Morgoth Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 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! Rain makes everything better.
Pop Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 Activision might eventually be able to buy EA, if they continue expanding faster than EA. Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality!
WILL THE ALMIGHTY Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 Does EA even make games? Or do they simply buy companies that make them and leech off their profits? "Alright, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade - make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your damn lemons, what am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager. Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons. Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons. I'm going to to get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!"
tuittupaa Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 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.
Dark_Raven Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed.
tuittupaa Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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...
Krookie Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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.
Morgoth Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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. Rain makes everything better.
Xard Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) Yeah, EA is not only publisher. But why did they have to take Bioware Edited October 14, 2007 by Xard How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)
Morgoth Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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. Rain makes everything better.
Xard Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 And remembering EA's plans on making RPG... Makes sense. How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG)
Morgoth Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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? Rain makes everything better.
Guest The Architect Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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}?
Sand Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"
Guard Dog Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 It is hard not to be pessimistic about this. I's not as if what Sand is saying has never happened bafore. Several times. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Meshugger Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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"? "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
Leferd Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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. "Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin."P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle
Musopticon? Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 I don't know, but Bioware becoming EA Edmonton would humor me to no end. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds
Leferd Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 EA Canada Jr. "Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin."P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle
WILL THE ALMIGHTY Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 Nah, it has to stay Bioware. Having EA in the name would scare away most of the customers. "Alright, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade - make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your damn lemons, what am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager. Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons. Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons. I'm going to to get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!"
Guard Dog Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) 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, 2007 by Guard Dog "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Krookie Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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.
Leferd Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 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. "Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin."P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle
Musopticon? Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 What I want, is that Mercs 2 retains it's co-op campaign. I want to carpet bomb some of you online, fgs. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds
Pop Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) 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, 2007 by Pop Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality!
Recommended Posts