Obsidian and inXile acquired by Microsoft

[PorkyThePaladin]

A huge tech corporation that hasn't done anything good in 20+ years (and debatable if ever) internet rumored to buy an RPG developer that hasn't released any good RPGs in almost 10 years. Level of interest: -50.

 

[Rahdulan]

It's interesting to see people on other sites going all "oh no, poor Obsidian" when Feargus made it clear he hoped someone would buy out Obsidian years ago. Unless I'm mixing something up.

 

[fantadomat]

Wasn't there a rumour that microsoft wanted to buy EA?

 

[Big Wrangle]

Wasn't there a rumour that microsoft wanted to buy EA?

Yeah, there was one for a bit. It died when MS denied it, not that it made much sense in the first place.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/ea-acquisition-by-microsoft-rumours-seem-silly-analyst

Meanwhile, Microsoft has issued a flat denial of any such intention with a spokesperson telling MarketWatch, "We have no plans to acquire EA."
"We think the likelihood of any such deal is inconsequentially low," said Creutz, pointing to the fact that EA currently derives over 30 per cent of its revenue from the PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3 platforms as evidence.
"[This] would almost certainly disappear in the event of a Microsoft acquisition, since presumably the point of the acquisition would be to secure EA's products as Xbox 360 platform exclusives."

 

[Roguey]

It's interesting to see people on other sites going all "oh no, poor Obsidian" when Feargus made it clear he hoped someone would buy out Obsidian years ago. Unless I'm mixing something up.

Well, the alleged LOI is also from Obsidian itself.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

I wonder if this will be the straw that breaks the camel's Josh Sawyer's back. No way M$oft would let him make FYSMDHRPG.

 

[Morality Games]

Zionmax will buy Obshitian and put Avellone in charge. Orc-Heart to be relegated to janitor.

You realize anybody buying Obsidian is putting money in Feargus' hands, don't you?

So? Anyone who buys vidoe games is putting hands into the video games industry, which is saturated with despicable people. Anyone who watches movies, anyone who goes to country X for vacation, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Morality Games]

I don't understand what they would be purchasing. It's just shitty employees and horrible project managers with no interesting IPs (even if pillars could be considered as such, it belongs to black rock company or whatever). If Microsoft wants their own RPG making studio, they can just hire people and that'd be it. No sense in paying Obshitian a dime.

Microsoft doesn't have the experience or infrastructure to make an in-house RPG development studio and they can't trust any outsider they employ to create one to do so with Microsft's best interests at heart because even respectable industry figures like Ken Levine can exploit the relationship to pursue an unprofitable personal vision or flake out on them.

Might as well tell Disney to start making F-35s as well as tell Microsoft to start making RPGs, there's a much higher probability of success. At least Disney has good hiring managers and would probably employ the right engineers.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

Gamedev is software development.

 

[Morality Games]

Gamedev is software development.

I don't think being able to release different versions of Windows makes Microsoft good at assessing the market and making an RPG that is:

(a) competitive enough in terms of sales with the likes of Bethesda (or even EA) to not seem like a joke they are embarrassed to have their name on, like the Shadowrun first person shooter or all Microsoft-era Rare games

(b) creative enough to have some kind of positive critical or cultural reception

(c) to ensure a consistent pattern of successes and not just a one hit wonder

(d) is a worthy Xbox/PC exclusive to correct the reputation of their hardware as a platform for first person shooters

These are nearly impossible feats that gaming industry veterans all struggle to achieve in today's competitive marketplace.

 

[The Bishop]

Zionmax will buy Obshitian and put Avellone in charge. Orc-Heart to be relegated to janitor.

You realize anybody buying Obsidian is putting money in Feargus' hands, don't you?

So? Anyone who buys vidoe games is putting hands into the video games industry, which is saturated with despicable people. Anyone who watches movies, anyone who goes to country X for vacation, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, I don't care about the industry that much. Just pointing out that there's potentially a lot of laughing all the way to the bank involved in situation described by the post I was responding to.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Gamedev is software development.

I don't think being able to release different versions of Windows makes Microsoft good at assessing the market and making an RPG that is:

(a) competitive enough in terms of sales with the likes of Bethesda (or even EA) to not seem like a joke they are embarrassed to have their name on, like the Shadowrun first person shooter or all Microsoft-era Rare games

(b) creative enough to have some kind of positive critical or cultural reception

(c) to ensure a consistent pattern of successes and not just a one hit wonder

(d) is a worthy Xbox/PC exclusive to correct the reputation of their hardware as a platform for first person shooters

These are nearly impossible feats that gaming industry veterans all struggle to achieve in today's competitive marketplace.

You do realize Microsoft has been in gaming business for over 20 years, right?

 

[Nano]

You do realize Microsoft has been in gaming business for over 20 years, right?

Since the late 1970s.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/microsoft-adventure
http://www.mobygames.com/game/olympic-decathlon
http://www.mobygames.com/game/microsoft-flight-simulator-v10

 

[Morality Games]

Gamedev is software development.

I don't think being able to release different versions of Windows makes Microsoft good at assessing the market and making an RPG that is:

(a) competitive enough in terms of sales with the likes of Bethesda (or even EA) to not seem like a joke they are embarrassed to have their name on, like the Shadowrun first person shooter or all Microsoft-era Rare games

(b) creative enough to have some kind of positive critical or cultural reception

(c) to ensure a consistent pattern of successes and not just a one hit wonder

(d) is a worthy Xbox/PC exclusive to correct the reputation of their hardware as a platform for first person shooters

These are nearly impossible feats that gaming industry veterans all struggle to achieve in today's competitive marketplace.

You do realize Microsoft has been in gaming business for over 20 years, right?

You do realize they SUCK at it, right?

Not even EA where it is a commercially successful, artistically bland sucks, but both commercial failures and artistically bland sucks.

They objectively suck in super obvious, economics of scale and critically measurable ways.

Just skimming the top:

(a) ran industry darling Rare into the ground after buying them from Nintendo

(b) got effortlessly routed by Sony this past console generation, is overall the least successful console developer with a smaller global footprint and a much smaller legacy than Nintendo or Sony

(c) Halo is their only successful game, developed by third parties, and it sucks now

(d) made Shadowrun a first person shooter because everything on Xbox needs to be a first person shooter

(e) everything needs to be a forgettable first person shooter

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

You do realize Microsoft has been in gaming business for over 20 years, right?

You do realize they SUCK at it, right?

Not even EA where it is a commercially successful, artistically bland sucks, but both commercial failures and artistically bland sucks.

They objectively suck in super obvious, economics of scale and critically measurable ways.

Just skimming the top:

(a) ran industry darling Rare into the ground after buying them from Nintendo

(b) got effortlessly routed by Sony this past console generation, is overall the least successful console developer with a smaller global footprint and a much smaller legacy than Nintendo or Sony

(c) Halo is their only successful game, developed by third parties, and it sucks now

(d) made Shadowrun a first person shooter because everything on Xbox needs to be a first person shooter

(e) everything needs to be a forgettable first person shooter

Of course they suck, so does every big company. Of course they have smaller legacy, they're the newest console developers that exists. But least successful? Xbox started from 0 in a market where PS2 had 150 million units and 15 years later it's still going strong and makes profit. Where is Sega? Where is Atari? Oh right, they no longer exist. So I'm afraid your critically measurable ways are critically retarded.

As for them being "effortlessly routed by Sony", you mean they were hilariously unlucky to try and put voice-activated devices in people's homes at the height of Snowden leaks, causing widespread panic that Kinect is going to listen in on your masturbation habits. Fast forward 5 years later, everybody has a voice activated phone and millions of people talk at home to their Alexa or whatever. It had fuck all to do with anything Sony did.

 

[Morality Games]

You do realize Microsoft has been in gaming business for over 20 years, right?

You do realize they SUCK at it, right?

Not even EA where it is a commercially successful, artistically bland sucks, but both commercial failures and artistically bland sucks.

They objectively suck in super obvious, economics of scale and critically measurable ways.

Just skimming the top:

(a) ran industry darling Rare into the ground after buying them from Nintendo

(b) got effortlessly routed by Sony this past console generation, is overall the least successful console developer with a smaller global footprint and a much smaller legacy than Nintendo or Sony

(c) Halo is their only successful game, developed by third parties, and it sucks now

(d) made Shadowrun a first person shooter because everything on Xbox needs to be a first person shooter

(e) everything needs to be a forgettable first person shooter

Of course they suck, so does every big company. Of course they have smaller legacy, they're the newest console developers that exists. But least successful? Xbox started from 0 in a market where PS2 had 150 million units and 15 years later it's still going strong and makes profit. Where is Sega? Where is Atari? Oh right, they no longer exist. So I'm afraid your critically measurable ways are critically retarded.

As for them being "effortlessly routed by Sony", you mean they were hilariously unlucky to try and put voice-activated devices in people's homes at the height of Snowden leaks, causing widespread panic that Kinect is going to listen in on your masturbation habits. Fast forward 5 years later, everybody has a voice activated phone and millions of people talk at home to their Alexa or whatever. It had fuck all to do with anything Sony did.

Xbox has literally never been profitable and has always been an access denial strategy to prevent the Sony technology conglomerate from gaining further economic preeminence in North America and other Microsoft strongholds in the West.

 

[Roguey]

Xbox has literally never been profitable.

Consoles are loss leaders by design.

 

[fantadomat]

Xbox has literally never been profitable.

Consoles are loss leaders by design.

Are they? I hear that argument a lot,but i do doubt it. Most corporations want to make money from everything. Also i doubt that the production of a plastic box filled with some shit is that expensive. Development and invention,sure they are expensive.

 

[Morality Games]

Xbox has literally never been profitable.

Consoles are loss leaders by design.

Are they? I hear that argument a lot,but i do doubt it. Most corporations want to make money from everything. Also i doubt that the production of a plastic box filled with some shit is that expensive. Development and invention,sure they are expensive.

Making a profit isn't that straightforward, especially when your company has the net worth of a medium-sized country's GDP.

Businesses are run on relationships between companies that are officiated by salesmen, businessmen, entrepreneurs, investors, accounting firms, etc, etc, etc into infinity. Generally the earliest phase of a new relationship is the most expensive for everyone because you have to pay your businessmen to fly out to location X, pay for their hotel, meals, flights, and time (which is quite valuable depending on their past experiences and successes). You need to pay lawyers and notaries to make all the documents and contracts official, etc, and you need to pay all your execs and CEOS their huge salaries for the time they spent arranging dozens or hundreds of conferences. It can cost thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars per day depending on the economics of scale (how big the team was you sent to negotiate the deal).

The first year(s) of the relationship are the most risky because each side is still evaluating whether the risk they made betting on each other's cooperation is going to be profitable or if it would be better to screw each other over first and settlle in the courts. Again, lots of expenses and risks entailed here, not much profit.

Once the relationship has been cultivated for 5-10 years and all the kinks and dysfunctions that reduce mutual profit have been worked out, the companies settle into a comfortable, inert trading relationship that can last for decades without anybody being able to make a dent into it.

As for what this has to do with Microsoft and Sony: Consoles require components that require cultivating relationships with dozens/hundreds of supply chains that make the parts and pieces that goes into motheboards, processors, GPUs, etc. Microsft is afraid that if they let Sony settle into comfortable relationships with global supply chains without posing any kind of challenge or competition, then Sony will leverage its monopoly over supply chains to challenge Microsoft's other ventures (like cloud computing).

It's based on the same principle the Spartans observed when they declared ritual warfare against their helot slaves in order to thin out the numbers and preempt a revolution. Did the helots do anything? No. Were they gaining the capacity to do something? Sure.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Isn't the story that consoles are sold at a loss and the profit is made out of game sales, because the console manufacturers take a cut? If that's the case then you can't really say the xbox was never profitable.

 

[Morality Games]

Isn't the story that consoles are sold at a loss and the profit is made out of game sales, because the console manufacturers take a cut? If that's the case then you can't really say the xbox was never profitable.

Microsoft never posts profits, though, just revenues, and they've always acted super squirrely about their gaming division.

 

[Fairfax]

Isn't the story that consoles are sold at a loss and the profit is made out of game sales, because the console manufacturers take a cut? If that's the case then you can't really say the xbox was never profitable.

It depends. Nintendo usually sells their systems at a profit. The 3DS (right after the price cut) and the Wii U (at launch) were exceptions.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

You do realize Microsoft has been in gaming business for over 20 years, right?

You do realize they SUCK at it, right?

Not even EA where it is a commercially successful, artistically bland sucks, but both commercial failures and artistically bland sucks.

They objectively suck in super obvious, economics of scale and critically measurable ways.

Just skimming the top:

(a) ran industry darling Rare into the ground after buying them from Nintendo

(b) got effortlessly routed by Sony this past console generation, is overall the least successful console developer with a smaller global footprint and a much smaller legacy than Nintendo or Sony

(c) Halo is their only successful game, developed by third parties, and it sucks now

(d) made Shadowrun a first person shooter because everything on Xbox needs to be a first person shooter

(e) everything needs to be a forgettable first person shooter

Of course they suck, so does every big company. Of course they have smaller legacy, they're the newest console developers that exists. But least successful? Xbox started from 0 in a market where PS2 had 150 million units and 15 years later it's still going strong and makes profit. Where is Sega? Where is Atari? Oh right, they no longer exist. So I'm afraid your critically measurable ways are critically retarded.

As for them being "effortlessly routed by Sony", you mean they were hilariously unlucky to try and put voice-activated devices in people's homes at the height of Snowden leaks, causing widespread panic that Kinect is going to listen in on your masturbation habits. Fast forward 5 years later, everybody has a voice activated phone and millions of people talk at home to their Alexa or whatever. It had fuck all to do with anything Sony did.

Xbox has literally never been profitable.t.

2.29 billion dollars revenue just last quarter.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-07-19-microsoft-annual-gaming-revenue-tops-usd10-billion

By comparison, EA makes 5 billion in the whole year.

 

[Morality Games]

You do realize Microsoft has been in gaming business for over 20 years, right?

You do realize they SUCK at it, right?

Not even EA where it is a commercially successful, artistically bland sucks, but both commercial failures and artistically bland sucks.

They objectively suck in super obvious, economics of scale and critically measurable ways.

Just skimming the top:

(a) ran industry darling Rare into the ground after buying them from Nintendo

(b) got effortlessly routed by Sony this past console generation, is overall the least successful console developer with a smaller global footprint and a much smaller legacy than Nintendo or Sony

(c) Halo is their only successful game, developed by third parties, and it sucks now

(d) made Shadowrun a first person shooter because everything on Xbox needs to be a first person shooter

(e) everything needs to be a forgettable first person shooter

Of course they suck, so does every big company. Of course they have smaller legacy, they're the newest console developers that exists. But least successful? Xbox started from 0 in a market where PS2 had 150 million units and 15 years later it's still going strong and makes profit. Where is Sega? Where is Atari? Oh right, they no longer exist. So I'm afraid your critically measurable ways are critically retarded.

As for them being "effortlessly routed by Sony", you mean they were hilariously unlucky to try and put voice-activated devices in people's homes at the height of Snowden leaks, causing widespread panic that Kinect is going to listen in on your masturbation habits. Fast forward 5 years later, everybody has a voice activated phone and millions of people talk at home to their Alexa or whatever. It had fuck all to do with anything Sony did.

Xbox has literally never been profitable.t.

2.29 billion dollars revenue just last quarter.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-07-19-microsoft-annual-gaming-revenue-tops-usd10-billion

By comparison, EA makes 5 billion in the whole year.

EA doesn't undersell tens of millions of computer-console hybrids, they make software. I'm also going to remind you that revenue =/= profits if that isn't clear, EA isn't doing so hot in the stocks right now because they aren't making a profit, how much do you want to bet the Microsft gaming division is?

Why is everyone on this site pointlessly obstinate. They produced fucking Halo (developed by third party Bungie) and bought Minecraft for a mint after everyone already owned it, any Google search would indicate those are their biggest gaming credits for the past couple decades.

 

[DemonKing]

Feargus has probably been dreaming of retiring to a pool full of cash and making craft beer ever since the Bio-Doctors sold out to EA...except like a broken down old whore the price people are willing to pay won't be anywhere near as much as they got.