PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Who shot Looking Glass? And why?
September 27th 2000, 08:01 CEST by andy

Here's a new twist in the ongoing saga of Looking Glass Studios and the Thief franchise...



As most of you will know by now, after Looking Glass Studios shut down in May of this year, Eidos snapped up the rights to the third Thief game and handed the project over to Ion Storm in Austin. (That's the team responsible for Deus Ex, not Daikatana.)

Some of the old Looking Glass team are working on the third game, but many others went on to work on unrelated projects after the company shut down. You can find out what some of them are getting up to in this GameSpy feature, which includes mini-interviews with Dorian Hart, Rich Carlson and Kevin Wasserman among others.

One of those interviewed is Iikka Keranen, who worked as a level designer on Thief II. Amidst all the best wishes and diplomacy from the rest of those interviewed, one of Iikka's comments stands out:

It appears to me that Eidos intentionally shut down Looking Glass in order to obtain the license. It must be very hard to the ex-LGS people working on Thief3, because they can't really criticize the publisher they work for, can they..? It's like.. a decade of the highest quality games on the planet gone because of a silly business backstab.

GameSpy also posted some other interviews with ex-Looking Glass folks last month. One of them, Nathaniel Blumberg, made some similar comments:

I think it was necessary business sense on Eidos' part to hold onto the rights to a product that's already made them so much money. They originally planned to do so by buying out a quickly sinking LGS, and when their poor financial performance forced them to cut back on investments, they chose the cheaper option of dumping the developer and grabbing only the license (a strategy many argue they have exercised before).

There was certainly some bitterness among LGS employees at having lost their jobs (especially after Eidos made the pretense of saving them), but I'd recently been unemployed (I'd only been at LGS for 4 months) so I took it with a somewhat macabre sense of humor.

Some have suggested that it's Eidos' strategy to publish independent developer's titles, find a successful series and then flush the developer, buy the rights and farm it out to a cheaper (or subsidiary) developer (often with inferior results). Personally I don't believe Eidos sets out trying to screw their partners, but I wouldn't put it past them if their profit margin requires them to cut some corners.

If anyone should take it personally though, it's the unfortunate few LGS-ers who were hired to form Eidos Boston shortly after the layoffs and were sent back to unemployment a month later when Eidos changed it's mind.

And don't forget this quick one from Bill Farquhar:

I'm usually not the type to promote conspiracy theories, but it's hard to ignore the knife in the back of LG's rotting corpse.

These accusations have been thrown around a fair bit by those gamers and webmasters who are predisposed to throwing around such accusations, but they carry a bit more weight when they're coming from ex-employees, don't they?

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Who shot Looking Glass? And why?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "unDuLe"
2000-09-27 08:03:46
undule@tampabay.rr.com
one-hundred million!
#2 by "Apache"
2000-09-27 08:16:40
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
unless LGS is going to open up its books and show us its finanials, we'll never know who is to blame for the company's closure.
#3 by "Lowtax"
2000-09-27 08:44:14
lowtax@somethingawful.com http://www.somethingawful.com
I blame Steve Bauman!!!

-Lowtax
#4 by "unDuLe"
2000-09-27 08:59:51
undule@tampabay.rr.com
I dont' doubt foul play of any kind --- but it's important to realize Irrational is still kicking. SS2 was more my fave than the Thief series .  . .

But then, it's odd for any kind of standard corporate dodginess to be lacking from the game industr -- that said, it sure would be odd for Eidos to shut down LG in order to obtain the Thief license . . . how is that profitable? Thief is no real sales performer.

Better they throw more cash at Spector, IMO.
#5 by "Karl"
2000-09-27 09:10:10
karl_harris@vodafone.net.nz
No big surprises in this topic...its just business. Just because its a games company does not mean for a second that they dont operate like millons of other companies worldwide..
#6 by "Dum Fuqur"
2000-09-27 09:10:20
I just wish Eidos would make a sequel to Tomb Raider.  That was one kickass game!
#7 by "Johan"
2000-09-27 09:33:48
johan@innerloop.no
Uh. The Thief license isn't red-hot property. Thief sold ok for a pc game. An average game developer is a lot more valuable than that license. So my bet is LG were performing less than average overall, from a financial point of view. I guess that doesn't make a very good conspiracy story though.

By the way, did anyone here complete Thief 1? I bought it and played it for a while, but the zombies and dinosaurs in the later levels really put me off. Can't... take... more... cheese...


Peace,

-Johan
#8 by "Dethstryk"
2000-09-27 09:35:19
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
<b>Dum Fuqur wrote in post #6:</b>
<quote>I just wish Eidos would make a sequel to Tomb Raider. That was one kickass game! </quote>
What, the twenty other Tomb Raider games weren't enough for you? ;)


--
Dethstryk
#9 by "Milamber"
2000-09-27 11:40:15
milamber@amoeba.com.au http://www.wagz.net
How long did Ikka actually work for LGS? He was working for Ion on Anacronox for a while I think, and left in one of the big walkouts so it's of little surprise that he's going to be somewhat anti EIDOS.

No disrespect to the man of course, he's probably one of the best mappers on the planet.
#10 by "Gestalt"
2000-09-27 11:49:49
john@eurogamer.net http://www.eurogamer.net
"Thief is no real sales performer"

Actually that's something of a myth - Thief was doing quite well actually, certainly better than most Looking Glass games. ;) Anyone remember Terra Nova (the game which Tribes is heavily "inspired" by)? Now sales for that were pretty abysmal, especially given what a great game it was, how advanced the tech was for its time, and what glowing reviews it got from everyone. I think I still have a copy around here someplace...
#11 by "Reb Pizer"
2000-09-27 12:52:42
reb@entdepot.com http://www.entdepot.com
One would like to think that Warren Spector and the rest of the developers involved in the new Thief project might have enough class and clout to turn down or at least question such an egregious breach of good faith.  Assuming such a thing occurred, and assuming that he and the rest are nice guys.

Of course, I could be too naive about this sort of thing.

Reb
#12 by "Prodigy"
2000-09-27 13:03:01
prodigy@gamedata.com http://www.gamedata.com
<QUOTE>#9 Milamber : e was working for Ion on Anacronox for a while I think</quote>

If I'm not mistaken he worked on Daikatana. That may explain even more why he's so pissed off at Eidos.

Funny though that Thief, one of the best franchise in history (quality-wise, if you're talking "figures" Lara and Quake must kick everyone's ass), caused such an ugly commercial move. I guess they would sell their own mother, only to buy it cheaper afterwards...
#13 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-09-27 13:51:39
piramida@agsm.net http://www.agsm.net/
<b>#12</b> "Prodigy" wrote:
<QUOTE>
If I'm not mistaken he worked on Daikatana. That may explain even more why he's so pissed off at Eidos.
</QUOTE>

Nope, he did not. He was hired to do 30 Anachronox levels and then quit to LGS.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#14 by "Johan"
2000-09-27 14:19:38
johan@innerloop.no
[10] Gestalt
<QUOTE>
"Thief is no real sales performer"

Actually that's something of a myth...
</QUOTE>

Assuming you're referring to my post. I didn't say it wasn't a performer. I said I didn't think the license in itself was worth more than LGS as a company.

Btw, I read the whole interview piece at GameSpy and it seemed to me Iikka Keranen was the only one of the interviewed ex-LGSers who thought Eidos was playing dirty. Maybe the others did too, but kept quiet. But why should they? None of them are working for Eidos at the moment, unless one of the other companies (Irrational, Mad Doc, Rogue) has some sort of relationship with Eidos.


Peace,

-Johan
#15 by "asspennies"
2000-09-27 14:31:36
asspennies@coredump.org http://www.coredump.org/
Why do we assume that every company in the Gaming world should be full of happy hippies surrounded by glowing green pastures and monarch butterflies, instead of just as duplicious as the rest of the corporate world?

It's a business, after all, and these people are out to make money.  This kind of things don't surprise me one bit.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#16 by "Dethstryk"
2000-09-27 14:37:41
dethstryk@damagegaming.com http://www.damagegaming.com/
<b>asspennies wrote in post #15:</b>
<quote>It's a business, after all, and these people are out to make money. This kind of things don't surprise me one bit.</quote>
At least it's a <i>fun</i> business, anyway. I'd be more of a "happy hippy" if I worked in the game business instead of say, an accountant or something. (Well, I also hate hippies.)

Hell, it's too early for me.


--
Dethstryk
#17 by "Domko"
2000-09-27 14:38:49
Dum Fuqur wrote in post #6:
<QUOTE>I just wish Eidos would make a sequel to Tomb Raider. That was one kickass game! </QUOTE>

Come on sweetheard!! What is enough, is enough.
#18 by "Reb Pizer"
2000-09-27 15:26:20
reb@entdepot.com http://www.entdepot.com
Be it game design, business, or journalism, one would like to think that colleagues and competitors would show a little class and respect one another.  The word "Integrity" comes to mind, especially if, like so many of us do, we're referring to game design as an art.  If Eidos really pulled the franchise at the expense of the company, I'm inclined to be pretty disappointed in Warren Spector and the rest of the folks who got handed the sequel.
But this is a kneejerk reaction, due to my ignorance of what actually went on.

We all know class and business don't necessarily mix, of course, but that doesn't mean that we need to be any less outraged when bad shit happens.
 
Hell, if Eidos really did do this, no developer should do Thief 3.  Why should anyone help Eidos pull shit like this?

Reb
#19 by "Ken 'Syco' Meyers"
2000-09-27 15:56:24
ken@hardnews.org http://www.hardnews.org
"What, the twenty other Tomb Raider games weren't enough for you? ;) "

I believe his intent was sarcasm. Either that or he's pretty fucked up

Syco
Hardnews.org
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#20 by "Flamethrower"
2000-09-27 15:57:52
flamethrower@barryswold.com http://www.PORTALofEVIL.com
14 Johan

<quote>I said I didn't think the license in itself was worth more than LGS as a company. </quote>


You said this because you are entirely ignorant of the way computer game publishers operate.

It is better to crush a small, profitiable, but independent studio and replace them with a small, unprofitable, but utterly submissive, studio. IE, a bit like LGS to IonA.


Read this informative article, <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20000918/morton_1.htm">The Top Ten Game Development Myths</a>, by Tim Morten.

Pay attention to Myths 3 and 7. And to the other eight.
#21 by "Johan"
2000-09-27 16:56:21
johan@innerloop.no
[20] Flamethrower
<QUOTE>
You said this because you are entirely ignorant of the way computer game publishers operate.
</QUOTE>

Gee, that was real sublte.

Anyway, I'm working for a game developer. We currently have good deals with three different major publishers. If I was completely ignorant, I guess we wouldn't be making money.

What you're saying makes sense though. I don't think I got my point across. To rephrase, I think Eidos could profit more on LGS as a company, given a _long_term_ relationship (i.e. 5 years), whereas the Thief license will probably give them good cash on a short term (i.e. 1 year). Yes, I know they can grab more cash from a submissive developer, but the profit from LGS would add up, given time and good titles.


Peace,

-Johan
#22 by "Johan"
2000-09-27 16:58:30
johan@innerloop.no
[21] Johan
<QUOTE>
Gee, that was real sublte.
</QUOTE>

That should read "subtle". D'oh.


Peace,

-Johan
#23 by "Mark Asher"
2000-09-27 17:14:40
marka@cdmnet.com
LGS was an independant company. They got into debt and couldn't pay their creditors. Why was Eidos obligated to buy them? Eidos has its own debt problems.

If LGS had been in the black and had cashflow, they'd still be here.

When you're foundering financially and get yourself in a position to where you absolutely have to have someone buy you to keep you in business, I don't think you can accuse others of backstabbing you.

The immediate event that triggered the crisis was Microsoft backing out of a deal with LGS to publish a game that Irrational was working on for LGS. Irrational had a better opportunity with Crave, so they backed out of the deal. When Microsoft saw Irrational back out, they exercised an option to back out of their agreement with LGS, and suddenly LGS had no positive cash flow.

There are a number of players in this scenario, and all of them were doing what comes naturally -- looking after their own best interests. If Eidos had been the Eidos of two years ago, still flush with IPO money, they would probably have snapped LGS up no problem. Some games not selling to expectation, some games delayed, and suddenly Eidos is looking for a buyer too. It's hard to fault them for being wary of taking on all of LGS's expenses and debts.
#24 by "Flamethrower"
2000-09-27 17:36:28
flamethrower@barryswold.com http://www.PORTALofEVIL.com
No, really, everyone read the 10 Myths before writing anything further here.
#25 by "^mortis^"
2000-09-27 18:08:30
mortis@goddamnindependent.com http://www.goddamnindependent.com
MYTH #11:
All previous employees of a company that has gone under will remain loyal to the spirit of the company, their products and their former employers.
#26 by "Twitch"
2000-09-27 18:58:54
twitch@gamepig.com http://www.gamepig.com
#21 Johan wrote:
<quote>What you're saying makes sense though. I don't think I got my point across. To rephrase, I think Eidos could profit more on LGS as a company, given a _long_term_ relationship (i.e. 5 years), whereas the Thief license will probably give them good cash on a short term (i.e. 1 year). Yes, I know they can grab more cash from a submissive developer, but the profit from LGS would add up, given time and good titles. </quote>

This sounds right, even though it's impossible to know for sure without all the LG books being opened up.

Still, even if it's true, you seem to be assuming that Eidos has both a) sensible judgment and b) interest in long-term goals.  These are questionable assumptions, at best :)
#27 by "Reb Pizer"
2000-09-27 19:12:29
reb@entdepot.com http://www.entdepot.com
To counter-act Myth 11:

What goes around comes around.
#28 by "None-1a"
2000-09-27 20:15:45
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#21</b> "Johan" wrote...
<QUOTE>What you're saying makes sense though. I don't think I got my point across. To rephrase, I think Eidos could profit more on LGS as a company, given a _long_term_ relationship (i.e. 5 years), whereas the Thief license will probably give them good cash on a short term (i.e. 1 year). Yes, I know they can grab more cash from a submissive developer, but the profit from LGS would add up, given time and good titles</QUOTE>

After getting really bad results out of Ion (I can't see Ion auston's sucsess over powering the loses from dalles just yet)do you really thing Eidos would be interestind in the long tearm right now? Or from the company that produces new higher poly breast versions of tomb raider nearly every year to for some quick cash?

<b>#19</b> "Ken 'Syco' Meyers" wrote...
<QUOTE>"What, the twenty other Tomb Raider games weren't enough for you? ;) "

I believe his intent was sarcasm. Either that or he's pretty fucked up </QUOTE>

Yeah um the ;) means I know that was false.

<b>#16</b> "Dethstryk" wrote...
<QUOTE>At least it's a <I>fun</I> business, anyway. I'd be more of a "happy hippy" if I worked in the game business instead of say, an accountant or something. (Well, I also hate hippies.) </QUOTE>

how about a happy hippy accountant, I've meet a few happy hippy lawyers and there kind of cool so it should extend to other professions as well.
--
None-1a.

O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#29 by "The Joker"
2000-09-27 20:21:00
joker@junkextreme.com http://www.junkextreme.com
#24 Flamethrower:

Yep, excellent article.

Joker.
#30 by "BloodKnight"
2000-09-27 21:54:16
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
<b>Reb Pizer</b> (#18):
<QUOTE>We all know class and business don't necessarily mix, of course, but that
doesn't mean that we need to be any less outraged when bad shit happens.
</QUOTE>

I wouldn't show class after working (or helped working on) a license and an engine then the next day getting it taken away from me

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "BloodKnight"
2000-09-27 22:02:16
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
Great Myth article

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#32 by "Reb Pizer"
2000-09-27 22:03:25
reb@entdepot.com http://www.entdepot.com
<b>BloodKnight</b> (#30):
<QUOTE>
I wouldn't show class after working (or helped working on) a license and an engine then the next day getting it taken away from me

</QUOTE>



Never said that the ex-LGS employees weren't being respectable.  Merely suggesting that it would be questionable for another developer to work on Thief 3 if Eidos truly is practicing slash-and-burn tactics.  <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#33 by "Cuntessa"
2000-09-27 23:03:27
The_Nick_Burns@hotmail.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#24</b> "Flamethrower" wrote...
<QUOTE>No, really, everyone read the 10 Myths before writing anything further here. </QUOTE>

I reeded it, but don't understood any of it?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#34 by "Paul"
2000-09-27 23:34:30
paul@shrinkweb.com http://www.shrinkweb.com
None-1a:
I'm not even sure Ion Austin has had much success. Have they sold enough Deus Ex to break even?

- Paul
#35 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-09-27 23:45:07
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Flamethrower :
<quote>It is better to crush a small, profitiable, but independent studio and replace them with a small, unprofitable, but utterly submissive, studio. IE, a bit like LGS to IonA. </quote>
What makes IonA "submissive" and LGS not?  Was Deus Ex a cookie cutter game in your opinion?
#36 by "baron_calamity"
2000-09-27 23:46:39
rcmerritt@home.com http://rcmerritt.homestead.com
The Eidos thing sounds neat but are any of them that smart to figure it out? Its like when wives accuse their husbands of some amazing feat of deceit that not only did they not do but weren't capable of planning out in the first place. After all, they funded Ion Storm for how many years? Clues can't be something they have in stock over there.

Hey None-1a,
I knew a laid back hippy like accountant. Worked for one quarter until they found out he didn't fill in any account recievables. Never saw him again.
#37 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-09-27 23:49:09
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Well, I read the Myth article and I'd to say ...

And?

If you're controlled by a publisher, most of that article is very much "duh!" material.  Games are big business.  BIG business.  If someone else is writing your checks, then those people will be calling the shots.  To think otherwise is foolhardy ...
#38 by "Quatoria"
2000-09-28 00:20:56
Quatoria@bellsouth.net
<B>Warren Marshal:</B>
<QUOTE>If you're controlled by a publisher, most of that article is very much "duh!" material. Games are big business. BIG business. If someone else is writing your checks, then those people will be calling the shots. To think otherwise is foolhardy ... </QUOTE>

Yep. The money men rule the world. It was true in the days of patronage in Italy, it's no less true with publishers today.
#39 by "Gestalt"
2000-09-28 00:30:57
john@eurogamer.net http://www.eurogamer.net
Johan - "Gee, that was real sublte"

Flamethrower doesn't do subtle.  ;-)


Johan - "whereas the Thief license will probably give them good cash on a short term (i.e. 1 year)"

Given the current financial state of Eidos, I think they'd be glad to have some good cash in the short term, as otherwise they're likely to become another division of Infogrames...


Paul - "Have they sold enough Deus Ex to break even?"

It was a big hit here in Europe - because we're smarter than you American types and appreciate complex genre-busting games ;) - so my guess is that they've done pretty well. Don't know if that's enough to break even, because the US sales were a little disappointing, but it must have done a whole lot better than Daikatana. ;)
#40 by "SRI (some random idiot)"
2000-09-28 00:39:49
p00p!
#41 by "superion"
2000-09-28 01:05:02
superion@swbell.net http://www.richent.com
#36, he should of called Herb.
#42 by "None-1a"
2000-09-28 01:06:49
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#34</b> "Paul A. Bullman" wrote...
<QUOTE>I'm not even sure Ion Austin has had much success. Have they sold enough Deus Ex to break even?
</QUOTE>

They've had a little success, expecialy like gestalt said in europe. However no matter how much success they've had Eidos probably will not see them as to seperate comapanies, and will more then likly expect IonA to cover up IonB's flops (damn that's a lot of pressure).
--
None-1a.

O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#43 by "Marshall Sutton"
2000-09-28 01:22:04
abdiel@bigfoot.com
LGS killed itself.  Well, LGS and Microsoft.  Well, LGS and Microsoft and Irrational.  As mentioned before, the MS deal that fell through when IG pulled out was the final nail in the coffin for the company.  It was then that LGS looked to Eidos for the buy-out.  When that fell through, it was over.

But LGS set-up this position.  The self-publishing of Flight Unlimited III was a colossal flop, and sapped any strength the company had from Thief I and II (which did make the company good money, btw).  Funny, you would think that they would have learned their lesson from Terra Nova and British Open Golf. . .

Guess that they thought more of their fans, and wanted to see them get their games, even if it meant taking those kinds of risks.

If anybody backstabbed the company (and I'm not saying they did, but it's the closest to true here) it was Irrational.  Think about it, pull out of the deal that's keeping the company afloat.  Wait for the company to die.  Snatch up some of the finest game design and creation talent in the world for cheap.

Like I said, that's not what I believe, but it's much closer to truth than that Eidos back-stabbed LGS.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#44 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-09-28 01:48:38
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com http://www.manic-pop-thrills.com
<b>#3</b> "Lowtax" wrote...
<QUOTE>I blame Steve Bauman!!! </QUOTE>
I blame Andy.

---
"My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#45 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-09-28 01:53:15
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com http://www.manic-pop-thrills.com
Oh, and blaming Eidos is somewhat silly. Eidos didn't own Looking Glass. If we're going to blame them solely because they published a couple of their games, we might as well blame Electronic Arts as well.

Anyone acquiring Looking Glass would have acquired their debt, in other words those bad past decisions to self-publish. And if that was significant, that alone was the reason they weren't acquired.

Most companies would kill for an established and mature developer. Few companies want more debt.

---
"My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#46 by "mcgrew (on the other computer)"
2000-09-28 02:15:49
"...they carry a bit more weight when they're coming from ex-employees, don't they?"

Yeah, the disgruntled FIRED employee is more credible than an independant journalist? Uh huh, right.

Well, maybe, if the "journalist" can't spell "loser" without sticking in extra Os. But that's a different thread.

As far as "conspiracy theories", a "conspiracy" is simply more than one person making plans together. Conspiring to throw a party, conspiring to build an automobile, or a game... speaking of which, do you think anyone can reach the highest levels of any big organization (by "big" I mean IBM/ATT/Texas, not some little company like Ion) while having the scruples to not knife their mother for an extra bit of profit? I don't. These "gentlemen" seldom really are.

Al Capone was right about one thing- he was "just a businessman".

Personally, I think anyone that thinks anybody's scruples can stand in the way of corporate profits is naive, indeed.

      [2] Apache "unless LGS is going to open up its books and show us its finanials, we'll never know who is to blame for the company's closure."

Who is to blame is kind of iunimportant, isn't it? Nobody committed any crimes, nobody is going to lose their jobs if their "conspiracy" is found out, and though the eight guys that boycott planet quake all the time won't buy any Eidos titles, that littl drop in the bucket won't hurt a bit.

I would be curious to see what (besides stony silence) Eidos has to say about the matter. It may well be innocent. Or hell, it may be a coverup of the murder of a real human, I sure don't know.


      [3] Lowtax "I blame Steve Bauman!!!"

You mean for that review? Yeah, Steve, how could you???


      [5] Karl "No big surprises in this topic...its just business. Just because its a games company does not mean for a second that they dont operate like millons of other companies worldwide.. "

Like Ford Autos, Firestone Tires, Tyson chicken, Capone Beer...


      [6] Dum Fuqur "I just wish Eidos would make a sequel to Tomb Raider. That was one kickass game!"

Dude, I love that nick. And I wonder if anybody else got the joke?


      [8] Dethstryk "What, the twenty other Tomb Raider games weren't enough for you?"

...it doesn't look like Dethstryk got it...


      [9] Milamber "No disrespect to the man of course, he's probably one of the best mappers on the planet."

But would you respect him if he wasn't "one of the best mappers on the planet?"


      [12] Prodigy "I guess they would sell their own mother, only to buy it cheaper afterwards..."

That's known as "just business". In the buyout fever of the early '80s, a bunch of uber-rich investors saw how much Disney's real estate was worth (worth, I might add, only because of the value Disney itself gave it) and tried to buy it out and carve it up. They would have killed a sixty year old, profitable, unique endeavor and thrown a hundred thousand people out of work for more money... money they already had more than enough of. Evil DOES exist, and the love of money IS the root of all of it.

Ford sold Pintos they knew were killing people rather than spend ten dollars per unit to keep them from exploding. Tyson chicken locked all the doors to one of its factories to keep people from stealing chicken wings, and twenty five people burned to death (a man got two years in minimum security prison for that mass murder).

You've heard of Firestone Tires, the American company that... no, wait, the British General Tyres owns Firestone. No, wait, Bridgestone's CEO is Japanese...

Conspiracy theories? The X-Files got NOTHIN' on the multinationals! Sell a game company and put a few easily hired people "on the street"? When the Firestone thing is happening?

This is as trivial as an id game. Anyone who thinks people like Firestone's CEO gives a rat's ass about your livelihood, quality, the law, or people's lives, you are one seriously deluded individual.


      [14] Johan "Maybe the others did too, but kept quiet. But why should they?"

Um, maybe they wanted to work in the industry again? Do you think Eidos is any different than id or Epic? A former Dell employer who badmouths Dell isn't likely to get a job at Gateway.


      [18] Reb Pizer "The word 'Integrity' comes to mind..."

If you are talking about the corporate world, The word "Integrity" comes to mind... if you are looking for a good joke.


"...we're referring to game design as an art."

We may, the designers may, but notice that in the "perfect game" thread we were all talking about games while Warren insisted on talking about the game BUSINESS.

Call me a wh0re, but you guys need to read http://www2.famvid.com/mcgrew/art.htm (I hope I opointed you in the right direction) if you want to discuss art and business.

"Hell, if Eidos really did do this, no developer should do Thief 3. Why should anyone help Eidos pull shit like this?"

Because the developers are businessmen who need to buy another Porche, too. And if someone points out that developers (except Carmak) are all middle class schmucks like me, I want to see a picture of Jason Hall and his economy car. I say Jason Hall because I want to see him holding it over his head...


      [19] Ken 'Syco' Meyers "I believe his intent was sarcasm. Either that or he's pretty fucked up"

Some people couldn't tell that a Marx Brothers skit was humor unless you put a damned smiley face on it.


      [21] Johan "[20] Flamethrower... Gee, that was real sublte."

Heh, when was flamey ever subtile? Did you see his last page?

"If I was completely ignorant, I guess we wouldn't be making money."

If you are in their accounting department, it is perfectly OK for you to be totally ignorant about game design and programming. If you are a programmer, you are likely kept in the dark intentionally about many business aspects.

Working for Ford doesn't make you an engineer, and working for Price-Waterhouse doesn't mean you are an accountant.

      [22] Johan "[21] Johan Gee, that was real sublte. That should read "subtle". D'oh."

Perfectly allright, Jason Hall is "King of teh MONSTARS" (and I wish he'd bring that sig back, it's perfect for the CEO of a games company.

...still reading...

-steve
#47 by "Ian"
2000-09-28 02:29:07
<b>#46</b> "mcgrew (on the other computer)" wrote...
<QUOTE>Conspiracy theories? The X-Files got NOTHIN' on the multinationals! Sell a game company and put a few easily hired people "on the street"? When the Firestone thing is happening?

This is as trivial as an id game. Anyone who thinks people like Firestone's CEO gives a rat's ass about your livelihood, quality, the law, or people's lives, you are one seriously deluded individual.</QUOTE>

Why is it that whenever the 'Crap has a topic about wrongdoing in the gaming industry, at least one person has to say, "Thats not as bad as whats happening in(<i>insert area of a recent tragedy, ie Columbine, Kosovo, East Timor, Rwanda, and so on)</i>".

Well, Duh. Of course mass murder and numerous deaths are more serious than some people getting fired and the possibility that they got screwed. Do you honestly think people don't know that?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#48 by "None-1a"
2000-09-28 02:36:17
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#46</b> "mcgrew (on the other computer)" wrote...
<QUOTE>Like Ford Autos, Firestone Tires, Tyson chicken, Capone Beer...
</QUOTE>

That's Bridgestone there not firestone. Don't be supprised if the firestone name dies out after all of this with Bridgestone moving into their possition (who are the ones pulling the strings anyway).

Then again people still think Saturn is a real auto company not just part of GM.
--
None-1a.

O forget it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#49 by "Ian"
2000-09-28 02:40:40
<b>#48</b> "None-1a" wrote...
<QUOTE>people still think Saturn is a real auto company not just part of GM.
</QUOTE>

Most auto companies are subsideries of other, larger car companies. However, I still call Jaguar and Land Rover car companies, not because its factually accurate, but because I like the way it sounds. Up with the evolution of language, comrades!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#50 by "Mad_Dog"
2000-09-28 02:50:02
markyork@cox-internet.com
Hrrmm... on a seperate thread...

<talking out my ass>
I've just been struck with this thought; is all the praise for Deus Ex based strictly on the merits of the game, or is it based on the fact it isn't Donkeykonga (sp) ? I think we all agree that Donkeykonga (sp) sucked horribly. Was it, at least partially, that Ion Storm could come out with another game that <b>didn't</b> suck that has helped to raise Deus Ex to where it is in gamers eyes?

Note: Talking out my ass mode is engaged because I've never seen Deus Ex, much less played it. Oh well.
</talking out my ass>

Mark/Mad_Dog<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Who shot Looking Glass? And why?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]