Goodbye to Visceral Games
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
I'm struggling to see how banking $400m constitutes being a victim. Even if a significant proportion of that is performance-based, I'd imagine the fixed base amount would be more than enough for the company's owners not to be too worried about what the new owners decide to do with it a few years down the line.
I guess that's true if all you care about is the bottom line and don't care if the company you founded goes down in flames? I was kind of hoping that some of these developers had some integrity and wouldn't sell their souls for a quick buck, but if that's not the case, so be it.CBJ wrote:I'm struggling to see how banking $400m constitutes being a victim. Even if a significant proportion of that is performance-based, I'd imagine the fixed base amount would be more than enough for the company's owners not to be too worried about what the new owners decide to do with it a few years down the line.
I remember long ago when Netscape supposedly 'lost' the browser wars and collapsed as a company. Everyone talked about that being them failing.
But every developer working for them, and all senior members of staff became millionaires in this so called 'collapse', and the CEO became a Billionaire. It never really matched up with my idea of 'fail'.
Plus of course the company is still around in a different form, and outlived every competitor except Microsoft, although it has outlived Internet Explorer.
Not an exact parallel, and money isn't the only measure of success, but if we're to be honest, in business it's right up there at the top.
But every developer working for them, and all senior members of staff became millionaires in this so called 'collapse', and the CEO became a Billionaire. It never really matched up with my idea of 'fail'.
Plus of course the company is still around in a different form, and outlived every competitor except Microsoft, although it has outlived Internet Explorer.
Not an exact parallel, and money isn't the only measure of success, but if we're to be honest, in business it's right up there at the top.
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. ... Niccolò Machiavelli
I like your thinking. It makes a lot of sense. Not everything is black and white, there are many shades of grey. I was bummed out to see this company go though, I loved Dead Space 1 & 2.mrbadger wrote:I remember long ago when Netscape supposedly 'lost' the browser wars and collapsed as a company. Everyone talked about that being them failing.
But every developer working for them, and all senior members of staff became online bingo millionaires in this so called 'collapse', and the CEO became a Billionaire. It never really matched up with my idea of 'fail'.
Plus of course the company is still around in a different form, and outlived every competitor except Microsoft, although it has outlived Internet Explorer.
Not an exact parallel, and money isn't the only measure of success, but if we're to be honest, in business it's right up there at the top.
Last edited by FaustoH on Wed, 17. Jul 19, 10:25, edited 2 times in total.
-
Mightysword
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
https://i.imgur.com/ORXigiI.jpg
{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}
{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}
E.A. is really pooping the bed on SWBFII EA. They've got the most downvoted posts in Reddit history, their monetization scheme has been revealed to be... Well, the word "draconian" comes to mind. They've been voted the "Worst Company in the United States." And, to top it all off, they've been getting a bit of flack from the most important audience - Their investors, who don't like the reputation they're developing. Lest we forget, Disney has yet to weigh in on this and Star Wars is their IP, now. Disney may not appreciate the overwhelming amount of negative attention the new title is receiving, since it could effect public opinion and sentiment, overall, regarding "Star Wars" as a whole..
All this, however, is probably best discussed in another thread. My failing eyesight and ever-looming senility has prevented me from finding the "old" EA "complaint thread."
Start a new one?
I don't have what looks to be an amazing gaming experience in the Star Wars IP, developed by Visceral Games, on my computer. Further, I will never have that experience, certainly not one with the comfortable, much-beloved, since it's associated with fondly-remembered previous titles, Star Wars game with a Visceral Games logo on it.
I don't have "Netscape" on my computer. The years of gleeful support I dedicated to it, the rage against "The Man", embodied in Micro$oft, the youthful "rebellion" I engaged in every time I used Netscape instead of "Internet Destroyer"... I will never have that again.
So, from a consumer's point of view, these are, indeed, "failures." At the least they're "Bad Things", no matter how much money someone made from cashing out or working hard to build up their company to be desirable enough for a magacorp to purchase.
Gamers don't get "Golden Parachutes" and gaming news writers don't gain attention by writing about how much money a developer made when their doors closed if, at the end of the day, their gamer audience will be denied a title they've longed for or one they've come to love.
So, in the end, it's all dependent upon a point of view, isn't it?
All this, however, is probably best discussed in another thread. My failing eyesight and ever-looming senility has prevented me from finding the "old" EA "complaint thread."
Start a new one?CBJ wrote:I'm struggling to see how banking $400m constitutes being a victim. Even if a significant proportion of that is performance-based, I'd imagine the fixed base amount would be more than enough for the company's owners not to be too worried about what the new owners decide to do with it a few years down the line...
When we read articles or opinions from a "consumer's point of view", they're going to be different than the point of view of an investor or employee.mrbadger wrote:I remember long ago when Netscape supposedly 'lost' the browser wars and collapsed as a company. Everyone talked about that being them failing.
But every developer working for them, and all senior members of staff became millionaires in this so called 'collapse', and the CEO became a Billionaire. It never really matched up with my idea of 'fail'
I don't have what looks to be an amazing gaming experience in the Star Wars IP, developed by Visceral Games, on my computer. Further, I will never have that experience, certainly not one with the comfortable, much-beloved, since it's associated with fondly-remembered previous titles, Star Wars game with a Visceral Games logo on it.
I don't have "Netscape" on my computer. The years of gleeful support I dedicated to it, the rage against "The Man", embodied in Micro$oft, the youthful "rebellion" I engaged in every time I used Netscape instead of "Internet Destroyer"... I will never have that again.
So, from a consumer's point of view, these are, indeed, "failures." At the least they're "Bad Things", no matter how much money someone made from cashing out or working hard to build up their company to be desirable enough for a magacorp to purchase.
Gamers don't get "Golden Parachutes" and gaming news writers don't gain attention by writing about how much money a developer made when their doors closed if, at the end of the day, their gamer audience will be denied a title they've longed for or one they've come to love.
So, in the end, it's all dependent upon a point of view, isn't it?
