Slashdot Mirror
The History of Electronic Arts
Gamasutra is running an extensive article today on the long history of Electronic Arts. Starting all the way back with the days of Trip Hawkins, they move through the days of Madden, Nintendo, small studio purchases and, of course, the Sims. There's also an a whole series of images associated with the article, letting you look back and chuckle about the cover art of games from the past. The article concludes: "Art and commerce have always been uneasy bedfellows, and nowhere is that tension more evident than in the world of video games. Perhaps after looking at the history of Electronic Arts we may have some insight into that hot point of ignition where business and inspiration combine to create cutting edge games. As Trip Hawkins explained, 'Entrepreneurship is a creative art form. Like other creative people, we do it because we have to do it. We have no choice but to express ourselves in this way. But of course like all artists we are optimists, so we believe good things will come ... It is not about making money, it is about making a difference.'"
and makes there workers work 80+ hours and only pays them for 40
> EA is a very successful company.
Agreed. A very (financial) successful company, but there are MANY types of successes that corporate North America seems blind to, as you point out in your next point.
Its not an accident that everyone complains about EA's "gut & dump" strategy -- how many independent studios have they totally gutted now?
> But in terms of true originality? They've sucked for years.
Completely agree. EA's probably the biggest player to blame for sequel-itis! Milk a franchise bone dry, while screwing as many suckers ^H^H^H customers as possible.
I found it very interesting how in the beginning the _game designer_ was actually promoted with his name on the cover! We've come such a long ways downhill, where publishers don't realize its the game designer, and game dev studios that make great games, and only care about their own pathetic branding.
Maybe one of these days the industry will grow up -- and put an end to these spiraling out of control dev costs.
I always think of EA in its mid '80s form, back when their logo was also their loading screen. (I could swear I read somewhere that the circle was a softball that got lodged in the typesetting, but maybe that's my imagination.) I suppose the point of the Gamasutra article is, in part, that during that period, EA put its designers out there, front and center, whereas nowadays, they're more an amalgam of smaller studios.
One thing that always stuck with me was how, upon seeing the cover for Pinball Construction Set, everyone would assume that the game was called "Bill Budge." Even Sid Meier didn't get that big a billing!
____________________________
Indie Superstar - Our video webcast about the latest indie games.
Galaxy Rage - Our upcoming first-person rock opera. Hooray!
We're indie. We're working on our 14th game.
I'd say that after years of abuse, they should have to show more than a "few months" of good behavior before people stop bringing it up.
No, what's happened is that the publishers have realized that the public doesn't care who the designer is. Which is actually a good thing - because the Will Wright and Sid Meir are virtually unique. It's a rare designer who has more than one or two great games inside him - thus the company must promote (read: hype) a new designer every six months or so, while avoiding looking like losers because of the number of previously hyped designers now demoted to the 'B' list (or lower) grows.
The game industry isn't like the music or (book) publishing industry. EA learned that lesson early and well. The general public (as exemplified by the OP) continues to operate under the delusion that the games industry is like music or books.