Civilization 4, brought to you by Atari...
Eep²
Guillaume JAY wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2003 19:48:02 GMT, "J.S."
> <pytho...@NOSPAMMrocketmail.cOMMERCE> wrote:
> >True, but I feel its sullying the name of a great company from my childhood.
>
> I'm still wondering why they choose to change name ? Did they
> think Infogrames was sounding too much french ?
> Or do they believe by choosing a name people will recognize
> from their childhood; it will help the sales ? Does that mean that the
> market size of "old" computer gamers still active is getting so
> interesting ? (and that they believe that we are so stupid to just
> blindidly buy everything called atari ? (and in fact, Atari is not a
> very attractive memory for me, Microprose would have been far better,
> for example))
>
> Or maybe it's just an idea from some overpaid consulting guy
> in Marketing...
Amund Trovåg
"Eep²" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:3EBF388C...@spam.com...
> Perhaps they, correctly and finally, realized that the computer/video game
market >is FAR larger in the US than it is in France or Europe.
*yawn*
Sten Friberg
market is FAR larger in the US than it is in France or Europe.
Is that really true? I thought they were about equal, maybe even Europe
slightly ahead of US, when it comes to # of games sold per year.
Do you or someone else have any hard numbers, references or somesuch?
Sten
Eep²
All Infogrames is is a pimp--nothing more. It does not actually create ANY of "[its] 1000+ titles" (http://us.atari.com/press/?id=351). It does nothing but feed off the work of others, like a leech. I HATE publishers for this very reason. Developers, like musicians, don't need publishers anymore with the advent of the Net to distribute their work. Publishers are advertisers (also scum) who have taken it too far and try to claim credit for work they did NOT create/produce/develop.
Anyway, if you need "hard numbers", get an NPD account or something.
Joe
> Anyway, if you need "hard numbers",
Pee Pee, there's nothing obscure (except maybe to certain authors on
UseNet) about the term "hard numbers."
(from Merriam-Webster)
hard
(1) : FIRM, DEFINITE <reached a hard agreement> (2) : not speculative or
conjectural : FACTUAL <hard evidence> (3) : important or informative rather
than sensational or entertaining <hard news>
Ross Ridge
> I'm still wondering why they choose to change name ? Did they
> think Infogrames was sounding too much french ?
EepEep <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>Perhaps they, correctly and finally, realized that the computer/video
>game market is FAR larger in the US than it is in France or Europe. But
>why they would choose "Atari" is beyond me...
Because they want to sound Japanese?
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
Jim Lascola
I wonder if EEEPY was even born when the 2600 came out LOL
Man Bring Back Donkey Kong LOL
Jim
Werner Purrer
> Perhaps they, correctly and finally, realized that the computer/video game
> market is FAR larger in the US than it is in France or Europe. But why
> they would choose "Atari" is beyond me...
>
Wrong dude, the eu as a whole is a bigger market, the problem is
that it is split into various languages (but it still is a common market)
But the US is too big to neglegt them and Atari sells probably better on
both markets than Infogrames.
Ulujain
"Jim Lascola" <jimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4db3c04.03051...@posting.google.com...
Bring back Pitfall you mean.
E. Deirdre Brooks
>
> Bring back Pitfall you mean.
Pitfall was Activision, see. :)
--
E. D. Brooks | kalima...@attbi.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Why, in my day, we used to fight the Lord of
Terror with nothing but a sharp stick!" -- www.reallifecomics.com
Ulujain
"E. Deirdre Brooks" <kalima...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EC0B208...@attbi.com...
> Ulujain wrote:
> >
> > Bring back Pitfall you mean.
>
> Pitfall was Activision, see. :)
>
>
And? Still came out on the Atari 2600. Remember wasting a lot of time
playing it.
E. Deirdre Brooks
I see that Return to Castle Wolfenstein was released for Windows. I
guess that means Microsoft published it...
Seriously, just noting that Activision's still around. Anyway, my
understanding is that they are bringing back Pitfall.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030507/75288_1.html
Mario Wynands
> All Infogrames is is a pimp--nothing more. It does not actually create ANY
of "[its] 1000+ titles" (http://us.atari.com/press/?id=351). It does nothing
but feed off the work of others, like a leech. I HATE publishers for this
very reason.
>
Incorrect. Infogrames/Atari has several internal game development studios
around the world. A significant proportion of their content is actually
developed internally.
> Developers, like musicians, don't need publishers anymore with the advent
of the Net to distribute their work. Publishers are advertisers (also scum)
who have taken it too far and try to claim credit for work they did NOT
create/produce/develop.
>
As a developer of both PC and console products, I challenge your position on
publishers. Developers do need publishers, because not only do they
typically fund the majority of development (which is a huge and perhaps the
most important contribution to the overall development process), but they
are the ones who have the channels to market. It may not be an ideal
situation (depending on your outlook), but thats the current industry
reality.
Regards
Mario
Eep²
> "Eep˛" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:3EBF78AB...@spam.com...
> > All Infogrames is is a pimp--nothing more. It does not actually create ANY
> of "[its] 1000+ titles" (http://us.atari.com/press/?id=351). It does nothing
> but feed off the work of others, like a leech. I HATE publishers for this
> very reason.
> >
>
> Incorrect. Infogrames/Atari has several internal game development studios
> around the world. A significant proportion of their content is actually
> developed internally.
Such as? I have yet to see a decent game developed by Infogrames. The old Atari was different, however.
> > Developers, like musicians, don't need publishers anymore with the advent
> of the Net to distribute their work. Publishers are advertisers (also scum)
> who have taken it too far and try to claim credit for work they did NOT
> create/produce/develop.
> >
>
> As a developer of both PC and console products, I challenge your position on
> publishers. Developers do need publishers, because not only do they
> typically fund the majority of development (which is a huge and perhaps the
> most important contribution to the overall development process), but they
> are the ones who have the channels to market. It may not be an ideal
> situation (depending on your outlook), but thats the current industry
> reality.
But it's not necessary. Developers don't have to be locked into the tyrannical rule of a publisher if they don't want to be. Sure, it might mean less funding, but so what? Concentrate on the actual DEVELOPMENT and if the game's good, it'll market itself by word of mouth.
G.I.L.
Word of mouth of whom? Pirates?
Are you suggesting that a "kewl website" is sufficient for making any real
money? Because packaging and shipping alone can bring a developer to his
knees. I didn't even mention tech support...
Kindly show such games/developers, or at least suggest a valid business
model. "Word of mouth" makes about sense as "abracadabra".
And please remember, the burden of proof is on you. Since you like logic so
much, don't confuse "proof" with "anecdote".
g
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 07/05/2003
G.I.L.
> Mario Wynands wrote:
>
>> "Eep˛" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:3EBF78AB...@spam.com...
>>> All Infogrames is is a pimp--nothing more. It does not actually
>>> create ANY
>> of "[its] 1000+ titles" (http://us.atari.com/press/?id=351). It does
>> nothing
>> but feed off the work of others, like a leech. I HATE publishers for
>> this
>> very reason.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect. Infogrames/Atari has several internal game development
>> studios
>> around the world. A significant proportion of their content is
>> actually
>> developed internally.
>
> Such as?
OMG, it took me 30 seconds to find this (is www.dictionary.com the only web
site you know?) :
http://corporate.infogrames.com/corp_aboutinfogrames.php#infogrames_europe
I'll make it REAL ez 4 ya:
(it's not too late, you could still look way from the screen and say you've
never seen any bla bla bla)
a.. Shiny Entertainment (Enter the matrix)
a.. Eden Studios (V-rally, V-rally 2, V-rally 3)
a.. Humongous Entertainment (Backyard Sports, Freddi Fish, Putt Putt, Pajama
Sam, Spy Fox)
a.. Legend Entertainment (Unreal, Unreal 2)
a.. Oddworld Inhabitants (Munch's Oddysey)
a.. Paradigm Entertainment (Looney Tunes' Duck Dodgers)
a.. Reflections (Driver)
> I have yet to see a decent game developed by Infogrames. The
> old Atari was different, however.
Good enough? Oh, I forgot: "Matrix", "Unreal 1/2" and "Munch's Oddysey"
ain't "decent".
The "old Atari" used to make 2D games, no? Or are you backing on your words
that 3D games are superior in every respect? I mean, you couldn't zoom and
rotate Ms. Pac Man(you would like that, wouldn't you?). There was some
destructable terrain on "Dig Dug", but *relatively* inferior, right? ;)
Mario Wynands
> Mario Wynands wrote:
> > As a developer of both PC and console products, I challenge your
position on
> > publishers. Developers do need publishers, because not only do they
> > typically fund the majority of development (which is a huge and perhaps
the
> > most important contribution to the overall development process), but
they
> > are the ones who have the channels to market. It may not be an ideal
> > situation (depending on your outlook), but thats the current industry
> > reality.
>
> But it's not necessary. Developers don't have to be locked into the
tyrannical rule of a publisher if they don't want to be. Sure, it might mean
less funding, but so what? Concentrate on the actual DEVELOPMENT and if the
game's good, it'll market itself by word of mouth.
>
Less funding? Without publishers the majority of game developers would have
NO funding.
Regards
Mario
Tom Plunket
> Without publishers the majority of game developers would have NO
> funding.
The majority of *boxed, sold-at-retail, AAA* game developers
would have no funding. The rest of the game development world
would continue along with their own funding. ;)
-tom!
Mario Wynands
news:qdmadvgqprrceia9e...@4ax.com...
Good point, Tom. Should have made the distinction. How about I extend the
statement in this way...
Without publishers the majority of game developers who develop the games
that Eep plays would have NO funding.
Regards
Mario
Tom Plunket
> Without publishers the majority of game developers who develop
> the games that Eep plays would have NO funding.
Heh, yes, this would be completely accurate. ;)
3D is expensive. In no way are games required to have it to be
fun, but a lot of gamers want it and will pay for it.
-tom!
Mario Wynands
Part of the cruel irony of the mass market gamer (and reviewers) to be sure.
They tell you that a game doesn't need fancy graphics, and solid gameplay is
all that is required. But skimp on the eye candy and your game will perish
in the wake of titles with fancy visuals.
My solution - make games that play well AND look good :)
Regards
Mario
Derek
sure.
> They tell you that a game doesn't need fancy graphics, and solid gameplay
is
> all that is required. But skimp on the eye candy and your game will
perish
> in the wake of titles with fancy visuals.
>
> My solution - make games that play well AND look good :)
But that isn't always possible, given the economic climate of today's
market. I *could* hire a bunch of people to get fancy 3D visuals in a game,
but what chance would I have to actually recoup enough, without a bunch of
big hype behind me, to perhaps get to the break even point? Very little.
Even with a big muscle developer behind you, odds are all that money will
disappear into the void (or what's left of the money, into the
publishers/distributors hands).
The problem i've had with mass market reviewers is they tend to review a
game for what they WANT it to be, and not what it actually is, even if its
able to work on its own terms, minus the glittery mega dollar visuals. It's
a failing proposition from the beginning. An indie game has to be twice as
good gameplay wise as a big budget glitter game to get the same rating. I
notice MUCH less of that kind of thing going on with smaller, less
commercial sites.
The key I use personally is: Factor in the "lack of flash" reduction into
the rating with any big media review site. With just about any independant
game reviewed by a big media site, if you truly appreciate strategy/RPG
games, add 25% to the rating and you'll be close to what the actual game
should have gotten.;-)
Derek
Stormcloud Creations
http://www.stormcloudcreations.com
Mario Wynands
news:i5hBa.1027817$F1.123845@sccrnsc04...
> But that isn't always possible, given the economic climate of today's
> market. I *could* hire a bunch of people to get fancy 3D visuals in a
game,
> but what chance would I have to actually recoup enough, without a bunch of
> big hype behind me, to perhaps get to the break even point? Very little.
> Even with a big muscle developer behind you, odds are all that money will
> disappear into the void (or what's left of the money, into the
> publishers/distributors hands).
Typically, I'll attempt to factor in both quality graphics/sound and time
required to build solid gameplay into the budget when I am pitching for
something.
If the budget is too low that I would have to compromise the quality of the
product either visually or gameplay-wise, then I usually won't take on the
project.
Regards
Mario
Eep²
Um, Infrogrames developed NONE of those games; those are all development studios OUTSIDE of Infogrames.
> > I have yet to see a decent game developed by Infogrames. The
> > old Atari was different, however.
>
> Good enough? Oh, I forgot: "Matrix", "Unreal 1/2" and "Munch's Oddysey"
> ain't "decent".
Not particularly, no. <shrug>
> The "old Atari" used to make 2D games, no? Or are you backing on your words
> that 3D games are superior in every respect? I mean, you couldn't zoom and
> rotate Ms. Pac Man(you would like that, wouldn't you?). There was some
> destructable terrain on "Dig Dug", but *relatively* inferior, right? ;)
In its day, Atari made good games. Infogrames never has.
Eep²
G.I.L.
Owww man, I gave you da link and ya didn't even bother to check it out. I
knew I should have made even easier on ya.
There you go, Tiger:
Internal Development Studios
a.. Shiny Entertainment (Enter the matrix)
b.. Eden Studios (V-rally, V-rally 2, V-rally 3)
c.. Humongous Entertainment (Backyard Sports, Freddi Fish, Putt Putt,
Pajama Sam, Spy Fox)
d.. Legend Entertainment (Unreal, Unreal 2)
e.. Oddworld Inhabitants (Munch's Oddysey)
f.. Paradigm Entertainment (Looney Tunes' Duck Dodgers)
g.. Reflections (Driver)
Key External Development Studios
a.. Angel Studios (Transworld Surf)
b.. Deep Red (Monopoly Tycoon)
c.. Epic Games (Unreal Tournament, Unreal Tournament 2003)
d.. Firaxis (Civilization I,II,III)
e.. Rainbow Studios (Splashdown)
Hint: Exactly like you expect people to click your tnlc.com and
dictionary.com links, you could do the same...
>>> I have yet to see a decent game developed by Infogrames. The
>>> old Atari was different, however.
>>
>> Good enough? Oh, I forgot: "Matrix", "Unreal 1/2" and "Munch's
>> Oddysey"
>> ain't "decent".
>
> Not particularly, no. <shrug>
"Decent" is relative, hence they are relatively decent <shrug>.
>> The "old Atari" used to make 2D games, no? Or are you backing on
>> your words
>> that 3D games are superior in every respect? I mean, you couldn't
>> zoom and
>> rotate Ms. Pac Man(you would like that, wouldn't you?). There was
>> some
>> destructable terrain on "Dig Dug", but *relatively* inferior, right?
>> ;)
>
> In its day, Atari made good games. Infogrames never has.
Unfortunately for you I've got good memory. Here's a famous quote (if you
don't remember, I will tell you who said this):
"Yep, I've played it...and it looks like shit compared to The Sims. The Sims
allows FAR more simulation than LCP does."
"Yes, but The Sims has a FAR greater scope of realism (in graphics AND
gameplay) than LCP did at the time. Hence, The Sims is better."
"The Sims blows away LCP for what The Sims simulates and its interaction.
Duh."
and to this:
"Of course LCP looks like shit in comparison with The Sims - how much
simulation do you expect from 64K?"
Someone here responded with:
"Exactly, not much. And The Sims blows away LCP because of it. ;)"
Do I have to spell it out for you, or can't you see how BY YOUR OWN
STANDARDS every game Infogrames makes today blows every game Atari made back
then?
Wow, I really admire you! How can you live with so many contradictions? Or
maybe you do and don't at the same time? UH HUH? ;)
i own a yacht
>
> Wow, I really admire you! How can you live with so many contradictions? Or
> maybe you do and don't at the same time? UH HUH? ;)
easy. he's an idiot, so he's unaware of how contradictory he often is.
Chris Proctor
> Indeed; the majority of games aren't WORTH funding. If publishers
> would stop funding rehashed remakes, mindless sequels, and overdone,
> unoriginal games, there wouldn't be so many pure unadultered shitty
> games out there. And stop developing cross-platform; choose EITHER
> console OR PC. I tire of seeing PC games suffer from console
> portilitis and sucking so bad when they could be SO much better if
> developed primarily for the PC. Make gamers choose a platform (PC, of
> course) and be done with it!
Learn to spell, imbecile.
"unadulterated", not "unadultered".
Someone clearly failed English in primary school, and didn't make it to
high school . . .
Chris
Mario Wynands
> And stop developing cross-platform; choose EITHER console OR PC. I tire of
seeing PC games suffer from console portilitis and sucking so bad when they
could be SO much better if developed primarily for the PC. Make gamers
choose a platform (PC, of course) and be done with it!
>
If you want publishers to choose between consoles and PCs, then the majority
will choose console. Console titles shift significantly more units than PC
games on average, so the returns are potentially much higher. At E3 it was
obvious this was where the development focus is for the industry.
If you want gamers to choose, you'll find the majority of them are choosing
consoles also. 100,000,000 gamers choose the PSOne after all (and continue
to do so). Over 30,000,000 have also elected to choose the PS2.
PC is still the platform of choice for some genres (strategy/FPS etc), but
the console gaming market is bigger.
Should you wish to dispute this I am happy to supply figures to back up my
statements.
Regards
Mario
Eep²
<roll eyes>
Shaddup, troll--and suck filter.
Eep²
Who gives a crap about your spelling. If you're going to change the
subject to something that is off-topic, then stick an 'OT' in front of
your subject. I don't think 'spelling' fits in any of the newsgroups
that your post appears.
Eep²
Jason E.
> I don't care which platform is popular among mindless, brainless,
> lemming, immature idiots. The PC simply IS the FAR superior platform
> for TRUE gamers.
>
What's your definition of a "TRUE" gamer?
> Bitch to Chris Proctor for posting off-topic in the first place. <shrug>
>
> google wrote:
>
> > Eep² <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:<3ED8E13F...@spam.com>...
> > > OH GOD I MISSPELLED A COMPLICATED MULTI-SYLLABLE WORD CLUTCH THE PEARLS
> > >
> > > <roll eyes>
> > >
> > > Shaddup, troll--and suck filter.
> > >
> > > Chris Proctor wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eep² <n...@spam.com> wrote in news:3ED67562...@spam.com:
> > > >
>
<snip tons of crap>
Okay, fair enough.
Chris, 'OT' this useless crap.
Eep², 'OT' your crap replying to Chris's crap.
Okay, now enough of this crap!
Chris Proctor
news:6d494f4a.03060...@posting.google.com:
> Eep² <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:<3ED97959...@spam.com>...
>> Bitch to Chris Proctor for posting off-topic in the first place.
>> <shrug>
>>
>> google wrote:
>>
>> > Eep² <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<3ED8E13F...@spam.com>...
>> > > OH GOD I MISSPELLED A COMPLICATED MULTI-SYLLABLE WORD CLUTCH THE
>> > > PEARLS
>> > >
>> > > <roll eyes>
>> > >
>> > > Shaddup, troll--and suck filter.
>> > >
>> > > Chris Proctor wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Eep² <n...@spam.com> wrote in news:3ED67562...@spam.com:
>> > > >
>>
>
><snip tons of crap>
>
> Okay, fair enough.
> Chris, 'OT' this useless crap.
It's not useless, it's an attempt to show that Eep enjoys dealing it out,
but collapses, cries and killfiles people who dish it out to him.
Fair enough on the 'OT' however. My mistake.
> Eep², 'OT' your crap replying to Chris's crap.
> Okay, now enough of this crap!
Err.
Shouldn't you have 'OT'd THIS crap?
It's all well and good to chastise someone for bad netiquette, but at
least be consistent.
Eep is hypocritical in criticising other peoples' spelling.
You are hypocritical in criticising other peoples' netiquette.
I am hypocritical in criticising other peoples' hypocrisy. Well, probably
at least. This line just completes the trilogy.
Chris
Lost in Thought
news:Xns938D6E9B22E6...@66.185.95.104...
Damn, all this playing of Guilty Gear X2 and Soul Calibur 2 has reduced
me to the rank of 'Faux Gamer'. Man, I had such a good streak going
there for about 20+ years. Oh well...
Richard Hutnik
True gamers are the ones who know how to defrag a harddrive, know to
update drivers, and making their gaming a second job (half of the time
spent in repair and maintenance). In other words, those who don't
have much of a life out of PC gamingn and a job or school.
Wait, this comment explains a LOT of things. WAY too much whining and
snivling over minor stuff. In the case of Eep, if Eep had more of
life, you wouldn't see as much venting as you do.
- Richard Hutnik
Congrats on the 'OT'. Actually, it's not a huge deal to me. It just
seems that there have been a huge amount of 'OT' posts lately. We have
had all the 'war' posts, then the complaints about the 'Eep²' posts,
the 'spelling' posts, the 'rename the subject' posts, 'lemmings' post,
'top posting' posts, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea. Someone
forgets an 'OT', no big deal. Someone who never or rarely 'OT's their
posts need to be slapped off the face of the earth and into the
burning pits of hell ;). Either that or be given a gentle reminder.
See, according to Eep² I'm suppose to bitch to you since you started
it. Kind of reminds me of a kid's reply. They start pointing the
finger at everyone else and don't take responsibility for their own
actions.
So my hats off to you Chris! Bravo!!
OK, so that's enough of this crap. We now return you to your newsgroup
of choice.
Chris Proctor
> Chris Proctor <chris_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns938E964793913ch...@203.16.214.244>...
Pointing out that OT stuff should be marked as such is reasonable.
> So my hats off to you Chris! Bravo!!
Awwww *blushes*. One hat would have been enough, but you had to go all
the way and take all of your hats off to me. I'm . . . speechless :)
> OK, so that's enough of this crap. We now return you to your newsgroup
> of choice.
Our regular scheduled postings are 99% crap anyway, so we're going from
this new crap back to the old crap. Oh well.
Chris
Iron Works
Here is some insight into what a "TRUE" gamer MIGHT be...
Prophet
"Eep²" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:3ED8E1C9...@spam.com...
Jim Lascola
Eep² <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:<3ED67562...@spam.com>...