gamespot.com/news/2005/02/17 … 18777.html
They seem proud of acquiring whole companies!Ironic : are they actually saying their developing teams have no quality?Why don’t they just invest their money inside their company?!Gah!!!
To play devil’s advocate (as usual), what do you expect from a business? It happens in every other industry. Cell phone companies merge, fast food companies merge, etc. It allows the company to acquire a whole new userbase, acquire new talent, and make your former competition make money for you.
The Ubi deal is months old by now. Please don’t make another thread like this again.
Desperation…America’s supposed to tout a capitalist economy! All economic theorists agree that market monopolies of any sort are anathema to capitalism! Isn’t there some sort of anti-monopoly legislation that can be used to clobber Electronic Arts? Why are they so willing to goad Microsoft, but won’t anyone lift a finger against damnable and contemptible EA? 
Someone should take THEM over.
I’m started to get annoyed at how some people react around here.The “Ubi deal” is not over yet.EA doesn’t own Ubisoft.You don’t need to read the topic if you don’t want to.
Abadd:The thing is they are suposed to be top notch game developers and yet they need to get talent from somewhere else.It’s paradoxal.They are calling themselves incompetent in an indirect way.
Im saying we know EA’s gained part of Ubi and now there’s a conflict going on. Im saying we don’t need entire new threads on it.
Ubisoft actually published Star Ocean: Till the End of Time in Europe; would EA adopt the same policy towards localizing Japanese RPGs?
I make no secret of the fact that I despise EA. After seeing Westwood Studios be turned into a shadow of its former self I doubt that Ubisoft will ever be the same again if EA were to acquire a controlling stack.
As far as I’m concerned, EA represents everything that’s wrong with the games industry. Whenever I think of EA that old Biblical proverb “the love of money is the route of all evil” (Timothy 6:10) always springs to mind.
Raizen, you need to calm the hell down. That article is dated from today. It contains new information. And even if it didn’t, that wouldn’t excuse your being a jerk about it. Relax, buddy.
Anyway, not to be completely off topic…
I always sort of thought of monopolies as the natural result of pure, unfettered capitalism (survival of the fittest and all that). That’s why we need government. As for EA, they’re really not a monopoly, just an evil, soulless megacorporation (also a natural result of capitalism, by the way). If they do manage to stray into the realm of monopoly, I’m sure they’ll be smacked down like all the others before them.
[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]Ubisoft actually published Star Ocean: Till the End of Time in Europe; would EA adopt the same policy towards localizing Japanese RPGs?
I make no secret of the fact that I despise EA. After seeing Westwood Studios be turned into a shadow of its former self I doubt that Ubisoft will ever be the same again if EA were to acquire a controlling stack.
As far as I’m concerned, EA represents everything that’s wrong with the games industry. Whenever I think of EA that old Biblical proverb “the love of money is the route of all evil” (Timothy 6:10) always springs to mind.[/quote]
Then why don’t u think that for every company, because every company is looking for more ways to make money. If Ubi was dominant, and EA was smaller, Ubi would try to take over EA. Why?? the anser is one word-money. this entire industry is based on money.
Sure, the games industry is a place of business, but the goals of some developers/publishers go beyond making money. Far beyond. There was once even a time when games were made by gamers for gamers.
Do you think Yu Suzuki wanted to make Shenmue in order to make money? The answer is no.
And Sega wasn’t an industry leader once because it released the same sports game every year. How long do you think EA would last without any of its official liscenses? Out of all the big-name publishers, EA is the least creative. Most of EA’s intellectual property was bought and paid for.
[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]
Sure, the games industry is a place of business, but the goals of some developers/publishers go beyond making money. Far beyond.
Do you think Yu Suzuki wanted to make Shenmue in order to make money? The answer is no.
And Sega wasn’t an industry leader once because it released the same sports game every year. How long do you think EA would last without any of its official liscenses? Out of all the big-name publishers, EA is the least creative. Most of EA’s intellectual property was bought and paid for.[/quote]
EA makes quality games, never mind the lack of creativity. Def Jam: Fight for NY for example. All the Street series, SSX series, LOTR: Return of the King, 007:Everything or Nothing, etc, etc. Has Madden ever been a bad game?? No. So they can feel free to pump out Madden every year. And if Sega got the NFL deal, they’d be pumping out ESPN every year, wouldn’t they?? The anwser is yes. 2004 was just a bad year for EA but 2005 is like their revival. Plus, they saved the longest-running football franchise from vanishing, so now they’ll be determined to make Madden the best football game out there. So what if they lack creativity?? At leats most of their games are good.
It’s really starting to get old and predictable now. =P Had I seen this thread earlier I no doubt would’ve replied to this post you made before you’d even made it!
Sure, but not only would Sega refine their product to perfection, but they’d use their profits to lead the way with new ideas in other areas of game development. Third party developers like Sega and Treasure are very conscious of innovation. You could even accuse Sega of being too creative at times.
The only thing EA cares about is how much money it can make from a brandname. You will never see anything wholly new or original like Dragon Force or Shenmue or Condemned from EA unless those games have already sold millions of copies and EA buys the company that made them. In fact, many of EA’s more innovative intellectual properties were simply bought. Command And Conquer may not may been revolutionary for its time, but the way the story unfolded from good and evil points of view was unparalleled anywhere. That series has strayed far from its story-driven roots now thanks to EA.
Oh yeah, and EA’s Burn Out 3 introduced so many new ideas to the racing genre – it’s just a shame that it wasn’t actually made by EA. Perish the thought of EA actually taking the risk of developing untested intellectual properties without the safety net of a recognized brandname by itself. EA won’t publish anything that isn’t guaranteed to sell from day one, which more or less spells doom for original games (originality has no guarantees).
sigh
This is getting to be like a played out relationship. There’s no excitement anymore, Shadow. I’m afraid we’re just going to have to go our separate ways now. It’s not you… it’s me 
[quote=“Abadd”]sigh
This is getting to be like a played out relationship. There’s no excitement anymore, Shadow. I’m afraid we’re just going to have to go our separate ways now. It’s not you… it’s me ;)[/quote]
Really!? FINALLY! Now I can go out and have fun again. With people such as… Gehn.
You sure about that?Maybe you should reconsider.I demand flowers everyday.
I love reading your business oorientated posts… because they are usually correct =)
Wait for the rise of Scott Enterprises
[quote=“Raizen1984”]
EA makes quality games, never mind the lack of creativity. Def Jam: Fight for NY for example. All the Street series, SSX series, LOTR: Return of the King, 007:Everything or Nothing, etc, etc. Has Madden ever been a bad game??[/quote]
That’s open to debate. Personally, Def Jam doesn’t interest me. Street… pft, give me the NBA Jam games of old. Return of the King… it was a beat’em up… a beat’em up where you can lose track of Gimli if he’s swamped by orcs. That game rides for a great part on it’s license. And the 007 games are off debatable quality. Rare made the most succesful Bond game ever and EA hasn’t been able to top it yet. Although… EA tried to cash in on that one with Golden Eye… Rogue Agent, and that move was generally ill received by the gaming world.
But in general, most EA developed games are much ininspired… and most of them ride on bought movie and/or sports licenses. The casual gamer will no doubt go for such games over quality games with fictional say, footballers.
Will EA like Julius Ceaser be stabbed in the back,front and whatever by the friends it has aqquired down the line?