EA buys 20% of Ubi Soft and EA becomes largest owner
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
Riddlewire
Regular
Inane_Dork said:
Well, I figure it could be done (stopping them, that is), but it would require lots of cooperation. The gaming websites, ALL of them, and the gaming magazines, ALL of them, would have to reach a collective agreement to not give any coverage to any EA game. They would have to agree to pretend that EA just didn't exist and never mention them. About two years' worth of that would definitely have an impact.
I don't see any way that you could get the Big Three on board, though (and with consolidation, I guess they're the Big Two now).
EA clearly has great management at all levels of their organization. At the end of the day it's about making money and EA has done that and their stockholder/investors have been rewarded. Their track record of consistently making a profit is what allows them to buyout or do a hostile takeover in the case of UBI. Not everything they touch turns to gold, but they do a good job of making games video game consumers buy. People like great games and EA provides them to many peoples satisfaction.
EA is a large corporation, and they are doing whats needed to grow their company in a profitable manner. This isn't easy, but they seem to be on the right path. If they miscalculate other company's will take advantage of any errors EA makes. This is captialism at its best.
People aren't forced to work for EA. A great example of this was the former Medal of Honor team which left the company and made Call of Duty. The same could happen with some UBI team members if they don't like the view once EA takes over.
The simple fact is if you don't like EA, don't buy the games. While I don't end up buying many EA games myself, the ones I do purchase I get good value from them.
EA is a large corporation, and they are doing whats needed to grow their company in a profitable manner. This isn't easy, but they seem to be on the right path. If they miscalculate other company's will take advantage of any errors EA makes. This is captialism at its best.
People aren't forced to work for EA. A great example of this was the former Medal of Honor team which left the company and made Call of Duty. The same could happen with some UBI team members if they don't like the view once EA takes over.
The simple fact is if you don't like EA, don't buy the games. While I don't end up buying many EA games myself, the ones I do purchase I get good value from them.
OK EA is obviously the most flagrant offender in buying out studios and IP. But are they the only ones?
Did Command and Conquer suffer after they took over Westwood? I don't know the WC or Ultima series. Can someone recap what happened after each of their acquisitions instead of making a blanket claim that the games they acquire become bad?
Because it seems to me that one of the things smaller studios do is try to put together a game, get noticed and get bought out. Not in this Ubisoft case but in most of their other acquisitions, it sounds like the smaller studios were willing participants in the acquisition.
That is because games, like movies, have become sequel-driven, as publishers seem only interested in funding proven franchises. And rather than develop original IP, they acquire smaller studios and publishers with games which have sold well.
Sure there have been original games introduced this generation. The EA Big had a bunch of games released. But only SSX, NFL Street and NBA Street appears to have reached sequel status. It seems the ratio of sequels to original games is pretty high these days. The next generation will be an opportunity to release some original games and some of those will no doubt get on the sequel train.
Besides other games publishers being risk-averse with anything but proven properties, you see movie studios doing sequels or remaking old movies or making movies out of cartoons and old TV shows.
Such is the state of the creative industries...
Did Command and Conquer suffer after they took over Westwood? I don't know the WC or Ultima series. Can someone recap what happened after each of their acquisitions instead of making a blanket claim that the games they acquire become bad?
Because it seems to me that one of the things smaller studios do is try to put together a game, get noticed and get bought out. Not in this Ubisoft case but in most of their other acquisitions, it sounds like the smaller studios were willing participants in the acquisition.
That is because games, like movies, have become sequel-driven, as publishers seem only interested in funding proven franchises. And rather than develop original IP, they acquire smaller studios and publishers with games which have sold well.
Sure there have been original games introduced this generation. The EA Big had a bunch of games released. But only SSX, NFL Street and NBA Street appears to have reached sequel status. It seems the ratio of sequels to original games is pretty high these days. The next generation will be an opportunity to release some original games and some of those will no doubt get on the sequel train.
Besides other games publishers being risk-averse with anything but proven properties, you see movie studios doing sequels or remaking old movies or making movies out of cartoons and old TV shows.
Such is the state of the creative industries...
Brimstone, it's nice that you wish to defend EA but I could care less if it's a smart move for them. It is bad for the industry period. I've seen too many devs get bought up by EA only to be digested and the end product being released is dung. Is that what you want? Look what happened to Bullfrog. Looked what happened to Origin. The properties of those teams were drowned out and turned to crap. It will happen again with Ubi Soft if they do indeed get gobbled up by EA.
I love the business aspects of the industry but not when it comes to threatening the quality of the games out there. EA may make some great games, but 1 out of 5 is a very bad ratio of great to crap in my book.
To the comment of the one who said SEGA is next that is laughable. Sammy has a firm grip on SEGA and the last itme I checked it would be quite hard to get any controlling interest in Sammy for the mere fact that one man has more share then EA would be able to attain.
I love the business aspects of the industry but not when it comes to threatening the quality of the games out there. EA may make some great games, but 1 out of 5 is a very bad ratio of great to crap in my book.
To the comment of the one who said SEGA is next that is laughable. Sammy has a firm grip on SEGA and the last itme I checked it would be quite hard to get any controlling interest in Sammy for the mere fact that one man has more share then EA would be able to attain.
Interesting...
Last week it was reported that the EA bid to buyout DICE (the developer of Battlefield 1942 which sold more than 4 million copies) had failed.
Well, fast forward to today. It is now reported that EA has revived its takeover bid and convinced Bonnier & Bonnier, who own 25.6% of DICE, to vote in favor of the takeover. EA has left its offer on the table until Jan 20th, 2005. EA still needs the approval of parties controlling, at minimum, 90 percent of DICE's voting shares for the acquisition to take place.
So lets see...
• Obtain NFL Exclusive and eliminate professional football competition across the board. CHECK.
• Begin buying out one of our largest competitors. CHECK.
• Buy out developer of extremely successful PC series that is being developed for next gen consoles. Soon to be a: CHECK.
EA has been busy this Christmas season. I would sure hate to pay those credit card bills!
Prediction time: What next? We got one guess Sega is next. Any other guesses??! For some reason I do not think EA is done... could NBA/MLB Exclusives be far behind? Now this is something worth speculating
Last week it was reported that the EA bid to buyout DICE (the developer of Battlefield 1942 which sold more than 4 million copies) had failed.
Well, fast forward to today. It is now reported that EA has revived its takeover bid and convinced Bonnier & Bonnier, who own 25.6% of DICE, to vote in favor of the takeover. EA has left its offer on the table until Jan 20th, 2005. EA still needs the approval of parties controlling, at minimum, 90 percent of DICE's voting shares for the acquisition to take place.
So lets see...
• Obtain NFL Exclusive and eliminate professional football competition across the board. CHECK.
• Begin buying out one of our largest competitors. CHECK.
• Buy out developer of extremely successful PC series that is being developed for next gen consoles. Soon to be a: CHECK.
EA has been busy this Christmas season. I would sure hate to pay those credit card bills!
Prediction time: What next? We got one guess Sega is next. Any other guesses??! For some reason I do not think EA is done... could NBA/MLB Exclusives be far behind? Now this is something worth speculating
I was thinking about this lately also... about how the video game industry collapsed in the early 80's. I know that what EA is doing is good for EA and stock holders, but I am concerned about what this means for the industry. While these moves are good for investors, moves that hurt the quality of the product is bad because consumers may choose to spend their money elsewhere. Competition is one thing that keeps the quality of products high. I guess we get to watch how this plays out... anyone have popcorn?
Wing commander was the name for space sims at that point in time and suddenly its gone just like that
Ultima was one of the most sucessfull if not the most succesfull rpg series for the pc up till that point.
They took it over and rushed out ultima 9 and pumped out horible expansions for ultima online.
They killed both of these propertys .
Fox5 said:
EA was founded in 1982 according to their website (sorry no link, it was a popup page under corperate info). I believe Trip Hawkins was one of the founders. Anyhow, whether they were founded during, or after, the first market crash depends on where you place the crash and how long it was crashed.
Personally I would look at the 1984-85 time frame, when the Nintendo came out with the NES, as the end of the crash. But that is just my opinion. Obviously EA was not a cause of the first crash, and I do not remember playing a lot of EA games when it rejuvinated either. They definiately hit the market when it hit an up-cycle although back then Nintendo, Sega, Capcom, etc... were the ones really pushing the market forward. That was a long time ago and I was only a kid, so I do not remember a lot... some of the veterans here could probably shed some light on this.
My first EA game was Madden though, I am pretty sure of that.
Sonic said:
Threating the quality of games according to who? People that don't matter to stock holders obviously because lots of people buy their games and enjoy them. EA's stock price reflects a job well done. People buy EA games because they like them. People have voted with their dollars and have chosen EA for their souce of video game entertainment.
They have shown leadership by connecting with the consummer, and show no signs of stopping to have the midas touch. If EA is doing such a bad job, why are they thriving? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion in what they like and dislike, but because you disagree doesn't mean the quality is bad for everyone.
If you love or hate the SIMS it doesn't matter. People voted with their money and bought a lot of copies of that game. This goes for all EA games.
I'm not defending EA, I defend capitalism.
Well yes according to me. When you have perfectly good franchises being run into the ground for the simple word being money then that is a very major problem whether you wish to face it or not. People do vote with their money and I'm happy it is working out for EA, but do you honestly want them to gobble up every great gaming dev out there only for those devs to turn into mediocre dev houses?
In the end it probably won't be good for the consumers that EA is achieving such a big share of the market. Capitalism may be a great thing (which I agree with you 100%) but EA is treading on very dangerous ground. If it keeps going the way it is EA will have to rely on themselves to anything. They will not be able to command Sony or MS around when it comes to the very end of it. MS itself has plans to increase its 1st party devs threefold despite the recent sale of the remaining XSN dev houses. Sony is increasing the quality of its 1st party dramatically through each gaming generation. EA is looking for growth, but the question is will they be able to retain the level of sales they've been getting or even sustain their current growth? What will happen if Japanese devs and publishers make the big comeback that analysts are predicting will happen?
Buying up small dev houses that churn out quality game after quality game is not a good thing for the consumer. If EA is able to make the next Burnout as good as the third installment then I will applaud them with a standing ovation. The same goes if they gobble up Ubi Soft. But if their titles and games turn into lower quality then it will be for the worse. You should agree with that.
In the end it probably won't be good for the consumers that EA is achieving such a big share of the market. Capitalism may be a great thing (which I agree with you 100%) but EA is treading on very dangerous ground. If it keeps going the way it is EA will have to rely on themselves to anything. They will not be able to command Sony or MS around when it comes to the very end of it. MS itself has plans to increase its 1st party devs threefold despite the recent sale of the remaining XSN dev houses. Sony is increasing the quality of its 1st party dramatically through each gaming generation. EA is looking for growth, but the question is will they be able to retain the level of sales they've been getting or even sustain their current growth? What will happen if Japanese devs and publishers make the big comeback that analysts are predicting will happen?
Buying up small dev houses that churn out quality game after quality game is not a good thing for the consumer. If EA is able to make the next Burnout as good as the third installment then I will applaud them with a standing ovation. The same goes if they gobble up Ubi Soft. But if their titles and games turn into lower quality then it will be for the worse. You should agree with that.
Brimstone said:
Unfortunately, sales don't necessarely reflect "quality" which is the fallacy of your argument. The mass market that buys into EA products is lured into thinking that the strong name of a game-title equals a quality purchase as well (can you blame "him" after liking the corresponding movie?), when in fact there are many more, better, innovative games out there that lack the money to make a big showing and be competitive with a publisher like EA.
Sales of EA games with rights to big-names / high profile movies should show you that - and the corresponding average rating of those titles as well. Selling games purely on their name and feature list (while cutting down on resources, costs) is sadly working out for EA.
Is EA cutting staff when they acquire companies? No doubt the bean counters try to squeeze out "redundancies."
But aren't their staffs among the largest?
Seems like the games have a lot of production values -- big soundtracks, lots of features, etc.
Doesn't really seem to square with the contention that they are cutting corners.
But aren't their staffs among the largest?
Seems like the games have a lot of production values -- big soundtracks, lots of features, etc.
Doesn't really seem to square with the contention that they are cutting corners.