Who Thinks All These Game Mergers and Takeovers Are Good?

[wraggster]

TELL US DAMMIT. here's how it works: We ask a question, you answer it. Simple and no strings attached! This isn't some marketing survey or whatever. It's an emotional investment in you. Yes, we're interested in knowing you, Kotaku reader person. You probably know ****tons about us — more than you even want to, we're sure. But, hey, we'd like to know about you. That way you won't be some faceless blob — and we might feel a tinge of guilt when we ban your ass. Or not, because really we're incapable of human emotion. Not sure!

This week, Tecmo turned down Square Enix's offer of a friendly takeover. Rather, the company is in talks to merge with Koei, making Tecmo-Koei a possibility — like Square Enix or Namco Bandai. Our question:

What do you think of game mergers and takeovers? Are they good for the industry or bad?
http://kotaku.com/5046248/who-thinks-all-these-game-mergers-and-takeovers-are-good

[kcajblue]

i personally dont like merges and takeovers.
unless it truly makes the company better and make their games not suck.

[masterchief929]

if it is two bad developers, i like it. if its two good developers then i don't like it because u may not get the uniqueness of each developer ever again.

[gutbub]

The majority of the time, no. Why? Well, if two companies merge, that means they now have less competition. Less competition leads to lower quality games. Nobody likes bad games, that's why they're called bad.

[jrsmaster411]

the worst merge was square and enix cause they were kings of rpg and now they have no competition and have had a lot of lower quality games since merging, also squaresoft never made sequels to final fantasy games which was awesome cause they left it to your imagination what happens after the game ends but since merging they made Final Fantasy X & XII sequels and can't stop making VII spin offs

[kcajblue]

the worst merge was square and enix cause they were kings of rpg and now they have no competition and have had a lot of lower quality games since merging, also squaresoft never made sequels to final fantasy games which was awesome cause they left it to your imagination what happens after the game ends but since merging they made Final Fantasy X & XII sequels and can't stop making VII spin offshaha, thats what my brother says.
he keeps saying that ever since enix merged with square, he hasnt liked anything theyve made.

[osgeld]

slow server today = dupe post

[osgeld]

take overs are good

what happens is you start sorting minds

the genius's clump together and split off in their own company's

the crapheads get fed up with them not getting praise and clump together then split, then quickly vanish ... only to pop up 35 years later calling current games crap

ie the original atari people, the good ones continued long and successful legacy's, spanning generations of consoles

bushnell is sitting in his garage trying to dupe his 15 min of fame acting like a grouchy old bitch

[alanparker05]

I think EA has to be the worst... with them it is all about sequals and deadlines, they take over a lot of small and creative developers then tell them to just make more of what makes the most money and don't give them enough time to make it properly

[osgeld]

EA back in the day meant quality

now i wont even bother with them, cept maybe a golf game

they are a prime example of bad takeovers

[Shadowblind]

I can live with some merges. Tecmo and KOEI could swing either way; They could make Dynasty Warriors decent, or Ninja Gaiden suck.

[Emulation_Chief]

Hello:

the main reason for companies to merge is, among many others, the high cost of developing games as new consoles upscale the specs. Still, companies has to rethink the way they operate. Conglomerates like EA and Activision basically are destroying the very foundations of video games, which is the fun factor. These two companies are absorbing small and middle developers in order to create a very big multiplatform title that can cash it up a lot.

Money is always the factor for these corporate decisions. But also destroy the quality of titles they come up for. Very few new IP games and a lot of sequels, prequels, RPGs or Sports titles.

I still believe in video games as a way to have fun. Thinking of it as a way to maximize cash will inevitably create an oversaturation of too many repetitive titles and very poor quality games.

What would you think?