IS EA planning a siege on the market

[camrE]

Is EA planning a siege on the market? or am I paranoid.

consider this, EA has the biggest name in PC gaming The Sims, which was made by Maxis who they bought. They own anything Maxis puts out.

They have the biggest sport titles on PC and home consoles. Visual COncepts teamed with Sega to make the  2K franchise which was later changed to the ESPN name. Anyone who has played a VS game against the EA counterpart will say that the VS is higher quality. Yet EA out sold them still, because of their long running name and series, madden titles for instance. No VS decided to lower their titles to an astonishing $20. EA's president was quoted saying "They could strap a ham sandwhich to their games and it still won't sell."  About a week after, the numbers came in and ESPN basketball was coming up on NBA live very fast. ESPN football outsold Madden.

Now it was just released that EA has attained the NFL liscense soley. Which means ESPN cannot make an accurate NFL title. No teams, no stadiums, no nothing. Hmmm... Is this really fair?

EA has just tried to aquire the NBA liscense. Thank God they did not get  it.

EA plans on buying 20% of Ubisoft. Who in my opinion is one of the greatest Prod and development houses in the entire market, such names as Prince or Persia, Splintercell, Rayman and others. If they get that 20% it's gonna prove to be as good as 100% in a year or two. They would ruin Ubisoft.

EA acquired Burnout after acclaim filed for chapter 11 earlier this year. It's one of their most anticipated titles.

EA has the Need for Speed franchise, which in my opinion is horrific. The game has never had decent graphics , controls, or AI. But it is extremely popular and dominates the arcade-racer market of the genre.

look at how strong their influence is in the market. Make no mistake, they are the biggest software pulisher out there.  What else is left, besides total domination?                    

[SPK]

They lack the two lab rats that plot for world domination...Warner Bros still has property over them

Seriously though, it's a bit of a concern...Microsoft ambitions perhaps?....maybe not, but they can try anyway .                    

[TrinireturnofGamez]

EA is trying to dominate the market by selling sh!t , the NFS series was total sh!t till underground  , the sims is the greatest cash cow of all time ( and it sux)    .
    I'm sure if Bungie wasn't Microsoft property they would have bought it , They already have started to buy out Ubisoft  !   I'm sure Valve is next on their hit list......

 Soon we'll just have EA and Microsoft competing for sales.........
                       

[camrE]

EA has already dominated the market by selling crap games. The NFS series has remained to be mediocre. What have they improved on? certainly not graphics, or AI. EA is on a sucessful path. They can churn out a million half-done titles and it would sell because of their undeserved reputation.

what about the Lord of the rings titles. Sweet Moses smell the roses, they were horrible. I will give due credit. the direction of the game was smooth, especially in terms of how the game gracefully morphs from movie footage to gaming, but outside of that it was horrific. Hack and slach to the max, no strategy required, terrible graphics, terrible AI, awful sound. Ugh I feel sick just thinking about it.                      

[Kayode]

Anyone who has played a VS game against the EA counterpart will say that the VS is higher quality.

I find people who dislike EA assert this but neither the reviews nor the sales figures back it up.

Not that I'm supporting EA, but that point is invalid.                    

[Kayode]

The general consensus is that the LOTR games were great for what they were. The redefined the genre and received great reviews and sales figures on all three major consoles.

Same with The Sims and The Sims 2.

Command & Conquer: Generals was another success that GATTers can relate to.

The SSX titles are universlly lauded.

Burnout 3 is a Game of the Year contender.


Again, have any grouse you want with their business moves (which I agree are almost malevolently anti-competitive), but give credit where credit is due. Don't act as if they just sell a set of trash and get rich off of it.

EA still publishes good games. The consensus supports that.                    

[Exar_Kun]

The general consensus is that the LOTR games were great for what they were. The redefined the genre and received great reviews and sales figures on all three major consoles.
 

Don't be a fool.
Redefined my ass.The LotR games were a blatant rip off of the Dynasty Warriors style of gameplay introduced in Dynasty Warriors 2.It was just crappier.Think it a coincidence that they came up with this direction for their Lord of the Crap games right after Dynasty Warriors 3 went platinum.They stole Koei's innovation,slapped a license on it and had every gullible idiot oohing and ahhing over a lame game with a bunch of ripped FMVs.And I had Two Towers so don't tell me I don't know.I lent that game out and don't particularly care when I get it back.

EA sees something good and steals the idea.Whee!NFSU!!People were playing that before with Midnight Club.
The only exception to the EA rule is from Maxis.And that's because EA won't dare to **** with Will Wright.He's one of the most creative minds in the industry and if he walks,Maxis turns to slime.

EA's sports titles are just an example of how EA can release the same thing year after year and the masses eat it up.The differences between each yearly update is negligible save for the roster updates.Who wants to place bets that even the negligible crawl forward Madden has been taking gets even slower now that there's no comp.

Bless David Stern and the NBA for refusing EA's offer for a similar deal for NBA exclusivity.

I can give credit where credit is due.EA Sports BIG does a lot of nice stuff.But THAT'S IT.
Considering that EA is hands down the largest publisher in the industry,why did you name so few titles in your list?Cause EA drops crap.

And this isn't even getting to EA's disgusting practices like cannibalizing bought developers to reinforce their weak studios.Or the fact that working for EA is the closest thing to shoe sweatshops that the industry has.                    

[New Era Outlaw]

Don't be a fool.
 

Watch it, Exar Kun. You're free to express whatever opinion you have, but try to do it sans the flamebaiting, all right?

EA has already dominated the market by selling crap games.

Nope. Won't deny that.

The NFS series has remained to be mediocre. What have they improved on? certainly not graphics, or AI.

 
Funny....and all this time I thought the NFS:Underground series was the greatest thing since sliced bread in the field of racing games- wait a minute....

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/920469.asp
http://www.gamepro.com/sony/ps2/games/reviews/39512.shtml
http://wire.ign.com/articles/566/566639p1.html

BEST DRIVING GAME (nominees in Spike TV's Video Game Awards 2004- see article above)
Burnout 3: Takedown - (Electronic Arts)
NASCAR 2005: Chase for the Cup - (Electronic Arts)
Need For Speed Underground 2 - (Electronic Arts)


.....it IS.
NFS: Underground may come from a company that has just about as much reputation in the Video Game industry as a hobo in a dumpster, but mediocre it ain't. And even without the articles, several racing enthusiasts would definitely be out to prove you wrong there. Even the non-racing crowd, such as myself, would disagree.

what about the Lord of the rings titles. Sweet Moses smell the roses, they were horrible.

I could pretty much say the same about the movies.  
BRING ON THE TORCHES!! (runs away from the expected deluge of flames)                    

[Kayode]

Considering that EA is hands down the largest publisher in the industry,why did you name so few titles in your list?Cause EA drops crap.

I cited six franchises...not just six games.

I left out the NFS series.

I didn't talk about the FIFA series.

I should arguably mention the Medal of Honor franchise, which seems to have redeemed itself with Pacific Assault.

And Sim City.


That's at 10 critically acclaimed franchises there. Ten.

From one publisher.



The credit is being given whether you want to agree or not.

And let's not forget Battlefield 1942.                      

[SUPR3M3]

Not that I have a problem with EA or their games. Honestly every EA game I have I really like, and I have them listed as one of my trusted publishers just under UbiSoft. But their acquisition of the NFL liscense was just a low blow in my book. I mean if they're doing so well with their Madden titles, why take it away from  (what is now in my eyes) a small company like Sega. I really honestly doubt that the sales generated by ESPN football was that much of a HUGE blow for EA because I know Madden sold A LOT of copies.

I honestly liked to see the competition and I'm sure people other than myself enjoyed it just to see who's gonna be better this year. That's what makes the whole thing enjoyable, but when u take that away you're basically left with what you get and whatever u get u have to take, unless u refuse to play Madden games for the next 5yrs.                      

[Kayode]

One more thing that conveniently being mentioned: The NFL auctioned off the exclusive license deal.

While I agree that it was a nasty move, it's not like EA just bought it out. It was open to everyone, including Microsoft.                    

[camrE]

Good, I started a good thread. Gatt needs a jump start.

I will not and cannot deny they quality of Fifa soccer as a game. I personally hate soccer but I have tried the titles and they proved to be well done. ESPN football and ESPN basketball are far superior titles as opposed to the EA franchises. They truthfully are. I am saying this from an objective POV, I am not a fan of sporting title on the whole. I have played NBA Live, ESPN Basketball, Madden, and ESPN football all for the last four years and ESPN is far superior in gameplay, graphics, and controls. EA does better sound I will admit, and the inclusion of the slam dunk contest in the new NBA title is pretty good. But on the whole ESPN is superior. And sales does not really say much, The DC was a fantastic system in its time yet it failed miserably, Prince of Persia was awarded game of the year by a million different magazines and websites yet it failed to sell. So EA’s franchises (which have developed quite a reputation for the last ten years due to lack of a decent competitor) continue to excel in numbers.

The Lord of the Rings titles were as horrendous as the movies, dare I say worst, it was three titles of more or less the same thing that sold like crazy. They did nothing to redefine any genre. They sold because of the hype of the movie, deny it if you wish. On a side note, those movies in themselves were terrible. Besides Sir McKellen the acting was in no way outstanding, nor is the story. With the grand size of everything in the movie (besides the hobbits) the hype grew just as large.

The NFS titles, ALL OF THEM, have and always will be trash. They have done nothing for the genre, they have always had mediocre graphics, terrible controls, and even worst AI. You want to dispute this, how about you take a look at Gran Turismo 1, 2, or 3 A-spec. As for Burnout, what I have seen of this game, it looks great, perhaps because they took a title that was 70% done from acclaim and added some flair.

As for EA big, they do what they do great. I cannot deny those titles their due.

LOL @ considering anything on Spike tv to be of any merit. LMAO.

The Medal of Honor and battlefield series, hmmm… seems like the world was in a little WWII and Vietnam phase for a few months their. EA capitalized on it. Once again, nothing groundbreaking there.

To look at it from a business POV, what EA did with the NFL is a smart move. But after your proud CEO making statements against VS and Sega’s superior game, it seems extremely cowardly and cheap. Ham sandwich my ass. I was unaware that it was up for auction, so I can’t hold it against the company. But I can hold it against the NFL because now we’re stuck with the lesser Madden titles. God no!
                     

[Kayode]

There was nothing groundbreaking about Battlefield 1942?

lol...well yes.

Yuh really hadda start thinking before yuh post camrE. That competing with "GTA is all about killing hookers". Come better than that nah man.

I doh know what your definition of objective is. I'm going by professional and public consensus (reviews and sales).

If we sit here and talk subjectively about what you like and what I like, the thread would be pointless.


I didn't say anything about EA's basketball series nah.

I was talking about the Madden line. And even if you want to invalidate sales, you can't invalidate the review consenus. Madden and ESPN are neck and neck.


Taking into account the three major platforms and sources like Gamerankings and Metacritic, it's impossible to conclusively cite a winner between the two franchises.


The reviews for Need for Speed also contradict your description of them. I'm seeing mostly 80s and some 90s.

As do the reviews of the LOTR fighting games.


When yuh ready tuh discuss on that level, do yuh best. But really...the anti-EA fanboy attitude does more to make the company look good than it does to make the company look bad.

There are plenty valid reasons to hate EA. Their business practices. The closure of studios like Origin and Westwood.

But doh go citing some of the most critically acclaimed franchises in the industry as crap and talk about being "objective".                    

[Kayode]

And before de ole talk starts, I'm not trying to hold down anyone's opinions.

But if you're talking in a general context, try to back up your statements with something a bit bigger than your personal opinion.

Personal opinions don't stand for much in a discussion like this.                      

[camrE]

Oh no Kayode, don't get me wrong at all. I like when you post (not pics) cause you bring hard and strong arguments.

An editorial by TheBigBoss:

I don't think we can look at sales figures in the game world to be actual sources of "facts”, nor do I take reviews lightly, as there is no certain criteria that games are rated upon. Nothing is hard and fast in the gaming world. Like I said, game of the year, which was so highly revered and reviewed in the 90's, practically everywhere did not sell. Nor did Beyond good and evil, the DC, even the fabulous Splinter cell had less than stellar sales. All of which had high reviews. And then there is Fable, so highly revered even though it is total garbage. Play it and you are sure to see. So what you can be good or evil. I could do that in True crime: streets of LA, or Star wars KOTOR. Another example is Game Informer magazine said MK Deception is the deepest and best fighting game or all time.  hmmmm...

All of which led me to not respect these as sources of inspiration on whether to purchase a game or not, or  as a display of how good a game really is. I’m asking you to look t these popular titles, look at need for speed, it is what it is, but is it what everyone says it is? Is it what the reviews say it is? Is it what it could be? EA sports as opposed to Visual Concepts and Sega’s joint venture, does it match up? Is it really neck and neck? ESPN basketball  had  the downloadable/updatable rosters, the superior graphics, the superior controls, superior gameplay, superior comentary. But....

EA has some great franchises under its belt; they need to start putting some quality work into their games for once. They have become the Nike of the gaming market. Where they can push anything out and we will all swallow it up and think it’s great cause it has EA attached to it.                    

[Kayode]

That's why I'm offering two different sets of consensus.

The sales figures reflect what "the people" like. The masses do not always see eye to eye with reviewers.

The reviews are the professional opinions.

The EA franchises have the backing of both segments.

All that's left is the moaning and meandering of some members of the Internet elite who dislike EA.

If it was the elite vs the masses, I'd take the side of the elite. But the aforementioned franchises are successful across the board.


The bottom like is you like what you like.
But you, me and the half a dozen other people in this thread do not a significant consensus make.

If we having a discussion about EA's games and the general market, include the general market and the general reviews.
Don't dismiss the millions who buy the games and the dozens who review them...because to be honest, in a general context, your opinion (or mine) doh mean any more than theirs.                    

[vinion2000]

Well  i for one am not really bothered. EA can spread it wings. Its all a matter of preference. i beileve that EA is a necessary in an industry which is still growing. they not only drive the gamining industry they change it everyday. whether or not they dominate it is left to be seen but im not bothered.

EA makes great games, they own great licenses and whether they bought them or produce them is of no consequence to the end result. my enjoyment and satisfaction. isnt that whats important in the end?

now IMO the industry needs a comapny like EA. not just for its vast wealth but for its contribution and influence. you think MAXIS would have been as big as it was today? how many companies would have taken a chance on the SIMS? Will Wright had a hard time selling Sim city and that was his first ig hit.Some great games never even leave the ground simply because of financing. some companies are doomed to sequals and spin offs. take a look at EIDOS, sooner or later ppl are going to lose interest in them. what then happens? are games like thief or Legend of Kain lost? take a look at Squaresoft. their in a daming loop where innovation is far and few in between simply because of the stresses of financing. a company with great licenses damned to milking its cashcow.

i think EA investment in Ubisoft is great. the extra money will allow them to diversify rather than spit out Tom Clancy and Myth games every year. maybe they'll get around to making a Beyond Good and Evil 2 or another great game.. its certainly great news to Crytek who receive a heafty lumpsome from EA in licensing fees. i look foward to more from them.

                     

[W1nTry]

Wow this is a heated debate here... all with good points all over the place... not to mention the amount of time it takes to read it all if you now coming into this whole thing. Whilst noone can deny the overwhelming sucess that EA has managed to win over its competition, I have liked most of their titles and thought that they produced a well balanced line of games. I know that killing competition is generally bad for the consumer so I have to say that I hope that they do not continue to push the competition (as in the NFL title) out the door. Once they continue to make good games and there is competition to ensure that they do, I say cudos to them and keep it up. Till such a scenario as things get lackluster, boring and lame I am fine with EA. Also I raelly liked the NFS series, what the heck are u talking about camre? what other racing title has there been for the PC market since the days of Wind0ws98?                    

[Kayode]

EA purchased Ubisoft stocks from a shareholder who alread owned them...they didn't really "invest" in them per se. The company is already worth a few hundred million...I doh think they were struggling for dollars.

It is't any "extra" money.

What EA did was put their foot in the door to get a piece of the pie and a level of control.


As for Eidos and Squaresoft creating repetitive sequels...that has nothing to do with money. Squaresoft has all the money in the world to make whatever it wants to. Same can be said about Eidos.

The reason they make the same thing over and over is because they've found a money-making formula. They don't need to make anything else.

EA isn't a home of innovation. They find something good and they keep pumping out the same thing with minor improvements.
How many Sims spin-offs and expansion packs have there been?
And Medal of Honor spin-offs?
How different is Madden from year to year?

Compare that to the number of Finaly Fantasy sequels and spin-offs.
And Tomb Raider/Legacy of Kain sequels.

It's called a formula. Big companies do it all the time. If it sells, sell it again. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

EA, Squaresoft and Eidos are in the same ship...the only difference is that EA owns more licenses, and therefore looks like it's diverse.

As for BG&E...you really think EA will give them money to produce a sequel to a game that didn't sell?

Formula.

Once yuh get the wealth, you obligated to keep generating it. And that doesn't leave much space for innovation.                    

[Rampage]

well said boy kayode.

i find ubisoft is the innovative ones. they not afraid to try something new