Is EA destroying the games industry?

Other Games
1

I read this article here

indianastatesman.com/vnews/d … c8828d9d17

The writer is saying that if Sega never pushed nintendo when it did would Nintendo have evolved the way they are now and would Sony have ever produced the PSX. He said that competition is good but EA trying to create monopolies and destroy any competition will be their downfall and the gamers will be the ones who suffer.

I agree to a certain degree except that i don’t play EA games so i would n’t suffer if they went belly up tommorow. But what is the chance of thatever happening? EA has always been a progressive company in the terms of it’s business abd it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Yet if there is no competiton left in the games that EA deals with how would the game industry progress? Would it be stagnant and end up crashing
the market?

2

There’s this little thing called the Monopolies Commission that’s supposed to stop this from happening.

And I doubt E.A. will monopolise the console gaming front as long as there are gamers out there with IQ’s over 50.

3

I’m not sure whom I hate more: EA or the casual gamers whose demands EA supply. You could argue that EA is merely the symptom of a disease.

4

EA isn’t that bad, they did publish Future Perfect and that’s good enough for me :anjou_happy:

5

[quote=“Arcie”]There’s this little thing called the Monopolies Commission that’s supposed to stop this from happening.

And I doubt E.A. will monopolise the console gaming front as long as there are gamers out there with IQ’s over 50.[/quote]

Are you serious? As long as there’s gamers with IQ over 50? LOMFAOL!
Are these the same intelligent gamers that “stopped” one of the best game systems of the early 21 century from going under?

The same “intelligent” gamers that stopped people content of buying the same game for five years straight with nothing changed except the packaging and year date while the better game was left on the shelf?

Yeah these gamers have really affected the gaming industry…

And the monoply commission is next to useless. They would n’t be able to stop EA even if they tried.

6

You’d realise that the monopoly commision isn’t useless if you had taken a U.S. history/government class, or did you just not pay attention? Anyways, EA won’t monopolise anything because a monopoly is when a company controls the entire industry. EA is only making games that people happen to like and if they make a strategic move, people who don’t really like thier games are going to say that it’s turning into a monopoly even though it’s simply not true. There are plenty of compedators with EA, more than you can name in a single sitting and they do just as well or better than EA.

7

Here’s a thought: Why don’t Microsoft take over E.A.? I’m sure that since their CEO is the richest person in the world, they could afford it.

8

I’m not entirely sure on how it works, but I don’t think a company with more money can simply go and buy out another company. If they were in serious financial trouble, they might not have an alternative, but EA Games is far from struggling. They are a company that plays it safe.

Creating innovative or niche titles just aren?t something that EA Games does, unfortunately, unless there’s some big name behind the title like Will Wright (creator of the Sims). And even then, the franchise has been milked to death with at least ten expansion packs before a sequel finally did come out. I can’t say that I find EA’s strategy of buying out franchises and then churning out numerous sequels using the same dated engine rather than developing original titles themselves attractive. It’s funny that smaller third party developers like Ubisoft can afford to release highly innovative titles like Beyond Good and Evil once in while and not get into major financial trouble, yet EA Games who supposedly “challenge everything” can’t even afford to take a few potential losses to move the industry forward with all the money that it has.

Okay, end of rant :slight_smile:

9

EA simply publishes whatever will make them money and usually at the expense of the developer. Often it happens to be good games, that doesn’t make EA ‘good’.

As seen in another thread big name (and not so big name) publishers seem to be what holds back the game industry more than anything. When the developers get a new easier and more affordable way to get their games to the public then we’ll see a lot more innovative ideas for sure. Things are starting to happen already by some (see Valve’s Steam platform).

Still, I think it will be a long long time before the majority of the developers can become completely independent of publishers since they often need funding - and a publisher can provide that - and more than anything need to get their own space at the most popular stores as it’s where the most sales get done.

Online distribution seems to be what may save developers but it’s still way too early, most people still go to the store to buy anything and a lot of them can’t even download whole games due to a slower connection speed. Retail is where most sales happen and developers need that.

So, for now, the majority of the creative developers has to simply make what the publishers that care mostly about money will like if they want to survive. Or combine what the publishers will like with something actually good which still happens every now and then :slight_smile:

10

So how is it competitive for EA to buy up most of the major sports franchises
for the next 15 years or so? In a way that’s a monoply in itself because no other competitor can actually compete with a reconizable brand.

And most companies these days do seem to bypass the monoply commision in several ways. EA may not need to buy out a company but buying shares in other rival studios mean they can influence them and to have to some extent control over the industry’s direction.

11

[quote=“Goonboy Panzer”]
So how is it competitive for EA to buy up most of the major sports franchises
for the next 15 years or so?[/quote]

They are just buying the liscenses. There are sports games that don’t have the liscences that people still buy. This also only indicates that they only bought the liscenses for Football and Basketball.

There are many developers that can compete with with EA. This isn’t a monopoly because a monopoly is a controll of an industry. The genre of sports game isn’t an industry. To say this is just like saying that Stephen King has a monopoly on the genre Horror in books because he is the most recognizable author of them and other people don’t get as good as sales as he does. And once again, other developers do compete wtih them and do a good job at it too, the only things they can’t do without the liscenses is have the real names of players, teams, coaches, etc. That didn’t stop the first Maddens from being sold now did it?

[quote=“Goonboy Panzer”]
And most companies these days do seem to bypass the monoply commision in several ways.[/quote]

Okay, name one and how they’re controlling the entire industry. There might be an oligopoly but not a monopoly. Plus, even though EA isn’t one, there is this thinking that if it’s a monopoly that it is inherently evil. That is wrong, they just have the ability to be, but some actually offer lower prices than they would if they had competition like what AT&T did until it was split into different companies by the government.

[quote=“Goonboy Panzer”]
EA may not need to buy out a company but buying shares in other rival studios mean they can influence them and to have to some extent control over the industry’s direction.[/quote]

Where is you’re proof that they’re doing this? The only industry regarding video games is the Video Game industry. There isn’t the Sports game industry. This would mean that they would have to be the only ones with a system (or the most popular by a large ratio) and make sure that only thier games are on it or the only ones making games for the systems. This isn’t happening. There is no monopolie and probably won’t be.

12

Your splitting up my answer to suit your own ends instead of looking at it in it’s content.

Number one. If one company buys up all the major brands for a sports genre and most of the customers are recorded in buying these brands than the other companies that may have wanted to use the brand or once competed with a brand are severly handicapped. That’s why Sega sold of Visual Concepts because they knew they could n’t compete without a reconizable brand to attract it’s potential customers. Arcade sports games just does n’t attract a huge userbase like it use to. Especially without a reconizable name. It’s pratically similar to a situation in the nineties when DC and Marvel tried to stop Image using the name superheroes to describe their titles. They’re basically monopolising the sports software genre/market.

Comparing it to Stephen king’s apparent dominacy of the horror book genre is silly because it isn’t even the same thing. That’s all down to whether your a fan of the author or not. In the case of EA they’ve become the sole supplier of FIFA,NFL,ESPN,PGA games. Which means they will all basically have the same high price and the same type of game engine for several years instead of the diverse choice in sport franchises that you
had before when others were allowed to at least use the names.

Number two: It’s common knowledge around here and several sites that EA has brought out game studios or buying shares into rival companies to obtain their respective franchises. If you want proof look for it yourself. i’m not gonna bother try to find evidence on something that was one of the heated topics in these forums a few months back. EA is pratically becoming the puppet master behind half of the game companies in the western world.

13

The creator of the Oddworld series was left quite disillusioned with EA too, judging from his recent decision to withdraw from the games industry.

Copied and pasted from The Hollywood Reporter:

[quote]April 16, 2005

It’s ‘game over’ for Oddworld’s creator Lanning

By Paul Hyman
After four consecutive platinum hits, you’d think a video game developer would want to parlay his success into more elaborate – and profitable – next-generation titles. But the co-creator of the Oddworld universe has taken a look at the direction he sees that industry heading and he doesn’t want to play. Instead, Lorne Lanning, president and creative director of the award-winning Oddworld Inhabitants, is waving goodbye to all that and is taking his company to where he sees greater opportunities ? to movies and TV. This month, he ended Oddworld games with a bang – by shutting down his 60-person San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based development studio and moving to the Bay Area. In a chat with HollywoodReporter.com columnist Paul Hyman, Lanning talks about the huge hurdles for game developers today, why he is all about protecting his original IP, and the reasons he believes he has a 2-1/2-year window to make his transition.

The Hollywood Reporter: Your games – beginning with “Oddworld: Abe’s Oddysee” in 1997 and continuing right up to your most recent, “Oddworld Stranger’s Wrath,” this year – have all taken place in the wacky Oddworld universe that you and [CEO] Sherry McKenna created back in 1994. They’ve all been solid hits, but this last one was frustrating for you.
Lorne Lanning: Yes, it was very critically acclaimed but it wasn’t advertised or marketed because Electronic Arts couldn’t get its PlayStation 2 port of our Xbox original to run and if EA isn’t on all SKUs, it just won’t promote the game. It was very disheartening to us that we could have a title with a Metacritic.com user metric of 9.6 [out of 10], a game that was praised as being a fusion of filmmaking and video games in terms of being less ‘gamey’ and more story- and character-driven … and then to see that the largest publisher in the industry had no interest in marketing it regardless of how innovative it was.

THR: You told me pre-launch that it was a challenge to get support for “Stranger’s Wrath” right from the get-go and you attributed that to "sequel-itis."
Lanning: It’s an industry-wide problem. As game production costs rise, publishers want more sure bets because with rising costs come rising risks. What we see is an industry which is rapidly discouraging innovation because people don’t want to take chances on more innovative types of titles.

THR: But your fourth “Oddworld” title was a sequel. Yet you still had a tough time getting a deal?
Lanning: It’s not like we alone had a particularly hard time; everybody is having a hard time getting a deal today. It’s not that different from taking your movie script around Hollywood. What are your chances of selling it to a studio and getting the financing? There’s no doubt that we got the deal because we had a history of successes. A track record is all-important in this business. [/quote]

Lanning summarises exactly how I feel about the games industry and the gluttonous fatcats in suits who seek to twist it to fit a pure money making agenda. These people wouldn’t know what vision was even if it bit them in the ass.

14

No more Oddworld games then? There must be some pissed off fans out there right now, especially considering that the Oddworld series was planned to be a quintology with Munch’s Oddysee only being the second one of the five.

I guess the Oddworld fans will now join Command & Conquer fans in their dislike for EA…

15

EA seems to destroy everything it touches. It makes you wonder if a dark Jedi is pulling strings behind the scenes.

16

I liked oddworld too… :anjou_sad:

Anyways I only split up your answer so that I could answer it piece by piece and not to distort what you wrote. The way I quoted it didn’t demerit your argument in anyway nor did I do it to suit my own ends. I looked at all its content and wrote an answer, the only thing I did was answer each thing one at a time.

One: I didn’t ask for an E.A. example in particular. I’m also not going to try to dig up evidence of something that should be provided by you if you’re going to argue it. Another thing is that even though E.A. buys the licenses, it doesn’t mean that other companies can’t make a sports game, they just can’t use the real names. Once again, I will state that that didn’t stop the first Madden games from being sold. And if most people didn’t buy the E.A. games more than the other franchises or at least enough to make a dent in it’s sales, E.A. wouldn’t have aquired the exclusive license. These other companies must have already not had a large fanbase.

Two: Comparing this to Stephen King and the books of the Horror genre isn’t silly. Just as people are a fan of Stephen King, people are also fans of E.A. sports games. E.A. having exclusive rights to those licenses is just like Stephen King having the rights to Rose Red, he writes in a different style than other authors and what you’re saying can be compared by, “I want to read another story of Rose Red but, this time, with a different style of writing.”

Three: Just by them having the exclusive rights doesn’t mean that they will use the same engine and keep it at the same NORMAL price for games now of days. Although the other games were cheaper, $50 isn’t a high price especially since most games are set to that. And just because they’re the only ones with the licenses doesn’t mean that they won’t change anything. The prices might go down now that they have no one to compete with (supposing that people only buy games with licenses as you suggest) and if the engine doesn’t change, it is unlikely that people will buy it after they see no difference with the last one. That will give them reason to create a new one.

17

Exactly. Darth Sidious is slowly but surely creating his empire beneth the Jedi’s noses.They helped destroy Sega and are sucking out all individuality out of western gaming. But Duke,Who is the Master and who is the Apprentice…?

As for the last post. I’m not going to bother. Some of the other replies from other posters have already backed up what i said about EA and this topic has been covered in this forum enough times. If you don’t know about it then your obviously deft and blind. And your statement about people won’t buy EA anymore shows you how foolish you are. EA is the only choice for the official big game franchises now. And the stupid gamers that brought into them and their respecitive game sports franchises using their respective engines that has n’t changed in the last five years are going to continue buying them because they don’t know any better and EA has ensured it’s survival in this genre in games by eliminating the competition.

If you want a debate that’s fine with me. But if you can’t be bothered to
RESERCH the topic on something that pratically EVERYONE around here knows and then try to past off your ignorance as fact then i won’t bother in wasting my time on this endevor.

Thank you.Topic done for me.

18

Der Metzgermeister is pretty much correct in his main point (I disagree with some details in the examples) to be honest. EA is quite ruthless but the industry is far from a monopoly.

I haven’t bought an EA game in many many years and yet I’ve bought many many games. That’s the simplest way this can be proven :anjou_happy:

People do like to call companies like EA as the gaming industry’s Microsoft wannabes (and for a reason) but the technical term monopoly is far from the truth.

Though that fact doesn’t mean the industry isn’t affected by EA or that it is in a good shape in general. But Der Metzgermeister wasn’t defending EA on first place, he was simply, rightfuly, arguing the usage of the term monopoly.

19

What a crock. The fact this guy feels so low about his favourite profession.

20

[quote=“Al3xand3r”]Der Metzgermeister is pretty much correct in his main point (I disagree with some details in the examples) to be honest. EA is quite ruthless but the industry is far from a monopoly.

I haven’t bought an EA game in many many years and yet I’ve bought many many games. That’s the simplest way this can be proven :anjou_happy:

People do like to call companies like EA as the gaming industry’s Microsoft wannabes (and for a reason) but the technical term monopoly is far from the truth.

Though that fact doesn’t mean the industry isn’t affected by EA or that it is in a good shape in general. But Der Metzgermeister wasn’t defending EA on first place, he was simply, rightfuly, arguing the usage of the term monopoly.[/quote]

But what better word is it to use. The english language is famous for abreviations to the actual meaning of a particular word. In the case of EA
monopolising the sports video game market that is how i feel the correct usage to use. Because most people will buy a sports game because of a particular brand which EA has the license to make. These people are more likely to get the known brand than an unknown game which has a good game engine but no mass market reconition. Also Der Metzgermeister did go into several elements corncerning EA. I’m did n’t disagree with him because he supports EA which he never said he did.