That does little to ease my concern, I'm afraid. In fact, it makes it sound all the more dubious.Zombie_Moogle said:
Rumor: Electronic Arts Is For Sale
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
whats to stop microsoft buying them? or sony for that matter? seems the direction the consoles are going, to roll up as many titles under their respective banners so their DD distribution consoles are the only game in town for the company that snaps them up.
consoles are the new publishers, digital distribution is the sole future of the playstation, xbox, we do not need the traditional model for publishing as much, because physical media, distribution chains, and shipping costs will be out of the loop when all you have to do is upload the game code and any patches dlc to a server, that is why xbl and psn do movies do DD do just about everything and they get a chunk of the revenu off that content.
its only good business after all to cut out as many of the middle men as you can and take all those profits for yourselves.
either way as long as EA changes for the better out or is gutted and sold off piece by piece, i think either way we all be maybe better off in the long run.
and if bioware gets out from under EA i will be able to die happy, especially if the following game is way better than the titles we saw under EA. just to prove that once EA gets their clutches into a game day one dlc and ripping out of content is often forced upon devs so EA can nickle and dime people for overpriced dlc that was part of the damn game to begin with. and hell if the gameplay and story improve also icing on the cake.
really tho EA can burn in the 7th layer of hell for all eternity as far as i am concerned and they can take origin and shove it squarely up their arses. I will never buy a game that requires origin ever.
consoles are the new publishers, digital distribution is the sole future of the playstation, xbox, we do not need the traditional model for publishing as much, because physical media, distribution chains, and shipping costs will be out of the loop when all you have to do is upload the game code and any patches dlc to a server, that is why xbl and psn do movies do DD do just about everything and they get a chunk of the revenu off that content.
its only good business after all to cut out as many of the middle men as you can and take all those profits for yourselves.
either way as long as EA changes for the better out or is gutted and sold off piece by piece, i think either way we all be maybe better off in the long run.
and if bioware gets out from under EA i will be able to die happy, especially if the following game is way better than the titles we saw under EA. just to prove that once EA gets their clutches into a game day one dlc and ripping out of content is often forced upon devs so EA can nickle and dime people for overpriced dlc that was part of the damn game to begin with. and hell if the gameplay and story improve also icing on the cake.
really tho EA can burn in the 7th layer of hell for all eternity as far as i am concerned and they can take origin and shove it squarely up their arses. I will never buy a game that requires origin ever.
Oh they wouldn't have been as good without EA's money? *cough* Knights of the Old Republic *cough* *cough* Baldur's Gate *cough*. KotOR was made before EA and is a great game, one of my favorites in fact. Baldur's Gate is a rpg classic and it was made pre-EA. Ea was letting Bioware make good games in the beginning yes, but then they shortened the leash with Dragon Age 2 what with the very short development cycle and the story being shit(which Bioware usually doesn't do). Bioware would never have made a fucking MMO out of KotOR but Ea made them. I can't blame EA for Mass Effect 3's ending though(or maybe I can if they shortened the development expectantly which made Bioware rush out the ending) I will blame that on Casey Hudson being stupid. I can blame EA however for turning the ending into a good thing(fro them that is). It would be better for Bioware if they were owned by Zenimax because Zenimax knows that it's developers will bring them money and they won't restrict them. Just look at Bethesda.Akalabeth said:That's a moronic point of view quite frankly.The_Lost_King said:Cause if Bioware didn't need the money they wouldn't have sold out to EA. Zenimax or Bethesda would give them the money they needed to make great games like da, KotOR, BG, and Mass Effect(minus the ending).
Edit: OT: I really hope that EA gets bought out and then get drained and thrown away and then that person who bought them free the slaves(Bioware and anyone else like them).
Mass Effect and Dragon Age were both released after they'd been purchased by EA in 2007, you're implying that EA is bad for Bioware but all of their recent top games were published under EA so how is EA a bad thing exactly?
It's such a double standard that people blame publishers like Activision or EA for a games failings (see Diablo 3) but praise the developer for all of the high points. People don't seem to consider that Mass Effect, SWOR, Dragon Age, etcetera would not be as good as they are without EA backing them with the money that they have. Conversely many of a game's failings may be due to decisions by the developer and not the publisher at all.
We should start a Kickstarter to buy EA. And then we'll bring it back to the Days when they where Electronic Artists.
Since when is a profit focused company getting bought by another profit focused company a good thing for the consumer?
No. Even if this happens I believe the best case scenario is nothing changing at all. EA getting bought will only benefit the people buying it. What was the name again? Something Equity Something? That little 1/3 of the name is setting off all kinds of alarms in my head.
No. Even if this happens I believe the best case scenario is nothing changing at all. EA getting bought will only benefit the people buying it. What was the name again? Something Equity Something? That little 1/3 of the name is setting off all kinds of alarms in my head.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of suits.
Hopefully someone that actually listens to consumers will take the reins, and won't be worse then a pedophile Joseph Stalin.
Hopefully someone that actually listens to consumers will take the reins, and won't be worse then a pedophile Joseph Stalin.
Setch Dreskar said:
That's just it most large corporations don't listen to consumers since according to them we haven't a clue of what we want but need someone to tell us that so we will but it.
...If Valve actually bought EA and stopped giving console gamers the middle finger...things would become VERY interesting.
They never had a choice or say in the matter. EA bought Elevation Partners, which owned Bioware, in 2007. All of their properties automatically transferred over to the publisher.The_Lost_King said:Cause if Bioware didn't need the money they wouldn't have sold out to EA. Zenimax or Bethesda would give them the money they needed to make great games like daAkalabeth said:
It's not about money - it's about unneeded corporate control shifting the focus of the developer itself from a well-known singular company to a "brand name" (and I use that term very loosely) to sell more copies of previously-dead franchises.
Some one in the facebook feed about the 'EA for sale' rumor said one should start a Kickstarter Project to buy EA shares. Maybe taking $20 each for the contributers and if it gets funded they gets a return of a $15 voucher to redeem on EA.
A $5 investment to get all that DLC/ Bioware points crap cleaned out, ME3 ending fixed, DRM removed, back on Steam, Lawyers fired, revive Amalur and make a decent Syndicate successor or whatever.
I like the idea...
I would be in to get the company into capable hands that actually likes games and customers.
A $5 investment to get all that DLC/ Bioware points crap cleaned out, ME3 ending fixed, DRM removed, back on Steam, Lawyers fired, revive Amalur and make a decent Syndicate successor or whatever.
I like the idea...
I would be in to get the company into capable hands that actually likes games and customers.
Consumer backlash coming back to bite you? Or perhaps the mistakes have just piled up enough to shake the faith of those with interests in the company. Either way, I don't know what I think about this.
Almost everyone agrees that the story of DA2 is crap. Yes novels have been written in less time than Bioware had to make DA2, but the making of a novel and Videogame story are completely different. So yes the beginning stages of a videogame story is similar to a novel. Then you have to worry about how you are going to keep your story engaging. Then you have to worry about coding. Then you have to worry about Voice Actors. Plus keeping a story engaging in videogames is a lot different from novels. I also don't see any pros about a short development time other than I can get the game faster and they can make games faster. That sounds good but I would rather play 1 Dragon Age: Origins than 2-3 Dragon Age 2's. Because Dragon Age: Origins was lovingly crafted and had an engrossing story with many out comes and kept me entertained for hours upon hours and it was roughly 4-5 months before I was done with it. Dragon Age 2 kept me entertain for at most 100 hours, at most. I was done with it after a couple of weeks. Like I said EA was good for them at the beginning but now... I was going to be done with Bioware after the ending of ME3(which I am lying most of the blame on Bioware) but I realized how good the rest of the game was. Bioware has made good games under EA but I am afraid that their next games are going to be more like Dragon Age 2(decent games by standard of the industry but terrible by Bioware's standard) Rather than Mass Effect 3's brilliant except for a few hiccups(I am discounting the ending here I don't think they can do that again). I sincerely hope Bioware can make more me3's but I am scarred because of EA's history.Akalabeth said:I never implied that Bioware did not make good games before being acquired by EA, if they didn't put out quality products no one would have purchased them in the first place.The_Lost_King said:Oh they wouldn't have been as good without EA's money? *cough* Knights of the Old Republic *cough* *cough* Baldur's Gate *cough*. KotOR was made before EA and is a great game, one of my favorites in fact. Baldur's Gate is a rpg classic and it was made pre-EA. Ea was letting Bioware make good games in the beginning yes, but then they shortened the leash with Dragon Age 2 what with the very short development cycle and the story being shit(which Bioware usually doesn't do). Bioware would never have made a fucking MMO out of KotOR but Ea made them. I can't blame EA for Mass Effect 3's ending though(or maybe I can if they shortened the development expectantly which made Bioware rush out the ending) I will blame that on Casey Hudson being stupid. I can blame EA however for turning the ending into a good thing(fro them that is). It would be better for Bioware if they were owned by Zenimax because Zenimax knows that it's developers will bring them money and they won't restrict them. Just look at Bethesda.Akalabeth said:That's a moronic point of view quite frankly.The_Lost_King said:Cause if Bioware didn't need the money they wouldn't have sold out to EA. Zenimax or Bethesda would give them the money they needed to make great games like da
Edit: OT: I really hope that EA gets bought out and then get drained and thrown away and then that person who bought them free the slaves(Bioware and anyone else like them).
Mass Effect and Dragon Age were both released after they'd been purchased by EA in 2007, you're implying that EA is bad for Bioware but all of their recent top games were published under EA so how is EA a bad thing exactly?
It's such a double standard that people blame publishers like Activision or EA for a games failings (see Diablo 3) but praise the developer for all of the high points. People don't seem to consider that Mass Effect, SWOR, Dragon Age, etcetera would not be as good as they are without EA backing them with the money that they have. Conversely many of a game's failings may be due to decisions by the developer and not the publisher at all.
A short development cycle doesn't mean anything. It's only an issue if the people allotted to work on the project do not have time to do things properly. A game that's made in half the time with twice the people has a "shorter development cycle" but logic dictates it should be the same quality of product as the longer cycle game. Even David Gaider, the lead writer for DA2 said there are pros and cons to the shorter development time.
Do you blame EA for Mass Effect 2 being a great game?
Blame EA for Dragon Age origins being a great game?
Double standard through and through.
And I'll give you a hint, EA doesn't write stories, Bioware writers do. That's like blaming a new publisher for a novel having a shitty story when it's the same author writing it. And both Dragon Age games had the same head writer, David Gaiter, so if the story sucked it's on him not anyone else. Maybe he's not a writer who can create a good story the first, or the second time, and needs to think about things before he finally comes to a good idea. And if he's not, maybe you need someone else who can get the job done. Single individuals write entire novels in less time than was devoted to DA2, surely a team of people can put together a good story for a VG in that amount of time.
if some one bought ?A, maybe the old companies like maxis or bullfrog will come back and make real games like a proper syndicate or sim city.
*wishful thinking*
*wishful thinking*