You're right to an extent, but the "servitude" you describe in the mafia has the effect of producing for the individual as well. Not only that, but it doesn't just produce for the top guy (Tony Soprano in the current context) but others down the line as well. For example, Christopher kicks up to Paulie who kicks up to Tony (who might then have to share with other top guys, like in New York, but that's another layer of its own) - thus, Christopher is producing for the group as a whole much like an individual in EQ will produce for the guild as a whole by practicing tradeskills for profit, of which a percentage might be kicked into the guild's coffers; creating/acquiring items which are then offered to guild members for progressively lower prices based on the level of the member (few low-level guild members would charge their guild leader for anything he might want); etc.
While it's true that guilds don't generate the kind of blind obediance/deference to superiors as the mafia does, there certainly are parallels to be drawn.
Here's a quote from the article that I found significant:
"Mickey Mishne said his daughter had invited Lynch to stay at their home because she felt sorry for him."
First of all, why would a parent (either that of the girl OR the boy) let a teenaged boy and girl cohabitate? It's a recipe for uncomfortable situations at the least and teen pregnancy at the worst - admittedly, murder wouldn't have leapt into my head as a possibility.
Second, why did the girl feel sorry for him? Was it poor social skills, bad home environment or what? If it was the former, how would that translate to inviting the kid to be a "houseguest"? If it was the latter, wouldn't a call to child protective services (or whatever it's called in their area) be more appropriate?
Finally, I would note that the video game argument seems impossible to maintain here. This wasn't an act of revenge or similar like Columbine (where I still felt the relationship was bogus but maybe closer). This was an obviously disturbed individual who it sounds like entered a state of rage and acted out physically on that emotion - unfortunately, it happens all the time, even to full-grown adults who play ZERO video games.
The video game argument is being offered not in any attempt to help a young kid who may need psychiatric help. It's being offered in order to raise the profile of an attorney who has decided that he wants this to be his criminal defense niche. I expect that he'll propose this defense every time anyone under 30 commits a violent crime and has a history of playing video games.
When did 3DO ever make a lot of money in the arcade market? I'm not even aware that they were ever in the arcade market, unless they licensed some of their lousy console games to someone for the purpose of making machines.
3DO started as a console company by designing the 3DO game system with the plan of licensing the architecture to other manufacturers (most notably Panasonic) who would build the actual machines. Once that failed (after many attempts and some spectacularly expensive machines), Trip and the gang tried to restyle themselves as kind of "the fresh, new EA" (presumably he felt that he was the reason EA was successful and so he should be able to easily do it again). Instead, they ended up becoming a company of hacks (or at least run by hacks) trying to capitalize on their very few successes by turning out bad sequel after bad sequel (see "Army Men"). They've always been the slowest to catch up with the technology curve (if they ever did) and their game designs did nothing to redeem that deficiency.
Anyway, no, 3DO had little or nothing to do with arcades. Instead, they're a PC/console game developer that's managed to destroy itself despite the fact that video gaming is more popular than ever...Something even Acclaim hasn't managed. Nice job, Trip.
Assuming that you're doing the MPEG-2 encoding/decoding in hardware (why wouldn't you), the CPU utilization goes way down. Even more importantly, if you have a more powerful processor in the machine than the original CPU the games were designed for, you actually WON'T be at 100% CPU load while playing a game. The bottleneck I see would be in the bus, but that can be worked around too.
In short, designing a new PS2 that allowed you to play games at the same time as you're recording a TV show wouldn't be that difficult. This is especially true since, unlike the Xbox, PS2 games don't rely on a hard drive cache and so the hard drive access, except perhaps for game saves (which involve a pause on the PS2 as it is, wouldn't have to be shared at all.
Actually, since they'll have a hard drive in there, I would imagine the only reason for using memory cards would be to take them with you to a friend's house while the hard drive would be used for most normal game saves. It's certainly one place where Xbox users have saved money.
Microsoft is at least partially responsible for the demise of Sega (Since they collaborated on the Dreamcast)
Feel free to call Microsoft evil for the things they're actually responsible for (out-of-control OS bloat, anti-trust violations, etc.) but don't blame Microsoft for the demise of the Dreamcast and the pitiful financial state that Sega is in. The only people responsible for Sega's pains are right there in the boardrooms of Sega.
1. They released the Saturn which was too expensive and behind the 3D technology curve.
2. They released the Dreamcast too early and without DVD support which caused them to suffer from more piracy than was necessary at the time (had it been DVD-based, it would have been FAR more difficult at the time for "regular folks" to copy games for it).
3. They released the Dreamcast while the original Playstation was not only still at its previously unimaginable height but selling at a price point that Sega just about had to match in order to sell.
4. Sega managed to ignore the fact that Sony was developing (and announcing) their PS2 which not only beat the Dreamcast in terms of specifications (though many early PS2 games looked worse than late Dreamcast games) but also had backward compatibility with the first Playstation (a huge selling point for people already possessing a library of PS games). Had Sega developed the platform more (adding at LEAST DVD support) and waited to release around the same time as the PS2 they might have had a better shot.
5. And finally, Sega still hasn't managed to figure out how to compete in the third-party software market DESPITE having excellent games.
Microsoft's involvement in the Dreamcast had absolutely NOTHING to do with Sega's problems, particularly since so few games actually did anything with the WinCE part of the system.
As stated above, the HD to be sold as an upgrade to the PS2 is indeed a 40GB drive. At least, that's what Square-Enix said they're sending me...I love beta tests that include free hardware.:)
Trust me when I tell you that typing 100+ WPM on one of those is quite impossible [for me], and I'm in an occupation that pays for production (in combination with accuracy of course, but volume constitutes 90% of my income).:)
That's interesting but I have an interest in these boards because of the occupation I'm currently in. Specifically, I'm a medical transcriptionist and my job is to listen to doctors speak and type it. With normal keyboards, the sound generated (I haven't found a silent one yet) necessitates turning up the volume more than I would generally need. That means that I have a harder time hearing any external sounds outside my headphones (like the phone ringing or someone knocking at the door) and that the volume is more likely to irritate or even damage my ears/hearing.
I'll be picking up one of these keyboards ASAP because they sound like the perfect solution to the sound problem, not to mention the fact that when I work on the computer I sit back in my chair and have to adjust myself anytime I have to fiddle with the mouse. If it works out, the cost will be more than offset by the advantages.
How does it help to advertise 50% less and advertise many games instead of a few (or one)? Your logic - and more importantly your understanding of advertising - is flawed. The objective of television advertising is mindshare, making more people aware of your product. If you can't do that with ONE game and a ton of advertising, how do you do it with "a variety of games" and half as many ads?
Besides, companies try to market products to people already inclined to have interest in the product. It's an obvious choice to advertise your NFL video game during actual NFL games. Would you have them instead advertise it during tennis matches where the ad rates are much lower but fewer viewers will even care a little bit?
It's also important to take into account future sales of the product. A great many of the people exposed to the NFL 2k3 name during football games last year may have already gone with Madden and so were unlikely to buy a second game for that season. Some of those people may have been all but completely unaware of Sega's product (considering that 2k2 and before appeared first on Dreamcast, and the multi-console versions of the 2k2 games were near-straight ports of the DC games) and will check out the Sega line next year. If that happens then Sega may yet reap the rewards of their "saturation advertising." Again, it's all about mindshare, present and future.
I don't disagree that SoA has made questionable decisions but pumping their sports games is necessary if they want to continue publishing them given EA's constant domination in that market. Despite the fact that the people who have played both 2k3 and Madden 2003 believe 2k3 is the superior game, EA continues to lead the market simply on the basis of name recognition and marketing.
It seems that the original author missed the most likely result of the culmination of gaming (computer graphic) technology: Once every game looks real, once game companies don't have to make new engines every year for the new tech, etc. sequels will become less and less interesting to the mainstream consumer.
For example, why would someone buy Unreal Tournament 2010 if the graphics technology peaked in 2006? The same goes for Counterstrike, Warcraft, Everquest and the rest of the games whose sequels are mainly technology upgrades.
We should also look forward to the eventual plateau of graphics/sound technology in terms of video games because it will become cheaper and cheaper for people to make games - the longer the tech is available, the cheaper it is. Already we have individuals who do 3D modeling for ZERO money (unless Valve or Id or whomever buys their mod) and there will only be more of those folks in the future. For Neverwinter Nights, there are people out there writing ENTIRE GAMES for nothing because the tools are available to them.
In short, I believe technology will advance until it reaches the point where incremental sequels will not be able to compete with their predecessors and innovations in gaming will become more common again.
Also done in by the fact that people weren't buying games for the system, instead doing things with NES emulators, Sega Master System emulators, VCD playing and game piracy.
You're making the assumption that Sony will have the best technology they can put into a box when the PS3 hits. The fact is that there were features the PS2 should have had - most notably, hardware anti-aliasing - that it didn't. Furthermore, with the architecture that MS is working with they can leave, for example, a decision about CPU speed until the "last minute" (the last minute meaning six months before launch). Since Sony goes with their own propietary hardware, the chances of them even coming within 20% of the Xbox2 in terms of raw speed are slim to none.
All that being said, the winner of the next generation - if they all get out within a month of each other - will be the one who has the games people want to play. Sony should have a built-in advantage because of the sheer volume of developers making Playstation games but they proved with their PS2 launch that they have no qualms about releasing a console with a piss-poor launch lineup. Frankly, Microsoft and Nintendo didn't do much better.
If they're smart, all three companies will already be courting developers (or using in-house people) to work on launch titles for their next generation. Considering the lead time required to develop a top-shelf video game, waiting could end up badly hurting the first-year sales in the next generation.
Unless I'm mistaken (or the price-fixing in the industry is even worse than I imagine), the variation in ticket prices across the US is almost entirely due to differences in overhead. For example, it costs more to open the doors of a movie theater in New York than it does where I live in Portland, Oregon. It would presumably cost even less in someplace like Idaho. There are also likely variations in how much money people spend on concessions (popcorn, soda and the like) in different places, so that goes into it too.
I played Battle of Britain for over a year. It came before LAN/Internet gaming was common, it came before graphics really made their breakthrough (I played it on a VGA card that didn't even bother listing memory and was usually in EGA mode). But the campaign mode of that game was one of the best and allowed a different experience every time you "strapped in." On top of that, the manual was beautifully put together, chock full of historical information and "real" training for playing the game - I miss good game manuals that I could read for pleasure when I was nowhere near the computer.
Basically, I'd buy just about any game with Mr. Holland involved and I certainly encourage those not familiar with his, and Totally Games, work.
I say demonize away. If they believe that customers rely [too much] on the 3DMark benchmarks to make their purchasing decisions and then they proceed to cheat those benchmarks, that's fraud, de facto and de jure.
I would certainly be up for this. Metal Gear was a blast. I think the problem, though, is two-fold: Moving the game from 2D to 3D (they would have to do it so as to sell a good number of units - 2D action is just too niche) would require rethinking (reimagining, if you will) every level of the game. Plus, there's less incentive because the original Metal Gear just wasn't even close to the hit that Metal Gear Solid (and 2) was. As you yourself pointed out, few people even realize that Metal Gear was a great NES game.
Besides, much as I appreciate the fact that MGS is coming back for the Gamecube, especially since it's not replacing a true sequel, I think we need to discourage developers from looking backward so much and rehashing so many games. Looking forward should be more interesting and it doesn't ruin our hazy, rose-colored memories of gaming youth.:)
Lame? Offering one of the best games that ever hit the Playstation (I would argue that it's number one, myself) in a new, upgraded, expanded form? I don't think that's lame at all.
It's particularly "unlame" because they've ALREADY announced a true sequel in "Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater" to be released next year. Add to that what is apparently going to be a very short development time (at least relative to when they made the announcement) giving us what could be called an "extra" Metal Gear Solid before the end of this year, and your assessment reads as foolish whining.
I agree that most of the licensed games end up being pretty horrible. I wonder if they maximise profits this way or if they simply don't care.
There are three primary factors that I believe enter into the "suckiness" of most licensed games:
1. First and foremost is the time factor. Many of the licenses are granted with a strict time limitation involved in order to maximize crossover profits with the film or television show being adapted. If the originator (the movie/TV production company) is smart, they'll try to get the license out there as early as possible to allow more development time. An example of a license that was granted early would be Activision/Treyarch with Spider-Man - not only had Treyarch already done Spider-Man in game form before but the deal was done so early that there was little concern about rushed development. This resulted in a polished game and will probably work again for next year's Spider-Man movie and game.
2. Money. Depending on the agreement, video game companies can be looking at making relatively little profit on a game (usually because of high royalties guaranteed to the owner of the property) and so will devote fewer resources to it than they might to an original game where they will garner all the profit. This usually shows up when you get a licensed game home and it turns out that the levels are all almost identical, there are fewer character animations, software bugs, sloppy bland textures, etc. In these cases, the company is indeed simply turning out a game they probably know is substandard just to make a quick buck from cross promotion and name recognition.
3. Sometimes it's just the wrong people that get hold of a license. It might be that the company assigns a property to their weakest development team because they have nothing else on the horizon, they might misread the skills of the team (like having a group that specializes in strategy games try to turn out their first third-person brawler), the prospective lead designer decides to bail on the company after the deal is done, etc.
Of course, #3 is applicable to all kinds of games - not just licensed properties.
In short, yes, to some extent companies DO grab properties just to make a quick buck but sometimes other problems can crop up to make the job that much harder. I personally consider problem #1 to be the worst of the lot since we've all seen what can happen if a company tries to rush a game out the door.
Making any kind of game in this age of extremely high expectations and "instant Internet karma" is a risky prospect. The complications of having to deal with outside influences in the case of licensed properties just make it that much more difficult.
The 2007 is in reference to how long the Matrix brothers will continue to receive payments for the MMOG (their percentage of the net profits, mainly subscription fees I would imagine).
You're right on every level. I would never question Atari (formerly Infogrames) or Ubisoft on their business decision to spend the money for those licensing rights. Not only was the movie huge but the themes and style of the movie are perfect for videogames. I'm not even against it in abstract terms because the more those companies make on Enter The Matrix and the Matrix MMOG, the more money they have to spend on other games within their company that might have ended up being second-rate niche titles otherwise.
Facts are facts, though, and the fact is that 9 out of 10 (conservative estimate) games licensed from TV shows and movies stink so bad that game stores could be Superfund sites.
One can only hope that Atari and Ubisoft will spend the money they're going to rake in on these projects on more interesting projects rather than paying bonuses to top execs or buying more big licenses.
PS - I have to note in closing that anything keeping the Atari symbol profitable and productive is a good thing in my nostalgic eyes.:)
It's more proof, if needed, that many game companies would rather spend millions of dollars on a big-ticket license than spend that money making a truly great game.
Slashdot Mirror
Absoultely. Dwarves are dirty and diseased, as we all know.
While it's true that guilds don't generate the kind of blind obediance/deference to superiors as the mafia does, there certainly are parallels to be drawn.
Here's a quote from the article that I found significant:
"Mickey Mishne said his daughter had invited Lynch to stay at their home because she felt sorry for him."
First of all, why would a parent (either that of the girl OR the boy) let a teenaged boy and girl cohabitate? It's a recipe for uncomfortable situations at the least and teen pregnancy at the worst - admittedly, murder wouldn't have leapt into my head as a possibility.
Second, why did the girl feel sorry for him? Was it poor social skills, bad home environment or what? If it was the former, how would that translate to inviting the kid to be a "houseguest"? If it was the latter, wouldn't a call to child protective services (or whatever it's called in their area) be more appropriate?
Finally, I would note that the video game argument seems impossible to maintain here. This wasn't an act of revenge or similar like Columbine (where I still felt the relationship was bogus but maybe closer). This was an obviously disturbed individual who it sounds like entered a state of rage and acted out physically on that emotion - unfortunately, it happens all the time, even to full-grown adults who play ZERO video games.
The video game argument is being offered not in any attempt to help a young kid who may need psychiatric help. It's being offered in order to raise the profile of an attorney who has decided that he wants this to be his criminal defense niche. I expect that he'll propose this defense every time anyone under 30 commits a violent crime and has a history of playing video games.
Lawyers...Gotta love 'em.
It's not the PC itself. It's the sound of keys being pressed at high speed. :)
3DO started as a console company by designing the 3DO game system with the plan of licensing the architecture to other manufacturers (most notably Panasonic) who would build the actual machines. Once that failed (after many attempts and some spectacularly expensive machines), Trip and the gang tried to restyle themselves as kind of "the fresh, new EA" (presumably he felt that he was the reason EA was successful and so he should be able to easily do it again). Instead, they ended up becoming a company of hacks (or at least run by hacks) trying to capitalize on their very few successes by turning out bad sequel after bad sequel (see "Army Men"). They've always been the slowest to catch up with the technology curve (if they ever did) and their game designs did nothing to redeem that deficiency.
Anyway, no, 3DO had little or nothing to do with arcades. Instead, they're a PC/console game developer that's managed to destroy itself despite the fact that video gaming is more popular than ever...Something even Acclaim hasn't managed. Nice job, Trip.
In short, designing a new PS2 that allowed you to play games at the same time as you're recording a TV show wouldn't be that difficult. This is especially true since, unlike the Xbox, PS2 games don't rely on a hard drive cache and so the hard drive access, except perhaps for game saves (which involve a pause on the PS2 as it is, wouldn't have to be shared at all.
Actually, since they'll have a hard drive in there, I would imagine the only reason for using memory cards would be to take them with you to a friend's house while the hard drive would be used for most normal game saves. It's certainly one place where Xbox users have saved money.
Feel free to call Microsoft evil for the things they're actually responsible for (out-of-control OS bloat, anti-trust violations, etc.) but don't blame Microsoft for the demise of the Dreamcast and the pitiful financial state that Sega is in. The only people responsible for Sega's pains are right there in the boardrooms of Sega.
1. They released the Saturn which was too expensive and behind the 3D technology curve.
2. They released the Dreamcast too early and without DVD support which caused them to suffer from more piracy than was necessary at the time (had it been DVD-based, it would have been FAR more difficult at the time for "regular folks" to copy games for it).
3. They released the Dreamcast while the original Playstation was not only still at its previously unimaginable height but selling at a price point that Sega just about had to match in order to sell.
4. Sega managed to ignore the fact that Sony was developing (and announcing) their PS2 which not only beat the Dreamcast in terms of specifications (though many early PS2 games looked worse than late Dreamcast games) but also had backward compatibility with the first Playstation (a huge selling point for people already possessing a library of PS games). Had Sega developed the platform more (adding at LEAST DVD support) and waited to release around the same time as the PS2 they might have had a better shot.
5. And finally, Sega still hasn't managed to figure out how to compete in the third-party software market DESPITE having excellent games.
Microsoft's involvement in the Dreamcast had absolutely NOTHING to do with Sega's problems, particularly since so few games actually did anything with the WinCE part of the system.
As stated above, the HD to be sold as an upgrade to the PS2 is indeed a 40GB drive. At least, that's what Square-Enix said they're sending me...I love beta tests that include free hardware. :)
Trust me when I tell you that typing 100+ WPM on one of those is quite impossible [for me], and I'm in an occupation that pays for production (in combination with accuracy of course, but volume constitutes 90% of my income). :)
I'll be picking up one of these keyboards ASAP because they sound like the perfect solution to the sound problem, not to mention the fact that when I work on the computer I sit back in my chair and have to adjust myself anytime I have to fiddle with the mouse. If it works out, the cost will be more than offset by the advantages.
Besides, companies try to market products to people already inclined to have interest in the product. It's an obvious choice to advertise your NFL video game during actual NFL games. Would you have them instead advertise it during tennis matches where the ad rates are much lower but fewer viewers will even care a little bit?
It's also important to take into account future sales of the product. A great many of the people exposed to the NFL 2k3 name during football games last year may have already gone with Madden and so were unlikely to buy a second game for that season. Some of those people may have been all but completely unaware of Sega's product (considering that 2k2 and before appeared first on Dreamcast, and the multi-console versions of the 2k2 games were near-straight ports of the DC games) and will check out the Sega line next year. If that happens then Sega may yet reap the rewards of their "saturation advertising." Again, it's all about mindshare, present and future.
I don't disagree that SoA has made questionable decisions but pumping their sports games is necessary if they want to continue publishing them given EA's constant domination in that market. Despite the fact that the people who have played both 2k3 and Madden 2003 believe 2k3 is the superior game, EA continues to lead the market simply on the basis of name recognition and marketing.
For example, why would someone buy Unreal Tournament 2010 if the graphics technology peaked in 2006? The same goes for Counterstrike, Warcraft, Everquest and the rest of the games whose sequels are mainly technology upgrades.
We should also look forward to the eventual plateau of graphics/sound technology in terms of video games because it will become cheaper and cheaper for people to make games - the longer the tech is available, the cheaper it is. Already we have individuals who do 3D modeling for ZERO money (unless Valve or Id or whomever buys their mod) and there will only be more of those folks in the future. For Neverwinter Nights, there are people out there writing ENTIRE GAMES for nothing because the tools are available to them.
In short, I believe technology will advance until it reaches the point where incremental sequels will not be able to compete with their predecessors and innovations in gaming will become more common again.
Also done in by the fact that people weren't buying games for the system, instead doing things with NES emulators, Sega Master System emulators, VCD playing and game piracy.
All that being said, the winner of the next generation - if they all get out within a month of each other - will be the one who has the games people want to play. Sony should have a built-in advantage because of the sheer volume of developers making Playstation games but they proved with their PS2 launch that they have no qualms about releasing a console with a piss-poor launch lineup. Frankly, Microsoft and Nintendo didn't do much better.
If they're smart, all three companies will already be courting developers (or using in-house people) to work on launch titles for their next generation. Considering the lead time required to develop a top-shelf video game, waiting could end up badly hurting the first-year sales in the next generation.
Unless I'm mistaken (or the price-fixing in the industry is even worse than I imagine), the variation in ticket prices across the US is almost entirely due to differences in overhead. For example, it costs more to open the doors of a movie theater in New York than it does where I live in Portland, Oregon. It would presumably cost even less in someplace like Idaho. There are also likely variations in how much money people spend on concessions (popcorn, soda and the like) in different places, so that goes into it too.
Basically, I'd buy just about any game with Mr. Holland involved and I certainly encourage those not familiar with his, and Totally Games, work.
I say demonize away. If they believe that customers rely [too much] on the 3DMark benchmarks to make their purchasing decisions and then they proceed to cheat those benchmarks, that's fraud, de facto and de jure.
Besides, much as I appreciate the fact that MGS is coming back for the Gamecube, especially since it's not replacing a true sequel, I think we need to discourage developers from looking backward so much and rehashing so many games. Looking forward should be more interesting and it doesn't ruin our hazy, rose-colored memories of gaming youth. :)
It's particularly "unlame" because they've ALREADY announced a true sequel in "Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater" to be released next year. Add to that what is apparently going to be a very short development time (at least relative to when they made the announcement) giving us what could be called an "extra" Metal Gear Solid before the end of this year, and your assessment reads as foolish whining.
There are three primary factors that I believe enter into the "suckiness" of most licensed games:
1. First and foremost is the time factor. Many of the licenses are granted with a strict time limitation involved in order to maximize crossover profits with the film or television show being adapted. If the originator (the movie/TV production company) is smart, they'll try to get the license out there as early as possible to allow more development time. An example of a license that was granted early would be Activision/Treyarch with Spider-Man - not only had Treyarch already done Spider-Man in game form before but the deal was done so early that there was little concern about rushed development. This resulted in a polished game and will probably work again for next year's Spider-Man movie and game.
2. Money. Depending on the agreement, video game companies can be looking at making relatively little profit on a game (usually because of high royalties guaranteed to the owner of the property) and so will devote fewer resources to it than they might to an original game where they will garner all the profit. This usually shows up when you get a licensed game home and it turns out that the levels are all almost identical, there are fewer character animations, software bugs, sloppy bland textures, etc. In these cases, the company is indeed simply turning out a game they probably know is substandard just to make a quick buck from cross promotion and name recognition.
3. Sometimes it's just the wrong people that get hold of a license. It might be that the company assigns a property to their weakest development team because they have nothing else on the horizon, they might misread the skills of the team (like having a group that specializes in strategy games try to turn out their first third-person brawler), the prospective lead designer decides to bail on the company after the deal is done, etc.
Of course, #3 is applicable to all kinds of games - not just licensed properties.
In short, yes, to some extent companies DO grab properties just to make a quick buck but sometimes other problems can crop up to make the job that much harder. I personally consider problem #1 to be the worst of the lot since we've all seen what can happen if a company tries to rush a game out the door.
Making any kind of game in this age of extremely high expectations and "instant Internet karma" is a risky prospect. The complications of having to deal with outside influences in the case of licensed properties just make it that much more difficult.
The 2007 is in reference to how long the Matrix brothers will continue to receive payments for the MMOG (their percentage of the net profits, mainly subscription fees I would imagine).
Facts are facts, though, and the fact is that 9 out of 10 (conservative estimate) games licensed from TV shows and movies stink so bad that game stores could be Superfund sites.
One can only hope that Atari and Ubisoft will spend the money they're going to rake in on these projects on more interesting projects rather than paying bonuses to top execs or buying more big licenses.
PS - I have to note in closing that anything keeping the Atari symbol profitable and productive is a good thing in my nostalgic eyes. :)
It's more proof, if needed, that many game companies would rather spend millions of dollars on a big-ticket license than spend that money making a truly great game.