Sendok
01-07-2005, 07:24 PM
If you own a console and play video games on a regular basis, particularly sports games, then you've almost certainly heard of Electronic Arts. Electronic Arts, or "EA", is the single largest video game publisher in the world. With popular game franchises that extend into nearly every single sport as well as more conventional gaming genres like action and adventure, it's no wonder why the company is loved and respected by millions of gamers across the globe. However, the company's fan club may soon find many names scratched from its roster, especially after its most recent deal.
Just a few days before Christmas, EA announced that it had made an "investment" in UbiSoft, another major game publisher. UbiSoft, a French-based company with strong franchises such as Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon and the newly revitalized Prince of Persia under its belt, is one of the industry's most well-known names.
According to the press release, EA now owns a gigantic 19.9% of UbiSoft, making it the second-largest shareholder in the entire company, behind the Guillemot brothers who started the company in 1986. While EA stated that it acquired this large stake in its competitor with the sole intention of being "good shareholders", UbiSoft Founder and CEO Yves Guillemot tells a different story, saying that such an act can only be called hostile.
A hostile purchase or "takeover" as it is usually referred to is a common business practice in which one company buys a large portion of the other's stock, thereby giving it direct access to that company and great influence over it. Whether or not this particular action is genuinely hostile remains to be seen. In truth, Electronic Arts and UbiSoft have been in competition with each other for a long time, and many former UbiSoft employees now work for EA. While such a bold move cannot be taken lightly, what is perhaps more significant than whether or not this is a hostile action is the impact that it will have on the game industry.
Video games, though still not as widely accepted as mainstream products like film or music, are part of a huge industry - an industry that is supposed to be dedicated to the consumer. Is the gaming industry changing? Are companies still trying to develop games that sell based on their own merits, or are they more interested in setting up a market in which they have total control and don't have to worry about the quality of their products? After reviewing the record of a company like Electronic Arts, one has to wonder exactly where the gaming industry is going.
Founded in 1982, Electronic Arts managed to fight its way to the top of the ladder and become the most successful publisher in the industry. Companies don't reach such grand status through pure luck, either - EA earned an excellent reputation for itself by delivering great games that consumers chose over the competition.
These days, one has to wonder if that is still the case or not. EA's reputation has suffered somewhat over the years, with game franchises that seem to be bordering on obsolescence, yet still seem to merit a $50 price tag after their obligatory annual update. Not only that, but in many cases these games are littered with so many shameless advertisements that some gamers might wonder if "EA" really stands for "excessive advertisement". After a few minutes with games like Need for Speed Underground, with its non-stop use of licensed music, or Burnout 3: Takedown's constant attempts at selling you out through advertisements that don't even attempt to be subtle, you'll begin to wonder why you paid fifty dollars to play a game that probably received more money from advertisers than it did from sales. The answer to that question is that Need for Speed and Takedown are great games, which is generally the case with EA titles - but that, too, may be changing.
Many sports fans were not giving their money to EA this year, but instead were giving it to Sega - one of EA's few competitors left in the sports column (and soon possibly the only one, depending on how EA decides to handle future "investments"). Sega's outstanding ESPN series, which took a bold step forward by offering high-quality games at an affordable $20, was a phenomenal success. EA, who wanted a share of the bargain-bin frenzy but apparently never considered getting into it before, responded by releasing its own line of 2005 sports games at "reduced" prices of $30-40. While cheaper than most games on the market, none of these titles matched the $30 savings offered by the ESPN games, and in addition, they received less colorful reviews.
Unfortunately for Sega, the NFL title which was the flagship of its ESPN line probably won't be seeing a sequel this year. Barely a week before its acquisition of UbiSoft stock, EA signed a five-year deal with the NFL giving it exclusive rights to NFL team names, players, and stadiums. This means that no company besides EA can publish any games using authentic NFL material. Since it would be practically impossible to make a football game using entirely made up teams, players, and stadiums, the likelihood of any other company publishing a football game in the next five years is very slim.
This was a pretty average year for EA in terms of reviews. While it did release many great games like Burnout 3, the latest installment in a franchise that it picked up from the now-defunct Acclaim, it also had an unusual number of mediocre titles as well. The Catwoman game - like the film of the same name - was poorly received, and the newly released Bond game, Rogue Agent, also received very disappointing reviews. Every company releases bad games, but EA has generally been known for producing games of respectable quality, even if they are of limited appeal to gamers.
Perhaps what is most disturbing of all is the fact that EA is constantly becoming more powerful, and there doesn't seem to be any sign of them stopping. The company, whose headquarters are located on a street named after it, has purchased many companies before - including Maxis, the creator of the wildly popular Sims games - and Ubisoft may very well be the next company to be acquired by the game behemoth.
One of the oldest philosophies of consumerism is that if you don't like a company, you shouldn't buy their products. Perhaps it's too early to tell, but concerned video gamers may want to be cautious of such a philosophy, because if they want to play any games at all - good or bad - they may end up in need of a new hobby. Then again, they can always head over to EA and play a game of Monopoly.
Article By: JN
link:
http://www.xboxcore.com/articles/29.html
Just a few days before Christmas, EA announced that it had made an "investment" in UbiSoft, another major game publisher. UbiSoft, a French-based company with strong franchises such as Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon and the newly revitalized Prince of Persia under its belt, is one of the industry's most well-known names.
According to the press release, EA now owns a gigantic 19.9% of UbiSoft, making it the second-largest shareholder in the entire company, behind the Guillemot brothers who started the company in 1986. While EA stated that it acquired this large stake in its competitor with the sole intention of being "good shareholders", UbiSoft Founder and CEO Yves Guillemot tells a different story, saying that such an act can only be called hostile.
A hostile purchase or "takeover" as it is usually referred to is a common business practice in which one company buys a large portion of the other's stock, thereby giving it direct access to that company and great influence over it. Whether or not this particular action is genuinely hostile remains to be seen. In truth, Electronic Arts and UbiSoft have been in competition with each other for a long time, and many former UbiSoft employees now work for EA. While such a bold move cannot be taken lightly, what is perhaps more significant than whether or not this is a hostile action is the impact that it will have on the game industry.
Video games, though still not as widely accepted as mainstream products like film or music, are part of a huge industry - an industry that is supposed to be dedicated to the consumer. Is the gaming industry changing? Are companies still trying to develop games that sell based on their own merits, or are they more interested in setting up a market in which they have total control and don't have to worry about the quality of their products? After reviewing the record of a company like Electronic Arts, one has to wonder exactly where the gaming industry is going.
Founded in 1982, Electronic Arts managed to fight its way to the top of the ladder and become the most successful publisher in the industry. Companies don't reach such grand status through pure luck, either - EA earned an excellent reputation for itself by delivering great games that consumers chose over the competition.
These days, one has to wonder if that is still the case or not. EA's reputation has suffered somewhat over the years, with game franchises that seem to be bordering on obsolescence, yet still seem to merit a $50 price tag after their obligatory annual update. Not only that, but in many cases these games are littered with so many shameless advertisements that some gamers might wonder if "EA" really stands for "excessive advertisement". After a few minutes with games like Need for Speed Underground, with its non-stop use of licensed music, or Burnout 3: Takedown's constant attempts at selling you out through advertisements that don't even attempt to be subtle, you'll begin to wonder why you paid fifty dollars to play a game that probably received more money from advertisers than it did from sales. The answer to that question is that Need for Speed and Takedown are great games, which is generally the case with EA titles - but that, too, may be changing.
Many sports fans were not giving their money to EA this year, but instead were giving it to Sega - one of EA's few competitors left in the sports column (and soon possibly the only one, depending on how EA decides to handle future "investments"). Sega's outstanding ESPN series, which took a bold step forward by offering high-quality games at an affordable $20, was a phenomenal success. EA, who wanted a share of the bargain-bin frenzy but apparently never considered getting into it before, responded by releasing its own line of 2005 sports games at "reduced" prices of $30-40. While cheaper than most games on the market, none of these titles matched the $30 savings offered by the ESPN games, and in addition, they received less colorful reviews.
Unfortunately for Sega, the NFL title which was the flagship of its ESPN line probably won't be seeing a sequel this year. Barely a week before its acquisition of UbiSoft stock, EA signed a five-year deal with the NFL giving it exclusive rights to NFL team names, players, and stadiums. This means that no company besides EA can publish any games using authentic NFL material. Since it would be practically impossible to make a football game using entirely made up teams, players, and stadiums, the likelihood of any other company publishing a football game in the next five years is very slim.
This was a pretty average year for EA in terms of reviews. While it did release many great games like Burnout 3, the latest installment in a franchise that it picked up from the now-defunct Acclaim, it also had an unusual number of mediocre titles as well. The Catwoman game - like the film of the same name - was poorly received, and the newly released Bond game, Rogue Agent, also received very disappointing reviews. Every company releases bad games, but EA has generally been known for producing games of respectable quality, even if they are of limited appeal to gamers.
Perhaps what is most disturbing of all is the fact that EA is constantly becoming more powerful, and there doesn't seem to be any sign of them stopping. The company, whose headquarters are located on a street named after it, has purchased many companies before - including Maxis, the creator of the wildly popular Sims games - and Ubisoft may very well be the next company to be acquired by the game behemoth.
One of the oldest philosophies of consumerism is that if you don't like a company, you shouldn't buy their products. Perhaps it's too early to tell, but concerned video gamers may want to be cautious of such a philosophy, because if they want to play any games at all - good or bad - they may end up in need of a new hobby. Then again, they can always head over to EA and play a game of Monopoly.
Article By: JN
link:
http://www.xboxcore.com/articles/29.html