Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Entertainment Games

EA Trying to Buy Ubisoft Shares 289

Posted by Zonk from the step-one:-challenge-everything-step-two:-profit dept.
jujubees writes "What is going on with Electronic Arts these days? This morning it was revealed that EA is trying to acquire 19.9% of the Ubisoft shares owned by Dutch investment company Talpa Beheer B.V. If approved by the US Antitrust department, the buyout would instantly make EA the biggest shareholder, ahead of the Guillemot brothers. Whether this is a hostile takeover attempt is not clear at this point, no financial terms were disclosed." An anonymous reader also wrote in to mention a GamePro Editorial about the company, regarding its past as an honorable games-maker and its current reputation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA Trying to Buy Ubisoft Shares More

EA Trying to Buy Ubisoft Shares

Comments Filter:

  • Hostile (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dolo666 ( 195584 ) * on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:30PM (#11137557) Journal
    EA Trying to Buy Ubisoft Shares... so that they can turn Ubisoft into EA [slashdot.org]. This can not be perceived as anything but a hostile takeover, and once again, EA is becoming the worst reputed games company of our day.

    • Re:Hostile (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 )
      "This can not be perceived as anything but a hostile takeover, and once again, EA is becoming the worst reputed games company of our day."

      So if EA succeeds and they are the single ubiquitous supplier and their products are a POS, it sounds to me like that's a potential for the OSS gaming market to seize the day. It's IE being attacked by FF all over again.

      • Re:Hostile (Score:2, Insightful)

        by DeathFlame ( 839265 )
        I had a good long post about how open source is not for games.

        But as I went along I convinced myself that I was wrong, and that open source can be better than the closed source model, even for games.

        So I can only hope that one day the OSS gaming market does seize the day.

      • Re:Hostile (Score:5, Insightful)

        by harrkev ( 623093 ) <kevin.harrelson@ ... om minus painter> on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:52PM (#11137781) Homepage
        Gaming is the one thing that, in my opinion, open-source cannot conquer.

        How many hours per YEAR do you spend with your OS? How many hours with a word processor, web browser, or spreadsheet? The average geek needs all of those things. It is worth the effort to make those essential tools. And if a geek makes it, then he can use it. The last RPG that I played lasted all of 80 hours. I doubt that I will ever touch it again. I will just buy another one.

        This is the reason that nobody can truly monopolize game creation: you only need ONE word processor, ONE web browser, and ONE operating system. But games have a high turnover rate. I would not be surprised to find people who buy more than one game a month.

        So, let's assume that an awesome FOSS game came out. People would download, play, and conquer. Within two months, they are back at Best Buy looking for another game to play.

        One more thing: If somebody make a game, they would likely not play it for fun, since they already know all of the quests, plot twists, etc. The only exception would be multi-player games where the challenge comes from beating other peple, instead of beating the game.

        And don't forget that a word processor is a matter of programming. Making a game also involves: 2D art, 3D art, voice acting, music, and writing talent. No one person can possibly have ALL of the skills needed to make a modern game by themselves. Since you now have a lot more diverse skill mix, it becomes harder to recruit talent and to manage everything.

        For all of these reaons, FOSS might be able to generate a respectable title or two, but it will NEVER replace commercial games.

        • Re:Hostile (Score:4, Interesting)

          by DeathFlame ( 839265 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @01:01PM (#11137860)
          As I said, I wrote something smiliar, and I agreed with what you said. Then something came to me... what about Mods? Counterstrike anyone? While not truly an open source product, (especially now) it started with a couple guys working on a project, and now is the most widley played game on the internet. Mods are far more like open source than the original game. The turnover rate for computers games may be high, but that's due to the fact that the game ends, and the replayability is often low. If a product where open source and continually updating, changing and adding new content, the game industry could be further improved. No more paying $50 for an expansion pack. You can't tell me the will isn't there, like I said, look at mods. I can't see why closed source games are better than open source.
        • I dunno about that. If there were say the release of a BSD or even more liberal Realtime Strategy game where the entirety of it, engine and all, were open to everyone. I think that the game would soon sprout a bunch more Strategy games because of how much work had suddenly been done for anyone that wants to make one.

          The same I think would happen if there was a source release of an Action Adventure game, or a Myst styled game. I can definately say it would with a First Person Shooter, though it seems les

          • I can definitely say it would with a First Person Shooter
            You mean like Quake I/II/III ? (although it's GPL, not BSD)
            • Quake 3 isn't released GPL, only Quake 2 and Quake are released as GPL. Though that is also a part of my point, people are more eager to use the base code if it is BSD instead of GPL (they can keep things closed that way).
        • I can see your point, but I think there is one area where this is viable: sports. You spend a lot of time developing a strong game engine. Then, rosters, create-a-team, create-a-player, different playbooks, different plays, etc. can all be created, keeping the game fresh.

          (yes, I'm trying to find a place to stick another comma)
          • Unfortunately, the costs involved with producing sports games aren't all in labor; the pro sports leagues and players associations charge the game makers lots of money in licensing fees. A group of people working on an Open Source project is going to have trouble getting a license (and without it, there's probably not going to be much demand for the newest fictional teams and players to be added).
        • Actually, writing an OSS game engine isn't the problem - there's plenty of very capable coders out there who could pull off techniques the professionals use or don't even get time to write.

          The problem isn't the code, the problem is the content. Especially artwork and music - trying to get artists and musicians involved in an OSS game is virtually impossible. They almost always want $$$ for thier time, somehting OSS developers don't have usually.
          • ### Actually, writing an OSS game engine isn't the problem

            I have seen enough OSS games being in throuble due to the lack of coders to know that writing an OSS game engine IS the problem, at least part of it. Sure you also needs artists, but how many high quality OSS engine can you name, especially ready to use ones with a complete toolchain to create content? Coding a engine doesn't stop once you have a basic engine and a importer for Quake3 levels, you also need the tools to create the content and when it
            • CrystalSpace
              Quake 2 is GPLed. Is Q3 yet?
              • Where is my complete ready to use OSS toolchain (level editor, modelviewer, modeler, etc) for CrystalSpace or for Quake2? Sure both are engines, both however are neither really up to date nor 'ready for work', at least not when you only count OSS tools. If you bringt non-free tools into the mix there are of course a bunch of things available to produce content for Quake games, however in the OSS world you are stuck with some half working export scripts at best.

                From what I have seen so far OGRE might be the
        • But compliment, yes. Counter-Strike has already been mentioned, but it has been the most popular multiplayer FPS for many years now. That's amazing! The most popular online FPS for the last several years was a FREE MOD. Is there any reason an engine as good as HL couldn't be created by open source developers? No, there isn't. And if it's done (and done well), we may see many more mods like CS become popular.

          Of course, we still need the servers to play on, but that's another issue.

          -Dan

        • I have to agree (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ElMiguel ( 117685 )
          Even Freeciv [freeciv.org], that is one of the usual examples of "bigger" FOSS games, is sorely lacking in the art department. There's barely any people with artistic skills contributing to FOSS games. If there was, though, it would be a different story, but the situation does not seem likely to change any time soon.
      • OSS will seize the gaming market in the same way student films will crush Hollywood.

        Most games are done with teams of about 50 people working long hours for 2-3 years to complete. Approximate budget for next-gen titles is between $6 and $20 million [gamespot.com]. Also, most gamers play on stock consoles, where OSS isn't possible.

      • Re:Hostile (Score:3, Insightful)

        by realdpk ( 116490 )
        Part of why IE is stumbling is because it wasn't being actively developed (at least, not in a publicly seen way), while Mozilla was.

        EA is still actively developing new games (even though they are mostly rehashes of the same old designs).

        OSS could potentially come out with new game ideas and run with them, but I don't think they'll come out ahead until EA starts seriously stagnating (not even putting out games for months at a time).

    • Re:Hostile (Score:2, Informative)

      by pigscanfly.ca ( 664381 )
      Well, if there going for 19.9% it strikes me as an investment rather than a acquisition. See accounting rules say that anything above 20% and you have to consider the other company a "subisduary" for accounting purposes. 19.9% strikes me as a deliberate attempt for them to avoid this implication.
      Note: I am not an account, although I am reading slashdot when I should be studying for my AFM101 exam tommorow.
  • Bad news, especially since Ubisoft are on a roll recently (despite the bleh Prince of Persia: Warrior Within). Can anyone say Splinter Cell: 2007 Edition?
    • Don't forget the ever popular Myst Series.
    • Can anyone say Splinter Cell: 2007 Edition?

      In other news, EA reached a licensing deal with the CIA. They now have exclusive rights to publish stealth action games. EA's progammers claimed their future games would have 25% fewer glitches and bugs than previous offerings, meaning online play would simply be "unplayable" due to cheating instead of "completely unplayable."

    • Can anyone say Splinter Cell: 2007 Edition?

      Not that I want to defend EA here,but Ubisoft is already roughly averaging one Splinter Cell release a year. We are a little past three years from the first game (November 2002 I believe), and the third game comes out in a month or so. Hell, Ubi tried to release two Splinter Cell games just this year!

  • Game Company (Score:4, Funny)

    by ValuJet ( 587148 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:32PM (#11137568)
    I am going to start a game company in the hopes that EA will buy me out.

    • Offtopic? WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Spy der Mann ( 805235 )
      OK who was the moron who modded this offtopic? It's a COMPLETELY valid point. Meaning that EA is like this hungry corporate monster who wants to swallow the small fish.

      Remember the tragedy of Yahoo buying geocities now known as "geoshitties" by its former users?

      UBIsoft is an excellent small software company. When I play Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, I remember good ol' times of Epyx. New, original games, maybe with some flaws.

      And then comes the walmart-mindset megacompany and wants to ruin it.

      So plea
    • ... the Simpsons and HyperGlobalMegaNet.

      Buy him out, boys!

  • Strong Moves (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zinic ( 780666 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:32PM (#11137571)
    Looks like EA trying to knock out competition the way every other company out there would. They see a threat and want to nullify it before it becomes a serious problem to their income ratings.

  • Slashdot Financial Network (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:36PM (#11137609)
    Reading financial news from Slashdot is like watching retards drive bumper cars---it's funny, and anything but serious. Do any of you even really know or understand what a hostile takeover is? Do you understand the legalities involved?

    Slashdot: Spreading Rumors and Bad Advice Since 1996
    • Not only that, but Ubisoft brought it upon themselves. After all, if you give out shares it's in exchange for money. The shares are just another product which Ubi has sold to the highest bidder. Why should it matter now if EA wishes to purchase it from the current owner?
    • I'd also like to add that EA is not buying the majority of the stock, but merely would own the most stock. You cannot make company decisions with 20% of the companies stock. EA would require another 31% approval from the other stock holders to do any kind of real damage to Ubisoft.

      In order for a hostile take-over to be possible, usually one entity requires atleast 50.01% of the companies stock. That is the only way they would have enough power to do whatever they want. With the most stock, however, EA

  • Farcry Fans rejoice ! (Score:4, Funny)

    by mbvgp ( 624905 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:36PM (#11137618)
    Those hoping for sequels to farcry can rejoice if the takeover succeeds. You will now have farcry 2005, 2006, 2007 .... with just the names of the characters changed.
    • Those hoping for sequels to farcry can rejoice if the takeover succeeds. You will now have farcry 2005, 2006, 2007 .... with just the names of the characters changed.

      Soon it will be a far-cry from what it once was....

  • Great! (Score:2, Funny)

    by lovebyte ( 81275 )
    I am looking forward to :
    Beyond Good & Evil: the NHL edition
    where gamers will enjoy taking pictures of strange creatures that infect NHL players in difficult to reach parts of their bodies.

  • Sad Times (Score:4, Informative)

    by ZephyrXero ( 750822 ) <zephyrxero@[ ]oo.com ['yah' in gap]> on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:41PM (#11137667) Homepage Journal
    It is a very sad time for EA right now. I saw a "history of video games" type show on GSN a few months ago. On it, they had some of the original guys from Electronic Arts... they talked about how EA was formed to give developers more freedom, and to make better games. It was founded on the idea that one day video games could be considered an art form. Hearing that almost made me cry. EA is just about the worst comapany against all those things it once stood for. I'm glad to see people are finally realizing what EA's really like, even though I've been saying it (and boycotting) for years...
    • It was founded on the idea that one day video games could be considered an art form.
      Ironic. Electronic "Arts"...
      I still remember playing "Project Firestart" from EA. It was the coolest survival horror game that _EVER_ existed for the C64.

      What happened to you, EA? How did you turn into one of those slimy monsters portrayed in your games?

      Goodbye, EA. Sad to see an old friend die, but seeing him lose his heart to become an evil follower of some kind of demon ($$$), it's 1000 times worse. I'd like to cry for
    • It was truly sad to see EA devolve into the marketing, sports game monster which it is today. Some of my first video gaming memories, and very happy ones, come from EA, or ECA as they used to be. Starflight [geocities.com] was one of the best games around for a long time, and occupied many a weekend. Also, Sentinel worlds [the-underdogs.org] is responsible for at least one summer flying by, and probably for much missed homework. I even kept my save game from that one for a year or two waiting for number 2 to release, but it was not to be.
    • How true. EA is one of the originals from wayyy back. Check out this history [classicgaming.com] of the company and you'll see that they were once the good guys. Just look at the list of utter classics they published:
      • Archon (1983)
      • M.U.L.E. (1983)
      • The Seven Cities Of Gold (1984)
      • Pinball Construction Set (1985)

      Cornerstones of my childhood, all.

      And now they're acting like Wal*Mart. Guh.

      • And lets not forget that they also created DeluxePaint, the state of the art paint programm in the early Amiga days and still superior to many todays programms when it comes to pixel-art.

  • Freeman (Score:4, Interesting)

    by warmgun ( 669556 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:44PM (#11137700)
    Its for precisecly this reason that Gordon Freeman represents the true Free Man. Valve's present business model could rock the foundation of the gamining industry. A small dedicated group of programmers and artists will turn out a quality product, and thanks to the internet, be able to recoup 100% of the sales revenue. The giant conglomerates will continute to turn out half-hearted sequels to their library of properties. Its only a matter of time till EA becomes obsolete.
    • While I admire Valve's independence, it's notable that the original Half-Life was at least partially funded by the founders' Microsoft-derived semi-fortunes, and the sequel by the sizable profits from the original. Also, I think the sequel's team was 80-plus members.

      Again, while it's a step in the right direction, it would be hard for most idealistic, small developers to undertake a similar development. The most promising aspect of Valve's presence now is, I think, as you mentioned, the apparently succes
    • I sure hope other game publishers don't follow Valve entirely. While they are taking their stand on Steam, they sure made some major mistakes. The game requires the CD to be in the drive to start, even though you're Steam authenticated (!!). The game takes *forever* to start if your Internet connection is flakey/remote/slow. I haven't played it in weeks because it's just a hassle to start up, compared to the MMOGs and other games I'm playing lately.

      • Re:Freeman (Score:2, Insightful)

        by zorg50 ( 581726 )
        I'm pretty sure they removed the CD check. Vivendi probably required it to begin with; I doubt it's Valve's fault.
        • Yeah, it probably is Vivendi's fault. Still, I'm just an end user. I shouldn't need to have extreme insight into how things work. All I know is: I start the game, and it asks for the CD, even though it also asks for me to log in. And it has Valve's logo all over it while doing so. :)
    • It reminds me of the Southpark episode "Something walmart this way comes".

      All it is doing is making Valve a distrubution company. It is not freeing them from distrubution, instead it is putting it into their hands. If other developers want to publish the same way do you honestly think Valve will let them do it for free?

      Instead of EA coming obsolete all they have to do is jump on the bandwagon and make their own version of steam.

      After all how are other developers supposed to get their stuff published? Wri
      • meh hit submit too soon.

        Also why is it that people go on about how 100% of the profits go to Valve because publishers are evil and are the cause of high game prices.

        Yet Valve are quite happy to leave the prices the way they are.

  • Stroke, Stroke (Score:4, Insightful)

    by retinaburn ( 218226 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:45PM (#11137704)
    Simple reasoning, EA just needs fresh rowers, and Ubisoft has proved to have some pretty good oarsmen. Avast ye scurvy dogs!

  • Its only 20% ownship, not 100% (Score:5, Informative)

    by krbvroc1 ( 725200 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:46PM (#11137715)
    I'm not sure how approaching someone to purchase a 20% stake is considered by some as a hostile takeover.

    As far as employment goes, if you recall previous stories, many developers left Ubisoft to work at EA. In fact, Ubisoft was one of the companies who sued the employees claiming they should not be allowed to work for a competitor in the game industry since they signed a non-compete clause.

    In the bigger picture, this consolidation is inevitable and it sucks. With the recent article about the Game Industry overtaking Hollywood, those same business techniques will be used. Expect little innovation. They will do what they think will work without risk (ie; Halo 3, Far Cry 2, WOW 2, Doom 4, expansion packs). Just like the movie/television industry...find a hit with something, cookie cutter it, and sell it until everyone was sick of it a year ago.

    Personally, I've never been a fan of EA games - partly because I don't care for the sports genre, but partly because EA's model seems to be; release the same game yearly with some tweaks. ie; 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. It similar to the Intuit/Quicken model. Release to generate a steady revenue stream, not because of innovation.

    • It's the way stock ownership works - votes are based on percentages.

      Take Ubisoft. With EA getting 20% of the stock, that means when the company takes votes on what to do, EA has 20% of the vote right there. Increase employee hours without overtime pay? EA has 20% of the vote, and so they only need to convince 30% of the total shareholders that they're right. (And usually, you can convince 1 out of 3 people that any stupid idea is right.)

      They don't need 100% - just "enough".

      20% is not enough to comple
      • It depends on how many shares the Guillemots have though - if they have only one or two percent less, then they too only have to convince a little more than 1 in 3 people to back them.

        Of course, if the Guillemots have much less - say only 5% or so - then it's a different matter.
        • It depends on how many shares the Guillemots have though

          According to their 2004 financial report, available on the ubisoft website, the Guillemots own around 14-15% of the company. 84-85% is owned by the public. This deal would appear to give EA more ownership than the Guillemots -- of course the financial details are not being disclosed yet. For all we know, it is the Guillemots who are selling to EA (along with some board members). There has been no comment by either company yet.
      • Hey, maybe EA thinks Ubisoft is just fine as it is, and thinks the company will grow. As such, it is a good idea to own stocks of Ubisoft. Maybe that's it and that's all?!?

        If you could afford Ubisoft stocks, wouldn't you want to buy them seeing as how they have created and revived some awesome IPs lately? (splinter cell, prince of persia, beyond G & E, etc).

      • I assume you own some stocks... at the very least, you probably have a mutual fund with some stock holdings. When was the last time you were asked to vote on employee pay changes? Never, right?

        That's because stock holders don't run the company; they hire managers (a board of directors) to act as agents on their behalf to run the company for them.

        The real power of the stockholder is in choosing who should be on the Board. If a board member's term is expiring or if stockholders vote to fire a board member,
        • I assume you own some stocks... at the very least, you probably have a mutual fund with some stock holdings. When was the last time you were asked to vote on employee pay changes? Never, right?

          Actually, all the time. I'm always being asked to vote on changes which will increase executive compensation, increase stock options available for employee purchase, and otherwise dilute my shareholder value. It seems like every quarter I get a proxy statement and instructions on voting. Each time one of the questio
    • If no other single stock holder has more than a 20% share then EA votes are enough to control the company. At the very least they can certainly swing many votes in their favor. All depends how the shares are distributed.
      • But with only a fifth of the company, it should be relatively easy for another large shareholder to block any move by EA as long as they can generate enough support.

        As largest shareholder they *can* sway the vote in their favour, but it's by no means guaranteed.
      • If no other single stock holder has more than a 20% share then EA votes are enough to control the company.

        How do you arrive at this logic? A 20% share is a 20% share. They can vote their 20% votes on company business. They can attempt to persude some other 31% to 'install' hand-picked board of directors or a friendly CEO. Of course, the definition of a hostile takeover is a takeover that is opposed by the target companies 'management' and 'board of directors'. Is this the case?
        • Well for example if the other 80% is widly distributed among the general population and no other single investor has more than 20% then it's much easier for EA to get it's way. In order to outvote EA you'd need to get hundreds (thousands?) of investors together to vote, and of course vote against EA.

          I think the confusion arrises in that you're thinking everybody with a share is voting. While everybody is allowed 1 vote per share, this doesn't mean everybody actually bothers to vote.
    • It is a takeover, as EA would have the controlling interest in the company. The term "hostile" refers to the fact that is was an unexpected offer, and possibly, that Ubisoft is not happy about it. Based on their prior conflicts with EA over workers at EA's Montreal studio, I don't think the two are getting along all that well.
    • Basically, if the 20% EA purchases in Ubisoft is the largest single block of voting shares in the company held by one person or entity, then that person or entity can force AGM votes etc to go its own way, have people put on the board of directors and other things which having a controlling share brings. Also EA may be silently purchasing shares from private sellers on the stock market, which will further increase its controlling share.

      Its possible to have a majority share in a company which is below 50
      • Its possible to have a majority share in a company which is below 50%...

        I do not think that word means what you think it means....

        Although you're quite right in the sense that holding a large block of shares--in this case, 20% of the voting stock--gives the owner's opinion quite a bit of weight, it does not give carte blanche to name directors or force votes at the AGM. The largest shareholder is not automatically a majority shareholder. They're still in a minority ownership position, albeit a subs

    • A year ago? Try a decade ago. The vast majority of the TV and movie industry content today is retreads of stuff that's 30 years old or more. They don't even vary the story lines anymore. Half the time they just 'remake' something from the 60's/70's, and do so very poorly. Did we really need a "Gilligan's Island REALITY SHOW REMAKE?!?!?!".

      There is no creativity left in mainstream mass media. Deal with it. Games were already headed this way, and now it will just happen faster.
    • Hell they've been doing this since the early 90s. I still have a copy of NHL 94 for Sega CD laying around some place. Only difference is the graphics and the stats for the real players.

  • You know times are bad... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:51PM (#11137779) Homepage Journal
    ... when you are rooting for the Microsoft Gaming Companies to outdo the EA gaming companies profts.

  • Gamepro Editorial (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mrseigen ( 518390 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:54PM (#11137801) Homepage Journal
    I don't think they really "get" the latest reasons everyone hates EA. They're buying out everyone in sight, burning out their coders, and casting them inside. They hire students out of college with ideals and goals in life, burn them out, and cast them aside as well.

    This isn't about originality, how original can you make a fucking sports game anyway?

    (Speedball and Mutant League * fans -- I love them too. They're not sports sims. Sorry)
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Being the dude who wrote the editorial, I'd like to point out something: The fact that games aren't original directly ties in to how EA treats its employees. But first, tech companies burning out their employees isn't new at all--big companies like Intel and Motorola routinely do it by hiring college grads and waving high salaries. So EA getting the wrap for being the most evil company in the world isn't exactly accurate. The only reason why you don't see such blogs getting recognition is because it's (sa

  • The games industry is the movie industry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Monday December 20, 2004 @01:01PM (#11137859) Homepage Journal
    Expect a lot of this sort of hardball behavior to become the norm in the games industry, if it isn't already.

    As we all now know, the games industry is huge - bigger than Hollywood. Well, look at how Hollywood studios have acted over the years, and recognize that the halcyon days of the games industry are gone. It's Big Business, and if you look at how games are marketed and distributed, it's a sophisticated moneymaking machine where creativity runs a distant second to pulling in big dough.

    People complain about movies being derivative, formulaic, and obsessed with sequels. The movies have nothing on the games industry. It's becoming more and more risk-averse every day.

  • How long untill EA start to scare people into doing the same? We could be looking at Squaresoft VS Sega VS EA on the playstation 57 at this rate...

  • GarageGames.com (Score:2, Interesting)

    by webzombie ( 262030 )
    Well it looks like the more idiots buy these horrible excuses for games being pumped out by EA the bigger and nastier they get.

    Look, there is NO NEED for big distribution/development companies like EA any more. With the internet and the relatively inexpensive technologies available any programmer/level designer with marginal abilities should be able to turn out games at least as playable as most of the cookie-cutter garbage hitting the streets.

    Gaming and game development need an open source alternative an
  • how I miss the Microprose of the early days. The boxes for the games were nice, the manuals were a work unto themselves and the games were magnificent. I suppose that the mass-market game turned out by a little shop is a bygone thing but I do miss it. Now that it is mass-market I suppose that whenever a small shop comes up with a good idea EA or MS ride into town and buy it up. I can see their side, slave away forever or just take a nice buyout...

  • What's going on indeed... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Monday December 20, 2004 @01:32PM (#11138147)
    Five years ago, deep inside EA's secret underground lair.

    Number 2: Dr. Evil, I'd like to take a moment to bring you up to speed on our Evil Empire. Do you remember Tripp Hawkins, one of your Evil Agents?
    Dr. Evil: Yes, of course, Mr. Hawkins. A wirery fellow...always talking about skateboarding. Smelled of oregano.
    Number 2: Yes. As you may recall, Mr. Hawkins was charged with creating a way to brainwash the minds of school children...
    Dr. Evil: Ah yes, Project Marcy Playground! Control the minds of school children, have them steal money and valuables from their parents, to fund our Evil Research. Progress?
    Number 2: Actually, the brainwashing aspect of the project was dropped years ago, after Mr. Hawkins learned that there was much more money and control to be had making a new form of entertainment, called video games. In the past 15 years, video games have become the most popular form of entertainment in children and young adults, and Mr. Hawkins company Electronic Arts has become the dominate force in the industry.
    Dr. Evil: No brainwashing?
    Number 2: No sir, it's quite unnecessary. Video games are so popular we control the purchasing habits of children without the need for drugs or hypersonic waves. Parents buy the games for their children willingly, and the operation is entirely legitimate. So far EA has made over $12 billion for our Evil Research Laboratories, and we estimate a 15% annual increase in those numbers over the next 20 years. The profit potential is almost unlimited!
    Dr. Evil: .....You just don't get it, do you Number 2?
    Number 2: Excuse me, sir?
    Dr. Evil: SILENCE! Eliminate Mr. Hawkins, inform all EA employees they will be receiving mandatory overtime and 10% pay cuts, begin eliminating our competition using underhanded business techniques, and ensure that the most loved of these "video games" are driven into the ground by failing quality and shoddy licensing deals!
  • I hope Ubisoft had been trying to reacquire some shares from that dutch bank before, otherwise this means that anyone could have acquired them without their consentment by just dealing with that bank. Not just EA. I'm actually surprised Microsoft didn't try to go for them.

    Is this is basically a company not owning itself?

  • From what I have read, this will make EA the single largest stock holder of Ubisoft stock. So unless everyone else gangs up on EA, they're going to be dictating whats going down at Ubisoft.
  • The NFL, DiCE, now Ubisoft...
    Looks like someone's Christmas capital is burning a hole in their pocket! Tsk tsk!
  • You've played Shadowbane, right....?

  • Why Bash (Score:4, Interesting)

    by flogger ( 524072 ) <non@nonegiven> on Monday December 20, 2004 @04:04PM (#11139717) Journal
    I'm seeing a lot of Bashing going on for both EA and Ubisoft. What gives? Both produce/distribute great games. (Do they really make thier own games?) Currently on my hard drive I have by EA: Battlefield 1942 and MAdden 2004. On My harddrive from Ubisoft is IL2 forgotten battles and (or whatever the expansion is called). I am hoping some good will come out of this: I cannot stand the patching system for IL2 and the ability to play online... Anyone who has tried to play online with IL@ knows this. Madden and BF1942 online are easy. Maybe if nothing else there can still be great games with a more streamlined method of finding online opponents and patches.
  • EA maybe classed as evil, but UBI are the people that won't let you install thier latest games with things like Nero/Daemon Tools installed, coz they are paranoid about copy prevention (its going to happen get over it, don't you think it'd take me an hour or so to figure out how, but if the games good enough i _will_ buy it).

    I absolutely adore Rainbow Six: Raven Shield, Loved Splinter Cell (1, Pandora was a bit shit in comparison), well into the original Ghost Recon, and will probably buy most of the seque
  • Case in point, THQ bought out Relic Entertainment recently. I spoke with the lead designer and assistant prodcuer at Relic a few weeks back, and they said the company dynamic was still just fine, and THQ simply trusted them to produce good content, and agreed to publish whatever they produce (whereas formerly they had to cast around for publishers).

    Now granted, Ubisoft doesn't need publishers, so there's no clear advantage to the deal, but if for some strange reason EA decided to treat this deal differen

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close