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!
#162
If its Java, we can all go home cuz InstantAction can very well be declared DOA
C#. Unlikely. That would be like telling GG devs to, well, re-invent the wheel and actually *gasp* think outside the box and _abandon_ TorqueScript.
My guess is that it would probably end up being a mish-mash of Web 2.0 components with a client/server side interface driver piggybacked on a DRM layer. In other words, not that much different from, say, WildTangent or even Real's offering.
Like I said, if anything _innovative_ comes out of this IA thingie, I'd be shocked as shit.
...anyway, we've got less than ten days to Austin. So lets keep the speculation alive and see who was closest to the truth.
09/26/2007 (5:49 pm)
Quote:Anyone have any clue what technology InstantAction is based on (Java, C#, etc.)?
If its Java, we can all go home cuz InstantAction can very well be declared DOA
C#. Unlikely. That would be like telling GG devs to, well, re-invent the wheel and actually *gasp* think outside the box and _abandon_ TorqueScript.
My guess is that it would probably end up being a mish-mash of Web 2.0 components with a client/server side interface driver piggybacked on a DRM layer. In other words, not that much different from, say, WildTangent or even Real's offering.
Like I said, if anything _innovative_ comes out of this IA thingie, I'd be shocked as shit.
...anyway, we've got less than ten days to Austin. So lets keep the speculation alive and see who was closest to the truth.
#163
Check out jmonkeyengine.com and lwjgl.org to see how Java delivered from a browser can compete in this area. Check out the demos. This is fully cross-platform, unlike C# which is windows only.
09/26/2007 (10:20 pm)
Well, I have to take exception to Derek's dis of Java! He seems to like C#, but not Java. C# is nothing more than Microsoft's version of Java. You might think MS fixed some of Java's problems with C# or you might not. However, C# is no more efficient than Java and performs equally as bad in performance tests. The only thing that makes C# useful on Windows is .NET libraries written in C++. Check out jmonkeyengine.com and lwjgl.org to see how Java delivered from a browser can compete in this area. Check out the demos. This is fully cross-platform, unlike C# which is windows only.
#164
It's a smart move on GG's part.
09/27/2007 (1:30 am)
It's easy to see exactly where this is headed....read the following article and perhaps you will understand more clearly: tech.msn.com/products/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1096636>1=10438It's a smart move on GG's part.
#165
It is the players that played game like Tribes 1&2, quake series and Unreal series that have made the game industry what it is. Not bejeweled and tetris. Please don't abandon this for the quick cash making the browser based man hour wasters.
Man I feel sick, God I hope that I'm proven soooo wrong on this.
09/27/2007 (6:54 am)
Am I the only one that get the impression that the future for GG is going to crappy 2D and puzzle games? Thing like bejewled and tetris and 2D platformer type stuff. God I hope that I'm wrong on this. But I have a bad feeling that TGEA will start loosing more an more focus as it seems that the new is web browers game that people can play in the cubicle at work.It is the players that played game like Tribes 1&2, quake series and Unreal series that have made the game industry what it is. Not bejeweled and tetris. Please don't abandon this for the quick cash making the browser based man hour wasters.
Man I feel sick, God I hope that I'm proven soooo wrong on this.
#166
A quote from an interview with Josh located here
09/27/2007 (7:48 am)
Quote:Am I the only one that get the impression that the future for GG is going to crappy 2D and puzzle games? Thing like bejewled and tetris and 2D platformer type stuff. God I hope that I'm wrong on this.
A quote from an interview with Josh located here
Quote:we're obviously not building Flash-like toy games here, or casual puzzles and bubble-poppers. We're talking FPSs, strategy, and the like. We hope to break out with some new kinds of games too, and that's why we're so excited to be working with a bunch of creative external teams.
#167
Actually, I wasn't knocking Java though. I merely pointing out that you'd be hard pressed to think that anyone would want to spend upwards of $50m on cutting edge browser based games, based on Java. If this IAC initiative was just Java gaming in different clothing....., well, thats my point.
As to C# vs Java, well, I can program in both, but obviously C# is far more intuitive, faster (!) and has more tool based support (especially for gaming) than Java. If I had a choice between Java and C# for a serious game, it is highly unlikely that I'd even think twice because, at least for me (and anyone who can actually program in both and knows the pros and cons of each), C# is a no-brainer.
If I got a dollar for every great idea (based on wanton acts of speculation and forward thinking) I read about - especially those coming out of Redmond - I'd be rich.
Fact is, there is no way to determine what the future will hold when the threshold of [gaming] technology - as it currently stands - teters on the threshold of staleness. e.g. graphics technologies: at this point, there isn't anything a level 1 graphics engineer can't do in a high-end graphics engine. The competitiveness no longer lies in the implementation - nor the presentation for that matter - but in the delivery and the end result. e.g. everyone and their mother-in-law has stuff like HDR, tone mapping etc, but stick them in a bad game, nobody will notice the awesome technology therein. But they'll notice _and_ remember a rubbish game.
...and until whatever GG/IAC dream up is released and proven to be a viable and financially sound venture, you simply cannot say that it was a smart move on their part. At the end of the day, its up to the finicky medium (aka gamers) to make that call.
No. We're just probably a few who actually give a toss, long enough to actually write (and risk getting banned for going too far left) about it. :)
Well, thats the gist of it and what I've been writing about all along. WHO is the target market? Its certainly NOT the hard core gamers who actually buy the high-end games. They'll just LOL and move on.
Fact is, any such high-end game such as FPS, RTS and like (according to Josh) is going to attract attention regardless. At the end of the day, REGARDLESS of how the game is delivered (browser based, boxed, ESD etc), if its a crap game, its just a crap game running on a different delivery medium.
And given that - unless you're out looking to LOSE money - the top end game devs are not going to be talking to GG/IAC for nickel and diming (let me see how they're going to fork out upwards of $2m on a PC game and not cringe) concept, my guess is that, again, IAC/GG will be attracting the lower tier devs who think they're going to get a better deal, support, recognition etc by going to GG. Look no further than GG in its current incarnation.
e.g. if I were to submit a game and I asked for $2m without blinking and someone starts to stutter and/or blink rapidly, I'm gone. I'm notorious for my negotiating skills. I have zero patience for time wasting ventures; and never - ever - ask for dev money. So when I say that, in six to eight months, you'll have a working Beta and I want a $2m spread from delivery to two qtrs post-delivery, I'm dead serious. You only get into these foolish and time wasting negotiations when you (a) need the money to start and/or complete your project (b) allow the publisher to manipulate you.
Most frontline (aka published) developers already know the rules of the game, have experience with dealings and whatnot. As such, it is highly unlikely that they're going to commit their IP to an unproven delivery medium, without some serious coin changing hands. And even then, there are no guarantees that you'd even make money because a name no longer guarantees a game sale. Go ask all those big names who have come and gone and they'll tell you all about that.
And from my sources, this $50m being bandied around did not go to GG in its entirety. It is the IAC cost of this new business venture. For all we know - and given that IAC got a majority stake in a vastly unproven technology - GG probably got, oh, maybe less than $5m with the rest being IAC controlled and for content acquisition. Any investor who knows how to market cap a company, will take one look at GG and its existing technology and know - right off the bat - that even at something like $5m, you'd be paying too much.
@ Mathew
Yeah, I'm sure we're all going to be paying very close attention to those statements in the coming months.
...and in case you (and everyone else) missed the bus on this one: rewind back to the beginning of GG and read the statements back then. Then come back and take a look at the crop of Torque games which have come out since then.
09/27/2007 (8:55 am)
Quote:Well, I have to take exception to Derek's dis of Java! He seems to like C#, but not Java. C# is nothing more than Microsoft's version of Java. You might think MS fixed some of Java's problems with C# or you might not. However, C# is no more efficient than Java and performs equally as bad in performance tests. The only thing that makes C# useful on Windows is .NET libraries written in C++.
Actually, I wasn't knocking Java though. I merely pointing out that you'd be hard pressed to think that anyone would want to spend upwards of $50m on cutting edge browser based games, based on Java. If this IAC initiative was just Java gaming in different clothing....., well, thats my point.
As to C# vs Java, well, I can program in both, but obviously C# is far more intuitive, faster (!) and has more tool based support (especially for gaming) than Java. If I had a choice between Java and C# for a serious game, it is highly unlikely that I'd even think twice because, at least for me (and anyone who can actually program in both and knows the pros and cons of each), C# is a no-brainer.
Quote:t's easy to see exactly where this is headed....read the following article and perhaps you will understand more clearly: tech.msn.com/products/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1096636>1=10438
It's a smart move on GG's part.
If I got a dollar for every great idea (based on wanton acts of speculation and forward thinking) I read about - especially those coming out of Redmond - I'd be rich.
Fact is, there is no way to determine what the future will hold when the threshold of [gaming] technology - as it currently stands - teters on the threshold of staleness. e.g. graphics technologies: at this point, there isn't anything a level 1 graphics engineer can't do in a high-end graphics engine. The competitiveness no longer lies in the implementation - nor the presentation for that matter - but in the delivery and the end result. e.g. everyone and their mother-in-law has stuff like HDR, tone mapping etc, but stick them in a bad game, nobody will notice the awesome technology therein. But they'll notice _and_ remember a rubbish game.
...and until whatever GG/IAC dream up is released and proven to be a viable and financially sound venture, you simply cannot say that it was a smart move on their part. At the end of the day, its up to the finicky medium (aka gamers) to make that call.
Quote:Am I the only one that get the impression that the future for GG is going to crappy 2D and puzzle games?
No. We're just probably a few who actually give a toss, long enough to actually write (and risk getting banned for going too far left) about it. :)
Quote:Thing like bejewled and tetris and 2D platformer type stuff. God I hope that I'm wrong on this. But I have a bad feeling that TGEA will start loosing more an more focus as it seems that the new is web browers game that people can play in the cubicle at work.
Well, thats the gist of it and what I've been writing about all along. WHO is the target market? Its certainly NOT the hard core gamers who actually buy the high-end games. They'll just LOL and move on.
Fact is, any such high-end game such as FPS, RTS and like (according to Josh) is going to attract attention regardless. At the end of the day, REGARDLESS of how the game is delivered (browser based, boxed, ESD etc), if its a crap game, its just a crap game running on a different delivery medium.
And given that - unless you're out looking to LOSE money - the top end game devs are not going to be talking to GG/IAC for nickel and diming (let me see how they're going to fork out upwards of $2m on a PC game and not cringe) concept, my guess is that, again, IAC/GG will be attracting the lower tier devs who think they're going to get a better deal, support, recognition etc by going to GG. Look no further than GG in its current incarnation.
e.g. if I were to submit a game and I asked for $2m without blinking and someone starts to stutter and/or blink rapidly, I'm gone. I'm notorious for my negotiating skills. I have zero patience for time wasting ventures; and never - ever - ask for dev money. So when I say that, in six to eight months, you'll have a working Beta and I want a $2m spread from delivery to two qtrs post-delivery, I'm dead serious. You only get into these foolish and time wasting negotiations when you (a) need the money to start and/or complete your project (b) allow the publisher to manipulate you.
Most frontline (aka published) developers already know the rules of the game, have experience with dealings and whatnot. As such, it is highly unlikely that they're going to commit their IP to an unproven delivery medium, without some serious coin changing hands. And even then, there are no guarantees that you'd even make money because a name no longer guarantees a game sale. Go ask all those big names who have come and gone and they'll tell you all about that.
And from my sources, this $50m being bandied around did not go to GG in its entirety. It is the IAC cost of this new business venture. For all we know - and given that IAC got a majority stake in a vastly unproven technology - GG probably got, oh, maybe less than $5m with the rest being IAC controlled and for content acquisition. Any investor who knows how to market cap a company, will take one look at GG and its existing technology and know - right off the bat - that even at something like $5m, you'd be paying too much.
@ Mathew
Yeah, I'm sure we're all going to be paying very close attention to those statements in the coming months.
...and in case you (and everyone else) missed the bus on this one: rewind back to the beginning of GG and read the statements back then. Then come back and take a look at the crop of Torque games which have come out since then.
#168
Based on currently GG published games they already are doing what you state. But that would only be a fraction of the games made using GG tech. We really have no way of knowing just how many GG powered games there are out there unless the developers make it a point to state so. The only reason to advertise the fact that you are using GG tech is because you believe it will help sales. Well unless your a hobbyist there really is no reason to believe that it will increase your bottom line by pushing that fact.
Also I don't particularly like the game industry, so I fail to see how abandoning Quake players means a whole lot of anything. Thats just one segment of a rather huge market that will diversify and grow as time goes on.
In the end, it is about money. GG is a business and as such their only concern is money. This is how a corporation works :) and only gets worse when it is a public corporation because then it's not only money but stock value real of imagined.
Anyway, like others I see this deal as bad for various reasons, but I hope it works out and I can see that the idea of web based games can. It's not always about current markets, sometimes it is about creating markets. Just that the latter is very difficult to do.
09/27/2007 (1:59 pm)
Quote:Am I the only one that get the impression that the future for GG is going to crappy 2D and puzzle games? Thing like bejewled and tetris and 2D platformer type stuff. God I hope that I'm wrong on this. But I have a bad feeling that TGEA will start loosing more an more focus as it seems that the new is web browers game that people can play in the cubicle at work.
It is the players that played game like Tribes 1&2, quake series and Unreal series that have made the game industry what it is. Not bejeweled and tetris. Please don't abandon this for the quick cash making the browser based man hour wasters.
Man I feel sick, God I hope that I'm proven soooo wrong on this.
Based on currently GG published games they already are doing what you state. But that would only be a fraction of the games made using GG tech. We really have no way of knowing just how many GG powered games there are out there unless the developers make it a point to state so. The only reason to advertise the fact that you are using GG tech is because you believe it will help sales. Well unless your a hobbyist there really is no reason to believe that it will increase your bottom line by pushing that fact.
Also I don't particularly like the game industry, so I fail to see how abandoning Quake players means a whole lot of anything. Thats just one segment of a rather huge market that will diversify and grow as time goes on.
In the end, it is about money. GG is a business and as such their only concern is money. This is how a corporation works :) and only gets worse when it is a public corporation because then it's not only money but stock value real of imagined.
Anyway, like others I see this deal as bad for various reasons, but I hope it works out and I can see that the idea of web based games can. It's not always about current markets, sometimes it is about creating markets. Just that the latter is very difficult to do.
#169
He was kinda talking about FPS genre when he mentioned those games, not just Quake (Quake hasn't been the 'in' thing since like 1999) players. I am no expert but that's a REALLY huge market (+ majority on PC).
09/27/2007 (3:54 pm)
Quote:Also I don't particularly like the game industry, so I fail to see how abandoning Quake players means a whole lot of anything. Thats just one segment of a rather huge market that will diversify and grow as time goes on.
He was kinda talking about FPS genre when he mentioned those games, not just Quake (Quake hasn't been the 'in' thing since like 1999) players. I am no expert but that's a REALLY huge market (+ majority on PC).
#171
We all knew that eventually GG would sell out. We all have our price. The question is what happens to the middleware they produce when it all goes pear shaped. We have seen Renderware disappear after their purchase by EA even internally so in a way it is better that this happens sooner rather than later.
I hope/guess that GG will have negotiated some kind of protection for the source code and tools in the event of IA.com selling them or GG going bust. This announcement (mooted for IGC) will allow us to keep believe in working with the engines without seeing them disappear and to a certain extent all the Execs of GG another shot in case the whole IAC thing goes wrong.
I can see no reason with IAC would have objected to this as this is not core to their vision.
10/06/2007 (2:46 pm)
I am a bit late to the party on this, but if anyone is left. We all knew that eventually GG would sell out. We all have our price. The question is what happens to the middleware they produce when it all goes pear shaped. We have seen Renderware disappear after their purchase by EA even internally so in a way it is better that this happens sooner rather than later.
I hope/guess that GG will have negotiated some kind of protection for the source code and tools in the event of IA.com selling them or GG going bust. This announcement (mooted for IGC) will allow us to keep believe in working with the engines without seeing them disappear and to a certain extent all the Execs of GG another shot in case the whole IAC thing goes wrong.
I can see no reason with IAC would have objected to this as this is not core to their vision.
#172
The only thing that is worrying many people is what will be happening with the further advancements and much needed bugfixes in the engine.
10/09/2007 (8:45 am)
Well, I don't think there is anywhere mentioned in the license that you don't own it anymore when GG ceases to exist. What you have, you hold in my opinion. The only thing that is worrying many people is what will be happening with the further advancements and much needed bugfixes in the engine.
#173
10/09/2007 (10:33 pm)
From what I understand the funding they are getting is for upgrading and working on all their previous products as well as the future of the AIC endeavor. It doesn't have to go wrong, and from what I understand they both had any number of Lawyers working for them.
#174
10/10/2007 (2:23 am)
It is not that things will go wrong GarageGames could be as successful as they could possibly imagine but IAC's priorities will change and may no longer have any interest in their future. As to Lawyers they can cause more problems than they fix.
#175
It is not news that makes me jump for joy, but I don't think it is the end of the world, either.
10/30/2007 (11:09 am)
An investment group giving some backing is not the same as being bought out by Adobe or Microsoft, companies that often buy small companies out with a mind to closing them or to raiding intellectual assets.It is not news that makes me jump for joy, but I don't think it is the end of the world, either.
#176
I'm happy with TGB and I've been working with it for some time. It's grown by leaps and bounds to reach 1.5.1. I'd keep using it, even if they abandoned it tomorrow (I'd buy a license to the source first though).
11/15/2007 (9:11 am)
The founders of Garage have been cautious. I'm glad they have. And, they've gone with financial backing, not a developer or tech company who wants to raid their intellectual property. If the founders stay at the helm while IAC keeps their pockets full, I'm happy to hear it.I'm happy with TGB and I've been working with it for some time. It's grown by leaps and bounds to reach 1.5.1. I'd keep using it, even if they abandoned it tomorrow (I'd buy a license to the source first though).
Torque Owner James Brad Barnette
3Dmotif LLC
"however", when a company take a Majority stake. that means you maybe calling the shots for now but that can very quickliy change at anytime the majority holder see fit.
New documentation??? looks like the same old stuff all you did was put links to it on the front page.