EA to Take-Two: "All your properties are belong to us"

[Kev]

This will really suck if they get rid of the college hoops franchise and we are stuck with that march madness garbage that EA craps out every year.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What I mean is that shareholders play a part in where the time and money is spent. They will pressure fast releases. They will pressure where dev time is spent. They will look down on extra time being spent on extra quality through use of creative means if they are convinced it will make them lose some profit. We have seen this kind of thing happen in the past. Pressure from shareholders IMO is one of the primary reasons Devs are forced to rush content which often results in shitty quality.

Take-Two is beholden to shareholders just as much as EA is.

Correct. And EA is simply the publisher, they are not developing these games.

EA is both a publisher and a developer. They have many development studios and develop many of their titles in-house.

 

[tfinch2]

Solution? Stop buying EA games.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Solution? Stop buying EA games.

But soon... everything will be an EA game!!!

Okay maybe not, but I agree with whoever said that this take-over will likely mean the end of the 2k sports franchises. And they were quite good.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Kev
This will really suck if they get rid of the college hoops franchise and we are stuck with that march madness garbage that EA craps out every year.

It is possible that EA would use the 2k sports titles to improve its own sports titles while maintaining the EA franchise names.

(That is, merge them or drop the EA title entirely in favor of the 2k title with the EA name)

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Kev
This will really suck if they get rid of the college hoops franchise and we are stuck with that march madness garbage that EA craps out every year.

If they buy take two, theyre not going to release two competing sports franchises each year. Its madden or nothing. I'm glad I dont play sports games, because this would really piss me off. I'd get used to the idea of little more than roster updates each year.

Theyre smart enough to give wright enough time to make spore as good as it can be, so they can hopefully whore it out like they have with the sims. Theres got to be 50 something expansions to it by now.

Something tells me theres got to be a lot more of low quality GTA expansions/games around the corner.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Solution? Stop buying EA games.

EA sales and profit have been slipping for years. People arent buying them as much as they used to, I'm sure in no small part partially due to the way theyre produced - fast, cheap, buggy and uninspired. How can you compete when everyone else's games are better than yours? Buy them. No competition, no problem.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What I mean is that shareholders play a part in where the time and money is spent. They will pressure fast releases. They will pressure where dev time is spent. They will look down on extra time being spent on extra quality through use of creative means if they are convinced it will make them lose some profit. We have seen this kind of thing happen in the past. Pressure from shareholders IMO is one of the primary reasons Devs are forced to rush content which often results in shitty quality.

Take-Two is beholden to shareholders just as much as EA is.

Correct. And EA is simply the publisher, they are not developing these games.

EA is both a publisher and a developer. They have many development studios and develop many of their titles in-house.

I simply meant EA is not developing the games for the companies which they are acquiring, they will only publish them.

The exception I would imagine are the sports games, which would probably (hopefully) end up being a merge of the franchises.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What I mean is that shareholders play a part in where the time and money is spent. They will pressure fast releases. They will pressure where dev time is spent. They will look down on extra time being spent on extra quality through use of creative means if they are convinced it will make them lose some profit. We have seen this kind of thing happen in the past. Pressure from shareholders IMO is one of the primary reasons Devs are forced to rush content which often results in shitty quality.

Take-Two is beholden to shareholders just as much as EA is.

Correct. And EA is simply the publisher, they are not developing these games.

EA is both a publisher and a developer. They have many development studios and develop many of their titles in-house.

I simply meant EA is not developing the games for the companies which they are acquiring, they will only publish them.

The exception I would imagine are the sports games, which would probably (hopefully) end up being a merge of the franchises.

Well, EA will be the boss even if the staff of the developers remains the same. More so than if they were just the publisher for a third party developer.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Message to E.A
"If you want to compete more effectively simply make better games. You can not buy all intellectual property as long as there is creativity and it is creativity in and of itself that produces great work. Bioshock was not amazing becuase of the IP, it was the creative use of it along with a fresh take on the genre. We do not want 7 Bioshock sequels that look play and sound just like the first and if that is what we wanted we would play Bioshock over again. We want the next Bioshock and I can promise you it is not a carbon copy sequel of some other game but either new and innovative IP or, surprise surprise, a new and innovative take on an existing IP. As long as we have our minds we will create and value of IP follows exponential decay the vast majority of the time. The only exceptions tend to be in sports games, but how are the profits of madden looking since 2006 taking into account the wasted millions of dollars in the exclusive rights deal. Below expected growth one could have extrapolated from profits from 1998~2005? Imagine that, as the game has barely changed in the last decade. These monopolistic approaches may work in some businesses but not in those driven by creativity. Just ask Nintendo."

You apparently don't know how business works.

You apparently do not follow this industry. Big company X buys out little company Y after Y produces mega-hit. X lays off Y devs (or they quit) and said devs form company Z. Z produces new mega-hit under new IP. Rinse wash repeat.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Message to E.A
"If you want to compete more effectively simply make better games. You can not buy all intellectual property as long as there is creativity and it is creativity in and of itself that produces great work. Bioshock was not amazing becuase of the IP, it was the creative use of it along with a fresh take on the genre. We do not want 7 Bioshock sequels that look play and sound just like the first and if that is what we wanted we would play Bioshock over again. We want the next Bioshock and I can promise you it is not a carbon copy sequel of some other game but either new and innovative IP or, surprise surprise, a new and innovative take on an existing IP. As long as we have our minds we will create and value of IP follows exponential decay the vast majority of the time. The only exceptions tend to be in sports games, but how are the profits of madden looking since 2006 taking into account the wasted millions of dollars in the exclusive rights deal. Below expected growth one could have extrapolated from profits from 1998~2005? Imagine that, as the game has barely changed in the last decade. These monopolistic approaches may work in some businesses but not in those driven by creativity. Just ask Nintendo."

You apparently don't know how business works.

You apparently do not follow this industry. Big company X buys out little company Y after Y produces mega-hit. X lays off Y devs (or they quit) and said devs form company Z. Z produces new mega-hit under new IP. Rinse wash repeat.

How does that relate at all to what you said above? These "monopolistic approaches" actually do work - for the reason you said yourself.

And don't credit Nintendo with so much innovation. They've been running the same franchises for 20 years.

Actually, don't even credit Bioshock for being original - as it's basically System Shock 3.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Message to E.A
"If you want to compete more effectively simply make better games. You can not buy all intellectual property as long as there is creativity and it is creativity in and of itself that produces great work. Bioshock was not amazing becuase of the IP, it was the creative use of it along with a fresh take on the genre. We do not want 7 Bioshock sequels that look play and sound just like the first and if that is what we wanted we would play Bioshock over again. We want the next Bioshock and I can promise you it is not a carbon copy sequel of some other game but either new and innovative IP or, surprise surprise, a new and innovative take on an existing IP. As long as we have our minds we will create and value of IP follows exponential decay the vast majority of the time. The only exceptions tend to be in sports games, but how are the profits of madden looking since 2006 taking into account the wasted millions of dollars in the exclusive rights deal. Below expected growth one could have extrapolated from profits from 1998~2005? Imagine that, as the game has barely changed in the last decade. These monopolistic approaches may work in some businesses but not in those driven by creativity. Just ask Nintendo."

You apparently don't know how business works.

You apparently do not follow this industry. Big company X buys out little company Y after Y produces mega-hit. X lays off Y devs (or they quit) and said devs form company Z. Z produces new mega-hit under new IP. Rinse wash repeat.

How does that relate at all to what you said above? These "monopolistic approaches" actually do work - for the reason you said yourself.

And don't credit Nintendo with so much innovation. They've been running the same franchises for 20 years.

Actually, don't even credit Bioshock for being original - as it's basically System Shock 3.

I definitely would not bunch nintendo in with EA.

One produces buggy, unpolished, uninspired and mediocre sequels on a yearly basis, with a track record of crap and success based solely on buying out talent and exploiting it until there's nothing but a shell of the former glory left.

The other produces highly rated, highly polished sequels of their franchises every 3-5 years, and they've been doing so for the past 20+ years, stemming from in-house talent and partnerships with quality developers (retro/rare), without the need to buy them out and suck the life out of them.

If they vomited out a new mario/zelda every year that was barely different from the last, you'd have a point, but their reputation and high sales are based on a track record of quality more than anything else. EA has never had a good idea or product that it didn't buy from someone else.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Message to E.A
"If you want to compete more effectively simply make better games. You can not buy all intellectual property as long as there is creativity and it is creativity in and of itself that produces great work. Bioshock was not amazing becuase of the IP, it was the creative use of it along with a fresh take on the genre. We do not want 7 Bioshock sequels that look play and sound just like the first and if that is what we wanted we would play Bioshock over again. We want the next Bioshock and I can promise you it is not a carbon copy sequel of some other game but either new and innovative IP or, surprise surprise, a new and innovative take on an existing IP. As long as we have our minds we will create and value of IP follows exponential decay the vast majority of the time. The only exceptions tend to be in sports games, but how are the profits of madden looking since 2006 taking into account the wasted millions of dollars in the exclusive rights deal. Below expected growth one could have extrapolated from profits from 1998~2005? Imagine that, as the game has barely changed in the last decade. These monopolistic approaches may work in some businesses but not in those driven by creativity. Just ask Nintendo."

You apparently don't know how business works.

You apparently do not follow this industry. Big company X buys out little company Y after Y produces mega-hit. X lays off Y devs (or they quit) and said devs form company Z. Z produces new mega-hit under new IP. Rinse wash repeat.

How does that relate at all to what you said above? These "monopolistic approaches" actually do work - for the reason you said yourself.

And don't credit Nintendo with so much innovation. They've been running the same franchises for 20 years.

Actually, don't even credit Bioshock for being original - as it's basically System Shock 3.

How is blowing cash for IP with declining value "working"?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What I mean is that shareholders play a part in where the time and money is spent. They will pressure fast releases. They will pressure where dev time is spent. They will look down on extra time being spent on extra quality through use of creative means if they are convinced it will make them lose some profit. We have seen this kind of thing happen in the past. Pressure from shareholders IMO is one of the primary reasons Devs are forced to rush content which often results in shitty quality.

Take-Two is beholden to shareholders just as much as EA is.

Correct. And EA is simply the publisher, they are not developing these games.

EA is both a publisher and a developer. They have many development studios and develop many of their titles in-house.

I simply meant EA is not developing the games for the companies which they are acquiring, they will only publish them.

The exception I would imagine are the sports games, which would probably (hopefully) end up being a merge of the franchises.

Well, EA will be the boss even if the staff of the developers remains the same. More so than if they were just the publisher for a third party developer.

Yes that's right. They are not just the publishers. They are a company which owns a tremendous amount of "your" company. They have the money. They have the power. They call the shots.

The real question in the end will be what shots they choose to call. You see, the pendulum can swing both ways now. Since they will be the primary stock holders, they can either protect Take Two by shielding them from other outside pressures or they can add to that pressure. However, I fear that due to EA's lust for growth and money as of late that they will be more concerned with Take Two pushing a game out the door when it has been developed "enough" to make the most money despite the extra quality and creativity that could put forth into the game. The fact of the matter is that maximum quality does not equate to maximum profits all of the time due to the high development costs. The only time you see max quality is when you have companies like Blizz who are willing to sacrifice a little because they truly have a love for producing 5 star games. Plus, Blizz has added protection considering how they have proven themselves in the past.


In any case, I would say that the odds for the consumer getting what they want the most is less when EA steps in. When you combine the facts of EA's history about how they fucked up other gaming devs and the fact that they are taking on the role of a corporate take over powerhouse it rarely works out for the customer. All that matters is money and quality != money once you go beyond a certain point due to the high cost of development.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Yes that's right. They are not just the publishers. They are a company which owns a tremendous amount of "your" company. They have the money. They have the power. They call the shots.

The real question in the end will be what shots they choose to call. You see, the pendulum can swing both ways now. Since they will be the primary stock holders, they can either protect Take Two by shielding them from other outside pressures or they can add to that pressure. However, I fear that due to EA's lust for growth and money as of late that they will be more concerned with Take Two pushing a game out the door when it has been developed "enough" to make the most money despite the extra quality and creativity that could put forth into the game. The fact of the matter is that maximum quality does not equate to maximum profits all of the time due to the high development costs. The only time you see max quality is when you have companies like Blizz who are willing to sacrifice a little because they truly have a love for producing 5 star games. Plus, Blizz has added protection considering how they have proven themselves in the past.

In any case, I would say that the odds for the consumer getting what they want the most is less when EA steps in. When you combine the facts of EA's history about how they fucked up other gaming devs and the fact that they are taking on the role of a corporate take over powerhouse it rarely works out for the customer. All that matters is money and quality != money once you go beyond a certain point due to the high cost of development.

Take 2's in house production is mainly the sports games. The other stuff like GTA from rockstar and bioshock are basically contracted partnerships. IIRC, rockstar's contract is ending in year or two, and once thats done, they're free to break away from EA, so I doubt EA will interfere with rockstar too much, same with irrational and bioshock.

But the monopoly on sports games is going to be a disaster. Anyone who thinks theyre buying take two so they can make better sports games, instead of buying the competition so they can get away with rehashed crap with no competition every year is delusional.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: BD2003
But the monopoly on sports games is going to be a disaster. Anyone who thinks theyre buying take two so they can make better sports games, instead of buying the competition so they can get away with rehashed crap with no competition every year is delusional.

I am delusional. 🙁

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Take 2's in house production is mainly the sports games. The other stuff like GTA from rockstar and bioshock are basically contracted partnerships. IIRC, rockstar's contract is ending in year or two, and once thats done, they're free to break away from EA, so I doubt EA will interfere with rockstar too much, same with irrational and bioshock.

But the monopoly on sports games is going to be a disaster. Anyone who thinks theyre buying take two so they can make better sports games, instead of buying the competition so they can get away with rehashed crap with no competition every year is delusional.

I am not a sports game fan so it doesn't effect me but I feel for those gamers who enjoy them. I hope you are right about Rockstar. You are absolutely correct about buying out the competition. This is all about money and has nothing to do with quality. It really stinks.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: BD2003
But the monopoly on sports games is going to be a disaster. Anyone who thinks theyre buying take two so they can make better sports games, instead of buying the competition so they can get away with rehashed crap with no competition every year is delusional.

I am delusional. 🙁

Arguably, the first generation of sports games after the acquisition could benefit if they do take the good from here, take the good from there, but even thats not a given because they simply dont need to waste the money on that when they have a total monopoly.

But after the first year, it will unequivocally go downward. Its like IE and Netscape - IE was developed to the point that it was better than netscape, and once netscape went under for good, it was several years before they changed a single thing about IE, and that started happening precisely when firefox was gaining ground. Lack of competition will kill quality and innovation.

 

[Queasy]

Worst Fears Confirmed

Electronic Arts' CEO, John Riccitiello, has told the BBC that it wouldn't matter to EA if Rockstar decided not to make any more Grand Theft Auto titles after GTA IV.

He implies that in the event of a successful merger-cum-take-over, if members of the Rockstar team decided not to join EA, Riccitiello's company would continue to make the games.

According to the Beeb, Riccitiello would have "no fear that the value EA placed on Take Two could be damaged if the trio of Rockstar creators decided not to pursue further Grand Theft Auto titles after the latest release".

He is quoted as saying, "There is no doubt that EA is several times larger than Take Two - everyday somebody walks in and somebody walks out.

"If the wrong guy walks out, we have an issue to deal with. But we don't stop making games."

That said, the man at the top of the world's biggest games publisher (at least until the Activision/Vivendi/Blizzard deal is ratified) also pointed out that the proposed deal wasn't looking to exclude Rockstar's "young, vibrant... talented and committed" leadership.

"...what we have got right now is a corporate issue that has nothing to do with the people who build these games", said Riccitiello. Exactly how anyone can exclude the people who work for a corporation from a corporate issue is a feat of compartmentalisation that SPOnG can only look admiringly at.

The EA bossman was also helpful enough to tell the BBC's Darren Waters how to write his story, "The big headline here is that our primary interest is in Rockstar and the intellectual properties around Rockstar", said Riccitiello.

Now, what doesn't appear to have been noticed in all of this is sound of Activision Blizzard heading towards a final ratification of its merger. This would create a company with as much, if not more, weight to throw around as Electronic Arts. The merger is due to be "completed in the first half of calendar year 2008" - adding just one more piece of stimuli to EA's desire to snap up Rockstar as well as BioShock creator, Irrational.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Worst Fears Confirmed

Electronic Arts' CEO, John Riccitiello, has told the BBC that it wouldn't matter to EA if Rockstar decided not to make any more Grand Theft Auto titles after GTA IV.

He implies that in the event of a successful merger-cum-take-over, if members of the Rockstar team decided not to join EA, Riccitiello's company would continue to make the games.

...

Er, doesn't Rockstar own the GTA series? Or does Take-Two ultimately hold the rights? 😕

GTA without Rockstar = Fail. Especially if they are replaced by an EA subsidiary.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: Queasy
Worst Fears Confirmed

Electronic Arts' CEO, John Riccitiello, has told the BBC that it wouldn't matter to EA if Rockstar decided not to make any more Grand Theft Auto titles after GTA IV.

He implies that in the event of a successful merger-cum-take-over, if members of the Rockstar team decided not to join EA, Riccitiello's company would continue to make the games.

...

Er, doesn't Rockstar own the GTA series? Or does Take-Two ultimately hold the rights? 😕

GTA without Rockstar = Fail. Especially if they are replaced by an EA subsidiary.

Ya...I am confused. Who owns the rights to what here? What will stop Rockstar from going off on their own to continue GTA after their contract is up?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: Queasy
Worst Fears Confirmed

Electronic Arts' CEO, John Riccitiello, has told the BBC that it wouldn't matter to EA if Rockstar decided not to make any more Grand Theft Auto titles after GTA IV.

He implies that in the event of a successful merger-cum-take-over, if members of the Rockstar team decided not to join EA, Riccitiello's company would continue to make the games.

...

Er, doesn't Rockstar own the GTA series? Or does Take-Two ultimately hold the rights? 😕

GTA without Rockstar = Fail. Especially if they are replaced by an EA subsidiary.

Ya...I am confused. Who owns the rights to what here? What will stop Rockstar from going off on their own to continue GTA after their contract is up?

As far as I understand it, take two owns the grand theft auto IP, but theres absolutely nothing stopping the actual rockstar devs themselves from taking off. They wouldnt be able to make GTA games per se, but they can make "GTA" game. Kind of how the team that created F.E.A.R. broke away - theyre creating a "sequel" under a different name, but the company that owns the IP (Sierra I think) is still making F.E.A.R. games (that suck).

Every GTA game is different - theres nothing tying them together except maybe "liberty city", so theres nothing stopping them from making a true GTA game by a different name.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

All of you people who hate EA need to just shut up and put your money where your mouth is. I see people complain about EA all the time but their games are consistently top sellers, which tells me a lot of people are either speaking untruths or secretly are closet EA fans...

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
All of you people who hate EA need to just shut up and put your money where your mouth is. I see people complain about EA all the time but their games are consistently top sellers, which tells me a lot of people are either speaking untruths or secretly are closet EA fans...

I haven't owned an EA game in years, so I guess my money's where my mouth is.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
All of you people who hate EA need to just shut up and put your money where your mouth is. I see people complain about EA all the time but their games are consistently top sellers, which tells me a lot of people are either speaking untruths or secretly are closet EA fans...

I haven't owned an EA game in years, so I guess my money's where my mouth is.

It really shouldn't be. There's an ungodly amount of germs on it.