Yup, that doesn't surprise me at all. Stadia was next-gen On-live with sub-par selection and higher prices. Crucible didn't seem to bring anything substantially new to the table. IMO arena...
Yup, that doesn't surprise me at all. Stadia was next-gen On-live with sub-par selection and higher prices.
Crucible didn't seem to bring anything substantially new to the table. IMO arena shooters kinda peaked around Quake III and UT 2004. Maybe it's just nostalgia, but most that's happened since has seemed mostly 'Take that, but make prettier and/or slower.'
But this kind of thing happens all the time. Good products die at the hand of terrible corporate culture. It's why people should have immediately made exit plans for any/all Sun techs when Oracle bought them. Plans should be ready for if/when IBM strangles the life out of RedHat (SUSE is looking pretty sharp these days).
I think this article proves too much. It's not impossible for a tech giant to own a studio that produces popular games. Microsoft did well with XBox, buying Bungie to produce Halo. Google did a...
I think this article proves too much. It's not impossible for a tech giant to own a studio that produces popular games. Microsoft did well with XBox, buying Bungie to produce Halo. Google did a pretty good job with Niantic before they spun it off. Did they start these businesses for the "right reasons?"
Isn’t Microsoft still struggling after the “focus on tv” debacle and their inability to find a second franchise after Halo? I think the article is mostly about feel/taste as a success factor and...
Isn’t Microsoft still struggling after the “focus on tv” debacle and their inability to find a second franchise after Halo? I think the article is mostly about feel/taste as a success factor and these big companies struggle with it. They’re operating on numbers, blindly.
I’ll happily admit some Schadenfreude about that not quite working out, though so I’m definitely biased.
it seems like companies of all sizes sometimes struggle with making popular games, but I am not any kind of expert in the gaming industry so I can't really judge.
it seems like companies of all sizes sometimes struggle with making popular games, but I am not any kind of expert in the gaming industry so I can't really judge.
Yup, that doesn't surprise me at all. Stadia was next-gen On-live with sub-par selection and higher prices.
Crucible didn't seem to bring anything substantially new to the table. IMO arena shooters kinda peaked around Quake III and UT 2004. Maybe it's just nostalgia, but most that's happened since has seemed mostly 'Take that, but make prettier and/or slower.'
But this kind of thing happens all the time. Good products die at the hand of terrible corporate culture. It's why people should have immediately made exit plans for any/all Sun techs when Oracle bought them. Plans should be ready for if/when IBM strangles the life out of RedHat (SUSE is looking pretty sharp these days).
I think this article proves too much. It's not impossible for a tech giant to own a studio that produces popular games. Microsoft did well with XBox, buying Bungie to produce Halo. Google did a pretty good job with Niantic before they spun it off. Did they start these businesses for the "right reasons?"
Isn’t Microsoft still struggling after the “focus on tv” debacle and their inability to find a second franchise after Halo? I think the article is mostly about feel/taste as a success factor and these big companies struggle with it. They’re operating on numbers, blindly.
I’ll happily admit some Schadenfreude about that not quite working out, though so I’m definitely biased.
it seems like companies of all sizes sometimes struggle with making popular games, but I am not any kind of expert in the gaming industry so I can't really judge.