When EA falls, Ubisoft will rise.
- Thread starter Matthew Jabour
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.Aiddon said:
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.
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.
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.
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.Matthew Jabour said:
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?
The point is simply saying that and adding gestapo style DRM lost Ubisoft 95% of its PC sales for most of the 2011-2012. Only after they removed the DRM did they see sales return to normal. Yes piracy is high but another interesting statistic is that people who pirate things (games, books, movies, etc) are most likely to buy the product if they like it.Tom Waits said:
All three have happened (I maintain that Prince of Persia 2008 was excellent).thesilentman said:
It's weird how almost no gamers realize this. It's almost like they only pay attention when it lets them hate something.
Do you actually believe that? People who pirate things are most likely to buy the product if they like it? We are talking tiny portion of the pirates. Also, even that's true for argument's sake, does that make it okay to pirate?AzrealMaximillion said:
No no no no stop. Can everybody please fucking stop talking about "the fall of EA", please? Despite the continual bitching of the public, they aren't going away any time soon. Besides, the death/bankruptcy/liquidation of the company would cause more problems than the ones it solves.
Companies that dictatorially force DRM and needless DLC without repose are bound to fail. A company can only alienate its consumer base so much before said consumers will stop supporting them. EA is learning that the hard way, and Ubisoft isn't too far behind along with Capcom. If anything, I predict another video game crash to come with the online Indie market to resuscitate it after the ashes clear.
Did I say that its ok to pirate? No I don't believe so. In fact my feelings on piracy weren't even mentioned. I merely stated that people who pirate are more likely to buy the product they pirate. That's a truth. Google the studies. There's really no such things as a blind purchase anymore when it comes to digital products. But the fact that DRM dues more harm to the people who purchase the product then those who don't is an important one to remember.Tom Waits said:
That and there are ways to combat piracy that have actually shown a boost in sales. Some examples.
The first half of Neil Gaiman's book "American Gods" was put up on his website by him, for people to read. It came to be his best selling book.
The trend of artists streaming their albums in their CDQ entirety weeks before they release them is increasing. Most mainstream massive label artists do it now, to have people listen to their music and decide to buy it, rather than listen to bad quality TPB rips(in some cases).
These examples coupled with the studies that show that most people who pirate are more likely to buy the product in question, show that piracy isn't as bad as the suits who push DRM say.
Now we can have a discussion on how piracy is hurting sale if you want, but I'll have to know that the PC market(the main target of gaming piracy/DRM) is growing:[link]http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/28/pc-gaming-in-still-not-dead-shocker/[/link] while console sales shrink, and consoles are harder to pirate games on.
Well yeah but GTA 4 was rubbish. The brand name has fallen a long way since San Andreas.Irridium said:
This is a great way of putting it.Forlong said:
The thing people like us, (gamer's who pay attention to the gaming media, go to sites like this) do not understand is that we are a minority. 20 % at the absolute max, much less in regards to some genres. Most people who buy games are indifferent to EA, believe me I work at EB Games. In fact for all the supposed shit storm around SimCity, of the 100 or so copy's I have sold, no one has asked for a return, and only 2 people have bitched about the servers or the always online DRM.
In reality most consumers of video games, like some games and buy them its as simple as that, that is all, that is it. No amount of hipster boycotting is going to change that.
In reality most consumers of video games, like some games and buy them its as simple as that, that is all, that is it. No amount of hipster boycotting is going to change that.
I didn't say you said it's okay to pirate. I'm just simply asking the question. Since you're the one bring up the idea that pirates are more likely to buy the product they pirate. Which I really don't think that's the case. However, you're the one with the "case studies" and I'm just talking out of my arse and based it on my own experience.AzrealMaximillion said:
You bring up bunch of examples, but none of them are really in the field of gaming. In my opinion, piracy is benefitial in music, arguably prejudicial to movies and definitly prejudicial to games.
Most money singers make is with concerts. Singers earn a very small portion of the CD's sales, so if the music get's spread with piracy, more people at the concerts.
Movies also don't have that many problems. Most of them can make ALL the money back before the movie comes out in DVD format, so most of the complaints on that end are about "oh look how much money we could have made with DVD's but we didn't".
Games are the worst, as it doesn't really provide any benefits. While you might say that games get more known because of that, an indie studio that doesn't have deep pocket will get into some serious financial troubles before they get to release their next game.
It's human nature, why would anyone pay for something if they can get it for free and get away with it.
I'm talking for the future. Not in the past, but the future. I'm also talking about the public opinion of Ubisoft, as most of the market is not going to look at the game only. The PR is also going to come into play; hence my three comments above.lacktheknack said:
But they've STOPPED using the DRM and shafting the PC gamers. They've STOPPED insisting that their DRM is magic.thesilentman said:
They've announced it, stuck with it, and generally done everything they can to get the message across. Rayman Origins: Always-On-DRM free. Assassin's Creed 3: Always-On-DRM free. Assassin's Creed 2: Always-On-DRM repealed. Anno 2070: Always-On-DRM repealed, hardware-attachment repealed. Not a goddamned person on these blasted interwebz gives a shit. The instant Ubisoft does anything wrong, gamers reveal their parasitic nature and viciously attack them, but when they do something right, all of a sudden no one cares.
HEY GUYS: YOU CAN STOP BOYCOTTING UBISOFT NOW. THEY'VE STOPPED SUCKING. SERIOUSLY. GUYS? GUYS! MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ ALL THE UBISOFT ARTICLES RATHER THAN JUST THE BAD ONES! CAN ANYONE HEAR ME?
What more do you want? Are you waiting for flowers and chocolates?
Act one scene one: as EA falls over and finished the dramatic death scene we here a crunching noise. Out of EA many small Ubisofts are eating the body coming out in disgusting ways. We pan up and the small ubisofts form a large ubisoft. Ubisoft looks down to the skeleton of ea and says "thank you cousin, you have been helpful." After Ubisoft leaves the room the EA skeletons eyes glow red.