Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Buys Rare

Phwoar writes "Microsoft have announced their buyout of the games developer Rare. After a $375 million payoff Rare will now produce games solely for the Xbox. After Rare's recent releases for the Nintendo systems bombed, Nintendo decided to sell their 49% stake in the company last week rather than buy the company themselves. Google News has a nice collection of links to articles regarding the announcement." You might be reminded of Microsoft's purchase of Bungie a few years ago.

510 comments

  1. Perfect Dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great there goes another great sequel for the Gamecube

    1. Re:Perfect Dark by Progoth · · Score: 1

      and even more disturbing to me is the certain death of Conker:( I liked perfect dark's dual controller scheme, but when I had to duck to beat a training mission and couldn't find a way to do it with that control setup, I kind of lost interest.

      conker's bad fur day, however, was one of the most entertaining games I've played.

    2. Re:Perfect Dark by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Don't look at this in such a negative light, there are rumours that the two top folks at Rare are on about leaving anyway. Combine this with how long it will take Rare to get productive with the XBox and you can see that Nintendo have come out of this quite well. Programming Nintendo consoles can be a lot different to other consoles, getting used to using DirectX and all the other APIs will be a lot different to what they are used to.

    3. Re:Perfect Dark by BTWR · · Score: 1

      no it doesn't. According to the article...

      "Nintendo said last week that even though it has sold its Rare stake, it retains all intellectual property rights to the titles developed for its platforms by Rare, including well-known franchises like "Donkey Kong" and "Star Fox." "

      So it looks like we can expect DK-cubed, Perfect Dark-cubed, etc...

    4. Re:Perfect Dark by inteller · · Score: 0

      oh give me a break....Rare has written (ported) PC games before, and writing for the Xbox is pretty much like a PC since it IS a PC. It won't take them very long to come up with a game.

    5. Re:Perfect Dark by FuntSHOT · · Score: 1

      Damnit. Perfect Dark is for shit without Rareware. In much the same way that the bond sequel was crap once EA bought the rights. POOPIE!

  2. Paper Clip Kong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Will we get Donkey Kong office assistants now?

    1. Re:Paper Clip Kong by brain159 · · Score: 1

      naah, because bonzibuddy could sue them for look+feel copyright infringement :D

    2. Re:Paper Clip Kong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no because nintendo kept right to donkey kong

    3. Re:Paper Clip Kong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      test

  3. Re-issue Goldeneye! by leviramsey · · Score: 1

    That game was a classic... perhaps the best console FPS ever, especially in multiplayer. Redoing it for the X-Box, with improved graphics and more detailed level designs would kick some serious ass!

    1. Re:Re-issue Goldeneye! by bluecalix · · Score: 1

      I think doing that would be against everything good about rare. Let them run wild, don't fence them in with a re-hash of former glory.

      --
      e x p e c t d e l a y . c o m
    2. Re:Re-issue Goldeneye! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the 3*E^54 incarnations of Donkey Kong that Rare was responsible for? *laughs*

    3. Re:Re-issue Goldeneye! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about doing something new?

    4. Re:Re-issue Goldeneye! by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

      Man, how many hours did I waste huddled around a TV with 8 friends, spliff burning, hooting and hollering at Golden Eye?

    5. Re:Re-issue Goldeneye! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already did, it was called Perfect Dark. Same development team, same great gameplay. It was just more and newer, more weapons, more customizable multiplayer, very tough bots to multi against. Still bound by the harware requirements of the N64 thouhg. Great game.

    6. Re:Re-issue Goldeneye! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Quite a significant chunk of the Goldeneye team jumped ship. They went on to produce TimeSplitters for PS. Timesplitters II however is coming out on GC (amongst others) - so it looks like everybody is gonna get to play Goldeneye sequels :)

    7. Re:Re-issue Goldeneye! by FuntSHOT · · Score: 1

      Too bad TimeSplitters was crap compared to any actual Rare product. It had very very weak multiplayer options in comparison. And the concept/theme was so half-baked it wasn't even funny. I am really, really bent out of shape over this. The Perfect Dark sequel would have been the best game of all time.

  4. Switch by sfled · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    Due to this announcement, I am switching from MCSE track to *nix track.

    PS - MCSE Course on sale shortly-watch eBay

    --
    I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
    1. Re:Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. You're protesting by getting rid of The Hottest Certification Since Sliced Bread?

      What is the relevance of that? Maybe OT, if nothing else.

      It's a gaming system, buddy. Not a career.

    2. Re:Switch by brain159 · · Score: 1

      Would "The Hottest Certification Since Sliced Bread" be a diploma in making toast?

    3. Re:Switch by sfled · · Score: 1

      Would "The Hottest Certification Since Sliced Bread" be a diploma in making toast?

      Looks that way. The decision to make Rare games proprietary demonstrated to me (once and for all) that BillCo still doesn't get it. It pushed me over the edge, so to speak, of a decision I have been considering for the past six months.

      Back in the early-mid nineties or thereabouts, Gates turned his corporate behemoth on a dime to accept and embrace the internet, after years of denying that it was relevant. But now, they can't seem to figure out a way to embrace open source. Since even a dullard like me can see that proprietary systems will continue to lose market share, I am switching to open source.

      --
      I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
  5. Bills, bills everywhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5 separate Microsoft stories on the front page??

    Resistance is futile.

    1. Re:Bills, bills everywhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up you weak, paranoid homo

  6. horrible by tux-sucks · · Score: 0

    This is a shame. I remember when Bungie used to make fantastic mac only games. I remember when Rare use to make fantastic Nintendo only games. Sometimes as a studio, you just need the cash and stability sometimes that can come from a buyout, but it's just kind of sad to see the real gems sell out to none other than Microsoft.

    1. Re:horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, MS is just sooo much "worse" than Sony or Nintendo. Christ.

    2. Re:horrible by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      You know, I honestly don't care what MS does in the game market. MS dominating the console wars won't force DRM down my throat, or force me to boot in to Windows to read those damn .doc files people keep sending me, or make me curse people for using those proprietary extensions to HTML that IE seems to love.

      So MS is buying up game studios. I'll get over it. I've got better things to worry about, like the EULA on XP's SP1.

  7. old news.... by dextr0us · · Score: 1

    if you read any gaming publication, this is old news, i guess its relevant to slashdot though, since it is microsoft.

    --
    "Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
    1. Re:old news.... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      It amazes me how many people bitch about /. going to hell. If you really think that, just leave. Geez.

    2. Re:old news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really think that, just leave.

      You leave, I was born here!

    3. Re:old news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the full terms of the deal (including purchase price and licenses retained) were not revealed until recently. It is actually a good thing that this story wasn't posted till now to give the full facts.

    4. Re:old news.... by hankaholic · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, because Slashdot _always_ waits to get the facts straight before posting.

      --
      Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
  8. Bungie is Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Halo was all set to come out on Mac and PC. The game was hot stuff. People were banking on this one to be the next big thing in FPS titles.

    Along comes Micro$oft, Bungie gets big googly eyes about all the money and ditches their PC title in favor of the XBox one.

    That, is the one reason why I will not purchase Halo. They don't deserve my money, they're nothing but pushover weiners. They let Bill Gates fuck them in the ass.

    1. Re:Bungie is Ass by mao+che+minh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ah-fucking-men.

    2. Re:Bungie is Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you compain that a compain that is for profit choose a customer who offered them a bigger profit ?

      let me guest your a communist ?
      or an idiot ?
      F**ing NIX biggot

    3. Re:Bungie is Ass by mao+che+minh · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not "compain", a company. And what do profits have to do with anything, you butt tard?

      And thank you for the 'NIX biggot remark. I try.

    4. Re:Bungie is Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've played Halo. With a mouse and keyboard it could have been a great game. Too bad it was wasted on a console system. So yes, they sold out art for money. sure everyone does it. Dosen't make it right.

    5. Re:Bungie is Ass by Heywood+Yabuzof · · Score: 1


      AFAIK, Halo for the PC has not been canceled yet. Information from Bungie employees indicates it's still on track.

      If they decide to actually cancel Halo for the PC, then yes, I will agree that Bungie sucks. Until then, however, I will remember Marathon fondly and still hold out hope for a PC (or PC/Mac) Halo.

  9. No Great Loss by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "You might be reminded of Microsoft's purchase of Bungie a few years ago."

    When Microsoft bought Bungie, it was to buy a "killer app" for the X-Box and nerf it's simultaneous PC development for fear it would show up the X-Box.

    Rare on the other hand has a whole one game announced and a legacy of Nintendo titles. Ultimately, it's just another shot fired in the console wars, rather than a loss to PC gaming, this time.

    I would buy an X-Box, knowing Bill loses as much money as I spend on each one sold - but he has more money than me and so is going to win that war.

    1. Re:No Great Loss by morgajel · · Score: 5, Informative

      if you read up on the release, nintendo kept a lot of IP, including the rights to some of their classics like donkey kong, etc.

      the legacy of nintendo titles is just that- a legacy... not really an asset.

      --
      Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
    2. Re:No Great Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [i]I would buy an X-Box, knowing Bill loses as much money as I spend on each one sold - but he has more money than me and so is going to win that war[/i]

      Buy an xbox and Bill loses $200, don't buy one and he loses $500.

    3. Re:No Great Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you hate the bill?

      I do hate MS for thier practices, and I have a strong aversion to windows, but I fail to see how that can be turned into "I want to screw Microsoft every day"

    4. Re:No Great Loss by DrRiffic · · Score: 1

      xbox is huge, lol

    5. Re:No Great Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what

    6. Re:No Great Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      think the xbox would fit in pele's vagina?

      halo2 for xbox will require an expansion pack
      that's bigger than xbox, lol

    7. Re:No Great Loss by DrRiffic · · Score: 1

      xbox is so huge i dropped it on my foot, and it didn't fall because it's lol huge

    8. Re:No Great Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jew

    9. Re:No Great Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never gave away the rights to Donkey Kong or the other games, so it was always pretty clear they would retain those. Losing Perfect Dark and Conker is a bigger deal because they were more 'mature' games that could have helped Nintendo shed it's 'kiddie' image. But they didn't when they were released for the N64 despite quite a bit of advertising (they actually sold relatively poorly).

      Microsoft paid WAY too much for a company that takes 3 or so years per release, and was helped by Nintendo's gameplay/game design experts and licenses/characters. They do just want to get their foot in the door with Xbox now (that's all they can hope to achieve now), but there is no way they are going to make $375 mill from a developer best known to another company's fanatical audience (Nintendo).

    10. Re:No Great Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xbox is so huge it makes jupiter look like a marble.

    11. Re:No Great Loss by Zybl0re · · Score: 1

      lol, xbox is huge. and gamecube is so small

    12. Re:No Great Loss by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

      Nintendo owned Donkey Kong and Star Fox before Rare ever made games using those characters, so it's amusing that anyone would think Rare would take those with them when they never owned those franchises in the first place. As for Microsoft spending a lot to acquire Rare, keep in mind that MS has $50 bil in the bank and no debt. Also, Microsoft has always been long term focused not short term. I doubt they expect to make back the money any time soon.

    13. Re:No Great Loss by phong3d · · Score: 2

      Maybe. Nintendo's got Metroid Prime and Capcom's blessing of exclusive Resident Evil licenses for a long time, as well as plenty of other non-kiddie games to try and broaden their percieved demographic.

      What does MS get? Banjo-Kazooie. Microsoft has no platformers worth mentioning right now, save for a retread of Crash Bandicoot 3, and I'll bet you Steve Ballmer's sweat-stained oxford shirt at one of his company's pep rallies that Christmas 2003 will see Banjo-Threeie (or whatver they'll call it) at the front of the marketing blitz.

    14. Re:No Great Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, i'm going on vacation next month and instead of staying in a hotel, i'm just bringing my xbox and staying in that.

    15. Re:No Great Loss by EvilAlien · · Score: 2, Funny

      Microsoft is playing Pokemon with developers... gotta collect them all!

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    16. Re:No Great Loss by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      Perfect Dark sold $55 million, or so I read... is that poorly for a console game? I guess that is only 1 million sold. But that sounds good for an N64 game.

    17. Re:No Great Loss by Schlacht · · Score: 1

      Make sure if you buy one, you don't buy any titles of perifs ...

      --
      rm -rf ms/*
    18. Re:No Great Loss by Darby · · Score: 2

      I do hate MS for thier practices, and I have a strong aversion to windows, but I fail to see how that can be turned into "I want to screw Microsoft every day"

      It's a little philosophy called do unto others as they do to you.

  10. Cogitation... by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 1, Redundant

    .

    <MONTYBURNS>

    Ehhxxxcelent...

    </MONTYBURNS>

    .

    --
    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
    GeneralEmergency
  11. Re:I got this rare fp for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you suck at the internet

  12. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's about time Microsoft started playing by the same tactics Sony and Nintendo have used for years:

    Buy the companies that make the best games, and be sure they only make them for you.

    I can't wait for Donkey Kong Country X. :-)

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm, except Nintendo owns the rights to Donkey Kong, Star Fox, and many of the other titles Rare has worked on since they became a second party. Microsoft even had to pay extra money for the rights to Banjo Kazooie and Perfect Dark.

    2. Re:Awesome by bluecalix · · Score: 1

      Nintendo of course retained DK.

      --
      e x p e c t d e l a y . c o m
    3. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except Nintendo still owns the rights to Donkey Kong, as well as Banjo-Kazooie and maybe even Conker. Not sure about Perfect Dark.

    4. Re:Awesome by Kirsha · · Score: 1

      Yes, buy all the software developers. Dont mind the whole monopoly thing.

    5. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to an article I read (linked to from somewhere on news.google.com), Nintendo still owns all of the rights to Donkey Kong, Starfox, etc. I guess that was a part of the deal when they sold their hand in Rare.

    6. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy the companies that make the best games? I see you've never played a game made by Rare.

      I've been hearing about this purchase for a while and I still can't figure it out. As much as I hate the fact that MS bought (killed) Bungie, the greatest game developer ever, it was a obviously a smart move for them. So why would a company capable of making such smart moves be stupid enough to waste money on a worthless company like Rare?

    7. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's EXACTLY what Sony did! Don't hear you complaining about that!

      Microsoft has a monopoly in PC OPERATING SYSTEMS, not game consoles.

      Get a grip.

    8. Re:Awesome by Qrlx · · Score: 2

      Microsoft has a monopoly in PC OPERATING SYSTEMS, not game consoles.

      What does Sony have a monopoly in? Aside from Betamax??

      The whole point is: Microsoft can use their MONOPOLY POWER in the PC market to illegally influence that market. For example, they have so much money that they told a maker of great PC games to never make a PC game again. The company agreed.

      Do you understand how that might be "more badder" than the sleaziness of Sony and Nintento?

      (Here come the bad analogy...)
      It's like if I had a monopoly on oil painting, and dominated the market and was filthy rich from it. Then I decided to port my painting skills into watercolors. Let's say you are a great water color artist. My millions talk you in to giving up water colors so I can try to dominate that segment as well.

      The thing is: nobody has a monopoly on consoles (though Sony sems to be winning from where I am, and that is behind a Windows PC) and that's why the competition is so fierce.

      Supposedly we little people benefit from this kind of thing. Fierce, cutthroat business tactics are apparently the paradigm on which to base your civlization. Go figure.

    9. Re:Awesome by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Rare kept Conker, Banjo & Perfect Dark.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    10. Re:Awesome by Cornelius+Chesterfie · · Score: 1

      FYI, MS does not get Donkey Kong. However they do get Perfect Dark, Killer Instinct, Conker, Blast Corps. Their first Xbox game will be the once-Nintendo-exclusive Kameo.

    11. Re:Awesome by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft really wanted to drive everyone to the XBox and kill off the PC as the de-facto gaming platform, all that they would have to do is stop releasing DirectX and retract any existing licenses (as provided in their developer license agreements).

      Of course, since DirectX is their surest method of distributing their DRM trojan (a la Media Player), that's not likely to happen.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    12. Re:Awesome by KirkH · · Score: 1

      This is funny. It gets corrected all the time but don't let that stop you.

      Microsoft only has a monopoly in the OS market. Therefore, legally, they can do whatever they want in the console market without fear of anti-trust law. All the console companies buy out smaller developers. Why scream "monopoly" when MS does it?

  13. Primates by EvlPenguin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yippie. Now Steve Balmer won't be the only large, hairy monkey to hold an Xbox controller.

    --

    --
    #nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
    1. Re:Primates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      donkey-kong is trademarked by nintendo, they just licensed rare to make the game -- there will be no dk on xbox

    2. Re:Primates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Steve Ballmer ? Hairy ?

    3. Re:Primates by Cornelius+Chesterfie · · Score: 1

      autopr0n, you make it sound like Rare shouldn't get credit, just because they didn't come up with DK. All Nintendo supplied was the DK name...the games got popular because Rare made great games. A mascot on its own is worthless and Nintendo doesn't deserve any credit for any of Rare's successes.

    4. Re:Primates by byran+lei · · Score: 0

      >because they didn't come up with DK. All Nintendo supplied was the DK
      >name...the games got popular because Rare made great games. A mascot
      >on its own is worthless and Nintendo doesn't deserve any credit for
      >any of Rare's successes.
      >
      >
      You sir, are a total idoit. Rare had *NOTHING* to do with the sucess of Donkey Kong. DK was an stand-up arcade/character game owned by Nintendo long before Rare came into extistance.

  14. this actually is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Considering the fact that Nintendo is quickly picking up great 3rd part support, such as Squaresoft and Capcom's Resident Evil series, this actually makes a lot more sense then it did at first glance. the register, at http://www.theregus.com/content/54/26394.html, makes a great point about the logics of selling Rare, which is what many argued was Nintendo's greatest asset. Apparently, the founders of Rare, the Stamper Brothers, are soon to leave the company, so most of the innovation that came in Rare games was to leave them. I am a proud owner of a Gamecube, and all I can say is, we still get Starfox, and we can always just make another great 1st person shooter using the 007 liscense :)

    1. Re:this actually is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *heh* Rare definitely provided some strong games for Nintendo(particularly during the N64 days), but in all honesty I'd say Nintendo's first party development teams are their true strength. It's also the one thing that separates Nintendo from Sony, and to a lesser extent Microsoft. Nintendo *is* the game designers and the console designers rolled into one. Sega is the only company that ever really could compete for quality of 1st party support, and they're now a 3rd party company...

    2. Re:this actually is a good thing. by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      EA owns the 007 license now (and has since Tomorrow Never Dies). They do release some games from that license on the GameCube.

    3. Re:this actually is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve B? izzat you?

    4. Re:this actually is a good thing. by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Considering the fact that Nintendo is quickly picking up great 3rd part support, such as Squaresoft and Capcom's Resident Evil series, this actually makes a lot more sense then it did at first glance.

      Heck, Super Mario Sunshine will probably sell more Gamecubes than Microsoft's entire stable of XBox-only games.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:this actually is a good thing. by Mex · · Score: 1

      Cue Nintendo fanboys going "Ah, Rare wasn't so great anyway", when a few months ago they were saying "Well, Microsoft may have a more powerful machine, but they don't have Rare!"

      You are deluded if you think Microsoft got ripped off.

      Fact is, they paid 350+ million not for the talent that may still be hanging around Rare's headquarters - but for the licenses and name recognition that Rare comes with.

      Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini... Hell, even their way old licenses like Battletoads and Snake Rattle N Roll could make an appearance for the Xbox! And even better(or worse, depending who you ask), they keep these licenses forever. It's golden for them. Xbox 2 with Banjo Kazooie X2 in launch day? Hell.

      Microsoft did a smart thing. They may have paid more than a normal company would, but still a GREAT move.

    6. Re:this actually is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The reason Nintendo dropped Rare is because they are looking to get out of the hardware side of the business after the Gamecubes life cycle is up. It's pretty obvious if you look at their situation.

      Hardware does not make money and the next generation (xbox 2 vs playstation 3) will be a bloodbath. Making hardware is risky, if you lose the markets faith you will die fast, just look at Sega Dreamcast and Saturn. Nintendo could drop the hardware, the heavy up front R&D cost, the pure risk of the hardware market, and focus on what they have always done better than anyone else....make games.

      Also, Nintendo just has no interest in making anything but games. They don't want the set top box market like Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo does not want to build a online gaming network. They want to make games and that is what they will focus on after the Gamecubes time is up. Features standard in the next generation (hard drives, nics, etc) just aren't things in the core of Nintendo's business....look how long they hung onto the cartridge.

      The only question I have is who will get the Nintendo games the next generation. Unless Nintendo for some reason wants to stick it to the gaijin, it will probably be Microsoft just cause Sony could never outbid them. I think this is why ultimately I see Microsoft winning the battle with the XBOX 2.

      BTW - I just read the founders are not leaving from the Rare web site itself. They probably got a few contracted years with the company before hitting the beach.

    7. Re:this actually is a good thing. by Psykechan · · Score: 1

      Heck, Super Mario Sunshine will probably sell more Gamecubes than Microsoft's entire stable of XBox-only games.

      I don't know, Microsoft's Xbox-only games sold me on the Gamecube.

    8. Re:this actually is a good thing. by rseuhs · · Score: 2
      Microsoft did a smart thing.

      Is losing on hardware and now losing on software, too a smart thing?

      Rare will never be able to pay the ~20 million/year, a 350 million debt would cost, therefore they will never be profitable. With XBox-only development, it is illusoric to even come near that mark.

    9. Re:this actually is a good thing. by matlokheed · · Score: 1

      Right on most accounts. They have Perfect Dark and Banjo (I believe that's correct), but those older ones I don't believe are accurate. I'm sure I remember that Battletoads is in licensing hell (owned by now defunct Tradewest) and there's no way that'll ever see the light of day again and I have a feeling Snake Rattle and Roll is in a similar situation.

      --

      "If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka

    10. Re:this actually is a good thing. by hkmwbz · · Score: 2
      It was my understanding that Nintendo actually make money off their hardware.

      It looks like Nintendo are very much interested in making hardware. They dominate the handheld gaming market at the moment, and they apparently don't like the way the other consoles are trying to do everything. Nintendo just want to create a simple gaming machine.

      I would be surprised if the GameCube was Nintendo's last console.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    11. Re:this actually is a good thing. by hkmwbz · · Score: 2
      Your childish comments aside, I think both Nintendo and Microsoft are gaining something from this.
      • Nintendo are getting some cash to start focusing more on third-party support, and pulling out of a relationship which was no longer as healthy to them (Rare's games apparently made up a whopping 1.5 per cent of Nintendo's total sales last year, steadily going down). Don't forget that the Stamper brothers are pulling out, and that many of the original developers that helped to build the Rare brand name have left to create their own company.
      • Microsoft are buying a brand name which has a good ring in most hardcore gamers' ears, including the gaming press. They also get a few licenses (although some of the ones you mention no longer belong to Rare, AFAIK)
      But remember that much of Rare's success with their games was due to the heavy involvement of geniuses like Shigery Miyamoto (Nintendo's not-so-secret weapon). He oversaw the development of several smash hits, including Star Fox and Donkey Kong.

      And when you consider the fact that the Stamper brothers are pulling out, and large part of the original development teams have moved on to other companies, what Microsoft is left with is basically a brand name and a few licenses. Rare will still be able to create nice games I think, but will they be able to make the same impact as they did in the past?

      I seriously doubt it.

      You are talking about how Nintendo fanboys raved about Rare in the past. This is true. Rare was once a force to be reckoned with. However, have you noticed how silent the fanboys have been about Rare lately? I think they realize that Rare is no longer the same as it used to be.

      All in all, it looks like Nintendo have made a smart move. They have lost little - the ones that quit Rare are now working on GameCube games, it seems. The licenses aren't half as strong as Nintendo's own.

      Microsoft have bough the brand recognition of a company which currently is struggling hard to live up to its past glory, but not quite succeeding.

      I wouldn't call it a ripoff, because gaming fans have fond memories of Rare's games. But then I wouldn't exactly call it a major breakthrough for Microsoft either.

      But that remains to be seen. Maybe Rare can start doing their magic again, without the people who have already left and are leaving.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    12. Re:this actually is a good thing. by MatSimpsk · · Score: 1
      I'm actually old and hairy enough to remember the last time the Stampers sold a games company. When US Gold, then the titan of the UK games industry bought Ultimate Play The Game (the proto-Rare), things went rapidly downhill. My guess is that the Stampers will once again disappear for a couple of years, only to return with a new company that'll keep the ACG flame burning. Next time, though, I'd imagine they'll be smart enough to develop their own IPs rather than update other peoples.

      If Microsoft did splash GBP250 million just to access IP and not gain access to any remaining talent at the company, they really have been ripped off. Perfect Dark and Banjo Kazooie/Tooie are great games, but huge franchises? Not in the world I'm living in. And Jet Force Gemini? Do me a favour...

      Activision did right and balked at the high price, Nintendo and the Stampers did right and took the money and ran.

    13. Re:this actually is a good thing. by Grahf666 · · Score: 1

      I doubt that. While Microsoft and Sony busy themselves building set top convergence boxes (and trying to be everything and the kitchen sink), Nintendo could easily focus on the thing they've always been great at: making good, fun games, and a knockout console system. I don't think that set top boxes or online console gaming are really gonna fly anyway: still, not enough people have broadband... and I think the only people actually interested in set top boxes are those that think net-connected fridges and toasters are cool (which in my opinion is a ridiculous idea).

  15. Re:I got this rare fp for free by leviramsey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Actually, you got second post.

  16. that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    375 million? i think they paid that much just for the prestige of owning a previously successful game company. Now after they pay the cost to switching to the xbox development environment, they got to produce something worthwhile. I dunno about you, but 375 million is difficult to live up to. I think the idea it total garbage on microsoft's part.

    1. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by zaffir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it's less about making tons of money from Rare's games than just having the games on their console. Example:

      1) Rare makes another Goldeneye.
      2) Rare's new game makes MS $5 million
      3) 10,000 people buy X-Boxes just to play this game. Conversely, these people DON'T buy PS2s and Gamecubes because those systems don't have this cool new game.
      4) MS increases user base.
      5) ???
      6) Profit!

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    2. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't say that they were going to make tons of money, either. I think this is a losing situation at least for a while. This put them 375 million in the hole. And they don't make money selling xboxs either. So thats why they do have to make alot of money at selling rare games, a very big expectation to live up to while switching to something completely new.

    3. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by erpbridge · · Score: 2

      Wasn't Rare the ones who made BattleToads as well?

    4. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, yes, this does increase their base however little it does if they get hardcore fans to join them.

      this is just a long uphill battle it seems.

    5. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting



      1) Rare makes another Goldeneye.
      2) Rare's new game makes MS $5 million
      3) 10,000 people buy X-Boxes just to play this game. Conversely, these people DON'T buy PS2s and Gamecubes because those systems don't have this cool new game.
      4) MS increases user base.
      5) ???
      6) Profit!



      Microsoft buys Rare for $375 mill. Microsoft sells $5 mill in games for 4 million in profit. They sell a bunch more consoles at some unkown loss per console.

      Looks to me like Microsoft is still out $370 mill at least. Sure doesn't look like a profit to me.

    6. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by sweetooth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone that buys an X-Box just for golden eye probably already owns the other two or is going to shell out the money for the other two when a "killer game" comes out for those consoles. Especially if you consider that someone makeing a console purchase based on a "killer game" approach will probably have to have a game cube for zelda or a ps2 for Final Fantasy etc.

    7. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by drzhivago · · Score: 1

      If Rare's new game only makes MS $5 million, something is wrong. That means the game only sold 100k copies, and in the world of console games, would be considered a failure given Rare's reputation. Upping the money amount by 8-10x would probably be more on-target.

    8. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by parliboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      5) Microsoft loses $200 per box x 10,000 boxes.
      6) Bankruptcy!

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    9. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if someone is on the fence about a console, and suddenly the latest and greatest is out for the x-box, they're likely to choose the x-box.

      Also, i know plenty of people who bought the n64 for goldeneye and never owned a PSX, and many who got a Playstation for FF7 and didn't own an n64.

    10. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by byran+lei · · Score: 0


      >1) Rare makes another Goldeneye.
      >2) Rare's new game makes MS $5 million
      >3) 10,000 people buy X-Boxes just to play this game. Conversely, these
      >people DON'T buy PS2s and Gamecubes because those systems don't have
      >this cool new game.
      >4) MS increases user base.
      >
      >
      Doesn't work like that. On it's own Rare is nothing as Microsoft will very quickly discover. It was Nintendo and Nintendo's titles they subcontracted to Rare that made Rare. Why do you think Nintendo made sure that they took their titles with them when they ditched Rare? Microsoft got taken big time here. As for Goldeneye after GTA3 and GTA:Vice City this is now pretty much a "Who Cares" title. It's draw little or no interest from the PS2 or GameCube crowd.

    11. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Tsuzuki · · Score: 1

      Yup. They also made the brilliant Snake Rattle 'N' Roll, a sequel to which would be the only reason I would shell out for an X-Box. ;)

    12. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be really late at night in someones time zone.

    13. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by bergeron76 · · Score: 2
      I think you guys are missing the big picture here. MSFT isn't going to go "bankrupt" over buying this company. This is simply a power play. Why do think they don't mind losing money selling the Xbox. To them, $375 million is a drop in the bucket. Their goal is to proliferate the Xbox as much as possible. Once it's the dominant platform, they can:
      • A) overtake their competitors much the way they did to the the PC platform.
      • B) force XXX million homes to upgrade to "new features" (DRM) for the users benefit.
      • C) control the home media platform (which the xbox is just the diving board for (at this point in time). Within 3 years, the "console" will be a DRM box, a game machine, a PC for people that aren't power users (aol'ers and MSN'ers), a home stereo, an HDTV processor, and home theatre / DVD machine.
      • D) merge the PC market; the home entertainment market; and the ASP internet space (MSN).

      The result will be one giant leap into world domination. From there they'll buy countries and governments (oh wait, haven't they done that already?). Open source will be outlawed, and consequently a revolt will ensue. The corporation will be the governor and the people will be slaves. The true hackers, free thinkers, and idealists will be outlawed.

      [ Fill in your own ending here ]

      Be very afraid my friends. Mark my words.

      MSFT Shills feel free to challenge this post. We already know who you are.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    14. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by brianvan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (snicker)

      Microsoft has $60 billion in cash reserves, or something like that. $200 x 10,000 is 2 million dollars (evil pinky finger to lips).

      Microsoft is well known for throwing lots of money at lost causes until either:

      1. They know for sure no one will ever want what they're trying to sell
      2. They finally get it right and it takes off like wildfire

      Most of the time, the result is #2. (I'm using Internet Explorer right now, as a matter of fact.)

    15. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 1

      Where did this "microsoft loses $200 per box" thing come from? Does anyone have a link to share about this?

      Last I checked, the boxes were retailing for $199. Do these machines really cost 400 bucks to manufacture? Isn't that a little steep?

      Just wonderin'...

      --

      --
      pants ahoy
    16. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by ZaMoose · · Score: 2

      I still have nightmares featuring Snake, Rattle n' Roll's theme music... *shudder*

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    17. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Yorrike · · Score: 3, Informative
      No. Selling 100,000 copies would garner $5million gross at the retail level. When you buy a $50 game, the money does not get put in the shop's till and then given directly to MS next time their rep comes in.

      I believe the game companies make between $5 and $10 on each $50 game. In order for MS to make $5million, they need to sell more than 700,000 copies (that is, of course, disregarding the loss they incure with every sale of an Xbox). In order to make the $375 million Rare cost them, they must sell somewhere in the order of 60 million games (this is still disregarding the loss on every Xbox). Rare cost Microsoft way too much.

      Good one Nintendo. You pulled a fast one.

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    18. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by tc · · Score: 3, Informative
      Er, no. MS probably make somewhere in the region of $5 to $10 for every Xbox game sold in licencing fees. That's regardless of whether they are the developer or publisher of that title. In the case where they are both developer and publisher (as is now the case with Rare titles) the revenue per title is more likely to be in the $20 to $25 per unit range.

      Rare's titles have sold an average of around 1.4 million each throughout their history. Let's suppose they manage to do half that in future. Revenue for MS from each Rare title might therefore be around the $14-21M range.

      Suppose Rare ship another 5 titles over the lifetime of the Xbox. That's getting up to $100M in revenue. Now factor in the extra bonus of having more quality titles on Xbox - which should increase console sales and therefore revenue for all other games sales. Suddenly, it looks like MS's increased revenue as a result of the purchase might be quite substantial, and the purchase price of $375M looks like not a bad deal at all.

    19. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      You are exactly right, its pretty funny watching the analysts scatch their heads and wonder why Microsoft is selling a product that has no hope of ever coming close to being as profitable as their current offerings, even after including the game license fees. They generally decided that it was all about growth, since PCs have generally slowed.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    20. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by GMontag451 · · Score: 2
      I believe the game companies make between $5 and $10 on each $50 game.

      The game shops only make $5 to $10 for each $50 game. The rest of the money goes to the game company, minus a piddling amount for reproduction costs. Granted, you have to take into account development costs, but those are one time fees. After the development costs are recovered (first 250,000 games or so), the company makes at *least* $30 per $50 game. This puts your 60 million games figure down to 12.5 million. That is still quite a few games, but is easily manageable if spread out over 3-5 big name games.

    21. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by jsse · · Score: 1

      They don't need to earn $375 in selling games to breakeven. Don't forget the company itself is an asset. Also, the increase in stock values as a result of successful games made could outweight the profit gains from revenue of games/console selling.

    22. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      IIRC the original cost of manufacture for Xboxes was about $350, so MS was selling them at a loss. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot cheaper to make them now, though.

    23. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But add in the typically longer than average development time of Rare games (2 years minimum)the loss of it's more recognizable licenses (Donkey Kong, Goldeneye), and the fact that it is a developer best known to Nintendo's audience.

      The last few games it released also sold poorer than expected. As Nintendo said, it's precentage contribution to Nintendo's profit dropped from 9.5% to 1.5%. Rare games probably cost more than the average game to make, and there have been several serious defections from it's staff with rumours of more to come, including it's founders.

      If Rare earns back that $375 million it won't be for a VERY long time (2-3 system lifecycles) and Nintendo can use that money to shore up more third party deals like with Capcom (Resident Evil exclusivity up to #4), Namco (Star fox co-production), Sega (F-zero coproduction), Squaresoft (partially owned by Sony, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles co-production).

    24. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by nzkoz · · Score: 2

      Microsoft won't be looking to get a 'payback' over the near term.

      They're after yield. At present that $375m in cash is only earning them $15m a year. if they get more than that over the long term then they're better off, the odds of that are fairly high.

      Similarly nintendo haven't necessarily poorly because of it. They could well have better things to do with $375m USD.

      It's all a question of who needs what. MSFT need rare and NTDO don't. Neither lost, both have probably gained

      --
      Cheers Koz
    25. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by tc · · Score: 2
      It's true that it's lost the Nintendo licences, but Rare still has a number of valuable properties (e.g. Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie, Blast Corps). The poorer than expected results for the most recent titles have, according to rumour, partly been to do with Nintendo dropping the ball - from what I hear they've been more arms length with Rare recently, getting GameCube dev kits to them later than expected and generally not keeping them as close as they did in the N64 era. This might explain the staff defections - disaffaction with Nintendo, a problem that might just have gone away with the MS purchase.

      I'd be surprised if the founders were to leave any time soon. If nothing else, I'm sure MS were smart enough to lock them in contractually, since when you buy a development company you're buying the people as much as the IP.

      Making back that $375 could be a breeze if it's the catalyst that kick starts Xbox profitability. Even if that doesn't happen, they'll still make a modest chunk of it back over the lifetime of the console. And it's not like the company and it's brands don't have any value after that - it's still a good purchase even if they don't make back the purchase price on revenue, because they are also buying assets which have value.

    26. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. One of the best and FREAKING HARDEST games for the SNES, Super BattleToads was.

    27. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Yorrike · · Score: 2

      Nintendo will likely use the cash for their current developer seeding project. Giving large grants of a couple of million to small groups with good ideas and skills. They'll likely end up with 2 or 3 Rare-like developers out of this (depending on whether they make the right choices. Though Nintendo isn't stupid).

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    28. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like 375 million means anything to microsoft, any user base increase is worth far more than that to them.

    29. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, all those sales of IE really puffed up their bank account. The fact is, besides windows and office, none of their products make a profit. That must really piss them off.

    30. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That'd be a great argument if it wasn't for the enourmous loss in compounded interest on 375mill. Try calculating that in, with the assumption that you're also paying developers and operating costs for a year or so.


      With that kind of cash expenditure, and your logic, it would have been much more profitable long term to use that money to offset the cost of the hardware. Make the hardware cost $50 and they would have dramatically increased market share and attracted the interest of lots of game developers.

    31. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by tc · · Score: 2
      True, there are running costs associated with buying Rare. On the other hand, they also have assets, which the $375M are partly buying. Those assets will still exist even if the company generates no revenue.

      MS are in it for the long haul. Rare don't have to pay for themselves in the next year, or even the next five years in order for it to be a worthwhile purchase. Take a look at the PE ratios of most companies - they're often valued at something more on the order of 20 years worth of revenue (if not more, in many cases).

    32. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by edwdig · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dig around at any GameCube website and you'll find that Rare was the first company outside of Nintendo to get GameCube dev kits.

      The whole point of the sale was so the owners could get out of it and retire. They offered to sell the company to Nintendo first, but they decided they weren't worth the money, hence the sale to Microsoft.

    33. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      1.4 million sales on average throughout their history? Can you substantiate that?

      Goldeneye sold several million copies ... I think it was near 10 mil, but not sure. Donkey Kong 64 sold several million, Perfect Dark sold a couple million. The 3 Donkey Kong Country games sold in the millions. Banjo-Kazooie did fairly well, too.

      But that leaves stuff like Battletoads, Snake Rattle 'n Roll, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Killer Instincts, Time Lord, and tons more that didn't do nearly that well.

      Now, I love just about every Rare game that's come out ('cept DK64 -- what an un-fun piece of crap). But I highly doubt that they're averaging 1.4 mil sales/game across all platforms for all time.

      I'd like to be proved wrong. Rare's a great software shop. I'd just like to see where you got that number.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    34. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt. They sank, what, $5 million or so into Microsoft Bob?

      I think #2 is the exception to the rule. Most of the projects they sink money into never see the light of day. Numerically.

      Financially, god knows OS & Office development budgets have to the largest single two chunks. Modifying spaghetti code you didn't write is time intensive, after all.

    35. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by analog_line · · Score: 2

      Consoles don't get a version 2. Designing, building, advertising, and getting to market a game console is an infinitely more complex and costly endeavor than doing the same for a piece of software. With earlier versions of Internet Explorer, if you decided you didn't like Internet Explorer, you could just delete it away and try the next version for free when it comes out.

      You can't do that with a console. If your console flops, then who aside from the hardcore of the hardcore is going to buy the thing after you screwed it up the last time? Now you've got hardware with no new software coming out for it. Joe Gamer going to take a chance on that? It's a whole different world from the software industry, as Microsoft will eventually figure out. There are no second chances. Ask NEC with the TurboGrafx 16. 3DO. Sega threw everything they had at their second chance Dreamcast after the Saturn flopped over here, and it still didn't work. Sony and Nintendo understand this. Microsoft doesn't yet, I don't believe.

    36. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by job0 · · Score: 1

      yeah check out rare's press release on their web site for a confirmation of those figures.

    37. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      Also, the increase in stock values as a result of successful games made could outweight the profit gains from revenue of games/console selling.

      Come on, that's the sort of logic that led to the dotcom "boom".

      You are saying that even if they lose money on the games and consoles, if they look succesful, the stock windfall that follows could be profitable.

      The problem with this, as we have discovered, is that it doesn't last.

    38. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by tc · · Score: 2
      Right, but if rumours are to be believed, they got them later than they were expecting, even if they were the first outside of Nintendo.

      Remember that Rare were basically Nintendo of America's puppy. I'm wondering if there was some internal politics between NoA and Nintendo of Japan which made the whole thing start to go south? (I have no evidence for that, just some unsubstantiated rumours and speculation.) Perhaps the owners were just getting disaffected with Nintendo and wanted to be sold to get out of that relationship? Nintendo doesn't exactly have a great reputation in the industry for how it deals with 3rd party developers, and if they'd started to treat Rare like any other 3rd party developer I could see how that might have pissed people off.

      Like I say, that's all just speculation based on rumour, but it has a ring of truth to it. Just looking at the revenue figures, and the assets that MS would be acquiring, it doesn't really seem like they got screwed on the deal when you compare other company valuations to their revenue streams. Remember that when you buy a company, you get all their assets - maybe Rare has some liquid assets (I'd be surprised if it didn't have a few million in cash and investments squirreled away), which you really need to subtract from the headline figure before you know how much MS really 'paid'.

    39. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by geekoid · · Score: 2

      but now, people have xbox in there home instead of PS2 or gamecibes. That means future xbox titles will be sold as well. MS can look at the big long term picture reasonably well, today its xbox games, tomorrow its xbox running Office.
      Think about it, a nice, quite system sitting in the corner, never a need to open it up, it only costs a couple a hundred box, plug and play into an existing MS network. MS will make a killing, and there cost to produce will drop as they sell more units. If it cost 2 billion dollars to make this happen, it would be well worth it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    40. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by jsse · · Score: 1

      dotcom "boom" is a very exceptional case in finance history. Moderate "boom" will happen once per decade, and there's almost no comparable "boom" as dotcom "boom" before(I remember there was one many years ago, it's about selling of flower seeds, I need to look for it before I can confirm)

      Rare is quite a healthy company(compare to other audit-suspicious companies :) and Microsoft is absolutely making a good investment this time, if not for the XBox.

      However, I must admit, if this buyout count, Microsoft has spent way to much money on XBox. If XBox would ever spawn as a seperate company then its stocks would be the last on my consideration list. :)

    41. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      That doesn't change your comment :

      Also, the increase in stock values as a result of successful games made could outweight the profit gains from revenue of games/console selling.

      You're implying that, even if they are actually losing money overall, if they have one or two hits, it could make their stock go up. And that could be a goal, as oppossed to sales and profitability. The problem with this, as we have seen, is that it doesn't seem to work in the long run.

      Yes, companies STILL have to make money in the 21st century to be sucessful..

    42. Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of you seem to assume only one console is ever purchased.
      Most people, even kids these days have 2 or all 3.

  17. Microsoft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, we sure aren't a monopoly! How could you believe such a thing!

  18. For those wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "rare" is a French word that means "scarce".

  19. Double take by Akardam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only person who read that as "Microsoft Bugs Rare"?

    More proof that speed-reading CAN cause heart attacks. Or (insert soft drink of choice) to be spit all over the monitor, at any gate.

    1. Re:Double take by ThePeeWeeMan · · Score: 1

      At any gate? Seems like you've been on /. (or watching Star Trek) too long. ;-)

    2. Re:Double take by Tim+Macinta · · Score: 2
      Am I the only person who read that as "Microsoft Bugs Rare"?

      No, Bill Gates would read it the same way.

  20. Now that MS owns Rare.. by leviramsey · · Score: 2, Funny

    It will be "rare" to have games from them that are "well done"!

    1. Re:Now that MS owns Rare.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Har Har Har! That was pretty fucking funny. Almost good enough to be a sword fighting insult.

      "And I've got a little TIP for you, get the POINT?"

    2. Re:Now that MS owns Rare.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Monkey island references are better then Simpsons :)

      tempted.. tempted.. Ah. I resisted the tempation.

  21. If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by cloudscout · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    It's an old story. Developers aren't exactly flocking to the XBox platform and most that do develop for the Xbox, also develop for the superior PS2 and GameCube platforms.

    It's a last-ditch effort by Microsoft to take control of more game developers in an attempt to slow their continued decline in 3rd place.

    1. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been a number of really great games that I've enjoyed which, through one form or another, were "Microsoft" games (think Epic).

    2. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Chemical · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What makes PS2 and GameCube "superior"? Because they are not Microsoft? Bear in mind that Sony and Nintendo areevil ruthless/faceless/heartless companies too (Nintendo to a lesser extent).

      Fact is, beside the lack of games and the silly controller, the Xbox is a superior system. If you have ever played one you would know. The graphics on the PS2 just can't come anywhere close to the Xbox. The built in hard drive is a brilliant feature. It has an MP3 (or maybe it's WMA) ripper built in, as well as the ability to play your MP3s in certain games. It's got built in networking. People also like to bitch about how you have to buy a remote to watch DVDs on the Xbox. But with the PS2 you have to buy a network adapter to play online, a multitap for 4 player games, and a memory card just to be able to save.

      Quit dissing the Xbox. It actually is pretty cool, even if it is from Microsoft.

    3. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fact is, beside the lack of games and the silly controller, the Xbox is a superior system.

      Besides the lack of applications and the clunkiness of X, Linux is a superior desktop OS...

    4. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes PS2 and GameCube superior is that they are selling better. Welcome to Capitalism.

    5. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by NineNine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Call me nuts, but no matter how great the graphics are, if they don't have any games I want to play, I don't really care.

      I'm willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of graphics quality for games with good gameplay, stories, variety, etc.

      And as far as having a hard drive, that's a main reason that I didn't buy an X-Box. Your X-Box is gonna die loooong before my PS2. In case you've never owned a computer, the hard drive is *always* the weakest point.

    6. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by mosch · · Score: 5, Funny
      beside the lack of games
      Colour me stupid, but I tend to think that a superior game console that doesn't have games is best defined as a paperweight.
    7. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by xmnemonic · · Score: 1

      In other words, it's a computer.

    8. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by djupedal · · Score: 1

      ...hold on folks, here come the MS trolls, flooding the airwaves with digital koolaid.

      Websters defines 'MS Troll' as a paid marketing wonk assigned to online chat rooms and forums where they pretend to be average Joe consumer, touting MS superiority where it doesn't exist.
      Some would say it's simply a waste of an MBA degree.

    9. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Kwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fact is, beside the lack of games and the silly controller, the Xbox is a superior system.

      Hmm.. and what, perchance, do the people who purchase console systems use the most?

      Here's a hint: graphics != gameplay

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    10. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2

      To all of you replying that the PS2 and GC have better software - YOU AREN'T READING THE PARENT PROPERLY. Cloudscout was clearly talking about the PLATFORM, that means the HARDWARE.

    11. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Xthlc · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the XBox IS a superior system. And frankly, given Microsoft's great track record of listening to their developers, you would think that they would have a much better market share. But there are a couple of problems:

      1) The XBox has a narrow target market. The high price point, the games that Microsoft has chosen to flog, and the huge clunky controller pretty much limits the XBox to the 18-30 year old male demographic, as opposed to the much broader appeal (i.e. 8-30 year olds) that the PS2 has. If a game developer must choose between one console or the other, they're going to choose the one with the biggest potential market.

      2) The XBox came out at a time when everybody had just spent money on a PS2. There was a significant lag between when the PS2 really hit its stride in the market (i.e. almost immediately) and when the XBox did (after people started feeling like they could spend money on another console, and after a decent number of games hit). The XBox has never caught up to the PS2's install base, because they never had the breadth of games, because they had a smaller install base ... ad infinitum.

      Microsoft is throwing money at the problem, trying to break this vicious cycle by buying a better selection of games. They will have to spend a staggering amount of cash, though, and I doubt they'll make it back.

    12. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the games suck ass. And no advantage in technology or features can ever change that.

    13. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that the Xbox, for all of it's bells and whistles, just isn't that solid of a system. I have not seen any title on the Xbox that had graphics so compelling to persuade me to declare that the Xbox is the top graphical powerhouse. It is all about how much memory developers can use, how easy it is to program for, and how many special gimmicks you can get out of the system.

      For example, the little GameCube has cranked out a few graphically amazing and all out awe inspiring titles with Mario Sunshine, the Resident Evil remake, and Animal Crossing. Resident Evil has the best graphics that I have seen in a new generation game. Mario Sunshine is amazingly complex, big, and fun. Animal Crossing is just fun as hell to play, innovatiuve with it's real time clock and animal people that remember things, and interactive capabilities with the Gameboy Advance.

      The majority of game players, myself included, had jumped the gun on the GameCube and declared that it would never have any kind of real potential. We were proved wrong. A lot of people, myself included, origionally touted the Xbox as the premiere system once it hit. Well, it turned out to be not all that great (comparatively) after all.

      P.S. we are sick and tired of hearing about Halo. It ain't all that.

    14. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Marc+Desrochers · · Score: 1

      Beg to differ. Although strictly speaking mechanical parts are destined to fail, the sealed nature of the hard-drive, makes it come in at at least second or third on the list. That order usually following
      CPU/Power Supply Fan
      Floppy Drive
      Tape Drive
      And so on...

    15. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by djupedal · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but your logic is unfounded, and your references far too general.

      IS a superior system... Ok, since you said it here, it must be true.

      'Everybody'....who is that? You and your immediate family? The market is global, and not that simple.

      None of what you said holds water, especially since the entire effort, for both Sony and MS, is about software, not about hardware.

    16. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by theRiallatar · · Score: 1

      Unless you have a PS2. From what I've read, most of the early model PS2's have problems with the voltages for the laser and to go bad in just over a year. Tell me that's not coincidence. And just to make the point, my Xbox is still working, and my PS2 has been dead since July. Oh, it works just fine, but good luck getting a disc to read.

    17. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People also like to bitch about how you have to buy a remote to watch DVDs on the Xbox. But with the PS2 you have to buy a network adapter to play online, a multitap for 4 player games, and a memory card just to be able to save.

      So replacable save cartriges or a network card, I personally find replacable save cartridges more usefull, can you take your saved games to your friends house on a xbox? Not to mention they can't break when you drop them or run them at angles...

      I don't doubt PS3 will have a hard drive, but I have a strong suspicion XBOX has a hard drive because they had trouble running W2k without one.

    18. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But with the PS2 you have to buy a network adapter to play online,

      Which is worse: having to buy a network adapter to play online, or having a network adapter that's built in, but that requires you to go buy a $50 accessory to actually use it? The simple fact is that out of the box, the PS2 is far more useful than an XBox - both from an objective "what can it do" standpoint and from the "how many games can I play on it" standpoint.

      Besides the hard drive and (in your humble opinion) "superior" graphics, the Xbox offers nothing over the PS2. An MP3 ripper built in? Hello? Who cares? Why not get some games?

    19. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Tim+Browse · · Score: 5, Informative

      As some guy from MS pointed out when asked about the HD reliability of the XBox, he reckoned the DVD drives used in current generation consoles (XBox, PS2, GC) were the most likely point of failure. The hard drive was definitely lower down his list of things to worry about.

      Shrug.

      Tim

    20. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by thoth · · Score: 1

      I think the built in hard drive sucks... at best it is a neutral feature.

      It adds heat, cost, complexity, fragility, and makes the console far less portable.

      Maybe this isn't typical, but I pack my PS2 up all the time and take it to a friend's place.

      Is there no alternative to saving on the hard drive? I like being able to pop out the memory card and take it around as well. Buddy stuck somewhere in a game you've gotten past? Let them copy your saved game. PS2 died? Your stuff is elsewhere. If you're worried about the memory card dying, but another and copy it. Most people probably won't care enough to do this, and they don't have to do it, and save money.

      Why did the XBox have to come with a hard drive? If saving games is the only benefit, why not package a memory card with the XBox??? Does it provide some superior game functionality?

      I'll give that the XBox has better graphics (over a PS2). But it also came out a year later.

    21. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why would I want my game machine to rip MP3 (or WMA), or play my MP3s in certain games? Or use my game machine as a DVD player? It's a game machine, not a PC. I'll listen to MP3s on my stereo or computer, and watch DVDs on (gasp) my DVD player.

      The thing is, when you are Microsoft with a monopoly-built legacy operating system, everything looks like a "blank" PC. And if that blank PC doesn't have a hard drive, damn it, we're going to add one so that we can stuff our OS on it. :)

    22. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      Colour me stupid, but I tend to think that a superior game console that doesn't have games is best defined as a paperweight.

      Nah, Paperweights don't cost $200

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    23. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Cryptnotic · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Bear in mind that Sony and Nintendo areevil ruthless/faceless/heartless companies too (Nintendo to a lesser extent).


      No. Nintendo is not a lesser evil.

      http://www.gamersgraveyard.com/repository/oddities /nintendosuits.html

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    24. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Jester99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fact is, beside the lack of games...

      Case rested.

    25. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to be honest here. I like the X-Box. I even think the controller is pretty good. I think the hardware is way better then PS2 or gamecube, but there are 2 problems:

      1. No Gran Turismo...the best racing game yet, amazing graphics AND gameplay
      2. No GTA3

      If they had Gran Turismo 3, I would have bought a game cube instead of a ps2, but they didn't. Too bad

    26. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by dpt · · Score: 1

      Quit dissing the Xbox. It actually is pretty cool, even if it is from Microsoft

      If I wanted to buy a bunch of cheap off-the-shelf PC components and put them into a big ugly box, I would just do that myself.

      (on paper technical specs are one thing, but it's another thing to use those abilities effectively. Xbox games don't look much better than their PS2 equivalents, and Rogue Squadron II for the GC is enough to stop people in their tracks ... and then there's RE (also GC). Yes I have a GC and a PS2, and as far as I can tell, there must be an awfully high API overhead for Xbox graphics, as the results don't reflect the specs at all)

    27. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by spectecjr · · Score: 2

      So replacable save cartriges or a network card, I personally find replacable save cartridges more usefull, can you take your saved games to your friends house on a xbox? Not to mention they can't break when you drop them or run them at angles...

      You can get memory cards for the XBox too, if you want to take them from house to house. I have one.

      I don't doubt PS3 will have a hard drive, but I have a strong suspicion XBOX has a hard drive because they had trouble running W2k without one

      Just like Sony appears to have a lot of problems running network games without one. Oh, and it's not W2K.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    28. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Marc+Desrochers · · Score: 1

      I have seen this as well. A friend of mine had to pay $200 CDN to Sony to repair the (we were never told what the problem was, and Sony charges a flat rate for repairs). This is on top of the $500 CDN for the machine itself. Does anyone actually know what the physical flaw is/was?

    29. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it's a heavier paperweight than the Gamecube. The Gamecube has practically nothing available.

    30. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Cryptnotic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sega Saturn was superior to Sony Playstation (two processors, more memory, etc). Sega Dreamcast was superior to PS2 in some ways (it had a more "normal" graphics system and each one came with a modem).

      Sometimes, the superior systems don't "win".

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    31. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by lorien420 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Nintendo's GameCube is superior to the Xbox for many reasons.

      Why the xbox fails:

      1) Bad controllers RUIN a system

      The xbox controller was designed for someone with a hand 2x that of a normal human by someone who feels that a logo should be 30% of the front. The lack of ergonomic design actually makes the beast hurt when I try and play with it. The buttons are very small and hard to reach. Other designs were out there and well tested, there was no need for such a horrid distinction.

      2) A lack of games == failed system

      The xbox shipped at a loss hoping to recoup the expenses in the number of titles. Without these titles, they can't recoup those expenses.

      3) People don't want to pay for functionality already on the box

      The xbox ships completely capable of playing dvds, but can't because another piece is required. You have to buy a remote to activate something the hardware can already do, because Microsoft wanted a little extra revenue source.

      Why the GameCube doesn't fail:
      1) Nintendo is established

      We've all played Nintendo systems before. They've been around forever. We know the characters. Mario, Samus Aran, Star Fox: these are all popular names. You can buy a GameCube knowing you will see these titles and continue to enjoy them.

      2) A lovely controller

      The GameCube controller is a beautiful enhancment on a design that's been working for quite some time. It's small enough for children to hold, but versatile enough for anyone to use. The buttons are well-placed and large.

      3) Good gameplay > great graphics

      There are many graphics hardware stats placing the xbox above the GameCube, but that doesn't mean much. 3dMark is beautiful, but less fun than Duck Hunt. Gameplay is a hard thing to describe, but it is influenced by everything from controller to game design. Sonic Adventure 2 is just more fun to play than Halo on xbox. You don't spend your time configuring your controller and stretching your hand to move forward. You don't play the entire game the exact same way with only periodic cinematics to break the monotony.

      4) Variety of games

      The GameCube has many titles for both children and adults. They effectively cater to many gaming genres. Xbox cuts most kids out of the market from hardware design up.

      Overall, the GameCube is a much more fun platform. There is variety. The graphics quality is superb, even if it doesn't beat the xbox in a technical sense. Before the xbox I didn't think it was true, but a bad controller can ruin a console.

      --
      "[We'll be] really getting inside your head and making it an unpleasant place to be" -- Trent Reznor
    32. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by stubear · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One use of this feature can be found in Project Gotham Racing. I can rip my favorine tunes from my CD collection and build a custom playlist. Instead of listening to the crappy in-game music and mindless radio DJs, I can drive to King's X, Van Halen or whatever I want. I think it was a brilliant feature with a promising future.

    33. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by drewmca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a lot of crap out there in the console wars. People treat what they bought as if it's a religious stance. If I drink Coke over Pepsi, I don't treat it as a victory of good over evil; I just like the taste better. I think the 3 systems all have strong points. I don't think any are run by mom and pop shops, so none of them gets a sympathy card for not being a faceless corporation. That said, I have an xbox and I prefer it to the others. Sony pissed me off when the Ps2 first came out and I couldn't get one. I couldn't help but think that part of the shortage was a marketing ploy to drive up demand. Paranoid or not, it led me to buy a dreamcast instead (for $99), which I never regretted. While I'd like to play grand theft auto at some point, that's about the only thing that the PS2 has gamewise that I'd consider buying the system for, and that's not enough. The cross-platform titles all come to xbox, and consistently are better on that platform (check out ign; they do comparisons all the time). The titles I'm interested in, like good first person shooters and sports games, are on xbox. Hate to beat a dead horse but I've never found a console shooter to be as good through and through as halo. Just my opinion, but there it is. I think the hard drive is a great asset. Not having to mess with memory cards sounds like a small thing but once you've used it, you wonder why you'd ever have to handle saving any other way. I used to juggle between 4 cards on my dreamcast and it was a pain in the ass. Listening to your own music while playing games in also fantastic. I start to look down on games that don't offer this feature. A lot of people bash the xbox because they think the console they bought is some sort of religious expression or something, or they hate Microsoft. Well, a console is just a console, and if it does what you want better than others, offers more for you money than others, looks and sounds better than other, and plays more of the games that you want than others, then that's probably a good console for you. It's totally up to the individual of course, so there's no way to objectively say what is the best console. I just wish people would calm down a little and not act like their like or dislike of a console has any real meaning to the rest of the world.

    34. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      I'll back that up, I had the same problem with the laser. It was just over one year as well.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    35. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but that's the future. Sony is going to release a hard drive for the PS2. Networking is going to become huge. People want more features like DVD and MP3. Shit, Sony already has Linux available for the PS2. If you don't like it, buy Nintendo I guess.

    36. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by stubear · · Score: 2

      The XBOX controllers allow for to memory cards to be used with it. The XBOX is also quite portable and the drive doesn't generate much heat at all. The benefit of the hrad drive on the XBOX ha syet to be fully realized but so far developers can design games which allow for saving without hoping people have the memory card. I believe an upcoming game for the XBOX, Blinx, is supposed to utilize the hard drive in new and interesting ways but details have not been forthcoming as of yet. Another use of the hrad drive is to allow gamers to rip their CDs to the box and play their tune in games such as Project Gotham Racing and Amped instead of having to listen to the canned tunes shipping with these games. Granted Microsoft got some big names to write or offer songs for these games but I don't care for the genre. I'd rather have Metallica or King's X blaring on the Ferrari's stereo while I'm tearing through downtown New York city. Beyond that, it't up to the developers to come up with more creative uses of the hard drive.

    37. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ratio of crappy:non-crappy games is significantly higher on the PS2. Also, Xbox versions of cross-platform games are almost always superior.

    38. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by jandrese · · Score: 2

      I know this is a concern of mine. The DVD drive in my PS2 sounds terrible on a variety of games when it seeks back and forth. I figure it will be the first part to die.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    39. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't downplay the GameCube's specs. Considering that all it does is play games, it has the power to create an immersive atmosphere that would require a P4 system with 512MB of RAM and a GeForce 4 to duplicate were you running Windows 2000 or XP. Furthermore, the operating system was developed by IBM, the kings at making a OS fit a piece of hardware like a glove, and then squeazing every ounce of performance out it.

    40. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by cultobill · · Score: 1

      Wow, a full 14 lawsuits in ~17 years. 4 of those are AGAINST Nintendo. One is against a company selling CDs of pirated Nintendo games. Why is this a big deal?

      MS files that many or more suits a month, I imagine.

      --
      -- Bill "Houdini" Weiss
    41. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you seem to think that the speed of programs running on a cpu is limited by the operating system. this is incorrect.

    42. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Tofuhead · · Score: 2

      More like, "systems that succeed have different strengths than systems that fail."

      PSX pushes polys far faster than Sega Saturn. Same with PS2 (although textures aren't as good) vs. Dreamcast. 2-D graphics on Sega's consoles far surpass those of Sony's, but nowadays, the trend is 3-D games (to the point that it's more common to find 2-D emulated in 3-D via cel-shading than it is to see a home console game that uses only 2-D graphics).

      But most importantly, hype over Sony's offerings in the American market killed both systems here. In Japan, Saturn did very well against the PSX, as would have the Dreamcast against PS2, had Sega not been bleeding money, forcing them out of the hardware business.

      In short, PSX and PS2 have the Sony name to thank for their success, as well as Sony's ability to gauge market trends better than Sega. Too bad for me, since both of these Sega systems tie with SNES as my all-time favorite consoles.

      < tofuhead >

      --
      It is still the dark of night.
    43. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Yosho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know that I would say the Dreamcast didn't "win." No, it didn't earn Sega huge chunks of money, and it didn't smack around the PS2, but I don't know that the PS2 was really its main target; it came out inbetween the game between the PSX/N64/Saturn generation systems and the GC/PS2/Xbox generation.

      It also doesn't have the largest library of games, but it does have a number of truly great ones; in fact, games for it are still trickling out in Japan. Thousands of people still play Phantasy Star Online on a daily basis, plus DCs have no type of copy protection that prevents them from running burned CDs (at least, all but the last model of the DC), they're very popular in the indie developer scene. I can play MP3s, VCDs, and DivX files on mine, as well as play SNES and PSX games through emulators; or, if you want, you can put Linux on it and have a low-end server.

      So I don't suppose I would say the DC "won" in the sense of winning the console war, but it didn't lose at all. ;-)

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    44. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

      The efficiency of the operating system certaingly helps a great deal, especially when it is so crucial - as it is in hand held PDAs and game consoles.

    45. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by ZaMoose · · Score: 2

      They do if you buy them from the Sharper Image.

      Then again, they'll sing songs and ionize your air too while they're at it...

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    46. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by ZaMoose · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I think it was a brilliant feature with a promising future.

      Then why did you rip King's X and Van Halen?

      Couldn't you find your copy of Hocus Pocus by Focus or that Golden Earring album?

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    47. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's a real-mode hack of the NT5 kernel, with DX8 sitting right on top.

    48. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
      Nah, Paperweights don't cost $200

      Try telling that to Bill Gates or Bill Clinton.
      I'm sure I could find you a nice Jade paperweight for $200+.

      (In the days when GW Bush was snorting coke, he might have had a paperweight with $200 of cocaine inside of it. Would that count?)

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    49. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by drewmca · · Score: 1

      Just my 2 cents, but 1) I like the XBox controller better than most controllers I've played. My hands don't get cramped after playing for a while. And the triggers have a great feel. 2) Not sure where you get lack of games from. There's a ton out there for the Xbox, more than for the GC, if I'm not mistaken. Lack of games you are interested in is another matter, and one only you can determine. Note, however, that this will always remain your opinion, not objective fact. 3) Microsoft loses money on the box, and they decided to make the buyer pay for the extra $25 or so in licensing costs that would be required (payable to Hollywood) if DVD was included. When you figure that the cost of the DVD pack is the same as a memory card, and that everyone needs to save games but not everyone wants to use it for DVDs, and that you don't need to drop the money on a memory card, then I'd say it works out. Pro-nintendo points: 1) Can't argue there. I'm personally not a big fan of those games anymore but I recognize their excellence (I've always been a big PC game fan). 2) I don't like the GC controller. It's not well-designed for sports games. A lot of sites have pointed this out. That z button thing is awkwardly located (OK, so are the white and black buttons on xbox). It doesn't have push in on the analog sticks or analog buttons. It might be great for platformers but not for the games I like. 3) Can't argue here, if you like the games. 4) Also true, though I feel at times there are a lot more for kids than adults. I'm an adult (I think, though writing about video games makes me start to doubt that) so this isn't a big point to me. Again, just my two cents, realizing that this is all subjective....

    50. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Yorrike · · Score: 2
      Agreed.

      What a lot of people don't realise is Microsoft is third in the current generation. Third. Nintendo is pulling away fast and though the GameCube will probably never catch the PS2 in terms of the number of consoles sold, it will do quite well overall.

      People tend to disregard Nintendo too. They're not a small company, they're huge. Nintendo have made the most money out of all gaming companies year after year for the last decade. The GameBoy Advance has a monopolistic grip on the handheld market that'd make Microsoft jealous.

      So people, when you're talking about the PS2 vs the Xbox, remember there's a tiny purple cube in the middle and it's kicking some pretty serious arse.

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    51. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Fryed · · Score: 1

      Saying the Sega Saturn was superior to the Sony Playstation is somewhat like saying Vipers are better than the Concord. They were two systems created with two seperate goals in mind.

      The Sega Saturn was one of the best machines for 2D graphics that has been made. Sega basically took the gamble that gamers would prefer to have beautiful 2D masterpieces than these "newfangled" 3D games. It should also be noted that programming for a multiprocessor system is often more difficult that programming for a single processor system, and the Saturn was notorious among game developers for it's difficulty to program. (That's the reason why the Dreamcast went with a moderately simple architecture and was compatible with WinCE, but that's another story)

      Sony, on the other hand, felt that 3D was the way to go. The system was designed with playing 3D games in mind, and was fairly good at that (for it's time). 2D games on the PSX looked worse than their Saturn counterparts, and 3D games on the Saturn were rarely anything to brag about.

      The end result? New 3D games that looked better (or only ran) on the PSX were preferred by gamers to 2D games that ran better on the Saturn, but often ran on both systems. Certainly marketing's influence on the situation cannot be ignored, but a well marketed system with no good games will still be simply a system with no good games (Jaguar, anyone?)

    52. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      A friend's PS2 DVD drive bit the dust last month. He was wishing he had bought the extened warrenty when it first started making noises. I guess the store he bought it from allows extened warrenty purchases a while after inital purchase.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    53. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Bad controllers RUIN a system

      Just about everyone I know who owns an X-box, including myself, likes the controller. It fits in my hands perfectly.

      A lack of games == failed system

      I've got 7 games. What's your point again?

      The GameCube has many titles for both children and adults. They effectively cater to many gaming genres. Xbox cuts most kids out of the market from hardware design up.

      The X-box has always been marketed to teens and adults. Porn cuts out the children's market too, but it happens to be pretty successful. Just because X-box doesn't cater to children doesn't make it unsuccessful as a system.

    54. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The GameCube controller is a beautiful enhancment on a design that's been working for quite some time. It's small enough for children to hold, but versatile enough for anyone to use. The buttons are well-placed and large.

      Yeah, nothing quite like that well-placed GameCube Z button.

    55. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      funny hpw sega missed the whole 3-d thing after they braught the idea to the masses (virtua series). what on earth were they thinking?

      The dreamcast does have some really sweet 2-d stuff though. I am personally partial to cell shading.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    56. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe for the PC, but not for the XBox, fucktard.

      Rare is a console developer.

    57. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by jjsoh · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the initial PSX's problems as well. Remember how the first 2 versions of that model had the skipping problems with the CD-ROM's? I went through 3 PSX systems. Even the 3rd one (which I still have) sort of works, but I play most of them on PS2 anyway.

      Those bastards. Why must they make cool looking but faulty hardware? (This applies to their shitty phones and VCR's as well.)

    58. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My xbox vibrates with most any CD or DVD I try. If I unplug it and let it sit, it seems to cool down or something and then it's ok

      until it gets all hot on the left side again. I'm worried I'll have to return it like the first time, when the HD died one week after I brought it home.

      I talked to this woman at the street demo in Portland and she said they were looking to upgrade the CD/DVD drive sometime soon. Something about it not being able to change speeds or something.

    59. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but PS2 and X-Box have had almost a 12 month head start, at least here in Australia anyway. The gamecube release schedule shows titles will be coming out thick and fast from here on in. My release list shows over 100 titles coming out before christmas.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    60. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The XBOX is also quite portable

      Your definition of "portable" is very different from mine.

    61. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Pengo · · Score: 2

      Hmm... i own both a playstation 2 and a xbox, and I find that most of the titles I am interested are out on both units. Most of the games, when compared against the Ps2 equiv, the xbox really shines. I do like the ps2 controllers better tho, thats one advantage. Stuntman is the only title i can think of that I really would like to find on the xbox, and can't.

      oh.. and vice city when that comes out.

    62. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to ALL the well-placed X-Box buttons? God, that controller is as comfortable as squeezing a pineapple.

    63. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sharper Image - the snakeoil salesman of the 20th and 21st centuries!

    64. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't you just turn the in-game music off, and use a CD player?

    65. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by BlameFate · · Score: 1

      My Atari Jaguar was better than both the Sega Genesis and the SNES, that's why Atari trounced both Sega and Nintendo in the early nineties console wars and is now a huge multinational corporation standing unchallenged liek a colossus over the console world.

      *cough* ...but it was better, I tell you; BETTER

      Clue Disclaimer: Flashy hardware means sweet FA if it ain't supported

      --

      --is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait

    66. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by DoomPlague · · Score: 1

      I wouldnt say that. The GC has really delivered this year with games like Soccer Slam, Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Monkey Ball 2, Animal Crossing and Star Fox Adventures with more on the way. So far this year, the Xbox has had mostly disappointments and multiplatform titles.

    67. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Dom2 · · Score: 1
      According to this, the most expensive paperweight cost $258,000. So $200 would be pretty cheap!

      -Dom

    68. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Jim+Norton · · Score: 1
      Here's a hint: graphics != gameplay

      Yes, but he's referring to the superiority of the console itself, not the games.

      --
      -- Jim
    69. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by xamel · · Score: 0

      Have you played PS2 network games? I have, and it works GREAT...so I don't know WTF ur talking about it being "difficult"...

      --
      GOD DAMNIT , MODERATE ME!
    70. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

      DoomPlague wrote:

      > The GC has really delivered this year with games
      > like Soccer Slam, Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil,
      > Super Mario Sunshine, Super Monkey Ball 2, Animal
      > Crossing and Star Fox Adventures with more on the
      > way.

      Not to mention a rare treat for this side of the Pacific: Godzilla Destroy All Monsters Melee, featuring the one true king of the monsters, Toho's Godzilla!

      Last week, Sony Music (why them and not Sony Tristar, I'll never know) rereleased four classic Godzilla movies, and the movie "Rodan", long out of print. All five DVDs have a non-playable demo of the game, and man is it awesome! Think Twisted Metal, only with giant monsters. It is a little cartoonish compared to the movies, being a video game, but the monsters are accurate, and the fighting is incredible. Toho could take notes!

      A snippet or two of the "Godzilla 2000" trailer can be heard on the demo. I would guess this means Tristar was involved in making it. I'm hoping this bodes well for the American release of "Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidora: Giant Monsters All Out Attack".

      I've seen a release date of October 29th for the game, although the demo says Holiday 2002. This is the game I bought my GameCube for, and I can't wait.

      "His power is unequalled.
      His battles are legendary.
      His return is near...
      Godzilla 2000
      If you can't take the heat, RUN!"
      From the "Godzilla 2000" trailer Tristar tried so hard to hide.

    71. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by stubear · · Score: 2

      My definition of portable is to throw it into one of the bags designed to carry the XBOX and a couple of games and take it with me to the ski chalet or when I visit home on occasion. It's not heavy but then again, I don't think the XBOX controllers are all that bad. I might give the new S controllers a shot but I don't see the need to sink $30 into a new controller at the moment.

    72. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by matlokheed · · Score: 1
      I have no problem with the XBox controller. I can adapt to any controller in time.

      However if I'm playing Jet Set Radio or Buffy the Vampire Slayer on my XBox and then I go to a friend's house, and he, in his distaste for the monstrously huge controller, has the smaller version of the controller which has the control scheme completely altered (four letter buttons rotated one position and the black and white buttons moved to the bottom of the controller, not to mention the start and select buttons moving to a different part of the controller), I'm bound to get a little annoyed. Or frustrated. Or whatnot.

      I like the XBox, but so much of it feels thrown together for the wrong reasons (the monstrous logo on the controller that looks like a button being the primary).

      --

      "If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka

    73. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      Sega Saturn was superior to Sony Playstation (two processors, more memory, etc).

      Eh, not exactly. The Saturn was superior as far as 2D graphics goes. But their 3D processor was added on late in production, and just couldn't hang with the PSX. Also, the multiprocessor made it hard to develop for (like the PS2, but the PS2 has a better market position than Sega had at the time).

    74. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      I love Sega, but you can't say Sega won with the DC. It was their last gasp. Sure, it was a great console for the in-between era, and still is pretty darn cool... but it was Sega's hardware death rattle.

    75. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by jackbang · · Score: 1

      Do you actually own an Xbox, or just a Gamecube? I own a Gamecube, a PS2, and an Xbox. I play games on all of them and have plenty of opportunity to make comparisons between the systems. The PS2 has some great looking games, so does the Gamecube. But it's pretty clear to me that the Xbox has more sheer processing power behind it, assuming developers are able to take advantage of it.

      I don't own Animal Crossing yet, but calling that "graphically amazing" - are you sure? Every review I've seen mentions that the graphics are closer to N64-level quality. That said, I'll take gameplay over graphics any day and will probably buy it soon.

      But Animal Crossing is a Nintendo exclusive and the majority of games that come out now come out for at least a couple systems if not all 3 of the current crop. And knowing each of the systems as I do, I'll get the Xbox version of the game every time because I know it will simply look better on Xbox.

      The Xbox's major problem is not having any exclusive killer titles, outside of Halo, that will make people want to buy it if they already own another system. That's why they bought Rare.

    76. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      The ratio of crappy:non-crappy games is significantly higher on the PS2.

      Maybe, but there are, what, 500 PS2 games out? Compared to less than 100 for the Xbox?

      Even if only one in five PS2 games is good, that's more than the xbox's whole library.

    77. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Turn off the music of the game and listen to what you want to listen to. I've never understood, since Doom, why there is music. Give me sound effects... leave the music (if I want it) to me...

    78. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by stubear · · Score: 2

      Because my XBOX is using my stereo system so I can get the 5.1 audio some games offer :)

    79. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who cares. PS2 has been out much longer. thus more crappy games.

    80. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2


      Huh? In each of the lawsuits intitiated by Nintendo on that list, Nintendo was simply acting to preserve its own intellectual property rights. I don't see anything here that could classify them as "evil".

      (Whether 'intellectual property rights' should exist is another debate entirely, please don't bring it up here.)

    81. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The xbox ships completely capable of playing dvds, but can't because another piece is required. You have to buy a remote to activate something the hardware can already do, because Microsoft wanted a little extra revenue source.

      Naw, it's because you have to pay a licence fee to the DVD consortium (Sony, Toshiba and all that) in order to ship a DVD player. Rather than increase the loss for every machine, they attach that licence to the dongle that comes with the remote.

      I think this console comparison conversation has been had already. But, what no one's mentioned yet is: online is still a wildcard. May be a few years coming, but it has the potential to save the Xbox. They've got by far the best story (except that they STILL make you buy an add on (headset)!! wtf??) If it takes off, the picture could change fast.

    82. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      When describing interfacing I/O devices, my digital design professor picked up an eraser and said "Without any use for it, I could contend that this was the most powerful supercomputer on the face of the Earth, and you would have no way to disprove that." Quite similar, in that a product that doesn't have much use as a product isn't a product.

      --
      --- What
    83. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to come off as saying Animal Crossing is a graphical work of art, though I can see how it would seem that way. Anyways, this is a dead topic.....

    84. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by racerx509 · · Score: 1

      cough*cartridges don't skip*cough*my nes still works*cough

      --
      13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
    85. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Have you played PS2 network games? I have, and it works GREAT...so I don't know WTF ur talking about it being "difficult"...

      I'm talking about the fact that (for example) Final Fantasy XI will require an add-on hard-drive for its game play.

      Although now you bring it up... are the SOCOM servers still crashing and having major issues?

      Simon

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    86. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by sbillard · · Score: 0
      OS/2 was superior to Windows.

      And according the Open Sores software crowd in here....

      ...Linux is superior to Windows.

      Hmmm.... I guess your Linux days are numbered. Better run out and get that MCSE.

    87. Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. by xamel · · Score: 0

      I'm talking about the fact that (for example) Final Fantasy XI will require an add-on hard-drive for its game play.

      I dont see how requiring hardware to play certain games makes it any more "Difficult." That would be the equivilant of me saying "Hey , I wanna play Q3 online...wait, i have to buy a modem??WTF!!MODEM??"

      Maybe not quite as severe, but still...certain games require certain hardware...LightGun games need the LightGun, etc.

      And, not once playing SOCOM has the server crashed. Except once, when someone said that "Xbox was better" and we all spam-yelled at the same time...

      --
      GOD DAMNIT , MODERATE ME!
  22. Cyclic links by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Funny
    Slashdot: "Google News has a nice collection of links to articles regarding the announcement."

    Google News: "Microsoft Buys Rare - Slashdot - 11 minutes ago"

    Slashdot: "Google News has a nice collection of links to articles regarding the announcement."

    Google News: "Microsoft Buys Rare - Slashdot - 11 minutes ago"

    Slashdot: "Google News has a nice collection of links to articles regarding the announcement."

    Google News: "Microsoft Buys Rare - Slashdot - 11 minutes ago"

    Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    1. Re:Cyclic links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's obvious that Google is practicing cross-linking to increase its ranking on Googl... nevermind.

    2. Re:Cyclic links by [wy1d] · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else think that Googles slashdot parsing should include a spell-check?

    3. Re:Cyclic links by Salsaman · · Score: 2

      Thats OK, eventually you will arrive here!

    4. Re:Cyclic links by Rev.+Rudolf · · Score: 1

      Errr, shurely the Web has contained cyclic links for some time? I really hope the novelty of pointing out cyclic links from search engines / news sites dies down pretty soon, because I for one just don't see anything entertaining in them.

      Mod: -1, Killjoy.

  23. Forget the Nintendo -- what about the Speccy? by Jonathan · · Score: 2

    Those who have been around the gaming scene for a while may be interested in the fact that the folks behind Rare were also the same people behind Ultimate (Play the Game), a popular game development house in the early to mid 1980's.

    1. Re:Forget the Nintendo -- what about the Speccy? by dpt · · Score: 1

      And they produced great games for the C64!

      Staff of Karnath. Entombed. Ah, that takes me back.

  24. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nintendo still retains control over the characters/franchises such as Donkey Kong and Star Fox, so don't be expecting any of them to show up on the Xbox any time soon.

  25. Help me, I'm lost... by SILIZIUMM · · Score: 1

    I mean, does Micro$oft is now a software compagny ? or a computer hardware compagny ? or a gaming console compagny ? Something else ? A lawyer bureau mabye ? Or a we-sell-all-things-possible-to-make-a-big-monopoly compagny ? So, anyone ? Please, because I'm lost right now...

    1. Re:Help me, I'm lost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as before, Microsoft is a marketing company.

  26. I weep... by pogle · · Score: 2

    I weep for the loss of all future Rare products to the XBox.

    --
    http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
    1. Re:I weep... by byran+lei · · Score: 0

      >I weep for the loss of all future Rare products to the XBox.
      >
      >
      What Rare products? Nintendo took all their licensed stuff with them.

    2. Re:I weep... by pogle · · Score: 2

      Ever heard of innovation? As in, coming up with something new?

      --
      http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
  27. I wish MS would buy my company by v8interceptor · · Score: 1

    then I might sleep at night :)

    --
    --- Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit? | Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
  28. A lot of people are upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many Nintendo fans are upset, but you gotta realize that it's just business. Rare made good games, sure, but only two were block-buster hits (Donkey Kong Country and Goldeneye). The rest hardly broke even, or in some cases, didn't at all(Diddy Kong Racing). I don't like seeing them go anymore than anyone else, being the owner of a gamecube (and a PS2, bought that after Nintendo's dry spell after Christmas) but it was a smart move business-wise.

  29. Does anybody else smell desperation? by second+class+skygod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    375 megabucks is a lot of cash. MS has had significant problems marketing XBox. It seems to me that they must be really worried about losing a source of games.

    Does anyone know how many employees work at Rare? I know it's not distributed evenly but they must be pretty happy about it on the average.
    Especially so for those whose stock is already vested.

    -scsg

    1. Re:Does anybody else smell desperation? by madprof · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Consider this - the founders of Rare are thought go to be leaving next year.
      It will take roughly 2 years at least before you see any XBox title from Rare. How long has Star Fox Adventures taken to write? (longer than that...)
      In that time the Gamecube has already had Star Fox Adventures and Nintendo have strengthened third party relations with the money they got from selling their stake in Rare.
      Developers do not stay at a company forever. The Xbox is not as nice to write for as the Gamecube.
      Some may leave with their bosses exit and the fact that they have to relearn how to do everything again (having no doubt perfected the art of Gamecube development).
      Microsoft end up with Rare not as good as it was.

  30. holy recusion!!! by Lepruhkawn · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The top news link at google news is this slashdot article.

    --
    Jesus saves....And takes 1/2 damage.
  31. Money buys quality-but its too late by Gizzmonic · · Score: 4, Funny
    People who liked Rare that much have already purchased a Gamecube. And if they do like Rare that much, they probably like Nintendo as well-enough that they aren't going to sell that Gamecube.

    Anyway, Rare doesn't have as much of a pedigree as Microsoft probably thinks it does. I'm betting most people associate Perfect Dark, Donkey Kong, etc more with Nintendo than Rare. They are going to have to shout from the makers of perfect dark on any future commercial advertising Xbox titles by Rare if they expect anyone to care, or even notice...

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:Money buys quality-but its too late by Mex · · Score: 1

      Er... Considering Microsoft got Perfect Dark's license along with Rare's purchase, I think a simple "Perfect Dark 2" (or Perfect Dark X if you prefer) would be enough to make most people notice... :P

    2. Re:Money buys quality-but its too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like, "from the copyright holders of perfect dark". The original team that made Goldeneye and Perfect Dark has all but dissolved from Rare. I believe most of the team are now working under the title Free Radical Software and are hard at work on Timesplitters 2, a FPS coming to ALL consoles.

      Sorry M$, too little too late. Once the Blender Brothers leave, Rare will become a completely different entity entirely. Don't get me wrong though, Rare still has extremeley talented programmers and I do look forward to seeing them pimpin' pixels on xbox hardware-- just don't expect anything as brilliant as Goldeneye.

    3. Re:Money buys quality-but its too late by BlameFate · · Score: 1

      Just had a thought - Isn't that very fact goign to put Microsoft in a bit of a quandry? I mean - Rare produces Perfect Dark from the Goldeneye lineage, previously the best console FPS on one hand, whist on the other they have Bungie (whom MS also bought to make "exclusive to Xbox" games) working flat out to produce Halo 2 - new console FPS king. Internal MS Xbox developer meetings should be kinda fun in the future.

      --

      --is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait

    4. Re:Money buys quality-but its too late by shepuk · · Score: 0
      They are going to have to shout from the makers of perfect dark on any future commercial advertising Xbox titles
      Probably not necessary when the first xbox release is slated to be Perfect Dark Zero....
  32. Foolish Purchase by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not to sound like an MS hater here, but this is an incredibly poor purchase. Rare as a development studio was cut loose by Nintendo because (in addition to making up very little of Nintendo's revenue for 2001 and 2002 prior to Starfox) they missed deadlines and put out subpar games (DK64, Jet Force Gemini, Perfect Dark (if you can't stand the horrid framerate)) for the last several years. To make matters worse, most of the decent devs (including the founders) have left to form their own companies and Rare itself only has two or three marketable licenses (Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie, and Conker (maaaaybe)). So MS is paying hundreds of millions for a game developer recently known for its overbudget, late games that aren't very good and doesn't even get any big licenses in the bargain. Why didn't they just sink $10 mil into 20 or 30 dev houses to fund a bunch of big exclusive games? They'd get more results faster and almost assuredly higher quality.

    With the delay of Panzer Dragoon Orta to 2003 the Xbox's Christmas lineup is also fairly lackluster and sales this Xmas could be very poor. Of course, if MS keeps pumping marketing dollars into it maybe they can convince America that the console is doing great.

    I'm not trying to start a console flamewar (I go where the games are in most cases, and I will probably pick up an Xbox at the next price drop), but with Xbox's sales figures for Japan (the-magicbox.com) showing that in some weeks even the PSOne is outselling it, I wonder if the Japanese game studios will be abandoning what little development they already do on Xbox and concentrating on the two surviving consoles instead.

    1. Re:Foolish Purchase by davidm25 · · Score: 1

      Sales of PSOne to Xbox really aren't that relevant. Sales of Xbox to game cube would be. And picking one market where everyone expects microsoft to do bad sure doesn't add much. That being said I wonder how you can justify paying that much for game company. Most of the IP is in the people (there are some game franchises that are worth money but honestly is the Perfect Dark world so great that you couldn't come up with a similiar one? And 50 million dollars of advertising would give it a lot of brand power:)) so either they are all feeling ripped that upper managment got all the cash or their rich and not gonna work as hard. They should have just bought 1.5 million units and given them away.:) Or funded 35 games at 10 million a pop.

    2. Re:Foolish Purchase by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's true, I merely used the PSOne sales mark to show that an obsolete console is outselling it. For awhile the Dreamcast was outselling the Xbox too, but magicbox doesn't list those sales.

      For reference, ~15,000 GCs were sold, to ~3000 Xboxes according to the-magicbox.com's figures.

    3. Re:Foolish Purchase by golemite · · Score: 1

      I am inclined to disagree with that analysis. Although they might have overpaid slightly, Rare is still capable of making great games, such as Star Fox Adventures (why focus on older, Nintendo 64 efforts versus their newest, critically acclaimed game?). Also, looking at their historical record, you leave out their megahit Goldeneye, the excellent Conker's Bad Fur Day, and (what is claimed to be) the best selling 16-bit game ever, Donkey Kong Country.

      An arguement can be made that their Non-Nintendo-Franchise record has not been that hot, but many of their games have been mega-sellers, and feature great gameplay and replayability. They just need to stay away from the "collect-a-thons" that Rare and Nintendo seemed to be obessesed with in the N64 days as a result of their Pokemon and Mario success.

      Perfect Dark Zero and Kameo are already Xbox bound, and having seen their Xbox Teaser Reel, it seems that Conker is ready for the Xbox as well!

      --
      http://www.s4biturbo.com/
    4. Re:Foolish Purchase by dirvish · · Score: 1

      #1. They can certainly afford to throw money at game makers, they have the cash flow. #2. Next price drop? I doubt that will happen. They are allready losing movey on each Xbox purchase.

    5. Re:Foolish Purchase by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 1

      While Conker was generally well-reviewed its sales were dismal on n64. Much of that could be attributed to the n64's demographic, but I suspect sales will not be much better on Xbox. Just look at Sega's exclusive titles for the platform (JSRF, CT3, and Gun Valkyrie), all of which have sold well under 100,000 copies worldwide. Unfortunately I can't quote a source here so I'm sticking to a generalized figure.

      I will admit that Starfox Adventures is fun (I got my copy this morning), but long development time is seen here again. The game was originally "Dinosaur Planet" for n64 and was repeatedly pushed back and eventually made a cube title and remade into a Starfox game (and it shows).

    6. Re:Foolish Purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are changing the configuration of the Xbox, they took Nvidia to court over the cost of the graphics chip, they are re-tooling their plants. The technology is also cheaper now (or course). The price drops will come this year or next, and MS is already preparing. They're not losing half as much as they were when they first announced the price drop.

    7. Re:Foolish Purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with most of your analysis, and I think Xbox's great problem is that it's most anticipated games are in the future. The ones that do arrive seem to lack depth. The aquisition of Rare won't help too much, because while they can make deep games, every deep game they make takes 3 years, with a decent game or two between those.

    8. Re:Foolish Purchase by Dienyddio · · Score: 1

      Pre Xbox launch there was a Microsoft exec quoted as saying that they wanted to get the console retailing for $99 as quickly as possible. This price was probably not possible, regardless of Microsoft's deep pockets, with the first hardware but over time costs come down.

      (no i don't have a source for that quote, i believe i read it on the register)

    9. Re:Foolish Purchase by BoBaBrain · · Score: 2

      My God, you are right! If only Microsoft consulted you before they made the purchace they could have saved hundreds of millions!

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    10. Re:Foolish Purchase by HerbieStone · · Score: 1
      Rare as a development studio was cut loose by Nintendo because [...] they missed deadlines

      I guess, development teams producing software on time are rare.
      Wait a minit...

    11. Re:Foolish Purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So MS is paying hundreds of millions for a game developer recently known for its overbudget, late games that aren't very good..."

      Actually, this sounds like the PERFECT choice for Microsoft.

    12. Re:Foolish Purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to sound like an MS hater here

      Yes, you wouldn't want to sound too out of place.

    13. Re:Foolish Purchase by hkmwbz · · Score: 2

      But bear in mind that Star Fox and Donkey Kong were developed with cooperation from Nintendo. Shigeru Miyamoto himself oversaw the development of these and other Rare games.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    14. Re:Foolish Purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      over time costs come down.

      Which costs have come down? Labor costs haven't dropped, Memory prices are double what they were when Xbox came out, Nvidia doesn't want to charge less, hard drive and DVD-ROM prices have remained flat, there's no data, but I'm willing to bet that the CPU prices will be increasing now that Intel has moved on to other processors. There's only so much of the cost that you can shave off due to manufacturing improvements. Most of the cost is in the hardware, and it's still just as expensive.

    15. Re:Foolish Purchase by Tycho · · Score: 1

      Actually if you read the press release Rare does not have the rights to Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie, or Conker. Nintendo got to keep all of the IP rights to all of the games developed by Rare. So really MS just paid $375 million for a few developers and the name "Rare."

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    16. Re:Foolish Purchase by PotatoHead · · Score: 2

      Sorry about the title of my other reply. I did make one like that, but it was a while ago on another thread.

      Anonymous losers ignored (in this case)

      I got a mail last night from slash with that subject in there. Also could not access my account last night either. Hmmm.....

  33. Typical and not good business by djupedal · · Score: 1

    If you have to buy a company to secure share, it's not a good business model, especially in the game software market. MS is struggling and this is just another red flag.

    1. Re:Typical and not good business by bmajik · · Score: 2

      Hrmm.

      Lets look at the acquisitions history of a few other companies.

      Redhat
      Cisco

      Cisco is doing alright. They've acquired technology instead of developing it for a few reasonably big items (with more down the road payoffs).

      Redhat, well, i have no idea if they're even afloat, but they swapped market cap for warm bodies at a pretty stagering pace.

      I dont think theres any evidence that doing strategic acquisitions is a bad thing.

      I also think you'll find that Rare cost ms less than 1% of its cash reserves.

      A company with no debt, record revenues (in a recession no less), and > 40b in cash cant be struggling all that badly. Or do you know something about economics i dont ?

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    2. Re:Typical and not good business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the topic is xbox, and you switched it to MS proper, I can only assume you have some agenda beyond my comment.

      While the girls may be impressed with your grasp of macro-economics, I'm left wondering why you changed the subject.

    3. Re:Typical and not good business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh ? At what crappy school did you get your economic degree ?

      Hurting badly the competition, at the only expense of pocket change, it's not what I call the beginning of the end ... you wish.

    4. Re:Typical and not good business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what girl's school did you learn to debate?

      Since the daft can't get the drift, and since you insist on taking the statement out of context, I'll spell it out.

      MS is _struggling with xBox_. It's doing bad in every region and everyone knows it.

      You shills need to find another game.

  34. Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by jvmatthe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the obvious next move is for Microsoft to buy Sega. Their own developers have some ok sports games, but Sega would buy them some real sports clout along with some younger generation appeal that they could use to balance their library of titles.

    Just think, if they could claim exclusive rights to Sega's line of sports games, including NFL, NBA, NHL, baseball, tennis, and college football lines. They could be the premiere sports games for the Xbox Live online service, for example. And a Virtua Fighter would put Xbox squarely in the sights of many fighting game fans, since then DoA, VF, and Soul Calibur would all be available on one system. Add online opponents and tourneys, and they could potentially hand out more hats of money. Then with Sonic and those cute little Super Monkey Balls, they'd have a possible in with children and youngsters that aren't necessarily into the older games. Make all of these exclusives, and the Xbox looks a whole lot better of an investment.

    You know they've thought about it, and now we know the stakes: $3.75e8 dollars for someone like Rare that doesn't have the rep or the library of Sega. Sega's gotta be worth what...twice that...in franchises and development talent alone.

    While we're talking numbers, how many units of games does Rare have to sell to be worth it to MicroSoft? Or, perhaps more importantly, how many monthly online subscriptions? And how long is it going to take them to pay it off, given that they're going to incur more costs, in terms of development and promotion, just to get a game out the door?

    The usual disclaimer: I'm not an Xbox or MS fan. Read my blog and you'll see where my interests lie. I'm just commenting on the situation as I see it...

    1. Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by CondeZer0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      > I think the obvious next move is for Microsoft to buy Sega.
      They already have tried:
      http://www.redherring.com/insider/2002/0716/sega07 1602.html

      And after that they tried to buy Nintendo for 25Bn(I think to remember 2.5Bn,
      but in the news sites I found it says 25Bn!):
      http://www.vnunet.com/News/1131308
      http://gameinfowire.com/news.asp?nid=263

      I don't remember much, I just found this links by looking in google for less
      than one minute, I'm sure you can find some better info elsewhere in the net.

      My favorite part of this history is the answer of Nintendo: "We weren't sure
      what to think when Microsoft made the offer. In fact I was surprised - we
      didn't need the money. I thought it was a joke."

      hehehe...

      I wonder what will they try next, it's obvious that they are desperate for
      finding some other business now that the software licensing is going to become
      obsolete thanks to opensource, I think they should stick to what(only) they are
      good at: mouses ;)

      \\Uriel

      --
      "When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
    2. Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by McCart42 · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft bought Sega it would tip the scales away from PS2 for me. Right now PS2 has Square firmly in their pocket, but Microsoft buying Sega for XBox would more than make up for that. Sonic Team makes some of the best games I've ever played. Their NiGHTS, while launched on a doomed platform (Saturn), was way ahead of its time, IMO. Not to mention Sonic or all the other sweet games that were out on Dreamcast before it also folded. I still play my DC regularly. Not bad for a dead console.

      --
      "I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
    3. Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by McCart42 · · Score: 1

      Their attempt to buy out Nintendo could be a message - "take the money or we'll blow you out of the market." I don't know if that's possible, but Microsoft has money to burn with this effort. Unlike any of the other console manufacturers with the exception of Sony, Microsoft's success is not linked to its XBox console or game sales - they can pour in money to push other companies out and recoup their losses after monopolizing the industry. They've got income from their software division to help them do just that.

      MS is a scary beast. It'll be interesting to see what happens with them in the future. I know the future I'm rooting for involves them being forced out of the software biz (with the exception of Windows - that'll never get bullied out) by open source, and turned into a consumer electronics manufacturer (a darn good mouse company).

      --
      "I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
    4. Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by waxcrash · · Score: 1

      I don't see it happening... Sega wants to be an independent developer. If they sold out to Microsoft, they would make boat loads of money from the sale, but would be stuck developing exclusively for the xbox which would limit their future potential earnings. Sega knows they can make more money developing for 3 systems, rather than selling themselves to Microsoft. I can see Sega buying other software development houses, though.

    5. Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by karb · · Score: 1
      And after that they tried to buy Nintendo for 25Bn(I think to remember 2.5Bn, but in the news sites I found it says 25Bn!):

      If shigeru miyamoto has another twenty years in him before he retires, then he alone would probably be worth about 2.5 billion. :) I saw on G4 that he still just draws a manager's salary. Man.

      --

      Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

    6. Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by stevarooski · · Score: 2

      Mod the parent up. This move would make a lot of sense.

      In the sports market, EA Sports and EA Big is king. To use football (the biggest sports game market by far) as an example, Madden is outselling NFL 2K3 by an extremely wide margin. Microsofts offerings are not really a blip on the radar (or weren't last I was updated), and GameDay even less so. Likewise for nearly all the other EA sports titles.

      However, Sega has a superior football product in a variety of ways, and perhaps overall. Do not think that the people at EA don't know this. They probably play as much 2k3 as Madden. (Yes, I used to work there.) Graphically, its far superior--to illustrate this, look at the crowds on both game side by side--and the gameplay is also better, although this is somewhat subjective. The product is very polished.

      However, Madden has a huge advertising campaign going for it. Its being used to demo plays on ABC's Monday night football. Its commercials occupy key timeslots for football fans. There is also the MaddenBowl. Madden online is gathering force. etc, etc, etc.

      What Microsoft would bring to Sega is superior advertising dollars. Sega would bring excellent technology and expertise to Microsoft which would greatly bolster their sports line, if not their entire line. This teamup would cause real panic in competitors, and would make a lot of sense for both parties.

      However, will it actually happen? Probably not, for a variety of reasons. Still its an interesting thought!

      --

      - - - - - - - -
      Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
    7. Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I think that's a great idea. Can they make EA stop making sports games at the same time? That'd be COOL! One more reason for me to NEVER BUY AN xBox EVER! Then maybe we can see some development of games that are actually, oh I dunno, FUN TO PLAY.

      : )

      OK, so I loathe sports games with the loathing of one thousand loathsome things. It's an opinion. I'm entitled.

      Except for SSX. That's fun.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    8. Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by sehryan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I doubt it will happen since Sega is currently in bed with Nintendo. There is a reason you are seeing Sonic on the GBA and GC lately.

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    9. Re:Bungie, Rare, ... Sega by smyle · · Score: 1
      I think they should stick to what(only) they are good at: mouses ;)

      Now be nice. Microsoft is good for more than 'mouses'. They make some nice keyboards, too.

      --

      Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann

  35. Play with us or I buy j00 by Dylan2000 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This can't be the only way they get games for their console, can it? embrace and extend a can of whoopass on every developer out there? I mean that's the only reason they have Halo, the supposed Killer App for the Xbox, and which won't be released on any other platform until late next year.

    Hey guys, how about, if you're going to make a console, make some games yourselves! if I couldn't drive I wouldn't buy a car, you know? (ok if I was billg I could have Lee Iacoca as my chauffeur so not a good example) but Sega, Nintendo, Sony, Atari all made killer games for their systems and maybe Microsoft thought they could just put the system out there and everyone else would make software for it. Then when that didn't pan out so well they said "how are you gentlemen, if you won't develop games for our box we buy j00 and make you do it". followed by "j00 r 0wn3d, all your developer, ha. ha. ha." or something.

    I'm just worried there's going to come a point where there's no more developers left to acquire and they're going to have to start buying users too. "you will play Halo now." no, i wanna play GT3. "Here's a hundred bucks. play the damn Xbox!" Awesome way to get market share and if anyone can make it profitable it's Microsoft.

    --
    Build your own website - full service homepage system your m
  36. Speaking of Microsoft buying things... by goldspider · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...looks like game companies aren't all that Microsoft has been able to buy.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Speaking of Microsoft buying things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Crap, looks like Tripod don't like hosting images...

      But did anyone else notice the big Microsoft ad smack dab in the middle of this story?

    2. Re:Speaking of Microsoft buying things... by Phil+Wilkins · · Score: 2

      They bought Tripod?

  37. rare's best game by sirinek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and one they should update for the XBOX.....

    R/C Pro-AM!!!! :)

    sorry, had to. i looove that game.

    siri

    1. Re:rare's best game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try RC De Go for the PS One.. Pretty much same game but you use the analog controls to control the car, just like a real RC car.

    2. Re:rare's best game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Snake Rattle & Roll. Anyone remember that?

    3. Re:rare's best game by ZaMoose · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but I bet you the orange car would still cheat every 4th race or so.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    4. Re:rare's best game by Explo · · Score: 4, Informative

      and one they should update for the XBOX..... R/C Pro-AM!!!! :)


      IMO Rare's best game was Underwurlde, produced when they were still called Ultimate and produced games for 8-bit computers. ;) Sabre Wulf was not bad either, and I guess Knight Lore was pretty good, but I never saw it. All these games were mentioned on rareware.com, but sadly the information seems to have disappeared since. But you can get all that information on the Ultimate-Wurlde and get either nostalgic, enlightened about history or just plain bored. ;)

      --
      Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
    5. Re:rare's best game by pastie · · Score: 2

      Underwulde, Sabre Wulf, Knight Lore, Atic Atac...

      The list of original and playable games they _used to_ make is huge. Shame that they haven't done anything so fantastic more recently, or they wouldn't need to be bought by Microsoft to get in the news... :(

  38. So they bought a lemon, eh? by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 1

    If Rare's output has tanked since its days with Nintendo, why in the hell would Microsoft want to buy it? I smell a lemon, and it most certainly isn't lemony fresh, either.

    Anyone got a hammer? It's time to slam another nail (albeit an early one) in the XBox's coffin. If noone bought Rare games when they were with the Mario bunch, what makes MS think that anyone's going to rush out and buy an XBox just to get their hands on more of the same? Apparently, according to the numbers, noone rushed out to get an XBox when MS bought up Bungie and made Halo an XBox-only title. They're more interested in shining MS off and getting Linux to load on it. That's the only positive reason I can see to buy one.

    My prediction: The Rare name will all but disappear, save for the logos when games boot. Otherwise, it'll be nothing but Microsoft's latest lame attempt at the console market share they think they deserve. Smoothe move, Billy.

    /. is becoming more of an entertainment venue, as I'm starting to read just for the "What bonehead move will MS pull next" factor. Somebody get the DOJ on the line and have them charge MS with "Lack of common sense..."

    --
    Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
    1. Re:So they bought a lemon, eh? by rseuhs · · Score: 2
      More importantly, it will take them 2 years to release anything on XBox which means they come pretty close - too close - to the PS3 launch.

      Microsoft's window of opportunity closes when the PS3 will be released. Just like it was impossible to build a competitive x86-console at PS2's launch, it will be impossible at PS3's launch.

      Microsoft has 2 choices: Launch a more expensive but less performant XBox2 at the same time or wait 2 years until x86-tech can beat it. - But I'm afraid even the most rabid XBox-defenders will be disappointed when it becomes so clear that x86 is such a crappy gaming platform.

      Actually, MS has a 3rd option, not release XBox2 at all and let XBox1 die.

  39. Nostalgia by realmolo · · Score: 1

    Does anyone remember how cool the Playstation was in it's first 2 years? How I miss those days. These days consoles aren't as fun as they used to be- they feel like Big Business. Every time I buy a game, I get the same creepy feeling I get when I buy a music CD and help out the RIAA a little. Ah well...

    1. Re:Nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what are you, 15 years old? I don't mean to offend, but as far as i'm concerned, all of the real nostalgia lies in the Super Nintendo. Yeah, I remember when we got the Atari, and years later, the NES. But the SNES was (IMO) the greatest video game system ever.

      Contra 3
      Super Mario Kart
      Final Fantasy 2 AND 3
      Earthworm Jim ..Donkey Kong Country even.

      oh the list goes on. Sure playstations were cool, but the golden age of console gaming lies just a little earlier.

    2. Re:Nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what are you, 18 years old? The original NES and even the Genesis beat the living crap out of the SNES.

    3. Re:Nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem...

      Chrono Trigger?

  40. Hot dog by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

    Now you will have to pay annual multi-user licenses for the next round of Rare multi-player games.

  41. Nintendo, Rare come out ahead; MS breaks even by Tofuhead · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nintendo sells their shares in Rare and top-off their coffers. They win.

    Rare makes off with MS money, the finest money that money can buy. They win too.

    MS gets a development house that used to turn out hits, but has floundered in recent years. Tim and Chris Stamper are leaving. That leaves Conker, Perfect Dark, and that's about it. No Donkey Kong or anything else owned by Nintendo.

    About the only _real_ downside to Nintendo consumers (IMO) is that any sort of RC Pro-Am sequel will be an xbox exclusive. Boohoo. On a lot of the gamer website forums, this has been a huge non-issue for the past few days, since Rare hasn't been playing with the big boys in terms of game quality/quantity for quite a while.

    < tofuhead >

    --
    It is still the dark of night.
  42. Re:Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops! YOUR a PHEW days late! My bad again!

  43. There's one company MS needs to buy... by NineNine · · Score: 2

    If they buy Rockstar, THAT would be impressive. I'd consider an X-Box if they did that. Instead, they're buying Rare, who's hot new game sounds like some really, really horrible, drug-induced nightmare belonging to a 5 year old, combined with every other generic Japanimation-type game ever made.

  44. How appropriate... by Dan+Crash · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now Microsoft will be able to say what we already knew: "If it's good and it's Microsoft, it's gotta be Rare!"

    --
    He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
  45. Stupid stupid microsoft.... by sqrammi · · Score: 1

    One more company falls to the malicious evil conniving misuse of money we see so often from such an evil company.

  46. So what is X-Box's position in the market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I haven't exactly pursued info about xbox because I'm not particularly interested in it, I must admit I'm curious as to it's place in the market and whether or not it's increased or decreased since it came out. Is xbox the new sega? At least Sega made good games. It's too bad they were strongarmed out of the console hardware market.

    I own a ps2 (which I use as a dvd player mostly, and occasionally as a game player), and my gamecube is my main game machine. I'm just not interested in xbox or any of it's games. It really has nothing to do with MS.

    1. Re:So what is X-Box's position in the market? by sqrammi · · Score: 1

      Actually I think this has a lot to do with MS. They really shouldn't have been allowed to do such a thing. Sure, they haven't been able to make a single decent game themselves, but who cares when you've got $$$ like MS!

    2. Re:So what is X-Box's position in the market? by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

      According to all of the corporate releases from Sony, Nintendo, and Xbox, the run down is as follows:

      Sony has sold a bajillion PlayStations, PS ONEs (the little mini playstation), and PlayStation 2's. This is due to their early market domination and early release of the new generation console, the PlayStation 2. They are number one with total systems sold.

      Nintendo did poor with the GameCube in some parts of Europe and Austraila, but sold very well in Japan and North America. Nintendo also sold a whopping 17 million+ GameBoy Advance systems before the close of 2001. The integration between upcoming 'Cube games and the 'Advance is again bolstering sells for both systems. Not to mention a boom in sells with 400,000 copies of Mario Sunshine being sold in the North American market. This places Nintendo at second with the most systems (counting both the GameCube and the GameBoy Advance) sold.

      &middot Microsoft has just entered the market, and really only did well in the United States and certain parts of Europe. Sells are increasing with the last wave of title releases, however. Compared to Nintendo and SOny however, Microsoft is hardly on the map.

  47. How about a new Killer Instinct?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could do some outrageous ultra combo and top it off by blue-screening the xbox! Talk about a finishing move!!!

  48. Please Buy an X-Box! by chill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Please! Everyone buy an X-Box for the holidays, just don't buy any games. Hack it into a nice little Linux box.

    With MS losing between $100 - $200 per machine, they are counting on people buying lots of games to make their money back.

    Take the opportunity to get a nice $199 DNS, e-mail or web server.

    Microsoft has money to burn -- give them the opportunity.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Please Buy an X-Box! by jgalun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think we've been over this already in other threads - buying an X-Box to screw over Microsoft is not a good idea. Reasons:

      1) The amount of money Microsoft loses per machine is unknown right now, but the number has probably shrunk considerably from initial estimates made a year ago due to economy of scale.
      2) Microsoft has a LOT of money in cash. They can afford to lose a few billion if they think it's in their long-term good.
      3) In the long-term, Microsoft selling a lot of X-Boxes that nobody buys games for could screw them over...But in the short-term if X-Box hardware sales suddenly spiked, developers would assume that gamers were buying these X-Boxes. That would make more developers make X-Box games, which would make more actual gamers buy the X-Box, which would increase X-Box games sales, which would help Microsoft take over the video game console market long-term.

    2. Re:Please Buy an X-Box! by Tofuhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Brilliant. Let's all bankrupt MS by giving them $200 and inflating the sales figures that they show to developers and investors. That'll learn 'em!

      < tofuhead >

      --
      It is still the dark of night.
    3. Re:Please Buy an X-Box! by back_pages · · Score: 1
      I agree this is a bad idea. Ironically, yesterday I posted in response to MS's move to thwart hackers of the Xbox, pointing out that it would be in Microsoft's best interest to sell Xboxes even if they are bought by hackers, and 10 people responded to say that I'm a stupid loser.

      Today someone posts that hackers should buy an Xbox, and 2 people post that this suggestion is misguided because it would benefit Microsoft.

      I'm glad we all got this cleared up. It is bad for Microsoft to sell Xboxes to hackers, as long as it is good for Microsoft to sell Xboxes for hackers. Slashdot mob logic prevails.

    4. Re:Please Buy an X-Box! by chill · · Score: 2

      The big question is WOULD it be in their best interest to sell machines to hackers?

      The problem is that MS is positioning the machine for SECURE network connectivity, and the basis of a connected home entertainment system. Do your banking thru the Xbox, shop online, etc.

      If it is HACKABLE then their facade of SECURE doesn't hold up. The whole problem revolves around what MS considers the end-use for the Xbox.

      Is it just a game machine? Or is it their "beachhead" in the household for "non-computer" network access?

      Whether the idea fails or not doesn't matter. Right now, what matters, is what MS THINKS is going to happen.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    5. Re:Please Buy an X-Box! by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Hey, you know what? That's the first good point I've heard in response to hackers vs. no hackers.

      In the absence of a "secure Xbox network", hackers with Xboxes running linux are still potential customers for Xbox games, where the profit is, and it's still money that wasn't spent on a PS2 or Gamecube. It boosts the console sales volume for Microsoft, which makes license sales easier and more appealling to developers.

      That whole situation changes if we remember that MS wants to implement a console network (which had slipped my mind entirely) then the presence of hacked boxes DOES have an impact on all the non-hacking customers. That would definitely outweigh the potential profits made from selling an occasional Xbox game to a hacker, and therefore Microsoft's decision to combat mod chippers finally makes financial sense.

      It took two days, two threads, and four posts to reach an intelligent response. Thanks.

    6. Re:Please Buy an X-Box! by chill · · Score: 2

      Actually, two days, two threads, and four posts to reach an intelligent response is damn fast for Slashdot. :-)

      Hopefully, we can start a trend.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  49. If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is? by lingqi · · Score: 2, Troll

    Here goes microsoft with their dirty tactics again... sigh.

    not saying that SONY would not, if they had the money to do it -- oh wait, they DO have the money to buy a couple outside developers just for shits and giggles, but didn't.

    Same story has happened before, guys... I remember back in the days when M$ literally parked a "hiring booth" in front of Borland and basically said "if you sign up right now, we give you 150% of what you are making and then a huge bonus (6 figures, maybe more)." look what happened to Borland.

    As much as the Xbox is a better system (technology-wise) I would not buy it on principle. doing so is to encourage more of the bloodshed in the world caused by M$ that's already way-too-much. to paraphrase it -- Microsoft is the sickle that harvest the souls of computing.

    Anyone who don't think you are suffering because of this game developer buy-out thing: remember: Halo was supposed to be released for PC first. and now Halo 2 is about to come out... where is the PC version?

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  50. Better graphics? Excuse me? by sqrammi · · Score: 1

    Have you ever seen Star Wars: Rogue Leader? And who says Nintendo is a ruthless/heartless company? For all I know they're 20 times more honest than Sony or Microsoft put together. Remember the original Playstation? That was going to be Nintendo AND Sony's venture until Sony STOLE the entire thing behind Nintendo's back. Good thing Nintendo knows how to make kickbutt games. Neither Sony nor Microsoft deserve to be in the industry. Good thing they have tons of $$$....

  51. No, Nintendo still owns that, but... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    look for Banjo Kazooie and that squirrel Conker, and perhaps even the fairy on Rare's front page

  52. Hmmmm.....Is it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    1) Microsoft buys Rare
    2) Makes Games
    3) Profits.
    4) Slashdotters get pissed because the question mark is missing.

    1. Re:Hmmmm.....Is it. by sqrammi · · Score: 1

      How can you not agree that this is anti-competitive? Why don't they buy out the whole friggin' industry? I mean... they could! Is that not anti-competitive?

    2. Re:Hmmmm.....Is it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      buy out the whole friggin' industry? I mean...they could! Is that not anti-competitive?

      Sounds like competition to me. It's supply and demand. If they start buying, then the demand for these companies go up and they have to pay more. Unless companies are selling for cheap for some odd reason.

      That's the purpose of a *FREE* market. If suddenly it becomes illegal to buy certain things, then we're all fucked. Yea, so they might have enough money to buy it all at an inflated price.

      People will take them on money and open up cheaper newer ones.

      Don't get so worried. I doubt after all these years Sony and Nintendo have become stupid.

  53. There is a reason Nintendo sold off its stake by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

    1. Rare is notorious for long delays. How will MS(who expects 5 games in 2 yrs...ha ha) deal with a company that releases games when it wants to. Only Blizzard is more tardy in the # of delays.

    2. Since Goldeneye, the games haven't been major sellers(not even Perfect Dark blew the competition out of the water, maybe b/c N64 was dying at the time). Banjo 2, Conker, Donkey Kong64, and Jet Force Gemini got good reviews but weren't huge hits. Does Kameo look and sound like a 2 million seller? Perfect Dark 2 definitely but Kong Racing? Banjo 3?

    Here's my prediction:
    Perfect Dark 2 - 2.5 million (2004)
    Banjo 3 - 1.5 million (Christmas 2003)
    Kong Racing - .8 million (fall 2003)
    Kameo - .4 million (summer 2003)

    I doubt if Rare will be able to singlehandedly revive the Xbox the way it did with SNES. Rare just wasn't producing enough bang for each Nintendo buck. Yes, they have produced world famous games but the past 5 years have been lackluster. Also, much of the talent has left Rare, Nintendo weighed all of this and chose to sell off its stake.

    1. Re:There is a reason Nintendo sold off its stake by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a side note, you are right, Rare has not been a big money make lately. Just to get Star Fox Adventures off the ground, Nintendo had to:

      A. Wait a year or so for the development of some game called "Dinosaur Island" to grind to a halt in Rare development hell.

      B. Spend money on the dead project to revive it with research and added development.

      C. Bring in some new developers, who tacked on the Star Fox franchise as a good idea. Nintendo later spent time and resources on trying to hide this fact (why, I don't know), which failed and flooded game fan-boy eweb sites everywhere.

      D. Pay for the closing development, which took forever and a fair penny.

      How did I become privy to such useless info? Because me is pals with the local Nintendo sales agent. :)

    2. Re:There is a reason Nintendo sold off its stake by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 2

      Bungie was at least as notorious for delays as Rare and Blizzard (after people got mad with Marathon games missing dates Bungie stopped even having release dates). The MS solution to this is obvious: they have them ship games before they're completely done. As for the quality of the games, PD had great features but nowhere near the fun factor of Goldeneye. The Banjo games were excellent; PD and Banjo are the big licences Rare is bringing with. JFG was awesome, but didn't sell as well as it deserved. DK64 was crap and sold better than it deserved just because it had a Rare logo on it. Conker was pretty goo, Diddy Kong Racing was also mediocre, and Star Fox looks to be quite good. So I think it was very fair for the N to say that Rare's games as a whole have gone downhill, and it makes even more sense when you consider Rare had not announced sequels to Banjo or JFG. I think the major thing to look at after the merger, besides just how unpolished the games become, is if MS will get them to focus on adult games (i.e. Perfect Dark sequels for the rest of eternety) or if we will se Banjo and JFG sequels.

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
    3. Re:There is a reason Nintendo sold off its stake by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      "1. Rare is notorious for long delays. How will MS(who expects 5 games in 2 yrs...ha ha) deal with a company that releases games when it wants to. Only Blizzard is more tardy in the # of delays. "

      I think Victor Ireland of Working Designs said it best:

      "Delays are temporary, but mediocrity is forever."

      Although I guess Rare has proved both parts of that true lately...Not sure how that works :)

    4. Re:There is a reason Nintendo sold off its stake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pd is the sequel to goldeneye jackass, they lost the liscence after the game was 90% done, and switched out the charectors

    5. Re:There is a reason Nintendo sold off its stake by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

      Regarding delays, I guess you've never heard of 3DRealms? Maybe the name Duke Nuke'Em rings a bell...

  54. "What is" is FORCING them to... by JHelgie · · Score: 1

    "Nintendo decided to sell their 49% stake in the company last week rather than buy the company themselves."

    It's not like they FORCED Nintendo to sell its stock. This is just seeing an oportunity to grab them cheap and increase revenue on MS's part. If you really want to yell at someone, yell at Nintendo, since they're the ones who SOLD it.

  55. Sega made (past tense) awesome games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their stuff for Saturn, Dreamcast and arcade was awesome.

    But their cross-platform stuff sucked the weenie.

    1. Re:Sega made (past tense) awesome games by ZaMoose · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Play some Super Monkey Ball 1/2, Virtua Fighter 4, Sega Soccer Slam, or Sega Sports Tennis, then come back and post that comment again. I dare ya.

      There's not much that's more fun (at least when it comes to video games) than getting three friends together and playing Monkey Fight 2 for a couple of hours.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    2. Re:Sega made (past tense) awesome games by GMontag451 · · Score: 2
      Play some Super Monkey Ball 1/2, Virtua Fighter 4, Sega Soccer Slam, or Sega Sports Tennis, then come back and post that comment again. I dare ya.

      I'd second his comment specifically *because* of those games. Super Monkey Ball was an interesting concept, but was nearly unplayable due to camera control and the sensitivity of movement. They might have improved it with SMB2 though, I haven't played it. The Virtua Fighter series was just another fighter, with no ingenuity. As for the rest of them, I hate sports games.

    3. Re:Sega made (past tense) awesome games by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      How about Crazy Taxi? I think that's a great game.

      And your comment about VF is harsh, since it WAS the first 3D fighter... If it seems to lack ingenuity, it's because it was there first.

  56. Who is "Rare" - what do they make? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

    I'm trying to figure out if this affects any games I'd be interested in. What exactly is "Rare" - or, I mean, what games do they make. What games did they make?

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    1. Re:Who is "Rare" - what do they make? by TheDanish · · Score: 1

      Donkey Kong Country I/II/III/, DK 64, Diddy Kong Racing, Banjo Kazooie, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Perfect Dark, GoldenEye 007, and later Starfox Adventures was done between them and Nintendo. This among other things. I would look this up except Rare's website seems to be under construction. Nintendo still owns the Donkey Kong franchise, however.

      --
      Danish != nationality
    2. Re:Who is "Rare" - what do they make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess noone remembers the Battletoads games, or the "Killer Instinct" fighting games? Rare has made a few interesting games in their time. Pity they've already had their 15 minutes.

    3. Re:Who is "Rare" - what do they make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also responsible for killer instinct stuff and battletoads for the nes!

    4. Re:Who is "Rare" - what do they make? by Ziviyr · · Score: 2

      What games did they make?

      Blast Corps!

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    5. Re:Who is "Rare" - what do they make? by Explo · · Score: 2

      And of course this all was done a long time after their initial start with 8-bit computers, where they had a quite nice success with several hits to top-20 lists and such. Information about their existence as Ultimate is either nostalgic, interesting or the mutterings of near-dead old-as-stars zombies, depending on your viewpoint. ;)

      --
      Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
  57. Re:Better graphics? Excuse me? by Nazmun · · Score: 1

    Man... you people just don't know your console gaming history. The playstation sold by sony and the joint "add-on" for the SNES that Sony and Nintendo developed was rejected by Nintendo. The only thing that the add-on had in common with the playstation was the fact that it had the same name. Woohoo Mario.. yeah... kick but game alright, NOT ANYMORE :). The only company with excellent first party titles were Sega. Virtua Fighter, Shenmue, etc. They had some kick ass games :)

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
  58. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  59. Phew by Clue4All · · Score: 2

    Surely I wasn't the only person who feared that Microsoft had finally acquired the Holy Grail?

    --

    Is your browser retarded?
  60. You can't Buy the TALENT!!! The talent flees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It amuses me when stupefyinly large purchases are made of software dev houses.

    You can't Buy the TALENT!!! The talent flees! Even with golden handcuffs and stock options most flee like hell and create other startups or go contractor.

    The companies languish. Halo took eternity to ship. Still is 3 years late for mac system! It was demoed in 1999.

    Its hilarious.

    The "visionaries" "art directors" "designers" all have locks of stock as do the vps, but the core grunt talent-gods do not... and they flee.

    then the companies churn through "Directors of Technology" one per year like clockwork as they flounder.

    ALL GOOD GAMES are made by high IQ people with a knack for talent at game coding and these quirky guys are rarely compensxated correctly or despise golden handcuffs and shackles... many of which do not AUTO-VEST if the companies are sold!

    The idiotic firms think lack of auto-vesting options will keep their talented prima-donnas.... WRONG!!!!!! They do not do everyting in life for money.

    They get the hell out and fast.

    Then the companies imploded.

    Companies REFUSE to give proper respect and rewards to the most vital talent, primarily from IQ envy, or agism against youth.

    Its the "peter principle" incarnate.

    I have kissed off millions of dollars a few times in my life. And i dont give a rip. I laugh at the dead companies I once worked for. All dead dead dead!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (and their stock worthless to the very end).

    1. Re:You can't Buy the TALENT!!! The talent flees! by geekoid · · Score: 2

      the peter principle states that you will rise to 'one level' above your competence.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:You can't Buy the TALENT!!! The talent flees! by Cornelius+Chesterfie · · Score: 1

      You can't Buy the TALENT!!! The companies languish. Halo took eternity to ship. Still is 3 years late for mac system! It was demoed in 1999. Yes, and we all know how THAT turned out. 2000: MS buys Bungie, announces Halo as Xbox-exclusive. 2001: Halo is released within a year of announcement, is awarded Game of the Year by nearly every publication, and goes on to become a multi-million seller. You should've used a better example, my friend.

  61. Gamecube is slightly ahead of Xbox sales by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

    When taking the GBA out of the picture the Gamecube(from the last sales chart I saw) was slightly ahead of Xbox.

    1. Re:Gamecube is slightly ahead of Xbox sales by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

      I think that that statement was accurate before the release of Mario Sunshine and all of the hype over the next two titles of "the big three" (Metroid and Zelda), but now, who knows. One thing I do know, alot of Xbox's and GameCubes get traded in or sold to stores like Gamespot/FuncoLand, but a PlayStation 2 sell off is rare.

  62. It's NEW news....only recently became OFFICIAL by dolphin558 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have been submitting stories on this for the past week but they have been based on rumors. Only NOW did MS release the press statement. Slashdot was right not to post stories based on rumors of MS buying Rare.

  63. Killer Instinct by scorpion1976 · · Score: 1

    Ahh...the mention of 'Rare' reminds me of playing good ol' Killer Instinct back in high school...anyone else remember those 47 hit killer kombos worth the 50 cents back then???
    maybe its just me...
    sigh...

    1. Re:Killer Instinct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do,

      You're the only person I've seen that remembers Killer Instinct was a Rare produced game. That game was a mega hit, eclipsing Mortal Kombat fame.

      I'd buy a Killer Instinct for the X-Box, pending it didn't suck.

  64. Banjo-Kazooie and Conker showed up in a promo for by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    X-Box Live. TechTV had it.

  65. Sure they're a lesser evil. by jslag · · Score: 2

    No. Nintendo is not a lesser evil.


    http://www.gamersgraveyard.com/repository/odditi es /nintendosuits.html


    Yes, there are some stupid lawsuits listed there, but I don't see anything comparable to enforced DRM, abuse of monopoly power against software companies, abuse of monopoly power against hardware manufacturers, undocumented routines built into the OS to cripple applications from competitors, etc.

  66. I need new glasses. by augros · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought it read "Microsoft Buys Rare Sofa". Just the thought of Lazy-Boy XP makes me shudder.

    1. Re:I need new glasses. by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      Except in this case, the XP driven automation malfunctions, crushing you between footrest and chair back, resulting in the good ol' "Blue Face Of Death"...

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  67. Woo hoo! by Boone^ · · Score: 1

    Heck yeah I remember the Bungie buyout, Halo became one of the hottest console games I've ever played! Bring on MS-backed Rare products!

  68. What the? by augros · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else come across this same /. article saying "Microsoft Buys Rare Sorta", and now it says "Microsoft Buys Rare". Did the editors actually edit? That's it, I'm breaking open my dooms-day beer stash -- hell, it can't hurt.

  69. whats next? by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

    i can just see it now...they're going to buy id its going to be halo all over again with doom III

    --
    Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
    --Thomas J. Kopp
  70. Re:Better graphics? Excuse me? by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

    Sega makes, and did make, some killer games, but you have to give it to Nintendo, they do crank out great stuff. Mario Sunshine was cool man, it's sitting on my desk now. If you don't beleed dat, just give it a try.

  71. They're not a monopoly for games by cultobill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please, people, stop saying "they're abusing their power of monopoly!" Nintendo and Sony have been kicking the crap out of MS in the console arena. They can play the same marketing games that everyone else does as long as their console isn't most of the console market.

    --
    -- Bill "Houdini" Weiss
  72. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

    Come on now, there ain't nothing anti-competitive about a company dumping 375 million (thats 375,000,000) dollars on a has-been developer. If they had bought Sega and then released all of the Sega titles, ported, for "classic" prices (you know how a company repackages a bunch of old titles for 20 bucks), then that might be vaguely anti-competitive.

  73. Slashdot referrels blocked by smiff · · Score: 1
    Tripod is blocking Slashdot referrals. You need to copy and paste the link:

    http://members.tripod.com/adam_r_drake/images/sell out.gif

    Oh, and since Slashcode is tossing in a space, you need to remove it.

  74. Re:Isn't this what Apple does...? by borgheron · · Score: 1

    Because MS is a monopoly, Apple is not. Also, MS has a habit of not playing nice w/ anyone so you can kiss all new Rare titles on other platforms goodbye going forward. GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  75. in other news... by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 2

    nintendo executives have given themselves a $375 million dollar bonus, and nintendo has filed for bankruptcy.

    --
    Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
  76. Soldier of Fortune 2 coming to the Xbox too by Rainier+Wolfecastle · · Score: 1

    I read this over at GameSpot. Seems that SoFII is Xbox bound as well. The game will support Xbox Live and have multiple online modes.

    I'm no huge fan of the Beast, but I have to concede that they are positioning themselves really well with the Xbox.

    1. Re:Soldier of Fortune 2 coming to the Xbox too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have SOF2 for the pc why would I want this version? At least with nintendo I HAVE to buy a gamecube to play mario...

  77. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  78. Re:Isn't this what Apple does...? by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    How does M$ using 'monopolistic' tactics preclude or excuse Apple from doing the same ? The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend by default.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  79. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by spectecjr · · Score: 5, Informative

    not saying that SONY would not, if they had the money to do it -- oh wait, they DO have the money to buy a couple outside developers just for shits and giggles, but didn't.

    What kind of crack are you smoking, exactly?

    Nintendo bought Rare, as well as a few other houses.

    Sony bought Psygnosis (Wipeout), Square (Final Fantasy; major shareholder), Polyphony Digital (the guys who did Gran Turismo), Incog (Twisted Metal), Verant (Everquest), Red Zone (989 Sports), Naughty Dog (Crash Bandicoot), The Station (Online game center), RTIME Inc. (online game infrastructure company), Millennium (Medievil), Arc Entertainment Inc., Sugar and Rockets Inc. (Kurushi), and Contrail Inc.
    (Wild Arms).

    So, I guess Sony's customers are suffering because of this game buy out thing?

    Or do you still claim that sony DIDN'T do this?

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  80. microsoft HAVE accounced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a plural now?

  81. Rare, Fluke by Kenshin · · Score: 1

    There's a trucking company up here in Canada called Fluke, and their slogan is, and I'm not making this up, "If it's on time, it's a Fluke."

    It's absolutely brilliant.

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  82. Re:OT: Its effect not affect. by PotatoHead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I agree with you for the most part, but I must say that Perfect Dark is a great game. Frame rate could have been quicker, but that was just because they pushed the N64 hard.

    I keep an N64 around just for that one to be played in multi-player mode once in a while.

  83. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is standing on it's own merits in this industry. There isn't too much they can do to best two ingrained corperations each the size of themselves.

  84. Whoa by RoC+MasterMind · · Score: 1

    Whoa, slashdot is SOOOOOOOOO slow on this story. I read about this last week and also posted it a couple hours ago (I almost didn't bother) to my website, which is located here. My post links to a story which links to inside Rare employee comments on the transfer.

  85. watche don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that MS also had an itching to get Nintendo itself...

    1. Re:watche don't know... by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      An AC wrote:

      > that MS also had an itching to get Nintendo
      > itself...

      They already tried. Back in 1999, Microsoft tried to buy Sega. Then they tried to buy Nintendo. Nintendo politely told them they'd think about it.

      In December 1999, an old friend returned to Japan and put his very large foot down on the deal. Seeing his most excellent wisdom, Nintendo sent Microsoft their refusal the very next month.

      Who is the old friend that saved Nintendo from the jaws of Microsoft? Well, here is a poster for the game he did (with a certain large bug goddess) for Nintendo's SuperFamicon:

      http://www.godzillatoy.com/posters/mothfam.jpg

      Shinoda: "The age of Millenium."
      Io: "What does that mean?"
      Shinoda: "A thousand year kingdom. It wants to create a home for itself. There is one flaw in its plan: Godzilla."
      "Godzilla 2000 Millennium", December 1999, (Japanese version)

  86. It'd be nice if you weren't all so stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have any of you ever even played any games produced by Microsoft?

    Ah well, rather than berate you for your ignorance, I'll simply take up your stance to demonstrate your idiocy.

    "OMG LINUS IS TEH ROX WOOT LINUS REDHAT SHOULD MAKE GAMEZ FOR DA PS2 CUZ LINUX IS OMG KEWL K-RAD D()()DZ!"

    1. Re:It'd be nice if you weren't all so stupid. by mao+che+minh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      boo

  87. Insane expenditure of funds by PierceLabs · · Score: 1

    And still Microsoft tries to enter and take over markets by expending large sums of money. Hopefully Microsoft's stock holders realize that if they have to spend these obscene amounts of money to get exclusive talent for their platform (like when they acquired Bungie), that they will have extrodinary issues being able to make any type of profit. While Microsoft management may be willing to lose excessive amounts of money - it simply defies logic as to why the stock holders haven't started asking questions.

    1. Re:Insane expenditure of funds by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

      PierceLabs wrote:

      > it simply defies logic as to why the stock holders
      > haven't started asking questions.

      It defies logic as to why the stock holders haven't all set sell off points.

      Low stock prices (half of what they were) and no dividends equals a pretty poor investment to my way of thinking.

      (Note: This is my personal opinion, not investment advice. I am not whatever it takes to officially tell people what to buy.)

      Windows: "Go talk to my friend, an 800 pound monopoly-abusing gorilla!"
      Mac: "And here's my good buddy, the 66,000 ton Godzilla!"
      Godzilla: Stomp! ;)

  88. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by junkpunch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I always find it funny when someone thinks they are so insightful and important, then they get to have their own ignorance thrown back in their face. Naughty Dog, Incog, Red Zone, Psygnosis, etc. How many game developers would you like me to list that Sony has purchased?

    Let me guess - it's not "dirty tactics" when they do it, right?

  89. Ironic by nelsonal · · Score: 1

    Anyone else find the user ids of the parent and grandparent pretty ironic?

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  90. Stupid Business Model, too! by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "You might be reminded of Microsoft's purchase of Bungie a few years ago."

    When Microsoft bought Bungie, it was to buy a "killer app" for the X-Box and nerf it's simultaneous PC development for fear it would show up the X-Box.

    Throwing away money to assure exclusivity, same as with their acquisition of rights to FASA's BattleTech video game development (IP value, if nothing else... too bad they don't roll out Ralph Reed's BattleMech!)

    Rare on the other hand has a whole one game announced and a legacy of Nintendo titles. Ultimately, it's just another shot fired in the console wars, rather than a loss to PC gaming, this time.

    More good money after bad. Seems apparent, to me, that without their monopoly they couldn't shoot fish in a berrel. I can't recall where I've seen this strategy of spending money like crazy on to prop up a dying horse, but I do recall it's unusual in the extreme to see it succeed. They're hemmoraging cash and the estimates (from CNN) are they'll get 1.5 million units into the Europe-Middle East-Africa market, and Sony/Nintendo will cover the remaining sales of 12.7 million units.

    IMHO Sony and Nintendo are smarter to leave much game development out of house, in the hands of garage developers everywhere, which fosters more creativity than:

    "We bought you for $375 million dollars from some guy who dragged the sacks of cash off to the bank, while laughing his head off, now here's a soda machine, a fax for ordering pizzas, a bunch of former Office coders to help you out, NOW BE GREAT OR YOUR'RE ALL GONNA BE FIRED!"

    It's practically a guarranteed failure.

    What next? Steve Balmer running around on a stage, getting all sweaty and telling us how great the new X-Box Solitaire is? Actually, that might sell...

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Stupid Business Model, too! by Yorrike · · Score: 1
      Cool idea, I can't wait to play Super Balmio Stageshine!

      Think about it, rather than having to shoot water from a backpack, Super Balmer needs only to raise his arms and shoot poisonous sweat particles from the horrid depths of his armpits!

      And instead of saying "woop, woop, YAHOO!" when he does a triple jump, he'll be all like "WOOO, WOOOO, I LOVE THIS COMPANY!"

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    2. Re:Stupid Business Model, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's a great Business Model for what Xbox needs. Rare is amazingly good at character development and Microsoft has no mascot. Look how many units the Sonic Team alone moved for Sega or Mario & Zelda move for Nintendo. The first big icon i remember from Sony was Crash Bandicoot but that's no longer exclusive.

      Even with Nintendo keeping the rights, they no longer have that solid developer to develop great games based on their character. Despite what Nintendo says, it's a huge blow. Nintendo is experimenting with some others but only time will tell how it turns out.

      Judging from sales, my guess is that Nintendo will stick to portables and software after this console. They're not exactly doing a whole lot better than the XBox. In fact, according to the last few reports i've seen, it's right in line with teh X-Box. I'm not sure if that's success for Microsoft or failure ofr Nintendo. However, despite most people's negativity, Microsoft is doing much better with the unit than people expected. I remember many of these same comments and arguments when Sony originally entered the market after being dumped by Nintendo for long-time Sony partner, Philips. That mistake just happened to be one of the many in Nintendo's past. *cough* virtual boy *cough* *cough* CD-I *cough*.

      It's an investment that won't pay itself back for years, but chances are it will. Microsoft's strategy, much like Sony's, isn't about games. For the moment it is, but it's more about gaining that position in the living room to being the media hub. By buying a solid gaming house that can develop easily recognizable characters through decent games is a huge benefit to this cause.

      Also as you seem to suggest, Rare isn't some new in-house developer for the X-Box. Microsoft simply bought Nintendo's 49% share of the house. it's still going to be a 3rd party and it's still likely going to function the same as at Nintendo, just on a different console.

    3. Re:Stupid Business Model, too! by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting one thing, though : Zelda.

      When Zelda comes out, they'll probably sell 100,000 extra consoles that month alone. Seriously, if not more. Both me and my roommate plan to buy Gamecubes for when Zelda comes out, AND each get a copy of Zelda. He is Dreamcast guy who wants an Xbox, but isn't buying it so he can use the money for the GC/Zelda, and I already have a PS2.

      Plus, when that happens, the people that buy the GC will pick up other games, too... It'll be a big boost for them, similar to when Final Fantasy first hit the PSX. I remeber shopping at Electronics Boutique and 4-5 different people came in and preordered FF and bought a PSX while I was in the store.

      I don't think Nintendo is going anywhere because they have such a huge fanbase for games like Zelda, Mario and Metroid.

    4. Re:Stupid Business Model, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're right. Nintendo's a quality company, but two Zelda titles couldn't save the N64.

    5. Re:Stupid Business Model, too! by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      Huh? The N64 made a LOT of money for Nintendo. It wasn't as big of a success as the PSX, but it was definitely profitable. There is no way in hell the GC is going to "beat" the PS2, and I think they know that. They just want to keep making a tidy profit, as they have been.

    6. Re:Stupid Business Model, too! by DoctorRad · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is, are we now going to see a Jetman game for the Xbox? It would be great if a character first seen on a 16k ZX Spectrum game in 1983 became Microsoft's mascot... Dr. Matt...

  91. Re:I got this rare fp for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to finish off this thread - u juss a little beeeyatch

  92. Consoles = Computers by ZekeG4 · · Score: 1

    When did consoles become computers? Consoles are for playing!!

  93. xBox hardware better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not think so Nintendo simply designed a game system using all parts designed for that purpose and software for that purpose meaning that yes even though xBox may have some faster components, GC is overall more balanced allowing for better performance.

    1. Re:xBox hardware better by dpt · · Score: 1

      I agree, that might well be the case.

      I bought a GC because I was sick of the same 3 games (Quake, Command and Conquer, and Diablo) under different names with tiny differences on the PC, and the GC was recommended to me by another long-time gamer as having *real* new games. You know, games that are *different*, as distinct as chess is from poker. I remember when *every* game was actually a different game, not the same damned thing with different/more detailed/faster graphics.

      I didn't expect to be so impressed with the graphical output, but I was. It's great. Nintendo should be hyping this up a bit more!

  94. A few things to set you all straight by GweeDo · · Score: 2

    First and foremost, we will NEVER see a DK game on the Xbox. DK is owned wholey by Nintendo. The same goes for Star Fox. Nintendo owns these franchises and will never let them go. As for anyother game by Rare, all their recent games have been floops. There games since Goldeneye have been: DK64, Jet Force Gemini, Conker's Bad Fur Day and Perfect Dark. While some will say each of these games where great none of them sold well. Goldeneye eye was Rare's last great title. The fact that their newest game (Star Fox Adventure) took them this long (even starting as an n64 projected called Dinosaur Planet) should only tell people how bad they have gotten. They have had Cube dev kits longer than most any second party that Nintendo has and it took them this long to make a 20 hour game. Have fun with Microsoft Rare, you surely aren't needed by Nintendo and soon the Xbox crowd will get used to your massive delays and lack of strong selling titles.

    1. Re:A few things to set you all straight by WildBeast · · Score: 2

      Perfect Dark sold over a million copies.

    2. Re:A few things to set you all straight by GweeDo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      WOW!!! A whole million? That doesn't even put it in the top five for n64 games. Zelda: OoT sold more than 7 million untils in under seven months! Mario 64 topped the 10 million mark and Mario card hit something like 8-9 million. 1 million is nothing when you are talking about supposedly system moving games. Rares highest selling game for the N64 was diddy kong racing...which was just mario kart with dk characters...wow...that was original of them!

    3. Re:A few things to set you all straight by Da+VinMan · · Score: 2

      Hey, Diddy Kong ROCKED! Don't make me come over there.

      --
      Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
  95. gnews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i came to this thread because it was a headline on google news main page. i wonder if it's double linking to google news influenced its placing within it.

  96. Re:DENIED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  97. Split ownership by yerricde · · Score: 2, Interesting

    donkey-kong is trademarked by nintendo

    But even though Nintendo owns the trademark on the name and likeness of Donkey Kong, Rare owns the copyright to the 3D model of Donkey Kong used in Mario Kart 64, Super Smash Bros., Super Smash Bros. Melee, and possibly other recent games. (Check the credits.) Now Nintendo will have to license something from Microsoft in order to make Super Smash Bros. 3.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Split ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nope, it's a representation of a Nintendo trademarked franchise. Nintendo has absolutely no reason to pay anything to Rare or Microsoft if they want to make a new sequel.

  98. Rare? by Mind+Socket · · Score: 1

    Well, no one's ever associated them with "well done"

  99. Exclusivity by Winterblink · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I have two thoughts on this.

    1. Now all of a sudden a lot of really good games that may have been produced and released on different platforms are only going to be for the X-Box. I was hoping to see the PS2 doing a sequel to Perfect Dark or Conker's but I guess that won't happen.

    2. This is EXACTLY what Microsoft needs for the floundering X-Box. So far the machine has had only a handful of decent games that are exclusive to the machine, and a whole lot being developed for all platforms. If I own a PS2, why should I bother getting an X-Box for a game that is available on my machine? The more imaginative developers jump on to the X-Box bandwagon (or in this case are lassoed and pulled onto the bandwagon) the better it is for the platform.

    Whether any of this is a good thing I guess remains to be seen. Considering that nothing spectacular has been heard to be coming from Rare (at least any time soon), maybe this won't make a difference worth mentioning. Anywho, just my 2c. Agree or disagree?

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:Exclusivity by Godai · · Score: 1

      1. Now all of a sudden a lot of really good games that may have been produced and released on different platforms are only going to be for the X-Box. I was hoping to see the PS2 doing a sequel to Perfect Dark or Conker's but I guess that won't happen.

      Not sure why you thought a PS2 sequel would ever be in the offing from a company where 49% was owned by the Big N, but hey, hope blooms eternal :) And at any rate, the Rare-Nintendo relationship was going strong for a long time -- after all, if not for Nintendo lending Rare the DK license, who knows where Rare'd be? Sure there was Golden Eye...but that was a long time after DK Country 1,2,3!

      2. This is EXACTLY what Microsoft needs for the floundering X-Box. So far the machine has had only a handful of decent games that are exclusive to the machine, and a whole lot being developed for all platforms. If I own a PS2, why should I bother getting an X-Box for a game that is available on my machine? The more imaginative developers jump on to the X-Box bandwagon (or in this case are lassoed and pulled onto the bandwagon) the better it is for the platform.

      Unfortunately you're not going to get much on the 'imaginative developers' from Rare-as-it-is-now :( I forget which game it was (either Perfect Dark or Goldeneye) but most of the developers left a year or so ago to form a new company. I think I read they were working on a new GC game, something with monkeys (could be WAY off on that though).

      And with the Rare founding brothers leaving...what's left for MS? Sure, Perfect Dark, JFG & Conkers...but none of them sold exceptionally well (to Rare & Nintendo's lament). Good, but not great; certainly nothing in Golden Eye country. And since the Rare coders will have to learn X-Box coding (a far cry from having input into the GC's hardware design!), it'll be a while before something good appears from Rare, for X-Box. Unless MS rushes them...and that would kill the only real thing MS got out of this deal: the Rare name and reputation (which some would argue is getting a little worn).

      I'll admit I don't think much of the X-Box, but I have enough warm feelings about Rare to wish them well...I'm just optimistic about where they're headed now :(

      --
      Wood Shavings!
      - Godai
    2. Re:Exclusivity by Winterblink · · Score: 2
      Not sure why you thought a PS2 sequel would ever be in the offing from a company where 49% was owned by the Big N, but hey, hope blooms eternal :) And at any rate, the Rare-Nintendo relationship was going strong for a long time -- after all, if not for Nintendo lending Rare the DK license, who knows where Rare'd be? Sure there was Golden Eye...but that was a long time after DK Country 1,2,3!

      Chances are good that any developer would write their games for all platforms nowadays. That's the trend, and regardless of who has majority ownership of it (Nintendo, Sony, whatever) it's in the best interest of everyone that the game can be sold and played on all platforms. Microsoft is different -- they need the exclusive games to build a fanbase, otherwise there's no incentive to buy the machine.

      Unfortunately you're not going to get much on the 'imaginative developers' from Rare-as-it-is-now :( I forget which game it was (either Perfect Dark or Goldeneye) but most of the developers left a year or so ago to form a new company. I think I read they were working on a new GC game, something with monkeys (could be WAY off on that though).

      Weren't they the guys who formed Insomnia (Insomniac?) Games, and are getting set to release Timesplitters 2 for the PS2? Timesplitters 1 was a simple, yet incredibly fun game to play (especially the multiplayer stuff).

      Sure, Perfect Dark, JFG & Conkers...but none of them sold exceptionally well...

      I attribute that to the fact that at least two of those games that I know of used the memory upgrade for the N64. Although not required, it was pushed heavily. The N64 was dead at the time anyway, the PS1 had slaughtered it and the PS2 was coming soon.

      It'll definitely be interesting to see where they go from here, and whether the new platform gives them the ability to produce good games that will sell. Myself, I'm not a huge fan of the X-Box, but mostly because of the fact that there's no games exclusive to that platform that really make me want to purchase it. Between my windows PC and my PS2, I'm in a pretty happy gaming place right now. :)

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    3. Re:Exclusivity by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 2

      2. This is EXACTLY what Microsoft needs for the floundering X-Box. [snip] If I own a PS2, why should I bother getting an X-Box for a game that is available on my machine?

      This sounds EXACTLY like what Nintendo did in the 80's. Not buy companies per se (this is purely a I-have-enough-money-so-why-not deal), just make deals to where the games a company produced were exclusive to the NES, or forced them to sign proposterous deals that didn't make sense (like produce 5 games for NES, one for Sega Master System). This is how the NES dominated the 80's home video game market, and how the technically superior Sega Master System got crushed. Read all about it in the excellent Game Over, that chronicles this wicked tale of manipulation and greed.

      Hmm...manipulation, greed, and Microsoft. It's all so...familiar, isn't it?

    4. Re:Exclusivity by Winterblink · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hmm...manipulation, greed, and Microsoft. It's all so...familiar, isn't it?

      Capitalism at its worst indeed. But, the goal of a competetive market is to, well, compete. It has to be hard for companies to do that without crushing their competition. Imagine if there was no restrictions to that effect? What kind of monopoly would MS have today? *shudder*

      You're very correct regarding the Nintendo thing, I totally forgot about how they rampaged through the 80's. The SMS was a pretty cool system too, had some neat games.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  100. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by dontEATnachos · · Score: 1

    Anyone who don't think you are suffering because of this game developer buy-out thing: remember: Halo was supposed to be released for PC first. and now Halo 2 is about to come out... where is the PC version? I could have sworn that Halo was originally supposed to come out for the Mac first not PC.

    --
    Hahahahahaha, what?
  101. If MS keeps blocking PC games... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time MS picks up a game company they add years of exclusive x-box games. But to boost x-box sales they are blocking windows game development.

    What MS hoped would be a new cash cow is going to end up cannablizing their home PC base, while Linux eats away at the server market.

    MS never should have created the x-box, instead they should have pushed the Windows PC into the living room.

    1. Re:If MS keeps blocking PC games... by T3chnomonk · · Score: 1


      The XBOX IS a Windows PC in the living room!

      Havn't you read anything about their plans for future versions of the XBOX? Maybe you should ask yourself what OS is running on the XBOX...

      --
      -- 2 Powerful Words: Extra Gravy
  102. Ownership of the TM != ownership of the meshes by yerricde · · Score: 1

    it's a representation of a Nintendo trademarked franchise

    But Rare still owns the copyright on the 3D mesh that represents a character under a Nintendo trademark. If Nintendo wanted to make another DK game, Nintendo would have to make new 3D models from scratch.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Ownership of the TM != ownership of the meshes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You mean a game company might actually have to make game content if they're making a game?

      Ya don't say...

    2. Re:Ownership of the TM != ownership of the meshes by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

      You seriously need to get a clue. Meshes or no, anything remotely *resembling* Donkey Kong is owned by Nintendo. There is no "fair use" clause for it. There was never any ownership by the modellers who made them. It was all allowed by Nintendo. Rare can't even THINK about Donkey Kong without having to consult with Nintendo first. You honestly think that since Lucas gave a license for some shitty star wars game that someone made 10 years ago, that they can go right ahead and keep making more shitty star wars games? Sorry, they cannot. What they created was Lucas's mindshare, and anyone who wants to use it for profit needs to have it okayed and a deal struck.

    3. Re:Ownership of the TM != ownership of the meshes by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      Ever heard the phrase "work for hire"? Basically it means when you hire someone to work for you, they give up the ownership of the work that results. I'd imagine the situation is the same here. If not, the new development team will just re-model DK. No big deal.

  103. Dreamcast?!? by wikthemighty · · Score: 1


    And a Virtua Fighter would put Xbox squarely in the sights of many fighting game fans, since then DoA, VF, and Soul Calibur would all be available on one system. Add online opponents and tourneys, and they could potentially hand out more hats of money.

    Wasn't all of the above allready avaliable on the Dreamcast some time ago? (And I don't need to remind anyone what happened to that system!)

    --
    "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
  104. no DK games. by Dizzo · · Score: 1

    Donkey Kong is owned by Nintendo, not Rare. Nintendo will not allow a game to be released on the X-box starring one of its oldest characters. Rare will be making games like Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, etc.

    1. Re:no DK games. by JohnG · · Score: 2

      Not goldeneye, they don't have the Bond license anymore either.

  105. Re:Excuse me, by cortices · · Score: 1

    Evil will always triumph over Good, because Good is DUMB.

    --
    You can't kill the boogey man.
  106. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by tshak · · Score: 2

    What, as opposed to Sony paying MILLIONS to ensure that GTA3 would be exclusive to the PS2 (in the console market) until 2004?

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  107. Microsoft to the left, Sony to the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On one side, Microsoft who's crimes are well known.

    On the other side, Sony. Who makes some fine equipment, but also drives the DMCA and other *coff* fine laws.

    For all the whining about Microsoft, the DMCA, the 'loss' of 'rights' done here, these SAME whiners are willing to hand over money to these SAME companies.

    What drives their engines is the money consumers hand over....why are you increasing thier power by buying their products?

  108. Huh? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Do you really think Rare came up with donkey kong?

    He's been with us since the begining, and is a product of the same mind that came up with mario, zelda, and many of the orgional nintendo characters.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  109. Uhh No.. Nintendo owns ALL DK trademarks. by Viewsonic · · Score: 2, Informative
    Anything related to "Donkey Kong", 3D or no, is owned 100% by Nintendo. The only way you will see Donkey Kong on an XBox is if Nintendo allows it. (Not likely)

    Rare lately has been making total crap games. It was a waste of $$ for MS to even buy them.

    1. Re:Uhh No.. Nintendo owns ALL DK trademarks. by dimator · · Score: 2

      Wow, thanks for clearing this up, I hope it's true. Given this information, I don't see why MS would buy Rare at all.

      My fingers are crossed for a future DK title for the gamecube. My toes are crossed that it will be a side-scroller.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  110. 6 words. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Jet. Set. Radio. Future. For. Xbox.

    I paid $300 for a console I hate just to play that game :P

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  111. Actually, GameCube is selling HUGE now. by Viewsonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stores cant keep them in stock since the release of Mario .. And this is just the first of many games.. Next up is StarFox, and then Metroid, and finally ..oO ZELDA Oo.. - Their sales were never lacking in Europe, and in fact, were always ahead of the XBox there. All around the world the machine that is known as Nintendo is starting to dominate. Sonys weak online push is backfiring with shoddy games like SOCOM (terrible reviews), and the only thing keeping that boat afloat is a few key games such as Kingdom Hearts and GTA3. MS and Sony will be dumping so much money into online services that will just flop. If anyones been watching all these new online games for both systems, they're getting slammed left and right because of realtime chatting with voice its nothing but swearing, the parents dont want it, and the games you cant coordinate without keyboards and typing - The sales for the PS2 keyboard have been dull simply because people have just decided for online games, nothing beats the PC. Nintendo played it smart and saw this a mile away. thumbs up, big thumbs up.

  112. LOL .. All Rare's key DEVS ***QUIT*** the company! by Viewsonic · · Score: 0, Troll

    MicroSoft is starting to make the Dreamcast bomb look like the worlds largest diamond. This is so god damn funny. They didn't get ANY trademarks for any of Rares big games, either. What did they buy? Basically nothing!

  113. Microsoft is off its rocker now! by Catnapster · · Score: 1

    Whenever I'm talking with some gamers, and I bring up Rare, the general consensus is that Rare is some kind of development god. I disagree.

    Rare's greatest achievement (in my opinion) was GoldenEye. GoldenEye is basically the best N64 game of all time. (The only thing keeping GoldenEye from perfection was the lack of multiplayer bots.) People will try to tell me that Perfect Dark is better than GoldenEye, but the graphics were worse, and the gameplay was like GoldenEye's, but just different enough to annoy me and make me want to go play GoldenEye again.

    I liked Blast Corps and Star Fox 64, but GoldenEye is the crown jewel. Why is MS off its rocker, you ask? Because the team at Rare that was responsible for GoldenEye broke off and became Free Radical, who made TimeSplitters (and now TimeSplitters 2). TimeSplitters is, gameplay-wise, GoldenEye with bots and a level editor. Sadly for MS, TimeSplitters was released on PS2 as well, and TimeSplitters 2 is coming out for GameCube.

    All the millions Microsoft paid are basically buying Perfect Dark 2, which is more or less the code for Perfect Dark with a few additions. Rare also has its undeserved reputation as a great development house.

    Too bad MS wanted Rare's "legacy" all to itself, and paid $375,000,000 for it - and the true heir of GoldenEye is coming out for all three big consoles.

    The point? Microsoft just doesn't care about the XBox. Its controller sucks, its games are subpar, and now MS is shelling out monstrous amounts of cash - that could have been paid to put another bug in Windows, mind you! - to acquire a paperweight of a development house.

    Yippee.

    --
    The world can be wrong today for once.
    1. Re:Microsoft is off its rocker now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to clarify, Rare didn't make Star Fox 64, Nintendo did. However, Rare did make Star Fox Adventures which just came out for the Gamecube.

  114. Nintendo's online policy by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

    1. is to wait and see the competitors flounder and stumble while getting their networks off the ground 2. learn from the mistakes 3. release Mario Kart Online(can't wait!)

  115. Well, you didn't look too hard. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Yes, there are some stupid lawsuits listed there, but I don't see anything comparable to enforced DRM,

    Nintendo has always called emmulation illegal, and all nintendo systems have had DRM like technology to prevent people from making games without a license

    abuse of monopoly power against software companies,

    Remember when nintendo had a monopoly. You didn't make games unless you got permission from nintendo

    abuse of monopoly power against hardware manufacturers,

    Well, no one made the hardware but nintendo.

    undocumented routines built into the OS to cripple applications from competitors, etc.

    You were either with Nintendo, or your software wouldn't even run.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Well, you didn't look too hard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Gameboy system has ever had protection or whatever, so Nyah!

  116. Obligatory Penny Arcade by greatsasuke · · Score: 1

    Speaking of Microsoft throwing cash around...

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2000- 10 -23

  117. Why does Kameo have wings? COMPLETE RARE GAME LIST by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

    (Kameo didn't show the ability to fly in the NGC E3 demos....darn! We(GC owners who don't have the extra $200 to fork over for a 2nd console) missed out) Indy Heat NA NES Silversword NA NES Slalom 1986 NES Jeopardy! 1987 NES Wheel of Fortune 1987 NES Wizards & Warriors 1987 NES Anticipation 1988 NES California Games 1988 NES Cobra Triangle 1988 NES Double Dare 1988 NES Hollywood Squares 1988 NES John Elway's Quarterback 1988 NES Jordan Vs. Bird 1988 NES Marble Madness 1988 NES R.C. Pro-Am 1988 NES Sesame Street 123 1988 NES World Games 1988 NES WWF Wrestlemania 1988 NES Cabal 1989 NES Captain Skyhawk 1989 NES Iron Sword 1989 NES A Nightmare on Elm St. 1989 NES Pin Bot 1989 NES Sesame Street ABC 1989 NES Silent Service 1989 NES Super Off-Road 1989 NES Taboo 1989 NES Wheel of Fortune Junior 1989 NES Who Framed Roger Rabit 1989 NES Amazing Spiderman 1990 GameBoy Arch Rivals 1990 NES Beetlejuice 1990 NES Digger T. Rock 1990 NES Jeopardy! Junior 1990 NES Jeopardy! 25th Anniversary 1990 NES NARC 1990 NES Snake Rattle 'n Roll 1990 NES Snake Rattle 'n Roll 1990 Genesis Solar Jetman 1990 NES Super Glove Ball 1990 NES Time Lord 1990 NES Wheel of Fortune Family 1990 NES WWF Wrestlemania Challenge 1990 NES Battletoads 1991 NES Beetlejuice 1991 GameBoy Battletoads 1991 GameBoy High Speed 1991 NES Pirates 1991 NES Sesame Street ABC & 123 1991 NES Sneaky Snakes 1991 GameBoy Super R.C. Pro-Am 1991 GameBoy WWF Superstars 1991 GameBoy Championship R.C. Pro-Am 1992 Genesis R.C. Pro-Am II 1992 NES X The Ball 1992 Arcade Battletoads Double Dragon 1993 NES Battletoads Double Dragon 1993 SNES Battletoads Double Dragon 1993 GameBoy Battletoads in Ragnarok's World 1993 Gameboy Battletoads in Battlemaniacs 1993 SNES Super Battletoads 1994 Arcade Donkey Kong Country 1994 SNES Killer Instinct 1994 Arcade Donkey Kong Land 1995 GameBoy Donkey Kong Country 2 1995 SNES Killer Instinct 1995 SNES Killer Instinct 1995 GameBoy Donkey Kong Land 2 1996 GameBoy Ken Griffey JR's Winning Run 1996 SNES Killer Instinct 2 1996 Arcade Donkey Kong Country 3 1996 SNES Killer Instinct Gold 1996 N64 Donkey Kong Land 3 1997 GameBoy Blast Corps 1997 N64 Goldeneye 1997 N64 Diddy Kong Racing 1997 N64 Banjo-Kazooie 1998 N64 Jet Force Gemini 1999 N64 Mickey Racing Adventure 1999 GameBoy Donkey Kong 64 1999 N64 Perfect Dark 2000 N64 Perfect Dark 2000 GameBoy Mickey Speedway USA 2000 N64 Donkey Kong Country 2000 GameBoy Banjo-Tooie 2000 N64 Conker's Bad Fur Day 2001 N64 With the exception of Perfect Dark and DKC none of these post-Goldeneye games sold well. Even DK64 and PD didn't sell nearly as well as GE but that could be due to the dying console. However, I do hope for the best for Rare and MS.

  118. Re:Better graphics? Excuse me? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    That was going to be Nintendo AND Sony's venture until Sony STOLE the entire thing behind Nintendo's back.

    Don't you mean, until Nintendo told them to fuck off?

    The orgional PS was a pretty shitty deal for nintendo anyway, and they did the right thing in rebuffing sony. (Sony would get all the rights to CD game licenses, etc.)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  119. it is win2k by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    a specialy modified version

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  120. hate when people ignore the Gamecube in vg convos by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

    Example: Why would people want to buy a Xbox when they have PS2 as an option?" or "Xbox licensing fees are far less than PS2's" This is a common occurrence. A visitor from space would think there were two consoles and wouldn't realize that the #2 console seller was the Nintendo Gamecube and not Xbox. Furthermore, the biggest moneymaker for most of the past 5 years or so is *gasp* Nintendo. Folks, let's not ignore Nintendo's Gamecube.

  121. Nintendo for 2.5g? Heh by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    It would be quite a feat to buy a compan with a $4 billion dollar bank account for 2.5 billion.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  122. Rare in Nintendo credits by Xenex · · Score: 1

    Interesting.

    I remember Nintendo thanking Rare for supplying the 3D model in the credits, never specifially saying it was copyright Rare.

    Either way, I'm sure the 3D model would have been one of the things Nintendo kept. Hell, they probably have the source to every Rare games since DKC1; they did own virtually half the company after all...

  123. Quiet you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would you know; you run a porn blog.

    Go beat off.

  124. Re:Better graphics? Excuse me? by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, damn straight. And who works for who now? ;o)

    --
    Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
  125. The Sega Saturn was inferrior. by Inoshiro · · Score: 3, Informative

    The PSX had an internal MPEG decoder (allowing higher-quality, fullscreen playback of MPEG files than the SH2-bound softdecoding the Sega Saturn used), a 3D acceleration engine based around triangles instead of quads. Its SH2 CPUs were slower (even if there were two of them, not all games took advantage of SMP), and its overall MIPS level was lover than than of the PSX. It was also very hard to program for, as the SMP locking was beyond most game programmers, or wasn't really as beneficial as Sega had hoped. A shame, because the SMP parts were more expensive to build -- which led to Sega losing money on each unit.

    The PSX won because of its games, possible because 3rd party people had an easy-to-use developer kit which provided easy MPEG playback for cut scenes, an easier to write for 3D engine (triangles vs. quads againt, remember the NV1? It failed because it was quad-based), and because it was easier to write UMP games than SMP ones (although Yu had Virtua Fighter running with each processor computing one of the players' characters, this was the exception).

    Sometimes, superior systems do win even if people seem to think something else was superior (although the PS2 is another discussion ;)).

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  126. ms sure knows how to make enemies out of fans by zonker · · Score: 0

    i dunno, but i think that you're not going to see too many rare fans fawning for xbox because of this... judging by how many people here are panning this in this forum alone, it doesn't look like a sound decision. guess we'll see.

  127. You know by Inoshiro · · Score: 2

    You can always stop reading this site, or setup your own site which has to pay for its own bandwidth costs.

    I mean, really, if they're wanting to give money away, who are you to question it? That's right, no one, because it's not your site, and you don't have to pay to run it. Thanks, YHL, HAND.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:You know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh... bit of a raw nerve.

    2. Re:You know by N1KO · · Score: 1

      Good job killing the joke.

  128. THE TALENTalready just quit and started quitting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The key devs all quit, and without those, and without the trademarks which they did not totally acquire, MS bought nothing but a press release for its third of a billion waste.... and a bunch of has-been overpaid employees.

  129. Pulling others down with them? by DMBoyd · · Score: 1

    This news is very interesting...
    seeing as the fate of the xbox is determined on this christmas sales...

  130. Imagine going to work one day... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

    ...and getting told by your boss, with a smile, that you now work for Microsoft instead. *twitch*

  131. People snub Xbox because it's microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thus if they get 'credible' console game manufacturers under the wing then they can get some 'respect'.

    I.E. it certainly used to be the case that the Japanese refused to buy Xbox because it was not a 'real' console from a console company.

    The Xbox is still pretty much a total turkey in the rest-of-the-world.

  132. Buy & Ruin by rixstep · · Score: 1

    Microsoft always buy; and they always ruin (what they buy). What's amazing here is the nearly $400 million in cash. Looks like Gates will have to do without pizza next weekend.

  133. Re:Foolish Purchase??? by squaretorus · · Score: 2

    I don't think MS are that stupid. This is a serious price tag, but a small %age of the cash already sunk into the Xbox, and a tiny %age of the MS fortune.

    Remember that it only takes one game around Christmas to make or break a console. Sonic on the Sega was probably the biggest example of this - how many machines are out there in cupboards with JUST Sonic attached??

    Rare have produced some amazing games in the past. If they have a pipeline full of concepts, part worked ideas, and part complete games that haven't made it into public knowledge yet maybe MS see another Sonic or two lurking in there...

    Sure, a bunch of talent has moved on, and the last couple of years haven't been exactly rock and roll, but these things come in cycles.

  134. Collecting lots of meaningless things = FUN by jetcell · · Score: 1

    Developers can and have left Rare. Anybody ever hear of Free Radical? It's a developement company composed of key members that made Goldeneye and Perefect Dark. The only good games I thought Rare ever had were those two. The Donkey Kong Country games just seemed like games where the goal is to collect stuff. The Banjo games seemed like Mario 64, with more collecting. Diddy Kong Racing was the worst of them all, Super Mario Kart 64... with more collecting... and I actually collected all the stupid coins with first place in all the races and I was awarded with... all the tracks mirrored so I could collect more wonderful coins... Does anybody see a pattern here? I don't think Rare has got much left.

  135. well.. by ciupmean · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We now might say that the probability of having those games ported to linux will be .. rare

    ______

    --
    One day your head will be your box, your brain will be your client, and all energetic problems will be solved...
  136. Goldeneye has been re-released by goldcd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The original team that worked on it left Rare to set up their own company - Free Radical. If anyone were still in doubt about TS2's heritage, it kicks off with you launching an assault on a Russian dam. I might also add that the game is quite fantastic (TS1 didn't really impress me) with an absolutely massive number of multiplayer options and characters. Even better than Goldeneye I promise.

    1. Re:Goldeneye has been re-released by jackbang · · Score: 1

      And for those of you unfamiliar with the acronym, he's talking about Timesplitters 2, which will be available for PS2, Gamecube and Xbox within the next couple weeks.

    2. Re:Goldeneye has been re-released by goldcd · · Score: 1

      OOps, sorry - I really should actually mention the subject of my posts in the post. Only played it on PS2, supposedly identical on Xbox but with better loading time. Lovely engine, can looks fabulous and is very very fast. Only game I've really actually played since Halo.

  137. change of subject is a weak tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jumping off a cliff to avoid a charging bull may improve your position, but only until you hit the ground. This is not a 'strategic acquisition'. Buying a game title house is the only option left in the face of a lack of developers volunteering to provide software titles. Why would an investor be encouraged by the spending of (presumed) capitol in order to obtain something that was originally expected to be forthcoming at no cost.

    And it's not about the amount...no one cares if it is ten million or one....it is about the logic...or lack thereof. There is not enough attractive software for the xb, and the fact that MS is buying any software house only serves to show how much of an issue that really is. Good money after bad is bad business. I don't care if it's MS or Baskin Robbins.

    And as for what I know that you don't...since you're using Enron math, I'm not even going to respond.

    (I hate MS shills....they seem to think being assigned an indefensible position is some sort of badge of honor)

  138. Yeah, it's not easy to use the HD as a cup holder. by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Bad pun I know, but... :)

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  139. hrm by EggChen · · Score: 1

    Rare on MS leaves bad taste in my mouth. If i were stamper bros. i would feel so ashame.
    Rare has 3 games left for cube. star fox adventures, and two gameboy games and then they done.
    I never get xbox. I always own nintendo product for exclusive games. any thing else that is good i can get on pc so no need for xbox or ps2.

    Egg Out,
    not redhat, just.. .

    SLACKWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  140. I thought it was funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People here have no humor sometimes.

  141. Money to Burn by iamwhatiseem · · Score: 1

    When you have money to burn as M$ does, might as well use it, even if it fails, at least you get to stare at the flames.

  142. Microsoft buys unsuccessful company... by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Thereby drawing them ever closer to their goal -- wherever crappy software is sold, microsoft is close at hand! What a great idea. Nintendo dumps their stake because, big surprise, Nintendo cares about quality! Good for them, and I hope Microsoft has a great time figuring out that all the money in the world isn't what makes Mario cool.
    sir_haxalot

    --
    stuff |
  143. Re:Foolish Purchase??? by rseuhs · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Well, MS has lost 0.75 billion so far on XBox, the 0.35 billion for Rare is not a small percentage of that.

    Also this adds up. MS will need over 1 billion PER YEAR just to keep XBox alive.

  144. Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if donkey kong and star fox tried to have a baby
    they'd be fags. and if they adopted a baby
    everybody would just hate it anyway.

  145. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by pastie · · Score: 3, Informative
    ..., Square (Final Fantasy; major shareholder), ...


    At least in this case, they were buying into the company to help them out of the sticky situation they got themselves into by making a poor and very expensive film, which put Square into dire financial difficulties. Can't blame Sony for that, IMHO :)
  146. I guess... by Rocky · · Score: 1

    ...Rare's development process can be summarized by a simple phrase:

    "Stop N Swap"!

    --
    "I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
  147. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by xamel · · Score: 0

    Except...Naughty Dog is making Xbox games?...So...they WOULDN'T be Sony Exclusive?

    --
    GOD DAMNIT , MODERATE ME!
  148. Who cares... by I_am_God_Here · · Score: 1

    Rare sucked anyway.

    --

    Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
    Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
  149. If is now clear that the XBox is useless ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because if MS go into the game dev, then the few that have dare to follow MS on the X"-Suicide" process ...

    Just remember that X have never been great for MS business ... see MSX, LinuX, ... and now XBox :o)

    IMHO, MS will stop XBox within the next year or it will just sink them-selves. And Bill-III will never be agree for yet a Titanic shoot ;-)

    (SKILZ)

  150. Re:Isn't this what Apple does...? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

    An AC wrote:

    > Isn't this what Apple did with Shake, Rayz,
    > Cubase, Spruce Tech, etc...?

    When Steve Jobs was asked what he was going to do with the results of his shopping spree, he said "Democratize them". Just what part of making media creation tools cheaper and easier to use do you have a problem with?

    > Howcome when Apple does it it's a good thing and
    > when MS does it it's a bad thing...?

    MS has a monopoly, Apple doesn't. Legally, that is like comparing Apples to rotten oranges. There are different rules.

    Also, Apple is fighting for the consumer against the DRM insanity that Microsoft champions.

    And finally, many of the companies that Apple has bought get a nice home, the ability to maintain their own identities, and to continue to serve their customers.

    On the other hand, when Microsoft bought Bungie and I went to their site to get help on the OS X version of Oni, I was literally told to get my help from a brick wall, which they helpfully provided a picture of! Grrrr!

    Windows: "Go talk to my friend, an 800 pound monopoly-abusing gorilla!"
    Mac: "And here's my good buddy, the 66,000 ton Godzilla!"
    Godzilla: Stomp! ;)

  151. Hi your nerds. by super_b0b · · Score: 1

    1) Rare lack of titles and delays is directly related to the sub par hardware of the N64, realize this as SquareSoft did when they left 2) Perfect Dark is better then Goldeneye in every conceivable way other then framerate which again is directly related to the n64's hardware (Carts and RAMBUS memory did /. forget about the rambus?) 3) The Xbox is the most dominate peice of console hardware it uses a HD it has DVD it is not the N64) 4) Rare has 150+ employees the founders leaving doesnt matter they haven't coded anything in decades, wonder why there leaving? maybe because they'd like to retire with there millions morons. 5) Screw anyone that thinks Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conkers Bad Fur Day, Jet Force Gemini are not some of the best games ever produced on the N64. 6) without the hinderance of carts and with the addition of the best hardware in the industery they will make 5 games in two years believe it or not I could give a shit what moronic linux anti ms nerds think. =) 7) Perfect Dark will sell as much if not more copys then Halo 2 and going by Halo 1's sales that over 2 million copies easy 8) The N64 was marketed at kids no wonder Conkers didnt do well or Perfect Dark since these are both mature titles, hmm MS markets the Xbox towards ADULTS where M rated games will sell more then on the cutesy tincy wincy lil GameCube. In closing I find you nerds disturbing, the Goldeneye lisense is owned by the people that own bond there will never be another Bond game by Rare, also make note that the vast majority of you are idiots that know nothing about video gaming because your too busy running your pretty lil linux boxes... so screw your score of 4-5 you don't know jack shit about this topic unfortunately for you, you come off like morons. Keep your mouth closed nerd boys if you don't know what the hell your talking about =)

  152. Re:THE TALENTalready just quit and started quittin by matlokheed · · Score: 1

    Ummm... they got plenty of trademarks. And that's what Microsoft has been missing. The XBox has no mascot (neither does PS2 admittedly, but they've tried soooo hard to change that). That's what they want. Recognizable names. The programmers and game designers aren't important to them.

    --

    "If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka

  153. An operating HD is more fragile than a DVD drive.. by Svartalf · · Score: 2

    And the most probable failure point on the other consoles is also present in the X-Box. So, there's two parts that are going to break in the X-Box compared to the one in the competitors' boxes.

    It's telling when they pretty much have buy companies (Bungie, now Rare...) to put "exclusive" games on their console.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  154. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by matlokheed · · Score: 1
    Wasn't it a "Sony Pictures" production though?

    Not hard to figure out. They help produce the movie and Square (who's game were exclusive to Sony's system) is grateful if it's successful and Square gets advertising.

    If it fails, Square goes into financial straights and it's easier for Sony to buy up a big piece of it.

    Either way, they win.

    --

    "If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka

  155. You killed Netscape.... You Bastard!!! by aliens · · Score: 1

    J/K what's IE's percentage nowadays? 94% I'm praying that they'll support all W3C standards soon though. And not for cross-browser design issues. But there are zero books on Developing Webpages for IE.

    Everything I read teaches the W3C ways. Like they should damnit.

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
  156. How much did they say they'd give up? by shadowxtc · · Score: 1

    $50 billion? I think that was it.. so let's see, they can buy 149 more Rare-like game development companies. Wait a minute, there aren't that many! Why don't Sony and Nintendo throw in the towel now, while they can still walk away with cash?

  157. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by Sludge · · Score: 2
    Same story has happened before, guys... I remember back in the days when M$ literally parked a "hiring booth" in front of Borland and basically said "if you sign up right now, we give you 150% of what you are making and then a huge bonus (6 figures, maybe more)." look what happened to Borland.

    Any references to back this up?

  158. Rare's hits: by qurob · · Score: 1


    Video game programmers from Europe RULE.

    They are second to none in fun, intuitive games.

    A close runner-up are the boys in Austin.

    Back on topic:

    Rare really extended the SNES's life, and pushed the limits of the system.

    Donkey Kong Country (okay, so the sequels were just new art)

    Killer Instinct

    They also made great games for the N64, like Goldeneye. Being from PC land with Quake and all, I wasn't real impressed by the multiplay/graphics/play control but the rest of the world was!

  159. Re:Isn't this what Apple does...? by Da'Rante · · Score: 1

    Its been a long time since MS and Apple were enemies. I think that stopped about the time MS bought a large, but not controlling chunk of Apple

  160. sig test by jbellis · · Score: 1

    trying one last post before mailing in a bug report... ignore pls

  161. Anonymous idiot alert ^^^ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll Troll Troll

  162. Heard in the Rare offices... by hoggoth · · Score: 2

    "I'm rich!"
    "I quit"
    "I quit"
    "I quit"
    "I quit"
    "I quit"
    "I quit"
    "I quit"

    anti-lameness-filterness goes here...

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  163. business strategy by jafac · · Score: 2

    I guess if they can't build a better mouse trap, at least they can buy up all the other mousetrap manufacturers out there and make them stamp an MS logo on them.

    All during an Anti-Trust trial where they've been found guilty of abusing Monopoly power. Sigh.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  164. Rare games suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rare games suck, seems to be a nice fit

  165. FREE XBOX AND PS2 AND GAMECUBE AND FREE GAMES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GO HERE ITS NOT SPAM ITS REALLY FREE!!!!!!!
    http://readysetgamer.com/register.asp ?3072=48405

  166. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by spectecjr · · Score: 1

    Except...Naughty Dog is making Xbox games?...So...they WOULDN'T be Sony Exclusive?

    Naughty Dog was only acquired last month by Sony.

    Simon

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  167. Anyone think Ken Lobb has anything to do with this by shoptroll · · Score: 1

    Microsoft already has Ken Lobb working in the upper part of the XBox development hierarchy... If anyone remembers Nintendo's "Killer Instinct" series of fighting games (originally developed to showcase the "Ultra 64" technology (which became the N64))... I believe Rare worked on this series with Nintendo, Mr. Lobb was also pretty involved with these as well (in addition to Donkey Kong Country, which Rare developed most of the technology for). (If anyone remembers the old promo video that Nintendo sent Nintendo Power subscribers when the series was first coming out) I don't know who owns the rights to the series, but I would put bets on Rare since Nintendo hasn't shown any interest in the series since KI2. Let's see, figthing games have been fairly popular on PS2 and SSB:M is still popular on GC. Would it be far fetched to say that MS would be looking to add a second fighting franchise alongside DoA? It could be possible on the grounds of Ken's experience in the past with Rare.

    --
    Insert Sig Here
  168. NEWSFLASH: Conker kills X-Box! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. I've always wanted to see Conker walk out with a big bottle of beer and curse at the X-Box when it can't load a CD!

    Will Microsoft have him do something to PCs when Windows bluescreens, too?

  169. Re:Good fucking job` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like you know anything about this space, you clueless fuck.

  170. Microsoft will reign supreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now this British hot bed of talent has access to Dollars. I suspect that if they have the will (cash incentives) they could produce an incredible amount of new magic.

    Only thing is if MS dilute the brand and don't leave it autonomous they will piss the developers off and they won't attract the best - any more. Who wants to work for MS?

    So you dumb dogs, you gots it now. Well pump heaps of money in and keep the f. out of it!

    I should think Nintendo would like a decent fight from a decent adversary.

    You guys play dirty with your obvious tactics like not allowing Cube games to be demo'd in British stores!1 tut tut. Not honourable. And you lose cred. points. Your karma already way stinky!

    Quality not just Expensive but Substantive. If MS can get there heads around that (Rare culture). This is Unlikely.

    I hope MS fall flat on their faces and Rare talent gets a break, somehow. God knows we need something we can be proud of in this country that is also owned by our own residents and reflects our own culture. Otherwise it ain't Art it's Pandering. And the punters Will spot the difference. IMHO.

  171. Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is by lingqi · · Score: 1

    ancedote told by computer professor long (ha!) ago. he, IIRC, worked in borland and did not make the switch.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  172. Re:Good fucking job` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell do you know, you cock-grabbing ass pounder? You don't even have the balls to post with an acount. You probably enjoyed Perfect Dark because you got to experience being a woman, you sick homo.

    -Spooge

  173. Re:Good fucking job` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems you know all about cock-grabbing and ass pounding, since you were infatuated with a picture of a guy's ass for the longest time.

    Sucking daddy's cock all those years has dulled your mind, shitstain.

  174. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Niklaus Wirth has lamented that, whereas Europeans pronounce his name correctly
    (Ni-klows Virt), Americans invariably mangle it into (Nick-les Worth). Which
    is to say that Europeans call him by name, but Americans call him by value.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...