EA buys Vivendi...

Somehow I doubt EA will become big enough to buy the company that owns NBC and Universal studios. Vivendi is worth 10x what EA is worth.

Yeah, thanks to World of Warcraft, Vivendi could probably even own EA!

Activision might eventually be able to buy EA, if they continue expanding faster than EA.

Does EA even make games? Or do they simply buy companies that make them and leech off their profits?

Sorry, I didn't read the earlier posts so what I say might be all old stuff. Please don't hate me for it.. *sigh*

 

As far as I know the BW devs are feeling pretty positive of this.

 

I don't know what the actual agreement holds in it, but I hope it won't affect radically to BW quality.. especially that it wouldn't affect in negative way. There has been many doubts when it comes to Mass Effect trilogy..

 

I myself find it to be quite shocking. As a fan.

 

In business life, it makes perfect sense though.

As far as I know the BW devs are feeling pretty positive of this.

More like sucking up. Yeah you EA guys are swell. Please don't make me lose my job.

More like sucking up. Yeah you EA guys are swell. Please don't make me lose my job.

 

In the end, it must be all up to personal feeling to devs, like anything in world is. Some might think it's a good think, some might think it's bad thing...

 

 

As an employee, they can't really say it sucks, even if they wanted.. or that's how I see it.

 

 

 

 

I guess I just wait and see what will stand in the future. But I'm a bit afraid...

Does EA even make games? Or do they simply buy companies that make them and leech off their profits?

 

Well, I was pretty sure developers make the games. And EA publishes them. So their not really leeching, because EA has a job to do too. It's a combined effort, even if EA destroys BioWare.

EA does have plenty of in-house development teams.

 

Think of the Need for Speed series, EA Sports games, Command & Conquer, those Spielberg projects, and a lot more.

Yeah, EA is not only publisher.

 

But why did they have to take Bioware

Edited October 14, 200718 yr by Xard

But why did they have to take Bioware

With Bioware, they also acquired a lot of their own made tools and dialog system, which EA can incorporate into other games as well.

And remembering EA's plans on making RPG...

 

Makes sense.

And remembering EA's plans on making RPG...

 

Makes sense.

There's still a chance for a new Ultima....from Bio. But more importantly are Bio's sophisticated Actors... they spend a ton of time and effort into the tech. And I mean it does look amazing. Try to rig, skin and animate a NPC through usual methods, it will take you months just to get one Actor to behave that believable. With the tools Bio created, they can to that in minutes (whatever, Greg Zeschuk mentioned that in an interview). This can be applied to other genres as well. Why do you think EA wouldn't be interested in re-engineering that into other games?

Yeah sorry for not reading the article or all of the posts in this thread {since the answer to my question is probably in one or two, or both, but I'm too lazy to take a look at it all, so...} but EA isn't going to interfere with what games BioWare want to develop and how they develop their games, right? 'Cause if so, what's the problem? Not that I'm complaining or anything, but I'm wondering, why is it a bad thing that EA has bought BioWare out {a question for those that think it is}?

EA buys a company, they then use it till its a dry husk and chased all the good talent away, then discard it into obscurity.

It is hard not to be pessimistic about this. I's not as if what Sand is saying has never happened bafore. Several times.

Their main page is down at the moment, replaced with some simple template that looks like a CV.

 

Anyhoo, will Bioware keep its name or will it just become a part of EA, like "EA-RPG" or "EA-Edmonton"?

Not trying to be a devil's advocate here, but three quarters of a billion dollars does seem like a ton of money to just buy a couple studios so they can run them to the ground. If anything, EA generally does make good business decisions.

 

So there may be some hope.

I don't know, but Bioware becoming EA Edmonton would humor me to no end.

EA Canada Jr.

Nah, it has to stay Bioware. Having EA in the name would scare away most of the customers.

Not trying to be a devil's advocate here, but three quarters of a billion dollars does seem like a ton of money to just buy a couple studios so they can run them to the ground. If anything, EA generally does make good business decisions.

 

So there may be some hope.

 

I'm sure you have heard of the legend of the frog and the scorpion? Sometimes a company (or a person, or a scorpion) does things just because its what they do. Even if it is against their interests, it's just their nature.

Edited October 14, 200718 yr by Guard Dog

EA does have plenty of in-house development teams.

 

Think of the Need for Speed series, EA Sports games, Command & Conquer, those Spielberg projects, and a lot more.

 

I know they have in house development teams too, like all the EA Sports games and stuff, but I was talking about what there situation is with BioWare.

Not trying to be a devil's advocate here, but three quarters of a billion dollars does seem like a ton of money to just buy a couple studios so they can run them to the ground. If anything, EA generally does make good business decisions.

 

So there may be some hope.

 

I'm sure you have heard of the legend of the frog and the scorpion? Sometimes a company (or a person, or a scorpion) does things just because its what they do. Even if it is against their interests, it's just their nature.

 

Assuming that EA is el Evil Empire, to get to that point, they have to be a rational actor. Afterall, irrationally going from one blunder to the next does not make a company worth multi-billions of dollars. They may not necessarily be interested in the art of video games, but they are interested in the $$ aspects of it.

 

A scorpion -and correct me if I'm wrong- does not have the cognitive facilities to be interested in long-term survivability. They will not sacrifice something in the short term that will bear much fruit in the long term. They are only rational in the point that it cares for its own short term survival no matter the consequences.

 

With Biodemic, they have two studios that are both critical and financial darlings. To EA, I'd imagine they'd see that as a commodity to value, rather than discard. The best thing for EA to do is for them to allow Bio and Pandemic do whatever the hell they have been doing and keep it up with as few memos as possible. From what I understand, that is John R.'s plan when EA bought them out.

 

...how long that lasts...well I suppose it depends on how long Bio keeps getting good reviews and millions in sales.

What I want, is that Mercs 2 retains it's co-op campaign.

 

I want to carpet bomb some of you online, fgs.

Not trying to be a devil's advocate here, but three quarters of a billion dollars does seem like a ton of money to just buy a couple studios so they can run them to the ground. If anything, EA generally does make good business decisions.

 

So there may be some hope.

 

I'm sure you have heard of the legend of the frog and the scorpion? Sometimes a company (or a person, or a scorpion) does things just because its what they do. Even if it is against their interests, it's just their nature.

Now, I haven't taken many classes in the way of economics, but I'm pretty confident that a thomistic/teleological account of market dynamics isn't terribly popular or well-supported. Nobody mistakes a company's past behavior with an obligation to some account of "nature".

Edited October 14, 200718 yr by Pop