Thanks to InsertCredit for their article covering a recent game-related lecture at an Entertainment Law and Business conference
. One of the more interesting discussions covered is how game companies should develop their games. A representative from Electronic Arts
indicated they do "...most of their work in-house these days. This increases consistency, but he admits that this method can put something of a damper on creativity. So they've got what they call EAPs (Electronic Arts Properties), wherein they work with/invest in games made by other companies, and then distribute them as their own."
On the other hand, an Activision
executive claims that "...developers prefer to be left to their own devices, counter-culture individuals that they are. So Activision prefers to purchase them entirely, allowing them to exist undisturbed. He says that in this way, they can develop the games they want to develop, and not have to deal with any of the bureaucracy."
But which approach really creates the best games?