|
| T O P I C | |
|
Max no longer a payne for 3D Realms
May 24th 2002, 18:09 CEST by Matt Davis Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. has Announced Max Payne 2 Is In Development, and in something of a surprise they've also purchased Max Payne's Intellectual Property Rights from Remedy Entertainment and Apogee Software for the measly sum of $10 million in cash and 969,932 shares of restricted common stock. Take-Two also announced that it has acquired ownership of the Max Payne brand and all intellectual property rights associated with the brand, including trademarks, copyrights, characters, perpetual license to utilize proprietary technologies, including the Max Payne game engine and associated "Bullet Time(TM)" technology, and rights to license fees from ancillary Max Payne brand extensions such as cinema, television and literary productions. You can see the full statement here So is this some pocket money for George and Scott? Does this to allow DNF to stay in development for longer? or did Apogee decide that theres room for only one virtual ego in the office? |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Max no longer a payne for 3D Realms
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
Matthew IP's are worth gold, yet idea men are worthless. This sentence has been bothering me because I almost wanted to agree with it. Then I realized why I couldn't. Idea < Intellectual Property Ideas are the foundation of IP, but without any work done. Once the idea starts to become actualized, it grows from an idea to IP. But without that work, it's worth is little. It's like ferrous rock. It's not worth much, but once you refine the iron out of it, then you have something of value. Funk. |
|
wizard How can you not understand the hate directed towards 3DR and this IP? It has the three main factors it takes for internet hate bandwagon to start up. So it has nothing to do with babies and balsamic vinagrette dressing? I'm so very disappointed. Funk. |
|
IP = 1% idea man + 99% hard work. |
|
#30 Max, I'm sorry to hear I've fallen short of my goal where 3DR is concerned. Oh wait. Perhaps it's referring to Max Diablos? Did he come to PC from 3DR or something? What the hell is that about? As for the "Max Payne" deal I thought the best thing for Remedy to do after Max Payne was something else entirely. This deal gets shot of the whole thing, sets them up with some cash, and frees them to work on other things once Max Payne 2 is done and dusted. If I'd been Remedy I wouldn't have been happy sharing IP rights anyway. Take 2 must've been nuts to splash out the amount they did. I'd rather spend a fraction of that developing new IP. The world has enough copy cats and sequels. No helter skelter. No over the rainbow bad trip apocalypse. Just us and this moment now. This is how it ends.
|
|
Max Diablos: No helter skelter. No over the rainbow bad trip apocalypse. Just us and this moment now. This is how it ends. What's that from? It sounds familiar... Eradicators! - www.eradicators.co.uk
|
|
Neale, A story that appeared recently in 2000 AD. Storming Heaven (Episode 7). No helter skelter. No over the rainbow bad trip apocalypse. Just us and this moment now. This is how it ends.
|
|
yeah but Matt, I just don't think Take Two is getting shafted on this deal. They could release a box of corn flakes for the PS2, call it Max Payne, Now with Riboflavin, and make the money back. I believe I can fly......urk.
|
|
Greg, Since those two statements contradict each other, I'm gonna guess that you meant to not include the "not" in the first statement. Should have been "now". LPMiller, yeah but Matt, I just don't think Take Two is getting shafted on this deal. They could release a box of corn flakes for the PS2, call it Max Payne, Now with Riboflavin, and make the money back. Yup. Matthew just has no idea what's going on. He has little idea how successful GTA has been and how much cash it's generated. Big publishers make deals like this all the time, and buyout companies all day long. I'm sure Matthew also thought buying DMA for 15 million or so might have been a bad idea. After all, all they ever made was a little 2d scroller called Grand Theft Auto. Seems like a lot of money to pay for that. |
|
George Take Two is betting on the future with the Max Payne buyout... I guess not all of us see Max Payne as that useful of product. If the next game comes and out and is a horrible game, or even just bad, there goes the IP. *shrugs* On the other side, I assume they've seen what's planned for the next game, probably even seen part of it already running and know it's not going to be a stinker. LPMiller - "Really, I'm just a get along kinda a guy, all about the love."
|
|
Take Two is betting on the future with the Max Payne buyout... That goes without saying. Be it Doom, Half Life, Max, The Sims, whatever. If you buy and IP you are betting that you can keep it going in the future. That's just a fact. I don't see it as good or bad. If the next game comes and out and is a horrible game, or even just bad, there goes the IP. This isn't true at all. I'd argue that the truly only good Tomb Raider game was the first. Maybe the second. The 3rd-5th were shamless retreads. It didn't really hurt Tomb Raider. In reality it takes a lot more than one average, or even bad game, to kill a franchise. In fact I'd aruge that as long at there is name recognition, a franchise can always be ressurected with a good game. Like I said above, look at James Bond. Or even the Alien movie series. IMO, Alien 3 and 4 sucked hard. But would I go see Alien 5? You bet. There's the value of the franchise. |
|
Obviously I'm just speculating. I thought everyone knew that. I'm just saying what I see: a publisher paying $35 mil to own merchandising rights when games that have sold many multiples of units more than Max couldn't push a movie to profit. Yeah, they got the engine, too. It's a very nice engine. Two years from now it's worthless. Games? I'm not really sure if console gamers are clamoring for a Max sequel: the ratings from the console ports are markedly lower than the PC version. It's not too hard to imagine, given the original's shortness, that anyone who didn't get enough Bullet Time™ the first time just giving it a rental when the sequel rears its head. I'm just saying, it looks like a bad deal. There's not much to indicate that Max Payne has enough legs to be a franchise. 2.75 milllion units is good potential, I really don't think that's worth $35 mil though. But then again, I'm just an unfrozen caveman pundit. Your one-shot gimmicks frighten and confuse me. Marketing is a crutch for mediocrity and a handicap to excellence.
|
|
Generally, in situations like these, 3DR and company agree *not* to sell Take 2's stock for an agreed length of time. That length of time varies from contract to contract, but a year is typical although it can be longer. That restriction protects Take 2's stock price. Question: A year from now, which will be worth more? Take 2's stock or Max Payne's IP? I know that these stock transactions are typical in a number of contexts, but I really hate them. From atop my molehill, Max Payne is a known quantity. Max Payne 2, barring something weird happening, will be a financial hit. Take 2's stock price -- a year from now? Who knows. There are a thousand things that effect a stock's price, and Take 2 has control over only some of them, and submitting dodgy earnings doesn't help. I want to see developers get PAID in CASH and not in future promises (stock). I know, I know. They did get paid some ($10M). I'm happy for them about that. If Take 2 doesn't have the cash to pay what Max Payne is really worth, then let them sell their own stock to raise the money. |
|
_AFFECT_ damnit |
|
Speaking of the Resident Evil movie and Max Payne: Did anyone else notice that the "good" male lead (Eric Mabius, I belive) looked a whole fuck of a lot like Mr. Payne? <insert sig here>
|
|
Then he has a bright future ahead of him in the genre of crappy videogame to movie conversions. |
|
This isn't true at all. I'd argue that the truly only good Tomb Raider game was the first. Maybe the second. The 3rd-5th were shamless retreads. It didn't really hurt Tomb Raider. In reality it takes a lot more than one average, or even bad game, to kill a franchise. In fact I'd aruge that as long at there is name recognition, a franchise can always be ressurected with a good game. So one big hit, equals a very successful IP? I don't see it like that. What sold Laura? T&A and somewhat interesting/new gameplay. The later ones sold why? T&A. I'm not looking at this with market statistics in my hand, so I could be way off, but do Laura games sell now as well as they use to? No. Even T&A gets old afterwhile. If the next Max Game were to blow, which it probably won't, but if it did... the IP wouldn't be worth much. The next game you make, if it was a spetacular game, call it Max 3 or not and I don't think it would influence your sales much either way. I think the public has a short term memory... if DNF blows, you'll lose a lot of gamers that now see Duke as a game type to buy. Haven't the bad console games shown this? (wzrd doesn't have sales figures, just curious). LPMiller - "Really, I'm just a get along kinda a guy, all about the love."
|
|
a publisher paying $35 mil to own merchandising rights ... I'm just saying, it looks like a bad deal. First, the press release by Take-Two also mentions "future consideration," which puts the real value of the deal in the mid to high $40's. We weren't gonna sell this puppy for anything as low as $35 million, especially with other publishers being strongly interested. Second, it's not a bad deal for either side. Publishers absolutely need strong IP, fully under their control, to have a better guarantee on their future. Activision, for example, hates not owning Id's brands, because for each game they have to go through a big negotiation and they end up paying more and more to Id, and still not having long-term control of planning ability. Take-Two can now plan out a long term strategy for the Max brand, and exploit it in many different ways that were otherwise not available to them. For Remedy, it's a great deal because they are now entirely financially independent and one of the "big boys" in this industry. No one can push them around anymore--they can make the games they want, including future original IPs. Far too few developers enjoy this status. BTW, it's absurd to think 3DR did this for the money to keep DNF going. We only did this because it made sense for us and Remedy (and Take-Two). Truly a win-win-win deal. And, the side-effect is that other developers will realize the real value of original IP. In another forum, for example, I polled several developers and they all grossly undervalued the industry's big IPs. Most developers, it seems, have never looked at the real potential upside of developing their own IP. Watch Id become the next company to sell-off one of their three big IPs, either Quake or Wolf, I predict. And having already talked to one of Id's primary founder/owners about this, it's a very real possibility after our eye-opening deal. "A game should not be judged only on its appearance. It should be played before drawing conclusions." - Miyamoto
|
|
I totally agree, but you always sound like an infomercial, you know that? I'm not ordering your damn tapes already, put I Love Lucy back on. I believe I can fly......urk.
|
|
George Broussard, Scott Miller and co. Curious: What is the earliest date you can sell the Take 2 stock? |
|
IP sales are good news for superdevelopers like 3DR, and great news for gamers! get ready for loads of sequels, produced by people besides the original creators, under a brand that said creators didn't care enough about to hold on to in the first place! why, if there were more people with the moneymaking savvy of 3DR in this industry, it'd be a font of innovation! |
|
We need to get ip's back on PC. Not intellectual property, mind you. |
|
it's absurd to think 3DR did this for the money to keep DNF going. We only did this because it made sense for us and Remedy (and Take-Two). Truly a win-win-win deal. Where's the gamer in this? Truly a win-win-win-lose deal. I see a lot of money sloshing around in the system. But, all I see is fat cats stitching up the industry and generating sequel after uninspired sequel. Less money is left in the system for smaller and perhaps more creative developers. That's what's wrong with Scotts infomercials. They don't tell the whole story. No helter skelter. No over the rainbow bad trip apocalypse. Just us and this moment now. This is how it ends.
|
|
Max, Less money is left in the system for smaller and perhaps more creative developers. That's just a core issue with the industry, not deals like this. Those teams are almost never going to get funding anywany - no matter how much money a publisher has. Games are still rushed to market. Innovation takes a back seat to marketing. These aren't things I see changing in the near term with publishers. Hell they haven't changed in 75 years with movies have they? Hired, Curious: What is the earliest date you can sell the Take 2 stock? Stuff like that needs to remain confidential. |
|
"Games are still rushed to market." All except...YOURS, that is. Get your facts straight: your empty wishes make you an unreiable narrator. Now we're gonna make a new rule. When you hear me typing..."
|
|
George Broussard Stuff like that needs to remain confidential. I figured that would be the case. So, it's safe to say you can't sell it on Tuesday. ;p Anyway, you have been particularly generous with divulging behind the scenes information, so I thought it was worth asking. I'm not sure what to make of your confidence in Take 2's future stock performance. |
|
JP: "get ready for loads of sequels, produced by people besides the original creators, under a brand that said creators didn't care enough about to hold on to in the first place!" Hrm. I'm... finding myself kind of torn here. On the whole, I am very pleased - seeing developers get some of the money they actually deserve is pretty damn cool... although I wonder how much the guys who do the actual game creation (programmers, designers, artists) benefit in the equation. Still, though, it's a start. I see what you're getting at JP, but the truth is, regardless of where IP's go, the same amount of good games and bad games are likely to be produced... it's just a matter of what they're named. If a shoddy second party takes over some brand, sure that sucks immensely if you loved the brand... but the chances are that the original team will be making something else then, and if they were good enough to make the first game something meaningful, they're good enough to make the next one so as well, I would expect. I'm always puzzled by complaints about sequels in gaming, actually. It makes no sense to me. I can understand it in movies, where the narrative is what you have, but in games? A HUGE number of my favorite games of all time are sequels... Zelda 3, Castlevania 3, Mario 64, Final Fantasy 6 and 7, Secret of Mana (which was Seiken Dentetsu 2, I believe), Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Super Metroid, Zelda64, all the gameboy Zelda games, Dracula X, GTA3, Gran Tourismo 3, Warcraft 2, Civ2, Heroes of Might and Magic 3, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 and 3, Klonoa 2, Street Fighter 2, Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island...Christ, if you removed sequels from gaming, you'd eliminate a huge amount of the best games of all time. :/ Yes, of course sequels can be derivative tripe - but they can also be the refining process that takes an idea from good to sublime (Street Fighter 2, Warcraft 2, and Grand Theft Auto 3 all serve as good examples here, I think)... So I say, thank god for sequels. Seriously. Nathan |
|
I'll guess we'll have to wait and see when it happens. Marketing is a crutch for mediocrity and a handicap to excellence.
|
|
If a shoddy second party takes over some brand, sure that sucks immensely if you loved the brand... but the chances are that the original team will be making something else then, and if they were good enough to make the first game something meaningful, they're good enough to make the next one so as well, I would expect. Agreed. If a team is capable of making a good game, it's likely they can do it again, regardless of what the name or genre is. I'd argue the strongest team at any given gaming project would be one that's hopped around between genres heavily and not stuck to any one series for a huge length of time. |
|
Like Raven? :P --jmc
ICQ-121684 AIM-jmcdavel U=FAG0T |
|
Matthew Gallant Yah, it's not hard to find out. A stock offer is a deal with the devil sometimes. It's only as good as the stock's performance, and that depends on a whole raft of things. The health of the economy, prime, what Mary Meeker thinks of your company, whether earnings meet projections, etc. The actual performance of the company. Strangely, that last favor is often irrelevant especially in the tech sector. Take 2's 52 week low was less than 7. It's trading 25-26, now. But, we don't know when they can sell it (and they're not going to tell us.) My guess is, they can't sell for at least a year. So, what will Take 2 be selling for in May 2003? It might be 50. It could also be 5. In a way, we won't find out what Take 2 really paid until next year. |
|
3-08-2002: Apogee files a plan with the SEC to sell 121,000+ shares of Take Two stock. 3-21-2002: Scott Miller posts on PlanetCrap urging everyone to buy TTWO (Post #37), is accused of trying to pump and dump. Hmm. Marketing is a crutch for mediocrity and a handicap to excellence.
|
|
George, That's just a core issue with the industry, not deals like this. Those teams are almost never going to get funding anywany - no matter how much money a publisher has. Games are still rushed to market. Innovation takes a back seat to marketing. These aren't things I see changing in the near term with publishers. Hell they haven't changed in 75 years with movies have they? I would agree it's unfair and incorrect to blame one single deal for all the ills of gaming, and you're right, it does go beyond games. This is a structural issue far bigger than any single company or industry. Short of a revolution you can only be accountable for yourself and produce the best game you can under the circumstances. No helter skelter. No over the rainbow bad trip apocalypse. Just us and this moment now. This is how it ends.
|
|
Matthew, Haha, GTA 3's record breaking sales are all the pump and dump you need! |
|
I don't know, I need lots of pump and dump. Marketing is a crutch for mediocrity and a handicap to excellence.
|
|
Oh waitress. I'll take two orders of pump, but will have to pass on the dump. For religious reasons. ....Don't be Left with the chimps. Evolve with us...
|
|
But why sell such a rising stock? --jmc
ICQ-121684 AIM-jmcdavel U=FAG0T |
|
The only problem/question I have in this deal is related to this: One game does not an IP make. As fine of a game as Max Paine was, you really don't get into the "franchise" levels until after your sequil. Proving that it isn't just a one-trick pony, rather, it is a solid name that can and will sell. Take Two may end up with a lemon, or a hit. Which is perhaps why they bought it so "reletivly" cheap(compared to some values Scott and George have given to other IP properties). Which has more brand reconization? Max Paine or Doom? Quake? Duke Nukem? Sims? Deer Hunter? Pong? 3DR and Remedy may have sold way too soon. Or they may have just have hit a grand slam. A sucessful Max Paine 2, on equal to the original in story and gameplay, would have raised the value of the IP immensly. It could have raised it up into the ether with the Dooms and the Sims and the Duke Nukems. Or it could have sucked. Which would have killed any value the IP had. |
|
It clashes with his slacks. ...which are made of money. |
|
wizard So one big hit, equals a very successful IP? I don't see it like that. What sold Laura? T&A and somewhat interesting/new gameplay. The later ones sold why? T&A. Maybe. But what does that have to do with the Tomb Raider brand? Think about it. I'm not looking at this with market statistics in my hand, so I could be way off, but do Laura games sell now as well as they use to? No. Even T&A gets old afterwhile. Saw a new Tomb Raider game under development at E3. If the next Max Game were to blow, which it probably won't, but if it did... the IP wouldn't be worth much. That's insane and uninformed. One bad product tanks an IP? You should tell that to Microsoft and Coke. Max Diablos Where's the gamer in this? Truly a win-win-win-lose deal. I see a lot of money sloshing around in the system. But, all I see is fat cats stitching up the industry and generating sequel after uninspired sequel. Less money is left in the system for smaller and perhaps more creative developers. That's what's wrong with Scotts infomercials. They don't tell the whole story. Remedy was doing a 'Max Payne 2' anyway ... what's your point? Mad_Dog As fine of a game as Max Paine was, you really don't get into the "franchise" levels until after your sequil. Proving that it isn't just a one-trick pony, rather, it is a solid name that can and will sell. So Doom wasn't a viable franchise after the first game? Quake? Unreal? Tomb Raider? WoT?
|
|
Calling Derek Smart, come in Derek Smart... --jmc
ICQ-121684 AIM-jmcdavel U=FAG0T |
|
Warren, Remedy was doing a 'Max Payne 2' anyway ... what's your point? Where the fuck did you pull that question from Warren? The point of that particular post was to highlight the use of available capital in the system. Is it better going to 3D Realms and Remedy, or would it have been better spent developing another three or four new IP's that would add to the variety and depth of available games, and given other developers a chance at the big time? A big chunk of that money could've been used to polish up a few of the ship and patch games that are probably on their release schedule at the very least. Does this deal make for better games in the long run? No helter skelter. No over the rainbow bad trip apocalypse. Just us and this moment now. This is how it ends.
|
|
Max I'm going to cut your sentence in half for a moment. Is it better going to 3D Realms and Remedy, or would it have been better spent developing another three or four new IP's With their newly won independance, Remedy will most likely start creating new IP's. So your wish is granted. Your problem seems to be with who is developing the IP's. that would add to the variety and depth of available games, and given other developers a chance at the big time? If you recall, Remedy was a new developer (their first game was Death Rally in 96 - and nothing after until Max Payne) that was given a chance by 3D Realms and Take Two. Once again, your wish was granted. And Scott and George have mentioned before that they're working with unnamed development "partners" behind the scenes. I'm venturing a guess that they have new IP, being produced by 3D Realms, in conjuntion with their partners, similar to how they did with Remedy. Funk. |
|
George, "pump" referred to "shotgun" as in "the shotgun you should be working on for DNF" instead of frittering away your time playing Mr. Wall Street Sheen. Or, is DNF really a role-playing game with dice and all? "Dump" was a reference to where you've drawn your ideas for the game. Either quit advertising DNF and go play stock boy, or get your shit together, and shit, or get off the pot. Now we're gonna make a new rule. When you hear me typing..."
|
|
Honestly, I'm not so certain T&A sells Tomb Raider. All the people I know who play it have yet to go through puberty. If I have to fuck a garbage can I'm gonna fuck it in the ass.
|
|
Just to clarify, I think the IP deal was GREAT for Remedy. They have the ability to product what they want, no more asking for funding from the publisher, etc. But, no matter how many people tell me one game is a great franchise and sellable IP, I don't think I'm on the bandwagon. You can't convince with no matter how hard you beat with, "you're stupid". :) I think this will work out for Take2 if they've seen the next Max and have an idea it's going to be good. If not, I believe this is a mistake... These opinions could be why I'm not a publisher :P. LPMiller - "Really, I'm just a get along kinda a guy, all about the love."
|
|
I'm with you. I really do not understand all of the vehemance directed to 3D Realms. I mean, it's not like they eat babies in a nice Balsamic Vinagrette, or they kick little kids in the testicles. I can't see how that could be considered to be bad... "It goes without saying that technical proficiency should be the first acquistion of a student who would be a fine pianist." - Sergei Rachmaninov
|
|
NE 1 want to join a publishing project? I have a good idea, but we need a few more people on the team. We currently are looking for: people with money, public relation people/writers, accountants, someone with some trucks to ship the games Marketing is a crutch for mediocrity and a handicap to excellence.
|
|
Matthew >>> 3-21-2002: Scott Miller posts on PlanetCrap urging everyone to buy TTWO (Post #37), is accused of trying to pump and dump. <<< And don't you wish you'd have bought back then. ;-) I still believe that Take2 has $10+ upside within a year because the SEC cloud will lift soon, leaving Take2 unharmed, plus the class action lawsuits from a while back are all going away for being frivolous. Plus, other stuff. Likewise, I personally bought a truck load of Eidos while it was under $2, knowing that when the Tomb Raider train gets rolling, that stock will easily reach $4-$5. It only takes one hit to lift a publishers stock a few dollars, and a megahit can lift it a LOT higher. This isn't rocket science. Funkdrunk >>> With their newly won independance, Remedy will most likely start creating new IP's. So your wish is granted. Your problem seems to be with who is developing the IP's. <<< This is a great point I've tried to make. Remedy now becomes completely independent, and can develop further original IPs as they wish. We NEED more developers with this sort of freedom in the industry. Remedy can now afford to fail, and that gives them the freedom to innovate and take big risks. "A game should not be judged only on its appearance. It should be played before drawing conclusions." - Miyamoto
|
|
Scott, with all due respect, you may truly believe that, and I don't think anyone is doubting you. However, pumping and dumping is still frowned upon and (although IANAL) you may actually be leaving yourself vulnerable to being pulled up by the SEC for doing what you have said. Just because you're telling the truth about what you feel, doesn't make it legal. |
|
Max Diablos Where the fuck did you pull that question from Warren? The point of that particular post was to highlight the use of available capital in the system. Is it better going to 3D Realms and Remedy, or would it have been better spent developing another three or four new IP's that would add to the variety and depth of available games, and given other developers a chance at the big time? A big chunk of that money could've been used to polish up a few of the ship and patch games that are probably on their release schedule at the very least. Does this deal make for better games in the long run? Well, Remedy birthed Max Payne (a new game) and with the help of 3D Realms, they turned it into a workable character/franchise. They then released it into the wild (selling it to Take 2) and are now able to do something else. Or if they want, they can do Max Payne 2 ... they are an -independent- developer now, which is GREAT for gaming. The more developers that can tell publishers where to shove it, the better. Isn't this all good for gaming? Would you rather they made shitty games based on movie licenses? That's the true path to gaming hell ... WoT?
|
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Max no longer a payne for 3D Realms
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|