With yet another studio being closed after being acquired by a larger company, companies really need to question whether giving up their independence is really worth it.
Stephen, this would be a great topic to tackle as a news feature. I'm sure there are many benefits of being acquired, but I haven't really seen those laid out. This is such a relevant topic now -- not only because Microsoft's gaming strategy looks so foolish in hindsight (it didn't make much sense when it was executed either).
Consolidation just seems bad. Consumers know it's bad for them. Why don't smaller companies?
I'd love to see a counter-argument or a balanced look at the pros and cons, assuming studio founders would talk on the record about such things.
Capitalism pits the owner of a small company against their own employees. The owner builds this thing on the backs of their small group of dedicated employees, and is then offered millions to sell them out. In the modern era there's little question that the studio is functionally doomed from that point forwards. It's IP will be exploited for shareholders, its culture will be swiftly and purposefully dismantled, and in a few years at the outside, most of the employees who built it will be wiped out.
Meanwhile the prior owner is on a yacht somewhere. Trust is inherently destroyed in this transaction.
On that topic, two things I remember from the fantastic 25 hour documentary on the development of Psychonauts 2 (PsychOdyssey).
Regarding Microsoft's "strategy": Double Fine's biz dev person at the time, Greg Rice, said, when they asked for funding from Microsoft the response was something like: "We don't really do that. But what if we just bought you?" ...
Secondly, it did make all their financial problems disappear practically overnight - at least until now. Tim Schafer said, he didn't know "what to do with the part of my brain that used to worry about money". Must have been nice, at least for a time. AND it gave us Psychonauts 2, Keeper and Kiln.
It's one example, sure. But Double Fine's a studio generally treating it's employees a lot better than, say, a 1000 person AAA developer. So the industry's still a better place with them in it. But, to your point, would they say they "gained" something, sum total? Maybe ask Tim Schafer, when the dust's settled, Stephen...
Anyway, that documentary is a must-watch. It's free on YouTube.
Amazing scoop, and justification in and of itself as to why your reporting matters.
I can’t think of any other industry to would go from promotional tour to retrenchment within a month of launching a new product. And without reporting like this, to record and hold to account, it’s even easier for companies to do.
With yet another studio being closed after being acquired by a larger company, companies really need to question whether giving up their independence is really worth it.
Stephen, this would be a great topic to tackle as a news feature. I'm sure there are many benefits of being acquired, but I haven't really seen those laid out. This is such a relevant topic now -- not only because Microsoft's gaming strategy looks so foolish in hindsight (it didn't make much sense when it was executed either).
Consolidation just seems bad. Consumers know it's bad for them. Why don't smaller companies?
I'd love to see a counter-argument or a balanced look at the pros and cons, assuming studio founders would talk on the record about such things.
Capitalism pits the owner of a small company against their own employees. The owner builds this thing on the backs of their small group of dedicated employees, and is then offered millions to sell them out. In the modern era there's little question that the studio is functionally doomed from that point forwards. It's IP will be exploited for shareholders, its culture will be swiftly and purposefully dismantled, and in a few years at the outside, most of the employees who built it will be wiped out.
Meanwhile the prior owner is on a yacht somewhere. Trust is inherently destroyed in this transaction.
On that topic, two things I remember from the fantastic 25 hour documentary on the development of Psychonauts 2 (PsychOdyssey).
Regarding Microsoft's "strategy": Double Fine's biz dev person at the time, Greg Rice, said, when they asked for funding from Microsoft the response was something like: "We don't really do that. But what if we just bought you?" ...
Secondly, it did make all their financial problems disappear practically overnight - at least until now. Tim Schafer said, he didn't know "what to do with the part of my brain that used to worry about money". Must have been nice, at least for a time. AND it gave us Psychonauts 2, Keeper and Kiln.
It's one example, sure. But Double Fine's a studio generally treating it's employees a lot better than, say, a 1000 person AAA developer. So the industry's still a better place with them in it. But, to your point, would they say they "gained" something, sum total? Maybe ask Tim Schafer, when the dust's settled, Stephen...
Anyway, that documentary is a must-watch. It's free on YouTube.
Thanks for this! I was going to cite Double Fine as an example, but you have the facts to make a good point.
Amazing scoop, and justification in and of itself as to why your reporting matters.
I can’t think of any other industry to would go from promotional tour to retrenchment within a month of launching a new product. And without reporting like this, to record and hold to account, it’s even easier for companies to do.
Nice one!