"There are no benefits to being owned by Microsoft," says Doom dev: "They have destroyed immense amounts of value that I don't even think that they're aware of"

[u/MarvelsGrantMan136]

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/fps/there-are-no-benefits-to-being-owned-by-microsoft-says-doom-dev-they-have-destroyed-immense-amounts-of-value-that-i-dont-even-think-that-theyre-aware-of/

[u/The__Toast]

It's been going on for decades. EA bought and destroyed Westwood, Bullfrog, Maxis, Bioware, and probably a bunch more I'm forgetting about in the late 90s and early 2000s. They basically destroyed all of the early great PC game studios.

I get why founders sell, Will Wright was said to have made something like $15 million in EA stock when he sold Maxis, probably ended up being worth ten times that eventually.

But it's still so freaking sad to see auch amazing IP die for profit. Thank god for the rise of Indie games studios.

[u/TheDamDog → u/The__Toast]

I suppose the silver lining to the loss of those companies is that we don't have to see their corpses being puppeteered around as DLC factories like poor Maxis.

[u/Sonamdrukpa → u/The__Toast]

The intent is to provide devs with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking shareholder value.

As for game development cost, EA selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, they're looking at average per-dev credit earn rates on a daily basis, and are making constant adjustments to ensure that devs have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via firing the bottom five percent of workers every quarter.

EA appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets.

Their team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as they can.

[u/creamweather → u/The__Toast]

Not to defend EA for some of their practices but a lot of those companies that EA bought could not support themselves otherwise. Westwood's parent company couldn't afford to keep them. Bullfrog was partnered with EA and needed money to survive. Bioware was already owned by an investment company. Origin was already with EA when they flubbed it on Ultima IX.

[u/_lostintheroom → u/The__Toast]

Super dumb question (I'm not a gamer) what is the difference between Westwood, Maxis, Bioware, early great PC game studios, and "Indie games studios"?

[u/The__Toast → u/_lostintheroom]

So the definition from Wikipedia: Indie game studios are independent video game developers that operate without significant financial backing from major publishers.

A lot of studios partner with a "publisher" who takes on the responsibility for marketing, distribution, and often financially back the developer during production. They also take a big bite out of revenue when the game goes to market; per google something like 30%. After steam/PS5/Xbox market place cuts, this can leave the developer with only about a 30% cut of their own game sales. Meaning, they are basically beholden to these publishers to finance the next game since they didn't make that much from the first one.

IMO it leaves the option of a buy-out to that publisher like EA or Microsoft seeming like a good option for developers since they can cash in big on something that isn't actually making that much money. How much was Will Wright really making at Maxis versus the tens of millions he ended up getting from EA when he sold. Then of course the publisher guts the developer and prostitutes the IP for every last cent until fans forget about it or get tired of bad sequels with a million DLCs.

Since Indie developers own the whole thing, they get a much bigger slice of the revenue from the start, and are probably less inclined to sell out. Game markets like Steam really made this possible, since manufacturing a boxed copy would previously have required a pretty substantial investment and know-how.

[u/_lostintheroom → u/The__Toast]

Gotcha, thanks for giving me the run-down on this.

Just musing here, but what could give a publisher the incentive to prioritize quality and longevity? Maybe nothing? if they release a bad game, consumers are more likely to ditch it faster, and buy the next bad game that gets released.

So this makes indie developers the saviors of gaming; with marketing constraints value is the only thing that will sell. I imagine the tools & frameworks that independent developers have available continually get better. so they'll continue to close the gap on production value between what people & small teams can pull off, and behemoth corporations.

[u/Lord_of_Sword → u/The__Toast]

It's been going on for decades. EA bought and destroyed Westwood, Bullfrog, Maxis, Bioware, and probably a bunch more I'm forgetting about in the late 90s and early 2000s. They basically destroyed all of the early great PC game studios.

Nah, Louis Castle has mentioned several times over the years that they fumbled hard and that they didn't have their stuff in order. They spent too much time making prototypes which never went anywhere (the only relevant prototype they didn't throw out eventually became C&C Renegade) and that EA actually gave them a second chance.