Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


Acquired by _____!(fill in the blank)


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
27 replies to this topic

#21 DocBrown   Members   -  Reputation: 273

Posted 06 March 2014 - 03:42 PM

I find that specifically targeting, or dropping blame on larger business' for buying out competition of smaller business' is a bit absurd truthfully.  No one pointed a gun to the smaller studio and told them to sell their company, they willingly did it for a chunk of change - and when it comes down to business - that's all it is - which way the money flows.  I don't see anything wrong with this.



Sponsor:

#22 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1686

Posted 06 March 2014 - 04:44 PM

Yes, it's obvious they have to sell it, they aren't getting robbed, even I said I might be tempted to do the same if the price is right. I just want to retire. I guess we are suckers for cash.

Thing is though, I can see where it would be a bad thing if every small company had a fee. As I noted, many times the companies buy it to sit on it, not to grow it. That is the part that annoys me.
Good software disappears never to be seen again.

That is why you have all of these patent trolls sprouting everywhere, and the whole software patent debacle. Nowadays you dont have to buy the company, just beat them to the patent office and sue the pants off 'em. You have enough money to handle the court fees. Poor startup gets crushed by the hound dog.

I think this should at least be a concern for indie developers. I mean, Nintendo trying to sue mr flappy bird, and for what?

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#23 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 20900

Posted 06 March 2014 - 05:47 PM

Yes, it's obvious they have to sell it, they aren't getting robbed, even I said I might be tempted to do the same if the price is right. I just want to retire. I guess we are suckers for cash.


It's not always for cash. Sometimes these buyouts occur with stock as well. George Lucas sold LucasFilm (to retire, basically), and sold it half for cash (two billion in cash), and two billion worth of Disney stock. He goes from owning 100% of LucasFilm, to Disney owning all of LucasFilm, and George Lucas being the 2nd largest shareholder of Disney (at 2%). The first largest shareholder is Steve Job's widow. Steve Jobs gained his huge share when Disney bought Pixar.

Steve Jobs, when kicked out of Apple, managed to get back in by selling Apple his NeXT Computer company. YouTube was sold to Google for Google stock.

Going farther back in history, William Durant, who founded General Motors, was kicked out by the investors for some bad financial decisions. So Durant co-founded Chevrolet, sold Chevrolet to General Motors, and became the head again.

 

Other reasons for selling include:

 - Your company is losing money and you don't want all your employees to end up on the street.
 - Your company has grown so large that you are no longer the best person to manage it.

 - Your company is now in a more mature and "professional" position, but you no longer enjoy managing it, so you want to get back to startups.

 - The company buying you is one of your favorite companies.

 - You want to use the money to start a new company in a different industry or in the same industry.

 

Thing is though, I can see where it would be a bad thing if every small company had a fee. As I noted, many times the companies buy it to sit on it, not to grow it. That is the part that annoys me.
Good software disappears never to be seen again.


Fine. So let the innovators innovate, cash out, let the giants sit on their purchases without innovating, making room for more innovators to compete. smile.png 
 

That is why you have all of these patent trolls sprouting everywhere,

Patent trolling is an unrelated issue. Companies buying smaller companies is not "why" we have patent trolls.
 

I think this should at least be a concern for indie developers. I mean, Nintendo trying to sue mr flappy bird, and for what?

Nintendo didn't sue Flappy Bird. A bunch of people on the web guessed that Nintendo might've threatened to sue the Flappy Bird developer, and then that guess of a threat to sue became a rumor which became a false "fact" that Nintendo did sue. But it's wrong.

 

Nintendo came out and basically said, 'Uh, no, we aren't sueing him, didn't threaten him, and aren't even remotely bothered by the game.'. Then the author of Flappy Bird came along and said, 'Uh no, nobody threatened to sue me.'

 

That's the internet for ya! biggrin.png

 

As Winston Churchill once said, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

 

But, if Nintendo did sue (which they did not!), they'd be justified in doing so - because it was clearly capitalizing off of Nintendo's artwork and games and popularity - and the game wasn't a parody, so free speech doesn't apply here. The internet seems to be very "Because I like X, then X needs to be legal." regardless of the consequences and logic and facts behind why X doesn't make sense.

 

We could get into why copyrights are a good thing, but that's a different discussion. wink.png

Copyrights and patents and trademarks being abused doesn't mean copyrights and patents at a basic level don't have benefits for society in general. The abuse needs to be fought, the system needs to be fixed, but the solution isn't to destroy copyrights, patents, or trademarks.

 

The concern for indies need to be: "How can I make the best game possible... using my own creations, and standing on its own merit?"

(instead of playing off other people's or other company's property)

 

Yes, there needs to be some relaxing of what the law considers 'derivative works', but the internet needs to also know that just because I can do something, that doesn't make it right; and just because I like something, that doesn't make it good (where good = "beneficial for larger society (and not just self-focused)" and "beneficial to your own self, in the long-term (and not just short-term gain at long-term cost)").


Edited by Servant of the Lord, 06 March 2014 - 05:51 PM.

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

[Need web hosting? I personally like A Small Orange]


#24 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1686

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM


Companies buying smaller companies is not "why" we have patent trolls.

 

It is not the reason why, but just another thing going around that could have been avoided if certain things were seen in advance. Or perhaps they were seen, but weren't dealt with?

 

It isn't blatantly obvious what is going on right now, but I am just calling it out as I see it right now (long term). Something that needs to be fixed before it comes to a head. I mean, why is it that Apple and Google and Samsung and such companies are always in court? Do they hate each other that much? Is it a control war? Yet another issue in software where I can sue you because you perhaps had the same idea as I had (your icon looks vaguely familiar to mine.) Trademarking common words like you invented them? It is more a mockery of the system.

 

It's sorta like the Walmart issue. Walmart drops into town, all the local businesses close down, and sometimes they hire lawyers to handle other "small" issues. These small businesses get stomped on by Walmart. The owners might as well work for Walmart or find another occupation. It is legally, and according to business, fair game. Big fish eats little fish. But from the point of view of the small time business owners..?


They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#25 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1686

Posted 06 March 2014 - 06:25 PM


Last I heard WinAmp got bought - so there should be some development on it.

 

Haha!! Turns out AOL bought it from someone else, like Google bought sketchup from someone else. I guess this is like pro sports, but people still mad at Lebron James for leaving his beloved state and city for that mulah! haha. 


They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#26 Luckless   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1882

Posted 06 March 2014 - 09:14 PM

Luckless. Before, you bought the software one time fee. With the subscription thing, you end up paying way more over time. It's residual income for them, not just a way to prevent pirating.

And at any time, they can up the fee, just like that stunt Netflix tried to pull. It's like cable.

Unfortunately a lot of big companies want to do the subscription thing. So you end up (if you are like me) looking for decent alternatives. I say, here in America at least, we pay too much for convenience. Photoshop has that "must have feature." One press of a button and presto! I just don't want the world of open sourced software to be crushed by the "money men."

Your internet provider can choose to jack up the price anytime they choose. Maybe you should instead share your local network with your neighbour, get them to do the same with someone further down, and so on and so forth, and then you will never have to worry about your ISP jacking up the price...

 

I have a full CC subscription, and I love it. Loads of cool toys to play with and learn for a very small fraction of the price compared to if I had been required to buy them full retail up front.

 

They are priced such that you really only save any money if you were in the habit of skipping major updates, which would put you behind in the learning curve and make migrating to future updates that much harder. Now the tools I'm using change slowly over the course of months, with new options and features being added in when they're ready to ship, not in a year or so when the next big boxed version is ready to be released for another $600 up front.

 

And so what if they suddenly jack the price up. If they do that then I stop subscribing and go looking for other software. They don't hold a gun to my head and force me to renew a contract for a price that I'm not happy with.

 

 

Good software isn't easy to make, so why should I expect to pay nothing or next to nothing for it? I don't expect to work for nothing when people come into my office looking for the services my business offers, so why should I expect that of other people?


Edited by Luckless, 06 March 2014 - 09:15 PM.

Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.

#27 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1686

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:40 PM

Right. It's a good thing there is "other software" to be found. I don't need the software to be free, because I don't mind paying for good software. Prices have to be reasonable though, and I am not rich (no $6,000 on maya). $400 for Reason 4.0 is a steal, and that is not per month.

I work I retail, so I have a good idea of "fair price."

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#28 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1686

Posted 25 March 2014 - 09:38 PM

I had to login for this one. Facebook buys Oculus Rift VR for 2bill? What ever shall be the fate of it?

 

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/654848-facebook-to-buy-oculus-rift/


Edited by Tutorial Doctor, 25 March 2014 - 09:38 PM.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS