Beamer wrote on Aug 19, 2012, 00:42:

PHJF wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 23:52:

That's it. And likely in order. Stop talking about IP. What IP do you think they have that has value?

Not necessarily an IP, but E. A. Sports.

It's in the game!

And do NOT try and tell me Mass Effect isn't a full-blooded IP, or even Dead Space. There are Mass Effect novels, a Mass Effect movie supposedly in the works, and there was that Dead Space anime.

And don't forget the Mass Effect cartoon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOqHUa2LfNY

But how much would Mass Effect be worth? You're Activision, or Ubisoft. How much would you pay for Mass Effect?

$20 million? $50 million?

The argument people are making is that the worth of EA is primarily IP. EA is valued at $6 billion. How many Mass Effects do you need to add up to $6 billion?

Well, Mass Effect isn't their only big IP. I dunno if they have enough IP to add up to 6 billion, but probably half that or more. People DO line up for call of duty. And everyone has a sibling who goes gaga for the sims.

PHJF wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 23:52:

That's it. And likely in order. Stop talking about IP. What IP do you think they have that has value?

Not necessarily an IP, but E. A. Sports.

It's in the game!

And do NOT try and tell me Mass Effect isn't a full-blooded IP, or even Dead Space. There are Mass Effect novels, a Mass Effect movie supposedly in the works, and there was that Dead Space anime.

And don't forget the Mass Effect cartoon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOqHUa2LfNY

But how much would Mass Effect be worth? You're Activision, or Ubisoft. How much would you pay for Mass Effect?

$20 million? $50 million?

The argument people are making is that the worth of EA is primarily IP. EA is valued at $6 billion. How many Mass Effects do you need to add up to $6 billion?

That's it. And likely in order. Stop talking about IP. What IP do you think they have that has value?

Not necessarily an IP, but E. A. Sports.

It's in the game!

And do NOT try and tell me Mass Effect isn't a full-blooded IP, or even Dead Space. There are Mass Effect novels, a Mass Effect movie supposedly in the works, and there was that Dead Space anime.

And don't forget the Mass Effect cartoon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOqHUa2LfNY

This comment was edited on Aug 18, 2012, 23:58.

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 15:15:

Beamer wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 12:12:
EA only has value as EA. Its individual parts are worthless. OnLive has no individual parts, but it has a service that currently exists and was built via patents. That has value to someone as it's a physical thing. EA is simply an organization as strong as its people, who can leave at any given time.

The name EA isn't worth anything, the IP they have is what makes them worth money, and they have quite a bit of IP. EA churns through employees just as much as any other studio.

For once Beamer stop talking directly via your ass.

I didn't say the name had any value, I said the entity does. EA only has value as an organization.

I'm not talking out of my ass. What value does EA have?
1) They have a wide organization. They have plenty of developers, plenty of marketers, plenty of accountants, and most importantly have all these pieces balanced
2) They have real estate
3) They have IP

That's it. And likely in order. Stop talking about IP. What IP do you think they have that has value? And, for the love of fucking god, the rumors value them at $6 billion. Name the IP that you think adds up to $6 billion.

Stop overvaluing IP. Do you know what IP has value? Multi-channel IP. Something like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Spiderman, etc. Call of Duty, Halo, or whatever the hell EA has, does not have any broad value. No one will line up for Need for Speed or Dead Space.


Jesus, man, you say I'm talking out my ass when you have no fucking idea what companies value and why. Listen to someone that does. Or stop and think for two seconds about what EA does that another company may have interest in and why.
Hint: it's the ability to make, market and distribute games.

Beamer wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 12:12:
EA only has value as EA. Its individual parts are worthless. OnLive has no individual parts, but it has a service that currently exists and was built via patents. That has value to someone as it's a physical thing. EA is simply an organization as strong as its people, who can leave at any given time.

The name EA isn't worth anything, the IP they have is what makes them worth money, and they have quite a bit of IP. EA churns through employees just as much as any other studio.

For once Beamer stop talking directly via your ass.

So now they're saying they've been sold to a newly-formed company?

My guess? Too much debt, so they did something shadier than bankruptcy. Form a new company, sell all the assets to the new company, hire the employees you want/need (letting the less useful ones that maybe should never have been hired but didn't have the balls to fire go), declare bankruptcy on the old company now that it has no assets to be liquidated.

Sketchy, shady, and just stupid. The smart employees hired back will feel no loyalty (and loyalty tends to be high at startups) and will always be looking for a way out. Whereas if they hadn't wanted all the employees and let some go, and been honest about it, usually your remaining staff will understand if there's good reason (and dead weight is almost always understood - not uncommon to hear employees mention that it's unfortunate for the individual but should have been done a long time ago.)

Dades wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 11:09:

AnointedSword wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 07:33:
Nothing new here really. You have a left wing site that is lying their anuses off.

What does politics have to do with any of this?

Feel free to send that to Blue, he's been warned at least once to lay off that shit...Tuesday, actually.

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 23:50:

Beamer wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 19:51:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 19:39:

Beamer wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 19:33:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 19:25:

Beamer wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:39:

nin wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:36:

Rhialto wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:16:
Latest news and more to come at this Forbes link.

[UPDATE 3: Martyn Williams, a correspondent for IDG News Service, reports via Twitter that he's standing outside OnLive headquarters. "In the last 20mins have seen three people walk out of # OnLive with leaving boxes. Still unclear what's happening inside pic.twitter.com/ZYFBxCyC"]

I love that they keep denying it...

Well, they're denying that they're going out of business, and it seems they aren't. It seems they've been purchased and this is a restructuring.

So, they're technically right, but it's a minor hail mary of a technicality.

In before Beamer plays the role of the Iraq Defense Minister of the game indus.. fuck too late.

Really?

Really?

That was pretty negative, I'd say. The facts of my post:
1) They're denying going out of business. It appears they are not, as they've been purchased
2) They're denying nothing else, which is why they can deny. It's a technicality, as I said, they're technically right. But it's a minor technicality, as it appears they would have gone out of business had they not been purchased, so they're saved by a hail mary.


I don't see how correcting someone saying they're lying by saying they're actually not, but just barely, is "iraqi minister of defense."

Let's get our own facts straight - they are NOT going out of business. Making that claim is absolutely pointless. What they are is desperately selling themselves to stay in business. It's maybe a minor distinction, but a key distinction.
For a bunch of people that code I'm always amazed at the number of people here that think being kind of right but pretty much wrong is good enough. Let's have some precision: they're still in business, but only by dismantling themselves.

Just giving you a hard time, I do find it amazing though that any time there's a post that paints either a publisher or the industry on the whole in a not so happy light, you're right in the middle of it all guns a blazing.

Because typically there are people here throwing out inaccuracies that aren't necessary. Things paint themselves bad enough, no reason to exaggerate and pretend things are going exactly as you want them to even though it isn't the case.

Several people here claimed OnLive went out of business. For the time being that isn't true. I think that's important enough a distinction. If someone else came in here and said OnLive was perfectly under control I'd correct them, too, but probably wouldn't need to because a dozen others would beat me to it.

Also, this is further proof, from the thread last night, that no PE firm would break up EA. Someone bought OnLive but did not buy the staff. The OnLive staff, dedicated to their only product, is much more important to the name than any staff at any EA studio, yet they still weren't important enough to keep around.
Which makes me think this can't be ComCast or HP, because they'd need the staff. It has to be someone else already playing in this area. Also strange at how quick this was done - while plenty of staff is usually laid off in a merger generally they cherry pick the ones they want before laying anyone off. Here they seem to be doing it after... stupid.

Yeah because it's totally comparable between a game publisher with massive amounts of studios and IP to be compared to an online streaming service.

Helpful hint: patents and services are worth more than IP, outside of a few exceptions. EA does not own a single one of those exceptions.
Do you really think the combined IP of EA is worth the $6 billion quoted in that article? Of course not.

EA only has value as EA. Its individual parts are worthless. OnLive has no individual parts, but it has a service that currently exists and was built via patents. That has value to someone as it's a physical thing. EA is simply an organization as strong as its people, who can leave at any given time.

They're now back and better then ever! Pretty odd situation in one day, have to have news you went under everyone gone, to less then 24 hours later, we are back, better funded, bigger plans and staffed.

Julio wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 09:30:

Wookiestick wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 15:51:
What would happen if Steam was to go out of business? Yeah they've said they would unlock the DRM on the games, but talk is cheap.

If Steam goes out of business, everyone will lose their Steam games. I don't believe the employees will unlock everyone's games on their free time once they aren't getting paid.

You don't see bankrupt companies doing anything for their customers.

No they won't lose their steam games. Maybe some of you will out of ignorance of how their games work though.

AnointedSword wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 07:33:
Nothing new here really. You have a left wing site that is lying their anuses off.

What does politics have to do with any of this?

Wookiestick wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 15:51:
What would happen if Steam was to go out of business? Yeah they've said they would unlock the DRM on the games, but talk is cheap.

If Steam goes out of business, everyone will lose their Steam games. I don't believe the employees will unlock everyone's games on their free time once they aren't getting paid.

You don't see bankrupt companies doing anything for their customers.

What the hell does political affiliation have to do with it?!?


=-Rigs-=

Nothing new here really. You have a left wing site that is lying their anuses off.

InXile has no "E" in it.

I hope I wont have to read about OnLive again after this, hopefully they be non existant.

ONLive (as we knew it) IS DEAD!

And they completely screwed the lower-ranked employees...assholes...


=-Rigs-=

Closed Betas wrote on Aug 18, 2012, 00:35:

Beamer wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 19:12:

Closed Betas wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:53:
lets guess who bought them..

I would think, a cable company would use this as a service upsell..
My guess is Comcast...

I truly have no clue, what is your guess?

Microsoft, Amazon, Comcast, EA... all good guesses.

Not a scam.

EA a good guess, they'd want to hurt any competition and make a move on some others in control of areas they crave... Microsoft, naah dont think so, seems to be pulling out of games and deservedly so, they suck at it.. half ass efforts across the board..but then again.. console idea of some sort?.. hehe.. Sony, maybe... Amazon.. No, I think they are HURTING financially.. more than one thinks.. they just said they are pulling out of Chicago as a shipping depot... gotta wonder why... after last years 300% growth -80% losses... i have a feeling worse news is coming..

OMG, i just remembered, GameFly.... ick.. oh man.. its so them...
But who cares, dont use the service and it would help GameFly dissappear.. lol

Beamer wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 19:12:

Closed Betas wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:53:
lets guess who bought them..

I would think, a cable company would use this as a service upsell..
My guess is Comcast...

I truly have no clue, what is your guess?

Microsoft, Amazon, Comcast, EA... all good guesses.

Not a scam.

EA a good guess, they'd want to hurt any competition and make a move on some others in control of areas they crave... Microsoft, naah dont think so, seems to be pulling out of games and deservedly so, they suck at it.. half ass efforts across the board..but then again.. console idea of some sort?.. hehe.. Sony, maybe... Amazon.. No, I think they are HURTING financially.. more than one thinks.. they just said they are pulling out of Chicago as a shipping depot... gotta wonder why... after last years 300% growth -80% losses... i have a feeling worse news is coming..

Member since: November XX, 2004, care to wager?