Can you imagine a world *without* EA?

[renegade7]

EA is a bit like the Thomas Edison of video games...didn't really pioneer much, but was really good at selling stuff, and that helped make the industry so big and popular despite a number of really dickish moves.

 

[him over there]

I imagine it would be somewhat akin to this:

Yes a seemingly better world, but fucking with the status quote may just be too important to get rid of. Plus the fact that they're still around means they're doing something right.

 

[The]

Even if there wasn't an EA, someone else will take their place.

 

[Inkidu]

They can go right after Activision and Blizzard as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to pick the least of two evils.

 

[Darknacht]

Its been almost a decade since a big publisher put out anything a cared for so if they all fell apart tomorrow that would probably be beneficial to me, besides it would be entertaining to see the reaction of all the graphics whores when they realize that the number of graphically intense games released each year will drop significantly.

 

[Strain42]

Do you mean a world in which EA never existed? Because that would honestly kind of suck.

First post in this topic already mentioned what I was thinking.

I think a world where EA never existed at all would have some problems, because once upon a time, they were a pretty big company that cared about gaming and released a lot of great stuff.

But if you just meant like if they somehow went out of business now and the developers owned by them just kinda landed on their own feet...I think I'd be okay.

EA (or any of the companies they seem to own) don't exactly release games on my radar anyway.

 

[Lunar Templar]

snip

snip

please, the only 'risk' on the list was Mirror's Edge, every thing else was a far safer bet.
even Dante's Inferno.

I edited the post you're quoting (I do that a lot as I think of more things) after you posted this so I'll list them here:

Spore was a big risk. This was one of the strangest games that have been released by EA with a big, expansive idea behind it (the multiple player-generated planets and user connectivity). Has there ever been a game like Spore before (or even a game like it after it was released)?

Skate was a risk (not a big risk but a risk none the less). A hardcore skating simulation that is only going to sell to niche audiences. This is the kind of game Atlus would pump out, not a big machine like EA.

Mirror's Edge was a HUGE risk. There really had not been a game like Mirror's Edge before this (or at least not a big game, maybe on the indie scene).

With just these three we can see some big risks but ANY time a company pumps out a new IP, they're taking a risk. EA seems to be one of the few companies consistently pumping out new IPs. I'm sure others are at the same rate but off the top of my head, EA is the only one that comes to mind.

>.> i dunno about Atlus pumping out a skate boarding game dood >.> they seem content with JRPGs, which is fine :3 they turn out great JRPGs.

donno if spore was that big a risk, it had the sim city guy behind it, or least some where in it. so there was developer recognition.

again, the only big risk is Mirrors Edge, that had nothing going for it. its not the kinda FPS that people are used to, i mean least Skate had the 'tony hawk' crowd to try and get to. who was Mirrors Edge aimed at? sure wasn't the CoD/BF crowd, and wasn't the platformer group ether.

even the more recent Amalur wasn't that big a risk, since it was aimed at the skyrim/DA/hacky slashy crowds

 

[JaceArveduin]

I wouldn't know the internet and I'd probably just be another drunken redneck. Funny how that works.

 

[ElPatron]

snip

Skate had totally different controls, physics and gameplay. It's not FIFA vs PES. It's Call of Duty vs ARMA. If it's worse or better then it's your own subjective opinion.

I don't even like Skate.

 

[spartandude]

This is more or less the scene that runs through my head every time the topic of bloated game publishing conglomerates comes up.

And when it does, there's inevitably *somebody* who cries:

"What!? How on Earth would we get on without overstuffed companies trying to stereotype an entire generation of people into a neat little 'demographic' and sell them homogenized products!?"

(My bias is showing, but W.E.)

Point is, I don't see the need for these kind of companies anymore. At all. I could be missing something entirely- but there it is.

fucking ninjas

 

[josemlopes]

is it me

or are people more negativly biased against EA/Bioware than they are gainst Activision/Blizard..Im not seeing so many Diablo 3 hate threads

We had that a while ago with the MW2 crap, most were against Activision. Most people i believed liked EA then, but this Activision no longer does anything we've turned attention to EA. Still, Bobby Kotick is still hated here.

As for EA, we could do without them, but gaming today as we know it might be a whole lot different, either better or worse depending on how you see it.

I was amazed back then on how could people find EA good. Activision sucked (and still does) but EA always sucked too. Thats the problem with most publishers, they dont care about the games, they only care about profits. They dont even invest on smaller projects, and if they do invest on one they dont support it enough causing the game to have lackluster sales and then they blame the developers and send them off to unemployement.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

EA, Activision and Ubisoft are all in the same boat. Corporate arses who make games for shareholders, not gamers. Look at what EA turned ME3 into...all these Multiplayer map-packs...does that sound familiar?? Microsoft and Sony are partly to blame as well for leaving it 3 years after we should have had a new console generation. Modern (hit) games are designed for outdated 2004 hardware with pathetic memory and poor graphics by today's standards.

Games are now being made like pop music and hollywood films...to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Thus lowest barrier to entry (the console), lowest hardware requirements (the console), widest audience base (the console), cross-platform development and generic gameplay with little to differentiate it from the competition. Games, particularly multiplayer shooters used to stick around for years, now we are expected to throw them away after a year.

I have no issue with games becoming more popular, and it's undeniable that CoD making more money than any other entertainment product is "an achievement" of a sort, it's just that it's the wrong kind of achievement. The shareholders loved it, but these games have ruined gaming. I would love the corporations to just back the f**k off and let the developers create games, then they publish them and reap the rewards of the investment. Better games for us, just as much money for them, win-win.

 

[3asytarg3t]

One can dream can't they? A world w/o publishers where the people with the talent actually making the product profit completely from their labors.

And the idea is absurd on its face to even suggest that borrowing a dead funding model from the entertainment industry was a smart play.