@endofaugust: I am simply pointing out that you are going against what the devs describe themselves as--on their own outlets of all places. The fact you claim to know more about the devs than they do about themselves says all that needs to be said about you. It also says why you are reaching out to other lems for help.
What's even better is that this "indie" dev majority owned by a foreign corporation has higher scoring racing games this gen and last than Sony's own flagship series:
@endofaugust: I am simply pointing out that you are going against what the devs describe themselves as--on their own outlets of all places. The fact you claim to know more about the devs than they do about themselves says all that needs to be said about you. It also says why you are reaching out to other lems for help.
it doesn't matter what they call themselves when i can within seconds prove that Codemasters is not an independent company and what you're saying goes out the window. they are a private company owned by a private indian conglomerate and not publicly traded yes, but they are not independent, that's an indisputable fact. i can call myself a banana but that doesn't make it so, and it can easily be proven otherwise.
as far as Playful is concerned it's a different situation, they're a private company owned by no one else, they are independently owned. they independently developed and published Lucky's Tale for the Rift. Super Lucky's Tale is not the same situation, they are still a private company and still independently owned, but their game Super Lucky's Tale is not an independently developed and published game. they partnered with Microsoft for finances and publishing; thus the title itself is not an independent game.
Trying to equate Codemasters to an indie dev...fucking lol. I might agree if it was a typo of "Indian" dev.
Codemasters
Been an indie developer has nothing to do with the size of your team,Insomniac is an indie developer,independent developers are not restricted by size it relate to the status of the team it self.
In fact many indie developers have veteran coders with more than 20 or 30 years makings games in some cases.
Independent reformation[edit]
On December 16, 2015, in a joint announcement with Sony Computer Entertainment, Kojima announced that a new Kojima Productions would be established as an independent studio with other former Konami staff members, including artist Yoji Shinkawa and producer Kenichiro Imaizumi.[18][19][20] The studio also announced that it would be developing a new franchise, the first title of which will be console exclusive to the PlayStation 4.[21] Kojima stated that he "will be taking on a new challenge by establishing my own independent studio, and I am thrilled to be able to embark on this journey with PlayStation, who I have continued to work with all these past years."[22]
Kojima Productions is an indie studio. And we know who Kujima is the guy had more years making games than some players here have playing them.
Trying to equate Codemasters to an indie dev...fucking lol. I might agree if it was a typo of "Indian" dev.
Codemasters
Been an indie developer has nothing to do with the size of your team,Insomniac is an indie developer,independent developers are not restricted by size it relate to the status of the team it self.
In fact many indie developers have veteran coders with more than 20 or 30 years makings games in some cases.
Independent reformation[edit]
On December 16, 2015, in a joint announcement with Sony Computer Entertainment, Kojima announced that a new Kojima Productions would be established as an independent studio with other former Konami staff members, including artist Yoji Shinkawa and producer Kenichiro Imaizumi.[18][19][20] The studio also announced that it would be developing a new franchise, the first title of which will be console exclusive to the PlayStation 4.[21] Kojima stated that he "will be taking on a new challenge by establishing my own independent studio, and I am thrilled to be able to embark on this journey with PlayStation, who I have continued to work with all these past years."[22]
Kojima Productions is an indie studio. And we know who Kujima is the guy had more years making games than some players here have playing them.
i will agree with you here, what he said was wrong about the implication of team size, he was still correct about the status of the company however. CD Projekt RED for example, an actual independent developer has 600+ employees.
@endofaugust: I am simply pointing out that you are going against what the devs describe themselves as--on their own outlets of all places. The fact you claim to know more about the devs than they do about themselves says all that needs to be said about you. It also says why you are reaching out to other lems for help.
it doesn't matter what they call themselves when i can within seconds prove that Codemasters is not an independent company and what you're saying goes out the window. they are a private company owned by a private indian conglomerate and not publicly traded yes, but they are not independent, that's an indisputable fact. i can call myself a banana but that doesn't make it so, and it can easily be proven otherwise.
as far as Playful is concerned it's a different situation, they're a private company owned by no one else, they are independently owned. they independently developed and published Lucky's Tale for the Rift. Super Lucky's Tale is not the same situation, they are still a private company and still independently owned, but their game Super Lucky's Tale is not an independently developed and published game, they partnered with Microsoft for finances and publishing; thus the title itself is not an independent game.
It absolutely does matter. A company can claim themselves independent if they are not outright owned--it comes to percentages. They can claim themselves independent legally if they are outright owned, even, based on the same percentages. One entity, several entities under one umbrella of sorts, it does not matter. Both of the developers in question know this, which is why they claim themselves as independents. They have creative control, and they seek to hold onto it. There is no legal, set definition of small/independent company status--it is largely a gray area; as such it is up to the given entity to declare its legal status, similar to an individual on tax returns, pro forms, etc. etc.
But this is besides the point. Again, you are disputing the manner in which both of these devs identify themselves, on their own domains and in other such places--as independent. Even publications identify them as independent, as I have shown with links. You are saying you know more about them than they know about themselves, and that is why you cannot leave this conversation. You are standing on a broken foundation based upon your own personal interpretation.
i will agree with you here, what he said was wrong about the implication of team size, he was still correct about the status of the company however. CD Projekt RED for example, an actual independent developer has 600+ employees.
Indie developers is not a tag just for small new team,is also a description for independent developers,for example an indie team bough by MS is not an indie team any more,if the developer in question describe its self and work as an independent developer (example Insomniac) which can make games for MS or Sony they are indies.
The Problem here is that the term indie developer is related to small un experience teams most of the time when in reality is a broader term.
@endofaugust: I am simply pointing out that you are going against what the devs describe themselves as--on their own outlets of all places. The fact you claim to know more about the devs than they do about themselves says all that needs to be said about you. It also says why you are reaching out to other lems for help.
it doesn't matter what they call themselves when i can within seconds prove that Codemasters is not an independent company and what you're saying goes out the window. they are a private company owned by a private indian conglomerate and not publicly traded yes, but they are not independent, that's an indisputable fact. i can call myself a banana but that doesn't make it so, and it can easily be proven otherwise.
as far as Playful is concerned it's a different situation, they're a private company owned by no one else, they are independently owned. they independently developed and published Lucky's Tale for the Rift. Super Lucky's Tale is not the same situation, they are still a private company and still independently owned, but their game Super Lucky's Tale is not an independently developed and published game, they partnered with Microsoft for finances and publishing; thus the title itself is not an independent game.
It absolutely does matter. A company can claim themselves independent if they are not outright owned--it comes to percentages. They can claim themselves independent legally if they are outright owned, even, based on the same percentages. One entity, several entities under one umbrella of sorts, it does not matter. Both of the developers in question know this, which is why they claim themselves as independents. They have creative control, and they seek to hold onto it. There is no legal, set definition of small/independent company status--it is largely a gray area; as such it is up to the given entity to declare its legal status, similar to an individual on tax returns, pro forms, etc. etc.
But this is besides the point. Again, you are disputing the manner in which both of these devs identify themselves, on their own domains and in other such places--as independent. Even publications identify them as independent, as I have shown with links. You are saying you know more about them than they know about themselves, and that is why you cannot leave this conversation. You are standing on a broken foundation based upon your own personal interpretation.
when another company owns beyond 50% of your company you no longer have creative license, you no longer dictates budgets, development direction, staffing etc. Reliance Entertainment owns the controlling stake of Codemasters by over 10%. this is not a publicly traded company so there is no board of directors to leverage the interests of those who own the remaining 39.6% of Codemasters, there's no public investors, shares, stocks etc. Reliance Entertainment could dissolve Codemasters right now, they possess the stake in the company to do it, they would have to relinquish the 39.6% during liquidation whether that be in assets or hard money, however they're fully in control of this company.
Codemasters is a subsidiary, they are a subordinate of a higher parent company, they are controlled by Reliance, they're not independent. it doesn't matter how much you or they try attempt to convey that they're an independent, they're not, they're dependent on what Reliance dictates to them.
@endofaugust: I am simply pointing out that you are going against what the devs describe themselves as--on their own outlets of all places. The fact you claim to know more about the devs than they do about themselves says all that needs to be said about you. It also says why you are reaching out to other lems for help.
it doesn't matter what they call themselves when i can within seconds prove that Codemasters is not an independent company and what you're saying goes out the window. they are a private company owned by a private indian conglomerate and not publicly traded yes, but they are not independent, that's an indisputable fact. i can call myself a banana but that doesn't make it so, and it can easily be proven otherwise.
as far as Playful is concerned it's a different situation, they're a private company owned by no one else, they are independently owned. they independently developed and published Lucky's Tale for the Rift. Super Lucky's Tale is not the same situation, they are still a private company and still independently owned, but their game Super Lucky's Tale is not an independently developed and published game, they partnered with Microsoft for finances and publishing; thus the title itself is not an independent game.
It absolutely does matter. A company can claim themselves independent if they are not outright owned--it comes to percentages. They can claim themselves independent legally if they are outright owned, even, based on the same percentages. One entity, several entities under one umbrella of sorts, it does not matter. Both of the developers in question know this, which is why they claim themselves as independents. They have creative control, and they seek to hold onto it. There is no legal, set definition of small/independent company status--it is largely a gray area; as such it is up to the given entity to declare its legal status, similar to an individual on tax returns, pro forms, etc. etc.
But this is besides the point. Again, you are disputing the manner in which both of these devs identify themselves, on their own domains and in other such places--as independent. Even publications identify them as independent, as I have shown with links. You are saying you know more about them than they know about themselves, and that is why you cannot leave this conversation. You are standing on a broken foundation based upon your own personal interpretation.
when another company owns beyond 50% of your company you no longer have creative license, you no longer dictates budgets, development direction, staffing etc. Reliance Entertainment owns the controlling stake of Codemasters by over 10%. this is not a publicly traded company so there is no board of directors to leverage the interests of those who own the remaining 39.6% of Codemasters, there's no public investors, shares, stocks etc. Reliance Entertainment could dissolve Codemasters right now, they possess the stake in the company to do it, they would have to relinquish the 39.6% during liquidation whether that be in assets or hard money, however they're fully in control of this company.
Codemasters is a subsidiary, they are a subordinate of a higher parent company, they are controlled by Reliance, they're not independent. it doesn't matter how much you or they try attempt to convey that they're an independent, they're not, they're dependent on what Reliance dictates to them.
Dude--the devs declare themselves as independent on their own official websites.What else could you possible need? This will go on indefinitely because of those descriptions unless you let this go. I would have accepted F1 as not being indie at once had I not gone onto Codemasters' site and seen, right there at the front, that they pronounce themselves independent. You simply cannot disprove it for this fact. You will never, ever be able to do so, no matter how much legal jargon you throw out there. It is a gray area legally, and that is why they are able to declare such status.
@charizard1605: Sorry, char. That was based on their website, where they describe themselves as an indie dev.
And I describe myself as the next step of human evolution. That doesn't make me so.
I know, man. I know. But the fact remains, it is a gray area legally. They are free to declare themselves as such. I don't exactly agree with it, but the fact remains.
Dude--the devs declare themselves as independent on their own official websites.What else could you possible need? This will go on indefinitely because of those descriptions unless you let this go. I would have accepted F1 as not being indie at once had I not gone onto Codemasters' site and seen, right there at the front, that they pronounce themselves independent. You simply cannot disprove it for this fact. You will never, ever be able to do so, no matter how much legal jargon you throw out there. It is a gray area legally, and that is why they are able to declare such status.
Seriously. This will not ever stop unless you do.
oh it will definitely stop, as both Charizard and myself have pointed out citing almost the exact same analogies.
legally Codemasters is not owned by Codemasters, they are owned by Reliance Entertainment thus they are not independent, that's the only legality that matters.
@charizard1605 said:
And I describe myself as the next step of human evolution. That doesn't make me so.
@endofaugust said:
i can call myself a banana but that doesn't make it so, and it can easily be proven otherwise.
it doesn't matter what they call themselves when i can within seconds prove that Codemasters is not an independent company and what you're saying goes out the window. they are a private company owned by a private indian conglomerate and not publicly traded yes, but they are not independent, that's an indisputable fact. i can call myself a banana but that doesn't make it so, and it can easily be proven otherwise.
as far as Playful is concerned it's a different situation, they're a private company owned by no one else, they are independently owned. they independently developed and published Lucky's Tale for the Rift. Super Lucky's Tale is not the same situation, they are still a private company and still independently owned, but their game Super Lucky's Tale is not an independently developed and published game, they partnered with Microsoft for finances and publishing; thus the title itself is not an independent game.
It absolutely does matter. A company can claim themselves independent if they are not outright owned--it comes to percentages. They can claim themselves independent legally if they are outright owned, even, based on the same percentages. One entity, several entities under one umbrella of sorts, it does not matter. Both of the developers in question know this, which is why they claim themselves as independents. They have creative control, and they seek to hold onto it. There is no legal, set definition of small/independent company status--it is largely a gray area; as such it is up to the given entity to declare its legal status, similar to an individual on tax returns, pro forms, etc. etc.
But this is besides the point. Again, you are disputing the manner in which both of these devs identify themselves, on their own domains and in other such places--as independent. Even publications identify them as independent, as I have shown with links. You are saying you know more about them than they know about themselves, and that is why you cannot leave this conversation. You are standing on a broken foundation based upon your own personal interpretation.
when another company owns beyond 50% of your company you no longer have creative license, you no longer dictates budgets, development direction, staffing etc. Reliance Entertainment owns the controlling stake of Codemasters by over 10%. this is not a publicly traded company so there is no board of directors to leverage the interests of those who own the remaining 39.6% of Codemasters, there's no public investors, shares, stocks etc. Reliance Entertainment could dissolve Codemasters right now, they possess the stake in the company to do it, they would have to relinquish the 39.6% during liquidation whether that be in assets or hard money, however they're fully in control of this company.
Codemasters is a subsidiary, they are a subordinate of a higher parent company, they are controlled by Reliance, they're not independent. it doesn't matter how much you or they try attempt to convey that they're an independent, they're not, they're dependent on what Reliance dictates to them.
Dude--the devs declare themselves as independent on their own official websites.What else could you possible need? This will go on indefinitely because of those descriptions unless you let this go. I would have accepted F1 as not being indie at once had I not gone onto Codemasters' site and seen, right there at the front, that they pronounce themselves independent. You simply cannot disprove it for this fact. You will never, ever be able to do so, no matter how much legal jargon you throw out there. It is a gray area legally, and that is why they are able to declare such status.
Seriously. This will not ever stop unless you do.
oh it will definitely stop, as both Charizard and myself have pointed out citing almost the exact same analogies.
@charizard1605 said:
And I describe myself as the next step of human evolution. That doesn't make me so.
@endofaugust said:
i can call myself a banana but that doesn't make it so, and it can easily be proven otherwise.
Sarcasm aside, you are in gray legal territory, which is why you are having so much trouble with this. The companies are free to declare independence, much as an individual is based upon his/her personal view of his/herself. This is the way the system(s) work. If Codemasters declares themselves independent on their official outlet, I have to take that at face value. No one on this forum--or anywhere else--will trump that statement. The dev is free to declare its own status.
@endofaugust: How am I to read into this? One of countless sources on the internet.
https://www.giantbomb.com/codemasters/3010-491/
Overview
Codemasters' current logo
Codemasters is one of the longest running British video game developers. Currently the CEO is Rod Cousens (formerly of Acclaim) . Codemasters was named as the top independent games developer by an international monthly journal for video game developers.The co-founders, Richard and David Darling, were both appointed Commanders of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the Queen's Birthday Honours 2008 for services to the computer games industry.
@endofaugust: How am I to read into this? One of countless sources on the internet.
https://www.giantbomb.com/codemasters/3010-491/
Overview
Codemasters' current logo
Codemasters is one of the longest running British video game developers. Currently the CEO is Rod Cousens (formerly of Acclaim) . Codemasters was named as the top independent games developer by an international monthly journal for video game developers.The co-founders, Richard and David Darling, were both appointed Commanders of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the Queen's Birthday Honours 2008 for services to the computer games industry.
look at it as a moniker or what they define themselves as, as we've been over endlessly being defined as something doesn't mean you are that something
legally Codemasters is not owned by Codemasters, they are owned by Reliance Entertainment thus they are not independent, that's the only legality that matters.
legally Codemasters is not owned by Codemasters, they are owned by Reliance Entertainment thus they are not independent, that's the only legality that matters.
I am literally flooding you with published statements from major publications all stating that Codemasters is an independent company. Codemasters themselves claims themselves as such on their own website. They have won independent studio awards, been nominated for the same, are held up in the UK as a "traditional, independent" studio (see link). And yet you are sitting there telling me none of this matters.
legally Codemasters is not owned by Codemasters, they are owned by Reliance Entertainment thus they are not independent, that's the only legality that matters.
I am literally flooding you with published statements from major publications all stating that Codemasters is an independent company. Codemasters themselves claims themselves as such on their own website. They have won independent studio awards, been nominated for the same, are held up in the UK as a "traditional, independent" studio (see link). And yet you are sitting there telling me none of this matters.
Again, dude. Just stop.
and i'm literally flooding you with the reality that Codemasters is owned by a parent company and not independent.
legally Codemasters is not owned by Codemasters, they are owned by Reliance Entertainment thus they are not independent, that's the only legality that matters.
I am literally flooding you with published statements from major publications all stating that Codemasters is an independent company. Codemasters themselves claims themselves as such on their own website. They have won independent studio awards, been nominated for the same, are held up in the UK as a "traditional, independent" studio (see link). And yet you are sitting there telling me none of this matters.
Again, dude. Just stop.
and i'm literally flooding you with the reality that Codemasters is owned by a parent company and not independent.
what is even happening here
What is happening here is the Twilight Zone, my friend. You are in hell. You are facing a nemesis.
And you are facing a legal gray area, which is why all of these publications disagree with you.
legally Codemasters is not owned by Codemasters, they are owned by Reliance Entertainment thus they are not independent, that's the only legality that matters.
I am literally flooding you with published statements from major publications all stating that Codemasters is an independent company. Codemasters themselves claims themselves as such on their own website. They have won independent studio awards, been nominated for the same, are held up in the UK as a "traditional, independent" studio (see link). And yet you are sitting there telling me none of this matters.
Again, dude. Just stop.
and i'm literally flooding you with the reality that Codemasters is owned by a parent company and not independent.
what is even happening here
What is happening here is the Twilight Zone, my friend. You are in hell. You are facing a nemesis.
And you are facing a legal gray area, which is why all of these publications disagree with you.
there is no legal grey area
is Codemasters owned by Reliance Entertainment yes or no?
I am literally flooding you with published statements from major publications all stating that Codemasters is an independent company. Codemasters themselves claims themselves as such on their own website. They have won independent studio awards, been nominated for the same, are held up in the UK as a "traditional, independent" studio (see link). And yet you are sitting there telling me none of this matters.
Again, dude. Just stop.
and i'm literally flooding you with the reality that Codemasters is owned by a parent company and not independent.
what is even happening here
What is happening here is the Twilight Zone, my friend. You are in hell. You are facing a nemesis.
And you are facing a legal gray area, which is why all of these publications disagree with you.
there is no legal grey area
is Codemasters owned by Reliance Entertainment yes or no?
Yes, but not completely. Hence, the grayness. The company is free to declare themselves as independent, which they absolutely do going by their official website. Multiple--and I do mean multiple--major publications consider them indie as well. There is no legal, set definition of an independent entity. It is up to the entity itself to declare its legal status, much as an individual has such freedom. This is the point you are bashing your head against.
I am literally flooding you with published statements from major publications all stating that Codemasters is an independent company. Codemasters themselves claims themselves as such on their own website. They have won independent studio awards, been nominated for the same, are held up in the UK as a "traditional, independent" studio (see link). And yet you are sitting there telling me none of this matters.
Again, dude. Just stop.
and i'm literally flooding you with the reality that Codemasters is owned by a parent company and not independent.
what is even happening here
What is happening here is the Twilight Zone, my friend. You are in hell. You are facing a nemesis.
And you are facing a legal gray area, which is why all of these publications disagree with you.
there is no legal grey area
is Codemasters owned by Reliance Entertainment yes or no?
Yes, but not completely. Hence, the grayness. The company is free to declare themselves as independent, which they absolutely do going by their official website. Multiple--and I do mean multiple--major publications consider them indie as well. There is no legal, set definition of an independent entity. It is up to the entity itself to declare its legal status, much as an individual has such freedom. This is the point you are bashing your head against.
what has been stricken is nonsense, your answer is all that matters, there is no "but"
and i'm literally flooding you with the reality that Codemasters is owned by a parent company and not independent.
what is even happening here
What is happening here is the Twilight Zone, my friend. You are in hell. You are facing a nemesis.
And you are facing a legal gray area, which is why all of these publications disagree with you.
there is no legal grey area
is Codemasters owned by Reliance Entertainment yes or no?
Yes, but not completely. Hence, the grayness. The company is free to declare themselves as independent, which they absolutely do going by their official website. Multiple--and I do mean multiple--major publications consider them indie as well. There is no legal, set definition of an independent entity. It is up to the entity itself to declare its legal status, much as an individual has such freedom. This is the point you are bashing your head against.
what has been stricken is nonsense, your answer is all that matters, there is no "but"
Striking out reality does not make reality go away. Nor does it make me go away. Codemasters officially, legally declares themselves as independent. They have the freedom to do so, much as an individual has such legal freedom regardless of circumstance. You cannot change these facts. You continue to try, though.
What is happening here is the Twilight Zone, my friend. You are in hell. You are facing a nemesis.
And you are facing a legal gray area, which is why all of these publications disagree with you.
there is no legal grey area
is Codemasters owned by Reliance Entertainment yes or no?
Yes, but not completely. Hence, the grayness. The company is free to declare themselves as independent, which they absolutely do going by their official website. Multiple--and I do mean multiple--major publications consider them indie as well. There is no legal, set definition of an independent entity. It is up to the entity itself to declare its legal status, much as an individual has such freedom. This is the point you are bashing your head against.
what has been stricken is nonsense, your answer is all that matters, there is no "but"
Striking out reality does not make reality go away. Nor does it make me go away. Codemasters officially, legally declares themselves as independent. They have the freedom to do so, much as an individual has such legal freedom regardless of circumstance. You cannot change these facts. You continue to try, though.
what reality? they're not legally declaring themselves as independent, if they are declaring themselves as an independent it's because Reliance Entertainment is allowing it to happen.
they legally don't have the control to do anything because they're not in control of anything
@endofaugust: Incorrect. They advertise themselves independent on their own official outlet, as shown. A slew of major publications have gone on record recognizing them as independent. They have won and been nominated for official independent studio awards. They are recognized by one of the UK's largest journalist publications as a "traditional independent company". They are partially owned by several entities: this does not take away their freedom to declare independence per percentages. Hence the legal grayness. And hence your difficulty grasping this concept.
@endofaugust: Incorrect. They advertise themselves independent on their own official outlet, as shown. A slew of major publications have gone on record recognizing them as independent. They have won and been nominated for official independent studio awards. They are recognized by one of the UK's largest journalist publications as a "traditional independent company". They are partially owned by several entities: this does not take away their freedom to declare independence per percentages. Hence the legal grayness. And hence your difficulty grasping this concept.
that's not how private company ownership works, minorities are welcome to bring thoughts and ideas to the table however they are not in a position to dictate terms. Codemasters has been known as an independent developer and they were one for many, many years. given this reality what has likely taken place is RE has allowed that moniker and identity of the company to stay in place for marketing, PR and more so identity purposes and brand recognition. RE could change the name of the company right now, they could liquidate the company and dissolve it, they could fire the entire staff, they could bar CM from stating anything remotely related to being independent, that is what comes with owning the majority of a private company.
you're along for the ride, where do you think CM gets the majority of their money to continually fund their projects? it's so obvious that you're wrong, you know you're wrong, everyone knows you're wrong, multiple people have told you you're wrong including a moderator and game journalist, and yet you continue to push back just to save face. why? it's as simple as "i misspoke and was incorrect", that would literally be the end of this entire discussion. instead you are so hellbent on making something on Xbox look bad you have to reach, make things up and move goal posts endlessly just to appease yourself as being correct in some alternate reality.
@reduc_ab_: seems like you are having a hard time twisting the "legal gray area" to prove you are correct. You've said it yourself "owned by other entities" therefore not independent. But because of this "gray area" they can claim and call themselves whatever they want.
@xxyetixx: It is up to the company itself. It is a matter of share percentages, but not this alone. It is similar to an individual's status legally. Yes, it is a gray area. Thus difficult to grasp for laymen.
@reduc_ab_: there is nothing difficult to grasp at all, you are both right, but overall correctness goes to EndofAugust. They are not independent they have a parent company. Yet they have freedoms of an independent.
It would be like Treyarch given permission to make what ever they wanted and release a game that's not COD independently and free from activision control or input. That game would be Treyarchs and an independent game but they would still have the parent company of activision. Therefore not an independent dev
@xxyetixx: It is up to the company itself. It is a matter of share percentages, but not this alone. It is similar to an individual's status legally. Yes, it is a gray area. Thus difficult to grasp for laymen.
private companies do not have shares, they don't function like publicly traded companies with boards and investor meetings, they're entirely controlled by the majority owner. this isn't a company that has to appease share owners or bend to the will of investors, they have free reign to do whatever they want as long as they own the controlling stake in the company.
whatever Codemaster's does or does not do is dictated to them by Reliance Entertainment
@reduc_ab_: there is nothing difficult to grasp at all, you are both right, but overall correctness goes to EndofAugust. They are not independent they have a parent company. Yet they have freedoms of an independent.
It would be like Treyarch given permission to make what ever they wanted and release a game that's not COD independently and free from activision control or input. That game would be Treyarchs and an independent game but they would still have the parent company of activision. Therefore not an independent dev
You see, I don't exactly agree with it, but the fact remains that Codemasters retains the legality of declaring themselves independent. It is a freedom of both businesses and individuals, regardless of circumstance. Share percentages are one way of looking at the logical defining element, but it is not the only way. The legal systems of both the US and the UK are convoluted on purpose; gray areas, business-wise as well as citizen-wise is a rule, not an exception. There are reasons for this, but that is another discussion. The bottom line is Codemasters has publicly declared themselves independent; and multiple, major publications have as well. This is because all of these entities are within legal boundaries to do so.
@reduc_ab_: there is nothing difficult to grasp at all, you are both right, but overall correctness goes to EndofAugust. They are not independent they have a parent company. Yet they have freedoms of an independent.
It would be like Treyarch given permission to make what ever they wanted and release a game that's not COD independently and free from activision control or input. That game would be Treyarchs and an independent game but they would still have the parent company of activision. Therefore not an independent dev
You see, I don't exactly agree with it, but the fact remains that Codemasters retains the legality of declaring themselves independent. It is a freedom of both businesses and individuals, regardless of circumstance. Share percentages are one way of looking at the logical defining element, but it is not the only way. The legal systems of both the US and the UK are convoluted on purpose; gray areas, business-wise as well as citizen-wise is a rule, not an exception. There are reasons for this, but that is another discussion. The bottom line is Codemasters has publicly declared themselves independent; and multiple, major publications have as well. This is because all of these entities are within legal boundaries to do so.
it's nothing legal and it's not a right, it's an allowance, it's a privilege.
@xxyetixx: It is up to the company itself. It is a matter of share percentages, but not this alone. It is similar to an individual's status legally. Yes, it is a gray area. Thus difficult to grasp for laymen.
private companies do not have shares, they don't function like publicly traded companies with boards and investor meetings, they're entirely controlled by the majority owner. this isn't a company that has to appease share owners or bend to the will of investors, they have free reign to do whatever they want as long as they own the controlling stake in the company.
whatever Codemaster's does or does not do is dictated to them by Reliance Entertainment
The fact remains. A company is legally able to declare themselves independent regardless of circumstance. Share percentages is simply lawyer-speak; the reality is that there are multiple defenses a given company might use to retain independent status. This is known, officially as well as unofficially, as a "gray area".
Codemasters has publicly advertised themselves as independent; they are legally within their boundaries allowed to do so. Major publications across national borders have publicly declared the company independent as well. The company has won independent developer awards, etc. etc. You will continue to argue the point, and you will fail. You will never stand as an authority against the declaration of the company itself, nor the official journalistic majority that acknowledge that declaration.
Still the most powerful I'll own. Looking forward to it.
Ex-lem now lem again !!! Shhh ! Your precious system this generation is PS4 as we speak, we all know that. You know youll be playing with your PS4/PRO way more than your X1X. You hypie/hypo show us your true colors.
@metalslimenite Ill teach you right now noob! Watch and learn
ZOMG everyone in the SW look!! See how he stalking me?! Always following me and since last time I owned him ass so bad, made him cry. Now finding me here in new thread and trying to get back at cainetao because he was made sad.
@metalslimenite You see? Is THAT Easy !
Sorry @cainetao11 just giving lessons to metalslimenite, you were an easy example.
Hahaha, for the record though wtf you talking about ? You copy pasting what i said to you in the past ? Who was SCREAMING the word biaaaatch, "you fuking biaaaatch" over a video game debate like crazy ? Remember !! Come on bro!
Me to be upset with you ?!! Rofl !!!! Not a chance bro, not a chance and youve tried so hard in the past, you and few other guys ( some keep trying ) that is my honor in the first place.
Anyways as i said, giving SW lessons to @metalslimenite. Thnx for participating, sorry for annoying you ( or not so sorry, doing for once what you did to me plenty of times but ok ! )
I admit, I chuckled. :)
For any of our differences, we both understand the...................oh screw it, this forum is a dying thing along with the voice of the non sensical
@reduc_ab_: there is nothing difficult to grasp at all, you are both right, but overall correctness goes to EndofAugust. They are not independent they have a parent company. Yet they have freedoms of an independent.
It would be like Treyarch given permission to make what ever they wanted and release a game that's not COD independently and free from activision control or input. That game would be Treyarchs and an independent game but they would still have the parent company of activision. Therefore not an independent dev
You see, I don't exactly agree with it, but the fact remains that Codemasters retains the legality of declaring themselves independent. It is a freedom of both businesses and individuals, regardless of circumstance. Share percentages are one way of looking at the logical defining element, but it is not the only way. The legal systems of both the US and the UK are convoluted on purpose; gray areas, business-wise as well as citizen-wise is a rule, not an exception. There are reasons for this, but that is another discussion. The bottom line is Codemasters has publicly declared themselves independent; and multiple, major publications have as well. This is because all of these entities are within legal boundaries to do so.
it's nothing legal and it's not a right, it's an allowance, it's a privilege.
An allowance is a legal privilege; a legal privilege, when status sovereignty is concerned, is unalienable. You are beginning to see; you are beginning to come around.
@xxyetixx: It is up to the company itself. It is a matter of share percentages, but not this alone. It is similar to an individual's status legally. Yes, it is a gray area. Thus difficult to grasp for laymen.
private companies do not have shares, they don't function like publicly traded companies with boards and investor meetings, they're entirely controlled by the majority owner. this isn't a company that has to appease share owners or bend to the will of investors, they have free reign to do whatever they want as long as they own the controlling stake in the company.
whatever Codemaster's does or does not do is dictated to them by Reliance Entertainment
The fact remains. A company is legally able to declare themselves independent regardless of circumstance. Share percentages is simply lawyer-speak; the reality is that there are multiple defenses a given company might use to retain independent status. This is known, officially as well as unofficially, as a "gray area".
Codemasters has publicly advertised themselves as independent; they are legally within their boundaries allowed to do so. Major publications across national borders have publicly declared the company independent as well. The company has won independent developer awards, etc. etc. You will continue to argue the point, and you will fail. You will never stand as an authority against the declaration of the company itself, nor the official journalistic majority that acknowledge that declaration.
you're literally just making things up now to twist this discussion into your favor for the ignorant who don't understand business ownership or how it actually works in the private sector.
@xxyetixx: It is up to the company itself. It is a matter of share percentages, but not this alone. It is similar to an individual's status legally. Yes, it is a gray area. Thus difficult to grasp for laymen.
private companies do not have shares, they don't function like publicly traded companies with boards and investor meetings, they're entirely controlled by the majority owner. this isn't a company that has to appease share owners or bend to the will of investors, they have free reign to do whatever they want as long as they own the controlling stake in the company.
whatever Codemaster's does or does not do is dictated to them by Reliance Entertainment
The fact remains. A company is legally able to declare themselves independent regardless of circumstance. Share percentages is simply lawyer-speak; the reality is that there are multiple defenses a given company might use to retain independent status. This is known, officially as well as unofficially, as a "gray area".
Codemasters has publicly advertised themselves as independent; they are legally within their boundaries allowed to do so. Major publications across national borders have publicly declared the company independent as well. The company has won independent developer awards, etc. etc. You will continue to argue the point, and you will fail. You will never stand as an authority against the declaration of the company itself, nor the official journalistic majority that acknowledge that declaration.
you're literally just making things up now to twist this discussion into your favor for the ignorant who don't understand business ownership or how it actually works in the private sector.
you're peddling nonsense.
There is no "now" about it. I have stuck to the main point since the start of this. You claiming that I am twisting anything is twisting on your end, not my own.
The simple fact remains. Codemasters has publicly advertised themselves as independent, and multiple, major publications have acknowledged and echoed that declaration.
@xxyetixx: It is up to the company itself. It is a matter of share percentages, but not this alone. It is similar to an individual's status legally. Yes, it is a gray area. Thus difficult to grasp for laymen.
private companies do not have shares, they don't function like publicly traded companies with boards and investor meetings, they're entirely controlled by the majority owner. this isn't a company that has to appease share owners or bend to the will of investors, they have free reign to do whatever they want as long as they own the controlling stake in the company.
whatever Codemaster's does or does not do is dictated to them by Reliance Entertainment
The fact remains. A company is legally able to declare themselves independent regardless of circumstance. Share percentages is simply lawyer-speak; the reality is that there are multiple defenses a given company might use to retain independent status. This is known, officially as well as unofficially, as a "gray area".
Codemasters has publicly advertised themselves as independent; they are legally within their boundaries allowed to do so. Major publications across national borders have publicly declared the company independent as well. The company has won independent developer awards, etc. etc. You will continue to argue the point, and you will fail. You will never stand as an authority against the declaration of the company itself, nor the official journalistic majority that acknowledge that declaration.
you're literally just making things up now to twist this discussion into your favor for the ignorant who don't understand business ownership or how it actually works in the private sector.
you're peddling nonsense.
There is no "now" about it. I have stuck to the main point since the start of this. You claiming that I am twisting anything is twisting on your end, not my own.
The simple fact remains. Codemasters has publicly advertised themselves as independent, and multiple, major publications have acknowledged and echoed that declaration.
No you haven't stuck to the main point; you've confused what differentiates an indie game and indie developer. You equate them as being the same thing - just because a developer defines themselves as being independent they 'must' only produce indie games. You and everyone else here knows Codemasters isn't an 'indie game' developer, they're an independent company thats all. Any licensed major sports game is never going to be released as an indie by virtue of being licensed. This argument is silly.
The fact remains. A company is legally able to declare themselves independent regardless of circumstance. Share percentages is simply lawyer-speak; the reality is that there are multiple defenses a given company might use to retain independent status. This is known, officially as well as unofficially, as a "gray area".
Codemasters has publicly advertised themselves as independent; they are legally within their boundaries allowed to do so. Major publications across national borders have publicly declared the company independent as well. The company has won independent developer awards, etc. etc. You will continue to argue the point, and you will fail. You will never stand as an authority against the declaration of the company itself, nor the official journalistic majority that acknowledge that declaration.
you're literally just making things up now to twist this discussion into your favor for the ignorant who don't understand business ownership or how it actually works in the private sector.
you're peddling nonsense.
There is no "now" about it. I have stuck to the main point since the start of this. You claiming that I am twisting anything is twisting on your end, not my own.
The simple fact remains. Codemasters has publicly advertised themselves as independent, and multiple, major publications have acknowledged and echoed that declaration.
No you haven't stuck to the main point; you've confused what differentiates an indie game and indie developer. You equate them as being the same thing - just because a developer defines themselves as being independent they 'must' only produce indie games. You and everyone else here knows Codemasters isn't an 'indie game' developer, they're an independent company thats all. Any licensed major sports game is never going to be released as an indie by virtue of being licensed. This argument is silly.
Incorrect. There is no confusion. The company publicly advertises themselves as independent; in addition to this, there is a considerable list of major publications that list them as independent; they have won awards, and been nominated up to last year, for greatness in the independent studio space. Therefore, they are officially recognized by the journalistic community as such. In addition, independence in the business sense is up to the entity defining itself as such; this is a legal gray area, as stated ad nauseam thus far. If a game company advertises themselves as independent, then by extension their creations are independent as well. Again, this is legal speak. It is similar to you declaring yourself an independent legally--regardless of circumstance.
I do not agree necessarily with Codemasters here. Nonetheless, the situation, as defined above, stands.
No you haven't stuck to the main point; you've confused what differentiates an indie game and indie developer. You equate them as being the same thing - just because a developer defines themselves as being independent they 'must' only produce indie games. You and everyone else here knows Codemasters isn't an 'indie game' developer, they're an independent company thats all. Any licensed major sports game is never going to be released as an indie by virtue of being licensed. This argument is silly.
he's delusional and doesn't actually understand anything concerning business ownership or legal formalities, don't waste your time
@endofaugust: And you have no strength left to argue against an actuality you cannot disprove. Thus you turn to camaraderie, which will not salvage your attempts.
Again. I feel for you. Have a nice evening, sweetie.
Log in to comment