Interplay Says Stuff

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:58 am

[Company -> Update]

<html><body>Following the recent news of Fallout 3 and <A HREF=http://blackisle.com/ target=_blank>Black Isle</A>ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s demise, <A HREF=http://www.interplay.com target=_blank>Interplay</A> made a statement that kinda sorta clears things up. Here it is for the stupid people that desperately want to believe them:<blockquote>Thanks for your note and comments on Interplay, its games, and recent actions.
 
 For some reason, there has been a high amount of speculation about Black Isle Studios and intellectual property surrounding the Fallout license. My only guess is that the source of these rumors must be an employee/employees who recently departed Interplay.
 
 My response to these rumors is quite simple: Interplay management makes decisions and takes action on items relating to product, personnel, costs, revenue, and more on a day-to-day basis, none of which would be deemed material by SEC regulations, and none of which would merit a public announcement or press release.
 
 Accordingly, if Interplay management had closed its most valuable development asset or chosen to abandon one of its most prized intellectual assets, the Company would have made an announcement.
 
 As always, Interplay management is focused on delivering great, profitable games and maximum shareholder value.</blockquote>So how long until the official announcement saying what everybody already knows?</body></html>

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:00 am

Sorry for deleting your post, Megatron. I didn't feel like removing all the bullshit and editing other stuff to make it non-retarded on the front page

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:21 am

Herve caen should go back to mexico

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:06 am

I got banned from interplay for pointin out that despite managements "good" decisions interplay hasnt made a profit for god knows how many years.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:19 am

Mad Max RW wrote:Sorry for deleting your post, Megatron. I didn't feel like removing all the bullshit and editing other stuff to make it non-retarded on the front page :P

Fair enough. Though I don't think it held the same driving force of the 'edutaining' original, you relayed the message so people could read it and shit.

You should thank Mr. Teatime though.

bloodbathmaster2 · Post by **bloodbathmaster2** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:40 am

Mr Carrot wrote:I got banned from interplay for pointin out that despite managements "good" decisions interplay hasnt made a profit for god knows how many years.

Don't worry too much. It's only a few more months until there are no more Interplay forums anymore.

Zetura Dracos · Post by **Zetura Dracos** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:43 am

Mad Max RW wrote:Accordingly, if Interplay management had closed its most valuable development asset or chosen to abandon one of its most prized intellectual assets, the Company would have made an announcement.

Ah. I see. So this is their way of saying they dont give a rats ass about their only decent division and that the fallout liscense es teh stup3d.

Thank you Interplay for making me hate so.

And what speculation? What rumors? Is this not fact?

Damn my quote box isnt working.

Edit: Yes it is. -Spazmo

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:01 am

This is for the shareholders(regardless of company worth), not the customers, keep in mind.

Its tricky wording but the effect is still the same. They don't want to appear like they're dumping assets, and they want to make sure that people(shareholders and customers) realise that FO isn't gone, as it is an expected title still ( FOBOS ). If they appear to dump BIS, they look to be finalizing their demise...if they 'fire' the people AT BIS, BIS is still technically around, but with no employees ( clever aren't they, as someone else pointed this out as well ).

You shouldn't be surprised they're doing this, again, not for your benefit, but for anyone who can or does invest money in the company. As a failing company trying to stay afloat, you do your best to appear 'stable'. Removing a long standing dev house and firing everyone and dumping a franchise does not appear stable, hence the 'press release'.

Cheers

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:56 am

Interplay wrote:As always, Interplay management is focused on delivering great, profitable games and maximum shareholder value.

Aha! I've found their problem! Seriously, what ever happened to "For Gamers, By Gamers"? They should have kept their old resolve to make good games, rather than simply making money.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Good Games = Successful Company?

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:26 am

It seems Interplay has acquired a random bullshit response generator. Either Mr.Caen doesn't know what's happening in his company or he just continues lying to the fans, which wouldn't surprise me. On the other hand, would you rather trust an official IPLY announcement?

IPLY wrote:As always, Interplay management is focused on delivering great, profitable games and maximum shareholder value.

Can you spot a false adjective?

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:32 am

I can spot three: "great", "profitable", and "maximum shareholder value".

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:03 am

Franz_Schubert wrote:Aha! I've found their problem! Seriously, what ever happened to "For Gamers, By Gamers"? They should have kept their old resolve to make good games, rather than simply making money.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Good Games = Successful Company?

Read my post in the FO3 Petition thread http://www.duckandcover.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7216

Though I agree, its to an extent. Trying to be objective, emotion aside, Good Games are 'subjective' and do not equate to money, nor do Great Games even. It sounds like a good forumla but alas does not always calculate, especially when you're not in a great position to make "good games", but rather highly marketable games. Fortunately or unfortunately how you look at it, BGDA one and two sold very well, so FOBOS has a chance to do the same even if only half as well. Console games can at times sell more at their worst than a good PC game at its best and, consoles have the benefit of rental sales, as you can possibly make a decent bit of money selling to Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, etc.

The console is their best gamble if indeed this is their last hurrah.

Cheers

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:34 am

"Good game" is not subjective. For instance, nobody can credibly argue that Blizzard doesn't make good games. They can argue reasons why they don't LIKE Blizzard's games, but the fact is that Blizzard's games make TONS of money. If a company consistently makes *quality* games, they will succeed for sure. If they consistenly make low-quality games, it's possible for them to survive IF the games are marketed well (also, if the games themselves are chosen wisely. Think of how many BAD games succeed because of it's title, namely games based on movies)

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:41 am

Wait Franz, of course its subjective. Hehe, like any medium of art...as taste IS subjective.

Personally I don't play Blizzard Games, nor have I. Didn't/don't like them. Subjective. Its ironic you picked that company.

Anyway, they stay in business because they made a fun game, and, made enough money early on so they could invest time and resources to continue to deliver the games that LOTS of people purchased. Interplay does not have the money and, as in my other post, Fallout did NOT sell well( it didn't sell poorly necessarily, it just isn't Warcraft

), despite being a great game for me personally.

Either way, if you have the forumla for what a 'good game' is that will guarantee a company money and fame, I suggest you bottle it and sell it...YOU'LL be the one making all the money.

Cheers

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:49 am

EvoG wrote:Personally I don't play Blizzard Games, nor have I. Didn't/don't like them. Subjective.

Do you deny that Blizzard Games are *quality* games? As in they would score well in all the categories of a video game? You say you don't like them, but keep in mind you are the VAST MINORITY in this instance. Of course no matter how great a game is, not everyone will like it. I'm saying if a company makes quality games, they have the best chance to appeal to the most people.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:59 am

Erm, didn't you just read what I wrote? Of course I'm the minority, and their games are fun and sell to LOTS of people.

Now, I hear what you're saying, but with due respect, you're wrong. Fallout, one can easily argue, is a great game, YET, it sold very little compared to Warcraft, a game which I don't care for. You see? Subjective. I love Fallout, but is not purchased by many people...I don't care for Warcraft/Diablo/Starcraft, and it sells to millions of people.

By your equation, Fallout is not a good game because it did not sell many copies at all. You have to see this point. If what you say is true, then there would've been a FO3 YEARS ago. Ever wonder why there wasn't a FO3 right after FO2? Sure people argue "blah blah making other projects". Well, they made those "other projects" because in fact they wanted to increase their earnings. If FO was that profitable to them, then of COURSE they would've made FO3 and FO4 and so on. When something is gold, you stick with it. They didn't with FO unfortunately. Sure business is business and you guys can bitch and moan its all about money to them, which it should be, or else they couldn't afford to stay in business to make games. Regardless of how you feel about FO and how you THINK they feel about FO, don't you think from both a creative and monetary position that they wanted FO to succeed tremendously?

Cheers

Zetura Dracos · Post by **Zetura Dracos** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:03 pm

The thing about that though EvoG is that in order to sell copies the game (quality or no) has to apeal to the buyers. While Fallout does appeal to a good number of people there are a lot of people who I personally have shown the game to who have hated it and Im betting there are at least ten of them for every one of us. Also Fallout came in a time when RPGs where in a general decline and nobody really bought them. With this said I think its safe to say that number sold does not in fact effect quality. The quality of the game is independent from most other factors and quantity is basicly all about the audience's current interests and the trend of the market.

* Thanks for the fix earlier Spazmo

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:10 pm

Well, Zentura hit it right on the money there.

EvoG wrote:Regardless of how you feel about FO and how you THINK they feel about FO, don't you think from both a creative and monetary position that they wanted FO to succeed tremendously?

Well I'd like to think so, but then why did give it such little production time, and fail to QA test it at all? Sometimes I actually have my doubts about it EvoG.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:12 pm

Um, I never said 'number sold' is directly proportional to 'game quality'

Franz said 'Good Games' == 'Make Buckets O'Money'

Then I countered with : "Since Fallout sold poorly, then it must not be a good game, according to that equation...because indeed it did NOT make lots of money"

I'm trying to explain that if THOSE first two games did not make lots of money, and they are GOOD games as we can all agree, WITH lots of quality, then how can 'Good Games == Lots of Money' be true? Therefore, why would IPLY expect FO3 to sell 250k+ copies?

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:16 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:Well, Zentura hit it right on the money there.

EvoG wrote:Regardless of how you feel about FO and how you THINK they feel about FO, don't you think from both a creative and monetary position that they wanted FO to succeed tremendously?
Well I'd like to think so, but then why did give it such little production time, and fail to QA test it at all? Sometimes I actually have my doubts about it EvoG.

Can't answer that effectively, only that from my experiences, for example, Sony for PS2 has VERY strict approval process. Our first bug sheets were huge-mongous, and every one had to be squashed in order to get this passed through and gold. IPLY might have thought A) it was indeed good enough ( bugs sneak through with the best of us )

they might have had X resources so they did do the best they could C) they had an expected sell through and only dedicated X amount of QA resources to keep dev costs lower. But then again...ask yourself "Why would they damage their OWN product?" It makes no sense at all. Conspiracy theories aside, if you're making a product yourself Franz, why then in the end would you sabotage it? You wouldn't! So this argument is not conceivable. At best they simply fucked up.

Also, wasn't FO1 in developement for 3 years? Thats a great deal of time and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Cheers

Duck and Cover

Interplay Says Stuff

Interplay Says Stuff

Re: Interplay Says Stuff

Re: Interplay Says Stuff