Quote: "They are allowed a state of autonomy as they have, because they have proven themselves building up many locations on thier own with funds provided by Electronic Arts."
Maxis was a development studio with only one single office, the infamous Will Wright "Dollhouse," in northern california. Maxis was owned independently and managed by Wright until they decided to trade on the stock exchange for a short period of time. EA bought many of the stocks out from under them, and eventually, Maxis caved. They didn't go willingly and there was a debacle as I recall over Will Wright withholding certain copyrights as his own because he didn't want the Sim franchises to be lost to someone else.
Quote: "The list provided in the original post appears incorrect, but yes EA has been making a huge number of acquisitions as of late.
"
What on that list is incorrect? I left off a few acquisitions because I didn't feel like doing any research... those were the ones from off my head. But after reading that statement I went to hotbot and searched for each one and found articles on each one (Doom, admittedly, might be a rumour, as it was a news article that someone had posted to a forum... I'm not sure if it was true). Other than that, every other item on that list is something currently owned, in one way or another, by Electronic Arts.
Quote: "There are many companies that are thankful that EA has stepped in to purchase them."
Like whom? Ubi is
furious over EA's acquisition of 20% of their firm. Westwood almost chose bankruptcy over EA control. Criterion had so many members of the original development teams quit that EA was forced to re-negotiate its contracts with them. And dice? Dice was in an all-out war to keep themselves from caving, a war that lasted for quite some time as you may recall. They wanted EA to distribute, but EA wanted the whole studio! And how about Digital Illusions? That's where the EA slave-labor debacle began, and also, many of their development leaders walked on the spot and left EA in a bit of a jam. Besides the NFL, I can't think of a single company greatful for EA's diety-like control over their studio.
And finally, my favourite negative quote of the day:
Quote: "I do not understand why people are constantly making comments about Electronic Arts. I keep being told, "People are idiots who comment on things they just don't understand."
I may not be a very experienced programmer [in comparison to some of you anyway], but that doesn't mean I don't know the ropes. Bottom line is, I'm constantly reading about EA in every publication you can think of. Game Informer, for instance, is petrified that EA is going to soon be to video games what Microsoft is to Operating systems. SNL aired a skit about Lawrence Probst (EA's head honcho), Bill Gates, and Rupert Murdoch scheming and plotting to take over the world through the media. And have you read anything about Take2 Interactive's licensing agreement with the MLB (Major League Baseball)? In said contract Take2 stated that the MLB can license and contract said license to any development studio not related to, operating for, or otherwise a part of Electronic Arts or any of its subsidiaries. It was a direct blow at EA for all of their recent acquisitions, and EA is firing up now and taking aim at Take2.
Now do you see why the EA situation is something that should be taken more seriously? Yes, it's a classic corporate maneuver, exactly the strategy that the board game "Monopoly" is based upon, but I'm almost certain EA has a much more diabolical plot in mind.
As far as Microsoft cornering them... Can they legally do that? I hope so. If EA makes a push toward market domination, similar to what RKO did in the film industry in the 1930's, we, as the little people of the gaming industry, are going to be the ones who suffer the most. But this post is too long as it is so if you don't know why I guess you're just out of luck
hehe
- Matt
"Hell is an Irish Pub where it's St. Patrick's Day all of the time." ~ Christopher, *The Soprano's*
