What a grand solar empire Stardock and Ironlore have built!

Ah yeah poor freelancer.

Microsoft is better than Sony and EA though at least.

True, but I hate how Microsoft always brings the hammer down on good games.

Ironlore != Ironclad

Yes, that Microsoft Flight simulator really sucks now that they've had ten tries at improving it.

Mechwarrior was a real stinker too. I could never understand why anyone would want to use complicated game controls to fire lasers from a giant robot.

Close Combat? Phew! Too many army men to manage at one time. Why can't there be more games like where you just have one guy and he like fights off the entire German army, and he never even has to reload?

Actually, those are about the only three games that I can think of offhand that Microsoft did well with... I guess you could include Train Simulator... the new TS2 seems like it will rock. There's also Space Simulator, but really, you can get the super-excellent freeware "Orbiter" and do all that stuff in a more modern game.

Oh, yeah, and there's that one game with the Master Chief...

For a big studio, Microsoft Games is actually quite good.

What we now don't want is one of these biggin's to buy Stardock though.

Iron Lore died. Dawn of War: Soulstorm is their tombstone. RIP Iron Lore.

ROFL, yeah i noticed from the topic title, and made me anxious to see the offical response.

I was questioning that...lol

Ironclad has done an amazing job on Sins. What's really spectacular is they had a hit on their first try.

Nobody is buying Stardock any time soon. We're having too much fun.

Think about all the "too much fun" you could have with the dozens of millions EA or Microsoft could pour into your personal bank account.

 

I'm sorry, but i feel the need to point these things out...



The good ones werent published by microsoft, only 3+4 were and 3 was Terrible.



same here Halo was and is a Terrible game, and a shadow of what it could and should have been.

Additionally if you were wanting a list of good games published by microsoft you forgot the Age of Empires series and Rise of Nations

MW4: Mercs was actually a pretty decent attempt to get back to the old roots, I enjoyed it. I still remember playing MW1, flying around different planets and negotiating contracts.

I so miss the MW games, and the MCs It would be so amazing to see a well-done MechWarrior or MechCommander game with the modern game engines!

Gotta say, Sins is the first REAL RTS I have seen in a LONG time. DoW was great. For the first and second one. The third and forth ones went downhill. Company of Heroes was nice but felt too similar to Dawn of War for me to consider it a "New RTS".

Sins I simply adore, because it implements the old idea of resource harvest (RAWR GOLD MINES!), but also that you need to hold multiple territories (and harvest their resources!) to have a stable economy.

Its also been too long since I've seen a "Diplomacy" tab, and the little AI comments...

Ironclad I love you!

You have gone above and beyond the standard set in today’s game development you not only crated a game the community, but also engaged us to find out were you could improve it were you went right and were you went wrong and how to change it
from the forums to the game nights you exemplified what true customer relations should be.

All this while taking a stand on copy protection
Never have I had in my life of 26 years such admiration and respect for a development company ubisoft Bethesda and many more should LEARN from the example you have set

May your company’s grow and flourish we need more people like yourselves in this world

Hi I read this post when I first bought the game and on first look at the game I wasnt sure but after spending some time reading and watching some epic battles as well as playing a few games I love the game as well. I love the game pace because while a battle is raging in one sector , if I have the correct ships built to tank I can mount a counter attack. I also like how you arent treating your userbase like criminals, with stupid protection schemes that dont work only damage a system. Fact is and maybe I shouldnt mention this but although I could have downloaded gciv 2 I didnt because I think companies who arent stupid and realise a good game will sell anyway because it has content and replay value deserve their money.(that and the fact its highly illeagal but primary reason is main reason and a good game will sell regardless) I think the same applies with sins and will be reccomending the game to my friends.(To buy obviously, they havent heard of the game until I showed them it on gametrailers yesterday )

Thus far I havent needed tech support but have browsed the tech support forums. Heres the thing if anyone involved with sins is reading this then this is an immportant part to take from my post. I really like the fact on some of your stickies you say "If you have these exact symptoms .....

I don't know about Freelancer, but in the case of Fable, I'd say Peter Molyneux deserves the blame for that. Ever since the Black & White fiasco, he has earned himself a reputation for over-promising and under-delivering.

Is that how you think it works? Rather, large companies have this nasty habit of bleeding their acquisitions dry and then quietly closing their doors a year or two later.

Totally. And I'm going to be burned by Molyneux again when Fable 2 comes out, I'm sure.

I remember how excited I was when Bungie was developing this new, Mac-only game that had everybody buzzing. Then poof, Microsoft buys them up and I had to go buy an Xbox. Sheesh!

Did I correctly hear a rumor that Bungie was going to break away from Microsoft?

They did a while ago

Ugh! It had to be a GameSpot link... I used to work for CNET Networks and have vowed to never go to any of their sites. But for you, Annatar, I'll make an exception...

Oh cool. So it is true. Interesting.

Sorry, it was the only place I remembered seeing the news story

My post was meant as humour, in reply to Stardock CEO Frogboy's affirmation that his company was not for sale. I was implying, with a not too serious irony, that if EA or Microsoft made them "an offer they couldn't refuse", he and his business associates would sell Stardock for lots of millions that they could put in their personal bank accounts (which is always the privilege, in our capitalistic system, of entrepreneurs and owners).

But I will respect your reply and take it seriously. Allow me to pick up the ball where you left it.

Suppose a company, such as Stardock, has reached a level of success where it generates a lot of revenues and profits, and disposes of high-quality corporate resources. Suppose that a large corporation, such as Microsoft or EA, buys it for many millions of dollars.

I then do not quite understand what you are implying. Why would a corporation pay a small fortune to acquire a very successful company, and then run it into the ground ?

I would accept your argument when it is the case of a relatively small "development studio" : as you are implying, there are some examples of that having happened.

But Stardock is way beyond that modest level. If Microsoft or EA would acquire it, it would cost a lot of millions, and it would not then be in the larger corporation's interest to "bleed it dry". The latter would have to at least recoup its big investment, and if the acquired company is very successful, it would be better to let it continue to do what it does best, to generate even more profits.

CyberMage, EA has made an art form out of acquiring successful smaller endeavours (and let's face it, StarDock and IronClad are still "small" by comparison) and then imposing their management structure and process to deliver projects that their research indicates will be the most profitable.

Creativity requires a huge amount of room to realize. IronClad has already said that there's no room in their company for 'administrators', and that's the kind of thing that an acquisition by a large company like EA would impose. So the structure and rigorous enforcement that a larger company by its very nature demands, because they have such a broad territory to manage, is poison to the flexibility and nimbleness that makes companies like IronClad and StarDock be successful.

It's sad to acknowledge, but from a purely financial perspective, the intellectual property or license that comes with the company is often worth more than its people.

As an example, think about the number of people that would just up and buy MechWarrior 5 sight-unseen. But none of those people care whether or not it's the same team that built the previous games.

-- Retro

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree with the way you describe the situation. Stated that way, it is credible to suppose that EA could extract a lot of profits from Stardock if it acquired that company, but at the horrendous cost of diminishing Creativity. I agree with you.

Also, one can suppose that EA would not tolerate Stardock's current policy of not having copy-protection and security disk-checks.

Fun fact since the discussion took a turn towards it: Blair and co actually left EA to start up Ironclad because they didn't like the EA corporate structure