Paperboy  Posts: 46 Joined: 11 Apr 2008    | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2962 Joined: 10 Apr 2007    | If EA launched a console...maybe I would have to pay more money for 'downloadable content' to make more buttons on my controller work. I'm sure it wouldn't give me a competitve advantage over the people without it, though. +++ Seriously though, great post. They're probably in a better position than SEGA to do it, or other 'fourth-console' candidates, just nobody ever thought about it. My only criticism is that I don't think they'd have enough money to keep their Madden monopoly on NFL licensing if they went exclusive. Also that someone would throw their hat in the ring of sports franchises. +++ Also, let me mention it in a civil manner before some dick comes in and calls you 'full of fail': I think Mass Effect exclusivity is licensed to Microsoft and EA has to respect that contract; if so, it shouldn't be on the list. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3870 Joined: 25 Jan 2008    | Sony would survive an EA console, Squenix being exclusive to them, and Capcom, Konami, and a couple other Japanese companies greatly favor the Playstations. X-Box would be seriously boned, but I don't have a small enough violin for them. The one result I fear of an EA console is a decline in PC titles, but that would be bad for EA because making a title exclusive to one medium only limits the sales. For instance, I won't buy GTA4 because it's not PC available. I won't buy Mass Effect if it requires Vista. Halo lost my business when Halo2PC went Vista and Halo 3 started giving handjobs in the back alleys of Liberty City... Though if you beat Halo up afterwards, you can get your money back. |
Muckraker  Posts: 256 Joined: 21 Nov 2007    | Um...your list needs some work. Some of the titles you listed aren't owned by EA. They're owned by another developer and EA is just the production company. Granted, some of those companies are under contract with EA or were bought out, but not all. For example, Left 4 Dead is owned exclusively by Valve and Turtle Rock Studios (who are now part of Valve). EA are just the ones handling the PS3 version and are licensed as the production company (they're making the disks that go on store shelves). Likewise, GTA is owned by Rockstar and Spore, SimCity, and The Sims are all owned by Maxis. Cheeze already explained Mass Effect. EA owns very few full franchises of their own. In fact, they just license most of their games from other developers. But to answer your question, I personally think EA making a console would be a horrendous idea. They, like many huge production companies, tend to force developers to change their games to fit EA's needs or to fit their idea of what a "good" game is. This has led to some really, really bad games over the years. Now, in most cases when you see a good game come out of any deal EA made, it's usually because they had absolutely nothing to do with it's creation beyond marketing and production. Therefore, if they made a console, they'd require EVERY game for it to be remade the way they want. This would not bode well for anyone. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 76 Joined: 7 Jan 2008  | great post, but shaq fu? that game is hardly a deciding factor on which console to buy next. I think Apple should make a console. They have the recources and they tend to make things more user friendly. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 118 Joined: 21 Jan 2008  | If EA launched a console they'd rename and re-launch it two weeks after release. Then they'd do that twice more. Also, everything would break and they'd release peripheral after peripheral until everything sort of worked and only broke occasionally. EA aren't known for great games, or great business strategy, so if they released a console it would be a horrible blow to the company and the gaming community. P.M. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 772 Joined: 6 Feb 2008  | I dont think EA will launch their own console & make their products exclusive to it. As a publisher, theyll only do what will sell the most games. Developing & launching their own console has high risk potential not least because if the systems s**t not only will they sell no consoles but no games either. Their current position of being able to sell games across all console & PC platforms is the best way for them to make the most money, they wont jepordise that without a very good reason to do so, which currently I dont think they have. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 425 Joined: 13 Jul 2006 | I think it's too risky for EA, even if they did manage to buy Take-Two. All it does is remove the competition within the established consoles, opening up the flood gates for other publishers to fill the void left by EA. EA is all about software, not hardware... then again, so was Microsoft. ;-) |
Paperboy Posts: 46 Joined: 11 Apr 2008 | Claiming that EA wouldn't only put software on their own console because there's a risk of failure is illogical. Look at Nintendo! If the Wii and DS crashed and they couldn't get another console out there to succeed, they'd be HOSED. They'd go totally bankrupt. Taking risks is just how business works. |
Muckraker  Posts: 245 Joined: 26 Mar 2008 | if EA were to launch a console, the number of new releases for the XBOX 360 per year would drop by 60%. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 72 Joined: 28 Apr 2008 | If EA launched a console, EVERYTHING WOULD BE FANTASTIC! Developers would stop using EA as a publisher, and they wouldn't keep re-hashing old IPs, they would have to make fresh and new ones. Meanwhile the EA console would be stuck with the same games we've had for the last 10 years. Most of the games in your list that matter to me are simply published by EA, not owned. Remember, developers can leave a company. Maxis, for example, is of course owned by EA, but could easily afford to depart from EA and become their own studio, or link to another publisher. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 204 Joined: 31 Jan 2008   | If EA tried to take their games catalogue to their own console exclusively they'd get hit so hard by anti-trust lawsuits, this has already been touched upon in the current battle with Take Two http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9783&Itemid=9 |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3236 Joined: 20 Dec 2007   | What the hell is people's beef with EA? Why are they such a popular target? No one bitches at any of the other shitty publishers like Ubisoft, everything is overshadowed by EA, did I miss something? Also, big deal, EA publishes a lot of stuff. Have you noticed how Microsoft tries hard to grab every single possible game out there and make it exclusive? Then since they have spent half of their budget just trying to nab exclusives just for the sake of increasing their library (like they care if the games are good) - and then since people are stuck buying it, every Microsoft spokesman who is interviewed, gets a stiffy for themselves and jumps up saying "PEOPLE BUY OUR SYSTEM BECAUSE IT HAS AAAALLL THE BESST GAMESS!!!" - and people still buy it, no one has a beef with microsoft, but EA buys lots of franchises, and for some reason, people bitch about it. Ubisoft has a lot of franchises, how come no one cares about them? How about Activision/Blizzard, they have a lot of franchises, and hell, they are releasing a CoD and GH every ****ing year. Yet for some damn reason, people just like to bitch at EA...what makes them such a popular target? It's not like people are allowed to monopolize anyway, that's why Microsoft hasn't taken over the world yet. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 72 Joined: 28 Apr 2008 | The main problem people have with EA is what dicks they are. Downloadable content which costs way more than it's worth, shoving dynamic in game ads everywhere, and pretty much robbing gamers of every dime they can, because clearly we haven't given them enough money. Look at it this way, you buy battlefield 2142 for instance. I like that game, it's fun. However, every crate might say INTEL on it and you'll see ads like GHOST RIDER NOW ON DVD. Why the hell in the year 2142, in a war torn world, are they making moives about a 230 year old comic. Why the hell are they still using DVDs??? It just doesn't make sense. Battlefield heroes will use the exact same thing, the thing is battlefield heroes is a FREE game supported by in game ads. I truly think it sounds neat, and I'll check it out when it releases. Well thats good, but getting back to point, 2142 WASN'T a free fucking game, so why does it have the ads? They also said battlefield bad company (I know I'm going heavy on the BF here, but it's the first thing that comes to mind. Sorry) will have something like 10 downloadable guns, and you'll have to buy a gun if you want it. Why do I have to buy them all? Is the game going to be cheaper? No. They said the guns "won't unbalance the game", and that they offer no distinct advantage over the stock ones. So lets analyze this: There are two cases, what they said is true, the guns won't unbalance the game, or what they said is false, it will give players an advantage. CASE1: Unbalances game So now, just like in real life, all the rich kids get the cool stuff, and the people with a modest income who don't want to shell out 5 bucks for some virtual gun get the shaft. You're creating an artificial divide to fatten your wallet and make the game unfair to people who already spent 50-60 dollars on your damn game, and make it no fun for them. So they have no choice, spend MORE money, or have no fun. CASE2: Doesn't Create Advantages If you want me to sum this up, for every time I think EA maybe stopped all their dickery, they come up with a completely new and innovative way to piss me off. If they could put this much effort into their bloody games I think the world would be a much better place. |
News Room Contributor  Posts: 1755 Joined: 19 Aug 2006     | While the connection is loose, I still feel like any conversation about EA launching a console requires the mention of 3DO. Sure, EA's monopolistic powers are bigger than ever, but still, there's so much that goes into manufacturing, marketing, and nailing the launch of a new system than just the software that it would be an incredibly unsavy business move for a company of EA's size. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 72 Joined: 28 Apr 2008 |
Not to mention, some people may shy away at the fact it is not Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft (xbox) branded. This is complete conjecture though, I haven't anything to back it up. |
Muckraker Posts: 272 Joined: 6 Mar 2008 | Well....we won't have to worry about crappy sports games THAT ARE THE SAME THING EACH YEAR clogging up multiple consoles. that's a plus. |
Paperboy Posts: 11 Joined: 10 Apr 2008 |
quite simply put, and EA buyout is the kiss of death. If you follow any of their previous acquisitions you will notice that they milk their products completely before tossing them away and buying someone else. I have yet to see a single franchise that has benefited from an EA buyout. Westwood used to be one of the biggest PC developers holding a massive portion of the gaming market. They don't exist anymore, the last C&C game was released with only the EA logo. Recently the Maxis label has been shown less and less prominently. Previously you would see a large maxis label with the EA one in the corner somewhere. Now its the other way around, if you see it at all. The games maxis makes are dieing too. Sure sims is doing well, but that's because the thinking was done by maxis and now it's just being milked. Sim city is dying, (latest incarnation is crap) and no new sim franchises has been released since the sims. I also hate the EA business model, which can be summed up thus. Buy someones else's idea, slowly move credit away from then and onto EA: eventually killing the original source. Mix well and repeat. I still hate them for what they did to Westwood. I'm going to hate them for what they will do to Bioware. And I dearly hope they don't get their way with take-two. Rest assured they won't stop there. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 72 Joined: 28 Apr 2008 | ^Are you saying EA is the blob? |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3313 Joined: 21 Jan 2008   |
Yeh. It buys up talent, milks it for all its worth, then tosses away the carcass. If EA made a console, then, well, I'll see what games it has. The only must have for me on the list is Mass Effect, and Mercenaries (Pandemic was bought by EA), so most likely, I'll have a look, and keep walking. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 107 Joined: 9 Dec 2007 | Nooooo, EA should not be allowed to make their own console. I don't wanna see Bioshock 2 being released next year or anything like that. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 121 Joined: 12 Feb 2008 | Electronic Arts is the worst company I have ever seen. All they do is license a good developer to create a decent game, and take all the credit as they make worse and worse versions by themselves. Or they buy a buy a license and make worse and worse versions. They're games are Short too. They should cost $10 bucks for the work they put into them. I understand not every game company has to try for Nintendo, 2K, or team Ninja's graphics and epicness. But a company with ART in its name with more money than god should. Sorry got off topic. Anyway the OP has a good point. I think after dismantling GTA,TES, and everyother fucking thing from 2K, EA could dominate MS and Sony. After All 90% of those gamers just buy EA shit anyway. That's no joke. And if you think ms is evil, imagine when ea runs the show. Fuck me. |
Paperboy Posts: 46 Joined: 11 Apr 2008 | Just another thought to add to my previous post: I never knew the real power of EA until I looked around at a vast majority of my friend's houses. Now keep in mind, these aren't "hardcore gamers", (definitely not the type of people to be found on a message board or to even read my site) but they all have about 12 games for their respective consoles. The games? Madden '05, Madden '06, Madden '07, Madden '08, NCAA Football '06, NCAA Football '07... You get the point. That's not an exaggeration. There are a staggering number of console owners whose libraries look exactly like that. EA would succeed in the making of their own console because they don't rely on people like you. Like it or not, the bloggers and message board-frequenters do NOT represent the general populace. Just a thought. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 225 Joined: 20 Feb 2008 | I don't think EA would succeed with a console, they need all the systems to sell as many copies of their games as possible. Nor do I think they would ever consider building a console. They will most likely sit back, feeding off their money makers that 'dudes' but year after year. And buy out more and more good up and coming developers, giving them more dosh and get larger and larger. They're thinking bigger market share...which wouldn't be good either, and pretty much has the same effect as them having an EA exculisive console, as Sony and Microsoft will have to tailor to them or risk losing the games. |
Muckraker  Posts: 249 Joined: 28 Oct 2007 |
Ok. BUT: Consoles are sold at a loss to make people buy your games. If you buy a PS3 you should buy PS3 games. (Except the Wii which makes a profit for each consoles sold - this is a genius idea!) EA sell bucket loads of games. They sell the same game every year. They can afford to develop for multiple platforms. ---- So they gain: A monopoly on selling their games. They may make more per game now than they did. --- What do they lose? A large market - currently EVERYONE can buy EA games. Hand helds, PC, all consoles. Why would you SHRINK your market? Encourages competition: You think M$ and Sony will not have any sports games? Its not like they are that hard to make. --- I don't see the benefit. Especially when you factor in: R&D cost |
Muckraker Posts: 249 Joined: 28 Oct 2007 | Another thought: Look at the losses MS and Sony took in establishing their consoles. Big as EA is i can't see them swallowing those kinds of losses. Sony and MS have vast coffers - a loss (even a huge loss by conventional standards) can easily be absorbed by other vastly profitable divisions. Whats EA's second string? Nothing AFAIK. ---- But i guess the fundamental point is: EA don't CARE about the console war - they sell to everybody. |
Press Junketeer Posts: 368 Joined: 25 Feb 2008 | To the person wondering why we all hate EA: See for example, cnc generals: EA spends more on marketing things that basicly sell on franchise name alone and when people realise that their favourite series is now nothing more then a group of 20 crappy spinoffs EA will just ditch it with the motto "it lived it's life and now is the time to move on, oh, by the way, how about you buying these 5 rehashes of a game we also sto - Insert another coin before reading the rest of the press release" The C&C lineup: Each of EA's games so far is pretty far removed from that what once was Command and Conquer, both in story and in gameplay, most notable: Tiberium is a highly toxic plant that can assimilate other nearby biomass but often grows bright green crystals that contain alot of useful minerals. In 2020 the earth is covered almost entirely by various types of tiberium, tib algae clog up entire oceans and most of the few remaining cities are in ruin. GDI and Nod are struggling for control of these cities. The story of cnc's first rainbow 6 ripoff err tactical fps: The only difference between the artwork from this game and that from halo is the fact that there's a humongous EA logo covering about a quarter of each picture. Don't get me started on the other games they ruined. |
Muckraker Posts: 245 Joined: 26 Mar 2008 | I thought it was pretty much established canon for those games that the C&C universe, the Red Alert universe and the Generals universe were all separate from each other? They represent different story lines, different factions, and the only real similarity - what ties them together under the Command & Conquer name - is the game flow. There are a lot of very valid complaints against EA, but this is not one of them. At the same time, however, there are a lot of things to be praising EA for. They've published a number of my personal favourite titles - the Battlefield games, Crysis, and, yes, C&C. Sure, without EA those games could still have been published via some other company, but that's in some hypothetical not-ours universe. As it stands, they're responsible for publishing a lot of very good games. Okay, so they've also published a lot of bland, uninspired sequels, expansions and series, but that's like the crappy grey rock that you mine the diamonds out of. They're not anywhere near as bad as some of the gaming community's elitists like to think they are. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 5102 Joined: 23 Dec 2007  | If EA made a console, I would not buy it because Sim City is only for PC. |
BANNED  Posts: 502 Joined: 3 Jan 2008 | Lol, which jackass would make a game on an EA console. It's like "ok, lets produce a game on a console made by a company that will overtake our little buisness if we get to popular, so lets feed their money machine with our 1337 games" User was banned for: Zero Punctuation: Mailbag Showdown. (Permanent) |
Note: article taken from SlapStic.com
For the second generation in a row, the video game "console war" is being fought by the same three competitors: Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft are sort of in a different league than Nintendo, as they're going for the gamers that are into high-end, high-definition, pricier hardware that gives you a 3 red lights when it's time to stop playing. Nintendo, meanwhile, is going for the casuals with their cheaper systems and generally more risky, innovative, un-internet-savvy approach. With Microsoft's Xbox 360 looking to reach the 3rd anniversary of its presence on the market this November, and the PS3 and Wii only a year younger, design docs are undoubtedly already being drawn up in secret labs that reek with the smell of high-payed nerds in preparation for the NEXT generation of gaming hardware.
On the other side of all the hardware foolishness is, of course, the 3rd party software developers. Traditionally, smaller companies have been happy to simply sell their wares on others' consoles and just focus on themselves. However, things have begun changing rapidly in the industry. Large 3rd party companies are eating up the smaller ones like Ralph Nader eats weedcake, and GIGANTIC corporations (Activision-Blizzard and Electronic Arts being the biggest) are eating those large ones, in turn. This brings me to my theory. Electronic Arts, or EA, as they're known to the acronym-using crowd, is massively important to the gaming industry. With IPs like Madden, Need for Speed, and the Battlefield series , it has a pretty big chokehold on the wallets of all the "dudes" of the world. By "dudes" I mean the people that watch NASCAR while wearing beer-hats on their behinds and playing fantasy football all at the same time. Those dudes are loyal to Madden and friends. They're pretty much guaranteed to buy a console to get the updated versions of such games.
And it's not just "dudes" that are loyal EA fans. EA has games like Mass Effect, Comand & Conquer, Rock Band, and the Sims in its library that pretty much print money. Did I mention that they own THE SIMS? Every single EA employee laughs their way to the bank every month because of that ONE franchise alone. But the rest is hardly icing on the cake. It's more like pie and jello and brownie mix and walrus blubber all over the freaking cake. EA is stuffed with cash-cow franchises.
In fact, here is a list of just a few of EA's franchises:
Army of Two
Battlefield
Black & White
Boom Blox
Burnout
Command & Conquer
Crysis
FIFA
FIFA Street
The Godfather
Harry Potter
James Bond 007
Left 4 Dead
Madden
Marble Madness
Mass Effect
Medal of Honor
Mercenaries
NASCAR
NBA Live
NBA Street
NCAA Football
NCAA March Madness
Need for Speed
NFL Head Coach
NHL Franchise
ROCK BAND
Shaq-Fu
Sid Meier's Franchises
The Simpsons
The Sims
The Sims
The Sims
SimCity
Skate
SPORE
SSX
Tiger Woods PGA Tour
Ultima
Wing Commander
Oh and here's a list of some of Take-Two's (a company EA is likely to buy out soon) major franchises:
All Pro Football
The Bigs
Bioshock
Bully
Civilization
College Hoops
The Darkness
The Elder Scrolls
Grand Theft Auto
Manhunt
Midnight Club
MLB
Serious Sam
Sid Meier's Pirates
Top Spin
If EA launched their own console, all of those franchises would be exclusive to that platform. ALL OF THEM. That's literally every decent sports franchise that doesn't have "Mario" in the name, along with an unbelievable number of triple-A games that would be exclusive. Grand Theft Auto 5 only on the EA box sound like a bad idea? Tough berries, that's how it would be. Imagine "Joe Gamer" going into a store and seeing the Xbox 720, the PS4, and the EArhombus sitting on the shelves. He, like a lot of people, likes Madden, Grand Theft Auto, Bioshock, Rock Band, Tiger Woods, Mass Effect, Burnout, Rock Band, Mercenaries, and the Sims. Want those games, Joe? There's only one place you'll get it, and it's not with Microsoft or Sony. "But Microsoft has Halo 4! Sony has... uh... Ratchet: Sexually Suggestive Subtitle!" Too bad. Nobody with a yen's worth of sense in their head is gonna drop their hard-earned Benjamins on the Xbox or the Playstation when handed that choice, especially not Joe.
You may have noticed that I didn't mention Nintendo in the above paragraph. That's because the majority of Wii owners don't seem to give a diarrhetic crap about EA's games. All they want is whatever Nintendo itself regurgitates. Given this, what I'm suggesting to the gaming community is that IF EA launches a console next generation, only it and Nintendo will survive as console manufacturers (and even Nintendo will fall unless they stay on their current path of alternative-target-demographic gaming machines). You can argue it blindly all day long, but do the math and I think you'll come to agree with me.
-Ryan Rigney