Infogrames Vs. Electronic Arts

[\/\/olverine]

We heard some time last week about EA buying 20 percent of Ubisoft and there was some discussion as to whether EA eventually owning Ubisoft would be beneficial or not. I found it quite interesting that Infogrames, although considered a rival, is doing what it can to prevent EA from eating Ubi.

Here's the article from IGN:
----------
In a recent interview with Reuters, Infogrames CEO Bruce Bonnell said his company may assist Ubisoft in resisting an Electronic Arts takeover.

The comments come in the wake of EA buying more than 20 percent of Ubisoft in a transaction initially viewed as hostile. Infogrames, Europe's largest games company, is traditionally one of Ubisoft's rivals.

"Electronic Arts certainly did not enter Ubi Soft's [sic] capital to just stay at that level...I hope Ubi Soft will find ways to defend itself so that Infogrames does not become the last bastion in the European video games industry," comments Bonnell in the interview.

Though even the French government is reportedly concerned about the potential takeover, which could mean the country keeps little voice in the video game industry, Ubisoft shares have climbed 60 percent since December 20, when EA first made its intention to buy known.

Right now it is unclear how Infogrames might help Ubisoft. However, Infogrames is ready to offer what it can. "When Ubi Soft has defined the limits within which it is prepared to work, they know we are ready to listen," Bonnell said.
----------

Even the government is concered. Is there a possibility that Infogrames may buy out Ubisoft? Although I don't necessarily wan't EA to win this one, I don't like Infogrames much either. Who do you think Ubisoft would be better off with?

[knob]

Anything would be preferable to EA. I've played a lot less Infogrames released crap than I have EA. I've been burned so many times by EA I've gotten to the point that I probably won't ever purchase anything from them again. It's almost always buggy and never supported very well.

[Eel Snave]

EA burns companies to the ground and then steals their licenses (case in point: Westwood) to make their own crappy games.

Yes to Infogrames!

[Daehawk]

I hate EA they kill what they buy.

As for Infogrames I must say i always liked them because of the I-War games.

[Jeff V]

I pretty much dispise what the French have done to gaming, and that includes Atarigrames, UBI Soft, and Vivendi. I will stand behind any American company wishing to do battle against them, although this is purely for vengeance: I harbor no illusion that they will ever reconstruct what the French have destroyed.

[hitbyambulance]

EA becoming the* major game publisher? if anyone can tell how this possibly can be good, i dare them to explain...

[Jeff V]

EA becoming the* major game publisher? if anyone can tell how this possibly can be good, i dare them to explain...

So Microsoft, Sony, and the other Frenchies are now chopped liver?

EA has always been big, and they have always dominated in their chosen markets.

[hitbyambulance]

the major US PC game distributor, let me clarify. (MS doesn't have nearly the game output of EA on the "windows" platform..)

so who are the 'big ones' in the US? i can't say i really feel teh love for "Atari" Infogrames, either.

[Odin]

As far as I can tell, being successful in the gaming "business" and making good games are mutually exclusive propositions. The biggest publishers all suck, while the smaller companies all seem to go under after making a hit game or two. I mean, hell, if a studio like Looking Glass can go out of business, things are seriously broken. I actually wish Microsoft would become a bigger publisher. They seem to be doing a pretty good job so far. As for Infogrames vs. EA, hard to say which is the lesser of two evils. Feels a little like being Poland in WWII - do you end up ground beneath the boot heels of goose-stepping Nazis or Stalinist pogroms? Either way, you're dead.

Sith

[Huw the Poo]

I hate EA they kill what they buy.

As for Infogrames I must say i always liked them because of the I-War games.

Nicely said!

[Jeff V]

As far as I can tell, being successful in the gaming "business" and making good games are mutually exclusive propositions.

Yes. I did some research for one of Mark Walker's books, Games that Sell, and this was a recurring theme.

The biggest publishers all suck, while the smaller companies all seem to go under after making a hit game or two. I mean, hell, if a studio like Looking Glass can go out of business, things are seriously broken. I actually wish Microsoft would become a bigger publisher. They seem to be doing a pretty good job so far. As for Infogrames vs. EA, hard to say which is the lesser of two evils. Feels a little like being Poland in WWII - do you end up ground beneath the boot heels of goose-stepping Nazis or Stalinist pogroms? Either way, you're dead.

Lookglass is out of business because they were lousy business people (the same thing that sunk Simtex and other talented studios). There is nothing broken about the process - just because one is good at something doesn't entitle that person to a fulfilling career doing same. They have to find a way to make it economically viable or the enterprise fails (this is why I don't write for a living).

In short, though, big publishers become big because they make tough decisions, like cutting loose unprofitable appendages before they bring the house down. Over time, everyone gets burned as a sentimental favorite falls by the wayside. It's the cycle of life, however; I'm a staunch Darwinist, and in the end I have to begrudgingly accept this is survival of the fittest (and EA is fit, ripped, and the alpha male in the pride).[/i]

[Kraken]

the smaller companies all seem to go under after making a hit game or two.

Startups need one of two strategies: either they will cash in by being acquired, or they have to expand into publishing. Developers generate no cash between releases -- you know how quickly a game's sales and price sink after initial release. Thanks to the unfavorable royalty terms that dominate the industry, even a major hit won't return enough money to the studio to keep them running independently for the years it takes to develop a new property.

So studios rely on venture capital or corporate owners, or they have to crank out a successful new release every year. This state of permanent financial dependence guarantees their eventual failure -- sooner or later they will release a dog, or a project's cost will balloon out of control, or something else will put them in the red. They have to either plan on selling the company or expanding it, because stasis just doesn't work.

[Head]

I pretty much dispise what the French have done to gaming, and that includes Atarigrames, UBI Soft, and Vivendi. I will stand behind any American company wishing to do battle against them, although this is purely for vengeance: I harbor no illusion that they will ever reconstruct what the French have destroyed.

I couldn't have said it better... Thanks Jeff!

[JayG]

I pretty much dispise what the French have done to gaming, and that includes Atarigrames, UBI Soft, and Vivendi. I will stand behind any American company wishing to do battle against them, although this is purely for vengeance: I harbor no illusion that they will ever reconstruct what the French have destroyed.

I couldn't have said it better... Thanks Jeff!

Then they could be renamed Freedomgrames.

[Beer Goggles]

No matter who 'wins,' I bet the consumer loses.

[naednek]

I personally like EA, I don't really see why there's so much hatred. Most of the games I play are published by EA, made by various developers

[Kraken]

I personally like EA, I don't really see why there's so much hatred. Most of the games I play are published by EA, made by various developers

The last EA game I bought came on 5.25" floppies. They just don't publish anything I like, and I have no opinion of them.

[shaggydoug]

And penny arcade does a funny

- shaggy