So who the heck is IAC?

#41 What you do and how you feel are certainly up to you, but:

--TGB and TGE work fine on most forms of linux.
--Torque for the Wii is infinitely accessable to indys from our perspective--we've done absolutely everything we can do. If you have concerns regarding how Nintendo is handling things, then you should take it up with them. I wish myself things were different on that one, so anything anyone can do is great :)

#42 This is a good news if this means we get a good documentation and more updates for TGE from now on. Better editor/tools with new updated features like high-res terrain textures support with like 12 tiles at least.. mmm..

Looking forward to the upcoming announcements Stephen mentioned above.

#43 I've got to admit, this fundamentally worries me. Maybe I'm panicing for nothing but , in the games industry in particular, every time I see a bunch of suits take a large stake in a smaller more creative developer it ends badly. Now this may not be similar, and forgive my naivete if it isn't, but thats just the first thing that sprang to mind when I read this (with my heart sinking). And the smaller developer always say it is a good thing too.

So to try and clarify, some questions :

- What does their 51% get them? It has to give them some benefit, no one is going to go for majority stake unless it means something. So what does that give them, control wise? Can they decide on gg policy or product pricing? Choose who runs gg/make decisions as to employee hiring and firing? Choose which projects to focus on? Saying they are cool and don't want to exercise control NOW is great and all but I want to know if they have the capability to decide to do so in the future. The winds can shift very quickly.

- Can they just sell gg ( or at least that majority stake)? What happens if their "long term business focus shifts" or some other such jargonese for "we decided it would make us more money to sell you" occurs? If someone else buys IAC what happens to GG?

- Who are IAC? Because their website makes me uneasy. It has "faceless bussiness machine" written all over it. I trust people who follow a passion, not people who chase a buck. A group of business people trying to invest in the online gaming arena just reminds me of the existing portals, which don't really have a much better rep than mainstream publishers. If the financial wind turns or whatever I believe GG would try to stick to it's goals, but would these guys? Is game development just another aspect of their stable of products, not a passion they will struggle through hard times for? Worrying.

-What about those of us who don't want to do the web based game thing? Can we still publish our games as per normal, on our own sites without any link to InstantAction?

- Speaking of that, part of me is concerned that those of us who aren't making things that fit well with InstantAction will be left behind a bit. I'm sorry, thats probably not fair to GG but I need to ask. If you guys are keen on this new development, and IAC is pushing it, what about those of us who aren't doing things that fit nicely into that category? Are those of us trying to make deep strategy or RPG games going to watch the casual/action game devs get tons of gg focus and useful stuff?



Sorry to be such a downer about this but, well, I've just put too much of myself into my game dev with Torque, it feels like the carpet has shifted under me. I would never in a million years have expected GG to sell a majority stake in their company.

#44

Quote:Speaking of that, part of me is concerned that those of us who aren't making things that fit well with InstantAction will be left behind a bit.

That's already the case Gareth, so don't mind about that anymore.

I'm not happy, nor sorry about that decision, I just read one thing: independence has been lost, whatever they claim.
They are taking themselves out of the independent developpers way of life, proving nothing can exist beside corporations.

Edit: spelling damn it.

#45 "I would never in a million years have expected GG to sell a majority stake in their company"


Ya, why didnt they sell 49% and keep 51%?

#46 Hey all, thanks for all the honest replies and opinions, both positive and negative. I think Josh's blog post clearly and thoroughly discussed the evil corporate control issue and how things are working and have been working for the last several months, and how things are intended to work going forward.

There's not really a whole lot more talk to talk, now we have to walk the walk. All we ask at this point is that you reserve judgment on the future of Torque and the rest of our tech at least until the announcement at IGC, and likewise reserve judgment on InstantAction and the opportunity we are trying to create there until further details can be revealed.

If at that point, you still don't think we have the best interests of Indie developers at the very forefront of all of our minds, feel free to point back to this post and say "I told you so."

#47 Hi Gareth,
All good questions. They are in fact very much the very same questions that were raised at GG when the majority of the company found out about the deal.

I have to be *very* careful of what answers I can give to those questions because they tread into the NDA'ed terms of the deal.

One thing I can clearly tell you is that all of those questions were answered to the satisfaction of the people at GG who raised those same questions and believe me when I tell you that we had an even more vested interest in making sure those things were taken care of (especially control of the company).

I can indirectly say (much as Josh has said) that as part of the deal we have maintained a *huge* amount of control over our own company and that control is protected even if we are sold.

#48 /me thinking of what to type

#49 Also, to address this directly:

Quote:-What about those of us who don't want to do the web based game thing? Can we still publish our games as per normal, on our own sites without any link to InstantAction?

- Speaking of that, part of me is concerned that those of us who aren't making things that fit well with InstantAction will be left behind a bit. I'm sorry, thats probably not fair to GG but I need to ask. If you guys are keen on this new development, and IAC is pushing it, what about those of us who aren't doing things that fit nicely into that category? Are those of us trying to make deep strategy or RPG games going to watch the casual/action game devs get tons of gg focus and useful stuff?

You will certainly be able to publish on platforms other than InstantAction. We are trying to increase opportunity, not limit it. Additionally, though the name might seem to imply otherwise, casual/action games are not the only type of game we are looking to fund and publish on InstantAction. The only requirement that we have defined thus far is that it must be fun. :)

#50 In the end, I think this was the right decision. What really makes up GG and the community around it are the people - and if the founders and employees are on-board with this, then the community should be too. The employees haven't been working themselves to the bone for indies in the hopes that the company will sell out to some corporate entity. All the guys I met at GG during my internship were fully vested in building the original GG mission - and I don't think that's changed. As long as there are real people on the IAC side (which Josh said there were - so there are), then this partnership will benefit everyone.

Congrats on leveling up, GG!

#51 Browser based games? Ugh... I was ok with it until I read the part about the majority stake in GG's equity. What I've always liked about GG was their indie status. Still, good luck for the future.

#52 Hmm interesting buyout. Wonder if this means we could be seeing some of the gg products become a steam like service ? Personally i think that would be kind of cool, digital distribution of 3d games :)

if thats not whats gonna happen then awwwwwwwwwww :(

PS: Wow the mighty derek smart on these boards. Battlecruiser TGEA maybe ?

#53 ^ Lol...

#54 Congratulations on your deal. it sounds as if you are very excited about it and that you might feel a little guilty about the false impression the community might have.
No need to feel guilty or try and make IAC look like good guys even if they *might* be suits.
I understand where you guys are coming from.

On the "merger".
If it means easier pipelines, better tools and better documentation for us Indies in the long run then great! Maybe we can stop customizing the hell out of TGE ourselves ;)

Nothing in life are certain. GG could have tried and run it themselves like they did and have found themselves out of business.. no cash or whatever.

If things go south the community can vote with their wallets and with their "browser impressions". There will always be something beyond the horizon.

I for one am super excited about the browser playing potential.

#55 While I'm all for this, and think it's great news. If IAC own a majority stake in GG, surely they have overall say on the decissions at a board level, and with the potential to vote and buy up the remaining stake of the company, then you have no sayat all? Hope this is not the case for GG's sake, but hope you have an airtight contract/agreement from a legal perspective to ensure that you remain in control.

Edit: from what I have now read, it looks like you do :)

#56 Being the quintessential indie, I'm not only flabbergasted but also cautious about all this.

Quite frankly, I've been in this industry too long (a _lot_ longer than, well, most everyone here, including the GG primaries), seen and heard to much to be anything but cautious. At the end of the day, since I have nothing at stake so my 2c is probably worthless.

All I have to say is that this is PROBABLY not going to end well. No matter how long it takes.

From what I can gather (public and in the grapevine), this was all about money. Nothing more. Nothing less. Once you throw money into the mix with creativity and freedom, someone is either paying too much or someone is getting more than they're worth. Once a spark plug goes off and one of these people (I'm not talking about GG or IAC btw) realizes either of this, its going to be a bad week.

On the issue of browser accessible games. OK, Alex and his band of merry men over at Wild Tangent have that pretty much well locked up. Then you have Real Audio and their ilk. Seriously, when you look at the current crop of GG games, its anyone's guess whats going to happen there. My guess? Not much.

The question in my mind is this. If I were out looking for money (thank God I've got my own and never had to do that) to fund my company, would I be out looking for investors to infuse money while leaving my core ideas, freedom, creativity etc intact or I would be like "....oh, OK. So you're going to invest in my company, but I have to branch into browser based games? Where do I sign?"

This has all the machinations of a financial sell out. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either (a) naive or (b) in a drunken stupor

Now to the other side of the coin. What, apart from worrying about what other (mostly inconsequential nobodies) people think, is wrong with TAKING MONEY? From where I'm sitting. NOTHING. The GG crew (at least the primaries with whom I am familiar and have had run ins with. Thats for my blog I think) have worked hard (IMO very hard) on this little corner of the industry for very long and very hard (financially and otherwise) years. So whats wrong with a little payback? Especially when you consider that, well, GG - at the time - wasn't doing that well financially. Lets face it, companies who are doing well, don't go out looking for money just to burn it. Let alone change their direction in order to obtain that money. They go out looking for money in order to improve and/or expand their business. This is probably a bad analogy, but this is like Boeing going to to get investors so they can expand into making jet powered lawnmowers just because one of the investors thinks that jet powered lawnmowers are the future.

To me the decision of either taking the money and branching off into a new direction or prolonging the struggle, is a no-brainer. Especially when you consider the current industry climate. Its either that or continue struggling and eventually go out of business. So, if GG was struggling, then they made a wise choice IMO.

Seriously, I'd like for someone to show me one, just _one_ GG game that has made _good_ money. Ever.

I'll use myself as the best example that I can think of. People, for years, have lambasted me for making hard core games, writing and talking up all sorts of crap in between. Yet while two people find time to act out their anti-social tendencies, a hundred are out buying my games. What did I do? I smiled (sometimes, in my younger and inexperienced years, raved and ranted) and stuck to doing what _I_ wanted to do. I'm, what? Eleven games in? Financially secure and don't need investors. With the latest (the final game in the long running Battlecruiser franchise that got me here in the first place) being a Take2 (don't start) retail release next month, one (a new franchise) on a GameTap (A Turner company btw) exclusive (you don't even want to know how many digits that check had) etc. Sure we all go through times when we _need_ the money. e.g. when publishers and/or distributors either don't (which is what I have attorneys for) pay or when they pay late. And during those times, you do what you can to keep your head above water. The question then becomes: How long can you keep that up? Especially in such a volatile industry as ours. Do you change the direction of your company, your products, your creativity in exchange for money? Or do you just call it quits?

So, GG deciding to infuse cash into the company - and into the coffers of the founders (lets not forget about _that_) - is not such a bad thing. Where does it say that one has to keep struggling to make ends meet; especially at the detriment of quality? Even if GG closed up shop next week, whats the bottom line? A 404 error page would be my guess. And eventually, as finicky as we all are, we will all forget.

I quite enjoyed Josh's blog. I'm not sure how many meetings they had to hold in order to actually sign-off on that verbiage and make it public, but it seemed to touch on pretty much everything that you, I and/or that wino out back, are thinking right about now.

Most of it read like the usual stuff you'd get out of American Airlines. Right after they lose your luggage for the umpteenth time. I don't know about you, but I'm a pretty smart (no pun intended!) guy (at least on Wednesdays I am) and didn't get anything from that blog other than the following:

1. Yes, we did a deal. Well, it was done awhile back, but we didn't feel like telling you - the guys who actually HELPED keep us around _this_ long - about it. Now we're telling you, be thankful.

2. No, we're not going anywhere, seriously. In fact, look, my car's still out back.

3. Yes, things are going to change. In between fixing the [lingering] bugs in Torque, actually getting some meaningful docs _done_ and making sure the roof doesn't cave in, we're going to be doing browser games. Aren't you excited?

4. IAC is not the boss of me. They just gave us all this money because they like us. We were doing so well and our financial books were attractive enough for them to give us money. With no strings attached. Except that we have to do browser games. And...and...we made sure that we can do whatever we like. And keep the money at the same time.

5. Yes, our company was worth so much, that we _had_ to sell a MAJORITY stake instead of a minority stake, which, above all else, would have pretty much _assured_ our existence and common place ideologies.

6. Yes, we're going to be funding and publishing some games!! Why waste that money on funding the [Torque] technology and premise upon which our company was founded when we can just, well, give it to someone else?

[continued]

#57 ...continued...

Being one of the few developers who has been around since GG day one, I'm not sure what to think TBH. I have nothing at stake, so I really don't care either way. The _only_ reason this caught my attention is that, my crew and I have been talking about - again - licensing (and actually _using_) a middleware graphics solution. I had personally taken a look at Torque over the years. Subsequently laughed my a$$ (@ the thought of using TorqueScript because I don't like drastic change and just because someone said so) off and went about my business. Then TGEA came along - complete with bullet points - and so I kept it at the back of my mind to see where it would lead. Its still there. At the back of my mind. Every now and again, I'd take a peek. At one point, I went ahead and licensed something else (Artificial Studios' Reality Engine) instead because it was cleaner, meaner and well, just worked. Also, it didnt' require me to think several miles outside the box; and nowhere near the same hemisphere that said box was on. Then _that_ license got bought out by Epic (right along with one of the primary developers and founder) and amidst all the public statements by _that_ company, the engine died. Just as Epic intended. Nobody noticed. Well, except for the licensees who got stuck with an engine that had bugs, was no longer [actively] supported, every single promise (including the XBox port) got dropped etc. What did AS do to keep afloat? They exited the game engine business and decided to make games. With someone else's engine. Unreal3. The game? Monster Madness. Yes, it was a retail flop and only the publisher made money, since they got it for cheap to begin with. What has AS been doing to fund paychecks? Using their original engine to make proof-of-concept demos - and instantly forgettable games. For Aegia. Yes, the same company trying desperately to flog PPUs in a world dominated by multi-core CPUs. Go figure.

So, right up until last month, my guys and I were deciding whether to (1) move forward with our new games (2008 and beyond) with Reality Engine (to which we have a source code license) which we would port (PC to XB360 is not a big deal) to XB360 ourselves or (2) take - yet another - look at TGEA and go with that (considering that its phenomenally cheaper than anything else out there, whats there to lose?) or (3) do what we've always done: grow our own and call it a day.

So, when I saw this GG/IAC news, honestly my first thought was: TGEA IS DEAD!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

At the end of the day, all speculation and guarded and [tongue-in-cheek] comments aside, time will speak for itself. The good thing about all this is that, well, GG had a good run. And for that, above all else, they deserve to reap the benefits of what they put in.

Nevertheless, money - the root of all evil - changes things. It changes people. For many - many - years, every facet of our industry has come under [financial] fire (OK, outright assault) by outsiders who either (a) think they know it more than _we_ do (b) think they can do a better job than _we_ can (c) see it as a license to print money. At the end of the day, these are the _same_ people who previously regarded us as nothing more than bespectacled geeks siting in a basement somewhere in their underwear. Then they woke up one morning. And we were a multi-BILLION dollar industry. Neither they, nor Hollywood, saw it coming. Seemingly overnight. Then they all wanted in. Once the MMO marketplace took off, the assault reached a new frenzy. Most of those people have taken a [financial] bath in that particular murky water, called it a day, and left. We're all still here, but the assault continues.

The lessons we learn are the lessons we soon forget. Oh how soon we forget.

I wish them luck. They're all going to need it because when it comes to this gaming industry, spreadsheets, forecasts and schedules (!) usually aren't worth the paper they're written on if there is no clear goal, direction or mandate by which all parties concerned are governed.

/me sauntering off

#58 Wow, good read.

#59 This is bad.

I KNOW there will be changes in the licence realsoonnow.

Corporations grasp things, they don't let them go.

#60 Terry, how do you know? You don't, you suspect or think there will be changes. Even if there were changes, you couldn't possibly point back and say, "I knew it back then." Last week, I thought Seattle would beat Arizona, but I couldn't have possibly known it. Seattle lost, despite the fact that by judging historical tendencies they should have one.

This won't make me popular, but I sense a lot of fair-weather friends. As long as GG is providing cheap tools to indie and amateur developers, they're really great and we all love them to death. We all know GG hasn't been the most financially blessed organizations, but that's fine because they were doing great things for us. Now that they've done something that may benefit them, they're supposedly sell-outs and they're forgetting their community and roots. It all reminds of one of those situations where the one friend with a job used to buy all the beer for his slacker friends, but now that he's married he can't afford it and his friends just sit around saying, "Man, you use to be so cool."

GG could have sold most of their products for significantly more money, they've probably passed many opportunities in the past. I would have paid more for the products, because they save me a tremendous amount of time and energy. Hell, many people just assumed GG had junky products because they made them so affordable. Personally, if the GG folks do well, I'll be happy for them. They've done enough for the indie and amateur gaming scene that they are almost beyond criticism for their shortcomings, certainly they are well beyond any credible accusations of greed.