Slashdot Mirror
On The Business Of Developing Successful Games
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?
They have so much marketing power it's scary. Yet the products they push out on the market are no longer getting better every year.
1.) If it was not for ESPN/sega basketball, their live basketball series would still suck today. They develope 1 engine, and build upon it for half a decade.
2.) The sims online is a disaster from every angle.
3.) Battlefield 1942 is filled with technical problems but it's marketed well enough to stay alive.
EA is like big brother microsoft. They can afford to make mistakes and no one can touch them. Now that's dangerous for the video game industry.
Um. Are the moderators smoking crack?
Yes, StarFlight was a good game... and this post is interesting (slightly)... but this post is WAY off-topic and should be moderated as such.
-1 Off-Topic.
Comment of the year