Support NeoGAF

[Nathan Barley]

I'm more than aware of the general sentiment towards EA that GAF regulars seem to share i.e. it's the all-encompassing faceless devil draining life and innovation from the industry.

But I was just wondering, having reflected on certain parallels in the music industry, is that down to the fact that it pursues profit so tenaciously... or is it simply down to the fact that the EA brand has become synonymous with uninteresting things?

Do you think a different publisher could significantly boost its market share without coming across as being somehow evil?

Do you think a publisher can even build itself a personality at all, or does it always come down to the reputation of developers and big name franchises?

Take Sega, for example, as desecrated and emaciated as it may be in its current form... how do you reckon it generates such love amongst its fans? Is that just a nostalgic hangover, or do you think somehow that the Sega brand, even in a solely publishing-related context, has managed to retain such Byronic dignity (if, indeed, you think it has)?



I'd be intrigued to hear your thoughts...

 

[Draft]

I would say Ubisoft is basically EA only they make good games, so no, it's not because EA is a big, evil corporate machine. It's because a lot of their games suck.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

I would say Ubisoft is basically EA only they make good games, so no, it's not because EA is a big, evil corporate machine. It's because a lot of their games suck.

See also Nintendo.

 

[Mr Mike]

I think a lot of hate is dedicated at EA because of their, as you say, chasing of profit. They are the top dog of publishers, so instantly are treated warily. Their games sell in the millions. They rely on licences heavily. They bought Criterion and Renderware, effectively killing the most popular and useful middleware for developers.

These aren't my views, but they are things the company has done. The attitude's changing, however.

I think Sega has so much love because of pure nostalgia. That they have bought a bunch of western devs and are working with them proves to me that even they know that.

 

[Scrow]

is that down to the fact that it pursues profit so tenaciously... or is it simply down to the fact that the EA brand has become synonymous with uninteresting things?

arr! the treasure be where the bolding is.

Though honestly I think it's probably a combination of the two. Many other companies pursue profit just as tenaciously, but don't get the same rep EA has. It's probably more a case of how they do it (i.e. remove competition by buying them out... also see the licensing fiasco), much like how MS do their business I guess you could say.

Do you think a different publisher could significantly boost its market share without coming across as being somehow evil?

Simpsons did it! Oh wait I mean, Nintendo did it (kinda)!

Do you think a publisher can even build itself a personality at all, or does it always come down to the reputation of developers and big name franchises?

see above

 

[Unison]

Well, the EA hate isn't because they are a huge company... it's because they killed off so many little companies that gamers loved to get there.

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

from a fiscal standpoint EA is doing their job as a corporation

 

[Nathan Barley]

I would say Ubisoft is basically EA only they make good games, so no, it's not because EA is a big, evil corporate machine. It's because a lot of their games suck.

Clearly a fair point. Personally, I never really saw Ubisoft as much more than a sum of its parts. In other words, I've thought positively of Ubisoft because of Tom Clancy and Prince of Persia, rather than simply for being Ubisoft. But I guess if there's enough consistency,a publisher can be characterised by the sum of its parts.


And I kinda agree with the Nintendo comment. But then again, I think that really is rooted in nostalgia and fanboyism. And given the fact that it enjoys a first party position, in many ways, Nintendo wouldn't have those same concerns as a third party publisher.

 

[Unison]

from a fiscal standpoint EA is doing their job as a corporation

While putting profit first might make sense from the perspective of shareholders, it certainly pisses all over the concept of them as a creative entity.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Some really interesting points there. And I'd certainly agree that from a shareholder's viewpoint, the EA brand must be golden.


... But I'm getting the impression you think a publisher needs to present a creative identity to consumers, rather than just let the name work in the backdrop, scooping the revenue?

And I think that's rather intriguing, bearing in mind the publisher's traditional position has been slightly separate from the creative process. As the bigger publishers continue buying up developers, I wonder if that's set to change in the forseeable future...

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

i'd like to think that some time in the near future there will be a paradigm shift and publishers can sort of make a development playground instead of always relying on shovelware to make their quota. it probably won't happen until the industry isn't so dependent on games with such high production value. but if sony and ms get their way again next gen then things wont change anytime soon i suppose

 

[Nathan Barley]

i'd like to think that some time in the near future there will be a paradigm shift and publishers can sort of make a development playground instead of always relying on shovelware to make their quota. it probably won't happen until the industry isn't so dependent on games with such high production value. but if sony and ms get their way again next gen then things wont change anytime soon i suppose

Whoah. You answered my question within a milllisecond of asking it.

... I like the 'development playground' analogy alot.

 

[Scrow]

As the bigger publishers continue buying up developers, I wonder if that's set to change in the forseeable future...

yes it will change. people will hate them even more because they'd see it as stifling the developer's creative freedom. and they'd probably be right to.

 

[Draft]

i'd like to think that some time in the near future there will be a paradigm shift and publishers can sort of make a development playground instead of always relying on shovelware to make their quota. it probably won't happen until the industry isn't so dependent on games with such high production value. but if sony and ms get their way again next gen then things wont change anytime soon i suppose

fyi (and taking this in what i'm sure will be a hilariously off topic direction,) nintendo is not making game development cheaper, they are simply not increasing costs as much as MS or Sony.

Nintendo devs are going to be just as beholden to publisher money as anyone else. Or do you think Red Steel was developed a couple french guys in a garage?

 

[Nathan Barley]

yes it will change. people will hate them even more because they'd see it as stifling the developer's creative freedom. and they'd probably be right to.

I see your point. But, coming from a creative background, I can also see how the opposite could happen. If lots of separate creative entities were to come together and given some way to interact, it should be inspirational rather than stifling. But I guess if the 'playground' was built entirely by the publisher, it might not leave room for manouevre.

Which makes me think that a publisher's creative identity does indeed need to be a simple reflection of the games it releases. It couldn't just build itself one from scratch. And consumers (at least the most discerning) would clearly see through anything more contrived than that?

Or would they?

 

[DDayton]

Isn't EA hate fairly rare, except in "serious" gamers like all of us nerds on GAF?

I mean, I dislike EA because they are (in my mind) the company that pumps out the same games every year with minor changes... but sports gaming fans might love them for that.

 

[HyperZone<3]

I don't like EA because of all the various types of crap they have pulled.

-Killing Origen, Bullfrog, Westwood, etc.
-Just sitting on all sorts of great series that they will never revive (System Shock, Mutant League, etc.)
-I don't like the EA bots that dictate which direction the industry takes.
-I don't like sports games
-I really don't like EA Trax
-and lots more

Them being big has nothing to little to do with why I don't like them. I don't like them because they suck, that's my reason.

 

[meltpotato]

I think, aside from the whole killing great developers thing, EA is seen as the poster child for the streamlining of the industry into a sequel-pushing machine. Aside from Criterion, they seem like they are focused purely on having boxes on the self rather than putting out a top quality product.

 

[Netrunner2k2]

I don't like EA because of all the various types of crap they have pulled.

-Killing Origen, Bullfrog, Westwood, etc.
-Just sitting on all sorts of great series that they will never revive (System Shock, Mutant League, etc.)
-I don't like the EA bots that dictate which direction the industry takes.
-I don't like sports games
-I really don't like EA Trax
-and lots more

Them being big has nothing to little to do with why I don't like them. I don't like them because they suck, that's my reason.

That pretty much sums it up for me, too. I miss Bullfrog and Westwood.