-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Acclaim may face bankruptcy + release schedule
- Thread starter cja
- Start date
Bluemercury
Member
If its acclaim owns the turok franchise then Nintendo should buy the ip and give it to Retro....
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
YAY!!!!! Hope they go, personally. Less crap to clutter store shelves. Maybe some good, but niche, games could get a wee bit more space.
Next up Midway: I'm sorry but 1 or 2 games that are slightly better than the usual crap that they put out does not a new company make. I still wouldn't mind seeing them go.
Next up Midway: I'm sorry but 1 or 2 games that are slightly better than the usual crap that they put out does not a new company make. I still wouldn't mind seeing them go.
Alcibiades
Member
the funny thing is, if they had kept Turok Nintendo-exclusive, they could have devoted all the resources to a single verion and the game wouldn't have suffered as much in the quality department, not to mention because it's a M-rated shooter, it would have stood out quite a bit on the GCN (like RPG's and racing games) and gotten itself some hype from Nintendo fans supporting it and probably would have sold more...
Turok on N64 literally saved the company from bankruptcy and they managed some good success on the system, yet they give the GCN the shaft?
Doesn't seem like a sound strategy, and as can be seen by the actions and success of EA, UbiSoft, and Activision, the "real" players in the Western 3rd party scene continue to support the GCN...
Look at where not supporting the Cube have left Eideos, Acclaim, Midway, etc...
Turok on N64 literally saved the company from bankruptcy and they managed some good success on the system, yet they give the GCN the shaft?
Doesn't seem like a sound strategy, and as can be seen by the actions and success of EA, UbiSoft, and Activision, the "real" players in the Western 3rd party scene continue to support the GCN...
Look at where not supporting the Cube have left Eideos, Acclaim, Midway, etc...
MightyHedgehog
Member
Well, I hope they learn their lesson about releasing mostly crappy games...but I don't want them to die off. Same goes for Midway.
Alcibiades
Member
MightyHedgehog said:
actually, I don't want them to die off either (Acclaim or Midway, too late for Midway subsidiary Atari-Games/Midway-West...)
They all own some pretty valuable IP and I don't want some company buying their properties cheap then releases more crappy games anyway...
I hope they can recover from this, but it's not like they played their strategy smart when deciding platform development...
SolidSnakex
Member
"Look at where not supporting the Cube have left Eidoes, Acclaim, Midway, etc..."
Midways starting to do really good. And bad game development is the reason why Eidos and Acclaim aren't doing good, it has nothing to do with the Cube.
Midways starting to do really good. And bad game development is the reason why Eidos and Acclaim aren't doing good, it has nothing to do with the Cube.
Alcibiades
Member
SolidSnakex said:
3 is better than 2 according to EA, and look where they are at...
Maybe if they made their some GCN-exclusive games (like w/ Turok) they wouldn't have to spread resources thin and the "bad game development" wouldn't be as big an issue...
Nintendo fans have been friendly and supportive of good, exclusive games...
Bluemercury said:
That would be good although the name is quite tainted. I suggest something new would be best but if they can convinvce people over Turok.
Acclaim did have an idiot boss which i put down to their dumb business and marketing decisions. Before him sure they made mistakes but they had Burnout1 and were managing the business side better(still wasnt good but it was clear what they had to do). The guy after that made things really bad. Droped GC, Didnt market BO2 correctly, Lost burnout, didnt improve quality of games etc.
Alcibiades
Member
Deg said:
Turok's rep is a bit damaged right now, but not to any large extent...
Turok 1, 2, and 3 all got good reviews and were well-received (if not commercial successes)...
Rage Wars and the GBC ones weren't special, and of course when it went non-Nintendo-only it really hit the gutter, but it's not like Tomb Raider which has had several releases that left gamers with negative impressions game after game, and then flopped it up with the next-gen one...
At the release of Turok Evolution, Turok wasn't a hot property as much anymore, but it hadn't been dragged through the gutter the way Tomb Raider had, where it just felt like they were milking the brand name till they possibly could...
Alcibiades
Member
kaching said:
there was politics behind that decision though, since they didn't like Bernie Stolar and didn't think Sega's past 3 hardware releases warranted support for their new system...
Sega was stupid not to get rid of Bernie early on, there was even quotes from 3rd party companies saying things like "changing the management would be a positive step"
SolidSnakex
Member
"3 is better than 2 according to EA, and look where they are at..."
EA's also really big so if they're losing money on a system or not making much it doesn't mean much to them. It's not the same with these companies. They're focusing on the systems where people have bought their games. It's not like there haven't been any games from these companies on the GC, they've supported it, people just didn't buy the games so they stopped.
EA's also really big so if they're losing money on a system or not making much it doesn't mean much to them. It's not the same with these companies. They're focusing on the systems where people have bought their games. It's not like there haven't been any games from these companies on the GC, they've supported it, people just didn't buy the games so they stopped.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
Not pointing out SSX in particular, but where was this line of thinking when Acclaim said they were halting GCN development? All I remembered was GCN was doomed because they were still losing a big name publisher.SolidSnakex said:
Alcibiades
Member
yeah, but it's usually late releases and lowest-common-denominator (ps2 1st) ports...
I'm sure UbiSoft knows why their Tom Clancy games don't sell as well, they are released months after the XBox counterparts, that's why they don't stop GCN development all together and blame it on GCN sales even though the ports came really late...
When they do release games at the same time (like Prince of Persia, Tony Hawk, even TimeSplitters), they perform comparatively with user-base proportions...
Hitman 2 came way late on the GCN, yet I'm sure the fact that it wasn't a success was a factor for Eidos pulling GCN support...
I'm sure UbiSoft knows why their Tom Clancy games don't sell as well, they are released months after the XBox counterparts, that's why they don't stop GCN development all together and blame it on GCN sales even though the ports came really late...
When they do release games at the same time (like Prince of Persia, Tony Hawk, even TimeSplitters), they perform comparatively with user-base proportions...
Hitman 2 came way late on the GCN, yet I'm sure the fact that it wasn't a success was a factor for Eidos pulling GCN support...
SolidSnakex
Member
"I'm sure UbiSoft knows why their Tom Clancy games don't sell as well, they are released months after the XBox counterparts, that's why they don't stop GCN development all together and blame it on GCN sales even though the ports came really late..."
How do you explain SC selling well on the PS2 despite launching at the sametime as the GC?
How do you explain SC selling well on the PS2 despite launching at the sametime as the GC?
Alcibiades
Member
olubode said:
true, I remember Eidos and Acclaim stopping GCN development in particular being sited by sensationalistic news reports as a sign of how far the GCN had fallen...
the more accurate picture is that these companies are hitting the gutter so much, they can't afford to ways to get their titles on the GCN platform simultaneous with other platforms, and it's probalby costing them revenue...
Even EA delayd the PS2 version of Def Jam Vendetta to coincide with the GCN version because they knew they could maximize exposure and marketing impact by not stagnating release dates for the same game...
SolidSnakex said:
Really? You mean games like Mortal Kombat and Godzilla werent brought?
You're getting there however. Just need a detour. Aclaim are pretty much dead already. Midway are nearly there too. Thats the reason why they dropped GC as it would be the highest risk platfrom for them. Although Acclaim were neglecting GC early on when they shouldnt have as it was a more prominent platform for them over Xbox till their newer boss came along and made changes. Changes for the worst i may add.
Alcibiades
Member
SolidSnakex said:
userbase...
still, I'm sure UbiSoft knows 1 million sales on PS2 and 100,000 on GCN is better than just 1 million on one platform... besides, I'm sure they also have reasons like trying to keep brand exposure and the fact that it wasn't an exclusive means they are funding a port...
CrimsonSkies
Member
"The Bard's Tale(TM)*
The only game in development they have that I'm interested in. Looks like a rental at that. They should really either completely reinvent themselves or just fade away.
The only game in development they have that I'm interested in. Looks like a rental at that. They should really either completely reinvent themselves or just fade away.
FitzOfRage
Member
If anyone has a couple dollars laying around to save them, Acclaim stock is selling for 26 cents
Irrelevant to your original reason for bringing up EA. You suggested a direct causal relationship between choosing not to support a platform and a downgrade in fortunes, and then cited EA as an example of a company who didn't do this and so therefore didn't suffer the same fate.efralope said:
Speaking of Sega, there also a company who supports all three platforms but they seem to be in only marginally better condition than the likes of Midway, Eidos and Acclaim right now.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
FitzOfRage said:If anyone has a couple dollars laying around to save them, Acclaim stock is selling for 26 cents
Blame Glen Cove!
Alcibiades
Member
kaching said:
still, supporting the Cube is one of the reasons Sega has seen better numbers than the Dreamcast days...
actually, I think I've read where even EA says they didn't mean anything against SEGA (the company) when they didn't support Dreamcast, and in retrospect, I don't know if they admitted or if it was someone writing that they had talked with someone at EA, but someone (at EA) mentioned that it was a MISTAKE not to support Dreamcast because it was still a relative success that could have been an opportunity for an audience of course...
maybe they learned from that and decided to go all out with this generation...
SolidSnakex
Member
efralope said:
Why should userbase matter? You said earlier that the reason it didn't sell on the GC is because it was an old port, yet PS2 owners still bought it. That's the problem with GC 3rd party games. Unless they're exclusive they don't interest GC owners much. You even said it earlier that Turok for example would've sold better if it was exclusive to the GC since they treat 3rd party games better if they're exclusive. That's the difference between the GC and the PS2 and Xbox. On those systems a multiplatform game can be released and it'll sell just as well if not better than an exclusive title, while if you release a multiplatform game on the GC it doesn't have much of a chance at all to sell as well as an exclusive 3rd party title.
Alcibiades
Member
SolidSnakex said:
well, I was making the point that UbiSoft wasn't making a fit when their late ports (on a userbase comparable to XBox) didn't sell as well as the others...
that said, even if the userbase is not as big as PS2, you're still gonna get sales...
BTW, most people buy multiplatform games on other systems because they are shoddy ports (Spy Hunter) OR have things missing (SSX 3)... that said, successful companies that know they have delivered a product less than that on other systems aren't complaining, while companies that are in the pits complain about GCN sales without acknowledging that...
Acclaim's own numbers disagree with this assertion .SolidSnakex said:
Code:
The following table details the Company's gross revenue by platform, studio, segment and new title releases:
Three Months Ended [b]Twelve Months Ended[/b]
March 31, March 31, March 31, [b]March 31,[/b]
2004 2003 2004 [b]2003[/b]
(Unaudited) (Unaudited) (Unaudited)
Cartridge-based software:
Nintendo Game Boy 3% 3% 2% 5%
Subtotal for
cartridge-based software 3% 3% 2% 5%
Disc-based software:
Sony PlayStation 2:
128-bit 57% 65% 55% 55%
Sony PlayStation 1:
32-bit 2% 1% 3% 2%
Microsoft [b]Xbox[/b]:
128-bit 23% 19% 24% [b]17%[/b]
Nintendo [b]GameCube[/b]:
128-bit 14% 10% 13% [b]19%[/b]The comparison was neither direct nor blind. They're both game publishers providing content to one or more platforms. That's sufficient for the purposes of the discussion at hand.Deg said:
Sure, they happen to be doing well on the GC, but their fortunes are not consistent across all platforms...one could see them dropping out of Xbox support altogether under the right conditions, for example...in which case, would you be making the same comments about how not supporting all the platforms is bad?efralope said:
That's speculative - is there proof that EA's fortunes suffered significantly during the year-long DC honeymoon? Meanwhile, we're talking about companies who have actually TRIED to support all console platforms and have found that it isn't helping their bottom line.
Alcibiades
Member
I guess Acclaim let inaccurate articles - that Nintendo was pulling out/going 3rd party/not releasing another system - influence them too much and now look at what they have gotten themselves into...
Alcibiades
Member
I'm not saying EA suffered from not making DC games, just that someone admitted that they should have..
I mean, sure they did really, really well, but if they could have done even better than that, why blow the opportunity to expand even more...
I mean, sure they did really, really well, but if they could have done even better than that, why blow the opportunity to expand even more...
Alcibiades
Member
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
You know, your right. Cause when a company gets less sales on one platform, the cease to make any profit.dark10x said:
olubode said:
...but I wonder if the little bit of money made on a GC version makes up for development time? Hmm...
I'm not saying it is a bad thing to develop for GC, I'm saying that those companies are not successful because of it nor did those failing companies fall on hard times as a result of ending GC support. GC is not part of the equation here.
Diomedeskun
Member
While I detest vitually every game that has ever had the Acclaim logo, I am quite interested in The Bard's Tale and The Red Star. Still, I have never purchased an Acclaim game, so I would not be averse to another publisher picking up The Bard's Tale.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
All I know, I was fan of the Turok series when it came out on the N64. So when Turok Evolution was announced I was looking forward to its release. They spoke of going back to its roots, then when the game was released and reviews had it placed in the 5's any desire to pick up the game was gone.
I do believe if they had focused on a single console release, the game could have turned out better.
To comment on the not supporting GC issue, userbase is the larger part of the equation as for the reason why a game sales better on another console. Then you also have to consider the fact that unlike Sony/MS, Nintendo has several franchises that has a loyal following that would get gamers money before any other game. Exclusive third party games sell better on GC because they are marketed alot better compared to multi platform games. If you look at any commercial for most multi platform games the PS2 version get the most backing, then followed by the Xbox. The image displayed in the commercial is always the PS2 copy of the game, with just a NGC logo at the bottom of the screen.
Namco did the best marketing last year compared to any other multi platform software publisher, they basically insured that each consoles userbase knew that SC2 was coming out for their respective console. If Tekken 5 goes multiplatform, I would assume they would use the same marketing tactic.
I do believe if they had focused on a single console release, the game could have turned out better.
To comment on the not supporting GC issue, userbase is the larger part of the equation as for the reason why a game sales better on another console. Then you also have to consider the fact that unlike Sony/MS, Nintendo has several franchises that has a loyal following that would get gamers money before any other game. Exclusive third party games sell better on GC because they are marketed alot better compared to multi platform games. If you look at any commercial for most multi platform games the PS2 version get the most backing, then followed by the Xbox. The image displayed in the commercial is always the PS2 copy of the game, with just a NGC logo at the bottom of the screen.
Namco did the best marketing last year compared to any other multi platform software publisher, they basically insured that each consoles userbase knew that SC2 was coming out for their respective console. If Tekken 5 goes multiplatform, I would assume they would use the same marketing tactic.