 |
|  |
 |
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970 time: 00:25
|
|
Frankychan: No such contract was signed. Sony simply bought up some of Square, and might have helped keep it from totally jumping ship, but Square is publishing for the GC now too. Or will be very soon.
MS would certainly NOT publish any games for the PS2 or Gamecube...you're smoking something if you think they will.
MS publishes stuff for the Mac, right? (Sure, they do own a good chunk of Mac too, but...) Anyway, it's possible MS will do that, but it's bad PR and bad for your relations with your newly bought liscenses. Annoy them too much, and THEY might jump ship. MS certainly wouldn't tell in-house studios (like Bungie or Gas Powered) to develop for the PS2, but other studios that MS just happens to publish the games of (even if they do technically own them now)...
At least relating to Starcraft: Ghost, Blizzard has always had a strong tradition of independence from its publisher. They've said "we sell a zillion games, you should consider it an honor that you get to publish them, not the other way around that we get to use you. So lay off us and let us miss our release dates." If that's still there, then I'm guessing MS would be smart enough to leave the ball in Blizzard's court about whether to continue porting or not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sava
sigh... American capitalism is ruining the video-game industry now... no more small developing companies that make innovative, fun games... now we've got a handful of big software powerhouses cranking out the same game with updated graphics every year. Microshaft sucks... |
You obviously don't have a clue what's going on, do you. 
MS is buying Vivendi's game division. Blizzard, Sierra, etc. are already owned by a megacorporation.
Vivendi being a huge French company burdened by debt and not very profitable.
Microsoft being a huge American company with billions of dollars sitting around doing nothing.
Vivendi couldn't give lots of the development houses the budgets they needed since cash is very tight around there, MS is throwing gobs of cash at any game developer under their umbrella that asks for it...
Snowfire:
quote: MS publishes stuff for the Mac, right? (Sure, they do own a good chunk of Mac too, but...) Anyway, it's possible MS will do that, but it's bad PR and bad for your relations with your newly bought liscenses. |
Again, this wouldn't make sense for MS to do. MS wants people to buy the Xbox. If they start releasing good games on other platforms, the incentive to buy the Xbox naturally decreases. This is the complete opposite of the PC/Mac world. The reason MS releases Mac software is to keep antitrust whining to a minimum, plus they aren't trying to gain marketshare there. The Xbox is about gaining marketshare -- you don't gain marketshare by publishing games on competing consoles!
quote: If that's still there, then I'm guessing MS would be smart enough to leave the ball in Blizzard's court about whether to continue porting or not. |
MS will throw a pile of cash at them, tell them they only need to worry about one platform, and go for it.
There is simply no way, no how, that MS is going to publish PS2 and GCN games -- at any time, for whatever reason. Not. Gonna. Happen.
quote: I will say this for Microsoft - they have great taste in game developers!
First Bungie, now Blizzard? I wonder which will be the next to go? |
And don't forget Rare. And Tim Schaffer's company, and Chris Taylor's company, and Brian Reynold's company... 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sharpe
Actually they could have or at the very least they could try. |
Oh come on.
EA and Sony are more monopolistic in their industries than MS is in the industry this is dealing with.
If EA or Sony brought antitrust problems up with MS' purchase, they'd be laughed out of the courtroom so fast...
quote: After I read about it here I called a lawyer friend of mine who worked in the US and has been following the MS case closely. His response was "Are they nuts? This will result in legal action for sure!", though admittedly he hadn't read about it yet. |
Yeah, of course... 
quote: Not likely that MS would do anything. The moment they did anything that seemed predatory MS could be broken up into several pieces. |
Not while George W. is in charge. 
EA is the world's largest games publisher, and still will be after MS buys Vivendi's game division, why on Earth do you think they'll be stupid enough to try some antitrust case on MS buying Vivendi? Why on Earth do you think Sony, who has an effective monopoly on the game console industry, would have some antitrust case on buying Vivendi?
All three companies can purchase Vivendi's division and have been offered the division, MS gave the best offer. Simple, 100% legal.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about this.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sharpe
You make it sound like they are different types of industries - by that logic MS has many monopolies in many industries (Operating software, Office suites, internet browsers)- in which many of them they illegally maintained their monopolies. |
The court ruled that they were indeed a monopoly, and that they did engage in some anticompetitive behavior that abused that monopoly. They certainly did not say the monopolies were illegally maintained, just they did some naughty things with it.
Which is why the punishment was a joke, really.
quote: So what is an "industry"? |
I was using the word as you were, you tell me...
quote: I can easily see a judge thinking that the videogame "industry" and the PC gaming "industry" are in fact one industry which MS is either dominating or is seeking to gain dominance in - or the judge could view games as part of the software industry - and it is well known that MS has a near monopoly on that industry. |
If the judge viewed it all as a simple software industry, he'd be stupid as all hell.
MS doesn't dominate the PC gaming industry. Unlike console games, MS doesn't see a dime for every PC game sold. Sure, 99% of PC games run on MS' OS, but it's a very different market than a video game console. For one, the sales are far lower and it's a market in a state of decline. Two, MS doesn't receive royalties for software released on its platform. Three, MS doesn't control what can and can't be released on the PC.
MS has a monopoly, as you said, in the OS, internet browser, and office suite market. It certainly does NOT have a monopoly in the games market.
The people closest to having a monopoly are Sony and EA, which is why I find it ridiculous that they'd even consider legal action for MS' perfectly legal move...
Which would explain why no articles, analysts, or legal people have actually publically objected to it.
There's simply nothing illegal about it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|