True, but at the same time, quality developers don't grow on trees.
The best of the best sell a lot of software and are valuable for a reason.
It has very little to do with the IP.
Activision buys Bizarre Creation: Info on current and future projects in here
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
True, but at the same time, quality developers don't grow on trees.
The best of the best sell a lot of software and are valuable for a reason.
It has very little to do with the IP.
Naught Dog is a Sony's studio, it's not external.
No more PGR made by Bizarre is a huge loss for me as a gamer as it's my favourite racing franchise and probably a big loss for Microsoft, too. Though I think if they didn't want to acquire BC themselves it's better for MS this way. Microsoft has been far better signing contracts for exclusive games with independent developers and 3rd party publishers rather than acquiring developers (FASA, Rare), which were huge investments but their games didn't sell all that well.
No more PGR made by Bizarre is a huge loss for me as a gamer as it's my favourite racing franchise and probably a big loss for Microsoft, too. Though I think if they didn't want to acquire BC themselves it's better for MS this way. Microsoft has been far better signing contracts for exclusive games with independent developers and 3rd party publishers rather than acquiring developers (FASA, Rare), which were huge investments but their games didn't sell all that well.
Interesting point on the 'hands off' comment. Perhaps MS could learn a thing or two in this regard.
Maybe they should have just had the company "move in" like Ninja Theory did, then maybe they would be a bit more comfortable that the team had everything under control.
Regarding the transition of the title, they would probably go back to MSR unless Sega owns it, but like I said, it's dead to me until proven otherwise.
To me it's a sign of arrogance really. As if they are in a position to not need exclusive devs and every dev making a AAA game will ned to have it on xb360. There is some truth to that, but nothing in this industry is a guarantee.
Perhaps MS feels they have bigger fish to fry and are eying a few other devs?
I think a big one, if for nothing else other than engine, tool and tech support, would be Epic.
Regardless, this is huge loss for MS.
Successful enough for Activision to go out of their ways to buy the whole studio only to serve as a middleman just to share some of income with MS?
While I understand where you're coming from and I also concede that it's an interesting and fair theory. I'll also admit that I don't believe it's a probable scenario at all. Activision is too big of a company to be interested in these type of limited in scale and scope deals. They're currently giving EA a rough time for the number one third-party publishers spot in the U.S.
This purchase is clearly strategical for Activision, they want to expand their reach on new segments of the market and they want to increase their portfolio (where they're clearly lagging behind EA.)
Now, and that should be evidence enough the wording and claims made in these official announcements are quite clear in their message: "Well, we're no longer tied to just one platform for starters. Our future titles can be on whatever we please - we are a truly multiplatform studio now." And the claim that makes it obvious Activision wants its racing franchise: "Both of our two main game teams are about to start work on two new AAA titles for Activision. One will be a racing game."
Now concerning the re-using the code they worked on for PGR. While it's true the final code probably belong to MS, the technology itself can't be reasonably tied to MS. And even if it was, it would be hard to prove they're re-using part of it. And I'm not sure MS would want to have recourse to legal threat with Activision. It would be bad business, not to mention that MS was surely (well, factually) aware of the sale of the studio. Now, for the art, here again, MS might own the game implementation of that artwork, the source files (Giga Bytes of city picture data) might be the property of Bizarre, depending of their contractual obligations with MS. And if it's not, MS either took back their assets and Activision would have to fund creation assests (standard process for a big budget title and in this case, assets would be re-useable many years and for many games on many platforms), or MS took a copy of it (or nothing at all... It wouldn't be the first time MS doesn't ask for their (legally owned) artwork/code back) and left Bizarre with it. Here again, there's no reasons to think MS would want to part in an inimical way with Bizarre.
Anyway, concerning the question about who owns the source assets accumulated by Bizarre over the years can be answered by the dev team folks we have on the board. So, if one of the guys know that anwser, feel free to PM me. :smile: It's not a big secret trade question, but it remains a business question, so I'm not sure we'll get an anwser... At least one I'd be free to post clearly on the board.
Right you are, my mistake.
My point is still valid though, they weren't bought up as soon as they released a hit game for Playstation, they went on for 5/6 years as a "second party" dev before being acquired by Sony.
It's not sign of arrogance. I think their businness model of not acquiring studios and looking for 3rd party partners has been proven successful. Which title has had bigger impact in 'console wars'? Shadowrun or Bioshock? (Halo 3 is a different beast altogether
)I doubt that's their mentality. I think there are really hard negotiations going on about every (time) exclusive.
Epic is too big for that.
Yes it is. Bizarre Creations and PGR games have always been industry leading games when it comes to graphics and online features (when I say graphics I think about any other racing games on 360, not about certain Sony 1st party racing franchise - to avoid unnecessary wars).
Last edited by a moderator:
The quality of a devs is linked to the talent it employs. That talent isn't bound to a dev. Buying a devs that produces quality work doesn't mean that devs will produces quality work indefinitely.
It isn't rare for key talent to leave a dev and form a new studio.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I agree. At this point, which company is churning out AAA titles on a more regular basis??
It's no contest. The 360 exclusives so far have been of much higher quality and quantity than the competition. With Gears, COD2, PGR3, PGR4, Crackdown, Bioshock & Mass Effect, MS has assembled a host of excellent exclusive titles without owning the studios.
At this point, it seems to be a more effective strategy to identify the most promising titles, while they are in development, and secure exclusivity by providing financial assistance to the publisher/developer. This allows you to receive exclusives from the cream of the crop developers (Epic, Bioware, Remedy, Infinity Ward, Bizarre Creations) without having to shell out hundreds of million of dollars buying studios.
Of course, it all falls apart of MS takes their eye off the ball, and stops signing these agreements. This strategy hinges on aggressively pursuing the most promising 3rd party titles on a continued basis, and never letting off the gas. If they do, they'll find themselves dangerously low on quality exclusives.
It's not sign of arrogance. I think their businness model of not acquiring studios and looking for 3rd party partners has been proven successful. Which title has had bigger impact in 'console wars'? Shadowrun or Bioshock? (Halo 3 is a different beast altogether
Sure, but at the same time, certain genres need quality titles. Racing on xb360 is known by two key titles: Forza (eh) and PGR (leading edge).
Sony has GT and in that exclusive, they have the edge (most would agree) in the realistic racing simulator sub-genre over Forza. There is nothing to compete with PGR though and that helps win an edge. Also, by alternating, it gave MS the ability to have an exlusive racer on a regular basis.
Also, at launch, it was one of the very few quality titles for gamers to take the platform seriously. Same for xb1.
I understand about investing in a single product instead of a group of guys, but this group of guys has consistently come through for them already, multiple times.
We will see in the long run. But this genre is key IMO and this dev in this genre has proven to be top notch.
Too big for MS? We've seen how instrumental their technology has been in getting many impressive looking titles out the door quickly. Having them focus on one machine could help MS quite a bit, mostly for next gen (xb720). If nothing else, securing their future engine(s) on future consoles should be a priority. If Sony were to buy them, it could be trouble come their next launch.
No need to beat around the bush. I think we're all grown enough to recognize where certain games have a certain edge.
Fair point.
In general I agree, but certain key partners should be kept in-house.
How many think it would be ok for Sony if Polyphony Digital was bought by EA?
I'm not sure about that. Games that score 93% (FM1) and 90% (FM2) average on gamerankings.com are usually not 'eh' games and are definitely considered one of the best in their genres. Thus I guess I'm not sure if most who actually played both series would agree. But it's not a thread about this.
Is this really a key genre? PGR2 was an excellent game with awesome average on gamerankings (93%) and it certainly didn't help to win console wars. Though PGR4 might help to sell a couple units now, but we don't now if the push from PGR4 will be crucial by any means.
The question is, whether a multiplatform studio which licences engine to several dozens licencees is interested in being bought by a publisher which would limit its furute growth and incomes. Of course everything is a matter of price, but I doubt MS would be interested in paying that price.
GT is a franchise with much more fans than PGR though and it is a huge difference - better comparison to PD would be Bungie.
Based on sales to a certain userbase.
We will see how well it sells on ps3 and do the comparison then.
My point is, GT is leading the genre (track racing). PGR is leading it's genre (street racing).
I don't mean sales, I mean from a technological, visually impressive front.
These types of games help set the bar for the console even if people don't buy them. They are showcase type games.
The fact that they are all good quality is another point, and how well they sell is yet another point.
Hypothetical, if xb360 were to dominate the market with a similar marketshare percentage as ps2 had, PGR and Forza would see their sales skyrocket (also, packing the game in with the console helps move units too
). Some buying one as a showcase game, others buying because they like the specific gameplay. Some for a mix of both.Gt is a key title and franchise not only for how many units it moved, but for the visual bar it set on ps2. Losing PD is a lot more than just losing a sim racer. Same in this case.
I've always had the feeling that Turn 10 benefitted a lot from working together with Bizarre Creations and benefitting from the stuff they brought to the Microsoft table. It could really hurt them not to have PGR around.
However, I do feel that Bizarre Creations made the right decision here. They'll soon have two PGRs out on the 360, and the 360 is out on the market barely two years. Besides that, there have been 4 of them out now, and I can very much imagine that they'll want to do something new.
Let's hope they make the kind of progression that we've seen from Guitar Hero to Rock Star.
Multiplaform is good too. It will be interesting to see in which direction they will head. Wii, PS3, PC? All of them? If you'd ask me at this point where I thought the biggest market was going to be by the time they'd have their game ready, I have really and honestly no idea whatsoever. I think they'll go for PS3/360/PC multiplatform first, because that's where the racing fans hang out most, I think.
I also would imagine that purely from a tech-head point of view, they could be very much interested in working on the PS3, just because they know the 360 so well and it's always interesting to see how far you can push a completely different platform and how you measure up against the first party teams of other platforms. Forces you to grow and rethink certain things, get a more 'meta' perspective, etc.
Well, we'll see. I'm sure we'll hear more about this soon.
Yes, I do think this is a loss for Microsoft. PGR has been one of the very few franchises that have drawn me to the Xbox (though their track-design hasn't always been the best, imho). And although now it looks like I'm going to end up getting a 360 this week because I got a lucky offer (a colleague of mine won one and doesn't want it, and is selling it for half price, unopened), so I end up being able to play their game, I'm still happy that they are going multi-platform, even if it is only because then I'll be able to play their games with decent wheels finally.
My only worry is that they might not have as much time to take their other platforms to the technological depths that they have been able to take their previous games when they were single platform. But they are entering the multi-platform market when the biggest edge has been taken off, I think, the most expensive and dangerous technological expeditions have been undertaken and the maps have been charted pretty well.
I wish them all the best! It sounds like they got a good deal with Activision and I hope they get to make the best out of it.
However, I do feel that Bizarre Creations made the right decision here. They'll soon have two PGRs out on the 360, and the 360 is out on the market barely two years. Besides that, there have been 4 of them out now, and I can very much imagine that they'll want to do something new.
Let's hope they make the kind of progression that we've seen from Guitar Hero to Rock Star.
Multiplaform is good too. It will be interesting to see in which direction they will head. Wii, PS3, PC? All of them? If you'd ask me at this point where I thought the biggest market was going to be by the time they'd have their game ready, I have really and honestly no idea whatsoever. I think they'll go for PS3/360/PC multiplatform first, because that's where the racing fans hang out most, I think.
I also would imagine that purely from a tech-head point of view, they could be very much interested in working on the PS3, just because they know the 360 so well and it's always interesting to see how far you can push a completely different platform and how you measure up against the first party teams of other platforms. Forces you to grow and rethink certain things, get a more 'meta' perspective, etc.
Well, we'll see. I'm sure we'll hear more about this soon.
Yes, I do think this is a loss for Microsoft. PGR has been one of the very few franchises that have drawn me to the Xbox (though their track-design hasn't always been the best, imho). And although now it looks like I'm going to end up getting a 360 this week because I got a lucky offer (a colleague of mine won one and doesn't want it, and is selling it for half price, unopened), so I end up being able to play their game, I'm still happy that they are going multi-platform, even if it is only because then I'll be able to play their games with decent wheels finally.
My only worry is that they might not have as much time to take their other platforms to the technological depths that they have been able to take their previous games when they were single platform. But they are entering the multi-platform market when the biggest edge has been taken off, I think, the most expensive and dangerous technological expeditions have been undertaken and the maps have been charted pretty well.
I wish them all the best! It sounds like they got a good deal with Activision and I hope they get to make the best out of it.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Actually, if you look at sales, Need for Speed definately rules street racing.
I agree that PGR is not a huge exclsuive, and also, with the release of PGR4 it seems to be the culmination of the series, and it has probably run it's course. I can't see PGR5 being a huge deal, or advancing much further on this hardware.
Not sure this is a big loss for MS at this point. BC played a key role by providing PGr3 and 4 in timely fashion, but their signficance is probably diminishing as the software library grows.
I agree that PGR is not a huge exclsuive, and also, with the release of PGR4 it seems to be the culmination of the series, and it has probably run it's course. I can't see PGR5 being a huge deal, or advancing much further on this hardware.
Not sure this is a big loss for MS at this point. BC played a key role by providing PGr3 and 4 in timely fashion, but their signficance is probably diminishing as the software library grows.
This could have something to do with the "hands off" comment.
Perhaps BC didn't like the idea of being forced to share their technology with these guys, as they developed their own, in-house.
It was obvious which group between the two was learning from whom.
No disrespect, but T10 isn't pushing xb360 like BC.
No doubt.
I'm thinking more down the road.
Regarding NFS,
#1 - it's multiplat
#2 - PGR is IMO, much better. Better gameplay, better presentation, more innovative, better graphics, better overall showcase type game(s).
The BC team helped MS establish... ugh ... I'm repeating myself too much.
Definitely, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. By 'content' I didn't just mean games or IPs. I meant the whole shebang. When Sony grabs itself a top developer, not only is it securing talent for games, but also know-how that it shares within it's open WW studios, and increasingly with 3rd parties. Content thus includes knowledge base. Sony seem good at courting developers, creating good working partnerships and encouraging developers to stay platform exclusive. Of those that contribute a great deal, they invest in them and then, especially at the moment, go on to purchase the studio and secure their work to help the whole SCEWW 'team'.
MS don't appear to have anything comparable. Bizarre have created some very strong titles, but MS don't care to secure their content, talent, or know-how. Well, I guess they have the source code and can present techniques to devs if they choose. Instead they go with a commissioning approach, funding 3rd parties, which isn't going to grow the platform expertise of platform specific developers, and always runs the risk of Sony trumping their offer on a 3rd party exclusive. Although I guess they consider Sony won't be paying much into 3rd party exclusives because they spend all their cash on developers!
Similar threads
