Ubisoft CEO Speaks out Against EA Move 365
Gamespot is reporting that Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has spoken out against EA's "hostile action". From the article: "Considering the industry practice of communicating informally about such decisions, we were disappointed, to say the very least, that EA chose not to inform us of their specific plans beforehand." Further, Voodoo Extreme is reporting that a financial report may suggest the French government is going to assist Ubisoft in staying out from under EA's thumb.
Yes - the US is already upset over planes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:From the second article... (Score:1, Interesting)
I think they're the people behind the dumbification of some of my favorite franchises, such as SimCity, which took a turn toward the cartoonish with SimCity 3000 and pushed Maxis into a neverending development cycle of crappy Sims expansion packs (at least all was forgiven when Sims 2 ended up being interesting and creative).
EA is part of the evil over-commercialization of gaming that already happened to the movie industry decades ago. We're now seeing the beginnings in the game industry, where large conglomerates control the development companies, and where it's no longer a group of computer nerds who love games putting out classics (i.e., id Software) but a bunch of faceless, shit-on programmers being rushed to meet the Christmas deadline on the latest Dear Hunter game that marketing has decided has at least an 87% chance of surpassing expense costs.
Companies like Valve are fighting back with Steam. That's why, despite the sometimes valid criticisms of Steam, I recognize that it is the necessary and inevitable future, connecting gamers directly with the people making the games, not some giant, corporate middleman. Record companies, anyone?
Re:Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please (Score:3, Interesting)
There are quite a few companies out there who are run by a 30%(ish) controlling interest.
an explanation about France... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't believe me look into the history of France Telecom [wikipedia.org] which purchased Wanadoo, Orange, and Equant (the last two were previously foreign owned but operated in France). The thing about the purchases of these is that France Telecom now owes a billion euros back to the government for illegal subsidies.
Another classic example of Little Man's Syndrome is Vivendi Universal.
Re:French Government? Totally unnecessary! (Score:4, Interesting)
French Financial Systems (Score:5, Interesting)
In France, however, management has priority in the law. You might think that the shareholders control the company through a board of directors appointing the CEO and others in management, but the truth is under law the equity owners are extremely limited in making the kind of company-saving decisions that they can in the US. The result is an anemic economy.
This is a seperate issue from the French government offering to become specially involved, but is relevant to EA's ability to affect Ubisoft in the same way they would any other company in the US inwhich they owned 20% of the shares.
Re:EA isn't about games (Score:2, Interesting)
Now slashdot is going to try and convince me EA=bad, UbiSoft=good, just like MS=bad, IBM=good.
It's 100% pure bullshit, and you'd have to be pretty simple-minded to think any corporate entity has your best interest as a gamer/consumer at heart.
As an aside, EA's employment practices aren't far off from anyone else in the industry, including UbiSoft.
It's all about the bottom line.
Re:WTO? (Score:5, Interesting)
Want to talk about unfair subsidy?
All that, because we don't require our lumber producers to purchase land before they log it; we simply lease crown land to them for a low price, and we get to maintain control over such land.
Re:EA isn't about games (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a very important factor in determining the relative evils of two game publishers.
Also, consider what the talent does. Will people with 10 or 15 years at the same studio decide to flee once McGames Inc is controlling things?
Re:unexpected limelight? (Score:2, Interesting)
fuckin' rambo wankers
Re:From the second article... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:French Financial Systems (Score:3, Interesting)
You do know that interest rates are the same [google.com], if not lower in the Euro zone than in the US?
So, why is the dollar falling?
Short answer: The dollar is falling:
That was the short answer. For a more detailed answer, read on below:
Currency fluctuations are mostly due to the balance of payments, in which the trade balance, the foreign investment balance, and the budget balance play the main roles. All of which look very bad for America at the moment.
The trade deficit is a basket case. The US industry is dead, killed by the quarterly profit craze. CEOs preferred outsourcing to competing on quality, unlike Europe (and Japan), which chose to compete on quality and features, instead of giving up on their industry.
The fact that the US is to 90% a service industry has a huge impact on the trade deficit. Indeed, international trade is mostly about the trade of goods, which are made by the industrial sector. Which America gave up on.
As a result, America is buying high-end European goods, but it has hardly anything to offer to Europe that Europe does not do better already. Which bodes ill for the dollar. Usually, a falling currency usually stabilizes as its exports get cheaper. However, this won't happen for the US, as it cannot get cheaper than China, while the quality of Chinese goods is constantly improving.
Unless American engineers somehow manage to wrestle some power back from marketers, bean counters and lawyers in corporate America, the American industry is done for.
The food industry is also traditionally a strong American export; however, it also is a strong European export. Besides, it is standardizing on GM crops, which are mostly forbidden or unwanted in Europe. So, you can also write agriculture off as far as trans-Atlantic trade is concerned.
Having already written off the trade balance, how is the budget balance looking?
To keep it short, hopelessly bad at least until 2008, that's for sure. And in 2011, the US goverment will have to start paying back the debt from the Reagan years (which I bet it'll default on).
And now, for the foreign investment balance.
Let's start with a bit of history. Back in 1999, when the Euro was introduced, it quickly fell against the dollar. Indeed, at the height of the dot-com bubble, investing in the US sounded more rewarding than in Europe. So, many European investors bought dollars to invest into American assets. However, when the bubble burst, they retreated hastily and sold whatever investment they had to cover their losses. Notice how the euro started rebounding right when the bubble burst?
Right now, European investors might look at the GDP growth figures. But they will not return to America before a long while. Given the probability that the dollar will continue its fall, no investment in the
Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe this will help. Mine is a soldiers complaint. As I said, I was infantry. However, there were times when I was in units that were turned into glorified police units. Almost to a man, soldiers hate it when their mission changes like that. I was trained for a specific mission--in my days it was killing Soviets. Taking me out of that paradigm sucked because I was untrained for it. It is more like I am commiserating with the French grunt than bashing him.
I agree that is the situation a lot of our soldiers are in right now in Iraq. And, if you asked them off camera, they would say "this sucks" Taking fire in battle is different...it is expected. Taking fire when you are helping to build a hospital somewhere is not expected. Both suck, but I was trained to handle the first, not the second.
My use of the surrender monkey comment was out of anger over the revelations that they may have been aiding Sadaam brutalize his people. The French government was awefully self-righteous when they were proclaiming their non-support for our military action due to concerns for peace. Reading some of the things I have been reading about their actions in the Oil for Food program makes me doubt they were honest. I think they were happy with the status quo because they were making lots of money. And, who knows, maybe I was just in a bad mood yesterday and felt like ranting.
By the way, I am definitely drinking champagne tonight:) No way I am going to let a little squabble with the French interfere with that.