If you think EA's a fucking PITA, wait until their newest idea goes through.

[TripleDES]

Scuttle butt is that they seem to want to be bought up by a private equity firm, which if this goes through, probably means even more hilariously bad decisions.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/374794/20120817/electronic-arts-ea-games-sale.htm

[luckton]

I think they realized that trying to make a profit in gaming based on Wall Street's rules of profit-generation is folly.  Esp. when it's practically/stupidly easy for one person or a small team of people with the right stuff can make a smash hit that cuts into market that their board members and stock holders expect to own.

If anything, they should break it up.  Although, with all the the companies they've assimilated over the last two decades, who knows how that'd pan out.

[Rendakor]

Maybe they figure that by selling themselves, they can reclaim the "King Evil Corporate Asshole" crown from Activision.

[Merusk]

Their brand of AAA gaming is dying.  We've reached a plateau on sound and graphics capabilities and that and Version++ is what's driven their properties for the last 12-15 years.   People just don't feel like blowing $70 a game every year on that anymore.  Recession, wisening-up, growing-up, moving on to smartphones.  Whatever it is things are changing and they can't adapt.

[Paelos]

they can't adapt.

That's the major problem. They never saw the value in making better games through multiple niches. They wanted to cram the same crap down America's overloaded snackhole repeatedly.

[Amaron]

How does it even work if a company has private equity AND public stocks?

[Ingmar]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this would take them private?

[Merusk]

I think that's right.  They're looking for someone with enou cash to buy up the outstanding stock.  Considering how far the value has fallen that won't have the price tag it once did.   There's evidently 318.2 million shares outstanding and their price is 13.77 right now.  That'd make them ~4.5 billion.  Pretty cheap for a company with a history of proven revenues and if you know how to fix things, even better.  (Hint: Don't spend 200 million on an MMO.)

[brellium]

Translation:
We have no idea how to run our business, we see no opportunity for increasing the value of our company or its stock and you should short the hell out of our company.

[UnSub]

If you're trying to make money through the traditional AAA development publisher model, your future isn't good. EA, Ubisoft, THQ et al are all suffering badly.

The gaming companies that are succeeding are starting to own the retail channels and aren't relying on the sales of their own games to keep them afloat (Valve and Steam, CD Projekt and GOG) or moving to small development budget titles that may span the mobile platforms as well as 'standard' platforms like PC and consoles or still receiving a large revenue from subscription titles (Blizzard Activition, who Vivendi was reportedly looking to sell as well earlier this year).

EA also has the problem that they went for a small target strategy - only publishing titles that would be 'guaranteed' hits - when they would have been better served by more diversification in their development offerings.

[Logain]

The private equity firm that is buying them is only doing so because they believe they can increase value. They'll either do this by improving efficiency within the company and improving the bottom line, or by liquidating the assets/components for a larger net than the cost. The ironic thing is that assuming the company isn't obliterated, it will probably be run in a much more sane fashion. Equity firms aren't in the business of doing particular kinds of business really, they are in the business of making money and they're very good at it. EA might actually improve.

I haven't seen any details of the deal, but it's usually very nearly impossible to fully take a public company the size of EA private. More likely a firm is acquiring a majority stake, at which point the company is still public but they still hold all the power.

[Phred]

Translation:
We have no idea how to run our business, we see no opportunity for increasing the value of our company or its stock and you should short the hell out of our company.

Not bad if you ignore the market's complete inability to understand game companies. I mean you've got Blizzard who have  literally been pissing cash for the past 6 years with trivial stock growth.

[HaemishM]

The stock market doesn't reward slow and steady profit. They reward INSANE, SHORT-TERM EXPLOSIVE GROWTH before dumping the shit out of the stock so it can settle into a realistic pricing model. That's because the market is full of idiotic sheeple and outright con men working the press for pump and dump scams.

[Logain]

Equity markets aren't quite as evil as you think they are. If that were all the market consisted of it would have 100% collapsed a long time ago. Besides, EA is a long-established company with predictable revenue streams, there is not going to be any insane, short-term explosive growth no matter who buys what.

[Paelos]

The stock market doesn't reward slow and steady profit. They reward INSANE, SHORT-TERM EXPLOSIVE GROWTH before dumping the shit out of the stock so it can settle into a realistic pricing model. That's because the market is full of idiotic sheeple and outright con men working the press for pump and dump scams.

That's the tech sector, or unestablished companies. There are good places to put your money, but I would never suggest putting in companies you don't plan on being around for 30 years, or companies that never pay dividends.

Over the long haul of the market, it's not a bad place to put your money. Example, the DOW has quadrupled in the 20 year period between 1972 and 1992, and quadrupled again from 1992 to 2012.

If you were investing $20,000 in long term companies back in 1992, and I'll use a blue chipper like Coca-Cola as an example, your value would be 4x what you paid for it today. In addition, you would have picked up at least 2% a year in dividends, and you would have received a 2:1 split in 1996.

[TripleDES]

The private equity firm that is buying them is only doing so because they believe they can increase value. They'll either do this by improving efficiency within the company and improving the bottom line, or by liquidating the assets/components for a larger net than the cost. The ironic thing is that assuming the company isn't obliterated, it will probably be run in a much more sane fashion. Equity firms aren't in the business of doing particular kinds of business really, they are in the business of making money and they're very good at it. EA might actually improve.

While these firms might be adept at streamlining things in general, it remains to be seen whether their decision making process actually suits game making. Most games are already late to begin with, if some equity firm is pointing even more shotguns at you than you're used to, this isn't exactly a positive thing.

[cmlancas]

The stock market doesn't reward slow and steady profit. They reward INSANE, SHORT-TERM EXPLOSIVE GROWTH before dumping the shit out of the stock so it can settle into a realistic pricing model. That's because the market is full of idiotic sheeple and outright con men working the press for pump and dump scams.

Wut?  Maybe for high-risk, high-reward ventures, but this just isn't true across the board.  Paelos example is a good one, and there are numerous other examples.  Publix and Apple come to mind.

But, this is a gaming thread.  We can derail into stock market talk in Politics!   

It really is amazing to see the variety of offerings on Steam compared to other publishers out there.  I'd love to find the time to get to know some of the more peculiar titles out there.  I think this is part of what's missing from EA's repertoire.

Shit, I already know more or less how NHL13 will play.  HOORAY WHIPSHOT.   

[Merusk]

I'll posit that most games are overbudget and overtimeframe because of designers.  They don't know how to let things go and just push through to completion, it's not in the mindset of a designer and why they make terrible managers from a business perspective.

Yes, you have a brilliant idea on how to fix something.  Let's get this one out and then iterate in an expansion or create a new game that utilizes that idea. Then we'll have two games instead of one.

[Paelos]

Well I think a lot of what we have to ask ourselves in these AAA games is where the majority of the time for development goes.

Does it end up in graphics?
Does it end up in gameplay?
Does it end up in testing?
Does it end up in a game engine?

I'm not really sure, but for some reason I'm guessing it's not in gameplay, controls, or user interface.

[rk47]

Nah, it goes to marketing and metascore critics investment.

[Amaron]

I'm not really sure, but for some reason I'm guessing it's not in gameplay, controls, or user interface.

I think it goes into poor management.

[Musashi]

No, he's right.  A fuckload of it goes into iterating artwork.  The sheer number of artists you need to pay a reasonable wage over the course of development to make artwork in a AAA game is mind boggling.  But honestly, and I know I've been harping on this in another thread, do you really care about the art if the game blows?  I'm not about to advocate less good artwork in games.  But there's a difference between good artwork and expensive artwork. 

[cmlancas]

No, he's right.  A fuckload of it goes into iterating artwork.  The sheer number of artists you need to pay a reasonable wage over the course of development to make artwork in a AAA game is mind boggling.  But honestly, and I know I've been harping on this in another thread, do you really care about the art if the game blows?  I'm not about to advocate less good artwork in games.  But there's a difference between good artwork and expensive artwork. 

Dwarf Fortress, Farmville, and Minecraft.

That is all.

[schild]

Thousands of indie games are made each year. Hundreds on hundreds would have to be massively successful to make a point like that.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Considering what a disaster SWTOR has been, I don't see how EA's management could be any worse under a private equity company's ownership.

Anyone who has a chance to shake up what is obviously some kind of flawed  management could be a positive...

[Kail]

Dwarf Fortress, Farmville, and Minecraft.

That is all.

No, that is not all.  I can easily name a hundred failed or underperforming low budget/indie games for every big success you can name.  EASILY.

Things like Dwarf Fortress (if it ever actually makes any money) and Minecraft are outliers.  You can't plan on copying their success, or if you do, then you're retarded, because 99% of the time you're going to fail.  Just because they don't have great graphics doesn't mean that your game with bad graphics is going to get the same level of success as them.  You need to have some way of attracting customers even if you don't end up on the front page of Penny Arcade, and graphics are important for that.

Analogy incoming:
I hang out a lot with amateur webcomic types, and just about every week we get someone new waltzing in through the door with some shitty stick figure comic thinking they'll be the next XKCD.  Same thing was happening five years ago with sprite comics.  The always say shit like "well, story trumps art" which is arguable, but the thing is that the comics with good art aren't setting out to make shitty stories, so unless you're SURE you can beat EVERYONE else in that department, you're losing on both fronts at once.

Same thing happens here.  It's great to say that you don't NEED graphics to put together a great game, and it's probably technically true, but the world is full of people with great game ideas that nobody played because they looked like shit.

[cmlancas]

Dwarf Fortress, Farmville, and Minecraft.

That is all.

No, that is not all.  I can easily name a hundred failed or underperforming low budget/indie games for every big success you can name.  EASILY.

Things like Dwarf Fortress (if it ever actually makes any money) and Minecraft are outliers.  You can't plan on copying their success, or if you do, then you're retarded, because 99% of the time you're going to fail.  Just because they don't have great graphics doesn't mean that your game with bad graphics is going to get the same level of success as them.  You need to have some way of attracting customers even if you don't end up on the front page of Penny Arcade, and graphics are important for that.

Analogy incoming:
I hang out a lot with amateur webcomic types, and just about every week we get someone new waltzing in through the door with some shitty stick figure comic thinking they'll be the next XKCD.  Same thing was happening five years ago with sprite comics.  The always say shit like "well, story trumps art" which is arguable, but the thing is that the comics with good art aren't setting out to make shitty stories, so unless you're SURE you can beat EVERYONE else in that department, you're losing on both fronts at once.

Same thing happens here.  It's great to say that you don't NEED graphics to put together a great game, and it's probably technically true, but the world is full of people with great game ideas that nobody played because they looked like shit.

 

Because I totally said that you can ALWAYS forsake graphical elements and focus on gameplay because it worked for three games.  You got me.  Easily.  Shit, you better go make sure you finish your law degree because YOU ARE GOOD AT ARGUING.  Wait though, I was simply pointing to some folks having success without a focus on graphics.

Your analogy sucks the shit out of assholes.  Iteration is a huge deal in the games industry.  Think it's not?  Games like L4D, DotA, and CS all would like to have a word with you.  And, if I could do a better comic than XKCD in the same style, guess what?  Sucks to be the guy who made it.  I just made his idea better.  I wonder if the first big budget shooter game (what, Medal of Honor?) cries moneyhat shaped tears at the inordinate amount of money the Modern Warfare franchise made.

What I'm saying is that people can overlook quality artwork if the gameplay is solid and it meets their gaming needs.  There's a sliding scale here.  Games like the original Assassin's Creed are in the middle, with solid artwork and decent gameplay:  initially breathtaking artwork only goes so far until you realize you're performing the same missions every time.  Games like dwarf fortress are the other way around:  unbelievably deep gameplay hindered by a clunky UI.

Here's the fundamental truth:  everyone in any facet of business is trying to do it better than the previous guy.  Some people choose to funnel their energies into different elements, whether it's gameplay, artwork, sound, or music.  And, if they excel in one above all else?  Well there's the base to a successful game.

[Kail]

Dwarf Fortress, Farmville, and Minecraft.

That is all.

No, that is not all.  I can easily name a hundred failed or underperforming low budget/indie games for every big success you can name.  EASILY.

 

Because I totally said that you can ALWAYS forsake graphical elements and focus on gameplay because it worked for three games.  

I gotta admit, I did think that was roughly what you were arguing (without the straw man stuff), otherwise I'm not seeing your point.  Yes, Minecraft and so on are successful, I'm not sure what that has to do with EA, or musashi's post, though, if you're not arguing for EA to focus less on graphics.

I mean, yeah, people can overlook low quality artwork if the gameplay is solid and it meets their gaming needs, sure.  Are you arguing that EA is swinging too much the other way, focusing too much on gameplay?  Or something?  I'm not following.  

[cmlancas]

Are you arguing that EA is swinging too much the other way, focusing too much on gameplay?  Or something?  I'm not following.  

I'm trying to say they're missing the "is it fun" aspect and that it can take many forms:  artwork, gameplay, or storyline.

Examples to me would be:
Mirror's Edge:  Artwork
Minecraft:  Gameplay
Final Fantasy X:  Storyline (so sue me, I liked it.)

I feel that when game designers keep that thought in mind, titles tend to be better.

[Kail]

I'm trying to say they're missing the "is it fun" aspect and that it can take many forms:  artwork, gameplay, or storyline.

Ah, my bad.  Sorry.

Yeah, that I can pretty much get behind.  Things are definitely feeling a lot more corporate and rote to me for big name games these days, though I dunno if that's just me getting old and I just never noticed it before, or what.  More "we're making games to make money" than "we're making money to let us make games".

[Musashi]

I'm sort of confused why what he said was an adversary to what I said?  Mirror's Edge and FFX are both examples of games I felt that had they spent less on developing visuals and more on developing fun gameplay would have been better games.  The other games he mentions aren't even AAA titles.

Are you saying they all work together?  Of course they do.  But the point is that to the degree that we are willing to sacrifice game-play for bleeding edge visuals, I think we do ourselves - and by proxy the game development that aims to fill our perceived needs - a huge disservice.

[Ingmar]

Speaking for just me... I dunno, FF X is not my cup of tea, but I hate JRPGs. I don't think you could make a JRPG into something for me. Same with Mirror's Edge; it's a platformer, which are like my kryptonite. So I can pretty much *only* comment on the visuals, you know?

Do JRPG fans and platformer fans generally hate either game for gameplay reasons?

[Musashi]

Depending on how much fan-boy nerd ire the FF Franchise evokes in your very soul, neither one is especially bad game-play wise.  It's just that they're not especially good either.

[Yegolev]

I think this is a thread containing something that I was right about.  Hooray.

I'm not sure why it took so much money to make the next military shooter in the first place.  Then again, I'm not the target audience.

[Rendakor]

Speaking for just me... I dunno, FF X is not my cup of tea, but I hate JRPGs. I don't think you could make a JRPG into something for me. Same with Mirror's Edge; it's a platformer, which are like my kryptonite. So I can pretty much *only* comment on the visuals, you know?

Do JRPG fans and platformer fans generally hate either game for gameplay reasons?

As a JRPG fan, FF X was, for me, the beginning of the end of the Final Fantasy series. It marked a strong shift in gameplay tone away from the "here's a big open map with cool shit hidden everywhere" of the first 9 games and towards the "walk in a straight line, fight a battle, watch a cutscene" of 13. In the previous entries in the series, there's always a moment when you get access to something (usually an airship) and suddenly you're free to go anywhere, find secrets, get to those inaccessible places you'd noticed, etc. that gave the games a sense of exploration and fun. In some of them, you get this multiple times per game due to different vehicles or world changes (Overworld/Underworld/Moon in FF4, Balance/Ruin in FF6, buggy > crashed jet > airship > gold chocobo in FF7). In FFX when that moment happens, you're given an airship with a list of places you can teleport to and that's basically it. If you know the coordinates of secret hidden things and input them, you can teleport to those as well, but you cannot actually fly around the overworld map because there is no such thing; the game is just a bunch of connected set-pieces instead of an actual world. You can't even fly your airship above the various set-pieces, just teleport in at the zonelines.

FFX is actually apt for the graphics vs gameplay argument because, as the series' first entry on the PS2 the focus seems to have been on presentation rather than gameplay. The graphics are a huge leap up from the previous high water mark of FF8, and X also features fully voiced characters for the first time. FFX was also a game very focused on storyline, which is why a lot of players hold it in high regard (the other reason being for a lot of younger gamers it was the first FF), but that's never been what drew me to the FF games.