Anyone have any doubts NOW about EA's intent?

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:43 am

If EA buys out Ubisoft we are in deep shit. Say goodbye to the only publisher putting out real military sims.

The rap-crap backed EA is going to destroy our hobby. Lets pray they never buy out Vivendi or Sony games division, otherwise we'll have "World of Warcraft - Samurai Smackdown", and "Everquest 2 - Dudz expansion".

Man EA is becoming a monster.

Beergut · Post by **Beergut** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:01 pm

"Everquest 2: Dudz expansion"

Bring on the bling bling!

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:08 pm

<weeps>

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:17 pm

EA started to lose me after they quit making games like Mail Order Monsters and Seven Cities of Gold, they totally lost me as the first champion of Safe Disk which caused me to replace (then expensive) CD players in five different machines. I have bought exactly one EA game since then. I picked up Madden 2k because I was really interested in managing and drafting a team through multiple seasons. I ended up being not so good at the video game part of the game and the strategic game wasn't so great while sitting on the sidelines and watchin the computer play better than I ever could. There have been no EA games since. For a time they clawed their way to the top of the "companies in the industry I hate most" list, but then the competition got so fierce, I gave up paying attention to companies. I pick up maybe a half dozen games a year at most now and they are often budget titles or price drop games so I don't feel jacked by my purchase.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:24 pm

But yet the first poster did a hundred bazillion degree turn about BFME, which is published by EA. So I'm waiting for the same hundred bazillion degree turn about the preconceptions of EA's business practices.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:27 pm

Well all this stuff hit after BFME.

Last time EA had military sims they canceled them all. I've gotten every UBISOFT military sim, and if EA buys out UBI, they will do the same. Because simulations don't make ENOUGH profit.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:00 pm

jpinard wrote:Well all this stuff hit after BFME.

Last time EA had military sims they canceled them all. I've gotten every UBISOFT military sim, and if EA buys out UBI, they will do the same. Because simulations don't make ENOUGH profit.

UBI Soft doesn't make their own either, they are just a publisher dealing with indepenent developers. These developers will just have to seek out another publisher who will sell their stuff (and there are still plenty who would).

Believe it or not, this would probably be a good thing for the future health of those niche products that UBI Soft publishes. Of all the publishers I have to deal with, they are perhaps the worst: they aren't willing to give the time of day to websites whose entire purpose is to support these niche products (believe it or not, they are actually worse than EA in this regard). A publisher better in tune with these markets can do better justice to these titles, and perhaps start to reconstruct something of a following or community - that will never happen under UBI Soft.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:25 pm

But Jeff, don't you thnk UBI has a better interface with customers, whereas EA has practically none? Look at the eapsorts forums. no offocial peopel there ever, and now it's just l33t DooDX this and that. Oh it's awful. It's beyond awful.
They provide no official forum for BFME... at least UBI has forums.

I know UBISOfts sim developers are independant, but I think UBISOft still provides some up-front-money for them?

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:59 pm

jpinard wrote:I know UBISOfts sim developers are independant, but I think UBISOft still provides some up-front-money for them?

I never go to publishers forums, so I can't comment on that.

I don't know how much, if any, development funds UBI Soft offers developers. Many of those working the sims (like Akella and Maddox Games) also publish through a giant Russian publisher, 1C Company, which I think has a closer relationship with the developers.

While I do give them credit for currently being the publisher that brings these games to market, I do not think they are a particularly good match nor are they by any means the "publisher of last resort." They do have a big, international distribution network on the order of Microsoft, EA, Atari and Vivendi which is why it is appealing for many of these developers. That does not necessarily equate to being a better partner, however. I don't think UBI Soft has done nearly as good as job as they could marketing and developing the community, but at least they don't interfere and screw up what communities develop elsewhere.

Just because EA didn't find these games profitable when they were selling them doesn't mean they will immediately jettison them if they acquire UBI Soft. Assuming UBI Soft was able to make a profit with these games, EA might just let them be.

I remember a few years ago when everyone was bitching about the French conglomerates (UBISoft, Vivendi, Atarigrames) buying up the gaming world. Now that an American company is on the offensive (with the dollar being low, this will happen more often now), everyone is bitching again. Remember, the low dollar means American products can be more competitive, so genres that couldn't be profitably produced from this country over the past few years might once again find a home here.

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:13 pm

Irrelevant as it is, I'll always think fondly of EA for Archon.

I know, those days are long gone.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:45 pm

And who among us can ever forgive UBI Soft for dismantling SSI?

disarm · Post by **disarm** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:56 pm

jpinard wrote:Last time EA had military sims they canceled them all. I've gotten every UBISOFT military sim, and if EA buys out UBI, they will do the same. Because simulations don't make ENOUGH profit.

EA was once the publisher of the Jane's Combat Simulations series of military sims...some of the best ever made. i don't know what all the reasons were for the Jane's sims going under, but i'm sure it was related to the disappearance of Origin (the developer). such a sad time for sim fans...

Greggy_D · Post by **Greggy_D** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:01 pm

That was the reason for dismantling Janes.....not enough $$$$$$ was being made. Why dump all that money into a low selling product when you can make $250 million per year on something like Madden. It'a all about ROI baby.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:54 pm

This isn't the same, though. UBI Soft only publishes sims, they aren't making them themselves. EA bought Janes, and when they couldn't justify the expense, they were shut down (as was Origin). Assuming it continues to be profitable for the developers to do so (and many of them are diversified into other non-sim projects), they will still be made and someone will publish them.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:17 pm

However EA isn't stupid, and had to realize Jane's sims were a "break even" venture.

Ubisoft may have dismantled SSI, but at least they're still giving us sims. And I'm almost positive, (based on some things Carl Norman wrote), that Lock-On was funded TOTALLY by UBISOFT. The devs did not make it and say, "hmm who will publish this now"?

CeeKay · Post by **CeeKay** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:15 pm

After seeing what is becoming of the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series I'm not sure I'll be weeping too much if UBIsoft goes down. About the only way they can redeem themselves in my eyes is to actually say 'HEy, the PC versions of these 2 are going to be different from the consoles, like Raven Shield for the PC and Rainbow Six 3 for the X-Box were!'

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:19 pm

Jeff V wrote:And who among us can ever forgive UBI Soft for dismantling SSI?

Yeah, I miss SSI. I think I owned more of their games than any other publisher out there - Panzer General, Allied General, Ardennes Offensive, Clash of Steel, Steel Panthers I & II, Panzer General 2, People's General, Western Front . . . man, those were the days.

Grifman

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:20 pm

alright another over reacting post! It's called business. EA is in the business to make money.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:34 pm

Grif - don't forget their D&D Goldbox games!

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:48 pm

naednek wrote:alright another over reacting post! It's called business. EA is in the business to make money.

Word. I don't think anyone ever doubted EA's intent to MAKE MORE MONEY.

gellar

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:51 pm

difference between just making more money, and trying to create a retail publishing monopoly.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:56 pm

jpinard wrote:difference between just making more money, and trying to create a retail publishing monopoly.

Not really. Any good business will do all they can, within the rules of the game, to squeeze more money out of every living soul on this planet. EA has yet to break any rules... they just have more resources than everyone else. The goal of all businesses should be to be accused of monopoly by its competitors and their fans, while acquitted of that same accusation by the regulating bodies. At that point, the business has done all it can (IE, Microsoft).

gellar

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:05 pm

gellar wrote:
jpinard wrote:difference between just making more money, and trying to create a retail publishing monopoly.
Not really. Any good business will do all they can, within the rules of the game, to squeeze more money out of every living soul on this planet. EA has yet to break any rules... they just have more resources than everyone else. The goal of all businesses should be to be accused of monopoly by its competitors and their fans, while acquitted of that same accusation by the regulating bodies. At that point, the business has done all it can (IE, Microsoft).

gellar

Gellar - you're absolutely right. Doesn't mean I like it, nor how many people get buried along the way. Pure capitalism in its unresricted form would be scary.

Greggy_D · Post by **Greggy_D** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:09 pm

jpinard wrote:However EA isn't stupid, and had to realize Jane's sims were a "break even" venture.

Why would they want to break even when they could make a shitload of money on a different genre? For example (hypothetically).......invest 20 million in Jane's F/A-18 to make 20 mil (break even)

OR

invest 20 million to make 250 million with Madden.

Return on Investment

nomorals · Post by **nomorals** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:10 am

Greggy_D wrote:
jpinard wrote:However EA isn't stupid, and had to realize Jane's sims were a "break even" venture.

Why would they want to break even when they could make a shitload of money on a different genre? For example (hypothetically).......invest 20 million in Jane's F/A-18 to make 20 mil (break even)

OR

invest 20 million to make 250 million with Madden.

Return on Investment

So why buy Jane's in the first place?

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:12 am

I seem to recall they stopped making Jane's games because they lost that Jane's licence.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:04 am

Tareeq wrote:Irrelevant as it is, I'll always think fondly of EA for Archon.

I know, those days are long gone.

And yet that was when I last bought anything from EA, too. Archon, 7 Cities of Gold, Starflight...in the days of 5.25" floppies, EA ruled. EA began as a consortium of independent developers who banded together to beat the big, bad publishers. Ironic the way that worked out, eh?

EA just doesn't publish games that I like. I haven't bought anything from them since those days of yore, so it's hard for me to see them as a threat.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:07 am

nomorals wrote:So why buy Jane's in the first place?

Flight sims used to be somewhat less expensive to make. As technology increased, the bar for was was deemed "acceptible" rose as well, but the fan base remained flat. Eventually, it was a case of a B-class market demanding A-list titles, which in turned brought the genre to death's door.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Janes licensing agreement prohibited off-shore development; which is the only source of sims these days. Janes works closely with the US military, and they might find it an uneasy alliance if their data (even unclassified) is promptly turned over to foreign countries.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:25 am

Note, EA's bid for exclusive rights to the NBA was rejected. Now the one we really need to watch is the NHL's position... http://sports.ign.com/articles/574/5745 ... ?fromint=1

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:12 pm

jpinard wrote:Note, EA's bid for exclusive rights to the NBA was rejected. Now the one we really need to watch is the NHL's position... http://sports.ign.com/articles/574/5745 ... ?fromint=1

What NHL?

jcompton · Post by **jcompton** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:28 pm

Ironrod wrote: And yet that was when I last bought anything from EA, too. Archon, 7 Cities of Gold, Starflight...in the days of 5.25" floppies, EA ruled. EA began as a consortium of independent developers who banded together to beat the big, bad publishers. Ironic the way that worked out, eh?

Yeah. I knew the era of EA as "quirky publishing house for the likes of Ozark Softscape and Free Fall" was gone forever when they started doing EA Sports TV ads back in the 90s. Sure, video games had been advertised on TV before, but there was something rather slick and mass-market about their attack.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:03 pm

Jeff V wrote:
jpinard wrote:Note, EA's bid for exclusive rights to the NBA was rejected. Now the one we really need to watch is the NHL's position... http://sports.ign.com/articles/574/5745 ... ?fromint=1
What NHL?

the one on permanent vacation

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:18 pm

It's the intent of every company to increase the numbers on their bottom line. What's so surprising about this?

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:28 pm

Where they keep getting all this money from! And that they can't pay their people overtime, but have all this extra money for takeovers.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:30 pm

Dirt wrote:It's the intent of every company to increase the numbers on their bottom line. What's so surprising about this?

Uhh.. nothing. But we're not discussing how surprised we are, just what our reaction to it is.

Ale

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:33 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Dirt wrote:It's the intent of every company to increase the numbers on their bottom line. What's so surprising about this?
Uhh.. nothing. But we're not discussing how surprised we are, just what our reaction to it is.

Ale

Reading jpinard's first post, he certainly sounds surprised by this.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:36 pm

Like I said, I'm surprised they have all this money for exclusive licenses, takeovers etc etc, but can't/won't pay their employees for time served.

It appears corprorate EA would gut its own people to make a quick buck.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:10 pm

I bet that their margins for the sports franchises are through the roof. I bet there's a ton of code recycling going on.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:15 pm

Oh yea there is. They've been using the same sim engine for 5 straight years in Madden. It may get minor facelifts and added features, but under it all, it's the exact same base.

I'm sure that's why they won't fix the running game, the physics, the simming, the stat system etc. That would take major engine work.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:21 pm

jpinard wrote:difference between just making more money, and trying to create a retail publishing monopoly.

Bingo - monopolistic behavior means inferior products for consumers as well as higher prices for said inferior products.

However, there will likely be less EA programmers working a ton of overtime as they won't need to put as much into the game. They have effectively created an insurmountable barrier to entry for football games. When this contract is up, they will be able to submarine any other publisher.