Electronic Arts - Resistance Is Futile?

Thanks to USNews.com for its feature discussing the increasing dominance of videogame publisher Electronic Arts, pointing out that, using figures from its recent financial results, that: "In 1999, EA had eight platinum, or million-plus-selling, titles. In the past year, it produced 27 of them. Back then, EA possessed 10 percent of the North American game market. Today, it has captured 22 percent of it." The article discusses EA's wish "to double the size of the company every four or five years", and also talks about revenues from online gaming, where it's hoped "some 15 to 20 percent of EA revenue should come from... during the next console cycle", despite the "costly failure" of The Sims Online - however, EA CEO Larry Probst "...guesses that future online gaming will follow the cable television model, where you will pay a subscription to access various 'channels' of gaming services"),

I don't know

[man_ls]

I don't know what it means, but EA is sponsoring a new degree program at UCF, it memory serves me correctly.

Not just a new class or set of classes but a whole new specialized degree.

Re:well they did

[man_ls]

EA bought out Westwood, the developers of BF1942, among the two bigger name ones.

I don't think I've played a game recently that didn't have EA at the beginning of it.

Under my guidance Britannia will flourish....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a Larry Probst icon with Borg-like appendages is appropriate for all future EA articles. They're about as aggressive as Microsoft.

Please, I'm not some anti-capitalist rookie, I just think it would be super funny.

How about just a picture of the Guardian from Ultimas 7-9?

Many folks online have drawn parallels between the plight of an EA controlled Origin Systems and the plots of those Ultima games. Pirt Snikwah? The Cube, the Sphere, the Dodecahedronwhatsit?

No original thoughts out of Probst or EA.

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for EA for about 3 years. I worked for Kesmai (Legends of Kesmai, Air Warrior, et. al.) for about 5 years before EA bought them.

The "cable tv" model of online gaming pricing isn't any new idea. It's been discussed for at least as long as I've been in the industry. The latest incarnation of it is SOE's "basket" pricing. The biggest (and probably fatal) flaw with the idea is that people don't have the time or inclination to learn or play more than

It's funny that the financials hint at EA wanting ~12% of their revenues to be from online gaming. It's alost pretty funny to see that they only mention The Sims Online as a failed online albatross around their necks. Here's a more complete list: * EA.com - the entire service failed * Majestic - Rumored $9M+ to make. Shut down less than 2 months after launch. * Motor City Online - showed such promise too * Earth & Beyond * TSO - I just don't see how it will ever turn a profit. * UO2 - stillborn The only success EA has had in the pay-to-play online space is Ultima Online. They had Air Warrior with 40K+ paying users dev costs on the running version paid for. They killed it (supposedly) because 40K wasn't good enough. EA.com games were all going to run 100K users. Except for UO they've *never* come close to hitting that goal with a game.

EA can crank out the Madden year after year. They can crank out movie license games too. They know how to do that. They haven't shown that they have any institutional knowledge of the online space, though.

Re:well they did

[Quarters]

DiCE, the developers of BF1942 weren't bought by EA. They entered into a multi-year publishing contract with them.

That was a brilliant move by the DiCE guys, as EA has shown that it *always* committee's the purchased studios to death and then axes them.

Re:Bigger is easier

[nelsonal]

This is very similar to Hollywood's maturity from the 30s and 40s to modern day. In the early days of movies, there were lot's of studios and movies were cranked out because they were cheap to produce. Later as budgets became larger, the more successful studios began buying up the smaller studios until only a few big distribution comapnies exist today. As video game budgets increase similar things will happen. Of course, just as Blair Witch gets made for a few thousand there will be occasional game titles that catapult new developers to the big leagues, but they will more than likely do it with the assistance of one of the bigger names.

In my opinion...

[GaimeGuy]

EA is way too big. They eat up small, well-respected studios like a bad habit (Maxis and Westwood are the two prime examples of this). And we all know where the Command & Conquer series went after EA got it. Frankly, I hate EA. Their games all use the same basic engines, yet they can continue to reuse it year after year after year and sell several million copies of games. I mean, I, personally, get sick of hearing people at school talk about nothing but MADDEN, MADDEN, NBA LIVE, MADDEN, TIGER WOODS PRO GOLF, MADDEN, MADDEN, MADDEN. For every Madden EA makes, they make 50 horrible games. I just get sick of seeing them grow and grow. EA is poisoning the industry, and I don't know if it'll ever stop.

they are a virus

[Anonymous Coward]

EA buys out companies, assimilates them into their huge pile of crap, then has those companies produce cheap crappy sequals to the companies previously awsome franchise, thus producing a "platinum" game, but in the process running that brand name into the ground. Then EA moves on and does it to another company and another franchise

(yes I'm bitter about how westwood studios went down the pipe after EA bought them)