Talk:Indie Built
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
[edit] Fixed information
This article stated that when Microsoft acquired Access, they became known as "Indie Built." That is not correct. When they were acquired by Microsoft, they were known as Microsoft, part of Microsoft Game Studios. I have several friends who work at this location, but they never say they work for Indie Built. They always say they work for Take Two. But looking at the company's website, I guess they're officially known as Indie Built, but that name hasn't really caught on. Anyway, they couldn't have been Indie Built until after Microsoft sold them. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:31, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I just refered to the information given at their official website: "In 1999, Access was acquired by Microsoft and became known as Indie. Indie participated in the launch of Xbox in Holiday 2001 with the critically acclaimed Amped snowboarding title." [1] and Gamespot also states that they were known as "Indie" when they were sold to T2: "Microsoft Game Studios Group PR manager Genevieve Waldman confirmed that the sale signified the end of internal sports-game development at Microsoft. However, she said the transaction has an upside for all parties, including Indie Built employees. 'The reaction at Indie Built is positive,' Waldman said. 'They all became Take-Two employees.'" [2] so I think my changes at Indie Built and Amped are correct. the only mistake I made is at Microsoft Game Studios, but I've corrected it now (Indie assisted P&M in working on TopSpin).
if I worked for a game developer, I would also not say "I work for any small not so famous developer" ("Who? I don't know."), but "I work for a much bigger well known publisher" ("That's great!"). see the difference? ;o) –jello ¿? 22:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
If that's what is says on their website, it's legit I guess. I still think it's suspicious, though. I even interviewed there and they were all Microsoft, I never saw one piece of literature or sign that said "Indie Built." You'd think that if they were officially known as that, they'd have some sort of indication of it. There was an enormous "Microsoft" sign over the entrance to the building too, but NO indication of Indie Built.
Why in the world would they even want to be known as that? The name implies that they were an independant game developer, which they certainly weren't (Microsoft is a publisher). I don't know why MS would want to imply one of their studios was actually indie... I just don't get it: no indication of "Indie Built" at the studio, no reasonable motivation for MS to want to imply their studio was actually independant. Actually, all my contacts said they were Microsoft: Salt Lake. The only thing I can think of is that they changed the name of the studio shortly before the sale to T2.
However, the credits for Amped say it was developed by Microsoft Game Studios, not Indie Built. So I'd leave those as is. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I worked there for many years, let me give you the full story of the name...
When Microsoft bought Access software they became simply Microsoft Salt Lake Games Group, later Microsoft re-branded it's internal games division as Microsoft Game Studios but the group in Salt Lake had no official external name and titles were published as simply Microsoft Game Studios (unlike some other MGS groups like Bungie and FASA who kept their pre-MS names).
After a few years with MS and shortly after shipping an MGS re-org (including some well publicised layoffs) the Salt Lake group decided they wanted their own identity to brand their games. After many discussions one of the senior management chose the name "Indie Games", the indie component was intended to suggent the indie nature of snowboarding games as opposed to the game development community. The name was largely hated by the staff for many reasons but it stuck and the one good thing that came out of it was the Indie Head logo (the round faced guy with sharp teeth).
Before any games could ship with the MGS/Indie Games branding Microsoft sold the studio to Take 2, as part of the sale the group formed a subsidiary company which needed a name, somebody declined to take the opportunity to ditch the loathed name and went with "Indie Built Inc." which became a subsidiary of Take 2 and was the name that graced the labels of Amped 3, Top Spin PS2 and Top Spin 2.
During this entire time the sign outside the building said Microsoft (there was still a small Microsoft sales office in the same building), only a few weeks before the studio closed down Take 2 paid for a large "Indie Built" sign to replace the MS sign on the building. It's still there but Indie Built is not :(
There were a lot of talented people working there that were treated poorly by sucessively incompetent layers of management and beurocracy. A shame, let's hope publishers think twice in the future before buying a studio only to take it apart in less than a year. Sometimes I wish the studio had been independent as the name suggsted. - June 22nd 2006
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo indiebuilt.gif
Image:Logo indiebuilt.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
