When EA falls, Ubisoft will rise.

[ResonanceSD]

Ubisoft is very popular with the public

...

Will you be just as enthused to buy Assassin's Creed 7, 8, & 9 as you were with III? Because Ubisoft is better than EA - at least for now.

How are they popular? They accuse PC gamers of being pirates all the time, have the second worst DRM system in the world, and their games are getting shittier and shittier. I played Sins creed "3" (5th in the main series) and couldn't get past the first 10 minutes.

Ubisoft is NOT better than EA, because their titles don't have the star power of the Battlefield/Mass Effect/Dragon Age brands, they haven't been copping as much shit for their shitty decisions, is all.


I just finished Mass Effect 3 for the first time. (Extended cut)

Know what it had over Assassins Creed "3"? It wasn't shit.

 

[FoolKiller]

You all keep forgetting about Valve. I think if EA were to go the way of THQ, Valve would be one of the few buying up IPs all over the place. They could afford it and strategically it would be brilliant.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh, a thread about the fall of EA. Well, I'll give it a shot.

EA will die.

Aaaand, you lost me.

Ubisoft

Ubisoft, much like THQ, is one of the leading minds behind the style of business EA now conducts. So what you're saying is that the obvious choice to take over after mean old Vader is toppled is the dude who was whispering in his ear the whole time?

...Seems reasonable.

 

[Phlakes]

Sorry to break this to you but EA is actually doing pretty okay. I mean, yeah, SimCity happened, but once Battlefield 4 comes around and sells a few million we'll be right back to normal.

Also tons of people hate Ubisoft. I can't remember why but they're reaching the usual EA/Activision level of hate.

EDIT: To clarify- THQ went bankrupt because their games sucked (and I mean Colonial Marines kind of sucking, not Dragon Age 2), and once they had some decent franchises like Saint's Row and Darksiders they never marketed them enough to make a decent profit. They were already in a pretty bad situation and couldn't pull themselves back up. EA is in a really, really good situation and is at worst just having a bit of trouble. It's like the differences between saying someone with terminal cancer will die or saying that a perfectly healthy person with a cold will.

EDIT 2: Also the whole "publishers are evil" business is still pretty dumb, and you should try to remember that they're not doing anything to you that doesn't involve you getting what's probably a pretty good game.

 

[craftomega]

EA will die. It's obvious to everyone; even their terminally incompetent CEO jumped ship. They might not be obliterated like THQ, but their days as an industry frontrunner are numbered.
The thing is, when they die, someone will have to fill their place. To me, it seems obvious: Ubisoft is very popular with the public (like EA once was), they have a number of strong juggernaut franchises that will carry them for years, and they're already doing some business practices influenced by an inflating ego. So when EA falls, Ubisoft will probably take their place. The question is, are you all okay with that? Are you willing to let Ubisoft fill EA's shoes? Will you be just as enthused to buy Assassin's Creed 7, 8, & 9 as you were with III? Because Ubisoft is better than EA - at least for now.

I hope this will become true, but ubisoft is not popular with the public. Right now they are slightly neutral but still have a negative feel towards them.

But EA needs to either entirely change its business plan or just fuck off and die. I?m hoping the next time they shaft the gaming community the backlash is so bad that they end up in the gutter.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I don't know about you but I've never bought an Ubisoft game. Whereas the last EA game I bought was tetris for iOS. I might get an AC game though.

 

[IronMit]

Ubisoft??!?!

The guys that launch an Assassins Creed every single year with a few minor improvements and features. They can't be bothered to fix the bugs in their games before launch. Seriously AC3 was almost as buggy as Skyrim and New Vegas.

The guys who streamlined Prince of Persia into the ground. Then released the worst HD collection ever...the sound is all over the place.

The guys who changed splinter cell from a stealth game into some sort of tag and shoot panther rubbish

The only 9/10 game they have published in 4 years has been Far Cry 3.

 

[bug_of_war]

EA isn't evil. EA isn't going to die. And seeing as how Ubisoft just bought a few of THQ's IPs and devs I'd doubt they'd have the resources to pick up where EA would fall. EA makes games that the majority of people like, most people who buy games don't go on forums to talk about games, they just buy a game and enjoy it (or trade it in). Just look at the COD franchise, most people on this site claw their eyes out when some suggests that COD is a good game, yet COD is played more so than nearly ANY other multiplayer game. So please stop assuming that your (OP) opinion on a publisher is a blanket opinion and represents EA's sales.

 

[Little Gray]

I'd like to remind you that Ubisoft were the first to use the always-online DRM for a single player game in Assassin's Creed 2, and have used it in several single player games since, and have made some idiotic statements too.

Well actually Valve was.

I don't think there's a single too big to fail company in the game industry. That said EA, Ubisoft and Blizzard-Activision would have to try pretty damn hard to fail at this point. I am also Jacks complete and utter lack of surprise that some of the absolute shadiest and shittiest business practices in this industry originate (HA!) with one of those companies. The only company that I'm regularly exposed to that even comes close to any of those three companies is probably Capcom, a company that does in fact seem to be trying to actively antagonize their customers to the point that I could see them serving as a cautionary tale in 5-10 years.

The proper use of to big to fail as in when other companies and the government use it means that a company is to big to fail without destroying the industry/economy. If EA went bankrupt it would cause a chain reaction that would cause a video game crash. They are simply to big and have to many other companies relying on them. Sony and Microsoft would take a huge hit without the games they constantly produce.

 

[Doom972]

I'd like to remind you that Ubisoft were the first to use the always-online DRM for a single player game in Assassin's Creed 2, and have used it in several single player games since, and have made some idiotic statements too.

Well actually Valve was.

I take it you are talking about Steam? It has an offline mode, which I find very useful when playing on my laptop in places where an internet connection isn't available. Also, if you lose your connection while playing on Steam's online mode, you can keep on playing all of your games as long as you don't exit Steam. In always-online games, even a temporary connection failure will cause the game to quit, and no offline play is available.

 

[Little Gray]

Well actually Valve was.

I take it you are talking about Steam? It has an offline mode, which I find very useful when playing on my laptop in places where an internet connection isn't available. Also, if you lose your connection while playing on Steam's online mode, you can keep on playing all of your games as long as you don't exit Steam. In always-online games, even a temporary connection failure will cause the game to quit, and no offline play is available.[/quote]

The Steam of today and the Steam that existed ten years ago are two very different services. In its early years it was always online drm with an offline mode that if you were lucky worked ten percent of the time. If you lost connection you normally ended up getting logged out and couldnt play your games.

Regardless of what they are now they made massive breakthroughs in getting people to accept some really shitty drm. They helped prove that people are willing to take it up the ass to be able to play the games they want.

 

[gigastar]

I'd like to remind you that Ubisoft were the first to use the always-online DRM for a single player game in Assassin's Creed 2, and have used it in several single player games since, and have made some idiotic statements too.

Well actually Valve was.

I take it you are talking about Steam? It has an offline mode, which I find very useful when playing on my laptop in places where an internet connection isn't available. Also, if you lose your connection while playing on Steam's online mode, you can keep on playing all of your games as long as you don't exit Steam. In always-online games, even a temporary connection failure will cause the game to quit, and no offline play is available.

He is referring to Half Life 2, which on startup required a check-in with Steam servers and for the most part did not work for a couple of days after launch.

 

[Doom972]

Well actually Valve was.

I take it you are talking about Steam? It has an offline mode, which I find very useful when playing on my laptop in places where an internet connection isn't available. Also, if you lose your connection while playing on Steam's online mode, you can keep on playing all of your games as long as you don't exit Steam. In always-online games, even a temporary connection failure will cause the game to quit, and no offline play is available.

The Steam of today and the Steam that existed ten years ago are two very different services. In its early years it was always online drm with an offline mode that if you were lucky worked ten percent of the time. If you lost connection you normally ended up getting logged out and couldnt play your games.

Regardless of what they are now they made massive breakthroughs in getting people to accept some really shitty drm. They helped prove that people are willing to take it up the ass to be able to play the games they want.

Fair point, but that still wasn't always-online DRM because it didn't require a constant connection to a server, which back then would've used your entire bandwith. Also, the fact that it was designed with an offline mode (regardless of how well it worked), shows that it was not intended to work offline from the very beginning.

BTW, you may want to fix the quotation on your last post.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Personally I hope they both fall. Activision too.

 

[MoltenSilver]

Ubisoft is in good standing?

That's funny, I still have something they said about '95%' of us ringing in my ears. Given that Ubisoft is one of the companies I have a boycott policy towards (along with EA, NCSoft, and a standing 'no always-online drm'), and that every single person in my circle of friends likewise refuses to touch an Ubisoft game, either my entire group of friends is having hallucinations and perceiving reality different from the rest of the world, or I'll bet there are many others out there who have a very similar antagonistic view of them.

 

[razer17]

EA will die. It's obvious to everyone; even their terminally incompetent CEO jumped ship. They might not be obliterated like THQ, but their days as an industry frontrunner are numbered.

This is just wishful thinking, and incredibly naive. Yes, EA may need to carry out some corporate re-structuring, but they'll be fin. Just their sports titles alone would keep them in good stead, The Sims sell like hot cakes, Battlefield is as popular as ever. Where exactly are they going to die?

And Ubisoft aren't exactly any better. Always on DRM issues? Ea and Ubi have them, as do most others who use always online. Scraping together yearly sequels for a quick buck, yes indeed. Just the other day a Ubi person said they'd release yearly Assasins Creed games till people are sick of them (What an approach to customer care!).

Ubisoft who have had a few disapointing years, financially speaking, recently? Remember the uDraw tablet thing? They make smart business decisions all the time!

So I guess the message I want you to take away from this is that EA isn't going anywhere, they're not the root of all evil, deal with it.

 

[Tom Waits' hat]

Oh yeah, them accusing about 95% of PC users of being pirates [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119200-Ubisoft-Puts-PC-Piracy-Rate-at-93-95]

Not 95%, but it's no 10% neither. There are some truth in that.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

...what? Seriously, EA are too well off for that to happen. Furthermore, let's face it, people on the net bitching about EA are in the minority; we're FAR outnumbered by the population that makes EA games multi-million sellers.

Yea, it never ceases to amaze me how people keep saying after every little thing EA does that makes them mad, they say "this is where EA dies" or "EA will go under soon after this one". Which of course never happens because people pay absolutely no attention to sales figures.

Most people complaining seem to have their thumbs in their ears and the rest of their hands over their eyes, because they don't see that they are out numbered by millions, and they won't listen if people tell them this because if they did, threads like this wouldn't keep popping up every week.

Of course, count me in those millions who continue to give EA money, because still up to this point, all things EA has done are just minor annoyances, not some evil "let's ruin the industry and everybody's favorite franchises" plot.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

First, there is no way to know exactly what will happen until a new CEO is installed at EA. Second, Ubisoft is in much worse shape than EA financially speaking. Ubi had very strong sales with Assassin's Creed III and Far Cry 3, but the fact that they delayed Rayman and Splinter Cell until August points to the fact that they are worried about the future of the company, particularly the second quarter.

Yves Guillmont is a better CEO than EA ever had, particularly in that he keeps his own salary down when the company is not making money, but he is still far from competent enough to guide the company through the rough that lies ahead. The company has -even with the success of ACIII and FC3- lost money over the last four years as a running total, and a hashed-out ACIV will not change that. Admittedly, Watch Dogs does show some real promise, but considering its development costs, it would be surprising if it dug Ubisoft out of debt.

Also, Ubisoft is at a major disadvantage being traded on the Paris exchange, rather than the NYSE or Nikkei. Euro-zone economic troubles reflect on the company's stock performance, even when the company is making money.

Overall, I think all three of the big publishers are going down in the next console generation: EA, Ubisoft, and Activision. EA's problems are manifold, and a new CEO is unlikely to change their established corporate culture. Ubisoft is run better, but has more outside disadvantages. And Activision is still 60% owned by Vivendi, meaning that as soon as WoW slips below 8 million players, or when Call of Duty fails to perform, Vivendi will sell their stock, crashing Activision. Remember, Vivendi is a struggling corporation, and they have been trying to rid themselves of Activision stock for years now.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

EA will die.

Seeing as the OP hasn't responded to people calling out their less than logical attempt at predicting the downfall of EA, I assume they didn't want to further the discussion for fear of looking the part of a fool. I've called people who needlessly hate on EA morons for quite a while now, this OP only proves that point.

If you have to make a thread to bash EA, you're already fighting a losing battle.

Let me ask the OP something. What did EA do to you PERSONALLY to have them make your list for faceless companies to hate?