EA Trying to Buy Ubisoft Shares

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.

Comments

Hostile

[dolo666]

EA Trying to Buy Ubisoft Shares... so that they can turn Ubisoft into EA. 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

[Jucius Maximus]

"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

[DeathFlame]

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

[harrkev]

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

[DeathFlame]

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.

Re:Hostile

[Slothy]

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. Also, most gamers play on stock consoles, where OSS isn't possible.

Re:Hostile

[realdpk]

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

[Nimrangul]

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 less likely to happen with a Role Playing game. Role Playing games tend to want to be more distinct and not all look the same (usually at least, recently there have been more Final Fantasyish games then I recall in my childhood).

So yeah, I feel I must disagree with you there. People like to make mods and such for free so you cannot say there are not people out there interested in making a game for free, it is that so far they aren't being given full control of an already existing game's source. If FreeCiv wasn't so bad with the AI I think there would be more popular Civ-like games out there.

Re:Hostile

[davesplace1]

Yea lets all hope that EA does not take over Ubisoft, the more cool games the better.

Re:Hostile

[Socrates Demise]

PlaneShift the FOSSMMORPG (...phew...) is about to finally release It's new prerelease, Molecular Blue. They Have shut down the old servers and started the migration for everyone who played the old one. This new release will include fighting, magic, quests, etc.

I think this could be a nice example of OSS gaming.

http://www.planeshift.it/main_01.html

Re:Hostile

[spac3manspiff]

This can not be perceived as anything but a hostile takeover
Seems like EA is learning from Microsoft's horrid business tactics.
Remember back when EA bought most of Rare's shares ate them.
However the only difference between microsoft and EA is that they arent making good games. They are buying good game companies and ruining them by exploiting them like dirty hookers.

Re:Hostile

[Socrates Demise]

But I capitalized the "I" that's gotta count for something. I know the difference - my question is why is that the only one with that difference?

I can see the other pronouns because you actually change the spelling of the word to make it possessive. How many other words do you keep the original spelling of the word and not add an apostrophe to make it possessive?

Re:Hostile

[chgros]

I can definitely say it would with a First Person Shooter
You mean like Quake I/II/III ? (although it's GPL, not BSD)

Re:Hostile

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

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.

Re:Hostile

[pigscanfly.ca]

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.

Re:Hostile

[grumbel]

### 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 comes to 3d level editors I couldn't name a single OSS one, Blender might come closest, but thats it.

Re:Hostile

[AuMatar]

CrystalSpace
Quake 2 is GPLed. Is Q3 yet?

Re:Hostile

[timster]

Capitalization of the I doesn't make a lot of sense unless They are a deity.

In any case, the apostrophe is never used for the possessive case in any pronoun. Why would you think "its" would be any different? his hers its their, and he's she's it's they're. The rule is consistent with all pronouns.

Re:Hostile

[goates]

CounterStrike was still based off of an already built game engine. All they had to was tweak the game play, add some new maps, models and other artwork.

It took 4+ years for Doom3 and Half Life 2 to be developed by teams dedicated to the project. Bungie had to sell itself to Microsoft in order to have the money to bring Halo to market. I'm not sure an open source project could match that, unless you got funding from somewhere for it.

You also have the issues of hacks and cheats being developed much quicker and more easily.

Then again it's nice to be proven wrong once in a while.

Re:Hostile

[Nimrangul]

Who said it had to be started by a company? I don't think that it is impossible for a group of people to set up an RTS, they're not so vastly complecated really. It is more the AI within the game that is hard to do well.

With a single BSD base to the RTS games it would allow for closed enhancements that some companies don't want to give competitors, yet allow for a common codebase where any involved party could put their code together with the other involved groups to get a more advanced game without as much individual work.

Re:Hostile

[Nimrangul]

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).

Re:Hostile

[grumbel]

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 closest one for ready-to-use, since it seems to have a working blender exporter. However even that is realitivly low level. Something like Crystal Spaces Entity layer (CEL) might help here, however thats not ready for primetime as far as I know.

About Q3, nope, not yet GPL, however as soon as id finds time it will.

And just for the record, just because something calls itself engine it doesn't mean that its ready to create a fullblown game, in most cases you will run into a heapload of throuble with engines which had never more created with them than a bunch of 3d Tetris.

Re:Hostile

[DeathFlame]

I thought we all knew that closed source != more secure. So why should it be any different in the gaming market? Just because a computer game is open source, doesn't mean it's easier to create cheats.

But you bring up a good point. The engine was already developed. I could see an intresting buisness model where some companies (iD, Valve, etc) make game engines, and sell them.

Then you no longer go out and buy Doom3, or Halflife 2. You buy a game engine, freeing up the engine maker from creating content.

Then the open source group comes along and builds games on an engine.

Re:Hostile

[realityfighter]

If somebody make a game, they would likely not play it for fun, since they already know all of the quests, plot twists, etc.

I believe you mean, "if they made an RPG." There are many types of games in which the engine makes the game unpredictable and fun even for the people who developed it. Do you think nobody at Popcap plays Bejeweled?

Re:Hostile

[goates]

Closed source may not be more secure in general, but with games it does seem to help a little. I seem to remember that the number of hacks for Quake 1 and 2 spiked just after the source code was released. With an open source engine, the cheater has everything laid out in front of them, and they no longer need to reverse engineer anything. Diablo 1 was quite fun for a little while, until you needed to use the same hacks as the cheaters just to survive.

Maybe there is a way to create a secure, hack resistant, open source network game. If there is that would be great.

With regards to your business model, that is pretty much what iD and Epic have been doing for a while. iD only really released one games based on each engine, and then licensed the engine to others.

Re:Hostile

[AltaMannen]

Well, given how well Ubi managed to turn around Prince of Persia (after PoP 3D), maybe now they can do the same for M.U.L.E? Apart from that I can't see much benefit in cross-licensed EA-UBI games.

Re:Hostile

[Kyouryuu]

It depends on the nature of the game, though. Some games have innately more longevity than others. both Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament would be "old" by today's standards, but they are still very popular. Warcraft II was popular for a very long while on Kali until the advent of more Warcraft titles.

I think a good, solid FPS engine has a lot of longevity. But a number of things have to be done. First, to become popular, it is absolutely essential that an actual game be included. This is where a lot of open source engine implementations have been seriously lacking. Sure, it can do fancy graphics and things, but until someone actually tries to produce a comprehensive multiplayer or singleplayer campaign with it, it's useless. If a compelling game is included, and the package is distributed for free, it has been shown it can capture some popularity (like America's Army).

That said, one might argue that Cube should be in the upper pantheon of games. Cube is missing something though, in my opinion. I don't find it particularly fun to play in the face of UT2K4 and whatnot. Granted, that's completely subjective, but given the low population of multiplayer servers, either OSS folks haven't heard of it, or they've come to the same conclusion I have.

Re:Hostile

[Tlosk]

That's more or less equivalent to saying that a linux distrubution isn't really open or free because they didn't develop the hardware the OS runs on and distribute it for free.

As long as the mod is freely distributed and the source is available, it completely qualifies as a FOSS game. It is something fundamentally different from the base game engine and just as much a "new" game as half the crap that gets slapped on the shelves these days if not more so.

All Hail the Crumbling Game Industry

[Eeknay]

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?

Re:All Hail the Crumbling Game Industry

[Ironsides]

Don't forget the ever popular Myst Series.

Re:All Hail the Crumbling Game Industry

[SenorPez]

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."

Re:All Hail the Crumbling Game Industry

[3nuff]

Why do I always read that Sphincter Cell?

Re:All Hail the Crumbling Game Industry

[DeadScreenSky]

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!

Re:All Hail the Crumbling Game Industry

[geminidomino]

Because you've played it? ;)

Just kidding. I thought the SC games were ok.

Game Company

[ValuJet]

I am going to start a game company in the hopes that EA will buy me out.

Re:Game Company

[CK2004PA]

If they buy you out, quit immediatley, unless you want to work 80 hours a week for them. Seems like coporate scum sucking dogs have taken over then gaming industry, and EA is where they all work.

Re:Game Company

[Desult]

Hopefully it'll go better than that plane company did...

Re:Game Company

[ticklemeozmo]

If they buy you out, quit immediatley, unless you want to work 80 hours a week for them.

Since Ubisoft pays my girlfriend to work I am sort of partial to them and their success. Cause then I'd have to get a real job. ;)

Re:Game Company

[pommiekiwifruit]

Well, the little girl in Matrix Revolutions was called "Sati" which hardly seems cute and friendly!

Strong Moves

[Zinic]

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.

Re:Strong Moves

[the grace of R'hllor]

The beneficial case of competition involves competition through excellence, which is a constructive way of dealing with a threat.

*This* kind of competition -- buying out your opponents so that you don't *have* to excel anymore -- is destructive , and it is not in the best interests of consumers.

If I were a shareholder, I'd be pissed if their motto wasn't "Carpe Jugulum".

However, as a consumer, I preferred the former over the latter. Alas, those days are apparently over.

Re:Strong Moves

[Stop Error]

Looks like the EA executives took a Microsoft 101 course.

Slashdot Financial Network

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[FortKnox]

Thanks for the new sig line!

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[nacturation]

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?

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[EngineeringMarvel]

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 would have the most power, but not THE power. Now stop panicking and over reacting...oh wait...I'm posting this on /., nevermind.

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[realdpk]

I thought it was funny, and I'm not posting as AC (just No Karma Bonus).

Should we only be able to make fun of "normal" groups of people? Who defines that?

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[sunking2]

Hey, I saw Mr Deeds (the remake) recently too!

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[tspilman]

I don't know... UbiSoft seems to think it's a hostile takeover attempt.

"Pending further information, we consider this operation as hostle," an Ubi Soft spokesman told Reuters.

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[DrCode]

Hostile takeover: It's when you're playing an RPG and you kill all the inhabitants of a town or dungeon, so you have it all to yourself.

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Just because they are not buying an outright controlling interest does not mean it is not the beginnings of a take-over attempt. Dont forget that the founders/directors of the company only own 22.4% of shares. Buying enough shares of a rival company to edge up to the founders/directors isnt hostile right now... its preparing for a take-over bid a few years down the line. just my .02

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[dabigpaybackski]

I thought it was hilarious. I guess someone was teased a few too many times on the school bus.

Yes, a very short school bus. *rimshot*

Re:Slashdot Financial Network

[dabigpaybackski]

Reading financial news from Slashdot is like watching retards drive bumper cars---it's funny, and anything but serious.

Dude, you actually got to watch retards drive bumper cars? Now there's a spectacle that's worth the price of admission.

Farcry Fans rejoice !

[mbvgp]

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.

Re:Farcry Fans rejoice !

[No. 24601]

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....

Someones gotta start it

[TheKidWho]

Damn that $A

Re:Someones gotta start it

[jred]

You ought to use the euro symbol instead...

Re:Someones gotta start it

[bersl2]

£¥

The above displayed are Unicode currency symbols that Slash(dot) will accept other than '$'.

Re:TYPO ALERT!

[R2P2]

I wondered how that got in the post without even a "sic", but then this bit outside of the quote made it all clear: "regarding its past as an honorable games-maker and it's current reputation."

Don't know the diffence between "its" and "it's"? Use both!

Great!

[lovebyte]

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.

Re:Great!

[KUHurdler]

Sounds like a show for FOX. especially now that the nhl is a no-show.

Re:Great!

[genesplicer]

Have you ever had the misfortune of being around hockey equipment after a game?
Strange creatures infecting hard-to-reach places isn't exactly out of the ordinary ...

Re:is EA..

[Mikail]

True, there are indie games, but they rarely have the resources (human and financial) that EA does now. There are some great indie games, but they still face the challenge of marketing/publishing their game to turn a profit.

My beef with EA (and Vivendi) is they're buying up companies that did make innovative games. Then they either dismantle the companies or take all the credit when good games do come out.

I'm fresh out of college and looking for a job in gaming, but it's hard to find companies that inspire me like Interplay and Sierra did while I was growing up. They've been bought and destroyed or assimilated by EA and Vivendi.

Sad Times

[ZephyrXero]

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...

Re:Sad Times

[Spy der Mann]

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 you, but you don't even deserve that.

Re:Sad Times

[Sylver Dragon]

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 was one of the best games around for a long time, and occupied many a weekend. Also, Sentinel worlds 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. EA was, at one time, a wonderful company that put out quality games, and it was painful to see them become nothing more than NFL/NHL/(Whatever sports acronym) <insert year here>.

Re:Sad Times

[hchaput]

How does EA's competitive business practice make their games worse? I really don't understand what Slashdot has against successful companies. I agree that rich != good, but that doesn't mean rich == bad, and it certainly doesn't mean that poor == good.

EA is dumping a ton of money into another game company. I think if EA gave a billion dollars to the poor there would be 100 posts here complaining that EA is trying to put the Salvation Army out of business. Meanwhile, all the rage you put towards EA for overworking their programmers is giving all the other game companies a free ride. It's been documented by the IGDA that employee abuse is prevalent in the game industry, but I guess it's ok if Sony or Microsoft does it, because "EA Sux, d00d!"

Hate EA games if they're bad. Hate EA managers if they're bad. But hating EA itself is like hating the air because it's cold. Sad times indeed.

Re:Sad Times

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

but don't hate HP's managers because they're bad, or for any other reason, or you're a sexist bastard.

Re:Sad Times

[Black Pete]

How does EA's competitive business practice make their games worse?

Mainly because their main business model is cashing in on sequels to hit titles. Take a look at the reviews of the original hit titles (review in the 90's), then look at the sequels and their average reviews (80's, then 70's, then 60's...) For examples, see:
NHL 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/nhl 2005/
Goldeneye 2 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/gol deneyerogueagent/
Urbz (aka The Sims 2.5) - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/urbz /
Fifa 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/gamecube /fifasoccer2005/

And so on. Madden review scores are all over the roadmap, but now that they have the exclusive NFL license, do you seriously expect the quality to go up? Granted, there are some exceptions and there are excellent sequels, such as SSX3, but they are generally in the minority. An average rating in the 70's still isn't too shabby, but it's not fantastic either.

If there's one thing you can count on from EA, it's sequels. Lots of them. Which brings up the next point... innovation.

Unless a sequel radically changes the gameplay mechanics (and they usually don't), it cannot be considered innovative to cash in on an existing brand name. Not that there's anything wrong with that since they do have to please their shareholders. However, sequels dilute brand names and make them worthless over time (how excited can you get about another Sims game now?)

As for original hit titles, there are very very few original hit titles that EA actually created themselves (only SSX springs to mind in recent history). They generally acquire companies who have already made the initial risk in putting out a proven hit title, then generate endless sequels, as long as it remains profitable. This is their business practice. They play it safe, don't innovate (much), and focus on making as much money as possible.

Meanwhile through all the acquisitions, we end up having fewer and fewer companies likely to put out original titles, which could've been hits or not. And now we'll never know.

That is why EA is generally reviled - we love creativity and innovation, and we hate to see potientials being lost (regardless of whether it actually makes money or not). Rez and Beyond Good and Evil are excellent titles that never got the attention they deserved and were money losers, yet there are some of us who loved these titles and want to see more. EA isn't a likely source of such titles.

Re:Sad Times

[Adrilla]

I think SSX took a lot of it's ideas from the N64 game 1080

This News

[JossiRossi]

I suppose I see this news as a bit inconsequential. It's important to know about this, but what's the point? Now, give this news bit along with some advice on if there is anything that can be done and it becomes more important. Slashdot should not become a "Computer Activists" website, but is there anything a person could do to change their actions? Write a senator or whatnot?

I guess my above comment could bring about the idea of why do news at all if we are powerless, I guess I wish the news didn't give the portrayal of powerlessness as major news agencies seem to. They keep the influence of the news out of the hands of the many and only in those who already control it.

Ok, I just did a social commentary, sorry.

Freeman

[warmgun]

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.

Re:Freeman

[UWC]

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 successful (even if annoying to many) online distribution model. A Steam-like service might not be ideal for small developers, though, as it would take a sizable investment in bandwidth. What might happen is a new trend in smaller online publishers that take a significantly smaller portion of profits for the service of providing the bandwidth and trusted client through which to distribute games.

Re:Freeman

[realdpk]

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

[snorklewacker]

A Steam-like service might not be ideal for small developers, though, as it would take a sizable investment in bandwidth. What might happen is a new trend in smaller online publishers that take a significantly smaller portion of profits for the service of providing the bandwidth and trusted client through which to distribute games.

Like this?

Re:Freeman

[UWC]

I suppose so, but how much of that do the official publishers get? I note that each game has a developer and publisher listed (most are Atari, Ubisoft, and Eidos, with a Sony and Vivendi-Universal thrown in). This seems only to be an alternate distributor at the moment. I didn't see any licensing mentions in the "About" page. Hopefully services like this can become the first--and maybe primary--avenue of sale for some games rather than a relatively small venue for low-risk (most of those games seem to be sub-$20 bargain or no-longer-new titles, with the most expensive being $34.95, and a couple of them at $29.95) purchases.

Re:Freeman

[zorg50]

I'm pretty sure they removed the CD check. Vivendi probably required it to begin with; I doubt it's Valve's fault.

Re:Freeman

[realdpk]

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. :)

Re:Freeman

[forgotten_my_nick]

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? Write their own version of Steam?

It is still mindboggling how people keep touting steam as the next big thing, or groundbreaking.

Re:Freeman

[forgotten_my_nick]

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.

Re:Freeman

[snorklewacker]

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

Vivendi Universal set the price, not Valve. But yes, they'll charge what the market will bear, which is typically 40-50 bucks. However, with a lot of these studios being private companies, a bigger share may well go back to the developers and not just fatten some corporate board that just coasts on by perpetuating the status quo.

Still it's pretty unfair to malign the distributors. They're the ones that do the marketing as well, which is more than just sticking a few banner ads up.

Re:Freeman

[KivlE]

Valve's present business model could rock the foundation of the gamining industry.

I sure hope not. I've bought something for the first and last time from Steam. When I struggled for 7-8 HOURS to get it to work, I said to myself NEVER EVER AGAIN.

Re:EA disease is spreading

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

I wish I could mod you down.

To STOP supporting Ubi now is just stupid, and will hurt Ubi (who I feel make great games).

Stop buying from them if EA ever owns/buys Ubi.

Stroke, Stroke

[retinaburn]

Simple reasoning, EA just needs fresh rowers, and Ubisoft has proved to have some pretty good oarsmen. Avast ye scurvy dogs!

Re:Stroke, Stroke

[theVP]

EA closes shop when they buyout. Not that this is the case, but they've proven time and time again that they don't buy to produce more. They buy to earn more market share. If you want to root for a company that keeps buy-outs alive, root for Activision.

Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[krbvroc1]

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.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[Dark Paladin]

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 completely rule a company, but it's large enough to seriously influence decisions - which could be construed as a "takeover".

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[randalx]

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.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[Tim C]

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.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[Richard_at_work]

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%, but you run the risk of the rest of the shareholders banding together to vote against you, which is why a 51% share is considered better than a smaller share. You can still control a company with a 20% share, but the risk is there that you will loose that majority without actually doing anything.

For this to be considered a hostile takeover, EA has to be talking to and buying from third party shareholders directly, and not the company itself. If EA can gain a percentage share which is larger than that of the companies own, then the company has basically been taken over, without ever being approached. A standard takeover is where the company or the majority shareholder sells its stake to someone else.

Remember folks, once you put more than 50% of your shares out in the open, you no longer own the company.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[the_rev_matt]

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.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[krbvroc1]

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?

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[Tim C]

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.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[b3s]

1) To achieve ownership, they only need 50.1% of the outstanding shares. 2) At 10% they can get at least one board member and an inside look at everything from the books to next years release plans. 3) Dumping even 5% of the stock could cause the stock to plummet. Ubi now needs cash reserves to cover this. At best, with 20% ownership, they can disrupt the company from within. At worst, they could use 20% as leverage to a takeover. For instance, they can start a proxy fight and only need to swing 30.2% of the vote (19.9 + 30.2 == 50.1).

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[krbvroc1]

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.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[retinaburn]

I think the problem is with that 20% they will be the majority shareholders, and have a large voice in the company, the biggest voice in the company.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[Idarubicin]

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 substantial one. EA still needs 37.5% of the remaining shareholders to agree with any policy they put forth; more for any changes requiring a supermajority.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[powerlinekid]

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.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[randalx]

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.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[randalx]

Of course you are right. It all depends on how the shares are distributed.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[17028]

Not really. If they and the Guillemots are the only two blocks who vote, EA will win every time. I haven't looked at their annual report to see who owns what shares, but it's entirely possible most shareholders are small investors who don't participate in the governance. If the Guillemots have voting allies with 5+ percent, then they'd be safer.

Re:Its only 20% ownship, not 100%

[17028]

Many countries have a law that if you own 20%+ you have to make a buy-out offer. That's probably why they came in at 19.9%.

Commodore 64

[__aamcgs2220]

I liked EA better when they made Racing Construction Set and Music Construction Set. Yeah, OK, they took a while to load on that 1541 floppy drive, but they were a lot less hostile!

Re:Commodore 64

[__aamcgs2220]

You're right, sorry, it was the Racing Destruction Set. Cut me some slack, Jack! It was 19 years ago!

Good Reasons why they have become hostile....

[Cutting_Crew]

#1. In the recent weeks they have become the center of news for the gaming community. specifically the uproar over them making their employees work ungodly hours in crunch time, with no comp time, no bonuses, no special leave, all in good fortune for the higher ups and game sales. the ea_spouse was the one who started it. anyway so what does EA do? what are they thinking? "hey why dont we just buy out every other gaming company or get a good stock out of it then we will be the only game in town. then we can really shove it to our employees and they will no choice but to stay with us" #2. because of #1 they are afraid of sales dropping and increasing fierce competition. dont be surprised if we dont see some gaming company mergers in the next year or two. anyway thats my take on it..

EverQuest, EverQuest2 and Ubisoft

[frkiii]

If I recall right, Ubisoft handles sales of EQ, EQ2 and, possibly, handles subscriptions for those games in Europe, I could be wrong though.

I did get Myst IV, awesome game, very enjoyable.

Hope EA does not take over Ubisoft, but seem like it might be pushing in that direction.

Re:EverQuest, EverQuest2 and Ubisoft

[FluffyPanda]

I did get Myst IV, awesome game, very enjoyable

Troll!

Re:Ugh..

[Freexe]

you never played typing of the dead then!

You know times are bad...

[FortKnox]

... when you are rooting for the Microsoft Gaming Companies to outdo the EA gaming companies profts.

Offtopic? WTF?

[Spy der Mann]

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 please, MOD PARENT UP.

Gamepro Editorial

[mrseigen]

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)

Re:Gamepro Editorial

[JFMulder]

You are aware that Ubisoft also abuse their employees? Come to think of it, probably all game company does it.

Re:Gamepro Editorial

[snorklewacker]

Yes, and Ubisoft burned out their own employees as well. And when they quit and dared to make a living at another game company, Ubisoft sued them. If you want a company with a good rep, try Activision, but it still depends on which game studio you work for (Activision is still largely a distributor). And corporate heads can change: Sierra used to be one of the best until Ken and Roberta Williams got the boot.

Re:Gamepro Editorial

[akisugawara]

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 (sadly) in other tech fields and accepted as something that comes along with the job. It's a newer phenomena for video games. I think you're missing a point that was inferred from the article either--games *are* getting crappy *because* they are burning out the employees. How do you think a game such as Golden Eye: Rogue Agent has a 9-month dev time? Most games start out with high ambitions of being the next greatest thing. Penny-pinching EA puts a strangle hold on innovation because of the bottom line--enforcing insanely short development times and irresponsible work hours. Hence the mediocrity of Medal of Honor: Rising Sun and Pacific Assault. Or even Battle for Middle-Earth, which was a great game but didn't fully live up to its expectations. Originally the game was supposed to have morale, with human foot soldiers backing away as Trolls approached on their positions. That's the exact reason why the original Medal of Honor people left and created Call of Duty (though they haven't publically acknowledged it) Most, if not all EA games have really short dev times--when's the last time you heard a game that they spend 2-3 years developing on?

Re:Gamepro Editorial

[Jack Sparrow]

how original can you make a fucking sports game anyway?

There IS a 'fucking sports' game by EA? Oh boy I am buying..

Re:Ugh..

[JossiRossi]

BEST. GAME. EVER.

I hope to buy the newer enhanced version for a chistmas gift to me. =

Re:is EA..

[brouski]

I'm only looking for good games. I don't really care who makes them.

The games industry is the movie industry

[Infonaut]

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.

Re:The games industry is the movie industry

[kubrick]

I think EA needs a Miramax. A wholly owned subsidiary to do some 'riskier' games that won't, hopefully, tarnish the EA brand and upset the shareholders. (Of course, Miramax got too big too quickly, which I don't think was Disney's original intention...)

How long untill..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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...

Re:EA disease is spreading

[ansak]

It's a little soon to boycott Ubi. Buying from them now may help the share-holders other than EA stave off demands to change the board and the direction.

Of course EA wants to buy out or squeeze out the competition. The most pertinent remaining question for us as individuals is what'll we do to help out the folks whose lives will be disrupted as a result of the carnage. "When they came for the... because I was not a..." but in another form.

Human compassion is the only defence against the bestial appetite of the large corporation for devouring all surrounding worlds. Are you up for it?

Other than that, I hope Cyan (the Millers et al.) have an "out" in their contract and can find another distributor. I can't imagine what'll do more to destroy Myst than the "Myst-2006" approach to new titles.

cheers...ank

Re:EA disease is spreading

[bikiniAtoll]

Yes, because from what I've heard ubisoft has an oh-so great reputation for treating their employees well...

"source available" != Open Source != Free Software

[FreeUser]

Open Source is great for games. Many people get confused and think that because you have an open source game, people can get it for free. You don't have to use the GPL to be open source.

This is true.

If they would just include the source with your game, and allow you to edit it for your own purposes, but not redistribute it, it would still be open source, by definition.

I'd check the definition of open source again. Certainly this would not be software libre (free as in freedom software), and I believe restricting redistribution disqualifies a license from meeting the open source definition as well (though I haven't kept up on the open source folks current guidelines, so I could be wrong).

The GPL'ing of game engines on the other hand is a great idea.

I think you could achieve what you're suggesting by GPLing the game source (engine) and the game logic perhaps, but retaining all of your rights to the ARTWORK (which would arguably include not just sprites and sets, but also level maps, etc.). In this way you gain all of the advantages of free software with respect to debugging the gaming software, but retain a branded product you can sell. You could even release for free the first 25% of the game to hook folks a la Id (they did this with doom, quake et al very successfully).

Of course, you may find yourself competing with folks who make 3rd party knockoffs that run on your game engine and with your game logic ... that is a downside, although if your artwork and level design is superior, that may not be a big issue.

Certainly artwork is a labor intensive part of designing games (perhaps THE labor intensive part these days), and while a Creative Commons approach to artwork (and film, for that matter) is likely to emerge in the future, certainly in today's environment you could do something like the above quite successfully I suspect.

You just need a controlling interest

[dj42]

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.

First they ruin the Ultima Seris now this

[genner]

EA must be stopped they've become the microsoft of the gaming industry. I will never forgive them for running Ultima Online!

Re:First they ruin the Ultima Seris now this

[Pop69]

They're still running it, it came out years AFTER EA bought out OSI.

Besides, I think you meant RUINING !

Re:First they ruin the Ultima Seris now this

[genner]

Ah irony and poor spelling on my part. They ruined it by running it.

GarageGames.com

[webzombie]

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 and strategy or else we'll just be fighting another M$ only this one pimps games.

Re:GarageGames.com

[pommiekiwifruit]

Please point out the open-source or garage games that compete with current games.

While many programmers work for free, very few artists seem to, and most games from the SNES onwards have required more artists than programmers.

the way every other company out there would

[Uukrul]

The problem is that the way every other company out there would is just buying competency.
Oracle vs People Soft
You can read about how bad it's this would hurt competition at Miscrosoft-CNet. and this guys at Microsoft know about they are talking.

Good predictor

[Dan667]

Anything EA or any company that is owned by EA makes has become a pretty good predictor not buy because it will suck. Just wish more people would figure that out.

Re:is EA..

[ergo98]

How many hostile takeovers has Microsoft been involved with?

EA never made great games

[localekko]

Gaming turned mainstream when EA was at the top of its league, and mass cashing in followed soon after. The article mentions "Magic Carpet, Theme Park, Dungeon Keeper, Black & White". I think we all know that those titles have more in common than just EA.

Re:EA never made great games

[Dekks]

Bullfrog when Peter Molyneaux was still with them worked on all those I believe.

Good lord

[prisoner]

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...

Re:Good lord

[Jaeph]

Let's not go overboard, though. I loved old microprose as well: heck MOO and MOM sucked my life away for a time. But these games were also buggy and unbalanced. Big, fun, but they weren't perfect by any stretch.

Certainly no Blizzard. :-)

-Jeff

Re:is EA..

[Reignking]

Plenty! Think of all of the times that people have had their computers taken over by hackers due to the lack of security from MS products...

What's going on indeed...

[jayhawk88]

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!

Re:What's going on indeed...

[SilentChris]

That was pure video game comedic gold.

Re:What's going on indeed...

[rainman_bc]

Dude that was awesome... Thanks for sharing :) Looks like it's been in the works for a while lol...

Holy smoking ruins Batman!

[mestreBimba]

This totally explains what happened to Acclaim!!

Dr. Evil: Make the next Dave Mira game XXX. I want fem-bots with feakin laser bames on their jibblies.

Re:is EA..

[2old2rockNroll]

I'm only looking for good games. I don't really care who makes them.

You seem to be in the minority. When good games like Ico and Beyond Good and Evil are made, people don't buy them. It seems the majority of gamers just want the same old warmed-over franchise games. Pretty soon, that's going to be all that's left because game companies lose money on anything new or innovative. Meanwhile, EA is busy trashing the MOH franchise, but it still sells.

Re:EA disease is spreading

[__int64]

from what I've heard ubisoft has an oh-so great reputation for treating their employees well...

Yes, actually they do, I have 3 friends who work for Rainbow Studios in Phoenix and they love it! I've been told on multiple occasions that I have a seat there waiting for me. But I'm opting to finish college and grab a master's first.

But this news, along with the state of the industry as a whole is just very depressing...It seems that by the time I will get out and am ready to hit the scene, there won't be much left in terms of great places work for. All the legacy developers and publishers will have long been consolidated away or eaten up (as in the case of ubi.) And the only thing that will be remain are a bunch of these neo-fascist EA sweatshops.

It's sad but really, this is the only way I ultimately see the industry going...but I guess good things don't last forever.

Speedball

[pommiekiwifruit]

Hey, I'm glad you like it. It was always sold as a "future sport" anyway...

On that topic, all the wrestling games are not accurate sports sims either - since they are not predetermined and scripted :-)

Talpa is owned by Media Miljardair John de Mol

[rigolo]

Talpa is the personal investment company of John de Mol. He is the person that created Big Brother and other big time TV programs. He sold his TV production company Endemol (known for Fear Factor for example) for Bilions to Telefonica and now he is bidding on the Dutch Soccer TV rights. He is strating his own TV station in the Netherlands.

Ultima Online 2

[Leninix]

Remember, they've killed Ultima Online 2 because of the fear that would hurt profits for UO1.

Sports?

[Mildog]

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)

Re:Sports?

[geoffspear]

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).

Re:Sports?

[Mildog]

Would you need a license? What I was thinking was that the rosters are fully configurable, say in some plugin module. Then, if a group of guys get together and hacked up an nfl roster, saved it, and made it available, I don't see a licensing problem (as long as it wasn't a module coming from the development team). Seems like it would work...

what was ubisoft thinking??

[Alban]

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?

Re:Silver Lining?

[__int64]

Despite popular opinion, mentioning 'linux' and 'server' in the same post will not get you modded up. Especially in the wake of ubisoft employees who are about to start getting bitch slapped by ea.

In closing, no there is no silver lining; ea is a ruthless and horrible company, one who doesn't even recognize programmers as human beings. Whether they port game severs to linux or not, is totally irrelevant. And I actually find it offensive that you would even bring such a thing up in this discussion, as it's a very serious matter for those of us who do or will be working in the game industry.

Ubisoft fine as it is, EA knows that?

[Alban]

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).

BG&E and Zelda

[raygundan]

Fair enough. But Beyond Good & Evil is a reasonable approximation of the Zelda gameplay and puzzles. If you like Zelda, you'll probably like it.

It took me a while to realize it while playing the game, but it is almost entirely an homage to Zelda redone in a sci-fi setting.

EA becomes single largest stock holder in Ubisoft

[doormat]

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.

Merry Christmas, Everyone!

[superultra]

The NFL, DiCE, now Ubisoft...
Looks like someone's Christmas capital is burning a hole in their pocket! Tsk tsk!

Re:Merry Christmas, Everyone!

[Nevita]

That's what happens when your stock price goes through the roof (check out the one-year chart: http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=charting&m ode=basics&selected=ERTS From a business standpoint, this is a good move. From a consumer standpoint, very bad.

They both stink, let them merge.

[Timmy D Programmer]

It's not like some nice little ma & pa shop is getting bought out by the big bad company. It's the Little Bad Company getting bought out by the Big Bad Company.

If the bought out Blizzard, then I'de freak out!

Guillemot brothers still largest shareholder

[SD_CrazyJ]

Contrary to what is stated in the news text (the buyout would instantly make EA the biggest shareholder, ahead of the Guillemot brothers.), the Guillemot brothers actually own almost 23% of the shares:
According to Reuters, "EA's investment secures it access to 18.4 percent of the voting rights, against 22.8 percent held by Ubi Soft's founders, the Guillemot family, Ubi Soft said."

I've seen the comments of a lot of slashdotters... Let me tell you that people here at ubi Montreal didn't like the news either...
:|

Walmart of video games

[Atario]

How true. EA is one of the originals from wayyy back. Check out this history 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.

Re:Walmart of video games

[grumbel]

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.

Re:EA disease is spreading

[n0wak]

Ubi (who I feel make great games).

Yup, they sure do. It's just that they either ignore or dump the good games (BG&E), or they XTREME-them-up with stupid nu-metal rock and increase the gratuitous violence level (PP), or they make vastly inferior and glitchy versions of their games under the same name as the superior title (GR2 PS2 vs XBox), or... they release Charlie's Angels.

Re:is EA..

[forgotten_my_nick]

Not sure if you would class it as hostile. But didn't MS buyout Stacker after they lost the court case to them (MS were caught with stolen code).

Interesting to look back on the history...

[webview]

Wikipedia has some pretty interesting notes on EA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts I especially like this: "A novel approach to giving credit to its developers was one of EA's trademarks in its early days. EA was the first video game publisher to treat its developers like rock stars in an industry where developers were more prone to be treated like nameless factory workers." Wow. Talk about a 180.

Worst game maker...

[wdavies]

You've played Shadowbane, right....?

All I can think of when I read that is...

[SuperKendall]

... the Simpsons and HyperGlobalMegaNet.

Buy him out, boys!

Pinball Contruction Set

[zjbs14]

Or the first "construction set" title, Bill Budge's Pinball Construction Set. That was a great piece of software, esp. on the C64.

Cool cover art too.

That's not how stock ownership works

[artemis67]

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, then each of the stockholders is looking to support a candidate that supports their idea of how the company should be run. And they don't need a majority of shares to do it.

A board seat opens, and there are 6 candidates, and the votes are evenly divided among the candidates, EXCEPT that EA holds a 20% stake. EA will choose the new board member.

Re:That's not how stock ownership works

[krbvroc1]

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 questions (other than rubber stamping the board) is on these employee compensation issues.

Replace, no...

[adiposity]

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

Re:EA disease is spreading

[YGingras]

Ubi is no better than EA. Do you think the people who left Ubi to join EA did it because they were so well treated at Ubi ?

Why Bash

[flogger]

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.

Re:Why Bash

[Zentac]

The problem these people have with this is that inovative and creative development is rare, to say the least, with EA. UbiSoft has been responsible for some pretty big surprises, Beyond Good & Evil, Prince of Persia, and they are doing a hell of a job with the Tom Clancy license, one of the bigest things in gaming last year was Splinter Cell 2's multiplayer, combining 3rd person sneaking with 1st person shooting. Things are happening in UbiSofts studios, things that are putting smiles on the faces of gamers. Something that will mostlikely change when EA dictates the menu.

Re:Why Bash

[WWWWolf]

People these days don't know EA is evil? Huh... Well, let me tell you.

I don't know much about Ubisoft, but EA certainly is evil...

EA has this nasty habit of buying smaller companies, then making them producing crap. Just look what happened to Bullfrog, Westwood, Maxis and, worst of all, Origin Systems. Gradually, the staff that knew and loved the old games gets replaced by new folks who don't know a whole lot. The leading visionaries of the old companies stay aboard only as puppets or brainwashed zombies. Gradually, there's more and more big-corporate politics, and EA gets more and more say in what they expect the games should have. The results first become stinkers that leave old fans seriously annoyed, then they become mass-market, lowest-common-denominator soullless burger games that inspire "casual gamers" to either ignore them completely or to go "kewl, this is so innovative"... (not.)

And once they have the "brand" - not necessarily the essence of the particular game series, just the "brand" - chained down, they milk the living bejezus out of it. They know how to sell their stuff to the idiots. And, by the might of their CEO's shiny forehead and stock-value-raising haircut, truly, that is what they do. There's Game, and either million and two yearly upgrades, expansion disks, or some variation on that theme. And then there's Sequel, and same deal for that too, unless the first Game's expansions are still selling tons and tons and tons.

And, seriously, if you think EA games are good... imagine what they could have been WITHOUT all-consuming abyss of politicking and Mass-Market Appeal Maximizing behind them! Just compare any of their games to whatever the competition has cooked up. You'll probably note a few things: The competition's game is probably slightly better, far less buggy, and better crafted. And, of course, that they aren't selling or marketed as well. EA's marketing is simply something they do right, often, and eagerly so.

And, hey, that was just what I already knew. By the way, recently it was also revealed why they are able to make games in really, really, really damn short time too: They treat their employees pretty damn badly. I always joked about "code slaves", but never thought there were actual code slaves anywhere. Apparently, there are. And knowing EA, it just didn't surprise me at all.

But hey, don't listen to me. I'm just generally peeved about EA. One of them "old fans", you know. Do something for me, will you? Look up "Ultima IX: Ascension" some day. And I don't mean the official word. Look for the damn fan opinion about it. Not exactly pretty.

Evil company, tries to buy evil company

[fozzmeister]

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 sequels.

Thier evilness however is only challenged by Valve's Steam.

EA's Checklist

[tenchi90]

DONE: Take over Ubisoft TO DO: Sue Daemon-tools and Alchol software and put them out. obtain VU and Activision. Release 125 crappy games by the end of the year. (1 down 3 more to go!)

Re:EA disease is spreading

[badmammajamma]

Well, Blue-Footed Boobie, looks like you got your wish and I got modded down. Of course, the mod that did that and you are completely out of place. Saying my post is "flamebait" because I don't want to support a company that exploits its workers is a stretch to the extreme. My post wasn't worded in an inflamatory manner. I should have said, "Ubi is now a piece of shit just like EA, fuck them both cuz I'm not giving them any of my money."

Anyway, fuck both of you. THIS IS FLAMEBAIT, morons.

Re:Retards

[orcus]

Nice troll - but you're making it kinda obvious!

I have to agree

[ElMiguel]

Even Freeciv, 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.

Eh?

[Prophet of Nixon]

Forget EA... when was the last time they made aything worthwhile... a shame they're picking on Ubi though. Ubi actually does a good game now and then. I've mainly been playing shareware stuff lately. Granted I like twitch shooters, and usually only play them in quick bouts when I'm away from home. A few things I'd highly recommend: 1. Alien Shooter (and its expansions) - Sigma Team's Alien shooter is simply the best thing ever! 2. rRootage - an awesome freeware shooter which randomly generates Ikaruga-style boss enemies of increasing difficulty and madness. I can't remember the site, but its made by Kenta Cho, and should be findable on Google. Kenta Cho has some other really cool games, but rRootage is my favorite. 3. Demonstar Secret Missions 1 and 2 - great pseudo-retro shooters from Mountain King studios. Excellent games on their hardest difficulties. Really good mouse control too. 4. Atomaders, After the End - two great games from Kraisoft... one is a souped-up space invaders, the other is a different take on the SmashTV style gameplay of Alien Shooter. Atomaders' graphics are a bit nastily compressed, but its still entertaining. 5. Wik and the Fable of Souls - A really cool platformer from Reflexive. Sort of a cross between lode runner and the old NES Bionic Commando. 6. Ultra Assault - A shooter from Small Rockets, which is absolutely gorgeous to look at, but I find not-too-playable since it has no mouse support, and I haven't got a decent PC gamepad around at the moment... it does make me sort of want one though. Anyway, I'm personally happy that the shareware market is picking up again to make arcade games, since the mass game market seems to no longer care for them. Granted, I don't mind a big-budget cinematic display of gaming excess if its well done, but so few are, and I really just like old shooters, and fighting games and whatnot... cloned FPSs and console-style RPGs don't really appeal to me at all. I've been waiting for someone to make a good centipede for Windows, and its never happened. I once had a Mac IIsi, and loved Apeiron (Ambrosia Software), but they never made a Win port of it (or any of their older titles), and nobody else has ever made aything close. I also wish someone would make a proper sequel to Tyrian (not a lame re-release like Tyrian 2000), but seeing as how XSIV squandered all of their cash and effort making a failed GBA port, I suppose that will never happen. And all Epic's interested in these days is Unreal (bleh). And one last, off topic, thing: The Aleph-One engine (for Marathon 2) can now run Mac data files on Windows, which means that Marathon Infinity is now playable under Windows... which is awesome.

Re:Eh?

[Prophet of Nixon]

Hmmm, I guess I should have used some HTML tags in that and previewed it first.

It's all one giant hemorrhage of text now...

Re:Ugh..

[Prophet of Nixon]

What's this about a newer enhanced version?

Cash takeovers don't have to be bad.

[metroid composite]

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 differently from other purchases, it wouldn't -have- to be a bad thing. How likely is that to happen? Hmm...Ubisoft is probably larger than any previous purchase, so it might have more bargaining power in the deal, but I'm not getting my hopes up yet.

Re:Cash takeovers don't have to be bad.

[TTMuskrat]

Faulty logic - Relic is a developer. THQ is a publisher. Whereas, Ubisoft *is* a publisher. There is no need for a publisher, like EA, to buy stock in another publisher (who is their direct competition for market share) unless they planned on taking them over and then taking them down. EA just wants the Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia IPs most likely.

Re:Its only 18.4% ownership, not 100%

[retinaburn]

Apologies, I hadn't seen this article, just a few others, that didn't have the exact figures.

Re:Not trolling.

[YetAnotherAnonymousC]

its not humane, but rather than calling him a troll i'd like to see an intelectual retort to the "dont have anything to offer society" part.

Here's one (I hate to risk feeding the trolls, but the following can't be said too often):

I hold as self evident that we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights. Among them: life, liberty, and property.

Try this one

[cerberusti]

It is a game called Strange Adventures In Infinite Space. Excellent game, and done by a really small studio.

This is their site.

Ubi's Coming Creative Exodus

[dalvo909]

EA lost 20+ people in the creative group that gave us MOHAA. They left to form Infinity Ward and delivered Call of Duty, then were bought by Activision. Any industry consolidation will likely kill redundant/competing titles, but it may also cause more frustrated creatives to jump ship to create their own studios or join competitors.

Re:Ubi's Coming Creative Exodus

[AltaMannen]

Don't forget spark unlimited who left EA after making MOH games to make Call of Duty games for activision...

Re:Silver Lining?

[SaberSix]

Well, I certainly didn't mean to offend you, but from my perspective (non-game industry), I'm interested in the final product. I don't consider how it got there. Call me narrow, but that is what American is built on...the sweat of many to make a few rich by selling things we all enjoy.

The company resulting from Ubi sale to EA

[Muhammar]

can be re-named as Combine (Packaged Goods & Arts)

For Ubi employees, new concern will be about the bottom line: watching your butt and getting in line.

Re:EA disease is spreading

[lachlan76]

They probably thought they could get more money.

This is an antitrust issue?

[holysin]

God I feel old, a VIDEO GAME company is subject to an antitrust meeting????? This is a company that for the most part has no physical product, this non physical product is *ONLY* used recreationally, and this recreational non physical product has a typical useful life span once purchased of less then a month (and for some people as little as a day).
This country really does red tape everything to death.

Just be glad...

[rkischuk]

...that their bid to get exclusive with the NBA failed. At least there's a shred of sanity left in the sports industry, and still hope for a few companies other than EA to survive.

Re:Are 'tards people?

[ThaReetLad]

Well if I assert that you clearly have no hope of comprehending what life is, does that give me the right to arbitrarily deprive you of it?

Can you honestly say you know what life is, including its meaning, purpose and goal?

Perhaps the point of life is not to contribute towards society, and that society is simply the support structure in which we choose to live. Perhaps the true point of life is for each individual to make the best of what they have been given, and that is independent of an individuals mental capacity.

Now you may say that no life has meaning in and of itself beyond what we contribute to society, but that view implies there is no human soul, or God, which makes you a member of the approx 25% of society which thinks that. By your own standards you are operating as a seemingly mentally unwell or disfunctional part of the system and should renounce your right to life for the good of humanity.