a good sign as yet another one of the most powerful men in the world has decided it would be a good idea to get in to the gaming business. More capital, more respect and more focus on the industry overall is a good thing(has its ups and downs of course).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

unchecked, it's called runaway captalism

Much better to layoff all of the people they employeed, it's always great to see a company shutdown and have small children with no food or toys.... giant corporations are ruining it far too often now 🙁 😛

In reality, if Murdoch hadn't stepped in then they would be in the loving EA family and instead of having no toys or food, they would only have to give up their parent that worked there. Yeah, this is real bad news.

It is heartening to know that most people on these forums that come up with these ideals based statements aren't responsible for other people's lives. Think the whole thing through- suggest what would have been better for the publisher if you can, but to simply lament what appears to be the best scenario Eidos could have hoped for because a giant corporation was involved really is quite childish.

If anything, as gamers we should take this is a good sign as yet another one of the most powerful men in the world has decided it would be a good idea to get in to the gaming business. More capital, more respect and more focus on the industry overall is a good thing(has its ups and downs of course).

So you like runaway captalism? 😛
:roll:

 

[BenSkywalker]

So you like runaway captalism?

Compared to every other option absolutely. Maybe I've spent a few too many years working in the real world. I am currently working for a company that acquires 'small'(sub billion dollar annual revenue) companies at a pace of about two a year. You know what? It was either we purchased them along with their marketshare and customerbase or we would have simply entered their market in an agressive fashion and put them out of business. In reality, it would end up saving us money to just crush them the overwhelming majority of the time(which is what we end up doing from time to time), but we end up saving time and growing at a more rapid pace acquiring and converting. Say what you will, but the reality is we provide superior service for less money then the companies we acquire. Part of the reason we can do this is scales of economy- we have teams of people that spend their lives looking for potential problems and taking care of them before they happen. We have not taken part in any big layoffs in the time I've been there(getting on towards a decade) and that includes employees of those we acquired. We increase pay scales to our employees, lower costs to our customers and provide better services.

Acquiring companies is a lot different then the Wal-Mart approach(although most tend to get them confused). "Mom and Pop" are walking away with trucks full of cash when we move in- their grandkids will never have to worry about money. Moving in, gouging prices until the competition closes up and then spiking the price isn't what we do. Actually, in our most competitive markets we tend to charge more then where we have a nigh monopoly as our labor costs are much higher(cross recruiting is popular for the top talent). I'm off on a bit of a counter rant ATM- but the fact is that corporate acquisitions tend to work out better for the overwhelming majority most of the time. Sure, you can without a doubt point out cases where that certainly was not true- but most of the time it is.

 

[Fern]

Wasn't that where Warren Spector was? And didn't he sometime ago say or hint that he was leaving (around the time DE:IW came out)?

IMO this opens the door wide open for in game advertising and is possibly just the start of the control of game content by the Man.

Man, don't even think that! That would just flat out suck.

If anything, as gamers we should take this is a good sign as yet another one of the most powerful men in the world has decided it would be a good idea to get in to the gaming business. More capital, more respect and more focus on the industry overall is a good thing(has its ups and downs of course).

Well, interesting view. A "glass half-full" perspective at least.


Anyway, nothing to be done about it but wait and see how it turns out.

 

[BenSkywalker]

IMO this opens the door wide open for in game advertising

Missed this earlier- this is already commonplace. Not too common on PC games yet as it is still a relatively small market(particularly globally). In the Japanese market as an example Pepsi paid to have a 'PepsiMan' character in a fighting game last generation(PS1 era) and in the US look at all the billboards littering the sides of any racing game.

Think of it this way- would you rather the price of games went up- or you had a few signs you could ignore in the game that someone paid to have there? Dev costs have moved from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions all while we have been paying $50 a game(actually, we were paying a bit more then that in the cart days). Now the extremely rapid growth of the industry has helped us out but we are at the point now where we are closing in on having a growth rate limited by birth rate- given that dev costs are still compounding at their longstanding rate something is going to have to give. Right now gaming is in direct competition with the major media outlets- but that is a marginal game. Something needs to happen or we won't see the budgets to exploit the upcoming technologies. If my choice is pay an extra $20 per game or have a bunch of ads built in to the backgrounds of my game then I'll take the latter. Maybe I'm cheap that way, but that's the way I see it.

 

[Fern]

Yeah, tasteful product placement doesn't bother me that much. Can add to realism even if done properly (A Budweiser sitting on the bar top). But I'll miss the humorous kinda billboards like in Deus Ex.

Otherwise, I'm already tired of paying for content then having to watch advertising . Like on cable TV.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

So you like runaway captalism?

Compared to every other option absolutely. Maybe I've spent a few too many years working in the real world. I am currently working for a company that acquires 'small'(sub billion dollar annual revenue) companies at a pace of about two a year. You know what? It was either we purchased them along with their marketshare and customerbase or we would have simply entered their market in an agressive fashion and put them out of business. In reality, it would end up saving us money to just crush them the overwhelming majority of the time(which is what we end up doing from time to time), but we end up saving time and growing at a more rapid pace acquiring and converting. Say what you will, but the reality is we provide superior service for less money then the companies we acquire. Part of the reason we can do this is scales of economy- we have teams of people that spend their lives looking for potential problems and taking care of them before they happen. We have not taken part in any big layoffs in the time I've been there(getting on towards a decade) and that includes employees of those we acquired. We increase pay scales to our employees, lower costs to our customers and provide better services.

Acquiring companies is a lot different then the Wal-Mart approach(although most tend to get them confused). "Mom and Pop" are walking away with trucks full of cash when we move in- their grandkids will never have to worry about money. Moving in, gouging prices until the competition closes up and then spiking the price isn't what we do. Actually, in our most competitive markets we tend to charge more then where we have a nigh monopoly as our labor costs are much higher(cross recruiting is popular for the top talent). I'm off on a bit of a counter rant ATM- but the fact is that corporate acquisitions tend to work out better for the overwhelming majority most of the time. Sure, you can without a doubt point out cases where that certainly was not true- but most of the time it is.

i have been working in the real world with my own business since '79.

i don't care much for runaway captalism . . . you are certainly entitled to your opinion as i am to mine. i DO understand acquiring businesses vs. WalMart's crushing them. i am also not if favor of acquiring companies to stifle competition although though i clearly understand the principles and differences of acquisition, consolidation and merger.

If you read my posts above the one you commented on, you'll see that i mentioned that Eidos was glad to be acquired as they were in trouble . . . . 😉

Yep, expect more Thief and DeuSex (hopefully not just 'ports'). 🙂

And in-game advertising is a fact of life as is product placement in movies, cable tv etc. Just gonna be MORE . . . . lots more.
:roll:

 

[BenSkywalker]

I am also not if favor of acquiring companies to stifle competition

Then you should be patting runaway capitalism on the back on this one. If not for it, either EA would have acquired them(bad for competition) or they would have gone out of business(bad for competition). I realize that you mentioned that this was Eidos' desire, but then you make the implication that this is a bad trend. That implication carries with it that you would either like to see EA take over the entire 3rd party market or you want all game developers to go out of business(this is why I tend not to make generalized comments about a singular event 😛 ).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

I am also not if favor of acquiring companies to stifle competition

Then you should be patting runaway capitalism on the back on this one. If not for it, either EA would have acquired them(bad for competition) or they would have gone out of business(bad for competition). I realize that you mentioned that this was Eidos' desire, but then you make the implication that this is a bad trend. That implication carries with it that you would either like to see EA take over the entire 3rd party market or you want all game developers to go out of business(this is why I tend not to make generalized comments about a singular event 😛 ).

imo, rampant captalism is a bad trend. Please don't read anything else into my statement regarding Eidos' specific case. . . . feel free to pick all the specific examples you want, i can pick plenty others . . . not suited for this thread
(wanna take it to P&N?) :roll:
😀

And i made no such "implication" as you are stating. . . . . your two choices are not mine. 😛

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Personally I'm glad. For what Eidos did to Ion Storm and Deus Ex 2, they deserved much worse. We may actually see some good games come out of Eidos now...

Originally posted by: Fern
Wasn't that where Warren Spector was? And didn't he sometime ago say or hint that he was leaving (around the time DE:IW came out)?

Warren Spector left weeks ago, but since the rumors that started a year ago turned out to be true, he could've left much earlier. It's a shame, he's probably the best game developer in history, aside from maybe Jason Jones.

 

[apoppin]

DeuSex:IW is a superb game . . . . once it was patched 😉

Just not to be compared to the original 'cause it is very different. 😉

i am looking forward to Thief IV.

 

[Kenazo]

Well, I guess we can look for a Simpsons game made by Eidos now.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: tribbles

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: apoppin
it's the way of corporate America . . . . i don't like the way it's going either.
:thumbsdown:

Isnt Murdoch australian?

Yes.

And he lives in the most expensive (just over $50,000,000) penthouse in New York, courtesy of the fruits of capitalism.

He a US Citizen now?

 

[Fern]

Hey Schadenfroh,

Sorry if my recent PM asking for your help on that new worm bugged you. I noticed you've removed the PM option. I just worry about these things for my office and wanted to know if it only infected via attachments or just calling it down did it. I figured you know for sure.

Sorry to highjack the thread. No other way to speak to Schad.

Fern