Square Enix To Sell 'Hitman' Studio IO Interactive

[heirdeux]

Square Enix said that the decision to sell the studio was due to financial losses in the last fiscal year.

Square Enix To Sell 'Hitman' Studio IO Interactive : Read more

 

[dstarr3]

I don't understand this industry. Why do bad things happen to good studios?

If anyone wants to point the finger at underwhelming sales, point it straight at the always-online DRM for a single-player game.

 

[0ldsch00l]

Who cares? IO is a great dev company, enix big time pubs are making a bad decision, if they think mickey mouse and branglina Croft are gonna get them money now. ARE THEY MENTAL? New Hitman was a megaatomic bomb and is still in progress with the episodic content, its their creme de la crop and they are dropping IO? Bah enix got them during absolution got hollywood actors to voice absolution and now they are ditching with Hitman 2016? I hope this doesnt kill the 2nd season, lets see who pick them up, hey if they got big without enix before absolution, with codename 47 silent assassin and contracts and bloodmoney they dont need enix, screw the big time let them go indie how they started

 

[KirbyKirby]

Yikes. So who owns the license to Hitman now? Is it still Squeenix or does IO own it?

I didn't particularly enjoy the episodic release format, but otherwise Hitman is a great game.

 

[0ldsch00l]

IO does, they made it, what pubs do when they offer mula is say ok all next titles in our name after this with the contract. Devs get a new shinny car and night out in strip clubs and they are happy....

Valve did that with CS and gooseman the original mod creator for HL, they ended up giving him the shaft.... now valve thinks they pwn CS name

Enix doesnt own anything, IO will always be the creators and may have it "leased" to whoever buys them but Ill have to say when it comes to those who dont sell out like Remedy or IO or and yes Ill say it JOHN CARMACK. The games they make are always revolutionary, so was valve pre steam with original HL. But now uhh no comment on FB/Steam bs

 

[clonazepam]

Imagine the next installment of 'Hitman' being developed by hipster SJWs in Canada. It could happen!

Does CD Project Red have enough cash? It's the same continent, at least. I heard Apple was looking at possible dev studio purchases. This is certainly one way to get their feet wet.

 

[0ldsch00l]

Imagine the next installment of 'Hitman' being developed by hipster SJWs in Canada. It could happen!

Does CD Project Red have enough cash? It's the same continent, at least. I heard Apple was looking at possible dev studio purchases. This is certainly one way to get their feet wet.

No cause IO danish hipsters are the devs!!!

 

[clonazepam]

Imagine the next installment of 'Hitman' being developed by hipster SJWs in Canada. It could happen!

Does CD Project Red have enough cash? It's the same continent, at least. I heard Apple was looking at possible dev studio purchases. This is certainly one way to get their feet wet.

No cause IO danish hipsters are the devs!!!

In my scenario, they are purchased to obtain the IP and either absorbed or disbanded.

 

[KirbyKirby]

Do you know that IO owns the rights to Hitman, or are you just assuming? Bungie developed Halo, but Microsoft owned the rights to the franchise. IO originally developed Hitman under Eidos Interactive's house, and then Squeenix later acquired them.

 

[0ldsch00l]

Do you know that IO owns the rights to Hitman, or are you just assuming? Bungie developed Halo, but Microsoft owned the rights to the franchise. IO originally developed Hitman under Eidos Interactive's house, and then Squeenix later acquired them.

Hmm good questions, I think with Eidos they were better. but in todays capitalist age I think its safe to assume the publisher owns the rights, which is why I militantly beleive copyright laws are the theft not file sharing, but lets not get into that....

 

[cryoburner]

Hmm good questions, I think with Eidos they were better. but in todays capitalist age I think its safe to assume the publisher owns the rights, which is why I militantly beleive copyright laws are the theft not file sharing, but lets not get into that....

It can't be considered "theft" when a publisher is buying the rights to a game series, and paying for the games made in that series. If an independent developer owned the rights, then it's ultimately their decision whether they sell those rights for a quick, guaranteed profit, or keep them for potential future profits that may never come. If they choose to sell the rights to a publisher who thinks they can make use of them, then that's their choice, and they shouldn't be upset if the publisher goes on to make lots of money off the franchise down the line. There will likely be nothing stopping them from creating a "spiritual successor" to that series later on.

 

[falchard]

SE is selling IO, I imaging whichever publisher buys up the contract will negotiate who has the rights to the games developed by IO.

 

[cats_Paw]

If Hitman was not well received it means the game was probably poor.
Especially if you consider selling the game as episodes (and they are surprised people turn away from it, no wonder they have problems if they are that stupid).

Its actually quite amusing to be honest:
-Mass Effect Andromeda
-Call of duty infinite warfare
-Baldurs gate dragonsiege
-Hitman

Then you have:
-Darkest Dungeon
-Path of Exile
-Witcher 3

So its not like we cant make good games.
Dont worry about "the franchise". You dont need the title to say hitman to have a hitman game.
And if the big studios stop making crap, maybe the smaller studios can make cash to make something great after they cash in.

Remember Need for speed porshe unleashed? Underground 1 and 2?
EA guys, that was EA.

Remember fallout 1 2? Baldurs gate 1 and 2? Neverfu*in winter nights?! Dragon age origins?!
That was bioware.

just have to let the tumor that triple A titles have become die first (not all of them, the bad ones).

 

[jasonkaler]

Cool, a square enix sale.
Where's my credit card...

 

[dstarr3]

If Hitman was not well received it means the game was probably poor.

The latest Hitman was a terrific game. Still no Blood Money, but it's the closest we've gotten since. Faaaaaaaaaaaar better than Absolution, at the very least.

The only problem with it was the always-online DRM that Squenix demanded. The episodic distribution was a little peculiar at first, but once the whole thing was complete, you still got the same amount of game for the usual price. So it wasn't really such a terrible decision. Since games are getting so bloody expensive and time-consuming to make these days, it makes a lot of sense that publishers and developers want to find a way to bring in some cash flow during the long, expensive development of these things. And episodic releases isn't the worst way, especially when at the end, you get the same amount of game for the usual price.

But there's no excuse for always-online DRM in a single-player game, except to punish legitimate customers for the piracy of a very small minority. It's anti-consumer in every way, and it's a hideous inconvenience that publishers will never tell you is at fault for anything.

 

[woodscrews]

This is a fantastically good thing for IO, under SE they have produced nothing but industry fashion chasing <mod edit> with terribly anti-consumer business models. I used to love the hitman series, but SE pressured them into knee capping it til the end result was everything i never wanted to see in a hitman game. I also am a fan of crystal dynamics, a studio owned by IO, and i can only hope that now SE are out of the picture theyll consider releasing something that isnt another bloody tomb raider reboot.

 

[0ldsch00l]

Hmm good questions, I think with Eidos they were better. but in todays capitalist age I think its safe to assume the publisher owns the rights, which is why I militantly beleive copyright laws are the theft not file sharing, but lets not get into that....

It can't be considered "theft" when a publisher is buying the rights to a game series, and paying for the games made in that series. If an independent developer owned the rights, then it's ultimately their decision whether they sell those rights for a quick, guaranteed profit, or keep them for potential future profits that may never come. If they choose to sell the rights to a publisher who thinks they can make use of them, then that's their choice, and they shouldn't be upset if the publisher goes on to make lots of money off the franchise down the line. There will likely be nothing stopping them from creating a "spiritual successor" to that series later on.

Thank you for the copyright law definition, but I think I know that already. But if I paint a new picasso and sell it does it mean the guy hanging it in on his wall created it?

 

[cryoburner]

Thank you for the copyright law definition, but I think I know that already. But if I paint a new picasso and sell it does it mean the guy hanging it in on his wall created it?

That's not really a good comparison though. Obviously no one is going to claim that the original developer of a game series did not create that series. Again, if the developer sold the rights to make new games in the series, then they already got what they wanted out of the deal. If they decide otherwise later on, then they probably should have negotiated a better deal, or held on to the property for themselves.

In your painting scenario, once you've sold that painting to the guy, he can do what he wants with it, within the bounds of what was agreed to by the sale. If its value were to somehow climb to ten times what he originally paid you for it, he can sell it to someone else, and doesn't owe you anything. You already received the payment you agreed to.

Perhaps a better comparison would be an artist designing a logo for a company to use, and taking a one-time payment for that design. The whole point of the agreement would be that the artist is trading away their rights to make money off that particular logo in the future. If they didn't agree to letting the company do what they want with the logo, then they wouldn't get paid. They're willfully making an exchange, for the benefit of both parties.

 

[0ldsch00l]

Thank you for the copyright law definition, but I think I know that already. But if I paint a new picasso and sell it does it mean the guy hanging it in on his wall created it?

That's not really a good comparison though. Obviously no one is going to claim that the original developer of a game series did not create that series. Again, if the developer sold the rights to make new games in the series, then they already got what they wanted out of the deal. If they decide otherwise later on, then they probably should have negotiated a better deal, or held on to the property for themselves.

In your painting scenario, once you've sold that painting to the guy, he can do what he wants with it, within the bounds of what was agreed to by the sale. If its value were to somehow climb to ten times what he originally paid you for it, he can sell it to someone else, and doesn't owe you anything. You already received the payment you agreed to.

Perhaps a better comparison would be an artist designing a logo for a company to use, and taking a one-time payment for that design. The whole point of the agreement would be that the artist is trading away their rights to make money off that particular logo in the future. If they didn't agree to letting the company do what they want with the logo, then they wouldn't get paid. They're willfully making an exchange, for the benefit of both parties.

Point is most ppl dont realize devs lose copyright if a publisher wants to buy it and nublets assume the pubs made a game. Basic psychology despite them not claiming to have made the picasso