Electronic Arts Invasion

[Volourn]

Please. MS was fined billions of dollars. It was all aboyt the gov't stealing a legit company's money. I also like the way you put 'breaks up' in brakcets. Basically it punishes a company for being successful at delivering what costumers want. There would be no EA or MS in existence if the customers didn't want them. Period.

 

And, this talk of 'lack of creativity' about EA is nonsense and, in facts, insults anot only EA and their wonderfully creative games; it also insults gamers like Enderwiggin and mkreku who buy and play their games.

 

It's also silly how you complain about EA's having the NFL license for gaming yet seem to jump up for joy when Take Two gains the rights to the MLB games. What's good for one is good for the other, imo.

[kumquatq3]

Please. MS was fined billions of dollars.

 

The laws are there. They, according to the judges, broke them

 

It was all aboyt the gov't stealing a legit company's money. I also like the way you put 'breaks up' in brakcets. Basically it punishes a company for being successful at delivering what costumers want. There would be no EA or MS in existence if the customers didn't want them. Period.

 

Customers do want them. They don't want JUST them.

 

And, this talk of 'lack of creativity' about EA is nonsense and, in facts, insults anot only EA and their wonderfully creative games; it also insults gamers like Enderwiggin and mkreku who buy and play their games.

 

Then they are insults, but insults can be facts

 

It's also silly how you complain about EA's having the NFL license for gaming yet seem to jump up for joy when Take Two gains the rights to the MLB games. What's good for one is good for the other, imo.

 

Me? I think you are mixing me up with someone else

 

The only joy I got from that was that the underdog responded to EAs "End Game" tough guy tactics, which came about due to Take Two putting out a rival product at cheaper prices. Both are HORRIBLE of the consumer and I would squash both if I could.

[Calax]

EA isn't a monopoly because Activision, Atari, Lucas Arts, Konami, Capcom, Snk, and about a dozen other groups still exsist.

[kumquatq3]

EA isn't a monopoly because Activision, Atari, Lucas Arts, Konami, Capcom, Snk, and about a dozen other groups still exsist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree. We are talking about Microsofts IE case and EA

[Azarkon]

EA is a typical corporation. In other words, our future masters.

[GhostofAnakin]

Maybe EA will buy out Lucasarts and we'll have a new KOTOR each year with almost no change in anything except a new roster.

[Oerwinde]

Maybe EA will buy out Lucasarts and we'll have a new KOTOR each year with almost no change in anything except a new roster. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ha! EA doesn't make RPGs. Well, I guess LotR: Third Age kinda counts, but it was just FFX with a makeover.

[EnderAndrew]

Ubisoft's record wasn't perfect, but neither was Interplay when everyone worshipped them back in the day.

 

I'll gladly take Ubisoft over EA any day.

[kumquatq3]

look, EA can go ahead and exist and grow. I'm just not a fan of how they choose to grow.

[alanschu]

P.S. Isn't Ubisoft the company responsible for turning a classic D&D module into an absolute mockery with POR2? I have no mercy for them.

 

No, the developers were

[steelfiredragon]

EA isn't a monopoly because Activision, Atari, Lucas Arts, Konami, Capcom, Snk, and about a dozen other groups still exsist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

just how many of those are developers and how many of those are distributors.

 

konami is a developer as is capcom,

Lucasarts is a distributor. as all SW stuff goes through them.

 

atari is a developer

bethseda does their own i think stateside, and ubisoft europe on their side from time to time.

 

EA is a distributor with sub groups that are the developer.

SnK????

Activision does its own and others as distributors.

 

 

CApcom is a developer, as nintendo, sony and microsoft are its destibutors depending on which console they are making a game for.

 

 

s

[Meshugger]

And, this talk of 'lack of creativity' about EA is nonsense and, in facts, insults anot only EA and their wonderfully creative games; it also insults gamers  like Enderwiggin and mkreku who buy and play their games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which games are those? Developed in-house by EA, that is.

[EnderAndrew]

And, this talk of 'lack of creativity' about EA is nonsense and, in facts, insults anot only EA and their wonderfully creative games; it also insults gamers  like Enderwiggin and mkreku who buy and play their games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which games are those? Developed in-house by EA, that is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I buy their sports titles, which EA develops in-house. And considering that EA bought Maxis, one could say all the Maxis titles are really in house. I'll definately be buying Spore.

[Volourn]

"No, the developers were"

 

of course you fail to mention that there were multiple developers for the game, and the only Ubisoft wnated out of the game was to be able to beat NWN to amrket so they claim to have 'the first 3E D&D CRPG ever'. We also saw how that abckfired. Sure, the devs have to accept blame; but so does the publisher. Nice try, though.

 

 

"Which games are those? Developed in-house by EA, that is."

 

Though Ender answered this alreayd, it doens't what games of EA's they published or devloped. The bottom line is EA has created or helped create some of the best games ever. They would not be where they are if they hadn't. The fans want them to be this successful as the fans' money as spoken loud, and clear.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Volourn

[Calax]

EA isn't a monopoly because Activision, Atari, Lucas Arts, Konami, Capcom, Snk, and about a dozen other groups still exsist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

just how many of those are developers and how many of those are distributors.

 

konami is a developer as is capcom,

Lucasarts is a distributor. as all SW stuff goes through them.

 

atari is a developer

bethseda does their own i think stateside, and ubisoft europe on their side from time to time.

 

EA is a distributor with sub groups that are the developer.

SnK????

Activision does its own and others as distributors.

 

 

CApcom is a developer, as nintendo, sony and microsoft are its destibutors depending on which console they are making a game for.

 

 

s

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually Konami split from Capcom. They publish their own works. the most successful group amongst them is Hideo Kojimas studio that has now broken off into it's own subgroup.

 

SnK, I'm not entirly sure it's still around but it made several of the old fighting games, Rival Schools was one of theirs... can't remember if they are the publisher tho.

 

Atari has the power to publish it's own games, one of the more recent ones that they've published has been the DragonBall Z series.

 

And to add a new one to the list, SCEA. Sony Computer Entertainment Japan. And Square Enix is still alive.

[Judge Hades]

I haven't bought a EA game since they took over Origin. All I see them doing is rehashing the same games over and over again with their sport titles and Sim games.

 

Play one football computer game and you have pretty much played them all.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Hades_One

[Meshugger]

And, this talk of 'lack of creativity' about EA is nonsense and, in facts, insults anot only EA and their wonderfully creative games; it also insults gamers  like Enderwiggin and mkreku who buy and play their games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which games are those? Developed in-house by EA, that is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I buy their sports titles, which EA develops in-house. And considering that EA bought Maxis, one could say all the Maxis titles are really in house. I'll definately be buying Spore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

EA bought them out in 1997, which leaves to give EA credit for one game: The Sims.

 

In order to continue this discussion, if EA collapsed in 1993, would the industry be in a bad situation if that happened? (Don't counter with "I don't deal with 'if's'" )

[Volourn]

"Play one football computer game and you have pretty much played them all."

 

Play one RPG and you have pretty much played them all.

 

Seriously, the variety of football games is as variant as there are role-playing games.

 

There's a reason why some football games are considered classic (Madden, Techmo) and others are forgotten as quickly as possible.

 

All one has to do is play the first Madden and then play the most recent to tell the HUGE difference between the two.

 

'Nough said.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Volourn

[Judge Hades]

The point of a football game (on the computer or otherwise) is to get a ball from one field to the other. Oh, what fun that is.

[Volourn]

And?

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"The point of a football game (on the computer or otherwise) is to get a ball from one field to the other. Oh, what fun that is."

 

The point of a roleplaying game is to be the FedEx man.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Sarjahurmaaja.

[Judge Hades]

Not in good CRPGs.

[kumquatq3]

The point of a roleplaying game is to be the FedEx man with guns!

 

Fixed!

[Judge Hades]

The point of a roleplaying game is to be the FedEx man with guns!

 

Fixed!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HA!

[Calax]