Gaming gaming gone.....

KdjaCL

Electronic Arts is to buy 20 percent of French publisher Ubisoft, the Wall Street Journal has confirmed this morning, at a reported cost of between $85 million and $100 million.

Neither publisher has made comment on the matter.

The deal is subject to approval by US regulators, and has pointed towards further consolidation in the games publishing market. EA has had an aggressive year in terms of acquisition, the latest recipient of which was British developer Criterion Studios at an estimated long-term cost of $200 million.

Ubisoft has enjoyed channelled success in recent years following the acquisition of Red Storm Entertainment, holder of the Tom Clancy brand, and global hits with thrillers such as Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon. Critical acclaim has spread to Ubisoft's other high-flyers, in particular the remakes of Prince of Persia and Beyond Good & Evil - considered by some to be the Western equal of Nintendo's Zelda.

Ubisoft has steered clear of buyout talk up to this point, aside from president Yves Guillemot confirming notions of acquiring British stalwart Eidos at E3 in 2002.

The news could point to a serious shift in policy from EA, since CEO Larry Probst intimated at E3 this May that he didn't expect the firm to be making the moves as the industry coagulates.

"I'm not sure that it's going to be us acquiring other companies and I don't think that anyone's going to acquire us in the industry, but I think you're going to see consolidation in the next three to five years, where there are fewer competitors to us in five years than there are today," he said at the show.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=57452

Oh goodie the cash cow moves on , wonder if its for original innovative gaming reason or franchises??

kdjac

Peteee

<sarcasm> ohhh goody </sarcasm>

Looks like they'll butcher the tom clancy series, and axe IL-2 and Lock On (not that lock on wasnt axed already)

This is just the beginning, they'll have more then 50% of it soon, i'll wager anyway

ambro25

Ghost Recon 2005
Prince of Persia 2005
Splinter Cell 2005
Rayman 2005
...
:rolleyes:

Deadwing

Oh wow, just what we needed, another good original developer becoming amalgamated with the worlds most soulless and hollow merchandising machine.
I for one, am extremely excited at the prospect of 'playing prince of persia 7: the wonder years' in 6 years time, and 'splinter cell 9: now im bald, not just grey'
Whatever happened to EA ffs? I remember back in the day they were a great publisher, with titles like zany golf and others to thier name, i actually really liked EA back then. But after they got the fifa licence and started milking that til the last drop, and it became sequel after sequel, the money rolled in thanks to the great gaming unwashed who still think da pee ess tew is the only machine in the market.
Well thats just f*cking great, what next? 'Playstation 3, brought to you by Sony & EA! Just buy it, you know itll put all the other consoles out of business anyway, so save yourself the hassle and buy it now! Its got FIFA, for gods sake! You like FIFA! And harry potter, is got harry potter games too! My children need faberge eggs, so just buy the damn thing and make me money!'
Its a sad day for gaming..EA are really going to cripple the market with this aggressive buying out of studios, (and i mean cripple it with bad games, sure therell still be games, but who wants to live in a world where all you can play are EA branded sports licences?) soon there will only be ONE publisher, EA. And when that happens, im giving up gaming.

Peteee

aye, EA used to be good (back before 98)

I started hating them when 'road to world cup 98' came out followed 6 months later by 'World Cup 98' ffs

They do make good games (need for speed is pretty decent) bt they have a tendency to buy up good game studios (westwood, janes, origin) amalgamate them, and set them to work on hte lastest 'xxxx 2005' crap

ambro25

Give it enough time, they'll do an Atari circa 1982-83. Just think of all those FIFA 2007 DVDs for PS3 they're going to have to bury in Arizona...

EA was alright so long as Trip Hawkins was at the helm... then he cashed in and look where it's gone since - it's (apparently) lacking a vision, that's for sure. With the resources they now have, could they be bothered to invent new genres, new types of games for PS3/XB2/REVOL/DS/PSP? Could they b*ggery! Easier to re-use existing assets, which are already created & stored as hi-res models, & just ramp up the graphic engine bit-by-bit everytime... Costs (comparatively) nothing, makes them a ton, they get to be cash+ to buy any good franchise in the making (Splinter Cell etc.) which they then just exploit... Don't know why people rant so much at Bill Gates & M$, EA are just as bad if not worse, IMHO.

Maximilian

Deadwing wrote:

EA. And when that happens, im giving up gaming.

^^When that happens, you'll have no choice but to give up gaming.

I wouldn't be too worried about the future though. Look at what Valve are doing - cutting out the middle man with Steam. That is the future for independant games producers. I think the writing is on the wall for games publishers, as purely publishers. There will always be independant guys to make the quality stuff. Leave EA to their "Generic 200x" games.

KdjaCL

Maximilian wrote:

I wouldn't be too worried about the future though. Look at what Valve are doing - cutting out the middle man with Steam.

Yet the game is the same price, lasts less than normal and is too bloody easy and they charge for mods which were made for free. God no dont use that as an example.

kdjac

bizmark

KdjaC wrote:

Yet the game is the same price, lasts less than normal and is too bloody easy and they charge for mods which were made for free. God no dont use that as an example.

kdjac

Thats a bloody good point kdjac

Hobbes

Maximilian wrote:

I wouldn't be too worried about the future though. Look at what Valve are doing - cutting out the middle man with Steam. That is the future for independant games producers.

Cutting out the middle man for themselves maybe. For anyone else who wants to use Steam they are going to have to pay Valve for that distrubition channel (thats all it is really).

Steam is a pox anyway. It could be the very thing that turns me off games for life.

BKtje

I agree with most of the points made above. I cant say i h8 EA ( they did send me to london after all) but they do milk everything. I dont think ill ever really forgive them for buying out westwood

That said

who still think da pee ess tew is the only machine in the market.

Wtf the ps2 have to do with this? EA make games for the xbox and pc too ya know

Retr0gamer

Whatever happened to EA ffs? I remember back in the day they were a great publisher, with titles like zany golf and others to thier name, i actually really liked EA back then. But after they got the fifa licence and started milking that til the last drop, and it became sequel after sequel, the money rolled in thanks to the great gaming unwashed who still think da pee ess tew is the only machine in the market

Hold on EA were good before FIFA? Is this the same EA that published so much unsellable tosh on the Sega Megadrive and Master System that Sega refused to make any cartridges for their games. Go play dark castle on the Mega Drive and witness the horrors of their creations. And anyway Sensi was always better.

(I did like Road Rash and the Strike series, for shame).

Cake Fiend

EA Games: annex everything.

Praetorian

Ea : Microshaft : Errcom

Maximilian

Steam isn't perfect but it can only get better. you have to admit the concept is great. May not be any cheaper but if it keeps the good guys in business then Great. Didn't Look Glass Technologies shut down because most of the profits went to the Distributor. Or was it whorehouse bills, can't remember.

KdjaCL

Maximilian wrote:

Steam isn't perfect but it can only get better. you have to admit the concept is great. May not be any cheaper but if it keeps the good guys in business then Great. Didn't Look Glass Technologies shut down because most of the profits went to the Distributor. Or was it whorehouse bills, can't remember.

So whats the point of it ? Cd costs 0.01 to make dev teams get €10 from each game or thereabouts , they sign with publishers who give them money to make the game. So how does Steam make things better? Hl2 was good but not worth €50 for 10 hours play , CS DOD:S are mods made for free now reloaded to a game.
Steam technically does a far better job of ripping off people than EA do. Least if you dont own fifa200x when you buy one you get a full game.



kdjac

Maximilian

I think HL2 was awesome. Maybe I have more money then sense but I am more than happy to give Valve €60 or more, rather than some GlobalOmniMegaCrop(tm). I'm happy to support Steam if it gives Valve the financial independence it needs to devote 4+ years in making a mindblowing game, rather than churning out crap like The Sims Expansion pack #634: Watchin' the Paint dry or being forced to release a half-finished game because the Publishers impose a deadline.

I am actually quite amazed by the negativity towards Valve that has been expressed by many. HL2 was great value. Super game, updated CSS, which will continue to be enhanced as time goes by and has endless replayability. Not to mention all the back catalogue etc. And people think they're being ripped off? Bloody hell, compare that with any other game you care to mention in terms of € per hours spent playing.

With regard to DOD:S - it wasn't completely free remember - you had to have bought HL. Furthermore, nobody is stopping you from playing the original DOD. I'm also thinking DOD:S will be more than a straight port somehow, so maybe will justify having to pay. Either way, with respect, you sound like those people from 14 years ago or whatever who felt aggrieved at having to pay for the other 2 Doom Episodes - "meh-why isn't everything free" etc.

By the way, if I'm straying off-topic, EA can lick my balls.

po0k

Steam is a hive of festering cock weevils.
EA is illegal.

steviec

I seem to remember when they bought Criterion people screaming how the Burnout series will go downhill...
Just because EA churn out games every year doesn't mean they're not good. If you like American sports they're particularly good, far better than any of their competitors. FIFA isn't as good as Pro Evo, but it seems to improve by more every year than Pro Evo does and it's getting there.
The Sims was a great original concept, nobody has successfully made a competitor for it, and the people who love it will happily keep buying expansion packs, and those that don't don't have to. I don't know how long Maxis have been under EA's wing but they've always been a bit of a one trick pony.
If there's something wrong with providing a reliable source of quality, polished games every year then I guess EA are guilty.
There'll always be room in the market for innovation but I dont see whats wrong with providing seasonal updates of the games people want aswell.

ObeyGiant

steviec wrote:

I seem to remember when they bought Criterion people screaming how the Burnout series will go downhill...

It's worth remembering that EA bought Criterion right when Burnout 3 was pretty much finished - it still has yet to be seen what a full term under EA will do to that particular series.

But why are people suddenly suggesting that EA's aquisition of Ubisoft will result in mindless sequels and licenses being churned out from now until whenever? Actually, scratch that: why are people suddenly suggesting that EA's aquisition of Ubisoft will result in mindless sequels and licenses being churned out from now until whenever as if this isn't already happening? Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Crouching Tiger... Ubisoft is just as guilty of being as thoroughly vacuous and money-driven as EA.

jesus_thats_gre

Funnily enough, they make games to make money.. hmmmm, interesting concept..

Its going to go the exact same way as the movie industry. A few big publishers and thats all thats worth mentioning..

ObeyGiant

At this stage, I'd like to point out that I have nothing against either EA or Ubisoft for their relentless pursuit of greenbacks. As a matter of fact, I'll staunchly defend their right to continue to release update after update of their franchises because well, they're filling a demand.

And the movie industry analogy is more right than it might initially appear. Just as the money made by the formulaic summer blockbusters allows movie studios the opportunity to invest more money on lower-budget/low-return movies, so too does the money made by "bigger" releases allows EA to take more chances on higher-risk properties. Which is a good thing for us as gamers.

steviec

Everybody's in it for the money.
Gamers tend to be intelligent with their cash though and publishers know that, so they strive to make good games. A crap game tied to a big license doesn't make money these days, and they're becoming more rare.
Whether or not you agree with the practice of yearly updates, there's no question that every single one of the EA Sports franchise games are fun to play(I have bought versions of FIFA, Madden, NHL, NBA and Tiger Woods in the last 3 years, dont go for every iteration but if you buy a new version every few years there's a sizeable difference), and have more mainstream appeal than more time consuming/difficult games such as RPGs etc, so it's only logical thinking.
However there's also a lot of 'hardcore' gamers who spend a higher proportion of their income on games and tend to go with deeper games, so there'll always be a market for both types and I don't think people have anything to worry about really.

po0k

steviec wrote:

Everybody's in it for the money.
Gamers tend to be intelligent with their cash though and publishers know that, so they strive to make good games. A crap game tied to a big license doesn't make money these days, and they're becoming more rare.

Two words:
Matrix. Revolutions.

Sold like hot-cakes when it was released.

KdjaCL

steviec wrote:

Gamers tend to be intelligent with their cash though and publishers know that, so they strive to make good games. A crap game tied to a big license doesn't make money these days, and they're becoming more rare.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/charts.php

kdjac

Retr0gamer

the money made by "bigger" releases allows EA to take more chances on higher-risk properties. Which is a good thing for us as gamers

Have to disagree there. EA never have and never will make a high risk innovative game. If an innovative game does come out EA buys up the company and releases sequels and updates.

Peteee

The movie analogy is completely flawed

Sony, 20th century Fox and Warner Bros. (who also own New Line Cinema) dont make the movies themselves.

They give the money to the directors to make the movie with, and thats generally that, the director makes his movie as he see's fit (with a few exceptions, i.e. they might stipulate that the film be a 12's or 15's, although with proven directors (spielberg, scorcese) they leave them alone)

What EA generally do is buy up innovative games companies, release a few good games under them (criterion and Burnout 3), then assimilate all the programmers, artists etc into EA as a whole (EA los angeles, EA redwood, or something like that) to churn out the latest in the Burnout series, with incremental updates.

The thing is i can almost guarantee you that Burnout 5 (if it reaches that far) would be far more innovative if criterion were left to do their own thing, rather then being told what to do by EA

ObeyGiant

Retr0gamer wrote:

Have to disagree there. EA never have and never will make a high risk innovative game. If an innovative game does come out EA buys up the company and releases sequels and updates.

But here's the thing - I was never arguing for the idea of EA releasing a high-risk game because of the money they make off the back of say, NFSU2. I was arguing that this gives them the ability to release higher-risk properties because of this. This might only seem like a tiny difference, but it's not - EA didn't build their fortunes on high risks, just slightly higher than the competition.

Two examples right now would be "Battle for Middle Earth" and the new Oddworld game. Sure, BFME is a licensed game, but it's also a strategy game on the PC: by this alone, it's almost guaranteed not to set the cash tills on fire. I think they know themselves that they'll break even, but not make a substantial profit on this game. The same goes for the new Oddworld - a sequel, albeit in a not-amazingly-successful franchise. However, they're still pumping it full of enough innovation to prevent it being "just another update". This is definitely taking a larger risk than just fixing their mistakes on Munch's Oddysee and calling it a new game.

Peteee wrote:

What EA generally do is buy up innovative games companies, release a few good games under them

Well, there's always the example of Maxis. In this case, it does follow the Hollywood analogy. If we imagine EA as the movie studio, they hire a director (Developer, in this case Maxis) to produce a movie (game, Sims 2) and that's it. They take care of every other detail of getting their product to market, such as distribution and marketing.

Peteee wrote:

to churn out the latest in the Burnout series, with incremental updates

Shrek 2, Spider-man 2, Harry Potter 3, Resident Evil 2, Chronicles of Riddick, Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights... Hollywood has perfected the art of the incremental update. If anything, this proves the analogy.

Retr0gamer

ObeyGiant wrote:

Shrek 2, Spider-man 2, Harry Potter 3, Resident Evil 2, Chronicles of Riddick, Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights... Hollywood has perfected the art of the incremental update. If anything, this proves the analogy.

My problem here is that EA only make cosmetic changes to their updates, add a few gameplay tweaks and add more nu-metal and rap to the soundtrack. Other game companies try to improve upon the existing frame work and make games that are more likely to be counted as entirely new games than updates. Look at the Metal Gear Series, Maximo series or GTA. All of these games give a significantly differently experience from the last in the series. EA games are basically updated stats and a few tweaks.

ObeyGiant

As I said, apart from one or two higher-risk titles, this is entirely true and I'm not going to argue it even for a second. I will, however, argue for their right to do this, as they're making very good money from this practice and really not doing as much harm as people say they are.

It's funny you should mention "cosmetic changes, gameplay tweaks and nu-metal" because this is exactly the difference between PoP: Sands of Time and Warrior Within. Which is what I was saying about Ubisoft in the first place.

Balfa

steviec wrote:

If you like American sports they're particularly good, far better than any of their competitors.

Is that your opinion? or fact?
it's my opinion that Sega's ESPN NFL 2k5 is better than EA's NFL 2005. And that NBA 2k5 is better than NBA Live 2005. And that College Hoops is 2k5 is better than March Madness 2005
And it's also my opinion that you've probably never played any of the above.

edit: And i haven't played NHL 2005 yet, but NHL 2k5 is WAY better than NHL 2004.

also, for people who are lost by this point, note that anything "2k5" is Sega and "2005" is EA

edit edit: oh, and sega's games are all released at $19.99. Fantacular!