So who the heck is IAC?
by Eric Fritz · in General Discussion · 09/17/2007 (10:49 pm) · 176 replies
As stories start rolling in, you folks will no doubt have a few questions. And we want to answer them.
Josh will be posting a blog first thing in the morning, and will try to answer as many questions as we can think up. Any that aren't addressed, we'll respond to here on the forums.
Thanks all for your understanding and patience!
Josh will be posting a blog first thing in the morning, and will try to answer as many questions as we can think up. Any that aren't addressed, we'll respond to here on the forums.
Thanks all for your understanding and patience!
#62
uhm, I think you're missing the point?
Apart from that, you accuse Terry of not knowing, yet, no less than a few lines later, you're doing the same speculating?
How do you know that they could have sold their products for significantly more money? They didn't do that well financially at the current price point.
Further, I don't see anyone in this thread accusing them of being greedy? So, once again, all you're doing is a lot worse than that which you accuse Terry (and others with similar comments) of doing.
I think the general consensus is simple. So, this is the part where you actually pay attention instead of typing a knee jerk response to someone's opinion which was never - I might add - presented as fact.
1. GG, since day one, have kept to their basic core principles of hosting and supporting a fledgling (yes, I said fledgling) and rather small part of the industry.
2. Part of #1 was the provision of tools, support, resources etc in order to stay true to that focus.
3. GG weren't doing so great financially. Neither do the monks in Tibet, artistes, peace corps, volunteers etc. So, cry me a river if you will. When you make a business decision and tie it to money, you are either prepared to (a) turn a profit or (b) turn a loss or even (c) become a charity case (yes, most charities are in fact a business)
4. NOBODY is accusing GG of ANYTHING. At least not as far as I can tell. What is mostly rampant are speculations on (1) why this happened (2) what the outcome is going to be (3) what it means to this [small] community who have, over the years, learned much from GG (and those who flocked here in some form or another).
5. People with opinions are allowed to speculate. Its one of the basic freedoms that we all have. Sure, you don't have to like what the other person said and since you can't do anything about that, there is no need to make things personal.
6. Everyone pretty much agrees that GG have worked too hard for too long and they do deserve to make some money for their troubles. That said, the consensus (based on opinion) is geared toward the three things I mentioned in #4 above. Think about this, if GG had gone out of business, what would you have done to change things? My guess? Nada. zip. zilch. The same applies here. They made a financially viable decision. From the face of it, they did it for the good of the community. Only time will tell because, like most, reality is far more factual than promises, speculation and wanton acts of opinionated bullsh*t.
When ANYONE sells a business or calls for investment in which a majority stake is sold, the primary financial gainers are the owners and/or primaries of the company. Not necessarily the business. What goes into the business (depending on if its a S or C corp) is, again, based on who owns the property assets that the business is selling. So, if the four GG primaries own the assets and are thus licensed to the company (GG), then the exchange of money takes a tiered approach. And somewhere in that balance sheet, the company proper, gets a cash infusion. Make no mistake, a cash infusion into a company doesn't see _all_ the money go into the business when you have things like assets attached. Then there is the assumption of debt and everything else that goes with that.
So, whatever decision the GG primaries made, it had to have been twofold; and both were based on financially viable options. So its like Vegas or bust IMO.
Once the dust settles and the money starts flowing, then we can start opining on how the decision has performed and interpreted into. e.g. is the TGEA license going to hike? is TGEA - as you all know it - going to continue its focus or is all that going to fall by the wayside while resources are channeled into the new browser based gaming initiative?
Barry is not an idiot. He is a sound and well respected businessman who is not known for throwing money around. He could have invested in one of thousands of [gaming] businesses out there. Heck, even GG could have attracted and received VC funding if they so choose. At least I think so. The difference being that VC are - on a good day - vicious, blood sucking bastards who don't invest in people; they invest in companies. THIS is the integral part of Josh's blog and which, in case you missed it, he pointed out. Though my guess is that most won't get the gist of that paragraph.
So, at the end of the day, whatever you, I or the next person says or thinks, its all irrelevant. Heck, more industry high profilers have gone above and beyond, crashed and burned. We don't hear from them anymore. In fact, right off the top of my head, I can rattle off no less than ten names which I'm sure most of you will recognize.
oh, look at the time!! Gotta run.
09/19/2007 (6:44 am)
Jason,uhm, I think you're missing the point?
Apart from that, you accuse Terry of not knowing, yet, no less than a few lines later, you're doing the same speculating?
How do you know that they could have sold their products for significantly more money? They didn't do that well financially at the current price point.
Further, I don't see anyone in this thread accusing them of being greedy? So, once again, all you're doing is a lot worse than that which you accuse Terry (and others with similar comments) of doing.
I think the general consensus is simple. So, this is the part where you actually pay attention instead of typing a knee jerk response to someone's opinion which was never - I might add - presented as fact.
1. GG, since day one, have kept to their basic core principles of hosting and supporting a fledgling (yes, I said fledgling) and rather small part of the industry.
2. Part of #1 was the provision of tools, support, resources etc in order to stay true to that focus.
3. GG weren't doing so great financially. Neither do the monks in Tibet, artistes, peace corps, volunteers etc. So, cry me a river if you will. When you make a business decision and tie it to money, you are either prepared to (a) turn a profit or (b) turn a loss or even (c) become a charity case (yes, most charities are in fact a business)
4. NOBODY is accusing GG of ANYTHING. At least not as far as I can tell. What is mostly rampant are speculations on (1) why this happened (2) what the outcome is going to be (3) what it means to this [small] community who have, over the years, learned much from GG (and those who flocked here in some form or another).
5. People with opinions are allowed to speculate. Its one of the basic freedoms that we all have. Sure, you don't have to like what the other person said and since you can't do anything about that, there is no need to make things personal.
6. Everyone pretty much agrees that GG have worked too hard for too long and they do deserve to make some money for their troubles. That said, the consensus (based on opinion) is geared toward the three things I mentioned in #4 above. Think about this, if GG had gone out of business, what would you have done to change things? My guess? Nada. zip. zilch. The same applies here. They made a financially viable decision. From the face of it, they did it for the good of the community. Only time will tell because, like most, reality is far more factual than promises, speculation and wanton acts of opinionated bullsh*t.
When ANYONE sells a business or calls for investment in which a majority stake is sold, the primary financial gainers are the owners and/or primaries of the company. Not necessarily the business. What goes into the business (depending on if its a S or C corp) is, again, based on who owns the property assets that the business is selling. So, if the four GG primaries own the assets and are thus licensed to the company (GG), then the exchange of money takes a tiered approach. And somewhere in that balance sheet, the company proper, gets a cash infusion. Make no mistake, a cash infusion into a company doesn't see _all_ the money go into the business when you have things like assets attached. Then there is the assumption of debt and everything else that goes with that.
So, whatever decision the GG primaries made, it had to have been twofold; and both were based on financially viable options. So its like Vegas or bust IMO.
Once the dust settles and the money starts flowing, then we can start opining on how the decision has performed and interpreted into. e.g. is the TGEA license going to hike? is TGEA - as you all know it - going to continue its focus or is all that going to fall by the wayside while resources are channeled into the new browser based gaming initiative?
Barry is not an idiot. He is a sound and well respected businessman who is not known for throwing money around. He could have invested in one of thousands of [gaming] businesses out there. Heck, even GG could have attracted and received VC funding if they so choose. At least I think so. The difference being that VC are - on a good day - vicious, blood sucking bastards who don't invest in people; they invest in companies. THIS is the integral part of Josh's blog and which, in case you missed it, he pointed out. Though my guess is that most won't get the gist of that paragraph.
So, at the end of the day, whatever you, I or the next person says or thinks, its all irrelevant. Heck, more industry high profilers have gone above and beyond, crashed and burned. We don't hear from them anymore. In fact, right off the top of my head, I can rattle off no less than ten names which I'm sure most of you will recognize.
oh, look at the time!! Gotta run.
#63
09/19/2007 (7:04 am)
Mod Edited--defusing a possible flame war in an already emotionally charged topic.
#64
09/19/2007 (7:15 am)
Mod edited--defusing the already escalating personal flame war.
#65
I don't post for the heck of it, just if I feel like it and have something worth saying.
09/19/2007 (7:21 am)
Good call by whoever that was. I came back to point out this thread and for Tom to search for the word bridge as that would explain (a) why I don't post (b) chose to leave.I don't post for the heck of it, just if I feel like it and have something worth saying.
#66
Just for the record for everyone involved--Tom is obviously a very experienced Torque Developer--and Derek is someone from the industry who (no insult intended) has quite a history. Clashing of two knowledgeable but opposed people directly instead of about the topic at hand doesn't do anyone much good in this thread.
I don't censor posts very often, but in this particular thread I don't want it to go off topic, and especially not as a flame. This does not indicate acceptance, agreement, or confirmation of any of Derek's points listed above, and that wasn't what Tom was commenting upon.
09/19/2007 (7:27 am)
Thanks!Just for the record for everyone involved--Tom is obviously a very experienced Torque Developer--and Derek is someone from the industry who (no insult intended) has quite a history. Clashing of two knowledgeable but opposed people directly instead of about the topic at hand doesn't do anyone much good in this thread.
I don't censor posts very often, but in this particular thread I don't want it to go off topic, and especially not as a flame. This does not indicate acceptance, agreement, or confirmation of any of Derek's points listed above, and that wasn't what Tom was commenting upon.
#67
09/19/2007 (7:27 am)
No worries. :)
#68
Or is this something you can't tell before IGC? I surely understand if you can't answer this one yet. Well, I can't deny I'm super interested in this browser version... :-))
09/19/2007 (7:31 am)
I have a question regarding the Torque webbrowser thing. Does the Torque concept of "CodeOnce" apply also to the browser version of Torque? Means, does scripting and taking the scripted game logic also work for the browser based version of the game?Or is this something you can't tell before IGC? I surely understand if you can't answer this one yet. Well, I can't deny I'm super interested in this browser version... :-))
#69
09/19/2007 (7:37 am)
No worries Stephen. Passion usually gets the better of common sense. And on a good day, we all tend to lack common sense. Must be something in the coffee. :) 
#70
I ask because that isn't what I took as the reason for GG doing this. I honestly believe them when they said they did it to gain the resources to tackle a specific opportunity they saw. I DO worry that this could be the proverbial slippery slope, but it wasn't for that reason. I do not in the slightest hold it against them for making money. I just want to know that the dream won't be hijacked by big corporate interests, as it always seems to be in the mainstream.
09/19/2007 (7:39 am)
Alright, can someone clarify something for me? Has GG been in financial trouble? I see this "they got in trouble/struggled so they sought cash injection" banter being tossed around but from my admittedly limited viewpoint GG has seemed to be doing fairly well recently (even before this merge). I've seen new employees being hired, money spent etc. Not the kind of actions I expect from a "sinking ship".I ask because that isn't what I took as the reason for GG doing this. I honestly believe them when they said they did it to gain the resources to tackle a specific opportunity they saw. I DO worry that this could be the proverbial slippery slope, but it wasn't for that reason. I do not in the slightest hold it against them for making money. I just want to know that the dream won't be hijacked by big corporate interests, as it always seems to be in the mainstream.
#71
Also remember (and this touches on some of Derek's comments above as well) that the very biggest reason we elected to take on a partner is that GG was founded on a "3 pillar" strategy--technology, publishing, and making games. Most of the GG Community has only ever been aware of the technology so they focus on that--but publishing and making games has always been extremely important to us, and this new organization allows us to work on all 3 of the pillars of our strategy instead of just the first.
I also want to get a bit back on track, and highlight another area of discussion that this new organization allows us to leverage: the concept of funding indies to complete their games.
In the past, when we got a game submission that was an excellent prototype but needed production work, there simply wasn't anything we could do--we didn't have the resources internally, nor the cash on hand to fund the game itself (which is one of the things obviously that publishers do). The developers were left with no choice--attempt to fund it on their own, or go to the big publishers, and be forced into the incredibly restrictive and very heavily publisher favored agreements that are industry standard.
Having additional financial resources lets us fund good games. We can now offer up not only amazingly beneficial (to the developers) publishing contracts, but we can also fund your game--giving Indys much more choice when it comes to getting their games completed. That's nothing but a good thing guys, and something we at GG have dreamed of since the days of the entire company sitting around two tables at the local pub drinking beer after work.
09/19/2007 (7:43 am)
More data coming in the future, but it's important to understand that InstantAction.com is being described in follow on articles and interviews as a "console, without the hardware", and that's an important thing to listen to. I can't go into any more detail right now, but that's already being said by Josh in his blog and follow on interviews, so it's important to highlight. Also remember (and this touches on some of Derek's comments above as well) that the very biggest reason we elected to take on a partner is that GG was founded on a "3 pillar" strategy--technology, publishing, and making games. Most of the GG Community has only ever been aware of the technology so they focus on that--but publishing and making games has always been extremely important to us, and this new organization allows us to work on all 3 of the pillars of our strategy instead of just the first.
I also want to get a bit back on track, and highlight another area of discussion that this new organization allows us to leverage: the concept of funding indies to complete their games.
In the past, when we got a game submission that was an excellent prototype but needed production work, there simply wasn't anything we could do--we didn't have the resources internally, nor the cash on hand to fund the game itself (which is one of the things obviously that publishers do). The developers were left with no choice--attempt to fund it on their own, or go to the big publishers, and be forced into the incredibly restrictive and very heavily publisher favored agreements that are industry standard.
Having additional financial resources lets us fund good games. We can now offer up not only amazingly beneficial (to the developers) publishing contracts, but we can also fund your game--giving Indys much more choice when it comes to getting their games completed. That's nothing but a good thing guys, and something we at GG have dreamed of since the days of the entire company sitting around two tables at the local pub drinking beer after work.
#72
When IAC came along, and not only had money, but wanted to empower us to fulfill the vision we had all along, it became interesting. When we (I say we, I mean Josh, the founders, and other internal interested parties of GG) continued the due diligence process, it became more and more interesting.
It's very important to note as well: InstantAction.com as an idea came from GG--it's not something forced down upon us by a "big bad mainstream company". Read the releases carefully--Josh presented the idea to IAC, not the other way around.
09/19/2007 (7:48 am)
@Gareth: no, we were not in financial trouble. From the very beginning, we've been a boot strap company. We've never needed money--and in fact, we didn't go out looking for investors--we've been beating them off with sticks for years.When IAC came along, and not only had money, but wanted to empower us to fulfill the vision we had all along, it became interesting. When we (I say we, I mean Josh, the founders, and other internal interested parties of GG) continued the due diligence process, it became more and more interesting.
It's very important to note as well: InstantAction.com as an idea came from GG--it's not something forced down upon us by a "big bad mainstream company". Read the releases carefully--Josh presented the idea to IAC, not the other way around.
#73
Edited: was awfully written - yes, worst than that. Sorry. 8/
09/19/2007 (7:53 am)
@Stephen: in some way, should we consider IAC is mainly interested in the huge advertising that will bring a successful challenge in a venture like the one GG is heading to?Edited: was awfully written - yes, worst than that. Sorry. 8/
#74
Since we've said that we can't give any deal info, or business strategy plans other than very broad concept statements--treat it as an exercise: where do you think that GG and IAC could provide return on investment given the broad vision statements we've made publicly, but still maintain the values and goals of GG as a company (that last because we keep saying that it's important to us to do that).
I ask that you keep it optimistic, if only because we keep saying again and again that this was a positive choice we made to allow us to accomplish our plans that we did not have the resources to accomplish before. Of course, if you simply don't agree with that statement and feel this is a "money grab", we're not going to convince you with words, so all I can ask is that you wait and see what our actions prove in the coming months.
09/19/2007 (8:03 am)
I can't speak for either GG or IAC on that one Stephan, but Derek (and others) are right in that companies don't (normally--we did of course for many years) participate in "altruistic visions" that don't have a return on investment--they of course, as smart business people, think that there is a return on investment out there, and it's a reasonably attainable and worthy one.Since we've said that we can't give any deal info, or business strategy plans other than very broad concept statements--treat it as an exercise: where do you think that GG and IAC could provide return on investment given the broad vision statements we've made publicly, but still maintain the values and goals of GG as a company (that last because we keep saying that it's important to us to do that).
I ask that you keep it optimistic, if only because we keep saying again and again that this was a positive choice we made to allow us to accomplish our plans that we did not have the resources to accomplish before. Of course, if you simply don't agree with that statement and feel this is a "money grab", we're not going to convince you with words, so all I can ask is that you wait and see what our actions prove in the coming months.
#75
Yes, its all pretty good on paper. Especially when there's money in the bank, now. But the reality is that the business of game publishing is by far a different beast. No matter how favorable the terms, once you put on the publisher hat, all bets are off.
...then there was GodGames. Sold out to Take2. The primaries took their ball and their money and walked. Mike and his band of merry men are back - with someone else's money - as Game Cock. And so it goes. Thats the reality of the industry we're in.
Then there's that whole indie notion, which, believe it or not, most people associate with sub-par quality and/or homegrown games if they don't see it in the mainstream. i.e. on retail shelves or on popular DD sites (e.g. GameTap, TryGames, Direct2Drive, Steam etc). So, if GG is now going to finally realize the third prong in their business plan fork, that sounds like just another gaming portal. Do we even need another one? My guess is, no, we don't. Will it succeed on its own? Probably not. Why? for the same reasons that GG didn't succeed financially to begin with.
So, anyway, how is game publishing going to change that, other than GG getting to recoup their investment (if they in fact invested in a property that actually recouped its costs) and possibly make a little bit of money? I just don't see it.
Then you have the question of what kind of games are going to make it past the submission stage? Seeing that we're talking browser based games (this is the part where a Red flag should be blowing, right about now), my guess is, not many. Assuming of course the publishing arm is only going to be considering games which fit in with the IAC vision: browser based games.
That whole console without the hardware monicker is a rather impressive pipe dream if you ask me. Many in the PC gaming business have attempted it and spectacularly failed. And it wasn't from lack of funding, ideas, technology or whatnot.
If this were my deal, I wouldn't even - not for a minute - considered Instant Action as a separate entity. Instead, I'd push to keep the MUCH STRONGER AND RECOGNIZED Garage Games brand, and hook in another (Instant Action in this case) entity within that portal. Not only would this have derived more bang for the collective buck, but it also ensured the longevity and the synergy (GG + IA) of the GG name. *sigh*
I really hope it works out, but my guess is that TGEA development - especially the XB360 port - are going to be casualties in the long run if the GG + IAC plan aren't in synch.
09/19/2007 (8:07 am)
Quote:Having additional financial resources lets us fund good games. We can now offer up not only amazingly beneficial (to the developers) publishing contracts, but we can also fund your game--giving Indys much more choice when it comes to getting their games completed. That's nothing but a good thing guys, and something we at GG have dreamed of since the days of the entire company sitting around two tables at the local pub drinking beer after work.
Yes, its all pretty good on paper. Especially when there's money in the bank, now. But the reality is that the business of game publishing is by far a different beast. No matter how favorable the terms, once you put on the publisher hat, all bets are off.
...then there was GodGames. Sold out to Take2. The primaries took their ball and their money and walked. Mike and his band of merry men are back - with someone else's money - as Game Cock. And so it goes. Thats the reality of the industry we're in.
Then there's that whole indie notion, which, believe it or not, most people associate with sub-par quality and/or homegrown games if they don't see it in the mainstream. i.e. on retail shelves or on popular DD sites (e.g. GameTap, TryGames, Direct2Drive, Steam etc). So, if GG is now going to finally realize the third prong in their business plan fork, that sounds like just another gaming portal. Do we even need another one? My guess is, no, we don't. Will it succeed on its own? Probably not. Why? for the same reasons that GG didn't succeed financially to begin with.
So, anyway, how is game publishing going to change that, other than GG getting to recoup their investment (if they in fact invested in a property that actually recouped its costs) and possibly make a little bit of money? I just don't see it.
Then you have the question of what kind of games are going to make it past the submission stage? Seeing that we're talking browser based games (this is the part where a Red flag should be blowing, right about now), my guess is, not many. Assuming of course the publishing arm is only going to be considering games which fit in with the IAC vision: browser based games.
That whole console without the hardware monicker is a rather impressive pipe dream if you ask me. Many in the PC gaming business have attempted it and spectacularly failed. And it wasn't from lack of funding, ideas, technology or whatnot.
If this were my deal, I wouldn't even - not for a minute - considered Instant Action as a separate entity. Instead, I'd push to keep the MUCH STRONGER AND RECOGNIZED Garage Games brand, and hook in another (Instant Action in this case) entity within that portal. Not only would this have derived more bang for the collective buck, but it also ensured the longevity and the synergy (GG + IA) of the GG name. *sigh*
I really hope it works out, but my guess is that TGEA development - especially the XB360 port - are going to be casualties in the long run if the GG + IAC plan aren't in synch.
#76
--in one of your posts above, you implied that us waiting to announce the deal until now was a negative thing
--in your post above, you imply that "console without the hardware monicker is a rather impressive pipe dream if you ask me"
--Josh has stated that one of the reasons we delayed the announcement so long was so that InstantAction.com wasn't treated as vaporware.
--we're accepting beta requests for IA.com.
09/19/2007 (8:17 am)
Derek: I've really stretched too far into what I shouldn't be saying anyway, but there is a post synergy here that I just can't avoid commenting on:--in one of your posts above, you implied that us waiting to announce the deal until now was a negative thing
--in your post above, you imply that "console without the hardware monicker is a rather impressive pipe dream if you ask me"
--Josh has stated that one of the reasons we delayed the announcement so long was so that InstantAction.com wasn't treated as vaporware.
--we're accepting beta requests for IA.com.
#77
09/19/2007 (8:24 am)
I think the IA aspect of this will be a very big plus; one that will give us new avenues to persue. If submitting your email is applying, then I've applied lol. I think some people are just alittle concerned that TGEA and even TGE might be effectively "kicked to the curb" with few if any fixes/improvements happening. The way I read the blog, quite the opposite is said to be in the works, but I think this is on peoples minds. 
#78
Pardon my ignorance, but what is IA.com and what would be beta'd?
09/19/2007 (8:24 am)
"--we're accepting beta requests for IA.com."Pardon my ignorance, but what is IA.com and what would be beta'd?
#79
@ Derek : The GG brand is known for a specific thing, game dev etc. A new brand with a clean slate could penetrate to markets that would dismiss a gg related thing based on existing preconceptions of what the site is about.
Also, while I did indicate worry over browser based games, dreamlords looked really cool/deep and had a browser component, I dare to hope games like that might fit in the model.
Oh, and "gg didn't succeed financially"? Huh?
09/19/2007 (8:27 am)
Thanks Stephen, thats what I thought. Ok, I'll have some faith and see how this turns out.@ Derek : The GG brand is known for a specific thing, game dev etc. A new brand with a clean slate could penetrate to markets that would dismiss a gg related thing based on existing preconceptions of what the site is about.
Also, while I did indicate worry over browser based games, dreamlords looked really cool/deep and had a browser component, I dare to hope games like that might fit in the model.
Oh, and "gg didn't succeed financially"? Huh?
#80
TGB 1.5 - July 10, 2007
TGE 1.5.2 - May 15, 2007
TGE 1.5.1 - April 5, 2007
TGEA 1.0.3 - Aug 31, 2007
TGEA 1.0.2 - Aug 10, 2007
TGEA 1.0.1 - April 3, 2007
Torque for Wii Announced - July 16, 2007
Torque X 1.0 (Builder, Pro, Platformer SK) - June 20, 2007
Torque X 3D - in production and shown at Gamefest, PAX, Austin GDC - more info here
09/19/2007 (8:31 am)
I can say this: there are more people now who's only job is engine/tools technology development (and that's not including IA work) than there have been in the history of GG. To caveat that, historically GG employees worked as fluid teams that moved from project to project, based on short and mid term goals, which means that we rarely had employees slated to "only work on engine development". However, the intent behind my message here is that we are most certainly not dropping engine technology development for everything else--in fact, we've made more point releases and updates to all our engines in the last 6 months than ever before:TGB 1.5 - July 10, 2007
TGE 1.5.2 - May 15, 2007
TGE 1.5.1 - April 5, 2007
TGEA 1.0.3 - Aug 31, 2007
TGEA 1.0.2 - Aug 10, 2007
TGEA 1.0.1 - April 3, 2007
Torque for Wii Announced - July 16, 2007
Torque X 1.0 (Builder, Pro, Platformer SK) - June 20, 2007
Torque X 3D - in production and shown at Gamefest, PAX, Austin GDC - more info here
Torque 3D Owner Eric Forhan