Gaming Bill's overabundance of cash.

[UnsungHero]

By now all of us know of Bill's almighty buy out of Rare for $350,000,000 which in my opinion was not worth it (Grabbed By The Ghoulies is shite and Kameo is looking that way. Perfect Dark Zero is long way off - 2005).

But are you guys aware that bill has charged around to other companies trying to buy them as well?

One company in question is SquareEnix which Microsoft have spoken to many times. Although they are not interested Microsoft recently employed a former COO of SquareSoft that helped make Final Fantasy RPGs popular in the West. His job is to increase Xbox sales. Who better to negotiate with Square than him?

Another company is Nintendo.
Now before GameCube or Xbox was released Microsodt approached Nintendo with a deal. It was declined, however, rumors state that possibly neither Xbox 2 nor Gamecube 2 could be on the horizon but rather - (wait for it!)....
....
a new joint Nintendo/Microsoft console.

This would not be a bad idea. With Microsofts supreme power and bottomless pockets full of cash combined with Nintendos popularity in Japan, they would be a serious rival for upcoming console The Cell (PS3).

[James]

[color=#707875]This is an extremely old rumor. And it's false.

Nintendo is developing a next generation game machine, as is Microsoft. There is no indication that either company are doing anything together, though ATi will be developing the graphics chips for both next generation machines.

Nintendo has mentioned that it intends to be "first to the market" with its next machine and, more importantly (and unless Nintendo has changed strategy overnight), Microsoft is going in a completely different direction to Nintendo...at least as far as hardware goes (game-centric versus multimedia-centric).

I'd also argue that Microsoft is going off on its own tangent, seperate from PS3/GCN2. But that's another story.[/color]

[Guest Teammayhem]

Microsoft buys out the competition. Simple as that.

The launch games for the Xbox weren't that good exempt for... Halo. Now, all of their Xbox exclusive games aren't that good (Remember Blinx?).

And what happened to Halo, exactly? The company that develops Halo, Bungie, was bought out by Microsoft. Halo was originally intended for the PC (which it's recent port sucked) and PS2 (I have the evidence).

So Microsoft did the same thing with Rare. What a coincidence really...

They already have Tecmo and Team Ninja (Makers of Dead or Alive, and Ninja Gaiden) so far up their butt they're spitting out big breasted women from Dead or Alive.

And now Square?

Oy vey...

[DeadSeraphim]

Hmm... Nintendo and X-Box? Not bloody likely. As much fun as it would be (Halo Trooper's and enemies in Super Smash Bros.) it aint gonna happen. Nintendo have a bad history with game console collaborations. Early nineties saw them developing a console with Sony intended to use both catridges and cds. Needless to say, nothing ever happened of this, and the way in which Nintendoe withdrew from the project was appalling. They gave Sony almost no notice.

As for SquareEnix I couldn't see themselves devoting themselves to X-Box. Sure, in 1997 until about last year they were focused entirely on Sony (they could still be, I'm not 100% sure) but with the release of their new online games they will want to reach as much of the market as possible, and the market is spread over three consoles. Why bother making an online game for one console and only get sales from that portion of the market when you can make the same game for three different consoles and get significantly more. X-Box may have the money to buy out developers, but SqaureEnix have a much longer history in the industry, and would know better.

[Guest Teammayhem]

Wasn't FF7 supposed to be an N64 game?

Supposedly, when Nintendo announced that the N64 was unable to play any video files (now you know why a lot of the games on N64 has horrible cutscenes from the game engine.) and that pissed off Square. Square had made some CG videos for the game, and didn't want it go to waste. Surprise, surprise, Sony announced that their "Playstation" had support for video. The rest is history.

[DeadSeraphim]

Umm... What? I've never heard that at all. What I heard (and I assume someone'll clear up this debate sooner or later, stop me making a fool of myself) was that when Sony released the Playstation it went around looking for develepors (sp?) to sign up for its new system. It offered obscene amounts of money to all the biggest game makers (Square included). Square accepted. The rest is history.

Another point I'd like to raise is this. The 64 was released only a year before FF7. Final Fantasy 7 was massive game, absolutely huge. It would've taken more than a year to work out all the bugs, create the animations etc. As it was they had to rip the guts out of the Aeris Ressurection storyline just so they could release it on time (yes you originally could ressurect Aeris). In case your wondering they did this by removing the Sector 5 key from disk one, which was the key component to even starting the quest.

[Semjaza]

Square never right out promised anything to Nintendo. The video Square created was of FF6 characters in graphics that would be akin to what the N64 could pull off with one of their games. I don't think it even ran on N64 hardware, just SGI stations.

In any case, Square was very put off by the Nintendo 64's development kits and medium choice, which was the main problem. Video in particular wasn't even a direct issue at this point. Neither was cash being thrown at interested developers.

Yamauchi, then President of Nintendo, allowed them to go their seperate ways. What created the bad blood between the two companies, however, was the fact that Square also convinced Enix to jump ship. Up until that point, Dragon Quest VII was considered a given for the N64 DD system. It never happened and was released on the Playstation much later. Went on to become the best selling title for the system in Japan and it did decently here as well.

Anyway, that's that story. I'm thinking some of you are mixed up with rumors and garbage. There wasn't much more to it than that.

As for the MS stuff, it's not exactly easy for an American company to buy into Japanese companies for various reasons. Even then, that's assuming they WANT to sell in the first place. You can't buy things that aren't for sale.

[DeadSeraphim]

I knew someone would come along and clear it all up. Thank god it was someone who actually knew what they were talking about.

[James]

[color=#707875]This is, of course, not to mention that Square Enix is partly owned by Sony. So the chance of them being purchased by Microsoft is pretty minimal -- especially when you consider how important Square Enix has been for Sony in terms of marketing the PlayStation brand.[/color]

[UnsungHero]

Wasn't Rare partly owned by Nintendo?

[Semjaza]

It was at some point. Nintendo owned a sizable portion of Rare. Their contract stated that at a certain point Nintendo would have the option of buying Rare out completely. Nintendo declined and so Rare was for sale. Microsoft wound up buying Nintendo's shares for something like $500 million (which is insane, because Nintendo bought out Retro for only $1 million, I believe).

So that isn't even comparable to Sony's stake in Square Enix. They had a minority stake in Square, and that was prior to the Enix merger. It's even less now.

[James]

[color=#707875]Yeah, that's pretty much the size of it. Nintendo and Rare have a contract that comes up for review periodically. On this occasion, Nintendo decided not to confirm the contract. So that automatically put Rare on the market.

I kind of feel sorry for Microsoft though. They're spending a fortunre on Xbox...and they'll no doubt spend a fortune on the slow-as-ever Rare.

As for Square-Enix...Sony does have a minority stake, but I'd say it's probably enough to prevent S-E from working on Xbox anytime soon. It makes me wonder if Sony will ever decide to increase their ownership of the company, especially when you consider the important role of Square-Enix in relation to the PS2.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

I wouldn't clean slate every thing UnsungHero is saying as I seem to remember some thing close to this although I believe Hero has got a very messed up version.

From what I remembered Microsoft, as they do with many companies, researched its gains in "acquiring" Nintendo and they reasoned that it would give them a good basing and a key tap into the Japanese market which is a game makers dream; though this was back when GC and Xbox were still on the horizon and MS was planning for the consol to supersede the Xbox. Nintendo learnt from leaks that this was happening and quietly released it's rejection of anything of the sort and while it's thought that MS knew about this they still had a chop and were publicly embarrassed on a small scale. At the time only the gaming community and geeks followed what happened and MS sulked off and it?s marked as one of the reasons they went on their own tangent.[quote]A new joint Nintendo/Microsoft console.[/quote]It's just not going to happen, the two companies are too different to do a 50/50 hence the buy out offer.

Of cause you will remember only a few months ago the same started to happen when MS wanted to stop with their own search wars project and just buy out Google. Google rejected it based on leaks and MS still went ahead with the offer. It was a massive embarrassment to MS as Google publicly to the whole internet community basically gave them the finger and told them to **** off. (No phone call.)

Though that's all I really know about what happened, all of this stuff with SquareEnix and Rare has lost me. :p

[James]

[color=#707875]Microsoft did approach Nintendo directly about a purchase. But Nintendo's former president (Hiroshi Yamauchi) rejected Microsoft's offer. He was fiercly defensive of Nintendo's independence.

Nintendo itself is a very large company. Nintendo Co., Ltd. actually owns 50 other businesses in Japan and around the world. So it's still one of the largest companies in the video game industry -- far, far larger than Square-Enix or Rare. Of course, Microsoft has enough money that they were able to comfortably make the offer.

I'm glad that Nintendo rejected it, primarily because I don't think Nintendo would fare better as a third party developer. Nintendo is [i]good[/i] at developing hardware -- that's a large portion of its business. And Nintendo always designs its hardware for its own games. I think that's important. As both a Nintendo and a general video game fan...it makes sense.

And in general, I think it's good to have more competition. I wouldn't want a Nintendo/Microsoft alliance going up against Sony. I think the industry is big enough for three big players.[/color]

[Xyandar]

I find it funny how microsoft is trying to buy all these companies or team up to make games available on Xbox. Personally im not arguing. I like that lol its just funny how much Bill is trying to do!

[krippled master]

The thing about microsoft is, they have the money to do everything. Thats why Gates can take a huge lose in the console sails of X-Box and keep on going. Now, what I love about Gates is that he still continues to try and take the gaming market. I say take Sony down a peg, teach them something about consumer respect. Dont get me wrong, I love my PS2, but the way they scew everyone is just redunkulous.
Example: Original Playstation consoles worked for 3 years then were nothing more than spare parts.
Example: PS2 Disc reading error

Now, I dont know if they do it on purpose or dont see this happening, but they need to take some extra time and check the system of all bugs. Having that much control of the market, that Sony has, they can pretty much do what they want and therefore sell us complete crap and we will buy it. I hope Microsoft can get some RPGs out, mainly because I want them, but to show that Sony is not the only system out.

[Semjaza]

The last company that can teach Sony (or anyone for that matter) about consumer respect is Microsoft lol. There's been so many problems with Xboxes on the consumer level and MS isn't any more quick or nice about fixing them than Sony is.

[krippled master]

dude, what the heck is your problem. your just looking to argue with me. besides that, no system has touched PS2 in system problems. I've had my X-Box for a long time now and I have not had one single problem with it. I've had my PS2 for longer and i've had about 5 different problems. Before that I had problems with my playstation, which i can never play again because it is worth nothing but parts now. Im not saying Sony doesnt fix the problems, they do, but half of the problems are just a result of rushed releases and not enough testing. At least thats my point of view.

Oh wow, you are the gaming moderator. You are the most bias person in this forum, how did you ever get to be mod?

[Semjaza]

What in the world are you talking about? This is a forum where people talk about other people's posts. If anyone came in here and said MS could teach any company about taking care of costumers, I'd say the same thing. Should I just ignore your posts so you can feel better about yourself?

They have no history of it... from Xbox or their history in the PC world. Nevermind the fact that the PS2 has been around longer than the Xbox or that it's userbase is several times larger. Of course there would be more complaints.

Do you even know what bias is? I'm biased because I don't agree with you? Give me a break.

Get over yourself. It's not like you comparing your PS2 to your Xbox reflects the entire market as a whole and covers all of MS's business practices and customer relations.

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by krippled master [/i]
[B]Oh wow, you are the gaming moderator. You are the most bias person in this forum, how did you ever get to be mod? [/B][/QUOTE]

He got that position because [i]he knows what he's talking about.[/i] ;)

You shouldn't be so defensive, krippled master. Semjaza Azazel isn't personally attacking you. This is what constitutes a discussion. You said something that he (rightfully) disagreed with and he's addressing it accordingly.

And, he certainly isn't demonstrating biased behavior. Visit our other gaming forums and read his posts. The only bias I see is coming from your direction. You're the one coming at him with all sorts of backlash.

Maybe you should get to know people a bit better instead of jumping to quick conclusions. Or at the very least, understand the material you're discussing. ~_^

[Zidargh]

[color=darkblue]If you can't handle being debated with krippled master then I don't see why you're here. Sometimes it's good to be corrected as you can pick up from your mistakes and not look like a total fool in the future so cut them some slack because at the moment you're not even considering another point of view which in my opinion, is a biased view, unless my Oxford Dictionary is lying to me. *Raises eyebrow and clenches fist at dictionary*

Bill Gates obviously knows what he's doing. The whole gaming industry has turned intio competition like all the other businesses so obviously he's going to gain as much as he can to increase his influence on the world.

His Xbox gained an advantaged by being launched later than the Gamecube and the PS2 as he had more time to modify his creation to be more powerful than the machine that would compete with his. In a sense, Sony are quite reluctant to listen to customer demands and are now focusing only to move onto the next level. But unless Microsoft blows all its cash on game developers, then Microsoft is going to take the lead in the race again. If I were him, I'd buy whatever promising companies I could, as long as they were for sale. Just think about what he can do now. [/color]

[krippled master]

you know what, i had a nice post all written up, explaining my reasoning and what not, it even had an apology, but to say the least **** that. Look at you guys, i went a bit over the top, i said what came on my mind at the time because as you said this is a forum where we reply to others posts, and you all jump on me like i am some goon. his bias behavior was towards me, because i suggested something different than what the mod says so he felt a need to strike my idea down. whatever, i could care less, you have an issue with me that you cant debate out, ill be in the battle arena.

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by krippled master [/i]
[B]you know what, i had a nice post all written up, explaining my reasoning and what not, it even had an apology, but to say the least **** that. Look at you guys, i went a bit over the top, i said what came on my mind at the time because as you said this is a forum where we reply to others posts, and you all jump on me like i am some goon. his bias behavior was towards me, because i suggested something different than what the mod says so he felt a need to strike my idea down. whatever, i could care less, you have an issue with me that you cant debate out, ill be in the battle arena. [/B][/QUOTE]

No one is ganging up on you. You're misconstruing the situation.

Semjaza's staff position bears zero relevance to this situation. No one is coming down on you for what you said, but rather [i]how you said it[/i]. Of course people are going to address you directly when you unjustly shrug off someone's post as biased.

[quote][b]dude, what the heck is your problem. your just looking to argue with me.[/b][/quote]

There was nothing in Semjaza's response to provoke that type of response. He simply picked up on something you said and expressed his own insight on the situation. There was no personal motivation or silly ulterior motives behind his reply.

If you had disagreed with him sans lashing out like you did, this conversation could have carried on normally without third parties such as myself interrupting to keep things in line. You're very dismissive though. Instead of arguing with facts, you dodge things by calling people "biased" and by playing the victim.

All that I ask is that if you have a disagreement, you behave maturely or don't debate at all. If you have a problem with that, I'll see you on the rules page!

I'd like to see this thread get back on track now.

[James]

[color=#707875]Charles and Tony are both right, krippled master. People disagree on OtakuBoards all the time, but it doesn't mean that one person is attacking the other. Tony was completely respectful to you with his comments; he was merely having a discussion with you.

If you don't want to discuss ideas, then you shouldn't be posting in a discussion thread at all. It's as simple as that.

In any case...I think Microsoft has more to learn from Sony, rather than the other way around. Although I do agree that Sony has been able to get away with producing a lot of trash -- much more trash than Microsoft. I don't think there is much doubt that the Xbox has generally been a superior machine to PS2, in terms of quality issues.

However, I don't think that Microsoft understands the gaming business. They are still looking at the console business in a similar way to the PC business. And the two are very different.

Of course, Microsoft [i]does[/i] have the money to throw at Xbox and Xbox 2. There's no question about that. But if they continue to lose money on their next console, one must wonder how long they'll let that continue.

It's true that Microsoft has tried to take the easy road in some respects, by offering large sums of money to purchase well-known developers and publishers. But even Microsoft's attempts to "buy the talent" haven't really resulted in greater success.

Look at Microsoft's purchase of Oddworld Inhabitants as an example. That was a great deal for Oddworld, but an awful deal for Microsoft. Talk to anyone who played Munch's Oddysee, which was perhaps the most over-hyped (and under-delivering) game in history.

Of course, there are many areas that I give credit to Microsoft. Their third party developer support program is very extensive; probably more extensive than what Sony or Nintendo are doing. And that works really well for smaller developers (although Nintendo's Fund-Q and bilateral deals are probably putting them on an even playing field to some extent).

In some ways, I think that Microsoft is doing what it needs to do as a newcomer to the market. And Xbox -- while not a huge success by any measure -- is still not a complete failure. I think it's probably an adequate first step. But it's only a first step; MS will have to do a lot more if it wants to produce a longterm yield from the industry.[/color]