Digital Illusions Won't sell to EA

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Digital Illusions Won't sell to EA

Posted by Zonk on Thursday December 16, 2004 @02:11AM from the hell-no-they-won't-go dept.

KBV writes "Games Industry.biz reports that EA won't be able to buy Digital Illusions, the makers of Battlefield 1942. The reason is that 28% of the shareholders do not want to make DICE a part of EA, saying that they believe that the developer's performance and future prospects are strong enough to make remaining independent a more attractive option. In particular they cite the planned launch of Battlefield 2 on the PC and Battlefield: Modern Combat on current and next-gen consoles next year."

35 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

First person shooters.. by Jugalator · 2004-12-16 02:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bah... So common and boring concept.
Bring back your pinball series! :-D

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
1. Re:First person shooters.. by Dr.Opveter · 2004-12-16 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's been a while since i've seen a pinball game i liked. Pro Pinball: Timeshock!, not by them i think though
  
  --
  Sample this!
How interesting... by petrus4 · 2004-12-16 02:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

It would appear that there is at least one software company out there which doesn't want to get its employees and itself raped by the gaming industry's answer to The Blob.

Congratulations, Digital Illusions. Now all we need to do is get any of EA's other potential acquisitions to make similarly courageous decisions, and we might one day be able to strangle the beast. At least I can dream.
1. Re:How interesting... by theVP · 2004-12-16 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  YES! Now, if they got a deal from Activision, I would hope they took it, but EA can suck it. They close down so many of their buy-outs that its ridiculous.
  
  --
  "No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
2. Re:How interesting... by mausmalone · 2004-12-16 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well, at the very least, there's still one company out there whose shareholders realize that bad employee treatment is bad for business. Not to say that Digital Illusions if devoid of altruism, but I suspect that the bad press surrounding EA has raised concerns about their bottom line and their reputation among their audience should they "sell out" to EA.
  
  Keep in mind that I don't really agree with that viewpoint, and that I hate the concept that morality in business is a weakness. I just thappen to think that it's more likely that this is the case.
  
  --
  -=-=-=-=-=
  I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
3. Re:How interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-16 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  And how did you reach that conclusion?
  According to a post on Shacknews "The reason for so many votes against, IIRC, was the low offer (61 SEK/share vs 120 SEK/share demanded my some minority shareholders), not because they're against EA."
4. Re:How interesting... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2004-12-16 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  With the NFL thing earlier this week, reading this news was a breath of fresh air. Nice to see a developer not whore themselves out. *cough*bungie*cough*.
5. Re:How interesting... by AltaMannen · 2004-12-16 08:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't know about that, the previous owners (the Bonnier media group) voted yes to sell, and so did employees with a large number of shares. The share holders that vote no to sell simply want more money because they feel shortchanged by the suggested price. (in Swedish: di.se)
6. Re:How interesting... by macrom · 2004-12-17 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  How did Bungie whore themselves out? Because they got acquired by the company who makes the main platform they target with their games? Because they let a major corporation handle their business end so they could concentrate on making better games? Because they now have access to a wealth of QA and development resources that would potentially be unavailable to them?
  
  They sell millions of copies of their games, a fact that has more to do with the quality of the finished product than the company that owns them. How exactly have they "whored out" by positioning themselves to sell even more copies of an even more stellar game (ie, Halo 2 >> Halo)? I just hate it when people make blanket statements like this.
  
  When I worked in the game industry I met a few of the guys from Ensemble Studios. I asked them how their partnership with Microsoft helped the development of a finished product. Access to great in-house development talent, use of state-of-the-art QA labs (particularly when testing multiplayer; the stuff they could simulate was amazing), help from proven, and top-talent project management were just some of the reasons given. Sometimes being in cahoots with a big corporation isn't a bad thing, you know.
  
  If you want to call a company a whore, look at the people that make bargain bin crap. Or the *Hunter series -- that, to me, is the definition of game industry whoring.
7. Re:How interesting... by jamie · 2004-12-21 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  "How did Bungie whore themselves out? Because they got acquired by the company who makes the main platform they target with their games?"
  
  No, because they changed the main platform for their games to the company that acquired them.
  Bungie did Mac games first and foremost. Minotaur and Pathways Into Darkness were Mac-only. Marathon was originally Mac-only, later ported to Windows. Myth was released for Mac and PC on the same day. And the world's first glimpse of Halo was a demo run live on a Mac, shown at MacWorld '99. After being acquired by Microsoft in 2000, Bungie had to promise they would still bring Halo to the Mac. Halo was released for the Xbox in late 2001. It finally appeared on the Mac in December 2003.
resistance is futile by the_unknown_soldier · 2004-12-16 02:32 · Score: 0, Flamebait

No one can beat ea, production costs are just too high now and without big contracts a game developers future is finite. On the bright side though, i for one welcome our sweatshop overloads :)
Selling your company by Taulin · 2004-12-16 02:40 · Score: 1

Most companies turn right around and have to give profits to investors and producers, so the company worth is not that high, and even if they sold, the money would go to the investors. I do not know Dice's situation, though. Companies like Bullfrog and Origin lasted a long time because they spanned multiple genres. Meanwhile Dice is just primarily one series as far I know. If they owner of Dice were able to keep the profits from selling, then selling might be the best decision for him/her/them. Take the money and invest in your own company without investors or producers, then hire all your good programmers back, and leave the ones that suck. This seems to be the trend. (ie: almost any company that has been bought by EA)
1. Re:Selling your company by AltaMannen · 2004-12-16 08:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You are forgetting that in addition to their pinball games DI has also developed a number of rally games (Motorhead, rallisport challenge series, midtown madness 3) and some sort of horse-game series and a military sim (battlefield or something). They also made Shrek 1, let's not forget that!
Great. by vasqzr · 2004-12-16 02:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

However, two groups of shareholders have announced their opposition to the deal, and between them they represent around 28 per cent of the firm's stock - enough to prevent the acquisition from happening

I wonder if that 28 percent is employee-owned stock, and they're taking into consideration the recent EA/Employee scandals.
1. Re:Great. by superpulpsicle · 2004-12-16 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  EA just want to OWN the WWII genre. Afterwards, no one else can make WWII games with real guns and vehicles. I am telling you this now... just like I told people they were trying to own NFLPA a year ago.
Battlefield 2 by shamowfski · 2004-12-16 02:52 · Score: 1

I agree with DICE. Battlefield 2 looks like it's going to be an amazing game, and I applaud them for not giving in to the M$ of gaming, Electronic Arts...
1. Re:Battlefield 2 by GearType2 · 2004-12-16 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  wouldn't the MS of gaming being... umm.. MS? I mean, they did start a console and then start buying companies so they could get games on it. EA just looks like MS's son. or the bride of MS... whichever is funnier.
CITE not site by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-16 03:06 · Score: 0

see subject line.
Can't do that by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-16 03:08 · Score: 0

" then hire all your good programmers back, and ..."

That would incur an swift and vengeful law-suit from EA. Most business deals like that would include "non-compete" and anti-poaching clauses.
Rock on, DICE. by General_Crespin · 2004-12-16 03:11 · Score: 1

It's nice to see a game dev company that makes great games remain independent. Here's to hoping they remain that way...

--
"The past is but the beginning of a beginning, and all that is and has been is but the twilight of the dawn."
1. Re:Rock on, DICE. by TheBot · 2004-12-16 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, 3 cheers for DICE!
  
  Hip hip HORRAY!
  
  etc.
  
  --
  Flat Screen TV for F
Off topic, but.. by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2004-12-16 03:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

While we're discussing EA, I was wondering why the little videos played before their games actually load are getting longer and longer.

Battle For Middle Earth has the EA logo, THX, New Line Cinema, and a 5 minute video about the series. You can skip the 5 minute video, but not the minute of logo videos..

Battlefield 1942/Vietnam is the same, you can't skip the "EA GAMES" logo.

We don't care who made the game, we want to PLAY the fricking thing.

Is anybody else noticing that these videos are getting longer and longer?

--
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
1. Re:Off topic, but.. by RaboKrabekian · 2004-12-16 03:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There's a command line option to skip the opening videos for BattleField 1942, and I assume the same for Vietnam.
  
  Add -restart 1 to the shortcut to start the game and you're set.
  
  --
  "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
2. Re:Off topic, but.. by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2004-12-16 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Alright, you can get around it with a command line option, but why are the intro videos so fricking long and getting longer with every game that comes out?
  
  Need For Speed Underground 2 has the EA GAMES video, one about how racing is dangerous and how you should only do it in the game, and a bunch of other crap.
  
  What's next? "For a better gaming experiance, drink Mountain Dew brand soda while eating Cheetos brand puffed corn snacks! Pick them up at your local 7-11 today!"
  
  --
  Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
3. Re:Off topic, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-16 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Why are there more commercials on TV today than there were 10 years ago?
  
  Why do you have to watch 6 "coming attractions" before every movie?
  
  Why do boxers let casino's put their logo's and web addresses on their backs during fights?
  
  Why is your "dead tree" news more ads than news?
  
  Its called advertising. And the sheeple on the planet suck it up.
  
  If you want it to end, then stop believing that you just aren't cool unless you have a "swoosh" on your shirt. The more you buy into marketing, the more advertisers will try to "imprint" you every day.
  
  Plus, they have a captive audience.
4. Re:Off topic, but.. by korbatz · 2004-12-16 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  WipeOut 2097: "improve recation time Red Bull"
  
  --
  you are not your sig
5. Re:Off topic, but.. by Alban · 2004-12-16 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same with movies. Everyone wants their brand name out there, and honestly, I totally understand that.
  
  While I agree that in a perfect world, it would be nice not to have any of those brand screens, it's totally normal for companies to what to put their brands out there.
  
  If you really want to complain about something, then complain about level load times. Did you notice how long it takes to load a map on battlefield vietnam? Forget maxed spec computers. If you load a map on a normal to fast PC (when the game came out), you're _easily_ over a minute if not two.
  
  Now let's see, one one side: 10 seconds of intro screens (during which the game resources can be initialized to save time later, so it shouldn't be "wasted time")
  
  On the other side: 2 minutes map loading times.
  
  Which is the most annoying??? hmmm....
6. Re:Off topic, but.. by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2004-12-16 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, with Battle For Middle Earth and NFSU2 the videos show, and after that there is another screen that has the game title and "Now Loading"
  
  It's not saving time ever.
  
  And I already PAID $50 for my god damned game, why do I have to see a video with a creepy kid's voice telling me to challenge things?!
  
  --
  Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
7. Re:Off topic, but.. by cfpresley · 2004-12-16 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the videos can be removed by "zeroizing" the .bik files. That was an old trick back in the day when game releases came ripped, and in 1.44MB chunks. BF1942 and BFV videos could be bypasses with the /restart switch IIRC.
8. Re:Off topic, but.. by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2004-12-18 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing the point.
  
  I know you can skip them by doing some trickery and changing files around, but WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO?
  
  I purchased this game for $54.95 so I could PLAY it. I don't want to sit through 5 minutes of video every time the damn thing crashes or I have to exit to do something.
  
  --
  Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Digital Illusions by nickos · 2004-12-16 03:53 · Score: 1

Cool, I didn't even know that Digital Illusions were still around. I remember them back from the golden age of computing when the Amiga was at its peak. Does anyone else remember Pinball Dreams?
1. Re:Digital Illusions by F123f0X · 2004-12-16 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Pinball Dreams is definitely the "dream" of "pinball" in the universe. Go Amiga!!!
  
  --
  /\/\4y 7|-|3 f0|2c3 b3 \/\/17|-| y0|_|...
Re: Pinball on DS by Red+Moose · 2004-12-16 06:34 · Score: 1

Yeah I got a shock when I heard that DICE made BF1942, what great game it was c/t just about every other WW2 shooter and then realised it was actually Digital Illusions Computer Entertainment or something; a very pleasant surprise. I still have the Dream/Fantasies and Illusions around somewhere on A500 disks, great games indeed and would be perfect for the Nintendo DS.

--
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better