Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Bootstraps "Matrix" Game Rights Purchase
richardbowers writes: "An article released today on IGN claims that Microsoft has managed to get its hands on exclusive rights for Internet-based games using the Matrix license.
According to the article, Microsoft lent Interplay five million dollars in exchange for this exclusivity and for a bunch of other contractual goodies - including characters, sound tracks, and other features that will not be included in other versions of the same game, thanks to the agreement. They also have to guarantee delivery of the game in the same time-frame as the release of the next sequel."
Actually, ET and Atari were both owned by Warner Bros, so any big payment was purely accounting.
Umm, let's see, at $20 a unit, they only have to sell a quarter mil combined for 4 xbox titles. If they don't _easily_ surpass that they're in trouble anyway.
They've bought the video game rights to a movie that can be described roughly the same way: visually appealing but inconsistent, badly written, contrived, with a disappointing ending, inspiring sequels that are late and likely to be even worse.
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
...is that there is no penguin...
Console games will never be as good as PC games until everyone has an HDTV and the consoles themselves become a lot more like PCs.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
...according to the screenshots at http://www.playersc.com/tombraidersaturn.html: 1996.
Some of it's sequels have also been released for the Dreamcast as well.
Perhaps Tomb Raider is just "too cerebral" for the N64...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Hell, you might even see a sandworm in C&C if you're reall lucky... '-)
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You are giving DirectPlay more credit than actual game developers and network programmers would.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No, just an extreme aversion to furthering the ambitions of a Robber Baron that made Free Software a necessary component of anyone attempting to offer a better alternative to WinDOS.
Free Software is a reaction to the fact that the likes of NeXT or Atari or even Apple simply don't have a chance against an entrenched monopolist good at exploiting vendorlock.
It doesn't matter that the beast doesn't know what it's other hand is doing. It is still a beast. Doing anything that might even slightly feed it is a BAD idea.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This is not a new idea. People have been doing this sort of thing since the days of BBS'es and DoubleDOS.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Haven't seen anything that handles the joystick plus the spinning directional controller well. Playing the tank/maze portion of the game is quite difficult due to poor aiming :(
Or Morpheus, Neo, and Trinity will wear penguin t-shirts and copyleft hats and the agents will all be MCSEs in which case people resistance will be destroyed in great style.
Then I wonder what will be in in 3rd (in time sequence, not in release sequence) sequel - maybe after all those problems AIs will be succesfull in creating simulated "heaven" for people so they are not forced into this 20th century "peak of civilisation"?
hany
Gaming? Gaming? What makes you think that they're going after gaming _alone_?
Honestly if there's one thing that MS loves to do, it's leveraging their monopolies in favor of each other. And if there's one thing that they're deathly afraid of it's any possible threat to their monopolies. Even the crappy hotels on Baltic and Mediterranean.
The XBox is just getting into the door as a game console. That's not the real point though.
The point is that there is an effective floor on the price of PC's at around $400 - the point at which the cost of the OS becomes a serious liability. Rather than drop prices, and permit computers to become as cheap as dirt, MS would prefer to firmly fix that floor in place, before low-end dealers are ever capable of using free (beer) OSes. It's fairly typical monopolistic behavior.
MS has no such costs for the OS, and no desire to permit them to come to a head for others. So they'll just combine the desired features of a home PC into their own box:
*Gaming (obvious)
*Internet (MSN, IE, WebTV, broadband)
*Light office apps (Office.Net over IE)
Thanks to not having to spend money for software on a per-unit basis, the hardware can be somewhat better than everyone else's at the same final cost. (Xbox is expected to be ~$300-400)
Also maybe add a few bonuses, such as video recording (heavily locked up at the behest of big business) a la Ultimate TV as well as DVD playback.
They already have most of the pieces, now they're just going to put them together and essentially restrict the open PC market to everyone that makes sufficiently high end hardware that they don't compete with MS. It's a pretty good strategy, though chock full of the kind of evil we've all come to expect from MS.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
They also have to guarantee delivery of the game in the same time-frame as the release of the next sequel.
I wonder if there is a penalty clause for late delivery in the agreement. If Microsoft's games hardware and software divisions are as tardy as their operating system brethren, the Matrix's famous "There is no spoon" will doubtless be echoed with funnier versions to keep us amused.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
"Whoa"
neo...
PS ( I fucking hate that those bastards used the nick "neo". I used it for years and then this stupid movie steals my nick and now I have to look like some damn 13-years-old fanboy. It's enough to make me want to change my name, but I got this really kicking low user number. Sigh.)
Microsoft won't be developing, or publishing the games, they're just throwing money around to make sure that no-one else does it for any platform other than their own.
It's an interesting tactic, but it could easily backfire, making x-box the platform of licenses, which hardly have the worlds greatest track record when it comes to great games.
The original Tomb Raider shipped near-simultaneously on PC, PSX, and Saturn, you must be thinking of one of the sequels.
Gran Tourismo is really a 2nd party game, so exclusivity there isn't particularly suprising.
Uhh.. let me get that straight.. 1) Microsoft shuts down mods. 2) You boycott Interplay. That's, like, brilliant man. That'll teach those MS bastards.
Where's mod points when you need 'em..
Whoa
"Don't try to take the blue pill, that is impossible. Instead, try to realize the truth. The blue pill does not exist..."
Lando
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
>I can't think of any record-setting games that >were based on a movie. Most of the
>best-sellers are original material, such as Final >Fantasy and Zelda.
I agree with what you mean, but someone pointed out Goldeneye in an earlier post. I haven't even ever owned an N64 and I played that more than I've played some computer games that I own and liked.
Also, most of the people that I know who play games have played both starcraft and AoE, the second when we all got tired of the first, and liked both about as much. AoE really is a fun game, at least I think so. Don't let the poor quality of microsoft's OS division close your mind entirely...
Well a curious case when SF starts to become reality... Many people considered the Matrix as a serious portrait of a surrealistic view of the World. Well, at least a small piece of it, remarks that the film does show something about this world...
This may be only the beginning... So beware.
..Microsoft buys the market.
This is a dirt cheap way of Microsoft guaranteeing it sells loads of XBoxen and future games.
Joe Consumer buys XBox for his kid to play The Matrix, Joe Consumer's kid wants the next Neat XBox Game, Joe Consumer buys the game as "hey, I already have the XBox.
This $5 million is a cheap CHEAP CHEAP way to get their foot in the door of millions of households looking to buy a new gaming platform.
Pass me a red pill, please .
Trolling is a art,
That post was not offtopic, and overrated is silly.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Yes, I am. The services need almost no CPU, and I have plenty enough memory. I only have one machine.
I don't understand why you feel machines have to have their little categories.
It's not a particularily high volume web server, and the other services don't need lots of horsepower. They'd all probably run comfortably on a 386 with enough memory. So, playing a game on the same machine is unnoticeable to others using it. I've had people test actually.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It's called running a webserver, and a few other public services. It's also called not wanting to pay for a Windows liscense. And I won't buy a box (especially a Microsoft one, just one more industry for them to destroy) just for gaming. Seems like a waste of money to me.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Would'nt it be funny if Neo or someone else had to hack on a *nix box of some type in the movie, and *nix was prominantly displayed as an OS. Imagine if MS had to create a "hacking" portion of the game that involved using *nix.
(I doubt that this will happen because I would bet that this game is an action title like Quake or Oni, and not like say, System Shock 2 or Deus Ex.)
On a side note, was BSD used for some of the effects in the Matrix 1?
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Good. PC (I'm including Apple, Amiga, Atari, C64, etc) gaming existed before the "Windows market". It did fine then - and there were arguably better games (how many times have you slapped down $50 for a Windows-based PC game that sucked?) in those times. PC gaming will live on, with or without the Hollywood (oops - err Dallas err Redmond) glitz.
...instead of Agent Smith, we're going to have Agent Bob and his side-kick Clippy.
You thought the LAST movie was scary!
--
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
Microsoft always does this.. They purchase names people will recognize, because recognizable well-known names will sell games - no matter what the quality is. They bought Fafsa and Virtual Worlds Entertainment for MechWarrior and BattleTech, they bought Access for Links... They've never produced an original game inhouse - everything they offer was purchased from (or with) some other company. Now they've bought the rights to produce some POS online game and attach the Matrix name to it. Microsoft is where good ideas go to die.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
So I take it the fact that the XBox design team toured the States, visiting gamers' homes, getting input on what gamers want, is just a copycat move, that every company does that during the research and design period? Or the fact that a number of Microsoft-written and Microsoft-published games have been great games, often topping many gaming top-10 lists (Flight Simulator, Age of Empires series, the * Madness games, Mechwarrior games, and more) is just hype? And I guess the 150+ third-party developers that have already signed on (including big names, like Sega, Capcom, and Konami from the console side, and Epic and id from the PC side) are just marketing?
I was talking about the XBox hardware team, not any of the gaming groups. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I'm referring to Monster Truck Madness, Motocross Madness, Midtown Madness, and the sequels thereof. Sure, you'll just reply with, "Whee, racing games. More of the same," and there's little I can say to prove otherwise, except that the games are all great fun to play (which is what matters, when you think about it).
Yes, Microsoft bought the FASA license after Activision made a set of good games (Mech2, Mech2: Mercennaries, and the addons for each). I wouldn't go so far as to say that Mech1 was a hit, though. But, even so, Microsoft has done a much better job with the license than Activision ever did (IMHO, of course).
I'll be the first to admit that Microsoft doesn't often break new ground. However, what Microsoft does do extremely well is take an existing concept (app type, game genre, what have you), and really improve upon it. Sure, Flight Simulator can be considered "just another flight sim", but it has a host of well-done features that, while they have been copied by other games, are still first-class implementations (real-time weather, radio chatter, air traffic control, extreme customizability, etc). To go along with that, Microsoft more often acts as a publisher, rather than a developer, when dealing with games (along the lines of what Sierra is doing these days). With their marketing muscle and excellent distribution network, many game developers could do much worse than being published by Microsoft.
Epic has already released Unreal Tournament for DC and PS2, so they're no different from the others I mentioned. What I didn't say is that those developers were signed on exclusively for the XBox. Few are. In fact, there are very few third-party development houses that do anything exclusively, anymore (SquareSoft is one of the few remaining). That's not necessarily a bad thing. With that said, the XBox will have its share of exclusive titles, such as the new Oddworld game, and Halo (which is not 100% exlcusive, as it'll be released for the PC as well, but it's exclusive as far as consoles are concerned). Yes, Microsoft is publishing those games. So? It's the same way Rare develops games for Nintendo to publish exclusively.
Can you back that up with examples? As of right now, I haven't seen anything that I'd call truly "revolutionary" for the PS2. Yes, Metal Gear Solid 2 is going to look great and play well, but it's just the next step in the evolution of Metal Gear (Plus, Konami is making a Metal Gear Solid game for the XBox, though not MGS2 ...). Sure, FFX will also look great, and is supposedly going to be the first FF with a voice track, but is it really going to be anything so revolutionary over what's come before in the series? Now, to use your own argument above against you, many development houses are going to be targetting multiple consoles. That means we'll see Super Hyper Impact Street Fighter 3 ex Alpha 2 for the XBox and the PS2, and probably even the GameCube. Sega is also going to be developing for multiple platforms (including the GBA). Because of the importance of third-party titles, I think what this next console "war" is going to come down to is the ease of development. The PS2 has already lost smaller development houses (which, btw, are oftentimes the ones that come up with the more unique games, like Chu Chu Rocket), due to the extremely steep learning curve (learning a new console costs money, and the steeper the curve, the more expensive it gets). In that respect, I think the XBox will be able to pull a major coup, in that Microsoft has always provided excellent developer support.
$5m buys a lot influence (with me, anyway). I can see it now...
NEO: Wait a second... I've got the codes in my palm pilot
TRINITY: Palm pilot? There's no such thing. It exists only in the Matrix. Here's a winCE PDA.
NEO: WinCE? What about a linux based one?
TRINITY: Linux? You don't believe in linux, do you? You really think it's possible to have stable code that's open source?
RMS: You mean Free.
TRINITY: Whatever. Seriously, Neo. The only company to survive the OS wars was Microsoft, thanks to their stable, user-friendly software that's well worth relicencing every six months.
NEO: I guess you're right. It is the world's favourite operating system.
TRINITY: It's not just an operating system; it's a friend.
NEO: Thanks, Microsoft!
taking a risk? they loaned the money. sounds like a huge risk there.
they don't get paid back, then they litigate for the money back.
they DO get paid back, they have a huge market for their xbox.
the idea isn't all that innovitive... but the ability to actually get someone to agree to this is.
"I'll pay you $100 to do this for me. but then you have to pay me back in $2 royalties."
-- My Sig is a P228.
Sony, MS, Fox and who know what other 800 pound market gorilla knows that the console is the key digital well-head into the home as whoever controls the entry point, controls the gate and thus has a high degree of influence as to the network entry point. Whehter Fox with its satellite console, Sony with its consumer edutainment box, or MS with its PC-centric Xbox want to get their foot in the door and leverage that wide open as much as possible to get a slice of the transaction stream.
... hey it worked!) as once you've got a repeat customer base (whether MechWarrior or Matrix), then you can offer access to "partners" to cross-sell products and services. This is the difference between buying a mailbox and leasing a post-office private bag. Why should you outsource your communications, Guess which you have more control over? MSNBC wants interaction and multiplayer rights on the Internet as its a lower cost distribution channel (in terms of capital expended to build an addictive buyer). And MSNBC is not unique as every other content provider wants to do the same (cough*Netscape-AOL/FoxSports*cough).
Licensing a category killer is a lower risk approach than actually trying something innovative (CD carpet bombing
As the Russians found out with their fighter planes, it's not the airframe which is important but the electronics and software. Ditto for the hardware entry point which is why MS is using its PC experience of controlling the APIs to reimpose their vision onto game developers.
These horizontally integrated companies are going to be a royal challenge for competitors.
LL
. . .or Red Fedoras. . .
I can say for sure, that I have enjoyed many of the games put out by LucasArts based on Star Wars movies. Even the Atari game for Empire Strikes Back was one of my favorites... maybe not the greatest game. Most, if not all, of the StarWars arcade games are fun as well as the X-Wing and Tie Fighter games for PC. I think also that Lucas Learning has created some great learning games that are based on characters from the movies. I also loved the Tron arcade game. The Terminator arcade game was also cool.
Up until now, it could also be said that the converse is also true... how many GOOD movies have been based on video games? I'm holding out hope for Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy this summer. I personally would like to see a Starcraft movie.
What about games based on other works? Rainbow Six is a smash hit... it could have easily been a movie before a game.
I think the thing that separates the Star Wars games apart from the rest is that it was guided by the owner of the idea. Most others, I am afraid, have been an attempt to quickly tap the momentum of a film's success by selling out to the first person who can create a game. Don't forget, E.T. was an overnight success and I'm sure that the idea to cash in was conceived after the success of the movie. Today, merchandizing begins before the film is even shot.
Most of the successful titles (i.e. X-Wing, Goldeneye) were concepts that were based on an established market. They had the time to cook the game before releasing it... not nearly as time sensitive as other games that try to cash in on movie momentum. Star Wars and James Bond are icons in our society and don't need the momentum of a film to sell. Create a good game with good story, characters and game play and it will sell on merit with the identification with known characters being the marketing hook. But the game play has to be good... for example; the Star Trek titles have not done so well... they are enjoyed by some hard core fans, but not by the general gaming market. So it all comes down to creating a good game.
I would be interested to know what Microsoft has in store the Matrix title(s) it will produce. While Microsoft has no history of creating GREAT titles, who know what they can come up with. In most cases, it is not Microsoft who is doing the developing... other gaming companies produce the titles for them. Who knows, it might be cool. I may be a huge multiplayer universe that will allow gamers to enter into a digital world and learn to live without boundaries... who knows, but until the title is released, who is to say it will suck?... not me.
Just my $0.02,
"Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
Raiders of the Lost Ark (2600)
Star Wars (arcade, vector)
Hmmm.. that's about it
Microsoft also got Oddworld Inhabitants to discontinue their PS2 development of the upcoming Oddworld sequel. I saw some demos of it running on PS2 hardware at http://ps2.ign.com, and it looked beautiful. Apparently, they have stopped development, and will only be releasing it on X-Box (more info can be found on ps2.ign.com)
As crashing The Matrix can be considered a success for humanity, this promises to be the first game where the computer can win for you. GPF...Yay, the power supply is offline!
Should we bother with Spoiler Warnings, in case someone hasn't seen the movie?
Hey everyone! Its time for everybody's favorite show... THE INACCURATE SLASHDOT ARTICLE.
Truth: MS has forward Shiny some dough, so that they can have a 3 month exclusive on the game and so that only MS gets multiplayer. That is what the article should read. I swear, anyone else sick of these misleading articles?
http://www.somethingpositive.net Funny + bitter = comedy gold
Microsoft has played the gaming business better than anyone else ever has.
The may eventually win, and possibly make a profit, but I don't think they've necessarilly played the game all that well.
Let's take an analogy. I wrestle. The last tournament I was in, I ended up wrestling a gentleman 20lbs lighter than me. I didn't have to wrestle 'well' in order to win, because I could 'muscle' my way out of bad situations. Futhermore, everything I did looked smoother because I didn't have apply as much force as he did.
Microsoft is able to 'win' in the same way. With huge cash reserves already built up, the can stumble, fall, and roll around in the mud a while and still get up and win. They can bleed cash for years and still pull it out of their asses.
I don't think Microsoft has 'played' the gaming business at all. They've just bought up a lot of companies with their huge cash reserves.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Robocop (arcade)
The Robocop Arcade game being -- oddly -- based on the Sinclair Spectrum version of Robocop. Which spawned the Amiga & Atari version... and so on and so on...
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
It's called running a webserver, and a few other public services. It's also called not wanting to pay for a Windows liscense. And I won't buy a box (especially a Microsoft one, just one more industry for them to destroy) just for gaming. Seems like a waste of money to me.
So you run games on your webserver? Intelligent.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
But does this mean microsoft gets sued if its a FPS?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Microsoft is able to 'win' in the same way. With huge cash reserves already built up, the can stumble, fall, and roll around in the mud a while and still get up and win. They can bleed cash for years and still pull it out of their asses.
Comments like this really puzzle me. Microsoft is a public company, accountable to their shareholders. They're not just going to burn cash so that they can turn to the competition and say "haw haw! we won!" If they didn't believe they could turn a *profit* in the console market, they wouldn't be entering it. And sure, some people will say, "oh, they're just building a monopoly now so they can have profits in the future." But the history of the console industry does not support the concept of a lasting console monopoly at all. With every new generation of consoles, a company's fortune can change dramatically. I'm sure microsoft realizes this.
And also, about this whole "microsoft has lots of cash so they'll win!" thing...just what the hell is Sony, some kind of sniveling upstart company?
Courting developers like this is common in the gaming industry. There's really nothing special about this.
--
hot foreign sheep.
The major issue isn't exclusive rights to the Matrix games (MS only wants a 6 month lead, after which Interplay is free to publish it for other plats). It's the exclusive rights to certain features of games based on this license.
Goldeneye for N64 is published by Rareware. They hold second-party status with Nintendo for their consoles -- they make games for no one else. Interplay does not have the same status with MS, AFAIK. MS is only trying to limit how well the implementation of the Matrix games on the other consoles are.
The reason and result are obvious. Whereas previously it was preferred for, say, Sega to have exclusive rights to a particular title from a third-party dev, MS wants to show the world that only the BEST version runs on xbox. "It's available on other platforms, but why in hell would you want to play it like THAT? You can't even play it on the internet!"
If this were the PC world, it would be like MS paying Adobe to give the Windows Photoshop release a 6 month headstart over Mac OS versions, and the Mac version isn't allowed to do Gaussian blur. It is NOT like MS paying Adobe to make Photoshop exclusively for Windows.
< tofuhead >
--
It is still the dark of night.
No, this is different. If you read the linked article, you'll see that MS wants to limit the featureset of Matrix games for other consoles. Amazingly, this is being treated by everybody here like a sidenote, rather than the real meat and potatoes of the deal.
It's true though...exclusive licenses are a dime a dozen. That's why this is a big deal. This is less typical: Effectively MS is castrating any future Nintendo and Sony versions.
< tofuhead >
--
It is still the dark of night.
Nintendo and Sony have their own "exclusive" titles and MS is just trying to build/buy their own.
I still doubt that Halo will come out on the PC.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I just wonder how Warner Brother fit in through this whole ordeal. Did MS also have to dish out money to them for some licensing stuff as well?
As for the move, personally I think its a good move, since MS has a hell of a lot more money to work with. Hopefully they'll provide a kick ass gaming environment, and hopefully Bill Gates and co., won't try to reach the geek masses my marketing MS crapware along with the games.
Forget neo make minesLara
Want Root?
Microsoft won't be developing, or publishing the games, they're just throwing money around to make sure that no-one else does it for any platform other than their own.
It will be interesting to see if this includes all of the Matrix Mods for Quake, HL & UT. Hopefully M$ will not squash them, becuase some of them are looking really cool. And obviously they are internet-capable, which M$ wants exclusively for Xbox.
The battletech series of games are really awesome. I need to get MW4, but MW3 rocked the house. These games could actually MAKE me buy a X-Box as opposed to the MAtrix.
This is a key license for MS, but until the game is proven to be a good one, then it doesn't matter what key license it is.
The X-Box isn't going to kill or even hurt the PS2/GameCube in the long run. I think that it will more likley be the beginning of the end of Windows-based PC gaming. If it's as cheap to develop for a console as for a PC, then why develop on a PC. I think that most smaller outfits will prototype their 'breakthrough' game on the PC, then present it to a publisher. If the publisher decides it's good enough, then give them the money to make it an X-Box game. There is and always has been more money in console gamin for the producers and programmers of games then in PC gaming. That's why nintendo still makes gameboys instead of switching over to PC games.
I really wonder why it took them so long to announce a matrix based video game. With the popularity of the Matrix movie you would think that they would to have cashed in on it before. Maybe they are using this game to help generate awareness and hype for the next movie since most 'normal' (read non-slashdot reader) people have not been aware of the next movie.
So, for the first six months I can't get internet-based Matrix games on my PS2 or GameCube? So what? that still gives me a year or two for the internet connectivity to become physically available for each of the consoles...
Paying that much cash for exclusive rights to a feature that won't exist during the exclusive period is a little weird, imho ianal etc etc etc.
...there is no MULA.
So how does this show that bagging the rights to the game, preventing any other company from developing a game like it, somehow has the potential to be a good thing? A good thing (tm), perhaps only for the company that bags the rights, and even then, only in their eyes.
Well, looks like the gaming industry is now learning what Microsoft is like, the way every industry has painfully learned for the past dozen years.
Welcome aboard.
They do have a new Space Invaders game. Atari's games were bought by Hasbro Interactive. You can play a shocked version of Centipede on their web site, as well as check out the new Space Invaders, Asteroids and Frogger 1 and 2. Your welcome.
Gorkman
First the ".NET Vision" and now the ".MATRIX" vision. "Where do you want to go today" indeed... Apparently MSFT wants you (in the Uncle Sam sense) to power their next generation of products. How do you like that, "copper top"?
"Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
What about the countless Star Wars games? I know there were some really bad ones, but all the space combat ones were good, plus Jedi Knight, etc.
Laine Walker-Avina
"In
Oh, wait, almost forgot the PaperClip! Yes the PaperClip! "The body cannot live without the mind, the high memory manager, the system tray, IE, WMP, ruthless efficiency, almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and the PaperClip!"
You are going to play games on a server machine? Isn't that kinda dumb? Especially considering that this game wil probably use everything your computer has got to run.\ =\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
Microsoft already has an early form of the Matrix - it's called .Net.
Now it's bought the name to go with it.
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
No, that would be Halo. Unfortunately, it'll never make it to the PC :(
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
When dealing with show business contracts, virtually every game manufacture, be it a toy or a computer game producer, sign an exclusive contract. So what is the big deal if Microsoft does the same?
If MS was denied this option on the merit of being "Microsoft" than MS has a prefect legal and PR case of boosting its cause as being a target. I don't think we want to give MS that chance
---------------
Sig
abbr.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
(My apologies for using "efficiency" in a Microsoft post.)
--
As with any game, its not the idea that makes the game its the execution. Lets hope that microsoft manages to execute on this one. It would be nice to get a killer game out for the platform.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Oh no, the paperclip's been cut from Office! Don't let me die this way!
Grab.
And this isn't how every company in the world works? Check out how Cisco, Ford, etc operate. If you don't have the skills in-house, then you either contract out (as they are basically doing with Matrix) or you look to buy out a smaller company which does have the skills.
Some large companies are adept at pissing in the soup - they buy a smaller company and immediately install all sorts of big-company procedures which stop the small company working effectively, and all the ppl who provided the skills bugger off elsewhere. Most have learned by now that if you buy a small company, you let them run just as they are, otherwise you're strangling the goose in an attempt to get more golden eggs.
Sure, MS has had some dodgy games, but equally they've done some great ones. As you say, they're not produced them in-house - they have the smarts to know that they don't have the skills to do it, so they get someone else to. This is no more wrong than taking your car to a mechanic to get it repaired.
Grab.
ET? My god that was a masterpiece compared to some of the licenses on the Amiga!
Does anyone remember any of the millions of 2d platformers? Ocean were one of the worst culprits, although by no means the worst.
I think the games were actually the same, there was a low performance engine which could handle about 5 things moving at the same time, and that was in about 5 frames!
If anyone else had bought rights to the game, Microsoft would have sued for using their copyrighted word "Agent."
It is redundant because every single time a news article is posted involving Microsoft, whether their actions are normal or extreme, laudable or contemptable, there is always a joke of the exact same vein. While it was funny to read, it was also very twinkish and redundant.
Pax Digitalia
"So, if the Matrix GPFs, you die in real life?" "The body cannot live without the mind, the high memory manager, and the system tray."
Say what you will about the rest of the company, but MS has a pretty schweet games division. MW4, Crimson Skies, FS2002 looks awesome, and now they've got Halo.
There's nothing wrong with letting MS handle this. In fact, I think it'll be better than letting Interplay do it. They've disappointed me recently (Giants, among others) and MS ahs the resources to do the Matrix right.
I don't think so. Flight Simulator... yeah great idea, went there to die, huh? MechWarrior 4 was fantastic, best since the 2nd... Ah, hell with that one, right? Links had a couple bad releases, but it's back on track. Halo looks spectacular! MS gave FASA the resources it needed to make Crimson Skies, and it came out great.
How is this an example of good ideas going to die?
"While one game doesnt really matter, MS could (conceivably) make the same offer to all of the other upcoming "BIG" titles--so the XBOX gets all the goodies b/c they have the most money"
Its certainly an interesting idea, but there are two problems with it:
1) The Sony Corporation aren't exactly small fry either, and already have deals sewn up with Square, Polyphony and others.
2) Nintendo, while not as rich as Microsoft, aren't likely to give away exclusive rights to Mario or Zelda unless Microsoft want to buy the whole company.
Somehow I don't think even Microsoft have the guts to try and buy the whole console industry.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
The reality of the situation is that people will make decisions based on product name alone. If you don't believe me, ask yourself the name of the President of the USA.
M$ is going to be a major player in the industry if for no other reason than people recognize the name. Games based on "The Matrix" are going to sell like crazy because it was a cool movie and people will assume it's a cool game. The hardcore gamers won't buy them because they know better than to buy licensed games (they generally suck quite a lot of ass), but since they make up less than 25% of the market, that won't matter in the least.
RIP Dreamcast, RIP.
Game companies get exclusive licenses to things like this all the time. Is there any reason to complain about this other than that the company that got the license is MS?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
> I can't think of any GOOD game that was based on a movie. None! What about Dune? (I know that was a book before it was a film but same thing).
I'm wondering what this will mean for user created mods. The only one I know about is http://www.whatisexistence.com/, but I would not be surprised to hear of a similar mod under development for Unreal Tournament of Quake 3.
Yeah, so Existence doesn't really use any outright copyrighted stuff from the Matrix. But the similarities are enough that the evil empire might decide to slap the (unpaid I might add) designers with a lawsuit.
It would be a shame to see these guys have to just stop after all the hard work they've done, and hopefully that won't happtn. But, I wouldn't put it past M$ to sue their sorry asses real soon here.
Does anybody else have doubts that this is something Microsoft would do?
--------------------------------------
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Does this mean the blue pill is now referred to as the BPOD?
Ah, but here's the trick. FASA owns "The Matrix", and has done for years - it's part of their Shadowrun game line. Microsoft bought out FASA Interactive to get the Battletech/Mechwarrior titles, but [IanaL] I believe that deal gives them rights to all FASA trademarks in computer game-related products, too.
Okay, if my memory serves me, the idea is that Shiny is going to be developing this game. It makes comes out on the Xbox, then on the PC 6 months later. It has some exclusive to the Xbox content. Now, what is microsoft funding game development a bad thing? I swear that people are just hunting for a reason to bash MS (oh, wait, this is slashdot..) Anyway, MS is taking the risk out of game developement for a company. This could easily translate into a much better game and a company that has a better shot at surviving.
you also have to remember, those quarter million sales will depend pretty much on how well the xbox and games for it sells, since they arent allowed to release the games for any other platform for 6 months. its easy to say they could hit a quarter million doing games for xbox nintendo and ps2, but its too early to tell how well an unreleased system and it's games are really going to sell...
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
The thing I found interesting is the fact that MS lent the money, instead of giving them the money. I know the developer is strapped for cash, but I have a hard time seeing how giving $20 out of each unit sold to MS to repay the loan is going to fill their coffers. Im sure the game will be popular and all, but I dont think Interplay is getting the great deal they think they are.
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
This deals directly with what is at the heart of Microsofts Monopoly, doesn't it?
Microsoft entered an agreement that prohibited deployment of this game on any console other than MS's XBOX for at least 6 months. Yes, they had to pay a pretty penny for it but they have (in a way) stopped other consoles from ever getting good with this game. 6 months is a long time in an industry that is as fast paced as the gaming industry.
While one game doesnt really matter, MS could (conceivably) make the same offer to all of the other upcoming "BIG" titles--so the XBOX gets all the goodies b/c they have the most money.
While this is partially at the heart of capitalism, doesn't it bother anyone that MS could (and probably will) shut down all console competition? Doesn't matter how good a console is if it has no games . . .
Maybe it's time we retire the BSOD joke..it's just as not funny as the beowulf joke.
Would the moderator who set that this post is redundant at number 7 please step forward, we would like to stone you.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
Time for an Open Source Internet play clone - with a distributed system for the modules/rooms/levels/etc - so that this becomes really surreal.
In fact, I like this. P2P Gaming. Could be fun.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I can't think of any GOOD game that was based on a movie. None!
You mean LucasArts is still in business? Wow I didn't realize all those Star Wars games I bought sucked... Good thing EB buys back games... Whew thank you... Thank you from saving me from those not so 'GOOD' games, I only want to play good games...
Rehab is for quitters...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
As other people have pointed out, this is slightly different from the regular exclusive deals in that the deal requires Interplay to limit features of the game. One could argue that it's an effort to artificially make the X-box seem better. For example, if Rare had released Goldeneye (a Nintendo exclusive) for the Playstation, only with half the features, people might be inclined to directly compare the two games and assume the difference was due to the Playstation being an inferior machine.
Also, a better analogy on the credit cards might be if the Visa adds ended with "...but they've got a $25 maximum on American Express."
I don't think it was "record-setting", but "Alien vs. Predator" was a respectable game in its own right. And when you think about it, it makes sense why it worked -- the Alien and Predator movies were already how I'd expect a FPS-based movie to turn out; they just went the other way in translating it from movie to game.
When I think about "Matrix", it just screams MMORPG. I mean we're talking about a shared, consensual reality in which billions wander around while exceptional entities wield God-like power. That would, of course, make it an Internet game, which is exactly what Microsoft has the exclusive rights on. Then again, a commercial MMORPG releasing a non-Windows client is the exception, rather than the rule. But it still annoys me that that option has been ruled out entirely.
Microsoft buys the market
This is not the "same monopoly tactics" that Microsoft has undertaken in the past. This sort of exclusive rights deal is done ALL THE TIME. Ever see those Visa commercials "...and they dont accept American Express"? Visa pays whoever the commercial features (the olypmics, for example) a certain amount of money to not accept Amex. Ever wonder why if you go to a sporting event, that both Coke and Pepsi products are not available? One or the other paid the stadium to not sell the competitors' product. Its a legitimate tactic and does not constitute a monopoly, someone just needs to overbid. If Sony gave up in the bidding war, it was probably because they felt that it was too high to be able to produce a product of reasonable cost in the quality that we would expect. So what? So Microsoft puts out the game for the X-box and the cost is over $100. They will think twice next time. Supply and demand is the only law that matters there.
Personally, I dont like Microsoft much, but this is yet again, another example of the knee-jerk crap that goes on here whenever MS is mentioned. You just lose credibility when a real issue arises.
note: I am not singling out grub's comment -- most I read say pretty much the same thing.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Not neccessarilly. MS is going to push, push, push the console market for all they're worth to break into it, and in some areas of the world they have a good shot. However, there is one place which I feel they will have trouble in:
The Japanese console market.
ALL of the successful consoles have been put out by Japanese companies. Sony and Nintendo are not going to take any sort of incursion of the X-box lightly. If we have not seen them before, expect some heavy licensing restricitons to be placed on console-game makers in response to MS's restrictions: companies will be made or broken based on what console they choose to develop for, which will be a shame.
The Japanese electronics consumers, morover, are very intense. Console gaming is a VERY big thing over there. While in the US and perhaps Europe, you may run into the occasional guy who has one of every console made (even an old Neo*Geo he takes out reverently now and then) in Japan multiple consoles are the norm. Multiple instances of the same consoles is also not unknown, within the same household. There are also consoles over there that are simply not known about abroad.
Gaming also covers a broader spectrum -- it's no joke that 'dating simulations' are pretty popular there, but there's even wierder stuff that has never been really exported (except for Japanese consoles abroad.) Morover, for more "conventional" games, some have never been exported, either. The array of games in the Japanese market is stunning.
X-box is going to have a really tough time in the Japanese market. I would not be surprised if it dies horribly over there, even if it does well in the US and Europe. And even then, expect a strong assault by Nintendo and (what's left of) Sony. If these two companies can keep their sh** together, they've got a fighting chance to survive the first year of X-Box (whenever that might be.)
---
Chief Technician, Helpdesk at the End of the World
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
I thought Microsoft was the Matrix ...?
Maybe instead of being humans trying to overthrow the evil Matrix, Gates'll change the story "slighty" to be good-natured MS employees fighting against the evil Agent Tux and his evil cohorts, keeping humanity bottled up in a world of Open Sourcing, where people only think it's effective...
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
Did I miss the first one?
The exact same thing happened between Nintendo and the producers of Goldeneye. The game company bagged exclusive rights to the game, and stopped any other platform having a Goldeneye game.
But..
Goldeneye on the Nintendo64 was a fantastic game. A real killer app for the (then) fledging console. Perhaps MS want to do the same for theirs.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Regardless of the technology (and the XBox tech looks pretty good), Microsoft has played the gaming business better than anyone else ever has. Microsoft has decided they want to break into this market, and they're well on their way to domination. The XBox will have a huge selection of software when it arrives, and I expect they'll get exclusivity for a few more key titles. The PS2 is in trouble . . . let's hope Nintendo can compete.
Just because its MS, you guys have to jump on the MS bashing bandwagon. As most of you have said it yourself, we don't quite know how exactly how XBox is going to turn out, so why have so many people already against the console?!?
Oh I get it, since its MS it has to be bad. Maybe this thing can be the next GoldenEye. What if PS2 or GameCube had exclusive license for the Matrix. I can see the drools already.
Relax. Give it a chance. I for one am keeping an open mind to all this. Patience is a virtue my friends.
I betcha this is going to be the X-Box's flagship game.
--
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
Good point...I went over "the deal" to see if that was the case, and found that yes, Interplay has bought exclusive game rights to a Matrix game that is made for consol and desktop platforms....the question now is "What is the platform the internet game runs on?"
Finder of the any key.
On the Matrix site linked, there is are shockwave games...they seem internet-based. They certainly are on-line. Do they violate the Interplay-XBox deal?
Finder of the any key.
Microsoft will indeed have an impressive stable of horses when the XBox comes out, but they are counting heavily upon older titles. As we all know, the next Hot game always comes from some least expected group, not because they have money or big backing, but because they had a dream.
Expect Microsoft to snap up some of these, too.
Any game company getting into bed with Microsoft best remember the Flight Simulator disaster for SubLogic, where Microsoft pointed out that they could indeed sell the same game for less than SubLogic and thus drove them out of business. Jet was cool, but too late to save them.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
No, E.T. was made by Universal.
Check out my blog: My Galaxy is Milky Way Adjacent
Grrrrr.....if that happens, Interplay can kiss any future business from me goodbye. 'By Gamers, For Gamers' indeed....
-PARANOIA is fun. D20 is not fun. The Computer says so.
-The Computer
This round started off with old school member of underdog Naughty Dog insinuating that ease of development and development time were not a concern for 'real' developers (though to my limited knowledge, Naughty Dog has yet to create a quality PS2 title).
Recently Dennis Dyack from Silicon Knights, and old PSX developer, fired off a round of shots against XBox, seemingly taking a cue from Naughty Dog.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Nuff said, now it's just part of a marketing machine. Next, please.
--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
I am guessing they felt that they were portrayed incorrectly in the movie and feel the need to correct that by assuming control over the game?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Doesn't matter how good a console is if it has no games . . .
While I agree that Microsoft is (once again) using their monopoly power to leverage games, it's worth noting that there's really no way to say which title is going to be big and which isn't.
For example, Daikatana was supposed to be super-big, and fell flatter than John Romero's ego. If Microsoft had done the same thing here, they would have been stuck with an incredible bomb while everyone was playing the 'Sleeper' titles that they missed.
Sure, you can accuse them of cashing in on name recognition, but the truth of the matter is that movie-based video games tend to do very poorly, with the notable exception of Starwars stuff. Some of the Trek stuff does okay, too, but M$ was in bed with Paramount quite a while before any of the Trek games hit the shelf.
Long and short is the fact marketroids have the intelligence of sea slugs and just because someone *says* something's going to be a hit, and even if they license it, it just ain't so.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Morpheus: It's a prison for your mind. You can see it all around you. It's there when you go to church or pay your taxes.
Neo: But what is it, really? When you get right down to it.
Morpheus: No one can be told what the matrix is, but I can tell you this: You see that little paperclip guy?
Neo: Yeah...
Morphus: Part of the matrix. That annoying sound you get when you start your computer? Also part of the matrix. That smiling guy who asks 'Where do you want to go today?"
Neo: (gulps, realizing the severity of Morpheus's words.)
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Is the Matrix to be for entertainment or is it a revision of their business plan?
"I just wonder what will happen to Interplay if the X-Box is a flop and the game doesn't sell well."
I wonder what would be happening to Interplay if Microsoft hadn't offered them this money. It appears the company is cash-strapped enough to accept this deal, so they obviously are in some trouble staying afloat now. At least this deal gives them cash to play with and continue development. And Microsoft is only placing a requirement on $500,000 of the $5 million loan, leaving the vast remainder entirely in Interplay's hands. The deal doesn't say they have to put all of that money into the XBox game. Yes, I know that a lot of that money will likely end up in the Matrix game, and the company's fortunes will be somewhat tied to the success or failure of that XBox game... but Interplay has at least been given a chance to stay afloat through this loan. Better to get money now and have a chance at survival, than to stop all development from a lack of funds and die sooner.
I mean, sure, it's probably more than I'll earn in my entire lifetime (and doesn't THAT just put my 9-5 in a sickening perspective)but STILL. I know we're well out of the internet honeymoon where a million is just the office decorating fee, but I can't shake the feeling that IGN got an AWFUL deal and there's gotta be more to this whole thing than what I got out of the article.
I personally don't give a rat's ass in the end, but I can't believe that Sony couldn't or wouldn't beat this pony deal to get some exclusivity on the video game for one of the most sucessful S-F films ever made. Incidentally, to all the posts asking what the big f'in deal is, it's only 6 months - the totally restricted Internet capability is the big f'in deal, morons. Haven't you heard this is the future?
And one more thing. $20 ROYALTIES? Jesus, what's the retail gonna be on these games?! Those first 250,000 units better move fast 'cause I can't imagine Interplay is gonna be getting much out of them after that 20 buck pop.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
My Vulcan cohort would like to point out that "the next" sequel would equal the third movie in the three-part installment.
Logical?
After the ruckus he raised at that Time Warner sharholders meeting by reading the lyrics to Cop Killer I think he'd really like to address the shareholders meeting of a company that pushes a first person shooter where the majority of the targets are cops.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Goldeneye for N64. In fact, now that I think about it.. Nintendo has done pretty well with movie based titles. Rouge Squadron was a good Star Wars title.
And ET was fucking cool. I still remember cute little ET sticking his head up to eat a pixel (reese) and getting caged in a 16 block by 16 block cell until that guy came and rescued me. And the part in the forest type thing where you got back on your space ship?? It was probably one of my most favorite games, second only to maybe Midnight Maddness.
Good God the ignorance(maybe its bias...or maybe plain stupidity) out there on the internet and in a majority of the mainstream press baffles me.
Microsoft has pretty much won this console war before it begins. Exclusivity is a huge thing in the gaming world
You're quite right, exclusivity is, obviously, a major influencing factor behind who wins most console wars. But to compare, Microsoft easily comes in a distant 3rd place behind Sony and miles behind Nintendo. Heres a quick breakdown of major exclusives:
Sony- Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and Dragon Warrior, four incredibly established franchises.
Nintendo- Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon ($$), Wave Race, every Rare franchise out there, etc etc etc (theres many more).
Microsoft- Halo, Oddeworld: Abes Oddyssey, which arent really even franchises yet. See my point?
especially for a game that will almost certainly be a blockbuster.
*Sigh*. Where to begin. Movie franchises converted to games over the years have been notoriously shoddy. Goldeneye, which im assuming was the basis for your comment, was the exception to the rule. Why? Because it was made by Rare. Does microsoft have Rare? No. Just have one thing to say if youre gonna start comparing Interplay to Rare. Interplays bankrupt for a reason.
In no way is Microsoft going to dominate the next console war, unless of course people like you perpetuate the image of the "kiddy" gamecube and the blatant lie that Microsoft somehow has a majority of exclusives.
Just myIt's ok. All interplay has to do is realize the truth: That there is no spoon. Then, you will see that it isn't them that breaches the contract, it's only yourself.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
So, either this means one of two things. Either Microsoft has a "master plan" that convinced the movie people to let them have exclusive rights to the name, or this is just another case of the movie publishers knowing nothing about the game industry, and letting the first company to come along have the rights (like so many movie-based games). Looking at how Microsoft relies more on marketing, hype, and copy-cat tactics than actually trying to figure out what the gamers want, I'm guessing it's the second one. :)
Yes, Goldeneye is a great game (gotta love the sniper scope!), but it's still more of an exception rather than a rule. Maybe that's changing as business-types realize that the industry is making more money than movies, but it's still a bit of a slow process.
"Also, most of the people that I know who play games have played both starcraft and AoE, the second when we all got tired of the first, and liked both about as much."
However, being a "me, too!" game publisher doesn't do much to sell hardware or make a name for yourself as an industry. You've pointed out that most of the people you know played StarCraft first, and then moved on to AoE. There are also the people who bought StarCraft and didn't move on to AoE. AoE didn't really do anything for the genre, no new innovations, no immersive universe, just... well... more of the same.
I can't help but feel that if Microsoft were making games 20 years ago, they'd do nothing but churn out Pac-Man and Donkey Kong clones. And just like all the companies that did nothing but "me, too!" games, they'll be forgotten about after five years or so.
"Don't let the poor quality of microsoft's OS division close your mind entirely..."
The main problem with their OS division is the same as the main problem as all their other divisions: They are about money first, and everything else is just details. They don't want to be innovative, they don't want to push the envelope, they just want to continue getting a steady income from churning out 31 flavors of vanilla.
Nintendo is dedicated to what they do. They're all about the games, the whole games, and nothing but the games, and that's been their mantra for the past century or so (literally). Sony knows they don't know jack about games, so they whore themselves out to others that do (Squaresoft). Microsoft doesn't seem to be doing much of either.
First off, there's no evidence that they've listened to the gamers yet. Secondly, I do recall those "Player's Poll" contests they had in the old issues of Nintendo Power. I ended my subscription somewhere around their fifth anniversary, so I don't know if they still do it, but...
Besides, if you spend too much time trying to listen to gamers' suggestions and not enough time on being creative, you're going to end up with recycled games. There's only so many iterations of Mortal Kombat you can make before it gets old. Nobody was asking for FPSes until somebody got creative and made Wolfenstein.
"(Flight Simulator, Age of Empires series, the * Madness games, Mechwarrior games, and more)"
No, for those I'm saying "just more of the same."
Microsoft Flight Simulator: flight simulators have been around almost as long as there have been computer games. Microsoft saw how well Chuck Yeager's game was doing, and said "We can do that..."
Age of Empires: Microsoft didn't have their AoE "bright idea" until after Blizzard's big success with the WarCraft series.
I'm not familiar with the Madness games
MechWarrior 3 & 4: Microsoft only bought the rights to the BattleTech line after the success of MechWarriors 1 & 2, Activision titles. I also have the feeling that FASA got screwed over somewhere in that deal, too...
All I'm seeing here is the trend of Microsoft trying to get into some pre-existing action. If Microsoft REALLY knew what gamers wanted, they wouldn't have to play catch-up to publish their own works in a pre-existing genre.
"And I guess the 150+ third-party developers that have already signed on (including big names, like Sega, Capcom, and Konami from the console side, and Epic and id from the PC side) are just marketing?"
All the companies you named (except maybe Epic) are signing on for all three systems. It makes business sense to spread the love, making sure you have as wide a customer base as possible. Heck, even id has seen its titles on the SNES and N64.
From where I sit, the majority of new gaming innovation will take place on either the GameCube or the PS2. Xbox players will just be getting sloppy seconds from Microsoft Publishing as new territory is explored on the other two systems. It doesn't matter how much "better" your new maze game is, it still ain't Pac-Man.
Batman (NES)
True Lies (SNES)
Robocop (arcade)
Those are just the three that immediately come to my mind.
Nintendo, on the other hand, has extremely strong first- and second-party developers, so strong that in-house development is practically the sole reason the N64 managed to stay afloat against competition from Sony. The only software publisher that even comes close to Nintendo as far as variety and great games are concerned is Sega (though Squaresoft tries to pretend that it doesn't just make RPGs). This looks to be a major asset to Nintendo in the next console war, because they'll be the only one with great exclusive games.
So, is the fact that Microsoft went out and bagged exclusive rights for The Matrix a sign that they're seriously concerned about GameCube's ability to sell on exclusive games alone?
More importantly, will a Matrix game written by Microsoft be able to stand up against Zelda, Metroid, Perfect Dark, etc, or will Microsoft just be another poser to get smacked down hard like so many before? (After the PhotoShop debacle, I'm tempted to think the latter).
Oh, and one more thing: Does the fact that Microsoft now needs to ship out patches for a bug in UltimateTV an example of Microsoft's (lack of) ability to build a solid set-top box?
I can't think of any record-setting games that were based on a movie. Most of the best-sellers are original material, such as Final Fantasy and Zelda.
"and the XBox tech looks pretty good"
Yeah, no other system runs PhotoShop quite as well...
"Microsoft has played the gaming business better than anyone else ever has."
Like hell they have! When my friends and I have a LAN party, it's StarCraft we're playing, not AoE.
"Microsoft has decided they want to break into this market, and they're well on their way to domination."
I'm sorry, but I've yet to see anything from Microsoft that suggests that they'll be able to top Nintendo. So far, everything I've seen in the way of products for the Xbox seem rather wishy-washy at best, nothing really solid. At the very least, I don't see them being able to compete with a company that has been publishing sold and record-breaking hits from Donkey Kong to Zelda. If anything, Nintendo is gearing to seriously mess with Microsoft's turf with the new Metroid.
"The XBox will have a huge selection of software when it arrives"
A "quantity over quality" kind of person, I see... And what makes you think either GameCube or PS2 aren't going to have equally large libraries?
The Nintendo platform had already been out. Microsoft is buying out game companies to make games for the so far non-existant X-Box. They are using every dollar they can to strongarm their way into the console game market.
I just wonder what will happen to Interplay if the X-Box is a flop and the game doesn't sell well..
Like a cop in a crackhouse. I have a hunch MS knows damn well that Slashdot and the nerd culture is a threat to their business, what with /.'s torrent of truth and cries for fair business. The whole Matrix thing is likely a set-up to catch us violating the license somehow.
:)
Call me paranoid
Well, it's possible that *they* want to try and bring the matrix into reality...
--I had a cool sig, but it died. So I go this one.
I'd have to say the game TWINE was better than the movie, but I'm a big fan of big explosions, fast cars, and awesome gadgets, (and tons of 'em). Plus you get multi player AI (even tho they suck). Heck what they SHOULD do is try and get a license for Space Invaders! (watch, now just from this suggestion, they will) Hey, now that would be pretty cool if *anyone* came out with an awesome lookin space invaders game.
--I had a cool sig, but it died. So I go this one.
Well, heck, I bet some real motivated hacker out there will make some sort of crack for the Xbox games, to where you could at least play it on some platform... or maybe an emulator?
--I had a cool sig, but it died. So I go this one.
No, it's not a flame. I'm just wondering what on earth that said?
--I had a cool sig, but it died. So I go this one.