[insane_cobra]

I'm very sceptical, but this suggests they might.

Or maybe they're just looking for new franchises to milk.

[bigjko]

Well, to be honest, Spore is cool because Will Wright is cool.

[insane_cobra]

But if you read the whole article, you'll see it's not just about Spore. To steal the quote from Kotaku:

Originally Posted by BusinessWeek

EA's ambitious goal is to create more such innovative, internally developed games while lessening the company's dependence on professional sports and Hollywood movie franchises.

[RLacey]

I tend to be of the opinion that EA is now a little too big for its own good. The production of games almost by committee really doesn't allow any of them to be particularly special (though they can all be very solid).

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

But if you read the whole article, you'll see it's not just about Spore.

Yeah, yeah. Just mentioning that, because Spore is just about the most exciting game to come from EA in many years, for me.

[Jackal]

Well, more original titles can't hurt. I find it odd that it supposedly stems from financial issues. Original IP's are hardly known for their commercial success (though vital in the long term).

With some $3 billion in cash and zero debt, EA is also eager to acquire independent studios.

Not so good.

For much of EA's past, that setup made it a model of reliability. But it's hardly a recipe that stokes creativity. So Neil Young, general manager of EA's Los Angeles studio, has been working on a way to encourage innovation while boosting the staff's morale and competitive spirit. For the upcoming World War II game Medal of Honor: Airborne, for example, Young has broken the development staff into small six-to-eight person "cells" and assigned each cell a small mission for the game, from programming the way enemies fire weapons or flee to making the human faces of the characters look as realistic as possible.

I cringe when I read things like this. This is the kind of administrative meddling that management always convinces itself is useful, but never is (and is often a step backwards). Heaven forbid a particular project would dictate its OWN approach based on the abilities of its own team. Much better to have a one-size-fits-all formula that you cram every team into.

[jjacob]

I remain sceptical - EA has a lot of potential, but to me it seems like all they do is squander that on uninspired titles and questionable business practices. Spore does look awesome (that video was amazing), but I'm sure EA will find some way to mess it up a bit (buggy release, messy patches etc.). I'm sure Battlefield 2 is not the best example, but they seriously messed that up with the latest patches - now the balance is not only off, but the 1.21 patch has done nothing to solve any of the serious issues. It's become nearly unplayable (and I hardly play it anymore due to this). Until they prove me wrong, "innovative" is just an empty word coined by their marketing department.

[avatar_58]

Originally Posted by jjacob

I remain sceptical - EA has a lot of potential, but to me it seems like all they do is squander that on uninspired titles and questionable business practices. Spore does look awesome (that video was amazing), but I'm sure EA will find some way to mess it up a bit (buggy release, messy patches etc.). I'm sure Battlefield 2 is not the best example, but they seriously messed that up with the latest patches - now the balance is not only off, but the 1.21 patch has done nothing to solve any of the serious issues. It's become nearly unplayable (and I hardly play it anymore due to this). Until they prove me wrong, "innovative" is just an empty word coined by their marketing department.

Except that its Digital Illusions who develops Battlefield, not EA (although I'm sure they are probably owned by EA in some way)

I don't share the EA hate that others do. They've released quite a few games that I like, they always package their games in decent cases (no damn paper sleeves) and generally don't have as many bugs as Vugames and Ubisoft.

I'm one of the people who happens to like the Sims (not the money wasting expansions mind you) and NFS:MW is a pretty good game. They also bothered to package up C&C, which is more than what I can say for other IP holders. We still don't know if those sierra games are 'legend' or real.

Spore looks to be fun, but we'll see.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by avatar_58

Except that its Digital Illusions who develops Battlefield, not EA (although I'm sure they are probably owned by EA in some way)

As you correctly guessed, EA bought out Digital Illusions last year.

Packaging for me is a moot point. What concerns me more is their "design by committee" games (to quote myself), whereby layers of gloss and polish are poured onto an uninspired game design to produce something that looks swanky but simply has no soul.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by avatar_58

Except that its Digital Illusions who develops Battlefield, not EA (although I'm sure they are probably owned by EA in some way)

I don't share the EA hate that others do. They've released quite a few games that I like, they always package their games in decent cases (no damn paper sleeves) and generally don't have as many bugs as Vugames and Ubisoft.

I'm one of the people who happens to like the Sims (not the money wasting expansions mind you) and NFS:MW is a pretty good game. They also bothered to package up C&C, which is more than what I can say for other IP holders. We still don't know if those sierra games are 'legend' or real.

Spore looks to be fun, but we'll see.

EA creates and releases the patches for BF2, not DICE (and they're not owned by EA). I liked the NFS series (especially everything up to Porsche Unleashed and Underground to some extent), but now they're just milking it (MW doesn't really improve on previous installments and still has the over-over-oversimplistic controls that bugged me in Underground).

I hate the Sims though, and I nearly feel like crying when I see a whole row of Sims games and expansions in a shop, that's just outright saddening. As for the C&C package - it's pretty bugged and not nearly as good as it could have been (several games/expansions simply won't work on most computers), again.. *milking the cow*. EA could be a great publisher/developer, but so far they've only realised a fraction of a percent of their potential with their releases, and they don't release nearly as much good or decent games as Ubi or other publishers.

Since they're by far the wealthiest publisher, that's just criminal.

[Dasilva]

Making a new game series is radical?!

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by jjacob

EA creates and releases the patches for BF2, not DICE (and they're not owned by EA).

I apologise. EA only owns 49.03% of DICE, so they don't quite own it yet.

[avatar_58]

EA is hardly the only one milking expansions and series. How many mario games are there? How many megamans, resident evils? I personally only own Sims 1 & 2 with no expansions, as I don't see the point in buying useless addons.

The only real thing EA did that bothered me was the whole Ultima IX Origin fiasco. Its because of that I'll never get to see what Ultima would have really looked and played like in the next-gen world. However considering how Garriott was quick to hop into NCsoft and work for pay-to-play games I doubt I would have seen another Ultima Single Player game anyway....

Packaging does matter to me, as I'm really friggen sick of having to buy giant CD binders to hold them all. I also hate the way some publishers refuse to release DVD versions of games. Just release the damn game on DVD in a DVD case.....they do it for consoles so there is no real excuse. When VUgames sold me a $70 CAD FEAR collectors edition with no case.......

As for the 'comitees', since the old days have passed this seems to be how companies operate today. I'm sticking with what Sierra did as "the best way" having one or two main go to guys and the rest are programmers and designers. However companies don't really care anymore and hire 50+ to work on one game. Thats why when I hear "Warren Spector's new game" today I don't put much thought into it because he probably has jack all say in the game...

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by jjacob

several games/expansions simply won't work on most computers

First time I heard of that, anything to back it up? Last time I checked, most problems were with multiplayer, Soviet RA movies and some random crashes.

Anyhow, a recent Gamasutra feature had something to say about advantages and disadvantages of EA's currently prefered team structure. Judging by that, they're not changing by much, but I'm still pleasantly surprised by EA's admittance of things being wrong and their search for increased creativity.

After all, changes could hardly make them any worse.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I apologise. EA only owns 49.03% of DICE, so they don't quite own it yet.

Bah, semantics... Still, they (not DICE) create the messed up patches.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

First time I heard of that, anything to back it up? Last time I checked, most problems were with multiplayer, Soviet RA movies and some random crashes.

I take it back, I thought I read that on these very forums. It is kind of lame however, that the multiplayer bits had to be fixed by the community before it worked, there's no real good bonus material and it's buggy, which is why I steered clear of this game. Seems like a real lack of effort on EA's part.

[insane_cobra]

Yes, it's very lame. But hey, it's better than nothing...

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I'm still pleasantly surprised by EA's admittance of things being wrong and their search for increased creativity.

I thought you said you were skeptical? This is exactly the sort of superficial change company management typically makes instead of addressing core problems. I don't have a problem with experimenting, but I'm actually very disappointed to hear they're trying to pin blame where it probably least belongs.

After all, changes could hardly make them any worse.

This isn't true. There's nothing so messed up a little tinkering can't make worse.

[avatar_58]

Originally Posted by jjacob

I take it back, I thought I read that on these very forums. It is kind of lame however, that the multiplayer bits had to be fixed by the community before it worked, there's no real good bonus material and it's buggy, which is why I steered clear of this game. Seems like a real lack of effort on EA's part.

Would you rather the games dissapear forever? Shitty release or not, they released them. Abandonware is technically illegal and so we want as many of these companies to continue selling their old games as long as possible. These collections make that way easier.

Also it gave people like me, who never played a single C&C game, the chance to own the them all on one dvd. Thats much better than having to go hunting for them seperately.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Jackal

I thought you said you were skeptical?

I'm skeptical, but trying really hard not to be.

[Fop]

EA was never cool.