EA getting bigger?

[Major Dan]

From Shacknews: (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/38774)

In the months following Electronic Arts' initial purchase of 20% of Ubisoft's shares, Ubi CEO Yves Guillemot admits that there is little his company could do to prevent a takeover. After the transaction occurred last December, an Ubisoft represented stated that EA's "acquisition of 19.9[%] of the groups capital is unsolicited and currently considered as hostile." Since then, the situation died down but over the months there were various tentative offers by the French government to help protect a buyout, though they did not seem to pan out. Bruno Bonnell, head of fellow French publisher Infogrames, also voiced his support for Ubisoft.

Now it seems that Guillemot is resigned to the fact that if EA is determined to take control of his company, there's little he can do to resist. "We are not safe from a hostile action from Electronic Arts, which it would be difficult to block if they make a genuinely interesting offer," Guillemot said in French newspaper Les Echoes, though he is sure to note that "I doubt that our shareholders could be won over by a cut price." By this point Ubisoft has become a major industry player and any buyout offer seriously considered by the company's shareholders is going to have to be sizeable to say the least. After Guillemot issued his statement, Ubisoft stock jumped a staggering 41.04 euros to 42.40 euros. EA stock held steady at US$58.46.

In the increasingly consolidated world of today's games industry, it would be a little disheartening to see a company like Ubisoft become folded into the world's largest company. Its shareholders would certainly be well taken care of, but Ubisoft is one of the few publishers around offering serious competition to EA and more competition is always a good thing for consumers as well as for the improvement of products

Wow, I hope this doesn't happen.

[Roc Ingersol]

Christ that would suck.

[Nighthold]

Wow, this could be bad. Imagine what would happen if we didnt have our yearly installments of Rayman 2.

Feh. The bigger EA gets, the more it will fall apart. Keep on mistreating your employees and making shit games guys... lets see how long you last.

[fitbabits]

It's going to happen, whether we like it or not. It's now all about the bottom dollar, not the gamer.

[Donut11]

Wait, the president of Ubisoft said this, and their stock went from .36 euros to 42.40 euros? That is about a 10000% spike there, and here in the U.S., the SEC would be on that like white on rice. Seems like any executive of a company can make that happen will have so much fun rolling around in a big pile of gay colored Euros that they won't give two rat's asses about EA.

ps. Nighthold, I have been making games for 15 years, EA has had the same business model all that time, and I doubt the end is in sight.

[Tia]

*beats the dead horse....

yup, it is dead.

by the way, the stock data makes no sense. I would make sense that it jumped .35 euros, not the other way around.

[Nighthold]

Thats true but for most of those 15 years the games were pretty good. This is no longer the case. The name EA no longer indicates quality. Once the games start to suck, people stop buying them. They cannot support this empire they are building on The Sims and Madden alone.

[Xerxes]

If UBI selling MS should give them a blank check, ummmm roughly the amount they wasted on Rare. I'm sorry Rare will be a poorly utilized investment until Killer Instinct 3.

[Xerxes]

They cannot support this empire they are building on The Sims and Madden alone.

Sadly enough, they probably could... :(

[Nighthold]

Sadly enough, they probably could... :(

I admit its early to predict otherwise, but time will tell on this one. I suspect that with all the money they are spending, their profits will continue to shrink to the point that they have a genuine crisis. From there... who knows... but things cannot continue they way they are

[bobbler]

Wow, this could be bad. Imagine what would happen if we didnt have our yearly installments of Rayman 2.

Feh. The bigger EA gets, the more it will fall apart. Keep on mistreating your employees and making shit games guys... lets see how long you last.

The thing is... they'd last indefinately. They have two things that will assure that, no matter how much crap they put out -- they put out Madden games and Sims games.

Outside of overworking their employees (which many dev houses do -- 80 hour weeks isn't unheard of outside of EA) I think you guys overreact about how shitty a company they are -- they have as poor a track record for games as any other company, really. Capcom, Konami, Namco, Activision, Midway, etc -- they all put out tons of shit, yet they are left almost untouched by the rabid forum goers.

I have enjoyed quite a few EA games -- It isn't as if they are actually forcing me to purchase games that I think are bad. What does it matter?

I'm not Pro-EA or Anti-EA, they are like any other major publisher as far as I'm concerned -- they put out some entertaining titles (nothing incredible) and their fare share of titles I don't want to buy... but it isn't as if they have offended me in any way (no more so than any other publisher popping out crapfest games).

[The Iron Weasel]

Nooooooooooooooo......what Will Become Of Splinter Cell!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Oddmaker]

i LOVE EA so much!

[Knite]

bobbler, I think the main hate for EA stems for the same reason there used to be a huge amount of hate for Microsoft. It's not based completely on product quality, but on the fact that when EA faces direct competition, instead of throwing more money at R&D, and created a more unique experience and beat the competition head to head, they throw money at buying out the competition, or limiting the competition in some fashion (see : Madden + NFL). This predatory practice is very reminicent of what Microsoft used to be well known for, where they would not beat a competing product directly, but find ways of limiting/circumventing the competition instead.

[Dr.Finger]

I'm going to get slaughtered for this but here it goes.

I think EA makes pretty good games.

What they don't do is make original or innovative games. They don't take risks

Battlefield, Need for Speed, The Sims, SSX, even the LotR games were by and large solid-to-real good properties, and the games get released in timely fashion. I think what honks a lot of people off is the fact that EA is the epitome of mainstream, and to some people mainstream=bad. Do they mail it in on their sports titles sometimes, yeah, but there is still a level of quality that you expect, and get, in EA titles.

That said, I don't think an EA-Ubisoft merger would happen. Too many forces would oppose the merger to make it viable for EA, but it prevents Ubisoft from being purchased by another player (like Microsoft) and becoming a threat to EA.

[mister_slim]

EA is just about polish and branding, which makes them profitable, but doesn't create many games that interest me.

[Malovech]

I think EA makes pretty good games.



Not true. EA takes good concepts and does one of two things:

1) Doesn't fully deliver on the concept

2) Make one good product based on a good concept then rehash said concept 5+ times with diminishing quality levels each release.

They suck and they are hurting the gaming industry.

[Xerxes]

Battlefield, Need for Speed, The Sims, SSX, even the LotR games were by and large solid-to-real good properties, and the games get released in timely fashion.

That's only a hand full, of the numerous amount of games they make and publish... They issue I have with them is the size they are and the amount of crap they put out. When capcom does it, they only put 1 crappy games out for about 4 good ones in a year. EA can put out about 20 crappy games and 3 good ones plus all the milking add-ons.

[AzN.Homeboy]

Maybe it's just me, but I seem to see Ubisoft starting to do the same thing as EA. Kind of. Whoring out their successful franchises.

Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six.

Also, they aren't just whoring out Rainbow Six, after Raven Shield on the PC (the last good Rainbow Six game) they completely ruined everything the franchise stood for. Rainbow Six 3 and its spawn are an offense to series.

[bKangy]

I dunno, Ubi does seem to at least be publishing some more unique IPs. Brothers in Arms and Far Cry were both relative risks, but Ubi took them and did well with them. I'm honestly starting to despise EA (especially after the trainwreck of BF2) so I really hope that EA don't take Ubi.

[Xerxes]

Hell I think the Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon series are great. Prince of Persia is heading to hell though.

[Dr.Finger]

That's only a hand full, of the numerous amount of games they make and publish... They issue I have with them is the size they are and the amount of crap they put out. When capcom does it, they only put 1 crappy games out for about 4 good ones in a year. EA can put out about 20 crappy games and 3 good ones plus all the milking add-ons.

Which would you rather, a company that puts out 1 good and 4 crappy, or a company that puts out 5 good and 20 crappy? You're still getting 5 times as many good games from company 2 as from company 1. If you don't like the crap EA puts put, don't but it, just buy the good stuff. If enough people do this, they'll get the message.

[The Iron Weasel]

I think that the huge outrage about the lack of realism in Lockdown will make them snapback to realism in the next outting, when you play online people always say "yeah this game would be awesome if it weren't called rainbow six" and i tottally agree if it had been a new IP then there would be no issue, but the fact that rainbow six is one of the biggest names in shooters, they new even if they made a completely different game they would sell at least somewhere in the range of 500,000 - 1,000,000 copies, if not more. But they chose to try something different with a series that was already different enough for most. It was a hardcore realistic tactical combat shooter, and now its modernday Halo, which to many including myself is upsetting. The only reason why I and so many others play the game is because of the phenominal P.E.C mode. If that wasn't there I would trade that in for NG: Black or something. Also I think judging by the screenshots the new Prince Of Persia game has fallen somewhere inbetween sands of time and warrior within, which is the best place for the series (IMHO). I even enjoyed warrior within, i thought it was good game, the music was ass though. Ghost Recon is good no matter what your looking at 1 or 2 (IMHO).

[Xerxes]

In ghost recon with the whole lone wolf soldier of the future. Wonder if the army keeps tab on it as a how it would work if they actually made and field tested it.

I last played the Rainbow Six 3 on xbox. The first version wasn't a run and gun at all. Is lockdown that much different aside from the bad ai.

[H.Bogard]

WHAAT!
Who dares say anything bad about EA!!
if there is ANYTHING bad going on in the industry......EA is the amoung the first to raise their voice against it. Their great contributions to the gaming industry are remarkable + sizeable.....they voice against unorthodox anti-piracy practice and tonnes of other shit!

oops.....we`re not talking about Evil Avatar are we? :D


Maybe it's just me, but I seem to see Ubisoft starting to do the same thing as EA. Kind of. Whoring out their successful franchises.

Yep , i wish electronic farts would buy them so they`d be put to developing shark boy and lava girl- the game , hence not having any time left to fuck up prince of persia and friends.

excuse my bad english ITS NOT MY FRIGGIN LANG.!!!

[Thenetcase]

F*** ELECTRONIC ARTS IN THE FU**ING A**HOLE!!!!!!!!!!

DAMN SONS OF BITCHES! :(

-TnC-


P.S. I only reserve all caps posts for when i'm Reeeeeeeaaaaaaallllllllllllly pissed.

[Orphiuchus]

So EA attempts a hostile takeover and ubisoft has... surrendered. Oh, this is to perfect.

[Ballistic.]

Hey, they are Frenchies after all... ;)

Ubi has been sucking just as much as EA lately. I guess they though that one giant stinking pile of festering shite was better than 2 smaller ones.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Some people already beat me to this, but damn if I don't feel clever for being so witty at 1am that I am going to post anyway.


EA may as well buy up Ubi now - it's not like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six can get any worse.


Truthfully, I thought Ubisoft was great for a while, but now they just shovel out the same shit as most everyone else. Let them rot.

[Eon]

*Eon sees people ranting about "whoring out" commercial properties*

o-O

I wouldn't count on EA going anywhere anytime soon, guys.

[MrMeatshake]

from the subject line, i thought this was about the number EvAv registered users rising. the dangers of browsing just titles on an XML feed ;)

[The Iron Weasel]

Some people already beat me to this, but damn if I don't feel clever for being so witty at 1am that I am going to post anyway.


EA may as well buy up Ubi now - it's not like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six can get any worse.


Truthfully, I thought Ubisoft was great for a while, but now they just shovel out the same shit as most everyone else. Let them rot.

Uhh I really really really really really think that Rainbow Six, and Ghost Recon could get worse, at least they are still putting out some new IPs, EA just buys everyone elses, Ubi makes their own IPs. Now EA would pump out Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six every year and not change anything at all giving you the exact same game every year, OR they would give you one every once in a while and they would be really shitty because they gave it to one of their shitty developers. So I think Ubi is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY, better then EA.

[Dr.Finger]

The problem is that while creatively the public (and even some of the developers) dislike EA, all the companies want to BE Electronic Arts. Look at UbiSoft. They've "annualized" their games, churning out a new edition each year with minimal changes in between because that is what made EA the 800 pound gorilla it is today.

[Stormwatcher]

Ubi has published several cool games, like Beyond Good and Evil, Splinter Cell, XIII, Far Cry... They have a lot more inovative games than EA. Regardless of how crap EA is, ubisoft is a good publisher, I'd miss them. Like I miss Westwood, Origin, Maxis...

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Yeah, Splinter Cell is just so innovative. The first stealth game really.

Splinter Cell was cool at first, but the yearly iterations have made it no more special than Tony Hawk or Madden in my eyes.

[mister_slim]

The problem is that while creatively the public (and even some of the developers) dislike EA, all the companies want to BE Electronic Arts. Look at UbiSoft. They've "annualized" their games, churning out a new edition each year with minimal changes in between because that is what made EA the 800 pound gorilla it is today.
I can see Activision doing the same recently. Many of the Japanese companies have been doing this for years, anyway. And stepping out of line just makes publishers vulnerable, as Majesco has shown. The way budgets are moving it's only going to get worse.

[H.Bogard]

Yeah, Splinter Cell is just so innovative. The first stealth game really.


So I guess theres no such thing as a metal gear solid or a thief?

[Stormwatcher]

Well, in SC there is ACTUALLY some sort of stealth, you know ;)

anyone who played the original SC and Chaos Theory can vouch for the huge improvement in gameplay and graphics.

[Xerxes]

SC may not be what you consider innovative but it did add alot more to the stelth genre. I mean it's no hiding in boxes...

[Magnanimous Gnome]

So I guess theres no such thing as a metal gear solid or a thief?



I was being sarcastic towards the person who called the game innovative. :p


SC may not be what you consider innovative but it did add alot more to the stelth genre. I mean it's no hiding in boxes...


Sure it added to the stealth genre, but it still really wasn't innovative in any way, at least none that I can think of. It was prettier, but that hardly counts.

[Stormwatcher]

And what would be innovative to you? no one said that the game was revolutionary or anything.

SC is the first "realistic" stealth game. MGS (while pretty cool) is kinda ludicrous over the top sci-fi, and Thief is medieval/steampunk.

[H.Bogard]

anyone who played the original SC and Chaos Theory can vouch for the huge improvement in gameplay and graphics.

I preferred the orignal SC over chaos theory....the character models look like shit in scct, like theyre made up of plastic or something...whereas in the orignal they were pretty realistic....atleast sam was.

SC is the first "realistic" stealth game. MGS (while pretty cool) is kinda ludicrous over the top sci-fi, and Thief is medieval/steampunk.

yep , sc is VERY realistic....i shoot a guard in the foot and run away, he searches the room for 3 minutes and goes back into position, like any real life guard would ;)

[Magnanimous Gnome]

And what would be innovative to you? no one said that the game was revolutionary or anything.

SC is the first "realistic" stealth game. MGS (while pretty cool) is kinda ludicrous over the top sci-fi, and Thief is medieval/steampunk.



Innovative to me means something new.

That wasn't the original point of my argument anyhow. Ubi is milking this series dry, along with Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, and Prince of Persia. Thus they are no better than EA.

[mister_slim]

Sure it added to the stealth genre, but it still really wasn't innovative in any way, at least none that I can think of. It was prettier, but that hardly counts.
I'd consider the multiplayer innovative.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I'd consider the multiplayer innovative.


True, the multiplayer is different, at least from what I've heard and read. I haven't played it myself.

[Xerxes]

In SC you were able to interogate, shoot lights out, actually hide in the dark, the weapons, etc...

[Stormwatcher]

realistic in setting, duh. As in Modern Day military, opposed to the other exemples I gave.

Bogard, the MODELS are a lot more detailed and realistic in SCCT, maybe you're talking about the skins. yep, they're kinda shiny, but that's just the shader stuff. the animation and the models area REALLY freaking impressive in SCCT.

Gnome, I don't think Ubi is milking anything. SCCT is a real improvement over the previuos games. Eidos milked Lara to death, but Ubi is actually making changes in the games.

I do agree that the first PoP was better, but they have a chance to redeem themselves with the next one.

My problem with EA is not even the maddens and stuff like that. It is the fact that they bought and killed several of the best game developers around. I really miss Origin and Westwood. I wish they made a new Wing Commander.