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?
But which approach really creates the best games?
It depends on your definition of what the "best" game is:
Is a successful game one which is creatively successful or one which is financially successful?
For every ten games (and I'm being generous) that try to push the envelope, creatively, only one succeeds. Even with a creative success, in the vast majority of cases, it is critically successful but doesn't pay the bills well enough to keep the developer in business, especially when the next couple of "creative" ideas don't pay off well and sink what profits were made.
EA makes its money the same way the movie industry does. It produces to a formula that it knows will make it a consistent small profit. It may not be creative but, ten years down the line, they'll still be in business while most create houses won't be.
What about companies like Origin or Blizzard? Origin got bought out by EA and how many of the original creative types are still there? Blizzard became such a hammered part of the Vivendi Universal empire that most of the original senior people left earlier this year (World Of Warcraft may be an old style Blizzard creative success but will it remain so after years of having to appease VU's moneymen?).
Sadly, safe but boring, not original but risky, is what keeps games companies in business - and the ones that recognise that (like EA) can always just buy the few who make it anyway (like Westwood and Origin). Yes, there are a few ids but there are much bigger EAs.
Are you suggesting biggest equates to best? Wouldn't that make Britney Spears and NSync the best musicians, Titanic and Independence Day some of the best movies and the Bible the best book ever written?
Wow, makes a good case for the opposite to be true....
Tha answer is simple. EA has nice polished games, Activision releases new/fresh exciting games. Both are good but I prefer the average game released under the Activision brand as opposed to the EA brand since it is the "new" experience I crave, not the "improved" one.
I'm not a big EA fan, particularly since my preferred console (out of the three I current use) is the Xbox where they refuse to play ball with Xbox Live. That being said, they manage to put out titles like SSX3 (improved immensely over its predecessors), Madden (even the hardcore football gamers are hard-pressed to declare an absolute winner between Madden and ESPN/2kX), LOTR: TT and ROTK, Need For Speed Underground, NBA Street, The Sims, SimCity...
Whether you like their approach or not, EA does put out good games. Great marketing or not, if the games weren't there they wouldn't be making money.
As for your title claiming EA is "dangerous": Get some perspective. Videogames are a hobby and not a life-or-death situation. Further, even if you were to assign videogames more importance than they deserve, EA (unlike Microsoft, for example) has plenty of competition out there and we're in NO danger of EA controlling all videogaming.