codecow said:
What I meant by decision making:
EA-
Buys Pandemic. Mercs 2 sells _ok_. And...?
It's sold pretty well, and Pandemic, though I don't like their games and think they're incredibly overrated, has a penchant for making games that sell (what's up Star Wars Battlefront?). You may be right about Bioware, but Pandemic is an
incredibly smart investment.
Announces deals with Valve for L4D and iD for Rage but as part of EA Partners which has very low margins. Rock Band, RB2 goes through EA Partners but is owned by MTV so margins are low here as well. RB2 doesn't sell (this is also a problem for Activision, but a bigger one for them since they bought GH).
The margins are lower than if you own the companies and IPs, sure, but consider what EA's role in all of this is:
1) They're backing the developers with funding if they need it (and they don't, because Valve and iD have more money than God, and Harmonix is backed by MTV).
2) They're paying for ads.
3) They're distributing the games.
They're doing practically nothing and getting a fair deal back for all of these, not to mention the consumer and industry goodwill this builds.
Releases new IP against: Fable 2, Gears 2, WotLK, Fallout 3, etc... Releases too many titles in the same period and does not market them as aggressively as the competition. Consider marketing for a game like Saint's Row 2 versus Dead Space. It is a joke how much more marketing went towards SR2 and not surprising that it has had better sales results.
What TV have you been watching? Also, the difference between Saints Row 2 and Dead Space is that THQ needed Saints Row 2 to sell, since it's their only big holiday release. They HAD to spend more on advertising out of necessity for the well-being of their corporation.
Announces for the second year in a row that EA has missed the boat on Wii. ERTS increased the number of SKUs on the Wii greatly but has not seen any interest from consumers.
As if your Lord and Savior Activision is in any better position.
In a typical EA move, releases software that isn't top quality in established franchise (NFS) then doesn't sell it. Where are the ads for NFS? I believe the old EA could have jammed this down consumer's throats and at least salvaged some sales.
It's true that NFS is not up to par this year, but they don't need to shove ads down your throat considering that Need For Speed games always sell gangbusters. And again - I don't know what TV you've been watching, but I've seen plenty of ads for all of EA's big holiday games, just like I saw plenty of ads for The Orange Box last year.
ATVI
Announces merger with Blizzard.
Wrong. Activision is owned by Vivendi. Vivendi bought a controlling stake in Activision, and therefore owns them and a good deal of Activision-Blizzard.
Understands that it is better to focus on a few big hits than a lot of crap. Consider that a crap title that doesn't sell has similar production costs to a hit. Clearly the best ROI is to invest then only on things that are going to be clear hits. ATVI seems to be better at picking hits than ERTS.
What is this "crap" that EA has been putting out, perchance? And how is ATVI any better, considering the qualitative diminishing returns of all the Guitar Hero games post GH2.
I don't understand why you're so obsessed with sales, though, unless you're a day trader or a Michael Pacter alt. I'm a gamer. I don't give a shit about the financials of it all. I'd rather a company take chances and potentially make awesome games than strip-mine all of their franchises into the ground to the point that I don't care anymore. Guess who's doing what.
