Slashdot Mirror


Ubisoft CEO Speaks out Against EA Move

Gamespot is reporting that Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has spoken out against EA's "hostile action". From the article: "Considering the industry practice of communicating informally about such decisions, we were disappointed, to say the very least, that EA chose not to inform us of their specific plans beforehand." Further, Voodoo Extreme is reporting that a financial report may suggest the French government is going to assist Ubisoft in staying out from under EA's thumb.

365 comments

  1. From the second article... by leonmergen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Due to very irritating interstitial advertisements, here is the text of the second article:

    French Government To Protect Ubisoft From EA?

    December 30, 2004 - An AFX Financial report suggests that the French government may take steps to protect Ubisoft from acquisition by EA, should they decide to expand their 19.9% ownership:

    The heads of the studios fear that a purchase of Ubisoft by EA would lead to the disappearance of the last decision making centre in France for the video games industry, La Tribune added.

    Ubisoft said last night it is not in talks 'at present' with EA about the US company's recent purchase of a stake. 'In light of recent news spread by the press, Ubisofts board of directors reiterates that, in the absence of information from Electronic Arts regarding its intentions, the latter's acquisition of 19.9 pct of the groups capital is unsolicited and currently considered as hostile,' the company said.

    Les Echos newspaper reported yesterday that Ubisoft will gather together some of its largest shareholders next week in a bid to convince them not to throw their weight behind EA.

    -- Andrew Burnes

    --
    - Leon Mergen
    http://www.solatis.com
    1. Re:From the second article... by scribblej · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight:

      UbiSoft decides to sell their company to the public.

      The public buys it.

      The public sells it to EA.

      UbiSoft doesn't like that.

      So the government comes in and buys it back, for UbiSoft?

      Fuuuuuck, I wish I had a deal like that. Buy my company, and then I'll let the g-men come in and buy it back for me. I profit. You lose. Why wouldn't I like it?!

    2. Re:From the second article... by SilentChris · · Score: 2, Informative

      No one said anything about the government buying back the company. All they have to do is allow Ubisoft to buy back its own shares from the public (which is perfectly legal), which would prevent EA from getting its hands on 50%. Simple.

    3. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      EA is evil. It represents the dying of the "old guard"; I still hate that old favorites like Bullfrog and Westwood are no more. I still can't believe it--"There is no more Bullfrog."

      I think they're the people behind the dumbification of some of my favorite franchises, such as SimCity, which took a turn toward the cartoonish with SimCity 3000 and pushed Maxis into a neverending development cycle of crappy Sims expansion packs (at least all was forgiven when Sims 2 ended up being interesting and creative).

      EA is part of the evil over-commercialization of gaming that already happened to the movie industry decades ago. We're now seeing the beginnings in the game industry, where large conglomerates control the development companies, and where it's no longer a group of computer nerds who love games putting out classics (i.e., id Software) but a bunch of faceless, shit-on programmers being rushed to meet the Christmas deadline on the latest Dear Hunter game that marketing has decided has at least an 87% chance of surpassing expense costs.

      Companies like Valve are fighting back with Steam. That's why, despite the sometimes valid criticisms of Steam, I recognize that it is the necessary and inevitable future, connecting gamers directly with the people making the games, not some giant, corporate middleman. Record companies, anyone?

    4. Re:From the second article... by xenicson · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that the public won't continue to support innovative games by smaller, newer companies? If you go find a bunch of fellow nerds, and build a great game, you should be able to sell it pretty easily.

    5. Re:From the second article... by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other news: Today, the French government announced their unconditional surrender to EA. As of 12 noon, France is now a wholly owned subsidiary of EA

      --
      /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
    6. Re:From the second article... by maxchaote · · Score: 1

      Nerds tend to have shit for marketing skills, distribution knowhow and financing.

    7. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing happens in the US. Or did you miss the whole "You can't buyout Hershey" thing?

    8. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And did that stop doom? Or any of the old hits? And these days it's even easier for word of mouth to spread. Few gamers don't have internet access.

    9. Re:From the second article... by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 2, Funny
      the latest Dear Hunter game

      That's guaranteed to be a big seller amongst the "disgruntled husbands" demographic. ;-)

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    10. Re:From the second article... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the French were as good at surrendering and as bad as standing up for themselves and others as some people would like you to believe then all you Americans would still be singing "God Save The Queen".

      Think about that next time you reach for the cheap and ignorant jibes or the next time you celebrate Independence Day.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    11. Re:From the second article... by stupidfoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      yeah, we should have just chopped off everyone's heads - that's a much better style of revolution in my opinion!

      Think about that every time you celebrate "Le Chop off the Fucking Heads Day" or whatever it is that you celebrate to commerate that period of time.

    12. Re:From the second article... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That's unlikely as the majority of buyers demand graphics worth ten million USD in salary. You CAN keep your production costs low enough to be able to make a profit off hardcore gamer sales but you'll have to cut quite a few corners, especially if you want to have a chance of surviving an unsuccessful game without bankrupcy.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:From the second article... by sabernet · · Score: 0, Troll

      ....ignorance

      I would troll you were I given mod points

    14. Re:From the second article... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The french government has deemed video games as "culture" and the french are really protective of their culture. To them selling Ubi to EA is probably like selling the Louvre to some oil baron.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, Americans do sing "God Save the Queen", we just get the lyrics wrong.

      NB: For those who may not be not familar with it, the American patriotic song "My Country 'Tis of Thee" is set to the tune of the British patriotic song "God Save the Queen".

    16. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and if it wasn't for us the French would be speaking German. So what we can go back and forth like this all day.

    17. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, the French people rose up and destroyed the French government that helped the US. Think about *that* the next time you pretend modern France is in any way responsible for anything positive in America.

    18. Re:From the second article... by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      You would troll me? As one does with a trolling motor?
      Or would you mod me "Troll"?

      What is ignorant about what I said? They chopped off plenty of heads during their revolutionary period of bloodlust. Good for them. They went a little overboard, but oh well.

      I know the name for the day is "Bastille Day". But, personally, I prefer "Le Chop off the Fucking Heads Day".

    19. Re:From the second article... by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Those who do not learn from history are doomed to parrot republican talking points.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    20. Re:From the second article... by legojenn · · Score: 1

      Hmm, well, the French gave up without much fight in Canada, well, the French Canadians fought hard but there weren't enough of them. Regardless, Canadians have a good relationship with the UK, but we don't sing 'God Save the Queen/King' any more. In fact, the Queen doesn't even have a crown on our new money. Go figure!

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
    21. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      EA is evil. It represents the dying of the "old guard"; I still hate that old favorites like Bullfrog and Westwood are no more. I still can't believe it--"There is no more Bullfrog."

      I'm not sure whether it was EA's fault or not, when half of Bullfrog's creative force in the form Peter Molyneaux left the company and started his own studio, that probably didn't bode well. Dungeon Keeper 2 was one of their last games, and it was an utter flop, a good game yes, but just a new face on the exact same previous game. To make matters worse, they released patches that made the game unplayable and never fixed them. Try playing the 1.7 patch on any modern machine: the sound artifacts are merely the beginning of the problems.

      Molyneaux didn't exactly do any of us a favor either with the utterly excreble interface in Black and White (to say nothing of the game's fixation on excrement). The wretched gesture interface turned an otherwise enjoyable game into an exercise in frustration. I wonder how many people actually threw their mice across the room. He's become another Richard Garriott or Sid Meier: his programming days are over, and his creative contributions have gotten stale and retreaded...

    22. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Nerds tend to have shit for marketing skills, distribution knowhow and financing.

      Aaaaand THAT's why we have distributors, like Vivendi Universal, THQ, Activision, Atari, and yes, Electronic Arts. Only the latter seems obsessed with interested in "vertically integrating" (absorbing) their own studios. The others seem quite happy to let their studios have autonomy as long as they meet sales goals.

      (that's from this list: Sony and Nintendo are of course notorious for micromanaging, Microsoft Games just has the platform religion of those two but is still less controlling)

    23. Re:From the second article... by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      I can't buy out Hershey?!?!?! You dream-wrecker! Now how am I supposed to get that life-time supply of chocolate delivered straight to my door every morning by a cute girl in a Hershey swimsuit?

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    24. Re:From the second article... by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be "Desperate husbands"?

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    25. Re:From the second article... by benna · · Score: 1

      The french people overthrew their own government partiatlly because they believed in the what france had helped fight for in the american revolution.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    26. Re:From the second article... by Duct+Tape+Pro · · Score: 1

      Where is "+1 Bitter (yet Insightful)" when you need it.

      --
      i hotdog.
    27. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      José María Morelos, Vicente Guerrero, General Agustín de Iturbide, and General Antonio López de Santa Anna, all have asked me to send you a message from the grave: "Chupa Mi Verga" http://www.i-hate-france.com/jokes.html p.s. i can guarantee you, the next time i celebrate independence day...the last thought on my mind will be france or the french. here...have a grenade!

    28. Re:From the second article... by anocross · · Score: 1

      I still hate that old favorites like Bullfrog and Westwood are no more.

      Westwood may be no more, but a bunch of their old employees have banded together again.

      --
      Their way is better.
    29. Re:From the second article... by johnnyoxford · · Score: 1

      And of course their "culture" consists of the Tom Clancy game franchise with a little Prince of Persia on the side.

    30. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking bitter yankee. Get a life and go get some assfucking.

    31. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest -- Diderot.

    32. Re:From the second article... by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      Bastille day was for the freeing of the political prisoners who where housed in the Bastille you fuckwit. There is no holiday that celebrates the killing of the royalty Please stop making the US sound like a bunch of ignorant hick rednecks. If it wasnt for France and their CIA organization would would have been attack twice in the last 3 years. Just cause they opposed our stupid war (which if you forget half the US opposed too) DOesnt mean they dont secretly kick ass.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    33. Re:From the second article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll certainly think about the French the next time Cinco de Mayo rolls around, considering they were going to help the Confederates, but were routed by an inferior force of Mexicans.

      I don't have anything against France, but please, grow a thicker skin, don't respond to the idiots (because it only makes you look worse), and don't trot out the "you'd be British if not for the French" argument. It just invites other silly arguments.

    34. Re:From the second article... by qoa · · Score: 1

      Oh, and Rayman, Ape Escape, Farcry, Myst, and the flop XIII. Not that the whole Tom Clancy thing isn't a cash cow.

      --
      Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
    35. Re:From the second article... by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      If it wasnt for France and their CIA organization would would have been attack twice in the last 3 years

      Thanks for your clear and concise contribution. Oh, and yes, France "secretly kick(s) ass". Whatever...

      You might want to read up on the holiday.

      It is the French national holiday like the 4th of July is the US national holiday. From the about.com link:
      Bastille Day was declared the French national holiday on 6 July 1880, on Benjamin Raspail's recommendation, when the new Republic was firmly entrenched. Bastille Day has such a strong signification for the French because the holiday symbolizes the birth of the Republic. As in the US, where the signing of the Declaration of Independence signaled the start of the American Revolution, in France the storming of the Bastille began the Great Revolution. In both countries, the national holiday thus symbolizes the beginning of a new form of government.

      But I'm the fuckwit. Thanks, sport!

    36. Re:From the second article... by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      Oh wow! A quote! AMAZING!

      I love people who think they can quote old dead people and BAM! they think they're making some amazing point.

      "You're a fucking idiot." - Me

    37. Re:From the second article... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      The French did not revolt against their monarchy because the crown aided American independence. Frenchmen like the Marquis de la Fayette and Alexis de Tocqueville were instrumental in shaping modern America. By the way, the US Army is based on the French military model, not the English. So there's at least two positive things about America that the French are responsible for.

  2. Just Talk by Aleman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    UBI can speak out against it all they want, but what they really need to do is give their current shareholders more reasons to hold onto the stock. Maybe they should have spent more time polishing Ghost Recon 2...

    1. Re:Just Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      UBI can speak out against it all they want, but what they really need to do is give their current shareholders more reasons to hold onto the stock. Maybe they should have spent more time polishing Ghost Recon 2...


      You must be a moron i gues (its about time to throw a frag into youre hole),

      UBI soft makes good quality games, Rainbox Six the best close combat game (FPS for lamers) the market.

      As for the French government, wil see what they wil do. But the shareholders should be ware that UBI makes 1 class games, not seen anywere else.

      Tango SIX out.
    2. Re:Just Talk by Aleman · · Score: 1

      Yes, UBI has made plenty of good games. But with recent releases like the second Prince of Persia and Ghost Recon 2, it seems like they were capitalizing on the franchise name rather than focusing on creating a top-quality game. Look at Ghost Recon 2. New engine, new perspective, same game. And on the Xbox, the online interface looks like it was thrown together last minute. sheesh. Rainbow Six 4 is coming next spring. Maybe they don't need EA to buy them to turn into EA.

    3. Re:Just Talk by Fancia · · Score: 1

      Second Prince of Persia? I feel old now... ^.^;

      --

      Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
    4. Re:Just Talk by UltraAyla · · Score: 1

      I agree. If they give their shareholders a reason to stay, then they have little to worry about from EA

    5. Re:Just Talk by La0tsu · · Score: 1

      Too bad they can't seem to put out a game with the polish and technology of something like "Far Cry".

    6. Re:Just Talk by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Unless of course EA is willing to pay more money for the stock than it's worth so that EA can control a greater portion of the distribution pie and use that as leverage to ask for a greater cut of revenue from titles produced by independent publishers.

      While you would be right that the shareholders would be making more money than they would if Ubisoft remained independent, a likely reason for EA to offer that much is so that they can illegally exert monopoly power. Good for the shareholders, bad for customers and the industry in the long run.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    7. Re:Just Talk by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Being the biggest company in a particular business segment does not make one a monopoly, nor does having a lot of money. While companies like Activision, Vivendi, Nintendo, Take Two, etc. are still selling plenty of videogames, EA can't be considered a monopoly.

    8. Re:Just Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging from the tone and grammar of this post, we have a French guy, most probably a Ubisoft employee, trying to astroturf in a Slashdot post.

      "Tango SIX out"? Cute!

  3. WTO? by exhilaration · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't government interference a violation of France's WTO agreement?

    1. Re:WTO? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Governments can do what they want; they have the ultimate power. The WTO is no lawmaking body, it just suggest treaties to sovereign nations, each, in turn, can choose whether to follow the treaties or not.

      So France can do very well it damn wants to, and so does the US, and between the two, the US is the most flagrant violator of WTO "policies".

    2. Re:WTO? by rtaylor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't government interference a violation of France's WTO agreement?

      Not if they play by the same rules as everyone else. They're looking to expand their ownership of the firm -- presumably so they have more control of the board and can reject the offer.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:WTO? by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      Actually it's a violation of their agreement as part of the EU I believe.

      The EU is staunchly against governments subsidizing companies, or so it claims. Since Airbus gets such heavy subsidies it's really more like every other countries point of view:

      "We can subsidize our markets to protect jobs BUT HOW DARE YOU DO THAT TO COMPETE WITH US!"

      But since they're fighting the big bad U.S.A. and it's eeeevil corporate empires, I'm sure they'll unite. We're the assholes, and don't you forget it!

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    4. Re:WTO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about the WTO, but it is most certainly forbidden under membership of the EU. State aid for private business is outlawed. This wouldn't be the first time France has illegaly propped up one of their under-performing industries (Air France and privatised Electricity companies spring to mind)

    5. Re:WTO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTO? WTO? Wait a minute, where am I am I? Looks at url. Right, Slashdot, just where I thought I was. Isn't Slashdot fervently against the WTO? I mean, I'm not really sure but it fits the hive mind mentallity around here. I am at Slashdot right?

    6. Re:WTO? by wolf- · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No No, Americans are Dicks.
      And most of ya'll know the rest...

      --
      ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
    7. Re:WTO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We're the assholes, and don't you forget it!"

      Well if the cap fits...

    8. Re:WTO? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      What major WTO policies has the USA violated?

    9. Re:WTO? by bikiniAtoll · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google about the softwood lumber dispute with Canada. The US continues to impose duties despite the WTO repeatedly ruling in favour of Canada.

      As to whether or not that counts as "major"...

    10. Re:WTO? by DAldredge · · Score: 0

      That isn't major, it is a rather small issue in the grand scope of things.

      Besides, if other countries are violating the WTO (in the same way the USA is) why single out the United States?

    11. Re:WTO? by rainman_bc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about Softwood Lumber? Congress has an act right now in place where they will take the tarrif's illegally collected (per WTO and NAFTA) from Canadian lumber producers and are going to turn them over to the US Softwood Lumber businesses.

      Want to talk about unfair subsidy?

      All that, because we don't require our lumber producers to purchase land before they log it; we simply lease crown land to them for a low price, and we get to maintain control over such land.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    12. Re:WTO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That only happened because George W. Bush owns a timber company.

    13. Re:WTO? by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 3, Informative

      What major WTO policies has the USA violated?

      The Byrd Amendment.

    14. Re:WTO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is the softwood tariffs, "minor" ?

      what about the steel tariffs, that the WTO ruled were illegal?

      your such a fucking toady apoligist
      for the current administration, its pathetic.

    15. Re:WTO? by CygnusXII · · Score: 1

      Actually you demonstrate your ignorance my, name calling and throwing epithets. Just because a person is uninformed for every wrong that is perpetrated by a Politician, gives you the right to abuse someone. I think not. Why not act like you have a real education, and discuss the issues, instead of resorting to being a Verbal Bully. WTO, UN all agencies, like this are only as good as their weakest link. I think it all goes back to the League of Nations, the same fate is laying in wait for all, pseudo official world bodies, they have only the power that people allow them to have, and once it is discovered that they have no enforcement ability, then noone follows their treaties. The only thing that is absolute in Power, is the Sovereignity, of each individual nation and it's Governing Body, the rest is politics.

      If you continue to rave, then you will be only further the belief that you are loud, and annoying.

      --
      My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
    16. Re:WTO? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The point was that France going against the WTO in such a minor case is no grave issue.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:WTO? by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      need sum wood?

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    18. Re:WTO? by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      My post wasn't meant as pro/anti subsidies. That's why I said "every country's pov" when I implied they all think they can subsidize but no one else can.

      Subsidies are one of those things that either everybody needs to stop or everyone has to keep doing to be competitive.

      It's funny because so many people on /. are against subsidies because it's the government propping up businesses, but yet they want labor to stay in America. How does labor stay in America? The government subsidizes businesses to keep them "competitive".

      Can't have your pi and a terminating decimal too.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    19. Re:WTO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd how when people lose their jobs they're told to change their lives or change their skillsets so they're "competitive". Yet, when companies face competition from other countries, they run to the government and cry for subsidies instead of doing the same.

      I guess subsidies are just like welfare for unemployed companies.

    20. Re:WTO? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      That isn't major, it is a rather small issue in the grand scope of things.

      Except that it's completely destroying the economy in British Columbia.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    21. Re:WTO? by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1


      I think most reasonable people on either of the atlantic would say 'So what !'.

    22. Re:WTO? by chill · · Score: 1

      All that, because we don't require our lumber producers to purchase land before they log it; we simply lease crown land to them for a low price, and we get to maintain control over such land.

      The U.S. does not require lumber producers to purchase land before they log it. The gov't does lease timber rights in National, State and other forests. The whole argument is over the phrase "low price". The U.S. contends that the Canadian gov't leases it too cheaply -- below market value.

      I'm not saying who is right, just clearing up some facts. Having recently moved to north Idaho, this is a hot-button issue here.

      -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    23. Re:WTO? by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Part of it too is, Canada stipulates the loggers must replant the logged land while the Americans don't care. So while the cost is "lower" to lease it is compensates for reforstation efforts they must do while the american loggers may or may nto depending ont he state.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    24. Re:WTO? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Why don't the US lumber producers then go after their respective state governments instead of forcing Congress to rip up trade agreements?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    25. Re:WTO? by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      The WTO is put in place to remove sovereign powers for the benefit of the business community (read: multinational conglomerates). Boohoo if it offends the WTO. As others have said. The US violates its WTO obligations whenever it makes financial sense to do so.

      The question is. Why do governments constantly feel the need to help corporations to 'compete'. Isn't the whole point of capitalism to allow firms to compete fairly in a FREE MARKET. If a corporation can not compete it is, according to that theory, inefficient and a detriment to the entire economy. It should be allowed to die (or be eaten by its competetors).

      Ubisoft certainly would not bat an eyelash to help the french public if it perceived doing so would in the overall scheme of things, make it less competetive or hurt the bottom line.

      Will we ever learn?

      If the people of france (through their government) want to produce french video games they should either make it mandatory or create a state run video game company/ministry/department or impose tarrifs or taxes on all video games sold which are not french enough (however they choose to define that.) Perhaps spend more money training citizens to write french video games (however that is defined). Or even directly subsidize video game developers (I mean the human beings) by giving anyone who works in that field a tax incentive. (this would make more video game developers want to live in france).

      Spending public money to help the current management of Ubisoft, the corporation, maintain control of the company is unfair and ineffective. The taxpayer is being ripped off, because Ubisoft will continue to do what it by its very nature must always do. Try to make as much profit as possible selling whatever video games the market demands.

      How does this cause Ubisoft to become more french? Ubisoft will always cater to the demands of the market (producing no more and no less french content than the market demands).

      The only beneficiaries of this are the Ubisoft shareholders. The people of france as well as any possible up and comming french video game developers are getting screwed.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    26. Re:WTO? by chill · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I'd need to research this before taking it at face value. PRIVATE land doesn't have to be replanted, as that is up to the owner. But leased State and Federal lands, I'm not sure. I certainly have seen a lot of freshly planted forest in National and State Forest areas.

      It does vary by State, though. For example, here in Idaho something like 90% of the land is either State or Federal -- a good chunk being forest. While in Maine something like 95% is privately owned by timber companies. Opposite ends of the spectrum.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    27. Re:WTO? by chill · · Score: 1

      Because States can't regulate trade with foreign nations -- Federal law supercedes them. There is a BIG fight in U.S. politics about who has ultimate control of forestland. The fight is between the federal gov't and the States that the forests are actually in. Right now, there are a lot of federal regs that limit what the States can do and permit.

      So...they HAVE to go thru Congress to get things changed.

      However, I believe the US has lost at least 2 rounds of WTO appeals. We're wrong, it is just the timber lobby is too powerful in many States to just come out and say that. There is a lot of resentment towards NAFTA in the U.S. Give it another year and it'll all go away in Canada's favor.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    28. Re:WTO? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Good to know - very interesting...

      I hope we win - we got burned on a lot of issues - Wheat, electricy, fresh water, and split run magazines. We had to dig our heels in on this one.

      It gets more interesting when you look at what we've been doing to southbound rivers and lakes that are split over the border... Pretty rotten stuff IMO.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    29. Re:WTO? by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! This is why I am opposed to the entire concept of "public property". If it's publicly owned, then anyone can use it, right? Nope, only those the government (that great protector of whatever it deems to be "public interest") decides is worthy may access the land. Some profit at the expense of others. Such is the perversion called democracy...

  4. Duel by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Funny

    The CEO's should decide it the old fashioned way-- controllers at dawn! UBI Soft, as the target, gets to pick the game...

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Duel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope there's a download of the video of EA's CEO getting ow3nd by Ubi's in Far Cry

    2. Re:Duel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope they choose a mod of Oni, with UbiSoft playing Konoko and EA being some faceless enemy. There's something satisfying about breaking someone's neck between a pretty girl's thighs...

      OK, I spent way too much time playing that game.

    3. Re:Duel by Psykechan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Controllers at dawn?

      What type of self respecting gamer gets up before the crack of noon.

    4. Re:Duel by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1



      No, no, no... this is after all night frag session "warming up" for the big event. I just want the bawls concession.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    5. Re:Duel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > controllers at dawn!

      These are big companies, I think they actually have CFO's and HR departments, not controllers.

      har har

    6. Re:Duel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Pod race would be awesome.
      Best racing game ever.

  5. unexpected limelight? by night_flyer · · Score: 0, Troll

    "With Electronic Arts the new owner of almost 20 percent of Ubisoft, you might expect that company's leader to wobble a bit in the unexpected limelight."

    Being French, I expected them to surrender...

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    1. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA HA HA HA, that's awesome!

    2. Re:unexpected limelight? by stateofmind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tsk, tsk. America wouldn't even be here without France. They financed America's Revolutionary War for independence and saved us at the last hour in the War of 1812.

      Josh

    3. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just like you expect the Red Sox to always lose?

      The times, they are a chaannngggiiiinn'

    4. Re:unexpected limelight? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or in the words of Eddie Izzard:

      "You know your own history, right?"
    5. Re:unexpected limelight? by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And most of Europe would be speaking German if it hadn't been for the United States.

      Debt repaid. With interest. Thanks!

    6. Re:unexpected limelight? by wolf- · · Score: 1

      They didnt do it because of their love for the Americans. They did it out of their hatred of the British.

      You will find the French in the background of many American conflicts, manipulating the cards to the french advantage.

      French and Indian War, Revolutionary War, War of 1812, War between the States, (what were the two when we sent our farm boys to save their asses?), WW I, WW II, they were in Vietnam before the US came in. (we just got stuck with the bill). In recent history, we find them playing games in Iraq... And in current history, they are still playing games in Africa.

      But, back to the subject at hand. Do they dare snub the WTO free trade initiatives over a video game company?

      --
      ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
    7. Re:unexpected limelight? by WindFish · · Score: 1
      > Being French, I expected them to surrender...

      How does one say, "Your participle is dangling," in French?

    8. Re:unexpected limelight? by BuhSnarf · · Score: 0, Troll

      I do love how America really, honestly believes they won the second World War.

      *laughs*

    9. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Being French, I expected them to surrender..."

      If you consider a Vermonter, for example, British, then your statement would be valid, but since a Vermonter is American, then it just makes you look like an idiot.

      Thanks for the laugh.

    10. Re:unexpected limelight? by zulux · · Score: 1

      And most of Europe would be speaking German if it hadn't been for the United States.


      The may not be speaking German now - but they are sure under the German central-banks power with the Euro.

      Germany finally got Europe united - just 50 years late and without the flashy uniforms.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    11. Re:unexpected limelight? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      And we saved them in WWII when the gave up rather than take the chance of having Paris destroyed...

    12. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And most of Europe would be speaking German if it hadn't been for the United States.

      Debt repaid. With interest. Thanks!

      - Wrong. Most of Europe would be speaking Russian. The only reason the US finally got into the European part of WWII is because they have forseen the "communist scum" taking over Europe. Russia already won WWII way before the US even got engaged in Europe.

      Learn your history from real sources and not Fox News.

    13. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US did not single-handedly win WWII, but the US had a large part in the victory. If Germany had waited to invade Russia until after Britain fell and not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, then they very likely would have conquered all of Europe. As a side note, France is the only country to have surrendered their capital without firing a shot in its defense.

    14. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or more likely we would be speaking Russian, and the US would be speaking German or Russian. The US got involved out of its own best interest.

    15. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, the US just got stuck with the bill for nam, nothing to do with your fucked up obsession of fighting the evil pinko commies, and ending up with your arses kicked. Playing games in Iraq? Just like the US and UK did. Playing games in Africa? It's called attempting to clean up the mess they and all the other imperial powers caused. A lessen the US needs to learn isn't done by creating an even bigger mess.

    16. Re:unexpected limelight? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Without our unmolested industrial capacity, the member states of the EU would all be either speaking German or Russian right now.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    17. Re:unexpected limelight? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Well we dared to do it over the steele industry (at the detriment of every other industry in our country that uses steele). And this has no negatives to them like that so I would imagine so.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    18. Re:unexpected limelight? by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      And Europe would have without our assistance?

      Please. Continental Europe was firmly under Axis control prior to the United States involvement.

      And yet, somehow, the EU still believes appeasement is the proper way of dealing with dictators.

    19. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US did not single-handedly win WWII, but the US had a large part in the victory.

      What large part? No really, what large part? Stalin was begging the "allies" to open a front on the west, what was the US during this time? So Stalin, with barbaric methods beat the germans. They resisted at Leningrad and they destroyed a full german division at Stalingrad, they called it the "Cauldron". All that with brilliant planning and ruse. 250k German soldiers fell, with barely any survivors. From this moment on the Russian Red Army was unstoppable. The US had [b]NOTHING[/b] to do with the victory in Europe over the Nazis. Yeah, they kicked the Japaneese's butts. Whoopeee do! The center of the problem was not Japan but Europe. Big part in WWII? Hardly.

      The only reason the US got involved is for pure selfish self interest. They didn't want to see all Europe under a big red flag.

    20. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a ridiculous statement. Without fronts in Italy and in the west, Germany could have re-enforced the eastern front and destroyed the russians, even after the mess at Stalingrad.

      The russian forces were more numerous, but quantity doesn't always guarantee victory, especially so illequipped and generally poorly commanded.

      Learn some history from something other than your european 'we could have done it ourselves! really!' crap.

    21. Re:unexpected limelight? by calculi · · Score: 1

      What's with all the offensive France-bashing in this thread? Wait, this is a primarily American website? I would've thought geeks would be more intelligent about these things.

    22. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no idea the use of hallucinogenic drugs was compulsory in the USA.

    23. Re:unexpected limelight? by stateofmind · · Score: 1

      France suffered more than any other country in WWI, most of the war took place in France. They did not want anymore death and destruction. Millions of citizens had lost parts or all of their families to Germany in the first world war. So they had the choice of losing more the second time around, or surrender. They did try to defend Paris, but enough was enough.

      I know Americans like to joke all the time about the French surrendering, but America has never had to fight a huge conflict (refering to modern conflicts) on it's own soil. Having a foreign military rip through it's cities and countryside.

      Josh

    24. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fronts in Italy had two main goals:
      (1) Force Hitler to draw forces from the West to defend Italy.
      (2) Practice run for Normandie.

      It had nothing to do with giving Russians help. Infact Hitler, after the Stalingrad fiasco, he pulled some troops out from west and sent em to Russia. Futile of course. Not to mention, the Italian campaigns started after a few defeats of the Nazis in Russia, including Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow.

      Stalin already moved the heavy industry deep into Siberia where Axis planes can't reach them. They were already massproducing superior tanks to german ones. And they had tons of natural resources (fuel and steel), something the nazis were lacking. And of course the whole nazi army was demoralized after Leningrad and Stalingrad.

      Russia would have won the European part of WWII without any help. The US government got engaged for self interest.

    25. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      shame the gooks beat you good in vietnam though (though you probably won the unofficial underage girl rape contest)
      fuckin' rambo wankers

    26. Re:unexpected limelight? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      With the continent conquered and the UK pretty much at Germany's mercy, just what part of their collective asses were the Western allies going to pull a victory out of?

      The European powers didn't encourage their colonies to be industrial powerhouses.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    27. Re:unexpected limelight? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      They financed America's Revolutionary War for independence

      By "They" you mean "The Dutch" right? The Dutch did more to fund the US war of independance than the French ever did. The French gave us some weapons, and military support. But most importantly (from France at least) we got to give a big middle finger to England (we'll just trade with France then); which helped with negotiations.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    28. Re:unexpected limelight? by stateofmind · · Score: 1

      The Dutch did give us huge funding at the time, but they were not able to help us with military support. Most if not all of that came from France.

      I did some more looking into Holland's connection with the US at the time. They really stuck their neck out for us, as doing so caused them to become a bitter enemy of England.

      Really what I was trying to get at, is that without the help of a lot of countries around the world, the U.S. wouldn't be here now. It pisses me off when a lot of American's act as if these countries owe us. It's pretty much equal these days.

      Josh

    29. Re:unexpected limelight? by Kenshin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would've thought geeks would be more intelligent about these things.

      You must be new here.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    30. Re:unexpected limelight? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      shame the gooks beat you good in vietnam though (though you probably won the unofficial underage girl rape contest)
      fuckin' rambo wankers


      Haha, mod parent up, that was awesome.

      Anyhow, with the Germans doing things like this to France, it's not at all surprising they surrendered. They would have been obliterated otherwise. Is that somehow more noble than being occupied?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    31. Re:unexpected limelight? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm all for "US kicked ass in WWII", but the war was decided in the Soviet Union, at Stalingrad, iirc. It was the war of attrition against the soviets that Hitler couldn't win. Our massive D-day invasion resembled a nail in the coffin more than the coffin itself.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    32. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With your condescending tone, you must be a liberal.

    33. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alas, those incarnations of France no longer exist. Louis XVI and Napoleon ran very different governments than how France is organized today.

    34. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wierd. I thought we bombed Germany during the day, while England bombed them at night. I also thought we were a significant part of the D-Day invasion.

    35. Re:unexpected limelight? by La0tsu · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the sentiment, the French didn't suffer the most in WW2. That honor (as measured by casualties and deaths) belongs to the Russians, who lost tens of millions of people due to poor supply management (ie they didn't have any) and the fact that Stalin didn't blink twice when it came to using his soldiers as cannon fodder. After the Russians, the Germans lost the most. Then it's the French.

    36. Re:unexpected limelight? by coopaq · · Score: 0
      Or you could just go back to the reason France helped the US gain it's independence from England.

      It was in France's best interest to keep England from becoming so strong else France too could have been in a similar situation as America. Yet in that case with no America to help them.

      It was self serving of France to help.

      Yes, with all the banter France, England and the US are close allies.

    37. Re:unexpected limelight? by stateofmind · · Score: 1

      You misread my post, I said the France suffered the most in WWI (World War I). Your right about WWII, the Jews and Russians suffered the most in that conflict.

      Josh

    38. Re:unexpected limelight? by skahshah · · Score: 1

      More probably Russian.

    39. Re:unexpected limelight? by skahshah · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should thank Japan for dragging you in, since you weren't really willing ?

    40. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe would have been speaking Russian if not for the United States... probably more than just in Europe too. But stalin's communism wasn't much better than Germany had in mind, so you're right that it was a favor for Europe just the same.

    41. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany had complete air superiority throughout the war and for the 2354354303rd time in this thread - D-day didn't mean jack shit as far as defeat of the Nazis, it decided who will control western europe after germany was defeated.

    42. Re:unexpected limelight? by ag-gvts-inc · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how the issue boils down to even include France. To me, it's just another example of corporate greed.

      If you don't like what a company does, don't buy their product. Let them know you didn't and why.

    43. Re:unexpected limelight? by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Well, most of those countries were monarchies. They saw North America as a source of huge wealth and figured they would be more likely to get a piece of that pie if they could break England's hold on it. The French and the Dutch both had colonists in the new world that they figured would allow them to exert influence in the new country. Otherwise that wealth would just allow England to fund armies and navies that could be used for conquest of nearby lands. Note the proximity of France and Holland to England.

      It probably never occurred to those governments that the American experiment in democracy might survive and spread. After all, the power of their monarchies was blessed by God, wasn't it? That's something to keep in mind when somebody tries to justify offensive action by telling you that God is on their side.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    44. Re:unexpected limelight? by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Read the parent post again. He said France suffered the most in World War 1, not 2. In World War 1, the Russian revolution took the Russians out of the game before the end. But in WW1, the biggest casualties all took place in trench warfare on the western front. It took the french decades to find all the unexploded munitions on their territory. Heck, they are still finding unexploded WW1 munitions, let alone those from WWII. The British and Germans have their share of the latter too. But nearly two generations of frenchmen were wiped out in WW1. It was worse than the American Civil War as a percentage of the population lost. They just hadn't had time to recuperate by WW2.

      Imagine if the US and Confederates had chemical weapons in the American Civil War, and then had to fight a second civil war in 1900. The only reason the Germans managed it is because the inflation and poverty caused by reparation payments from WW1 seemed worse than war.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    45. Re:unexpected limelight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, mod parent up, that was awesome.

      they actually have modded me up!

    46. Re:unexpected limelight? by Babbster · · Score: 1
      Yeah, see, here's the thing. Without US support, the USSR would likely have fallen as well. Through Lend Lease, the USSR received American food, trucks, jeeps, along with myriad other supplies. Admittedly, actual military equipment was shipped mostly to Great Britain - mainly because it was almost a given from a start that any American troops going into Europe would state from Great Britain, partially because of convenience (crossing the Atlantic is a lot less complicated than crossing the Soviet Union) and partially because ole Joe started out having a peace treaty with Germany.

      Without US food and materials (most notably the aforementioned trucks and jeeps, along with steel and aluminium), the USSR would likely have fallen. Let's not forget that before Stalingrad, the German army was poised to take Moscow. If they had done so, instead of turning away from Moscow, the outcome would have been very different (Germany would still likely have been eventually defeated, but we might have had a non-communist Russia and no cold war after 1945).

      Wow, this has gone FAR off-topic. :)

    47. Re:unexpected limelight? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      I, uh, respectfully disagree. :) Most historians I've read, anyway, so naturally I agree (no alternate presentation of the facts), say that the harsh winter after the invasion is what drove Hitler out of Russia. He pulled back into Poland when he failed to take Moscow, and he failed at Moscow because Winter hit. The Germans weren't used to the hard winters Russia gets, so they weren't prepared. That gave the Russians time to rally a bit. Add to that that, when you get right down to it, Hitler committed one of the most well-known classic blunders. While it was a land war in europe, technically, the USSR is an Asian power, so he did get into a land war with an Asian power.

      I'm not trying to say we weren't needed. We did a lot of damage to Japan, and we *won* against Japan, there's no doubt about that. We took Japan essentially single-handed (with help from Oceania). And we did a lot of damage in WWII. Had we *not* gone into Europe, Hitler would have been able to concentrate more fully on his USSR campaign, and he might well have won it. It all came down to one battle at Stalingrad, and it still took 3 years for the war to end after it. So, yeah, we did help a lot. We can take some credit for bailing Europe out of that mess, as well as rebuilding Europe under the Marshall plan and shielding Western Europe against the commies. We can take a lot of credit for doing a lot of good things in the world. Let's just not take full credit for what the Allies accomplished as a group in WWII, ok? How about credit for our part? ;)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    48. Re:unexpected limelight? by Moulinneuf · · Score: 1


      "We took Japan essentially single-handed "

      Go read a real history book. you got your ass handed to you in Japan Until Canada , Australia and the Purple Heart Battalion joined and you won Japan by association because of the atomic bomb invented by the ally.

      "as well as rebuilding Europe under the Marshall plan "

      In the 1980s, some historians began to argue that the Marshall Plan might not have played as decisive a role in Europe's recovery as was previously believed. The first person to make this argument was the economic historian Alan S. Milward. These critics have pointed out that growth in many European countries revived before the large-scale arrival of US aid, and was fastest among some of the lesser recipients. While aid from the Marshall Plan eased immediate difficulties and contributed to the recovery of some key sectors, growth from the post-war nadir was largely an independent process. European argue that a similar amount of reconstruction money could have been obtained by nationalizing the holdings of wealthy Europeans who deposited their money in US banks during World War II.

      Also it is good to note that the United States contributed no more than $13 billion dollars from an initial promise of 35 Billion, not even half what they said they would pay.

      "shielding Western Europe against the commies"

      Reality is Both Communist and Capitalist have been destroyed by socialist. But thats another entire subject in itself.

      "We can take a lot of credit for doing a lot of good things in the world"

      Like what ? Most of the thing you claim you did where from real american aka Canada ...

      "How about credit for our part? "

      Yes thanks for coming along once whe add won.

      --
      I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
    49. Re:unexpected limelight? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      SO all those divisions would have just been sitting there instead of finishing off Russia, right? Right?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    50. Re:unexpected limelight? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      The US left Vietnam in 1973 (that is, signed a peace treaty). Saigon fell in 1975. What's wrong with this picture?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    51. Re:unexpected limelight? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Interesting point, and waaayy off-topic :) Operations-wise, I believe we lost more battles in our shorter period of involvement than the others, so I disregard any claim that we went in and kicked ass and were the major cause for European liberation. But certainly, we added that extra layer of tension on Germany's supply chain and operations, which caused the Reich to buckle. We probably did buy Russia some time, but I'm not sure. Russian conscription really slowed Germany's advance. I like your last statement. I've wondered this myself. Western Russia was pretty anti-semetic despite the number of Jews fighting in the Army, so Russians wouldn't have minded some of the Nazis' policies. Western Russians are actually several groups used to Russification by Muscovy, so picking up German probably wouldn't have been a tough decision. Germany had previously been the leader in social reform, so if Germany retook that position Belarussians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and others might have welcomed Germany over Stalin's Russia.

    52. Re:unexpected limelight? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Pacific theater was definitely ours. Russia did play an interesting hand though. A day after Japan failed to surrender following our bombing of Hiroshima, the USSR declared war and invaded occupied Manchuria. By some accounts, the Japanese decided to surrender after that event.

      Following that theory, the Japanese basically either admitted they could not fight a two-front war against two **extremely** pissed-off adversaries, or the Japanese thought it would be better to surrender to Capitalist Americans than Communist Soviets. After all, we saw what the Russians did to Berlin.

  6. as long as they still put out thier games... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really if EA gets thier properties and puts out a deathrow 2 id probably quit saying EA games suck

  7. Why complain? by albn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe EA and Oracle should get together and swap takeover recipes.

    --
    Some call me Howie Feltersnatch
    1. Re:Why complain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Given then that are only 1 exit away on highway 101 in the Bay Area. Easy for them to exchange tips and tricks for this game of hostile takeover.

  8. Sort of like the way they heavily subsidize airbus by glrotate · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The french recognize that they can't compete on a level field so they try to rig the game. You can't blame them for being inferior, only for being phony and claiming that they support free trade.

  9. French Government? Totally unnecessary! by Shoten · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why doesn't Ubisoft just send Sam Fisher to take care of EA for them? :)

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  10. I think France sent a prety clear message... by Cymoro · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    France to EA: Piss off you American pig.

    1. Re:I think France sent a prety clear message... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US to France, same 2U.

      Ubisoft makes nothing but crap software and EA would be smart to just ignore them anyway.

    2. Re:I think France sent a prety clear message... by miu · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      France to EA: Piss off you American pig.

      I bet someone in the French government is just making noise to score some easy points off the eevul Americans. This is not an essential business (like aerospace, major textiles, etc) and not worth the grief justifying their action in light of their WTO agreements.

      There may be some talk talk, but no real action from the French gov.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    3. Re:I think France sent a prety clear message... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean:

      France to EA: Piss off you American pig.

      P.S. Please don't hurt us, we'll do anything.

    4. Re:I think France sent a prety clear message... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap to you prehaps.

      - Splinter Cell
      - Myst
      - Farcry
      - XIII
      - Rainbow Six
      - Warlords
      - Rayman

      I own these, I can state that they are good games worth the money I paid for them. Compare that to EA.. what? "Generic Sports game 200x"

    5. Re:I think France sent a prety clear message... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is a pretty big deal. As last week's posts showed, the game industry is fast approaching the film industry in terms of revenue. Governments routinely bend over backwards just to get some film industry dollars for location, nevermind actually being a center for production. A French owned and operated cideo game company in France is of great value, given the regular expansion of the entertainment industry and its relative imperviousness to geopolitical shifts.

      Bashing the French for doing anything other than aggressively defending an economic interest is crass and ignorant.

    6. Re:I think France sent a prety clear message... by Cymoro · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded you Flamebait (and me as well, I was just trying to make a funny), was very wrong. You may be right that France is just blowing smoke. That is, until EA eats a baby and shows that they are willing to buy that .1% of Ubisoft.

    7. Re:I think France sent a prety clear message... by miu · · Score: 1
      I don't even think it is France blowing smoke, I think it is a politician or faction trying to gather favor from the xenophobes that masquerade as conservatives in every nation.

      America has quite a few long standing differences with France, some of them inherited from Britain, and some of them as a result of France attempting to recapture superpower status after WW2. Despite those differences American and French culture both spring from Frankish/Germanic stock and are fairly comprehensible to each other, because of this we are major trading partners - I refuse to believe that a modern and sane nation would open a trade war for something as trivial as the hostile acquisition of a video game company.

      Not sure how my expressing that opinion was flamebait, but my guess is that someone found it ideologically disagreeable and therefore an incitement to flame.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
  11. Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please .. by YetAnotherName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... assist the reader by saying what this hostile action is, why it's occurring, where (France?) and so forth. The summary, as it stands, seems written for people who are already in-the-know, which is a foolish assumption in the face a global internet.

    Who, what, where, when, why, and how ... it's not just for journalists any more!

  12. Re:Sort of like the way they heavily subsidize air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct. Too bad it is not only the French who are phony.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2022849.stm

  13. Re:Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RTFA

  14. Re:Sort of like the way they heavily subsidize air by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    ... And it's much different in the States?

    Hahahahahahahhahahahaha

    Good laugh.

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  15. Re:Sort of like the way they heavily subsidize air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you're from the US, right? :-)
    It takes one to know one, I presume.

  16. Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by lxt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    France (and the rest of the EU) are already in violating of the WTO over the massive grants they've given, and are planning to give, Airbus. The US government says it's unfair, but they too have given (and will continue to give) massive grants to Boeing. I guess that complaint has got more to do with the fact that Airbus recently moved ahead of Boeing in number of aircraft being ordered, and the US is no longer the dominant player (IMO). Oddly enough, didn't the French also give a hand out to a server manufacturer a few weeks ago to keep them in business?

    1. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Chairboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not... entirely... accurate. Specifically, the US government has placed purchase orders for airplanes from Boeing. This is somewhat different from the welfare that Airbus has received in the form of 'no pay back' grants with no expectation that they provide anything in return except 'jobs'.

    2. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's not forget the restrictive markets and wonderful subsidies the Americans (Sorry THE USA) have in place for their agriculture and meat markets!

    3. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Scipius · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Anyone who is somewhat familiar with the original KC-767 deal cannot seriously claim that Boeing does not receive subsidies.

    4. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All countries should protect their own agricultural and meat markets. The food supply ought to be one thing that a country should never consider outsourcing for a variety of important reasons. National security chief amongst them. If another country or countries can controll access to your food then your in real trouble in the worst possible way.

    5. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Boeing received $3.2billion USD in tax benefits and cuts to place the 7E7 factories in Washington State. Boeing outsourced the wing and center fuselage construction to Japan, where the three firms making the sections are 75% subsidised by the Japanese government, allowing these sections to be sold to Boeing much cheaper than they otherwise would be. This has already been judged by analysts to be illegal under the 1992 agreement, and is currently the subject of an EU investigation with an eye on ammunition if the current WTO stuff goes ahead.

      Airbus receives Launch Aid in the form of interest based LOANS. These loans must be paid back to the respective government within 17 years of its inception, and must account for no more than 33% of the total development cost of the aircraft. This was agreed in the 1992 trans atlantic agreement, as was the clause that states that Airbus doesnt have to repay these loans if the aircraft fails to ship. So far, every loan lent to Airbus has been paid back within the terms laid down. Airbus does lease factories off of local governments at a favourable rate tho, but this isnt covered under hte 1992 agreement, and so is a gray area. This is not the same as getting tax cuts for relocating production tho.

      Boeing isnt exactly the pure virgin dressed in white you think they are.

    6. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      That's not... entirely... accurate. Specifically, the US government has placed purchase orders for airplanes from Boeing. This is somewhat different from the welfare that Airbus has received in the form of 'no pay back' grants with no expectation that they provide anything in return except 'jobs'.

      There is more then just plane purchases. There also research projects with super high overhead, far higher then they should be. The missle shield project is one of them. Lots of corprate welfare there. A lot of aeronautic enginerring research/projects are over funded to boye those companies. The Us doesn't just buy plane....

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    7. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "$3.2billion USD in tax benefits and cuts to place the 7E7 factories in Washington State" 2/3 of that is from teh state Of Washington and is NOT federal plus the cuts are over 15 years and most are in the form of utility and raod improvements in and around the plant. This was done because Boeing was closing down smaller plants south of Seattle and Boering wanted to expand their Everett plant.

      The EU has been using the WTO as their personal attack dogs, France is allowed to pour wine (no pun intended) on to the US market but US wineries are blocked from selling their wines openly in France without the wine makers staging a protest.

    8. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by w42w42 · · Score: 1
      Airbus receives Launch Aid in the form of interest based LOANS.

      If I remember correctly, these only have to be paid back if the product under development with these loans turns a profit - kind of takes the risk out of business.

      I also think the idea of tax-cuts as aid is a bit gray as well. If the tax rate was simply lower, it wouldn't be called a cut. That then asks what are the comparitive tax rates - something I'm not sure we should be getting into unless we want to form a world government.

      Airbus does lease factories off of local governments at a favourable rate tho, but this isnt covered under hte 1992 agreement, and so is a gray area.

      The EU subsidising Airbus factories would be aid plain and simple, and would also strengthen the US case that the '92 agreement has to be redone.

      Boeing outsourced the wing and center fuselage construction to Japan, where the three firms making the sections are 75% subsidised by the Japanese government, allowing these sections to be sold to Boeing much cheaper than they otherwise would be.
      Not sure where you got these numbers, but if true, strikes me more as Japan using this scheme to buy US technology and nurture their own aviation industry more than anything else. Otherwise, it'd be much cheaper for them to just place those workers on state welfare.

      I think the real crux of the matter is stated above in a few places. Why would Japan aid a non-profitable industry, and maintain that financial burden - when market forces without state aid would probably dictate they do something else. Same with Washington State tax cuts - those should be lowered across the board if Washington is not competitive with other states - or other items comensorate with that have to change. Ditto to the EU subsidizing Airbus factories and giving Airbus those loans. If the WTO were to simply come out and state all governments must have hands off, this would be resolved tomorrow.

    9. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Dravik · · Score: 1

      That isn't a grant. That is Boeing being really good at playing the proposal system.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    10. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > France (and the rest of the EU) are already in violating of the WTO over the massive grants they've given, and are planning to give, Airbus.

      Please, PLEASE don't talk about WTO when USA gov isn't even respecting it.

      USA got lumber disputes with Canada, they've lost at EVERYT instances they've appeales and they are trying to buy some more time and play every legal card they can, going clearly against the spirit of the WTO agreement. US ppl will cry out loud WTO WTO only when it's going to be in their protectionist nature's advantage. So if I were you, this would be the last thing I'd bring up as an argument.

      All those anti-france comments on /. makes USA look like, well, the international reputation they currently have, arrogant and CNN'ed misinformed (I didn't say idiots because I don't jump in the name-calling bandwagon). They are gunning against everyone who where against the invasion of Irak, eventhough they're trying to keep a good relationship with them post-war and trying to build out bridges (going against the same close-minded-"conservatives" in their proper countries).

      What upsetted me the most recently is when that arrogant jerk from cross-fire (the one that got nailed by John Stewart) said "we don't need you other countries, you guys needs us more than we need you". I think that reflected exactly what I'm seeing here. and It's very VERY sad because not all USA citizen are like this, but those loudmouths are what the rest of the world see and hear.

      Clearly, nothing positive nor constructive to bridge up the gap. Nobody needs this. If you don't have positive OR constructive comments to make, at least don't show your lack of education or manners to a world-wide forum.

    11. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You are correct, the loans only have to be paid back if the aircraft is profitable. In these cases tho, Airbus does not start development of the aircraft using loans until it has secured interest from airlines in the aircraft with enough options to create 50% of the orders needed to bring the aircraft into profitability. This is generally one of the terms of the loan as supplied by EU governments.

      The US does not have a case that the '92 agreement needs to be redone, the EU suggested negotiating a new agreement when the current WTO complaints were initially raised early this year, but the US refused to negotiate a new agreement, saying instead that it will take the issue to the WTO and back out of the 1992 agreement. I personally agree that the '92 agreement is now largely inadequete, as it was never imagined that Airbus would outsell Boeing in the commercial market so soon, and much of the agreement is based on that belief.

      You are correct that the Japanese subsidies are a technology grab. Japan has been requesting Boeing outsource aircraft part production into Japanese factories for much of the past 2 decades, and Boeing has always refused. During the initial stages of the 7E7 concept, Boeing was given government approval to outsource major plane parts to Japan, thus giving Japan the technology it wanted. Japan in return agreed to subsidise the plants that the manufacturing was outsourced to, making Boeings costs cheaper. Launch purchases by ANA and JAL airlines (both Japanese airlines) were further more used to convince Boeing to outsource to Japan.

      Make no mistake, I know Airbus receives what most people would consider to be unfair financial aid, but in most discussions of this nature, Boeing is usually cast to be the poor little girl thats been beaten by her father. Both sides receive unfair aid, only the US is unwilling to renegotiate the 1992 agreement, it would rather bitch and shout.

      My prediction of the outcome of this is that the WTO will declare both sides to be in recievership of unfair aid, leading to the US imposing import tax on Airbus aircraft, the EU imposing import tax on Boeing aircraft, Japanese business going under as they are made to repay government subsidies, and the rest of the world shrugging and buying from whoever they bought from before. This sounds like a bad deal all around, but in essence Airbus will come out best because most Asian and Middle Eastern airlines are buying large amounts of Airbus aircraft at the moment, rather than Boeing (Emerates has just purchased 65 new aircraft, 53 of which were Airbus various types), and most american airlines arent exactly in the best financial position to buy anyones aircraft.

    12. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wings and fuselage are being manufactured out of carbon fiber composite materials made in the USA. Boeing itself buys this material and makes the wings and fuselage in their WA state plants. The carbon fiber material is manufactured by a US company owned by a Japanese multinational. This company has a long history of supplying Boeing with carbon fiber material.

      Straight from the horse's mouth...
      http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q2/nr_040 526h.html

    13. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "Airbus receives Launch Aid in the form of interest based LOANS."

      They are not LOANS at all. Airbus's Launch aid "loans" must only be paid back if Airbus sells a certain number of aircraft - you admit this in your post. Of course, these quotas are set unreasonably high and thus Airbus has *not* paid back *any* of it's launch aid "loans".

    14. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1
      Lets see about that shall we?

      • The firm, in which BAE Systems has a 20% stake, was given £250m aid by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1985 to help launch the 150-seater A320 jet which has spawned a family of aircraft and sold 1,800. The aid, partly used to set up manufacturing facilities to build A320 wings at Broughton, north Wales, plus interest at less than commercial rates, was repaid by the end of 1999.

        Airbus is still repaying up to £100m a year of the £450m UK launch-aid for the wide-bodied A330/340 series of planes which was given in 1988. It was awarded a further £530m in 2000 for the A380 superjumbo.

        Source (including unwarranted inflamatory title)
      • All European government loans for Airbus programs have been made entirely within the letter and the spirit of the 1992 US-EU Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft since its entry into force and this will continue to be the case for all future Airbus programs. The US have not disputed this fact.
        * Of the eight Airbus aircraft launched since 1990, only three programs have been launched with government investment.
        * Airbus pays royalties to governments over the entire life of the aircraft programs. Interest and principal is repaid on deliveries, even before the programs break-even and irrespective of the sale price


        Source
      • "When you consider that the A320 Airbus launch development funding has been repaid twice over and with interest and that revenues from the A330/40 will have tripled the original investment by 2017, even Gordon Brown must be smiling. When you add corporation tax and the revenue generated from aerospace workers taxes he must be breaking out into a broad grin."

        Source
      There are many more where those came from. The simple fact of the matter is that Airbus has yet to default on a single one of its loans under the 1992 agreement, so your statement is pretty much bullshit.
    15. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      But isn't the US just one big giant single entity?

      Apparently, the federal system is frequently lost on our fine European comrades.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    16. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      That isn't a grant. That is Boeing being really good at playing the proposal system.

      Whats the difference between getting a grant for 10 million or doing a 1 million dollar research project for 11 million dollars?

      the difference is one smells liek fish to everyone and the other smells like fish only when you investigate a little.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    17. Re:Yes - the US is already upset over planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Echelon has been used to give unfair advantage to boeing too, in the form of sensible datas.

      The closest I've found to a primary source indicated that Boeing was given an advantage, not by the NSA handing Echelon info to Boeing, but by the NSA reporting to the relevant (Saudi) authorities that Airbus was illegally offering bribes during the bidding process, with the tip off resulting in Airbus being rendered ineligible.

      Provided that the intercept was accurate, this leaves the French high moral ground looking more like Holland than the Alps.

  17. EA is evil like MS is by PhreakMac · · Score: 0

    Go France!!!!!

    EA must die!!

  18. it's a shame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that linux. co. can't buy a % of MS stock....

    actually - why would they want too?

    now what if in turn - MS bought stock in RedHat of some other distro?

    1. Re:it's a shame... by PhreakMac · · Score: 0

      It helped Apple when they were in a shitstorm.

    2. Re:it's a shame... by Milo77 · · Score: 1

      what if all the slashdot readers out there pooled their ms shares? i know i own some through my 401k...not that that could be easily pooled...

    3. Re:it's a shame... by DoktorGonzo · · Score: 1

      what if all the slashdot readers out there pooled their ms shares? i know i own some through my 401k...not that that could be easily pooled...

      Reminds me of an idea I've had for a while: "Hedge against evil."
      Find companies out there who have successful business models, yet do naughty things. You have a definite interest in them failing. However, if they do well, you'd want a piece of the action to compensate for how much worse they make your world.

      Disney: Lobby for excessive copyright extensions.
      Big Tobacco: Inspire stupid anti-tobacco ads.
      Recording Industry: Fill my airwaves with complete and utter suck.

      This idea is much like investing in foreign markets. When your own stock market falls, there's some chance it doesn't fall at the same time as markets all over the world. By diversifying your portfolio, you can smooth out your returns and hedge against drops in your national market.

      However, the "hedge against evil" takes a more holistic approach to your investments. For example, I would like to have the "Happy Birthday" song hit the public domain so each restaurant doesn't have to have its own crazy song to signify that a cake is coming. However, I for one would listen to quite a few of those songs for an extra $1000 in my pocket courtesy of Disney.

  19. Re:Sort of like the way they heavily subsidize air by Trigun · · Score: 1

    As opposed to EA's slave labour to remain competitive? Take your jingoism and shove it, it has no place here.

    You bitch and moan about China's unfair trade practices and low labour costs, yet look the other way when EA does it?

  20. I see it now! by Vvornth · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the similarities... the Borg and EA!

  21. Re:Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please by justforaday · · Score: 1

    Even if you didn't know what was going on, it doesn't take too much brainpower to infer that EA is trying to take over Ubisoft...

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  22. Re:Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Eh.. you don't get what a hostile acquisition is? It's not terribly complex, basically EA went under the table and acquired 20% of a competing shop's stock. Generally they will let them know what's going on before hand. The fact that they were hush about it is an indicication that they are attempting to acquire a 50.1% or greater stake in the company, thus gaining a controlling majority and initiating a "hostile takeover".

    There's a bunch of nuances involved with the whole thing, but thats the "for dummies" version.

    Naturally this is concerning to the precarious French government as they would lose their primary stake in the game industry to a US company.

  23. 2002 is calling. It wants its news back. by glrotate · · Score: 1

    WTO launches US steel tariff probe 3 June, 2002

    27 November, 2004 US vows to end banned tariff rule

    1. Re:2002 is calling. It wants its news back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it only took them 2 years to ban a practice that they knew was illegal to begin with - and after pressure from foreign governments.

    2. Re:2002 is calling. It wants its news back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the tariff was supposed to end in early 2005. Nothing like protectionism to get yourself by.

      http://english.people.com.cn/200311/19/eng20031119 _128536.shtml
      http://www.useu.be/Categories/Trade/Steel/

  24. kinda like the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever another country can produce something cheaper than Americunts, they whine and bitch and moan about these foreign companies "flooding the market" because shitbags like you think it's inconceivable that anybody could possibly be more productive than Americunts!

    1. Re:kinda like the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey...what country are you from? I will gladly post how much money you owe us. Because where ever you are from, I can pretty much guarantee you owe us money.

  25. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by mOoZik · · Score: 1

    That's Citroen and Peugeot, you patriotic fool.

  26. Indeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Borg football 3047 was a huge hit after they acquired all competing developers.

  27. Stars by drakethegreat · · Score: 1

    It seems that EA can't stay out of the news these days but most of it isn't pleasant news either. It will be interesting to see what EA does and where its going in the near future.

    1. Re:Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't hurt microsoft any.

      It's the same strategy, different industry. It will be interesting to see what develops because the gaming industry isn't anywhere near being a niche market. A large part of microsofts dominance can be attributed to the fact that they were (arguably) on top of the heap when the home pc market blew up.

      Gaming is already thriving just about everywhere. This kind of aggressive activity could strike off one hell of a backlash among the massive gaming community. When microsoft was doing this sort of thing way back when, it was under the radar as no one really cared about computers.

    2. Re:Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could not be more correct on that statement. With the recent NFL exclusive rights deal and reported attempts at doing the same with the NBA the sports gaming community is already forming small pockets of "Anti-EA" groups.

      The (ex)employee blogs seem to be forming more groups of the same crowd.

      EA insisting on using a variant of their own xbox live service is having the same effect as mentioned above.

      Now this, the 19% purchase of Ubisoft. It will all add up. I am interested to see what kind of backlash will be unleashed from the gaming community and whether it will have an impact or not.

    3. Re:Stars by IrresponsibleUseOfFr · · Score: 0

      This is only because you read too much slashdot :)

      On a personal level, I am disappointed that the NFL signed an exclusive agreement with EA. However, I think EA's business unit did a great job on this one. The NFL was willing to sign an exlusive agreement with someone. EA made sure it was them. If you are going to blame someone, blame the NFL. They set up the situation. Don't think that Midway, SEGA or Microsoft are "honorable" corporations that wouldn't snatch up an exclusive agreement if they had a chance. EA knows how important Madden is to their bottom line. The NFL practically blackmails EA into their position if they even utter the words "exclusive rights." EA paid the most, because they had the most to lose. End of story.

      As for treating their employees like shit. People are too quick to jump on the bandwagon without understanding what is going on. Basically, all problems result from a failure in process. EA uses iterative waterfall. If your design phase sucks. You pay the price all through the development cycle, and it all comes to a head about a month before the game goes gold. Yes, this is a failure in management.

      But, understand, people that run the studios were there at the beginning. They like to have their hands on things. The problem is that EA is growing up fast and people don't scale that well. These managers also tend to be work-a-holics and stingy because they are used to expenses when things were smaller.

      Yes it is a problem, but I believe they have gotten the message. In general, EA treats its employees well. It wasn't their intention to make one of the worst companies to work for, but a lot of it is just growing pains of any successful business.

      Now we come to Ubisoft. The CEO isn't happy that 20% of his company got gobbled up by another 3rd pary publisher. Big surprise. I believe EA did this because they see the video game market growing in the future. Ubisoft has some good franchises, and it is probabaly a wise business decision. The CEO of Ubisoft let too much stock out. He was greedy and even a person with a basic understanding of corporations knows if you don't control over 50% of the stock, you are susceptible to problems like this. Don't expect any sympathy from me when it actually happens. What is the the worst that can happen, well, him and his executive board gets kicked out and EA takes over. But, he gets to keep his golden parachute. Over 75,000 are dead in South-East Asia, over one thousand American soliders are dead in Iraq along with an untold number of Iraqis. Cry my a freaking river.

      As for customers, if you feel screwed by EA because you feel they make crappy games. Don't buy them. Is that so hard? There are little publishers like: Microsoft, Activision, Vivendi, LucasArts, Atari, Sega, Sony, Midway, Rockstar and Nintendo who I'm sure would be happy to sell you some of theirs.

      --
      Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -Homer Simpson
  28. Re:Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please by bperkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree, and I didn't have any problem understanding the submission, but the original poster is right, it is uunnecessarily confusing.

    It wouldn't have taken much to clarify that the "hostile action" was the sudden purchase of 20% of Ubisoft's shares by EA.

    I've often been frustrated by similar submission, so I sympathize.

  29. EA isn't about games by Reapman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    iana EA Employee, but it seems to me that EA Stopped being about games a long time ago... it's your typical board of directors type shop it seems to me now, who so happen to see videogames as a method of getting rich. I'm sure the people working on "the floor" care very much about their products, but I get the impression that at the top they will dop whatever they can to get the highest Return on Investment, not "make the best game possible"... I don't get the impression that they have any idea how to make the best use of the franchises they have other then sports and Sims, and even that is questionable. K done ranting, back to work for me

    1. Re:EA isn't about games by spac3manspiff · · Score: 1

      I think you hit the nail on the head. Ever since they cared more about money than the quality of the game, the games progressivly got worse. However the quality of the game doesnt mean anything anymore because they know stupid parent is going to buy the game.

      But who can blame them?

      All EA had to do for sports games was simply append the current year to the game title and people would buy it.

    2. Re:EA isn't about games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to burst that pretty bubble of yours, but EVERY COMPANY IS LOOKING TO GET RICH. Even your precious video game companies. I challenge you to find any company in the entertainment industry who cares more about product quality than they do profits. Why care about product quality when millions of people will buy crap anyway?

    3. Re:EA isn't about games by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I challenge you to find any company in the entertainment industry who cares more about product quality than they do profits.

      There are plenty of such companies, just not many large ones. I watch a number of small gaming companies, and await their releases. Ambrosia is a good example, they make enough money to get by, obviously enjoy their work, and make some really, really fun games. For larger companies the best you can hope for is a culture that cares about their products and leadership that lets them do what they need to to make things right.

    4. Re:EA isn't about games by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      EA and UbiSoft are both mainly publishers, not developers. They do some in-house development, but their bread and butter is much like any RIAA or MPAA member, they produce and publish other peoples games, and pocket a few bucks.

      Now slashdot is going to try and convince me EA=bad, UbiSoft=good, just like MS=bad, IBM=good.

      It's 100% pure bullshit, and you'd have to be pretty simple-minded to think any corporate entity has your best interest as a gamer/consumer at heart.

      As an aside, EA's employment practices aren't far off from anyone else in the industry, including UbiSoft.

      It's all about the bottom line.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    5. Re:EA isn't about games by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's about balance. The combintation of Castle & Sperry might still be interested in making a profit. However, that combination is still interested in making a good game. Both parties will be directly involved in the process and likely care more and know more about the end product.

      This is what separates Westwood Studios from EA or even EALA.

      This is the difference between being in a boardroom states away and being in another office a few feet away.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:EA isn't about games by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What studios has Ubisoft destroyed?

      That's a very important factor in determining the relative evils of two game publishers.

      Also, consider what the talent does. Will people with 10 or 15 years at the same studio decide to flee once McGames Inc is controlling things?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:EA isn't about games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ADVFilms.

      www.advfilms.com

      Still private, and I assure you its through their own choice, even though they could make hundreds of millions on a buyout.

      And before you dismiss them as small fry, they are still considered one of the top 5-10 (i think 6th?) largest media companies in the country.

      The top 4-5 are mega-massive.

    8. Re:EA isn't about games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your point?

      The point of a corp is to make money. As much money as possible. If that means shafting suckers tough crap. Capitalism exists to take wealth back from the poor who stole it during the Enlightenment. Chances are you don't deserve the wealth you have like I do.

    9. Re:EA isn't about games by nagora · · Score: 1
      I challenge you to find any company in the entertainment industry who cares more about product quality than they do profits.

      I pick Pixar as a company that at least seems to want to have both and are prepared to put the time and effort into doing it.

      Sure, crap sells, but sometimes so does quality.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    10. Re:EA isn't about games by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      I just bought EV Nova from Ambrosia. Great friggin game, but there are a number of technical flaws and UI issues that you probably wouldn't find in a EA release. Mostly polish, but for example: when I die and have to reload my pilot, they didn't write a nice custom dialogue that matches the main opening menu theme, they just used the Win32 API's OpenFile() function. That's fine, it's a good function, but if I'm in fullscreen mode it will pop back out to windowed mode to load the pilot, then pop back into full screen after I made my selection. Not a showstopper, but it is iritating. Maybe I'm just a stickler when it comes to UI, but it would be a nice touch on a good game.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    11. Re:EA isn't about games by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you like it. I played the Mac version a few years ago and the original game years before that. I've never seen the Windows port. I agree about the annoyance of having to reload your pilot after being killed. Aside from that though, I don't recall any UI issues or menu problems. It does not drop out of fullscreen mode in the mac version. In any case it is a fun game with some real plot. Enjoy.

    12. Re:EA isn't about games by Reapman · · Score: 1

      Oh don't get me wrong, I know very well why business exist... any business that isn't in it for the money has a strong likely hood of going down... however (again, iana business guru) I see two ways of doing business... you want to make money and look to see how best to get it (in this case, make video games) or you enjoy making a product, and try and come up with a method to make money out of it... two methods, neither necessarily wrong depending on the situation

    13. Re:EA isn't about games by Reapman · · Score: 1

      My point is that people should'nt expect EA to be the "we make games cuz it's fun" type company, they're a corporation with a board of directors and their only goal is making money... I'm not saying this is wrong necessarily, to me this is almost the natural progression of things... it is sad imho in that a lot of gaming companies did'nt start off to make the shareholders richer, which it is now. A Goal of making money isn't bad, but when you only put in the amount of effort that will generate your highest return, you do loose some soul.

    14. Re:EA isn't about games by ppanon · · Score: 1

      And, in a similar genre, Studio Ghibli.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    15. Re:EA isn't about games by dr2chase · · Score: 1
      Given my recent experience as Home IT Guy, I would agree wholeheartedly with EA=bad, MS=bad. I've spent several days trying to pry a friend's data loose from her spyware-infested PC (it is so totally scragged, I cannot even get at the control panels, even after replacing control.exe and rundll32.exe). Ucking Foutlook keeps its data in some wacky proprietary format not easily transported from machine to machine (not like Eudora, just copy the .mbx file over and you're set).

      I've been trying to get my son's recently-purchased copy of SimCity to work. Near as I can tell, it is just plain busted, and fat chance getting any help out of EA. Their FAQ has suggestions, but none of that works. Good luck getting to a real person for help. And yes, I know that corporations serve their stockholders, but the usual recipe for doing this is by finding a way to get people to want to be their customers. All my recent encounters with EA and MS have been frustrating and timewasting; its seems sensible to see if other companies are more interested in my business.

    16. Re:EA isn't about games by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      " I'm sure the people working on "the floor" care very much about their products, but I get the impression that at the top they will dop whatever they can to get the highest Return on Investment, not "make the best game possible"

      What a naive statement. That is their JOB. Their job is to please investors, and all investors care about is ROI. The investors are the REAL customers that need to be pleased, and if you are happy with the product as a result, well, so much the better.

      Now, what few executives and shareholders realize is that the best way to reap the highest ROI is not the short term solution of cranking out crap and pulling stunts like EA has pulled, but rather by running a "good" company that takes care of its employees and delivers a good product. That is ultimately the best way to build a good company, as shown by Google and Apple. However, few executives or shareholders have the patience or common sense to realize this.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    17. Re:EA isn't about games by Reapman · · Score: 1

      Yes I know all this... in fact that's what i said (their job is to make money not make games) and therefore they will ensure that an optimum amount of effort is put into a product to ensure the highest ROI possible. In fact what EA is doing may not be wrong at all... to me and other games what they're doing is sacrilegious as they ruin these brands like Ultima and Wing Commander, but, as you pointed out, their client is the shareholder.

      All I'm saying is EA has moved from a group that focused on making games as a way to make money, to a group that is interested in making money, and so happens have chosen the gaming industry as their conduit to the stuff. To me a slight wording change, but makes all the difference in the world.

      It's late so I'm probably not explaining myself well, but I think we're both on the same page, just saying it differently. I don't think EA is going to change any time soon, if ever...

    18. Re:EA isn't about games by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Ok, that clarifies things a bit. You're right, we are on the same page. In this case though, I think the change started happening a long time ago when they started acquiring other companies. Whenever a company starts acquiring and expanding like that, its a sign that they are getting away from their core business.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    19. Re:EA isn't about games by Alban · · Score: 1

      Dude, I think it's about time you get your head out of that hole. EA does "some" in-house development? They do a HUGE amount of in-house development. All their sports games (which sell in gigantic numbers on consoles), the sims (doesn't matter that this was once a seperate studio), SSX, LOtR, James Bond, Harry Potter...

      Need I say more?

      EA brings in MUCH more with their in-house products then with the games from third party developers that they publish.

    20. Re:EA isn't about games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there goes Rainbow Six...
      Next game will incorporate vehicles of which they got one working within the year given to complete the title, so now its you and a truck.
      Instead of a team of 4. You drive your truck over the map and well do tom clancy type covert opt stuff.

      Anybody noticed that in the original your team was 8 people. Its only 4 on the xbox. The graphics have gotten better but shit the games aren't good anymore.

      Just for the record most seal teams are 6-8 people right? Dam Sony.

  30. Re:French Government? Totally unnecessary! by __int64 · · Score: 1

    Because Ubi knows that EA's got all the football players from Madden 2001, 2002, 2003, 20004, and 2005 backing them up.

  31. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

    Not a big fan of the Splinter Cell games?

    Those are Ubisoft.

  32. First on the ball!!! by rathehun · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot speaks his mind on the EA deal
    With Electronic Arts the new owner of almost 20 percent of Ubisoft, you might expect that company's leader to wobble a bit in the unexpected limelight. Yves Guillemot does anything but.

    Just five days before Christmas, with many game industry staffers already on vacation, Electronic Arts dropped an explosive bit of news on the wires. In a short press release, it acknowledged having purchased an estimated $85-$100 million worth of Ubisoft shares.

    The move--a surprise to the vast majority of industry observers--gave it a 19.9 percent ownership position in one of its most daunting competitors. Wedbush Morgan senior analyst Michael Pachter told GameSpot, "I think EA is interested in Ubisoft's development talent and in its Gameloft investment [in wireless games]."

    But is that all? "I don't know if EA wants to take them out," Pachter said, "but given that Ubi has a pretty strong set of licenses and great development--with a more Euro-centric sales profile--it's a combination that makes sense from EA's perspective."

    Pachter clearly assesed the stock acquisition as something less benign than how EA had earlier portrayed it. "EA is not in the business of making passive investments in public companies," Pachter concluded.

    Regardless of its motives, the builders of famous franchises that include Madden and Medal of Honor now own a block of Ubisoft shares second in size only to the chunk owned by the company's founders, one of whom is its CEO and president, Yves Guillemot.

    We spoke to Guillemot shortly after the transaction was announced.

    GameSpot: Yves, to most observers, EA and Ubisoft are arch rivals who compete for market share, mind share, shelf space, and talent. It's hard to believe the two parties can work toward common goals. Assuming all regulatory issues are cleared, your board of directors will have to acknowledge EA's wishes as they might other shareholder's. How do you expect this marriage to get on?

    Yves Guillemot: Although EA and Ubisoft are both leading game publishers, I wouldn't say we are arch rivals. All players in the industry compete for market share, shelf space, and talent, but as the past few months have shown, the market is growing, and the more outstanding titles that hit the shelves, the more the market grows. So getting great games out there is a common goal that all publishers share.

    GS: So how do you read the move by Electronic Arts?

    YG: I have stated on the record that I view this action on the part of EA as hostile.

    GS: Do you see malevolence at its core?

    YG: Until we have further information we cannot say what EA's goals might be.

    GS: How does having EA as a shareholder affect the issue of disclosure, specifically company strategy?

    YG: In terms of the company's confidential strategy, that information is not provided to any of our shareholders. This has always been our policy, and we have consistently shown ourselves worthy of the confidence of our shareholders.

    GS: Are there remaining shares of the company that are vulnerable to acquisition by Electronic Arts, and if so, is Ubisoft management considering options if EA were to become a majority shareholder?

    YG: Ubisoft is a publicly traded company, with 22.8 percent of its voting rights held by the company's founders. Of the remaining capital publicly held, 13 percent of voting rights are in the hands of financial institutions and 44.5 percent are in the hands of small shareholders. The management is studying all its options under several different scenarios.

    GS: Given this twist in the company's timeline, what does the future hold for Ubisoft?

    YG: For the immediate future, we are still looking forward to a record-breaking fourth quarter, with the release of several titles which you [in the press] also seem to be eagerly anticipating.

    GS: What about the long-term outlook?

    YG: When looking at the longer-term, our only concern is the

  33. The solution is obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sam Fisher will infiltrate Electronic Arts headquarters under the cover of darkness. After gathering intelligence related to the hostile takeover, he will go to the roof for extraction. Alarms or civilian deaths will result in mission failure.

  34. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Rolls-Royce, Audi and Mercedes all depend on French engineering. The suspension used in Rolls-Royces and top-of-the-range Audis and Mercs is a licence-built knockoff of the Citroen oleopneumatic system.

  35. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Cymoro · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but I don't buy wine with hairy armpits.

  36. Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why they're interested in acquiring a shop that already knows how to leverage genres other then sports and sims. Why learn it when you can buy someone who already knows?

    Companies do that all the time. They recognize they don't have the expertise and experience in a given field, so they buy-out someone who does.

    1. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then proceed to throw away all that gained expertise by laying off every with said expertise because they are now redundant.

  37. Re:Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please by YetAnotherName · · Score: 1

    Eh.. you don't get what a hostile acquisition is...

    The word "acquisition" doesn't even appear once in the summary. Thanks for the "for dummies" version; too bad that wasn't what was originally submitted!

  38. Cry me a fucking river. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any public company can be bought out. Don't want to be bought out? Stay private. All's fair in love and war and business is the biggest war in the world.

    1. Re:Cry me a fucking river. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. People tend to focus on the big evil company and ignore the other evil company. If it weren't for the big evil company gobbling up the smaller evil company, there'd be nothing to talk about.

  39. You're French? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is your grammar construction just a little off?

  40. Re:Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please by I8TheWorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just for clarification, you don't have to have a 50.1% or even a 50% stake to claim a takeover. Typically, anything in the 40% or greater range will give you controlling interest, as there usually isn't any one controlling interest with more.

    There are quite a few companies out there who are run by a 30%(ish) controlling interest.

    --
    Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  41. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by miu · · Score: 1
    Other than Wine or Women

    FreedomWine and FreedomWomen? Sounds like the 60s all over again.

    --

    [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
  42. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell, damn near everything interesting these days is either Sierra (Half Life 2, Evil Genius) or Ubisoft (Splinter Cell, Settlers, Prince of Persia, Myst). I can't remember the last good EA game I played since they borged Bullfrog.

  43. an explanation about France... by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's what I hear has been happening in France... Every now and then some non-French company wants to buy a French company. The French government immediately steps in and makes a second French company buy the first French company the foreign company was interested in thereby creating a much larger French company which is no longer small enough for the foreign company to buy. When a German pharmaceutical company (Germany has some of the largest in the world) wanted to buy a French one the French government got a separate French pharmaceutical company to buy it instead. The intended effect of all these forced mergers seems to be to get France back into competition with other countries.

    If you don't believe me look into the history of France Telecom which purchased Wanadoo, Orange, and Equant (the last two were previously foreign owned but operated in France). The thing about the purchases of these is that France Telecom now owes a billion euros back to the government for illegal subsidies.

    Another classic example of Little Man's Syndrome is Vivendi Universal.

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
    1. Re:an explanation about France... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One has to understand that France is FIERCLY patriotic when it comes to economic and cultural infuence. They're not that far off China in terms of what media they will allow their consituents to be exposed to. It's not at all surprising to see them willing to do anything to avoid foriegn influence over their predominate stake in any given industry.

    2. Re:an explanation about France... by Freon115 · · Score: 1

      hmm, France Telecom was already very large when they bought Orange. They already had Itineris (1st mobile operator in France) and only wanted a cool name and logo to expend in europe.
      And AFAIK, France Telecom *founded* Wanadoo :P

      Vivendi is closer to EA than anything else. They had lots of money to spend and bought a lot.

    3. Re:an explanation about France... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascinating.

      While there is a *lot* to say about the way the french govt helps french corps, the example you gave is plain wrong.

      FT never bought Wanadoo (Wanadoo was a part of FT from the beginning), and Orange was a money losing deal that made a *lot* of people *extremly* rich (the goal of frech govt was not to save FT, but to give money to some choosen fews).

      FT uses the govt subsides to build the infrastructure that they give to their competitors. At one point, FT will go public (and die), and the french public will have basically paid for the infrastructure that foreign companies will use to make them pay for a service. Nothing about protectionism, everything about money.

      La Generale des Eaux (renamed Vivendi) followed the very same principle, sucking money out of french cities, and distributing it oversee. Same with Credit Lyonnais.

      One example that would be more in line with your thesis is Bull (apart for the fact that absolutely nobody would want to buy bull)

    4. Re:an explanation about France... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK, Wanadoo used to be called Freeserve - created by DSG as I recall.

    5. Re:an explanation about France... by imr · · Score: 1

      France telecom is not a typical exemple as it is a monopoly quite similar to microsoft at the french level, but directly owned by the government (51% of the shares and the board of directors is made of state men).
      So their amount of power AND their lack of independance make them quite different from a pharmaceutical company, to take your other exemple.
      Also they never bought wanadoo. They made it. Wanadoo is the name they gave to their internet division. It has never been independant but also it never played the isp games by the same rules than the others (for example, cable company were prevented to launch their business for years because they HAD to ask france telecom to install the wires in the city, and france telecom refused for years despite court orders until wanadoo was ready to launch their adsl offer).
      So taking that kind of company as an example isnt worth much. Would you take microsoft's behavior as an example of what every us IT companies do?

    6. Re:an explanation about France... by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      The original story I heard didn't name names but I've finally figured it out, all I knew was that it was pharmaceutical....

      The most recent news is that Sanofi-Aventis has been laying off people in New Jersey despite promising 2,000 new jobs created by it's merger. Apparently the SEC was a little upset that the company's merger didn't turn out as well as it was supposed to, which is where the French connection comes in...

      The merger happened when Sanofi-Synthélabo made a hostile takeover bid of 48B euros for Aventis. During the three-month battle between the two companies the French government saw that Novartis (Swiss) was looking to buy Aventis as well so they managed to convince Sanofi-Synthélabo to raise their bidding price to 55B euros which made Aventis agree to the Sanofi-Aventis merger.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    7. Re:an explanation about France... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Here are more details about the pharmaceutical merger alluded to in the parent post. I remember reading about it at the time and being struck by how cringe-inducingly candid France was about its motives for blocking the merger: pride and the desire for a "national champion".

      France wears its pride on its sleeve a lot these days, and the fact that the U.S. does not have to go to the same desperate measures in order to avoid being humbled every day- b/c it knows that if IBM fails it'll be because of an Intel or a Microsoft, and if Intel fails it'll be because of an AMD...- explains a lot about international relations over the last 50 years, including how today's U.N. security council votes go. It's bad enough when you have to give 110% just to not fall behind, but when the other guy looks like he's going to lap you and isn't even trying or cares about it, that can lead to insane jealousy...

  44. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by remmelt · · Score: 3, Funny

    As opposed to USA's Microsoft Windows and extremely obese women? ;-)

  45. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1
    Sorry something about french and engineering in the same concept just eludes me.
    Think again.
  46. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, Ubisoft produced Beyond Good and Evil, which is excellent. On the other hand, they produced Pool of Radiance 2.

  47. Re:The Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man that's beautiful.

    If I was a hillbilly I'd have a single tear running down my cheek right now.

  48. Re:Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Noob.

  49. EA going downhill anyway by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

    I've been a fan of the Madden football games for years.. I played the first one on my AT in CGA. Lately, there hasn't been much change to the games other than frilly add-ons like EA online. With their now exclusive contract with the NFL and this, I can easily say good riddance to a monopolistic company that doesn't seem to care anymore about making great games.

    On the flip side, if Ubisoft is going to leave themselves open to a takeover, who are they to complain when it actually happens? I think this is underhanded by EA, but it's perfectly legal. Ubisoft may whine, but has no leg to stand on with regards to a formal complaint.

    --
    Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    1. Re:EA going downhill anyway by dark_fishbowl · · Score: 0

      it's only legal because they bought 19.9%. Anymore than that, and they need to provide in writing, their intentions.

      I think we'll hear about some greenmail between EA and Ubi.

      --
      -- juggling flaming chainsaws --
    2. Re:EA going downhill anyway by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • On the flip side, if Ubisoft is going to leave themselves open to a takeover, who are they to complain when it actually happens? I think this is underhanded by EA, but it's perfectly legal. Ubisoft may whine, but has no leg to stand on with regards to a formal complaint.
      Perhaps I don't fully understand the market, but pretty much every company is potentially open to a hostile takeover. As long as someone can convince 51% of the existing stockholders to sell to them, they can takeover. Granted there are rules about how they have to go about it, but no public company is truly "safe" from a hostile takeover, only private ones are.

      I do agree with your sentiment on not supporting them, how they've gone about this with Ubisoft erased any doubts in my mind that they weren't intentionally abusing their workers. It's really hard to give a company the benefit of the doubt when they keep doing stuff that's at best morally questionable. I certainly am not going to miss their games either, it's not like they've added much to any of their licenses of late, all of them have come across as slicker and less menu-driven (SSX3 started it) but the gameplay's about the same. Hell, I liked SSX Tricky better than SSX3 myself.

  50. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Also, Nissan is now in bed with Renault. Yes, it's true, the best japanese automaker :) is in bed with the french.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  51. Re:French Government? Totally unnecessary! by Lordrashmi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sam Fisher vs. Football players? My money is on Sam Fisher.

  52. Re:First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try brother trucker!

    Please play again!

  53. French Financial Systems by MBraynard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The French system is different from the US/UK system. In the US/UK systems, the shareholders interest come first before the law. They can lay people off, off-shore jobs, merge, etc. if they think that is what will best enhance shareholder value. This is a good thing because it makes company's more competitive and, because the guarantee of control is there, it is easier to raise funds from investors for new job-creating project/companys/IPOs.

    In France, however, management has priority in the law. You might think that the shareholders control the company through a board of directors appointing the CEO and others in management, but the truth is under law the equity owners are extremely limited in making the kind of company-saving decisions that they can in the US. The result is an anemic economy.

    This is a seperate issue from the French government offering to become specially involved, but is relevant to EA's ability to affect Ubisoft in the same way they would any other company in the US inwhich they owned 20% of the shares.

    1. Re:French Financial Systems by sholden · · Score: 1

      The French system is different from the US/UK system. In the US/UK systems, the shareholders interest come first before the law. They can lay people off, off-shore jobs, merge, etc. if they think that is what will best enhance shareholder value. This is a good thing because it makes company's more competitive and, because the guarantee of control is there, it is easier to raise funds from investors for new job-creating project/companys/IPOs.

      So the whole idea of a corporate charter is just silly?

    2. Re:French Financial Systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked for a small US software company bought out by a French company, I have seen what you are referring to.

      In addition, management is less likely to respond quickly to market conditions for other reasons as well.

      1. Customers are much more loyal in France, so once you've developed a relationship, the product (or product quality) becomes secondary.

      2. Individual performance is not scrutinized the way it is here. There isn't the same type of individual accountability. Poor performance is not necessarily seen as failure - but an opportunity for explanations.

      3. Management is very top-down. Management knows best. Therefore, warnings from employees are treated as requests for reassurance as opposed to useful information. This prevented them from heeding several significant warnings from employees.

    3. Re:French Financial Systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The result is an anemic economy.

      As opposed to what, that oh-so-fantastic American economy?

      Exactly how far has the dollar fallen against the Euro in the last four years?

    4. Re:French Financial Systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like we need to protect our property rights and take by force 1/5 of Ubisoft's company and relocate it in the US. It's only right.

    5. Re:French Financial Systems by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      The dollar's fall is unrelated to the state of the economy. Monetary policies in both contries are controlled by the government. So why has the dollar fallen? Because interest rates are low. And interest rates are staying low - normally a falling currency results in the interest rates coming back up.

      This is only allowed to happen here and now because the US economy is so strong that despite poor interest returns, people still feel safe putting money here and buying our bonds. And guess what nation is the number two foreign holder of US equity? The supposed 'American hating' France. Lets take a look some more reliable statitics:

      GDP growth for 2004 (est): US - 3.1%, France - 0.5%
      GDP Per capita PPP: US - 37,800, France - $27,600
      Unemployment: US - 6% (lower now), France - 9.7%
      Public Debt as % of GDP: US - 62.4%, France - 68.8%

    6. Re:French Financial Systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that as if the current system of charters had been around for more than 150 years.

      Until the middle of 1800's, corporations in the US were chartered to perform a public good, not to make money. If they didn't perform that task they were dissolved, if they didn't prove they were still necessary their charter would expire and they would dissolve. If they broke the law, BAM! Instant dissolution.

      Then we had the civil war, and the 14th amendment. Suddenly, corporations (who made shitloads of money in the war) wanted to keep their newfound money and power, and the Supreme Court (after being well-greased) agreed. The 14th amendment, granting everyone equal protection under the law was found to apply to corporations as well, and in the 1860's, the concept of "corporation as a person" complete with the right to profit came into existance.

    7. Re:French Financial Systems by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

      In the US/UK systems, the shareholders interest come first before the law. They can lay people off, off-shore jobs, merge, etc. if they think that is what will best enhance shareholder value. This is a good thing because it makes company's more competitive and, because the guarantee of control is there, it is easier to raise funds from investors for new job-creating project/companys/IPOs.

      Curious. I was always under the impression that in the US company decisions are made by the executive management (e.g. CEO and other top positions). Never directly by the shareholders. But of course, the shareholders have the right to appoint a different management. However, this is exactly the same in France, and in other European countries.

      However, it is true that many companies have chosen the road to focus on increasing the short-term shareholder value; sometimes on the expense of the long-term company interest. This focus can be more often observed in the US and UK than in France. Whether this is good or bad, is a question of interpretation.

      In France, however, management has priority in the law. You might think that the shareholders control the company through a board of directors appointing the CEO and others in management, but the truth is under law the equity owners are extremely limited in making the kind of company-saving decisions that they can in the US.

      True is that in France the managment is responsible for its actions that effect the employees. Especially, you can fire employees only, if you can prove that your company needs this to survive. You cannot fire at will. But managment can fire employees (and do, if needed).

      It is correct that this handicaps the management to some extend. On the other hand, employees in France are more loyal and do not change as often as in US companies; this makes it easier to plan and you have always well trained and experienced employees.

      The result is an anemic economy.

      I wouldn't call the French economy "anemic". It is less dynamic that the US economy - with all the bad but also the good side effects.

    8. Re:French Financial Systems by Free+Bird · · Score: 1

      The system used in the US and UK is inferior. I don't know too much about the way things are in France, but the Dutch system is definitely superior. It puts the well-being of the company ahead of the well-being of the shareholders, who may have entirely different interests.

      Your nonsense about "company-saving decisions" clearly shows your ignorance. There have been many examples of major shareholders destroying a company for their own financial gain. If the system prevents this, either by law or by the way the company itself is structured, that's a good thing. Of course the flip side is that you'll have to expend more efforts to motivate your management and to prevent them from "living on the job" , but that's far from impossible.

    9. Re:French Financial Systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, the shareholders are ultimately the owners of the company. They shoud be in control of what happens.

    10. Re:French Financial Systems by killbill! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The dollar's fall is unrelated to the state of the economy. Monetary policies in both contries are controlled by the government. So why has the dollar fallen? Because interest rates are low. And interest rates are staying low - normally a falling currency results in the interest rates coming back up.

      You do know that interest rates are the same, if not lower in the Euro zone than in the US?

      So, why is the dollar falling?

      Short answer: The dollar is falling:

      • because of the huge Federal deficit
      • because of the huge trade deficit
      • because foreign investors are leaving the USA, lest the continuing fall of the dollar further deprecates their investments
      • because America pissed off Arab and European investors, so they do not want to return to the US even if they could
      • because foreign central banks are swapping dollars for euros as their reserve currency
      • because Americans burn twice as much oil per capita as Europeans.
      • and last but not least, because the EU seems to be trying to do something about its debt, whereas the USA does not seem to care.

      That was the short answer. For a more detailed answer, read on below:

      Currency fluctuations are mostly due to the balance of payments, in which the trade balance, the foreign investment balance, and the budget balance play the main roles. All of which look very bad for America at the moment.

      The trade deficit is a basket case. The US industry is dead, killed by the quarterly profit craze. CEOs preferred outsourcing to competing on quality, unlike Europe (and Japan), which chose to compete on quality and features, instead of giving up on their industry.
      The fact that the US is to 90% a service industry has a huge impact on the trade deficit. Indeed, international trade is mostly about the trade of goods, which are made by the industrial sector. Which America gave up on.
      As a result, America is buying high-end European goods, but it has hardly anything to offer to Europe that Europe does not do better already. Which bodes ill for the dollar. Usually, a falling currency usually stabilizes as its exports get cheaper. However, this won't happen for the US, as it cannot get cheaper than China, while the quality of Chinese goods is constantly improving.
      Unless American engineers somehow manage to wrestle some power back from marketers, bean counters and lawyers in corporate America, the American industry is done for.

      The food industry is also traditionally a strong American export; however, it also is a strong European export. Besides, it is standardizing on GM crops, which are mostly forbidden or unwanted in Europe. So, you can also write agriculture off as far as trans-Atlantic trade is concerned.

      Having already written off the trade balance, how is the budget balance looking?
      To keep it short, hopelessly bad at least until 2008, that's for sure. And in 2011, the US goverment will have to start paying back the debt from the Reagan years (which I bet it'll default on).

      And now, for the foreign investment balance.
      Let's start with a bit of history. Back in 1999, when the Euro was introduced, it quickly fell against the dollar. Indeed, at the height of the dot-com bubble, investing in the US sounded more rewarding than in Europe. So, many European investors bought dollars to invest into American assets. However, when the bubble burst, they retreated hastily and sold whatever investment they had to cover their losses. Notice how the euro started rebounding right when the bubble burst?
      Right now, European investors might look at the GDP growth figures. But they will not return to America before a long while. Given the probability that the dollar will continue its fall, no investment in the

    11. Re:French Financial Systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      be careful, you dont want to cite actual references to people who actually know anything -- otherwise, you might destroy your argument.

    12. Re:French Financial Systems by sholden · · Score: 1

      No, I say it as if it might have been a good idea that shouldn't have been done away with. And that it's sad that people just treat "corporates should put shareholder value above all else" as an indisputable fact and a good thing at that...

    13. Re:French Financial Systems by mikeg22 · · Score: 1
      Arab investors are selling the petrodollars they're getting from America faster than Europeans are buying dollars to get oil
      Why do Europeans have to buy dollars to get oil? Why can't they use Euros?
    14. Re:French Financial Systems by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      I could give a much more detailed response, but the crux of why you are silly and wrong is that both interest rates and inflation are exceptionally low in the US and have been for a very long time. Were everything you were saying true, this would not be the case.

  54. hi there, biatch. canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why would you think my country owes you a cent (netted, of course)? We don't, you guys owe us a lot of money due to lagging accounts payables (trade deficit), among other reasons ...

  55. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    Burnout 3 rocks, the SSX series is good as far as snowboarding games go.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  56. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you must be a fat fuck, grosse merde!

  57. EA behavior.. by Fantasio · · Score: 1

    Sadly, EA more and more looks like the bullies in the Game industry. They behave like a monopoly, they are the largest and use all their weight to crush the competition, sell crapy products, exploit their staff and screw their customers.

    1. Re:EA behavior.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's sad about that? Wealth is concentrating in the hands of those most capable to use it. Thank god their offspring will have use of it and not the lesser children of poor people so we can actually accomplish something as a country.

    2. Re:EA behavior.. by _Wagz_ · · Score: 1

      God, why does that sound so familiar, I say as I type on my Microsoft keyboard on my Windows XP machine with Office 2003 open before me?

  58. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude!!! French Fries are AWESOME!!!!!

  59. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lets add Concorde into that, which was a joint British/French project. How about the Arianne rockets?

  60. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those are women? someone fetch me a bucket.

  61. Re:French Government? Totally unnecessary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sam Fisher has the Fifth Freedom: The freedom to do whatever it takes to keep Ubisoft programmers from working 90 hours a week in an EA sweatshop.

  62. Ubisoft's Newest Release by elecngnr · · Score: 2, Funny

    There is a rumor that EA simply wants to get in on a new Ubisoft game. The premise of the game is that the player is the head of a French bank and collects fees from an Iraqi dictator who is supposed to be using the money in his account to pay for food and medical supplies for his people, but is really funneling it to terrorists and arms dealers.

    You get bonus points for lobbying the UN to not sanction a war in Iraq so that you can keep collecting fees from the account.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041118-1 20331-8156r.htm/
    --
    Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
    1. Re:Ubisoft's Newest Release by cybrthng · · Score: 1

      Mr Rove, is that you?

    2. Re:Ubisoft's Newest Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When can I play the US version of the game? I SOOOOO want to be in charge of Haliburton. Do you have any news on it?

  63. Note To Business Owners by Groovus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you don't want to lose control of your company, don't go public - it's really that simple.

    Everyone likes to play by the rules as long as they're in their favor, but as soon as someone else gets the upper hand and threatens your (insert precious item here) the rules suddenly become unfair and need to be circumvented. Human nature I guess. Hooray for "free" markets though - greed really is the best motivation for human endeavors, right?

    1. Re:Note To Business Owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. When do we stop bailing out failing airlines? When do we stop wasting money on bloated corporations who leech off the government?

      Come on, tell me when.

    2. Re:Note To Business Owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever someone says "it's that simple", it's not.

  64. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    in Heaven, the police are British, the lovers are Italian, the cooks are French, the engineers are German, and it's all organized by the Swiss.

    In Hell, the police are German, the lovers are Swiss, the cooks are British, the engineers are French, and it's all organized by the Italians.

  65. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Frostalicious · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry something about french and engineering in the same concept just eludes me.

    Yeah, you better send that green statue in NY harbor back to France, before it topples over.

  66. Simple reason-lost French jobs / lost French power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    France does not want to lose France based companies.

    It is good that EU countries are now subject to the same buyout and then layoff trend that the USA went through in the 1980s.

    The loss of companies that move out of France + the loss of jobs from buyout/layoffs will force France to actually support a pro-business environment instead of a entitlement burdened nanny state.

    The euro has greatly facilitated free trade, free capital, and personal freedom.

  67. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And i don't want to buy girls with disgusting, baloon-like plastik tits and *g* and cars with to soft (==unsporty) suspension.

  68. Re:French Government? Totally unnecessary! by Trepalium · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ubi's also got the Rainbow Six team... And they've got guns.... lots of them.

    --
    I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
  69. No Rove Here by elecngnr · · Score: 1

    All I am saying is that the French government is not as altruistic as they would like people to believe. They are saying here that they are protecting the last bastion of gaming within France. So, I should believe that statement like I should believe that they did not want us to invade Iraq due to concerns about peace. Come on. They--and the Russians--were making money hand over fist off of this program without concern about the people of Iraq.

    Certainly the republicans who have supported the war are enjoying the egg on France's face with this, but I do not make this point as a republican....because I am not a republican. I make this point because France is a bunch of socialist, cheese-eating, surrender-monkeys. Having the US get involved in war was okay by the French when their asses were getting brutalized by a dictator, but not okay when someone else is in that situation? Fine. I couldn't care less if the French like the US or not.

    --
    Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
    1. Re:No Rove Here by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

      Those socialist, cheese-eating surrender monkeys sent troops to Afghanistan, where we had a clear and reasonable justification for going to war.

    2. Re:No Rove Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realized you linked the washington times, right? Do you know who owns that newspaper? Sun Myung Moon.

      I do believe that the French arnt as clean as we would like them, but hell, we arnt as clean as we would like US! (school of the americas, for example)

      But, in the future, try not to cite a newspaper owned by someone who thinks he is the messiah. Find a better source for your argument, I'm sure there are plenty out there.

  70. aha! It all makes sense now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    er wait...

    You do have another idea about how to acquire multi-million dollar, interest-free, unsecured cash loans right?

  71. Halliburton by elecngnr · · Score: 1

    Actually, it is Halliburton. And yes, I do have some information on them:

    You can probably look for that CEO job here: http://www.halliburton.com/careers/index.jsp

    Here is what you will be in charge of: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/07/w e_455_01.html

    But, be warned, as the CEO of Halliburton, you have those pesky democrats spreading lies about you.

    --
    Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
  72. Re:Fun with eBay! by pepperback · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow!!! That looks like a quality pen. I wonder what the reserve is. I'm really suprised it has no bids. You should buy it!! Troll hata

  73. How are they building them today? by Kobun · · Score: 1

    Is this still true after BMW bought the rights to the Rolls name a few years back? I only read about that deal in passing; the details basically were that BMW got the name, VW bought all the assets, and BMW was looking up old Rolls Fan's to reverse engineer the cars into the 21st century. Just curious, that's all...

  74. most good games from ubisoft are... by canon_prince · · Score: 1

    from ubisoft montreal. and not from france.

    1. Re:most good games from ubisoft are... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      There are no good games from Ubisoft.
      They have pretty games, but none of them are actually fun to play.

      They just make pretty screenshots, because screenshots are what sells games, not gameplay.

      Yes, I'm still bitter that I wasted my precious money on Prince of Persia. A few good acrobatic levels, lots of boring fights for filler, uninterresting puzzles. Bleah.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  75. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once you go fat you never go back.

    Fat chicks also give the best head, you know, cuz they have to.

  76. Etats-Unians INTEL at its best ... Bunch of Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Being French, I expected them to surrender... "

    This is the same Etats-Unians intel wich gave us the WMD of Irak ...

    History goes like this : Nazi take Paris ( France Capital ) and change the governement by removing the elected president and Prime Minister ( they make them resign ) and declare the vice-premier, Henri-Philippe Petain the new French government and In 1940, aged 83, Petain agreed to head the Vichy government in occupied France. The real elected government of France actually never surrendered.

    The only cowards of world war 2 where the United States "of america" who where too coward to join at the start and only joined once the victory whas assured. ( stealing the Tanks development and airplane development from the americans in the process).

    Yes , the American helped the ally won world war 2 from end to finish ...

    C ourageous
    A mericans
    N oble
    A mericans
    D efender of
    A mericas

    where not "of america" where it !

  77. The French commitment to Afghanistan by elecngnr · · Score: 1

    From: http://english.people.com.cn/200306/24/eng20030624 _118783.shtml

    France currently contributes some 500 soldiers to the over 5,000-strong ISAF force which has been maintaining security and order in Kabul and surrounding areas since December 2001 under a United Nations mandate. France is also helping train the fledgling new Afghan National Army together with the United States, Thorette said. However, so far France has no troops in the over 115,000 US-led coalition troops deployed across the country to hunt down remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda network.

    Mostly, their troops are glorified police officers. Their troops did not see anything like the action the US Special Forces saw in Afghanistan. In fact, most of their ground troops came into areas that had already been secured by the US.

    --
    Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
    1. Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1
      Why not quote something a little more recent?

      The article (dating from a year and a half ago) you quoted mentioned that they were going to send special forces to Afghanistan. It appears that they have sent them since them.

      I'm not suggesting that they're exactly leading the effort, but give me a break. It should be obvious that the US doesn't have enough troops there, either, considering the fact that the opium crops are doing so well.

    2. Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actual French troops on the ground? 950

      How about this as recent?

      http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2004/ defense_budget111504.asp

      It comes from the French embassy, do you claim the US controls that embassy as well and is manipulating the news it releases?

      Quote from French press release (my bold is emphasis):

      "Afghanistan, 1,800 French troops make France the second largest partner of the United States in Afghanistan after Germany. French contributions include troops deployed through the International Security and Assistance Force (950, 10.5% of ISAF), training of the Afghan national army, Operation Enduring Freedom on the ground (special forces), at sea (2 frigates, 1 tanker, and 1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft), and in the air (2 transport aircraft, 3 reconnaissance jet fighters and 1 tanker);"

    3. Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful



      "Mostly, their troops are glorified police officers. Their troops did not see anything like the action the US Special Forces saw in Afghanistan."

      I fail to see how you can say something like this, and not realize you're shitting on any serviceman whose job isn't exactly "first wave, front line, point."

      It almost seems like some people are afraid of finding any reason to respect the French. Or something like that. There seems to be a subculture that carries some value assumption that the French are somehow bad, counter to American interests, or generally deserving of hostility or criticism. But that idea is only held within that subculture, and the rest don't even understand the premise.

      But the important thing to me, is if you want to dismiss the contribution of anyone who is your ally in combat, who has soldiers in your military operation, you might as well be wiping your ass with the flag after you shit on the grave of a soldier. In my opinion, that is precisely what you did when you tried to squirm out of accepting that the French sent soldiers to fight alongside your army in Afghanistan.

      If you can tell me what unit YOU were in, and what combat YOU personally saw in Afghanistan, and if you can give an eyewitness account of the cowardice and lack of contribution by the French, maybe I can hold a higher opinion of you. Somehow, I think you won't be able to do that, but I'll keep the option open.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan by elecngnr · · Score: 1

      First of all, I was 11B/11C (Infantry) in the US Army--Armored Cav. My service commitment was up a long time ago, as such I was fortunate enough not to have to go to Afghanistan. Furthermore, I have the upmost respect for the other soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are not in front-line situations. Everyone who serves with honor deserves that respect. My criticism is not directed at the French soldiers. I met some attending Ranger school at Ft. Benning and they were always squared away.

      My criticism is with the French government. They made a big deal about sending troops to serve hand in hand with the US to fight terrorism. However, what they sent were peace-keeping forces. Again, I respect the work the actual French soldier has done, but I resent that the French government tried to score points by making their mission in Afghanistan sound different than what it was. I am just a little pissed they were not more honest in saying that they were sending peace-keeping and support personnel.

      --
      Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
    5. Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan by chialea · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on misreading the press release and only looking at part of the 1800 troops. You can't even claim there are only 950 ground troops, as "Operation Enduring Freedom on the ground (special forces)" is not included.

      Lea

    6. Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >My criticism is with the French government.

      You have a funny way of expressing that:

      "Mostly, their troops are glorified police officers."

      That sounded to me, a whole hell of a lot like criticizing soldiers, not governments.

      I'm just sick and tired of hearing about France this and the French that, as if they are some sort of enemy of the US. I don't know where it originated (maybe something Pat Robertson said, who knows), but what's strange is that the anti-French sentiment *persists*, and seems to be persisted by people who, if pressed, would not be able to make a cogent argument of what exactly is the matter with France. Whatever it is, was supposed to be so terrible that we can't even eat French Fries (A New Jersey invention, correct?), and we weren't even supposed to drink Champagne. But that idea was also supposed to be some kind of self-evident, obvious fact. Nobody has ever explained it to me, just repeated the whole "cowardly, surrender-monkeys" thing.

      So when I get to your message, where you claimed to know the contribution of the French troops to be nothing more than glorified police officers, it raised my blood pressure a bit.

      I still wonder where you're coming from. You're a soldier yourself. Seems like you of all people should know better. What are, for instance, MP's in Iraq supposed to think about that sort of thing? After all, they really *are* nothing but glorified police officers. Think about this please.

      And maybe somebody can explain to me what makes France such an obvious goddamned scapegoat? I really don't get it. It will never be appropriate, in my ethos, to hold contempt for a nation that is supporting your own in a time of war. If they have boots on the ground in Afghanistan, they are to be held in precisely the same regard as any US soldier. They are, after all, in the same force, on the same side, taking risks and making sacrifices.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan by elecngnr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe this will help. Mine is a soldiers complaint. As I said, I was infantry. However, there were times when I was in units that were turned into glorified police units. Almost to a man, soldiers hate it when their mission changes like that. I was trained for a specific mission--in my days it was killing Soviets. Taking me out of that paradigm sucked because I was untrained for it. It is more like I am commiserating with the French grunt than bashing him.

      I agree that is the situation a lot of our soldiers are in right now in Iraq. And, if you asked them off camera, they would say "this sucks" Taking fire in battle is different...it is expected. Taking fire when you are helping to build a hospital somewhere is not expected. Both suck, but I was trained to handle the first, not the second.

      My use of the surrender monkey comment was out of anger over the revelations that they may have been aiding Sadaam brutalize his people. The French government was awefully self-righteous when they were proclaiming their non-support for our military action due to concerns for peace. Reading some of the things I have been reading about their actions in the Oil for Food program makes me doubt they were honest. I think they were happy with the status quo because they were making lots of money. And, who knows, maybe I was just in a bad mood yesterday and felt like ranting.

      By the way, I am definitely drinking champagne tonight:) No way I am going to let a little squabble with the French interfere with that.

      --
      Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
    8. Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Taking me out of that paradigm sucked because I was untrained for it. It is more like I am commiserating with the French grunt than bashing him."

      I get it. That's cool.

      "They may have been aiding Sadaam brutalize his people."

      It's okay that we definitely did it, but not okay that they, possibly, allegedly, might have. This I do not understand.

      "The French government was awefully self-righteous when they were proclaiming their non-support for our military action due to concerns for peace."

      Last time I checked, France still had national sovreignty, and was entirely within reason here. The US acted like a spoilt child and whined and blamed its problems on them. It was okay for France to make the decision of a sovreign nation, and it was not okay for America to make them a national scapegoat. The only thing that saves my respect is the fact that, to my knowledge, nothing official has been declared against France.

      "Reading some of the things I have been reading about their actions in the Oil for Food program makes me doubt they were honest."

      I have no source of information that is not heavily biased against France and the UN. Everything I've seen about the Oil for Food program has been presented to me as propaganda.

      I'm sure if you follow the money from that boondoggle, you'll end up in some American pockets.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:The French commitment to Afghanistan by Snaller · · Score: 1

      And maybe somebody can explain to me what makes France such an obvious goddamned scapegoat?

      Frightened people need someone to blame, they just chose the first ones who came along.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  78. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by 3nuff · · Score: 1

    Don't you mean Sphincter Cell...sorry recurring theme with me on the name of this game.

    --
    "Give me taste, give me funk, give me fury, gimme some more."
  79. Re:Article submitters and Slashdot editors, please by sobachatina · · Score: 1

    They actually don't even need 50.1%. According to the interview the next largest stake is held by the initial founders- including the CEO- and it is only ~22%. EA would only need 24% or so to have a majority.

  80. Re:Softwood Lumber by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · · Score: 1

    I heard something interesting recently wrt. the softwood lumber issue. It seems that some Canadian lumberyards close to the border are doing good business selling houses to Americans. Apparently it's cheaper to buy the house in Canada because when the peices get shipped over the border, it is taxed as a house, rather than as softwood lumber.

  81. And... by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1


    the whole north american continent would be called Canada, which wouldnt be such a bad thing.

    1. Re:And... by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      > the whole north american continent would be called Canada, which wouldnt be such a bad thing.

      Except that Canada would inherit the cultural legacy of America. Remember, these Puritans were such intolerable prigs, they got kicked out of England.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    2. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apparently

      -Yhou can't spell
      -Yhou have yhour history wrong
      -Yhou have a serious inferiority complex.

    3. Re:And... by Moulinneuf · · Score: 1

      "Yhou can't spell"

      Granted , I am not a writer. but YHOU ? lol thats your native language , lol !

      "Yhou have yhour history wrong"

      Actually that I got 100% right wich is what's pissing you off ;-)

      "-Yhou have a serious inferiority complex."

      I am from Canada I know I am an American , I just happened to be a real American a Canadian ;-) not an Etats-Unians.

      C ourageous
      A mericans
      N oble
      A mericans
      D efender of
      A mericas

      where not "of america" where it !

      Americans are not from the United States there of Canada.

      --
      I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
    4. Re:And... by conureman · · Score: 1

      In fact, the zealots even got kicked out of the Netherlands! (And that's pretty bad...)

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  82. Re:Etats-Unians INTEL at its best ... Bunch of Mor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't we all just get along?

  83. And... by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1


    The Canadians wouldn't get so irritated by being mistaken for Americans.

  84. A bunch more for ya.... by elecngnr · · Score: 1

    Ya know, I read a bunch of articles, but that had the cleanest text. I could have quoted Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html , but I figured people would accuse me of conservative bias.

    Then, I thought about quoting the Sunday Times from the UK:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-12 91280,00.html but who knows who might own that.

    I also thought about quoting a French source. http://www.investigateur.info/news/articles/articl e_2003_05_5_auchi.html, but I think I have made my feelings clear about the French.

    Finally, I considered a source from Pittsburgh, http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middlee astreports/s_273762.html, but was afriad I would be branded a Steelers fan.

    Every article said pretty much the same thing. I am sure the TImes article was cobbled together from other places. I am familiar with the moonies and find them to be quite different. But, that does not change the fact that the article was factually correct according to numerous other sources. If that was the only source, I would not have used it.
    --
    Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
  85. Re:French Government? Totally unnecessary! by Jardine · · Score: 1

    Sam Fisher vs. Football players? My money is on Sam Fisher.

    But what if da football players have Ditka on der side?

    I'm thinking Fisher 0, Ditka and football players...147.

    Da Bears.

  86. Yes, EA is just like Ubisoft, thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are publishers, they are the ones who place unrealistic time constraints on development, foring people to work rediculous hours, and then own the game and make all the profits. They are the RIAA of games.

  87. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude. French engineers are the best in the world. They take on large projects like the Eiffel Tower, The Chunnel,the Millau Bridge and the TGV. They certainly aren't scared of nuclear power. I look foward to when they start building the ITER fusion reactor. Hopefully in France.

  88. Irrelevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't the French government that helped the US, get overthrown(revolution) and replaced with the current(surrender-at-all-costs) one? You do realize it's not just the US that thinks the French are a bunch of pussies, right? They're the joke of the world. Only Germany likes them, but it's more like they're kissing their ass out of shame for what they did to 'em.

    1. Re:Irrelevant? by benna · · Score: 1

      Napoleon came after the revolution. Don't try to tell me he was all about surrendering. Bad guy? yes. Pussy? no.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:Irrelevant? by robson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Napoleon came after the revolution. Don't try to tell me he was all about surrendering. Bad guy? yes. Pussy? no.

      And yet, Napoleon's goal (independent of his method) was to overthrow tyranny and spread the spirit of the French Revolution throughout Europe. Interesting to look at this in a modern context, eh?

    3. Re:Irrelevant? by benna · · Score: 1

      That was his stated goal. But yes, that makes the connection even more obvious.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    4. Re:Irrelevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Replace Napoleon with Bush and Europe with Iraq and it is indeed an interesting look with a modern context.

    5. Re:Irrelevant? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Napoleon did bring about a period of relative peace in Europe during his reign, aside of course for his own antics, because Austria and the Catholic Church didn't wield quite as much power as they did before. Everything I know about history I learned from Europa Universalis!

  89. Percentage of morons in the population. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Percentage of morons in the population:
    US:95%
    France:80%

  90. me chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much does my country owe your cuntry? Whats that? America owes us money? ALOT of money?? unberievable.

  91. Re:French Government? Totally unnecessary! by Gubbe · · Score: 1

    Whatever and whoever the EA throws at us we can defeat. They have a weakness, you see.

    When they go take a leak, you simply replace the bathroom door with a solid wall.

  92. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EA is known for grinding it's employees under, it might as well be cheese eaters rather than Americans. Just use'em and discard them. They are consumables, and it's not like they're going to fucking retaliate or something.

  93. I'm sick of EA by aztektum · · Score: 1
    They release pretty bland games anyway, they just push so many out the door they still exist. Their NFL license is wack. Guess I won't be buying a new football game any time soon. And I bought Battle for Middle-earth. I have to register a user account just to play online with a friend. There's no options whatsoever to configure when hosting a game.

    Their attitude seems to be "You'll play what we develop and like it!" They forget to add "No matter how inferior a product it is!"

    I say fsck EA. Unfortunately I don't think they'll be suffering Acclaim's fate any time soon.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  94. I have two words for Yves by winkydink · · Score: 1

    Craig Conway

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  95. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by MajorDick · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hehe me too, that gonna be one vapor cloud thats welcome to see, as in no more French, one can only dream..

  96. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
    As opposed to USA's Microsoft Windows and extremely obese women? ;-)

    Ah yes. But they're extremely obese women with shaven armpits. I mean, if you're into that kind of thing.

    --
    "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  97. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

    And that big Tour Eiffel thing; the Danish built that, right? And this this silly thing. Yes, obviously the French know nothing of engineering.

    --
    "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  98. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then why did they try to ruin the new Prince of Persia? :( Sands of Time was beautiful...the only problem I had with it was that it was too short.

    Now it feels like I'm playing Jerry Bruckheimer's Prince of Persia. Fight. Fight. Cheesy line. Fight. Oh, here's an actual puzzle. Oh, wait. A fight.

  99. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please credit:

    George Carlin

    with that quote from the Tonight Show about 15 years ago.

  100. Oh noes! by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 0, Troll

    The French government versus Electronic Arts? I give them three days before the white flags come out. :)

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  101. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for posting that. I was just thinking that was one of the best comments I've ever read on this site. Now I know why.

  102. Re:Simple reason-lost French jobs / lost French po by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The loss of companies that move out of France + the loss of jobs from buyout/layoffs will force France to actually support a pro-business environment instead of a entitlement burdened nanny state."

    Are you trying to be funny?

  103. You all suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hating EA back in the days of the Genesis.
    You think you can waltz in here and hate EA now because it's the "in" thing to do?
    YOU'RE TEN YEARS LATE MOTHERFUCKERS!

  104. Forget the Real Americans ? by Moulinneuf · · Score: 1


    Canada ...

    Thanks for coming along once whe add the german on the run ...

    --
    I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
    1. Re:Forget the Real Americans ? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      When some extremist says, "Death to America!"... do you claim to be an American then?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    2. Re:Forget the Real Americans ? by Moulinneuf · · Score: 1

      Who do you think came to the rescue of the whanabee American on september 11 2001 ?

      Canada ... the real American

      --
      I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
    3. Re:Forget the Real Americans ? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't answer my question, though we thank Canada for their generous support during that time.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    4. Re:Forget the Real Americans ? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The Python skit about joke warfare doesn't seem quite so absurd now.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  105. More likely... by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1


    that they would be speaking Russian.

  106. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

    "Fat chicks need love, too.

    They just gotta pay."

    Glen Quagmire

    --

    There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  107. Re:Who would want to buy ANYTHING french ? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

    Women shouldn't have any hair below their necks!

    --

    There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  108. EA - typical American Company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical American company, if they are a threat to you just take them over, Microsoft does it all the time, now a gaming companies are doing it. Nice. Why should we have SOMEONE ELSE make better games? & I will say, UBI makes better looking games then EA, & I am sure they dont inSLAVE their employees like EA does.
    P.S.I am an American.