Will GGG sell out?

"

Charan wrote:

"

Jojas wrote:

I heard Peter Jackson showed some interest. Rumour says he wants to put hobbits in it as a playable race.

And that right there is pretty much the sum of so many people's knowledge of New Zealand.

Oh, I know more. New Zealand is an island southeast of Australia, the capital is Wellington, the Maori are supposed to be its indigenous people (if there ever was such a thing as "indigenous", that is), the climate is moderate and the national symbol of New Zealand is the Kiwi (which is also the colloquial name for people living there). Happy?

What's so wrong about a company wanting more money again?

This is not a perfect world.

If someone purchases GGG in private. I honestly will not care as long as this game still functions after the purchase.

There's really not anything anyone can offer GGG that they would consider selling their company. They don't need more money, they don't need to buy new servers since the playerbase isn't increasing that much, and they definitely don't need help marketing or distributing the game. Right now they just need to refine the game and fix mechanics and balance issues, and that just takes time, not anything a potential buyer can give them.

"

Jojas wrote:

Oh, I know more. New Zealand is an island southeast of Australia, the capital is Wellington, the Maori are supposed to be its indigenous people (if there ever was such a thing as "indigenous", that is), the climate is moderate and the national symbol of New Zealand is the Kiwi (which is also the colloquial name for people living there). Happy?

I never said you. It's just one of those things -- Jackson's LOTR put NZ on the global map. Personally I'd rather have my country famous for its ability to produce badass fantasy movies than, say, laziness, beer-drinking and 'no rules, just fun'.

Anyway, that's that tangent handled.

I've nothing more to say on this topic, except perhaps to respond to geradon: I've already laid my wager, and it was a lot more than 1 chaos. ;)

If purchased by a company who doesn't develop games, I think it would be great. Because they'd leave GGG to it and just hand them money.

The game has a ton of huge gaping flaws of its own. For every choice a new company made that would mess something up it probably would fix something too. Get the developer off of your pedestal.

Being bought by a bigger company is USUALLY a bad thing but not always. Disney buying Pixar didn't hurt Pixar at all. It hasn't hurt Marvel and it's hopefully not going to hurt Lucasfilm. EA buying anyone ruins them. GGG just has to be smart about how someone manages the companies they buy and keep the $$$ from being their primary goal.

If you make a good game to make a good game, then you make a good game and make good money. If you make a game to make good money, then you get a poor game and maybe make good money in the short term (you need something like a huge IP to piggy back on though, like D3 did) but certainly won't later on after you've lost customer faith.

"

Jillys wrote:

If they do something like this, really hope they dont let go of to much power over the game.
Curious about where GGG stands on this point.

The deals of 'We let the developers do what they want' only holds out as long as the game meets revenue targets set out by whoever buys them. This is how it always goes.

And EA is just plain horrible. It's like a deathwish being bought out by them.

Almost definitely. BUT, selling out is fine, as long as they keep to the original plan. Obviously GGG is doing something right, so anyone who buys them, and makes them change their ways is retarded.

"

v1Rotate wrote:

Almost definitely. BUT, selling out is fine, as long as they keep to the original plan. Obviously GGG is doing something right, so anyone who buys them, and makes them change their ways is retarded.

A lot of people with a lot of money usually prefer to impose their own 'better' ideas on an already established good idea. That's how bad things happen.