Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Weisman: MS "Destroyed" FASA Dev Culture

FASA Interactive founder Jordan Weisman says "When Microsoft bought FASA Interactive and incorporated it into Microsoft... the two reasons they bought us was, one, they wanted the catalogue of intellectual properties and, two, they felt that we had developed a really good development culture. And the reality is that, pretty much from the day we moved to Redmond, that development culture was destroyed," according to a new report on GamesIndustry.biz. FASA was acquired in 1999 and closed in 2007, and Weisman says: "I don't think the studio ever really had a chance. It was destroyed right in the beginning." He also describes his efforts at warning MS against destroying Bungie in the same manner, saying, "We were much better able to defend Bungie's culture than we were FASA's culture." Looking forward he repeats his eagerness to work with Piranha Games on the recently revealed MechWarrior revival and just yesterday it was announced his new company Smith & Tinker has raised $29 million USD for development of Pokemon-style games.

View
178 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >

158. Re: MS Aug 31, 2009, 14:34 Beamer
 
If the Xbox is the sole reason for this, why are some PC devs making PS3 exclusive games?
Why is anyone bothering with the PS3, period?
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
157. Re: MS Aug 31, 2009, 14:17 Wowbagger_TIP
 
The Xbox was the dynamite that took down the wall but there was people whacking away with a hammer long beforehand.
I think that everyone has mostly come around to seeing Jerykk's point now. If the XBox hadn't come along, then of course it's possible that something else could have come along, or that eventually some devs would have made the change anyway. You can't prove a negative, so we have to believe it's possible. That said, who knows how many more years or console generations it would have taken if Microsoft hadn't jumped into the console fray. Neither Sony nor Nintendo were doing anything at all to encourage or entice PC developers to make the switch, and they certainly didn't do anything to make it easy for them. Microsoft did these things. Without them it could have taken a MUCH longer time to get to the point we're at today. Nobody can know for sure how long it would have been.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
156. Re: MS Aug 31, 2009, 13:37 Verno
 
Gaming in general has increased in both quality and quantity.

As the technology increased. The correlation is pretty obvious. Consoles previously couldn't really adequately accommodate traditional PC games due to technological barriers that started to erode with the advent of the PS2. The Xbox was the dynamite that took down the wall but there was people whacking away with a hammer long beforehand.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Far Cry 4, Prison Architect, DriveClub
Watching: Tusk, The Equalizer, The Homesman
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
155. Re: MS Aug 31, 2009, 13:29 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Gaming in general has increased in both quality and quantity. I don't think that means what you think it means.  
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
154. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 31, 2009, 12:32 Verno
 
Ports that increased in both quality and number as console technology advanced as people have been saying for quite awhile now. You can choose to see it however you want but that doesn't make everyone else incorrect. The absence of native titles means nothing considering the state of console tech and how unfamiliar most devs were with the market. You can stick your head up your ass and pretend like everything would be ponies and rainbows if the Xbox didn't exist but unfortunately for both sides we'll never know.  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Far Cry 4, Prison Architect, DriveClub
Watching: Tusk, The Equalizer, The Homesman
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
153. Re: MS Aug 31, 2009, 12:14 Jerykk
 
I was around during the entire console period and saw the ramp up myself.

I've been gaming since the NES and until the Xbox, all I saw were ports. Ports != "ramping up."
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
152. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 31, 2009, 06:39 The PC Warrior
 
You've both made those arguments all thread long and I simply don't agree with your conclusions, sorry. I was around during the entire console period and saw the ramp up myself. The 360 was the cause but acting like it couldn't happen without it isn't realistic in my opinion.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
151. Re: MS Aug 30, 2009, 17:49 Jerykk
 
Sorry, I don't agree with you. I saw ports advancing in build quality and number as the years went on. As far as I can tell, your entire debate rests on this point and to me it's a matter of contention, not fact.

Okay. Let me get this straight: according to your logic, if a platform receives an increasing number of ports of increased quality, that means that platform will inevitably become the focus of developers one day. Is this is your argument? If it is, then the PC will inevitably become the focus again, right? After all, the PC is getting more ports now and they are of generally higher quality than ever before.

I suspect you'll respond by saying "But consoles are where the money is at!" To that, I'll say "No, consoles are where the money is at for certain genres." Strategy and MMO games remain PC-centric to this very day. Why? Because they are more consistently successful there. There have been no console strategy or MMO games that have broken this trend and established a market for either genre on consoles. Xbox games like Halo, KotoR, Fable, Oblivion, etc, established a market for previously PC-centric genres on consoles. Without the Xbox, these would have been PC games first and foremost with perhaps a PS2/PS3 port later on down the road. As history has shown, ports never sell terribly well so they definitely wouldn't have established a market for shooters or RPGs on the PS2/PS3. Without the Xbox, shooters and western RPGs would very likely still be leading on PC.

That's the problem in trying to predict the future based on past events, you can't account for the unknown. There was a large growing market and niches to be filled, I think it's very fair to say that someone would have done it.

That = predicting the future. Except your prediction isn't based on past events. If you were predicting the future based on past events, you'd be agreeing with StingingVelvet and I. Instead, you are assuming that the market would be exactly the same without Microsoft but history contradicts this. PC developers were not shifting their focus to Nintendo and Sony's consoles for reasons that have been mentioned countless times (and never refuted) during this debate. They still aren't. If Microsoft hadn't created the Xbox, why would this be any different? Refer to my Benjamin Franklin analogy. If Franklin hadn't discovered electricity, would somebody else have done so? Your logic says it would have been inevitable but there's nothing to really support that. Conversely, my logic says that if Franklin didn't exist, he would have never discovered electricity. I'm not going to assume that somebody else would have taken his place, just like I'm not assuming that somebody would have taken Microsoft's place.

This comment was edited on Aug 30, 2009, 18:01.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
150. Re: MS Aug 30, 2009, 16:48 StingingVelvet
 
Sorry, I don't agree with you. I saw ports advancing in build quality and number as the years went on. As far as I can tell, your entire debate rests on this point and to me it's a matter of contention, not fact.

PC ports on console did advance in quality and number as the years went on, you are right, but none of them sold very well or became popular at all until the Xbox came out.

Also, his point was that we are not dealing with ports to consoles now, we are dealing with consoles being the lead SKU and PC getting the ports. This did not start at ALL until the Xbox came out.

I think everyone in this thread, including yourself, is being intentionally dense when responding to these statements. It's not a hard concept to grasp, what Jeryk and now I are saying, but you guys consistently keep missing the point entirely. Quake being ported to the Nintendo 64 did not impact PC gaming at all, not even a smidgen, but Halo changed the industry.

Who could have predicted the Wii's success? It was the laughing stock of the industry when announced. Who predicted the Sony Playstation upstaging both Sega and Nintendo? That's the problem in trying to predict the future based on past events, you can't account for the unknown.

First off, the Wii sells a lot of hardware, but from everything I read the only person making money off it is Nintendo... it's a software death trap, so I don't know if it is really a success in the way you mean. Personally I still consider it a laughing stock myself, for people who want high quality games on a consistent basis.

Anyway, no one is trying to predict the future or make assumptions on the past. We're saying "this is what MS and their platform did, and without them doing it who knows if it would have happened." It's the people on your side predicting the past or whatever and insisting it would have happened anyway without them, which is pure conjecture, not fact.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
149. Re: MS Aug 30, 2009, 11:37 The PC Warrior
 
Sigh. Again, ports mean nothing. They've been around since the early 90's.

Sorry, I don't agree with you. I saw ports advancing in build quality and number as the years went on. As far as I can tell, your entire debate rests on this point and to me it's a matter of contention, not fact.

If anyone could come up with another company that could have done what MS did and likely would have if MS had never done it, I will gladly conceed that point.

Who could have predicted the Wii's success? It was the laughing stock of the industry when announced. Who predicted the Sony Playstation upstaging both Sega and Nintendo? That's the problem in trying to predict the future based on past events, you can't account for the unknown. There was a large growing market and niches to be filled, I think it's very fair to say that someone would have done it. Really it's more a matter of when and how it would have happened instead of if. You had a generation of gamers raised on consoles finally starting to grow up too which means less time to spend on the PC and less income to spend on parts. Consoles were a pretty good deal back then before they started hitting the $400 mark.

This comment was edited on Aug 30, 2009, 11:47.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
148. Re: MS Aug 30, 2009, 06:44 Kosumo
 
The Phantom (game system) Shifty  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
147. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 30, 2009, 06:03 StingingVelvet
 
What he just said.

If anyone could come up with another company that could have done what MS did and likely would have if MS had never done it, I will gladly conceed that point.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
146. Re: MS Aug 30, 2009, 04:17 Jerykk
 
I would have to side with Beamer and company on this given the evidence of previous PC efforts on the consoles before the Xbox appeared, regardless of how serious those were considering the technology supporting them wasn't at the PC level yet.

Sigh. Again, ports mean nothing. They've been around since the early 90's. Most console games get ported to PC. This doesn't mean that console developers are seriously considering focusing on the PC. It just means that publishers want to milk games for every penny. As for hardware, consoles have always been at or above PC technology upon release. The Xbox certainly wasn't the first console to do this. It was, however, the first console that was easy for PC developers to transition to and MS gave them plenty of incentive to do so. I really don't understand how you or anyone can ignore this simple fact and the numerous other facts that I've presented during this debate. Your whole argument consists of "Oh yeah?! Well, PC games were ported to consoles long before the Xbox! And consoles are a bigger market anyway so PC developers would have focused on them anyway!"

You guys love looking at the past and never seem to consider the future, it's depressing and threads like this remind me of being at a wake.

Analyzing history is important. The events of the past affect the events of the future. Before the Xbox, PC-centric genres did not have much success on consoles. Publishers looked at the history of PC ports and concluded that PC-style games just wouldn't be very successful on consoles. Then the Xbox came out and proved that PC-centric genres could actually be more successful on consoles. Publishers saw this and lo and behold, the future of shooters and RPGs belonged to consoles. Would this have happened regardless of the Xbox? Perhaps but nothing in history supports that theory.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
145. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 30, 2009, 01:33 The PC Warrior
 
I don't see anyone arguing that Microsoft's departure from PC gaming into the console area had a negative effect on PC gaming. I see people arguing the assumption that Microsoft not entering the console market would have somehow changed things. I would have to side with Beamer and company on this given the evidence of previous PC efforts on the consoles before the Xbox appeared, regardless of how serious those were considering the technology supporting them wasn't at the PC level yet.

Both sides present theoretical arguments of a future we will never know anyways. It seems really pointless. You guys love looking at the past and never seem to consider the future, it's depressing and threads like this remind me of being at a wake. Oh well, I will just avoid them in the future.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
144. Re: MS Aug 30, 2009, 01:24 StingingVelvet
 
This article didn't even have anything to do with the Xbox. It's about a small company being absorbed by a larger one and how the two cultures clashed. It's a cautionary tale for buyouts and how corporate culture doesn't always work with the smaller development studio mindset.

It's exactly the same debate as the last three times you guys had it but ok, enjoy your fruitless labors.

It all started because he pointed out the very obvious fact that MS has had a massively negative effect on PC gaming since the Xbox released and people came after him like he was an idiot and had no idea what he was talking about, when clearly to anyone looking he is completely correct.

This comment was edited on Aug 30, 2009, 01:25.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
143. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 30, 2009, 01:13 The PC Warrior
 
This article didn't even have anything to do with the Xbox. It's about a small company being absorbed by a larger one and how the two cultures clashed. It's a cautionary tale for buyouts and how corporate culture doesn't always work with the smaller development studio mindset.

It's exactly the same debate as the last three times you guys had it but ok, enjoy your fruitless labors.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
142. Re: MS Aug 30, 2009, 01:00 Jerykk
 
Whether Microsoft was responsible or not, does it change anything right now?

Nope. I don't really see how that has any impact on a debate's merit, though. This is an internet message board. People come here to speak their mind and share their opinions. Nothing we say is going to actually change anything so I don't really see why you're getting hung up on that.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
141. Re: MS "Destroyed" FASA Aug 30, 2009, 00:43 The PC Warrior
 
What argument? At this point all of you are just repeating everything said in the last microsoft is the devil thread. It's even the same posters involved. Whether Microsoft was responsible or not, does it change anything right now?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
140. Re: MS Aug 29, 2009, 17:32 Jerykk
 
Also, yes I played Max Payne and it's a third person shooter. Throw it in the world of GTA, minus bullet-time, and you have GTA3. You're being dense intentionally.

Oh brother. You say "throw it in the world of GTA" like it's just a minor thing. If you throw Max Payne into the world of GTA, it becomes a completely different game because GTA had an open world whereas Max Payne was a linear corridor shooter. Hell, you might as well say Tomb Raider is the same as GTA. Just take Lara Croft, turn her into a dude, throw her into an urban open-world environment, add the ability to steal and drive cars, bam, exactly the same as GTA. Talk about being dense.

And of course Wolfenstein and Doom on the SNES didn't do terribly well - there was no control for them and the hardware was inferior!

You realize that Wolfenstein and Doom on the PC didn't have mouselook, right? They were designed to be played with a keyboard alone. As such, playing them with a controller didn't adversely affect the gameplay experience.

When the PS2 came out that changfed! Do I need to keep saying that?

You can keep saying it all you want but the fact remains PC developers (except Volition, for some reason) didn't migrate to the PS2, even though its control scheme is the same as what's being used today and its hardware was powerful at the time.

Christ. If they didn't like it they'd change it.
If they didn't want it they'd change it.
If they still wanted to make PC games they would.

Again, you're inserting justifications into an argument where they are irrelevant. I never said that they were unjustified in jumping to consoles. I simply said that the Xbox is what made them jump to consoles. There's a distinct difference between desire and action. Personally, I'd love to abolish all consoles. However, I have no convenient or practical means of doing so. If a means were created, then hell yeah, I'd do it. But until that happens, consoles will remain. PC developers may have been yearning to jump to consoles but until the Xbox came out, there wasn't any practical or convenient means of doing so. PC-centric genres were not well established on consoles, Nintendo and Sony's machines were unfamiliar and difficult to transition to and neither company went out of their way to motivate the transition.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
139. Re: MS Aug 29, 2009, 17:22 Jerykk
 
I don't know what demos you watched but I just watched the Sony sword demo and the Natal ricochet demo, both have incredible accuracy and there's no input lag that I can see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDzXqK4fh-A&feature=PlayList&p=50E87894D15F2222&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiX-26VL4bM

Ah, yes, look at that amazing speed and accuracy. The Natal demo shows how well it handles quick and precise movement. As for the Sony demo, check out 1:40, 6:36 and 8:39. If you really think either controller could be a suitable replacement for M&KB, you either don't play RTS and MMO or you're insane.

I think you're incredibly short sighted if you can't see these either of these techs being used for very PCish genres like RTS. MMO has no need for a mouse really, a controller would be fine, what it needs is hotkeys.

Ahah, no. Mouse = quickest and most precise way to click on targets, which is a pretty important part of MMOs.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
178 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo