In the past EA has swallowed and devoured numeróus talented developers including: Bullfrog, Origin and Westwood, but those are far from the only ones.

EA has been notorious for meddling with the incorporated developers, for unknown reasons the devs stopped producing quality games and the studioes were dismantled, maybe the key people in the studios didnt like feeling EA' s breath on their shoulders and left, or maybe the games werent given the funding needed to complete ambitious projects.

You can say one thing about EA, but they have never made a single ambitious game. Fifa, madden, NHL reharsh upon reharsh.

EA' s latest aquisistions, have been quick to denounce that EA is changing them in any and that John Riccitiello, who is top dog at the moment, wants things to run a bit differently in EA than they did in the past.

First it was Bioware soothing their worried fans (myself included) and now Pandemic steps up aswell.

" Yes," he said. " It says Pandemic on the box, we' ve got Pandemic email addresses and we' re making Pandemic games."

If it has changed how long will it last, what happens if Bioware or pandemic turn out a few lacklusters?

This next quote leads me to think that EA might be having a hand in things though.

Well the good news is that I am going to change our business model," he explained. " In fact we' ve been changing it for a little while.
" I' m very worried about how much money our games cost to make, I' m worried they take so long to make, I' m worried they have to have so many people working on them to make them and I' m worried the only place we can sell them is in bricks and mortar retail stores.
" A lot of that has to change and we have to find ways to make game development smaller, more flexible, faster out to retail and with more dynamic teams. We' re thinking a lot about that right now."

Smaller teams producing games faster seems like a bad idea to me.



What are your thoughts of EA, the way they have and do run their buisness. I wonder what it will do with Take Two once it has been aquired!

have they changed? In one word, No. Typical corporate-speak from a typical corporation that dominates its market. They want more of our money and they are prepared to go to any length to get it - buying up big name developers just gives more substrate for them to slap out into the market.


Off-topic discussion for the day -

If they have enough of the market like they are heading for would an EA sponsored console development by viable with all their games as exclusives?

We' ll have to let the upcoming game talk for the company and see if they have really changed.

.skate is pretty nice, but... yeah, I don' t know.

EA Sucks they stop making good games about 5 years ago.

Black and Most Wanted were the last two EA games I enjoyed. But I still dislike EA and everything they stand for.

There' ll always be a market for big budget ' pop' games though, a huge and very lucrative one, and Bioware/Pandemic aren' t immune from the lure.

The only reason EA seem to be doing more new IPs is because their market is demanding it. But a new name doesn' t mean a new game.

Your right choupolo. Hopefully people with make new companies if EA sells out again.

But as its been said, we really just need to wait and see how it turns out when ME2 and dragon age gets released.

EA is a company. The purpose of EA, as is the purpose of most businesses is to turn a profit; not to create original games.

EA has rarely profitted from creativity, and consequently, doesn' t make any large attempts to step out of the consumer comfort zone.

That' s not to say that EA is the worst company in the industry, but people have expectations for EA that they will never meet. You don' t go to EA and expect to see something new. EA games have a broad --sometimes described as bland -- taste, that appeals to a mass-market, and in recent history (I only say this because Joe will have some ancient EA game that was the pinnacle of creativity in the games world) have not turned out anything but mainstream titles.

It' s like expecting fine spanish cuisine from Taco Bell. It just ' ain' t happenin' .

Well the shelled out 1 billion $ for Pandemic and Bioware, two developers that creates new and inspiring games. They companies were succesful because of they made great games.

Do you think EA will change that? have them do rehashes of the same old stuff, instead of letting them keep doing what made them successful in the first place

(I only say this because Joe will have some ancient EA game that was the pinnacle of creativity in the games world)

I' d second that. EA was great in the 80s. They, along with Activision, were the first developers to put a spotlight on the game designers themselves, listing their names on the covers of the games.

Now they' re too clinicial, to market-researched. I ain' t fitting into their target demographic, I guess you could say.

I can understand and respect their contribution to the gaming industry in the 80s Zoy. I' m speaking from my understanding of the company in the last 15 years or so. Since I' ve been playing games.

Do you think EA will change that? have them do rehashes of the same old stuff, instead of letting them keep doing what made them successful in the first place

I don' t think EA is going to force developers to undertake projects, but I do think that the quality of the work is going to be limited by time constraints, and the content diluted somewhat by the company.

Well they already put Pandemic onto a Lord of the Rings game even the the very much wanted Mercenaries 2 had to get pushed back to 09. So that might not be a good sign.

However, I did like Black, Paradise was a risk the resulted in a a decent enough game, Skate shits and pisses all over Tony Hawk games now, plus Rock Band is certainly a hit and was a big risk with its near $200 pricetag. Then you got Spore cooking in the oven there. All games that veered from the norm and turned out good. But then you also got Army of Two which almost worked. I' m thinking thats a pretty good start tho.

We' re just gonna have to wait and see what the acquired developers turn out before passing to harsh of judgment. I used to hate EA like most any other gamer with a brain. Now however with the above listed games I think they may be breaking free from the usual formula and into new territory.

They also have their own original stuff, like Dead Space in the works too. Like I said, it' ll be their future games that speak for them.

I disagree that Rock Band was a huge risk.

The original Guitar Hero. Now there was a risk. Harmonix proved that consumers were willing to shell out more money for the experience, and a larger experience generally equals a larger price-tag. While I do admit that it had the potential to fail, I wasn' t personally expecting it.

Anyhow, didn' t EA only distribute the game? I thought MTV games published Rock Band.

I don' t think EA is going to force developers to undertake projects, but I do think that the quality of the work is going to be limited by time constraints, and the content diluted somewhat by the company.

See if they do that, EA should burn in hell. They buy a company turning great profit, and changes it, and when people dont buy it they dismantle the studio.


I fucking hate EA...... and Bethesda for making shooddy rpgs! (i just had to say it)