EA signs deal to license Star Wars games

[auStrategyGamer]

I hope EA DICE make it good!

 

[aigomorla]

I have only played DA:O, and it was pretty good. I hear DA2 was not, but I did not play that so I can't comment.

DA:O was great.
Skyrim however killed it i feel.

DA2 was a bastardized make simple version of DA:O which a lot of people did not like.
Again Skyrim killed it.

BF series i can not say is a bad title from EA.
I much prefer BF series over CoD any day of the week.
Frostbyte engine is also speechless, i wouldnt doubt if someone told me the military was even using it.

But honestly EA has been buying out everyone who can become a competition.
Do you even remember there ludicrous offer on trying to buy steam?

 

[smackababy]

DA:O was great.
Skyrim however killed it i feel.

DA2 was a bastardized make simple version of DA:O which a lot of people did not like.
Again Skyrim killed it.

BF series i can not say is a bad title from EA.
I much prefer BF series over CoD any day of the week.
Frostbyte engine is also speechless, i wouldnt doubt if someone told me the military was even using it.

But honestly EA has been buying out everyone who can become a competition.
Do you even remember there ludicrous offer on trying to buy steam?

Yes, ludicrously low. Steam was valued at twice that. Gabe tried to come off as some kind of "I won't sell because of gaming" when in reality the offer was about half of what Steam / Valve was estimated to be worth. EA is not stupid. It is a considerably better business move to buy someone already creating something you want to create than pay people to do it entirely from scratch. There is a reason people license technology. The Unreal engine is a great example. A lot of developers don't have the time, resources, or knowledge to develop their own engine but still have a good idea to make a game about.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

<snip>

SimCity? They didn't fail at that either. You may not like the game, but considering it sold millions of copies, enough people thought it was worth buying.

That right there is a perfect example.

Have you played simcity? It was a TOTAL 100% failure. Between weeks and weeks of server issues to many features that were promised on the box cover that they removed from the actual game.. It is the perfect example of EA 'burning' their userbase.

And sure, it sold millions of copies being completely misrepresented. Then EA refused to give any refunds. Instead they "gave" people games which were then immediately discounted by ~50%. It was a complete smack in the face.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Yes, ludicrously low. Steam was valued at twice that. Gabe tried to come off as some kind of "I won't sell because of gaming" when in reality the offer was about half of what Steam / Valve was estimated to be worth. EA is not stupid. It is a considerably better business move to buy someone already creating something you want to create than pay people to do it entirely from scratch. There is a reason people license technology. The Unreal engine is a great example. A lot of developers don't have the time, resources, or knowledge to develop their own engine but still have a good idea to make a game about.

Again.... Historically the PC video game industry has benefited from partially emotional decisions. The icons of the industry, valve and others, tend to make decisions that are geared towards the industry. Sure, money is a huge deciding factor, but it has not been "THE" factor....


Until EA. And now that EA has set this standard for raking in as many pennies as possible with zero regard to their customers or intellectual property others have no choice but to follow in their footsteps.. And these decisions are far reaching...

Again, going back to simcity.. I consider myself a casual PC gamer... It was my primary form of entertainment on weekends and slow afternoons. And no exaggeration, I have had zero desire to play any game after getting royally screwed by EA. These things affect the industry as a whole, not just that one company.



I find it incredibly bizarre that someone can so blindly defend a company that is wholly responsible for the current issues with PC gaming.

 

[BladeVenom]

EA didn't have to buy out sports titles because they were better.

Yes they did; they weren't better. EA bought exclusive licensing rights to sport franchises, to keep out the competition. The reason EA is the only one who produces NFL games anymore, isn't because EA is better, but that they bought exclusive rights so no one else can make NFL games. That applies to many of their sports franchises. EA isn't better, they just have monopoly rights to those sports.

 

[Nintendesert]

Again.... Historically the PC video game industry has benefited from partially emotional decisions. The icons of the industry, valve and others, tend to make decisions that are geared towards the industry. Sure, money is a huge deciding factor, but it has not been "THE" factor....


Until EA. And now that EA has set this standard for raking in as many pennies as possible with zero regard to their customers or intellectual property others have no choice but to follow in their footsteps.. And these decisions are far reaching...

Again, going back to simcity.. I consider myself a casual PC gamer... It was my primary form of entertainment on weekends and slow afternoons. And no exaggeration, I have had zero desire to play any game after getting royally screwed by EA. These things affect the industry as a whole, not just that one company.



I find it incredibly bizarre that someone can so blindly defend a company that is wholly responsible for the current issues with PC gaming.

EA is just the devil for you. You should have been a smarter customer and only paid $9.99 for SimCity like I did and had a smaller case of the butthurts.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

EA is just the devil for you. You should have been a smarter customer and only paid $9.99 for SimCity like I did and had a smaller case of the butthurts.

Wow. 9.99 or 79.99 It wasn't the cost of the game. It's the principle of theft and lost time.

 

[BudAshes]

EA didn't have to buy out sports titles because they were better.
.

mhhhmmm

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Sad day. Oh well EA will continue to get none of my money

 

[darkewaffle]

I find it incredibly bizarre that someone can so blindly defend a company that is wholly responsible for the current issues with PC gaming.

You can't possibly believe that if there magically was no Electronic Arts, things would be any different. Like I said, irrational. They are not wholly responsible for anything, they are nothing more than a product of a market that reached the stage of mainstream acceptance and growth.

Again.... Historically the PC video game industry has benefited from partially emotional decisions. The icons of the industry, valve and others, tend to make decisions that are geared towards the industry. Sure, money is a huge deciding factor, but it has not been "THE" factor....

This paragraph contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

You can't possibly believe that if there magically was no Electronic Arts, things would be any different. Like I said, irrational. They are not wholly responsible for anything, they are nothing more than a product of a market that reached the stage of mainstream acceptance and growth.

Oh I absolutely believe things would be different if there magically was no EA.


No other developer is even half as bad as EA is at completely ruining their purchased IP and companies. No one.

And there is no consumer 'market' that they are filling. It's not like they have to be this way...

They choose to, because they care more about making as much money as possible in 10 years and ruining the market than they do about healthily surviving with the industry for 30 years.

 

[smackababy]

Yes they did; they weren't better. EA bought exclusive licensing rights to sport franchises, to keep out the competition. The reason EA is the only one who produces NFL games anymore, isn't because EA is better, but that they bought exclusive rights so no one else can make NFL games. That applies to many of their sports franchises. EA isn't better, they just have monopoly rights to those sports.

Except that was the NFL's idea, not EAs. They just were able to outbit everyone else. Also, as I've previously stated, with the exception of ESPN NFL 2K5, Madded has outsold EVERY OTHER FOOTBALL GAME RELEASED THAT SAME YEAR. Sorry, they are better. Pro Evolution Soccer? Doesn't hold a candle to Fifa. EA makes good games. The blind hate brigade just like to believe without EA we still get as many big budget games with 0 DRM and they are all magically 100% of what every whiner wants.

We've had companies run by nonbusiness, developers. 3D Realms did a great job... Valve? If they got lucky Steam became the de facto content delivery method, otherwise they'd have sold a long time ago to someone. AND we'd have HL3 and 4 by now. Oh, but we can forgive Valve for buying up companies with good ideas so they don't have to release their own games.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

The issue here is not about sports games, I don't know why you keep trying to spin that lines.

No one is saying that EA doesn't make half decent soccer/football games, only that the ONLY reason they are the ones making the sports games is because they hustled everyone else out.

That doesn't automatically mean they're good at it, just that they were willing to dump more money in... It's really not a point of contention.

 

[smackababy]

Again, they did not "hustle" everyone out. Yes, they won the exclusive BID. The NFL wanted to make that deal and offered companies to bid on it. EA won it. And prior to that, they still made better football games. Their soccer games are also superior.

The people who make claims about EA generally have no idea what they talking about. They just like to hate on EA because whatever game they wanted wasn't made.

 

[Maximilian]

Again, they did not "hustle" everyone out. Yes, they won the exclusive BID. The NFL wanted to make that deal and offered companies to bid on it. EA won it. And prior to that, they still made better football games. Their soccer games are also superior.

The people who make claims about EA generally have no idea what they talking about. They just like to hate on EA because whatever game they wanted wasn't made.

🙄

 

[darkewaffle]

No one is saying that EA doesn't make half decent soccer/football games, only that the ONLY reason they are the ones making the sports games is because they hustled everyone else out.

And how did they do that? The onus is not on the licensee but the licenser when it comes to exclusivity. Licensees benefit from exclusivity; they get a competitive advantage, they get something nobody else has, it is almost always in their best interests. But the leverage lies with the licenser; they're the one with the power. They have what everybody wants, it's on them. There might be some power shifts if enough money is involved, but we're talking sports here. EA's net worth and annual revenue are both dwarfed by most major sports leagues in the US.

Pretend I'm JK Rowling. I want to license Harry Potter for video games. I decide I only want one organization to have the license though so the product is more consistent and my 'good name' is upheld (I'm assuming 'quality control' is more or less their major reason for going exclusive). EA makes the highest bid, good for them. What are they supposed to do, negotiate to allow additional licensees? Spend more time and more money and get more competition in return? Not only is that completely foolish but opens the door for me to say "this isn't worth the trouble, lets go with the next bidder". If the licenser wants an exclusive deal, the licenser gets an exclusive deal.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

<snip>

The people who make claims about EA generally have no idea what they talking about. They just like to hate on EA because whatever game they wanted wasn't made.

Totally false... The majority of people bitching about EA is due to them making games that are VASTLY inferior to what the franchise deserves (IE buying and ruining storylines, etc), along with not delivering promised and paid-for features.

The "hate" is completely legitimate.



I'm surprised no one has started up a class action lawsuit against EA over these paid shills.. I'm sure many people bought these games (in this example, simcity) based on specific lies spread by the company.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

And how did they do that? The onus is not on the licensee but the licenser when it comes to exclusivity. Licensees benefit from exclusivity; they get a competitive advantage, they get something nobody else has, it is almost always in their best interests. But the leverage lies with the licenser; they're the one with the power. They have what everybody wants, it's on them. There might be some power shifts if enough money is involved, but we're talking sports here. EA's net worth and annual revenue are both dwarfed by most major sports leagues in the US.

Pretend I'm JK Rowling. I want to license Harry Potter for video games. I decide I only want one organization to have the license though so the product is more consistent and my 'good name' is upheld (I'm assuming 'quality control' is more or less their major reason for going exclusive). EA makes the highest bid, good for them. What are they supposed to do, negotiate to allow additional licensees? Spend more time and more money and get more competition in return? Not only is that completely foolish but opens the door for me to say "this isn't worth the trouble, lets go with the next bidder". If the licenser wants an exclusive deal, the licenser gets an exclusive deal.

Again......... No one is upset with EA over these sports games, I don't know why the EA supporters keep spinning in that direction.. They are not "ruining" a franchise or storyline by releasing a bad NFL '09 or whatever as there is no long running story to ruin. Maybe they can fix it for NFL '10 and sell 10 million copies, good for them.


But in this star wars (and other IP "storyline" rights) situations, now that EA owns the IP it will be flushed down the toilet with DLC $2.99 add-ons. It will ruin the "name" and intellectual property.


I keep going back to this... But simcity is a fantastic example. They now own that name, they have ruined it with simcity 2013. And although the 15 year olds will still buy it, the overall name and "aura" or what have you is gone. Ruined.

They have done this over, and over, and over...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Again......... No one is upset with EA over these sports games, I don't know why the EA supporters keep spinning in that direction.. They are not "ruining" a franchise or storyline by releasing a bad NFL '09 or whatever as there is no long running story to ruin. Maybe they can fix it for NFL '10 and sell 10 million copies, good for them.


But in this star wars (and other IP "storyline" rights) situations, now that EA owns the IP it will be flushed down the toilet with DLC $2.99 add-ons. It will ruin the "name" and intellectual property.


I keep going back to this... But simcity is a fantastic example. They now own that name, they have ruined it with simcity 2013. And although the 15 year olds will still buy it, the overall name and "aura" or what have you is gone. Ruined.

They have done this over, and over, and over...

Again do you have a crystal ball? You know what they plan? You know what game(s) they are going to make and what genre? You know for a fact that it will have all the stuff you think EA is terrible for? Battlefield 3 has no cheap add ons. It does have DLC but it adds more than the price suggests in my opinion. That brings up the next point. You do not have to buy dlc. Did you hear that? You get a choice. Sometimes the dlc is great and sometimes it isn't(skin textures or outfits).

I also find it extremely dumbfounding that you keep repeating the same bull about sim city. Do you really think that ea as a whole is going to make every game going forward the same way? If you really think that then there is no hope for you at all.

 

[smackababy]

Totally false... The majority of people bitching about EA is due to them making games that are VASTLY inferior to what the franchise deserves (IE buying and ruining storylines, etc), along with not delivering promised and paid-for features.

The "hate" is completely legitimate.



I'm surprised no one has started up a class action lawsuit against EA over these paid shills.. I'm sure many people bought these games (in this example, simcity) based on specific lies spread by the company.

It is funny because you consider things "VASTLY inferior" because you don't like them. Let's take ME3 for example. People are outraged over the ending (which EA has nothing to do with btw). The game is bad because you dislike where the writers took the story? Sorry, but that doesn't make the game bad. It makes that particular facet not to your liking. And for how "bad" it was, it sure sold a lot.

Now, for SimCity. What exactly did these paid shills say that makes your believe they misled anyone into buying it? That, due to the nature of the game's always online feature and the resources it would take to have server capacity to host 10million players all logging in at the same time for a few days on release, it would have a perfectly flawless launch?

Now, since you are such the advocate for superior games and have all the right ideas, start up your own company and refuse to sell to EA when you are toppling them.

 

[darkewaffle]

Again......... No one is upset with EA over these sports games, I don't know why the EA supporters keep spinning in that direction.. They are not "ruining" a franchise or storyline by releasing a bad NFL '09 or whatever as there is no long running story to ruin. Maybe they can fix it for NFL '10 and sell 10 million copies, good for them.

Spin what? You made the baseless accusation that "the ONLY reason they are the ones making the sports games is because they hustled everyone else out." and it was refuted. Plain and simple.

But in this star wars (and other IP "storyline" rights) situations, now that EA owns the IP it will be flushed down the toilet with DLC $2.99 add-ons. It will ruin the "name" and intellectual property.

What name? You can practically count the good Star Wars games ever on one hand. There is little expectation for SW games to be any good as it is. Personally the fact that they have Bioware under their wing and did a pretty solid job of storytelling in SWTOR (an MMO, no less) gives the franchise a legit chance at improving for a change.

I keep going back to this... But simcity is a fantastic example. They now own that name, they have ruined it with simcity 2013. And although the 15 year olds will still buy it, the overall name and "aura" or what have you is gone. Ruined.

They have done this over, and over, and over...

And I think Mass Effect, Burnout, Battlefield are three fantastic examples of where they've succeeded. It goes both ways. Personally I don't think any of the franchises they've allegedly "ruined" were particularly good to begin with, but maybe they were just before my time/outside the scope of what I enjoy. But it's unfair to make such blanket statements implying that it always turns out negatively.

Not to mention, EA acquired Maxis in 1997. Simcity 4 (which everyone praises so much all of a sudden lol) was released in 2003. So they're 1-1.

 

[crownjules]

Again do you have a crystal ball? You know what they plan? You know what game(s) they are going to make and what genre? You know for a fact that it will have all the stuff you think EA is terrible for? Battlefield 3 has no cheap add ons. It does have DLC but it adds more than the price suggests in my opinion. That brings up the next point. You do not have to buy dlc. Did you hear that? You get a choice. Sometimes the dlc is great and sometimes it isn't(skin textures or outfits).

I also find it extremely dumbfounding that you keep repeating the same bull about sim city. Do you really think that ea as a whole is going to make every game going forward the same way? If you really think that then there is no hope for you at all.

You don't need a crystal ball when their past performance speaks for itself. This is not a random startup company. This is a corporation. It's not going to suddenly reinvent itself overnight.

 

[smackababy]

You don't need a crystal ball when their past performance speaks for itself. This is not a random startup company. This is a corporation. It's not going to suddenly reinvent itself overnight.

And their past performances are a mixed bag at worth. They have plenty of critically acclaimed games under their belt.



And, back on topic. The DICE wikipage states they are working on SW: Battlefront 3, and that is amazing. So, EA hits another homerun.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I really hope they push extreme scale in Battlefront 3 if this is true. I want full size AT-AT's walking around dueling. I want to be able to jump in a fighter on a planet and then zoom up to space to fight star destroyers. This needs to happen.