Evening Reading: Microsoft Should Buy EA
With the hard numbers now out there response has been harsh. On Wednesday it boiled over in the indictment of Ricitiello by former EA executive Mitch Lasky. For its part EA held the line with head of corporate communications Jeff Brown responding "Mitch needs to try de-caf. It's never easy being turned down for a job...Since Mitch left EA, Apple invented the iPhone, Facebook evolved to include a gaming platform and EAMobile became the world leader." But make no mistake, there's blood in the water and Riccitiello faces mounting pressure to be removed.
In my opinion that would be a terrible mistake. I won't sit here and pretend to have some in-depth knowledge of how the man operates. From listening to his presentations and covering EA as a game company under his leadership, though, I do have a sense that as CEO's go he's one of those people at the top who actually gets video gaming. While the economy pressures large publishers to increasingly take an accounting-driven point of view to their business, I like the idea of having a guy at the helm of EA who at least sees their creative side.
That probably won't be good enough to save his job. But rather than send Riccitiello packing, I think he ought to get a new job: head of Microsoft's new EA Games division. Yep, you heard me and I know some of you are throwing your hands up in disgust but hear me out. There's a good chance that EA's predicament will result in their being bought by someone. The opportunity is just too great. And the setup couldn't work out any better for Microsoft.
For starters, the 2009 video game sales figures make it crystal clear that big third-party games have to be multiplatform. Exclusives will come from first-party developers. Microsoft's attempts to develop its Game Studios in-house have struggled at best. Buying EA gives them a proven turn-key large-scale operation. It also would deliver a body blow to rival Sony on the sports front. Even should the licenses go back on the open market having Madden, Live, NHL, and FIFA as first-party exclusives would be a powerful lineup (see the Dreamcast's struggle to compete even with the solid 2K titles). The table is even set for it to be a soft landing with popular Microsoft alums Peter Moore and John Schappert now in key positions at EA. And it wouldn't necessarily mean all EA games would be exclusive. This is the same Microsoft that duels Apple for OS share and then sells Mac versions of its Office software.
And there you have it. Now, today's news:
- Napoleon: Total War coming in February
- If you ever wanted to drive a truck check out the demo of German Truck Simulator
- There's a new Alien's vs Predator video with plenty of pulse rifle fire
- Star Trek Online will let you play the Borg, if you sign up for a lifetime
- NPD lists top PC and Console games of 2009
- Valve's Gabe Newell getting a GDC Pioneer Award
Enjoy the weekend!
-
pyide
replyI just started to like EA again but if Microsoft buys them then say goodbye to another chunk of great PC games like Dragon Age.
-
-
-
Yeah. Microsoft taking over EA would be a living nightmare for all the people who prefer to game on the PC, including myself. I'd even rather see someone like Ubisoft taking over them. Or hopefully, maybe they'll just keep on trucking and manage to stabilize their situation.
-
Zero PC titles in development at MGS. They killed FASA, they killed ACES, they killed Ensemble, they forced Halo into an action-oriented XBox launch title.
Microsoft Game Studios doesn't care about PC people.
-
-
Yes, because if Alan Wake is any indication, MS LOVES the pc and highly respects it as a platform.
-
Because they either shut down their their PC developers or have them go exclusive for the 360. There are exactly zero games for Windows being developed by a Microsoft published developer.
Ensemble, FASA, ACES, MS Flight Simulator, all shut down, and companies like Remedy were made to go 360 exclusive with their game, same with Bungie before they split.
Microsoft has most likely already sold most gamers an operating system, so it makes perfect sense that they'd also want to sell that same gamer an XBox 360 with which they'll also profit from license fees on every game sold and high margin accessories.
It makes sense from their POV why they'd favor the 360 over Windows as a gaming platform.-
Sheesh. I totally forgot about ACES and Flight Simulator
This wikipedia entry for Microsoft Games Studios is depressing:
Former in-house
* ACES Game Studio: Microsoft Flight Simulator series, Combat Flight Simulator series and Microsoft Train Simulator series. Closed on January 23, 2009 in a process of ongoing job cuts due to Financial crisis of 2007–2010.[7][8][9]
* Ensemble Studios: Age of Empires series, Age of Mythology, Halo Wars. Disbanded on January 29, 2009.
* Carbonated Games: Developed for MSN Games and Windows Live Messenger. Disbanded on March 27, 2008.
* Digital Anvil: Brute Force, Freelancer. Disbanded on January 31, 2006.
* Hired Gun: Halo 2 for Windows Vista. Disbanded in October 2007.
* FASA Studio: MechWarrior series. Disbanded on September 12, 2007.
* Indie Built*: Amped series, Links series, Top Spin series. Sold off to Take-Two Interactive in October 2004, now disbanded.
*previously Access Software-
FU M$
....................../´¯/)
...................,/¯../
................../..../
............/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........./'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.......('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
........\.................'.../
.........''...\.......... _.·´
...........\..............(
.............\.............\....
-
-
-
Yeah, but I imagine most of those concepts getting shot down at meetings resembling the business frogs from the Muppets.
Hmmmm... NAAAAH!!
-
-
they could market to jaded old PC fuckers who pirate everything, or younger stupid kids who buy everything legit. man what a tough business decision.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
Hey man, i'd gladly pay for them. They're pretty much like full fucking games. Every developer can't be Valve and release DLC for free.
-
-
It might, did take about a year or so for GTA4 to get released.
-
-
-
I piss and moan about having to pay for most dlc because most dlc is no better than what mods provide for free. GTA dlc goes far beyond that, and i respect that it is something that is worth paying extra money for.
-
Quit pissing and moaning you entitled elitist PC gaming prick.
-
You obviously don't understand out plight, Mr. Khan.
-
-
-
-
-
Then why didn't Mass Effect 1 come out on PC until after EA bought Bioware? It was rumored that MS *might* ship ME for PC. It wasn't until EA owned Bioware and the IP that it actually happened. With strings attached saying no PS3 sales it would appear.
I would hate to see MS buy EA. -
No. More PC games aren't going to push out more copies of Windows. More XBox 360 games means more people buying 360s, which means more money from license fees on every game sold, DLC, video sales, and accessory sales going into Microsoft's pocket.
Its potentially a lot better than selling that same gamer a single OS license and calling it a day, yeah?
Sure, you have a number of people that have dropped Windows for OS X or Linux and do their primary gaming on the 360, but that number of lost Windows sales isn't likely isn't enough to offset the amount brought in by the 360, at least not enough to matter since they still sell so many copies of Windows. Also, OS sales to the consumer don't mean nearly as much to Microsoft's bottom line than it does to enterprise.-
-
-
I don't even think they would go that far considering its been years since Microsoft made a Windows port of anything. Between that and shutting down all internal PC game development, I dunno, it kind of blows me away how openly hostile Microsoft is towards Windows as a gaming platform. Yeah it makes sense for them to push the 360, but this really is on another level.
-
-
-
on the contrary I would say that on the whole, the platform is much more flexible than the 360, although it fails to offer exact API->API parity there is a LOT especially wrt multiplayer. Sure it sucks to have certification, but there are far fewer TCRs and the ones that are there are focused on LIVE security and stability. I could go on and on - I was on the inside and have worked with many of the titles that have shipped happily. Things have improved a lot since the Halo2 and Shadowrun days, and it will continue to get better.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
yeah it sucks that they didnt release Mass Effect on the PC...god that could have been so good
-
EA bought Bioware before Mass Effect was released, and EA published MEPC.
Otherwise, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have gone PC. -
-
-
-
-
-
for this generation I am going to guess most of their sales are 360 and Wii with PS3 in third. you're probably right though, buying an entire multi-platform publisher might not be worth it for MS. they would certainly downsize the shit out of EA if they did buy them but securing properties like Madden, The Sims and so on could be worth it. Imagine if Madden was a 360 exclusive. that would be a huge deal.
-
Xbox 360: The only place to play MADDEN!
Yeah, it's hard to say what would be beneficial for them, plus I really am too dumb to have a clue. On one hand they could continue making millions selling huge games like that on other systems that already have insane install bases like the Wii. Or they could force anyone who wants to play a game like that to buy their own console and thus sell them more of their exclusive games after increasing their base even more.
Would Nintendo and Sony even allow a Microsoft published game on their console? I could see Nintendo not caring but Sony... I dunno. Seems weird to think about.-
-
-
-
Nintendo doesn't, since the Wii can't decode DVDs :P
but yeah that's still kind of amusing but it's a bit different since DVDs are a storage medium and not really directly competing. Sony is also a massive fucking company, something people seem to forget when they think MS could drive them out of business. Sony can certainly afford to take a loss for a console generation or two as well :(
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I could see them on a 6 month delay or something, that way it seems like PS3 is perpetually behind the xbox in the game department. This also allows them to keep selling games to the people they can't convert. win/win
-
-
i would think that PC development would slowly taper off, nintendo stuff may stick around since it's not exactly prime competition for their console right now.
PS3 is where it gets tricky. i would think they'd keep at it initially but i think it'd be dumb for them to invest in developing for the PS4.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
What exactly did they do with Rare? Nothing they've done has been impressive and I'm fairly sure no one has talked about that Banjo game since it was released.
-
-
-
I disagree with Garnett. I think buying a struggling EA and assuming all their liabilities would be one of the dumbest moves Microsoft could make. It would be an upfront cash drain, a money pit for years to come, and a management nightmare. There's no way to stich those two corporate cultures together. Only a hammer would work. EA may have a large library but very few of their franchises are healthy, growing, and worth acquiring. The trend over the next 5 years looks like it could be away from big budget, AAA games, something EA is still heavily geared around. Better to let them die, sift through the scraps, and bid on a few gems and talent.
-
I think the problem with EA is their constant rehashing and even when they come with a new franchise, it seems that franchise is playing it safe by being too overly simplistic or really just a rehash of something already out there (Dead Space->RE, Dante's->GoW). They got their start by making some really kickass, original games. Where is Road Rash or Syndicate or even doing something with the Ultima universe? Or don't rehash those games again but make new, original concept games like they did back then instead of relying on the 1,509 Sim's game/expansion and their sports lineup which grows more stale with each year that passes. Perhaps they also need innovation in their sports games, using a subscription model or a singular game that simply gets roster and other updates yearly. Bring Need for Speed back into focus and overall, focus on quality over quantity. Make a good game that has legs to sell for years instead of having to sell a new game each year and then pull the plug on last years servers. Just so many issues for a company so big with so much power and potential. They should be one of the leaders in innovation when it comes to gaming and gameplay, instead they just come off as playing it safe and hey here's that same game you played last year with shinier mud on the guy's jersey's.
-
You must not be familiar with EA in the last 2 years since John Riccitiello took over as CEO. He has pushed for new, innovantive IPs in the company, which we began to see in 2008 with titles like Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Battleforge, Brutal Legend, Crysis, Spore, etc.
This in stark contrast to Activision, run by Bobby Kotick, that has basically pumped out a series of sequels, like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty. Instead of using traditionally annual titles (sports games), he has pushed for all IPs to have annual releases. Milking to the maximum. And it has worked, Activision is now huge.
-
-
-
-
Disagree. What they've done is massive overcorrection to both ends of the creative development spectrum: Lots of new IP that is yet unproven, and loads of rehashed bullshit that sells well but has little to no innovation.
Ideally, getting them to lower their development costs (much like every other developer in this industry should be looking at) would be a wiser move.-
The problem of lowering costs and reducing development time is a HUGE issue in the industry, as far as I understand. Compared to even the early 2000's, it takes a lot more people, money, and time to make a mainstream game. It's getting more and more difficult to create the kind of content that gamers want. It's why so many publishers take so few risks anymore.
Ah well, at least the indie and casual games have been getting stronger in recent years.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
While it would be a shame to not see Bioware pay attention to their PC versions anymore (or even release their games on the PC), I don't think I'd care if Sims and EA's various latte RTSes disappeared. The Sims was important for the PC because it is a good proof that you can sell lots of copies and be profitable on the PC even if you are a single player game, provided you do the right things technology wise, but that's been well established by now and other developers are taking advantage of it to make far more interesting games than the Sims, so.....
-
Whatever. Microsoft buying EA would mean they would get a few years of exclusives but then there would be a massive talent drain qho would form new studios, which will merg and form the current status quo. It doesn't buy MS anything to get EA.
-
