Goldeneye Remake coming out on Wii?

[yomomma1]

Activision owns treyarch.

They are just a subsididary. Activison oversees projects. And they decide who works for that company.

Let me use an example.

Eidios = Square Enix.

Or what was once called Eidos.


Edit: Treyarch is in a position like IW. Is IW and treyarch activision? Well you say no, but Activision owns IW, and fired the 2 top employees that had been with the company for a long time.(1 a founder)

[emwearz]

So you think Activison made MW2 because they own IW?

[yomomma1]

Do you think Microsoft Made Xbox? (If you are having problems understanding that, look at who had a main part of making the original xbox)

[Erik_Twice]

A shiny pink controller would be 20 times cooler!

That is pretty cool actually.

[Pulsar_t]

[crux]

"=" means equivalency. A lack of separation. No distinguishing points. It's like saying Sega = Sammy or, better yet given the topic, that Rare = Microsoft. You can most certainly argue that an acquisition can change a developer, but you cannot argue that a developer becomes indistinguishable from the company they were acquired by.

[Pulsar_t]

you cannot argue that a developer becomes indistinguishable from the company they were acquired by.

Only when the acquired developer/publisher becomes entirely assimilated into their new holder. e.g. I believe Westwood ceased to exist when EA bought them, but that's totally different to say Rare siging a binding contract to develop exclusively for Microsoft.

A first party developer is a team inseparable from the main publisher. How is that different from an in-house developer? And can Rare and Treyarch be considered second-party developers?

[crux]

Who knows what contracts Rare signed, but they are owned by Microsoft. It's not a temporary status. Microsoft has 100% of the shares in the company. The founders of the company actually left three years ago, less than five years after they were acquired. Nonetheless, to make the claim that "Rare is equivalent to Microsoft" would be fallacious. They are inseparable, yes, but that does not mean they are indistinguishable. Without a better working knowledge of the inner working of a developer (such as dismantling a developer, like you said), the same should be said for any developer.

[yomomma1]

Lets think about this

Treyarch is owned completely by Activision, It is a subsidiary of Activision.

Ubisoft Montreal is owned completely by Ubisoft, it is a subsididary of Ubisoft

Who made Assassin's creed?, Ubisoft. Who made QOS? Acivision. Just because it isn't named after the company, doesn't mean that that company doesn't own and operate them.


However... Activision does not equal Vivendi (Because Vivendi does not completely own Activision.)

Another example...

Bungie does not equal Activision, Because it isn't owned by activision.

[crux]

We're speaking in relative terms of who develops what, not who owns what.

I'll break it down to even simpler levels with algebra:

You say that Treyarch = Activision. If we use that correlation, we could also say that Neversoft = Activision. If both Treyarch = Activision and Neversoft = Activision, logic implies that Treyarch = Neversoft. Makes me wonder why they don't just give them the same name!