Superman Returns: The Videogame has been announced

[Everlost_MI]

Teamxbox (http://www.teamxbox.com/) has posted the scoop (http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9415/Superman-Returns-The-Videogame-Announced/) about Superman Returns: The Videogame being developed.

Electronic Arts, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment and DC Comics announced today that SUPERMAN RETURNS: THE VIDEOGAME is scheduled for a summer 2006 release in conjunction with the release of Warner Bros. Pictures' film Superman Returns on June 30, 2006.

The game, which features storylines from both the movie and more than 60 years of comic book content, is being developed by Electronic Arts-Tiburon in Orlando, Fla., the award-winning studio that develops Madden NFL, the most popular sports franchise in videogame history.

SUPERMAN RETURNS: THE VIDEOGAME will be released on the Xbox 360 from Microsoft, as well as current generation platforms.
So, in this context does the word "current" refer to this gen or next-gen consoles? I am assuming next-gen since the 360 was the only console that was mentioned by name.

[fitbabits]

I give you Catwoman and Batman Begins as examples of what we can expect from this game. There should be an embargo placed on Electronic Arts bidding for licenses like this.

[Player 1]

Ah, Electronic Arts news instantly greeted with Electronic Arts bashing.

How predictable.

[crashedout]

Bashing a companies upcoming titles based on their history with similar titles seems fair to me. BB was not that bad so I have a slim amount of hope, it should at least be the best superman game yet(not saying much).

[fitbabits]

Ah, Electronic Arts news instantly greeted with Electronic Arts bashing.

How predictable.
Dear Player1,

Please see post from crashedout. I blame Nottingham!! :rolleyes:

fitbabits

[mister_slim]

Ah, Electronic Arts news instantly greeted with Electronic Arts bashing.

How predictable.
To be unpredictable, I'll talk of how inspired and brilliant previous EA licensed games have been...

...

...

Fuck.

You know, someday you'll have to come to grips with the fact that there are things that EA lacks. Creativity is one of those things.

[Doctor Setebos]

So, in this context does the word "current" refer to this gen or next-gen consoles? I am assuming next-gen since the 360 was the only console that was mentioned by name.My guess would be that it is coming to Xbox 360, GameCube, PS2, (and possibly Xbox) since it says Xbox 360 and current generation consoles. But that's just an assumption.

[Player 1]

You know, someday you'll have to come to grips with the fact that there are things that EA lacks. Creativity is one of those things.

No more so than the Atari's and Activision's of this industry. But hey, why bother making any attempt at being objective when you can be lazy and target the most obvious thing around?

So, when EA funded the development of The Sims (you know, original, ground breaking, non-franchise - BEFORE it became the world's best selling PC game) they're not doing anything decent. When EA are the only company in the West to have the cajones to publish Katamari Damacy in Europe they're just doing it to swindle kids out of their pocket money? And when EA create incentives for staff and grants for universities they're doing less than all those other Western publishers out for a quick buck?

You know something, if I was Warner Bros I'd want to go for a publisher that has the best marketing and distribution model, most efficent development turnaround and general reliability of making a success out of my product and can get me the best return for my investment.

Obvious choice: EA

Ask yourself this, and be OBJECTIVE (you know, not biased in who made your favourite game as a kid), if you were Warner Bros and you had to make a BUSINESS CHOICE about who was going to handle the developement, publishing, distribution and marketing of your high-profile product who would be your first choice?

[fitbabits]

And when EA create incentives for staff and grants for universities they're doing less than all those other Western publishers out for a quick buck?

Tell that to the Electronic Arts staff that were forced to work overtime to meet deadlines and got no pay for it!

Tell you what, next time you have a million dollar licence and can just are involved in the cross-marketing of your global icon (such as Superman) with both movies and videogames you can choose whatever idealistic, morally correct little garage publisher you like.

That just hurts my head!

Ask yourself this, and be OBJECTIVE (you know, not biased in who made your favourite game as a kid), if you were Warner Bros and you had to make a BUSINESS CHOICE about who was going to handle the developement, publishing, distribution and marketing of your high-profile product who would be your first choice?

Objectively? Okay then, I would want to grant the license to the publisher that I thought would do the best job with the IP. Peter Jackson personally choosing Michel Ancel (Beyond Good & Evil) to make the King Kong game is a good example of this way of thinking. It can happen, and it should happen more often.

[danhoo]

So, when EA funded the development of The Sims (you know, original, ground breaking, non-franchise - BEFORE it became the world's best selling PC game) they're not doing anything decent. When EA are the only company in the West to have the cajones to publish Katamari Damacy in Europe they're just doing it to swindle kids out of their pocket money? And when EA create incentives for staff and grants for universities they're doing less than all those other Western publishers out for a quick buck?

According to some folks I know who worked on the Sims, that particularly title was almost cancelled at least twice by EA execs, who thought it would never sell. It's mainly on the strength of Will Wright that the game even saw the light of day. Once it did sell, of course EA was more than happy to admit they were wrong, and churn out expansion packs. EA values the bottom dollar (as any large corporate publisher should if they want to stay around), not creativity.

[Player 1]

Tell that to the Electronic Arts staff that were forced to work overtime to meet deadlines and got no pay for it!

And when I do, I'll tell it to all the other publishers that treat their staff the same way. Such as Activision, Nintendo, Microsoft, Atari, Ubi and.. ooooh.. the rest of the entire industry. Because that's what happens in this industry, not just EA. But you need to look further than your own prejudice to see it.

Are you getting my point yet??

Objectively? Okay then, I would want to grant the license to the publisher that I thought would do the best job with the IP. Peter Jackson personally choosing Michel Ancel (Beyond Good & Evil) to make the King Kong game is a good example of this way of thinking. It can happen, and it should happen more often.

Since Ubi haven't actually proved they can handle this yet (but have shown that, for all their nice games such as BG&E and Prince of Persia, they can't make them sell) then I'd say you're not really thinking from a buisness perspective but from your gamer's perspective.

You're missing my point.

According to some folks I know who worked on the Sims, that particularly title was almost cancelled at least twice by EA execs, who thought it would never sell.

Well, if your going to base your perspective on stories of things that might have happened in some parallel universe then be my guest. In my world, whether EA thought twice about it or not, they did publish the Sims. Nobody else did. I didn't see Michel Ancel reach into his pocket and give Will Wright development funds and marketing support. It was EA.

I tend to find that sticking with the facts of what actually did happen rather than the urban myths and chinese whispers of gamers to be far more useful when presenting my point of view. I'm really annoying like that.

[Gitaroomaan]

Who the hell cares if they sell well or not? I don't care if EA makes a Superman game that sells millions of copies, I just want one that is actually a good game.

[fitbabits]

Player1 - You may want to cast an objective eye this (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5868) way. Or even this (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5754) way before you start defending Electronic Arts like they're a member of your family.

I know you'll probably say something about EA not being the only company that fucks up in such a way, but they are one of the very few companies who couldn't give two shits about doing so. In fact, one could reasonably argue that this level of 'service' is more the norm than the exception where EA is concerned. So long as the money's in the bank, that's all they care about.

[Xerxes]

fitbabits, he stuck up for them again in both your cases. He has a link in his sig, I think means wait until madden 2006 is in motion on xbox 360 before we call it crap.

Player1, Batman Beyond The Game. What faith is there in EA that Superman can be any better. I'm not even sure I've ever seen these games sell. Like they said, Batman, Catwoman, the new Marvel game are fine EA examples. Can you defend those titles?

[Player 1]

Xerxes, thanks for pointing out to Fitabits that I've already read those topics. It serves to show that reading something in full before reacting to it can make you look less silly.

Fitabits, as for releasing unfinished and buggy games, how about Atari and Boiling Point or Driv3r. What about the catastrophe that was Hidden and Dangerous?? Or do we just conveniently forget similiar crimes by companies that aren't EA because it doesn't suit our argument?

And Xerxes, your point of view is a sound one - assuming the everything in the games industry was based solely on the quality of the product. That's a nice dream and one that gamers think is the basis for success in the industry. The fact of the matter is that the product inside the box has very little bearing on how it'll affect sales. Especially if it bears a SUPERMAN logo on the front. When you criticise two of the entertainment industry biggest and most succesful companies you need to stop thinking like an idealistic gamer and start thinking like an industrialist.

If, after that, you're going to complain that EA shouldn't capitalise on their many success and Warner should ignore EA's formidable assets then you're simply not good at making business decisions.

What do you honestly think is a higher priority to these people: A commercially successful product or a critically successful game?

Sure, it's nice if you can do both (and EA achieve critical success as much as any other high-profile third party publisher out there - as much as you hate the fact) but it's certainly not necessary.

I can understand why most gamers do very little than complain and argue. Their refusal to live in the real world as opposed to some digital nirvana where only their favourite games succeed means that they're guaranteed disappointment day after day after day. For contrast you should see what industry communities look like - plenty of good discussion by people that UNDERSTAND what's going on and next to no arguments or childish bickering.

[Xerxes]

Player1 you didn't defend those titles. So you probably can agree those were crap in a box. I don't know what's with the EA love you have. You keep wanting to say look at this and that company, and how they are no better. The problem with that is all of them want to be a EA.

Doesn't Warner or some movie studio have something against shitty movie to game licenses on games get under like 70% in reviews?
Found it:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/enterthematrix/news_6099292.html

Thing is EA can get the license like you say take a few of there monies, crap in the box, pay Warner royalty, and make a profit. That's not a good thing. Not as a gamer or industrialist. You say quality equals sucess is a dream when it's more of a gamers vision. Hell not even just for games, but all things. EA however isn't helping the cause and now all the EA want to bes aren't either.

EA milks games, who doesn't. Complain all people want, that's what they want if it's good. Some people may find Sims good enough to keep spending $20 each month for a box of new oufits for there Sims. That's why the world has sequels. Hell people buy a new madden just for the name changes on costumes.

[Player 1]

I don't know what's with the EA love you have. You keep wanting to say look at this and that company, and how they are no better.

Whoa nelly! What I'm doing is refusing to ride the EA-hate bandwagon that you're all on. In typical gamer style you're seeing this as a black and white situation - "If he doesn't hate them then he must love them".

Do yourself and your culture a favour and stop making assumptions and start to understand that it's possible to just be objective without being totally pro or anti something.

It's the same across the entire culture. Dare to suggest Miyamoto has a bad dentist and all of a sudden you're a Nintendo hater and have a thousand fatwahs served on you by leagues of gamers.

The problem with that is all of them want to be a EA.

No shit Sherlock! The biggest publisher by miles and miles and you're telling me other companies want to be like them? Who would have guessed?

Doesn't Warner or some movie studio have something against shitty movie to game licenses on games get under like 70% in reviews?
Found it:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/enterthematrix/news_6099292.html

Yep. I know Warner's of public declaration. It sounded cute. I sure as hell hope you're not going to swallow that spiel though.

Now, remind me, was this before or after EA did Catwoman for Warner? It was certainly before EA and Eurocom did Batman Begins for Warner and that game, whilst not being totally horrific, was hardly the worlds best movie-tie in was it (averaging 66% on gamerankings.com)? It got sold and marketed well though.

Are you still believing the publicity hype or are you going to excersise some independant thought or dig up some facts??

EDIT: Re-reading the full article I can't resist quoting an excerpt:

However, Hall is adamant in his belief that WBIE's new system will help ensure quality licensed games--like Electronic Arts' The Lord of the Rings and James Bond-based titles--and prevent misfires such as Ubisoft's Charlie's Angels.

Ooh. I bet that really rubs you up the wrong way. Still, it must be because Gamespot are *obviously* a bunch of mindless EA loverz and UBI haterz. That must be it, right? :rolleyes:

Thing is EA can get the license like you say take a few of there monies, crap in the box, pay Warner royalty, and make a profit. That's not a good thing.

You know something? You're only see it from one perspective. Have you ever considered the possibility that EA didn't approach Warner but that Warner approached EA??

Do you think Steven Spielberg or James Cameron (wildly commercially successful directors) have to go looking for deals with studios and scriptwriters or do you think that they get approached and offered stuff based on their obvious skills and reliability at making successful, on budget, on time product that earns lots of revenue.

It's like last year when EA got those exclusives. All the damn kids were claiming EA stole them off people. Like there's only one side of the story and that all these licence holders are being held to ransom by EA and ordered to give them exclusives.

Gamers, on the whole, need to get a goddamn grip.

You say quality equals sucess is a dream when it's more of a gamers vision. Hell not even just for games, but all things. EA however isn't helping the cause and now all the EA want to bes aren't either.

Which I can't argue with. But EA still churn out a lot of GOOD PRODUCT stuff that's consistently better than 'average' in reviews (by objective, professional journalists).

Idealistic but disillusioned gamers refuse to accept this. It's black or white as far as they're concerned and the instant the letters E and A appear on a news item their mind is made up and no facts will broaden their view unless they serve to support their perspective.

EA milks games, who doesn't. Complain all people want, that's what they want if it's good. Some people may find Sims good enough to keep spending $20 each month for a box of new oufits for there Sims. That's why the world has sequels. Hell people buy a new madden just for the name changes on costumes.

Precisely. So, shouldn't this argument be about the consumers and not EA? EA are successful because they adhere to the first rule of commercial business: give the public what they want. Since when did that become a crime?

Gamers are going for the big, populist bang without worrying about substantiating it - if you bash EA you'll be rewarded by people supporting you views. Just like Jack Thompson goes for the big publicity bang by targeting games instead of parents. Just like the RIAA go for the easy target. You gamers do exactly the same thing - you're going for the easy target because it's an obvious and gratifying one.

This is why most gamers are just as bad as Jack Thompson and the RIAA - but they'll always refuse to see it that way.

Fortunately for the mass of consumers out there and the bulk of this industry, these mistaken views devoid of facts or a grip on reality don't actually add up to much outside of the gamer's idealistic dreams.

And so the world turns..

[Xerxes]

I don't have that will to go back and forth about EA.

Last few notes on this:
EA lover was not meant as "you dry hump your EA bedspread," but more to the sense you are acting as there mighty defender. Somewhat like the voice of the little guy, which isn't that little at all.

Just cause there the biggest doesn't mean there the best.

Warner's publicity hype, could be or couldn't. I wouldn't brush it off until you show me EA's or Warner's books.

The director's in hollywood sitting on there ass until a studio calls them, I doubt it. I sure it's a mixed bag cause they'll always talking about this and that personal project they shopped around. It's more like if they walk into the studio, they walk out with a large budget and green light cause they're proven sucess or money makers. But it's a mixed bag because I'm sure half as much they do get calls about making something. The case with EA and Warner. Warner probably did give ole EA a call. Most Warner game do go through EA so it's like #2 on the speed dial.

Ubi was stupid for even touching the license. Charlie's Angels the movies sucked, and the game made by anyone would do the same. Can't say Lotr and James bond are just awesome though.

And you say they churn out good product... I say the ratio of good ea stuff and bad ea stuff is well....

...that's it, I'm folding like Roy Jones Jr.

[Player 1]

I don't have that will to go back and forth about EA.

You'll find I do - and it's not an EA thing. It's a facts vs opinion thing. (Don't get me started on Nintendo).

Last few notes on this:
EA lover was not meant as "you dry hump your EA bedspread," but more to the sense you are acting as there mighty defender. Somewhat like the voice of the little guy, which isn't that little at all.

I'm not a mighty defender. But this attitude is just wrong. It's identical to Jack Thompson's misguided tirades - and I'm sure you all felt strongly on those.

EA don't need me defending them and they're not concerned that you're badmouthing them. But, just like EA aren't the little guy - being the big guy doesn't automatically make them wrong - and being the the little guy doesn't automatically make you right.

Just cause there the biggest doesn't mean there the best.

I never ever said that was the case.

As for the rest of your post, it seems like your responses lack that utter confidence and indignation that your earlier ones had. I wonder why?

[Xerxes]

Player1, in the end I just kinda gave in... Like you said, you do have fortitude to argue in thier favor, I don't. I really don't give a rats ass about EA, maybe enough for light banter but not much more. Not like I'm going to convert you into seeing what I see about EA same way you can't convert me. Guess what, were humans(!!!!) so it's ok. I don't know about facts vs opinoins. I think the general opinoin is this game is going to suck. It's going to suck like all licensed games from EA does, except sports which suck but they sell millions of copies each year. I don't hate EA, but I do dislike them. Not cause of employee horror stories. I don't know the truths behind that or any other companies practices. I think Ubi is this biggest want to be. They keep changing. Let's pump out PoP and Tom Clancy games yearly, and extreme them. They had a perfect sound to the first PoP, you get good ratings but damn all that. Let's make him "bad-ass" that's what the people want, or and you have to have rock music in persia.

I really don't see how people who dislike EA and blame them for the state of industry is identical to Jack-ass Thompson not holding parents responsible when the is bold M on the box. As Gob Bluthe would say, "COME ON!!"

And what the hell is wrong with Nintendo, they want to be different. I kinda like Nintendo for keeping the game fun and young. Nobody else caters to that. I can't imagine playing some of the shit we play most days as a 6 year old when I had atari ot 10 with nes. I'd be running in a room emptying my clip into the wall on most this stuff. But I don't know, I didn't have this stuff when I was that young.

[mister_slim]

Ask yourself this, and be OBJECTIVE (you know, not biased in who made your favourite game as a kid), if you were Warner Bros and you had to make a BUSINESS CHOICE about who was going to handle the developement, publishing, distribution and marketing of your high-profile product who would be your first choice?
If I'm Warner's, deciding based on who will line my pockets the best, EA is the best choice. Warner and EA both know it will be a mediocre, derivative game and that it will sell entirely due to the license.

And what does this have to EA not being creative? I haven't said EA makes bad games. I haven't said they are evil. I said they aren't creative, that they are a licensing and marketing driven, mainstream-targeting company, the equivalent of Wal-Mart.
Well, if your going to base your perspective on stories of things that might have happened in some parallel universe then be my guest. In my world, whether EA thought twice about it or not, they did publish the Sims.

I tend to find that sticking with the facts of what actually did happen rather than the urban myths and chinese whispers of gamers to be far more useful when presenting my point of view. I'm really annoying like that.
Talk to Don Hopkins.