EA buys 20% of Ubi Soft and EA becomes largest owner

So hears a thought....

The last thing EA wants is for a single dominant hardware platform, if that were the case they would loose all of their leverage.

So.... Perhaps their being so big isn't such a bad thing.

Unless of course you believe that a hardware monopoly is for the best.

 

MS and EA will most definatly team up one way or another..

 

EA wouldn't be able to justify the expense of some of their production and of some of these licenses if they weren't selling the games to enough of the available market, which may be spread across several platforms. Also, some of the licensors might not grant their properties to EA if EA's plan is to restrict the brand's exposure to fewer markets.

 

As opposed to a software monopoly!?

Perhaps a hardware monopoly would mean cheaper dev costs for them with no more cross-platform development? And perhaps that will bring them closer to, dare I say it, Trip Hawkins 3DO vision...dun dun dun....!

Of course no kind of monopoly is good for the consumer!

 

EA is a full-tilt multiplatform publisher. If they even neglected a significant market too much, they'd be undermining their ability to maintain the dominance which supports their massive operation. They held out on Xbox Live, and they later lamented a marketshare defeat to SEGA in the Xbox sports gaming sector for not matching the product of their competitor. If they didn't already own the exclusive rights to the NFL license, they wouldn't spare a dollar in making Madden the best game it could be on every platform in which Sega's NFL 2Kx would also be competing, system politics or not.

 

That is a big "if". As it stands now system politics are relevant because there wont be the ESPN 2Kx competition, at least not with professional football.

It will be very interesting to see what happens when EA does not like the royalties on a platform, or does not like the direction of online revenue sharing of a platform, or feels a platform is no longer worth supporting, or whatever reasons can be found to use your muscle to get things they want. EA has some mass. It reminds me of a comment from their CEO that console makers spend 2 years before the consoles come out trying to get on their good side and then spend the next 3 or 4 years, after the console launches, acting like they do not exist. I think the dynamic is maybe swinging the other way some...

 

How is that a big "IF" when that is how it currently works? If anything, the situation where EA decides to say, support only XBox2 or GCN2 is a MUCH bigger "IF" because that's a huge risk.

 

I was directing my "if" comment at this: "If they didn't already own the exclusive rights to the NFL license, they wouldn't spare a dollar in making Madden the best game it could be on every platform in which Sega's NFL 2Kx would also be competing, system politics or not."

I still believe system politics are still relevant; and the dynamic of console politics HAS changed. EA no longer has to complete with ESPN NFL2Kx, and in turn can use their exclusive status to offer feature exclusives, like online play, to whoever they see fit IF they believe it is in their best interest. Don't believe me? Xbox Live is proof they WOULD do this. Will they not support as platform they do not think lines up with their goals? Dreamcast. EA is about making money, but that does not mean they need to support every platform and every features. They have a long term goal, and if they feel certain political issues get in the way of the big picture of longterm profits I don't doubt for a second that they would not act.

The stakes are a lot higher now with EA seeking exclusives on professional sport monopolies. I think Qroach put it pretty clearly that software pushed hardware sales. A new generation = a new ball game. If EA feels Nintendo, MS, or Sony has philosophies about royalties, online play, console features, etc... that do not mesh with their own plans, I would expect them to do what they feel is best for THEIR business. We have already seen this with not supporting the DC, and not supporting Xbox Live. EA would have made more money in the short term supporting DC and Xbox Live, but they felt the situation was not right for their business. I highly doubt it will be the last time they make such a decision. So I do not believe it is out of question for EA to drop support of features, and if sales are bad enough (or sale projections), a platform. Sometimes the big risk is supporting something, and not supporting it.

And check this out:

http://sports.ign.com/articles/574/574539p1.html?fromint=1

EA is going after an NBA exclusive. I would guess MLB and NHL are in the works also based on the speculation from news reports on the day of the NFL exclusive.

So it is not an "if" but a what/when question. System politics are extremely important to EA and the stakes are higher now with EA gobbling up exclusives. I expect EA to sell certain new features in their sports lineup, especially Madden, to the highest bidder. e.g. Sony/MS paying for a one year exclusive on online play. I can see selling such exclusive features as being good PR, good system sellers, and also good for EA to help make up for some of the big money they spent on the exclusive license. And these features would be valuable because, unlike in the past where you had Fever and ESPN competiting, Madden is the only game in town. MS/Sony/Nintendo do not have a backup for losing features in the EA franchises. So yeah, I would say making EA happy is pretty important at this point.

As for the Sony discussion, that was a tangent on a totally unlikely hypothetical question. I would not expect EA to drop Sony support... but the point was that EA support is important for all of the Big Three.