News EA buys Bioware and Pandemic

[CardJoe]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/10...and_pandemic/1

Electronic Arts haas just announced that it has bought up both Bioware and Pandemic Studios by purchasing the parent company. What does this mean for the future of the companies?

[g3n3tiX]

Slowly EAting up others.
On the bright side, if it can help them continue to live, it's a good thing.
But I hope their games won't be influenced too much by EA's bosses (mutliformat, kiddies' content...)

[cjmUK]

EA are akin to The Borg. Soon every independent developer will be creating annual, franchised, console ports.

I used to think EA were great (10yrs ago), but they have become the McDonalds of gaming publishing... only selling sickly plastic products to the dribbling masses.

[Yes I really am a snob.]

I'd like to see at least a couple of publishers of a comparable size to offer some stern competition and make EA up their game.

[p3n]

Surely EA are getting close to a monopoly on the games 'chart' Oo

I hope they dont stick their nose in and leave these games tobe individual

[MiNiMaL_FuSS]

EA far too often ruin games by pushing the developers to rush them just to get them out there as soon as possible, their patching and support is pretty awful too.

A black day for gaming when yet another company fall to the EA machine.

[cjoyce1980]

oh dear......... most stop went they have crossed that line, but i'm sure all EA can see are dots!

[samkiller42]

SO we can expect to see millions more games that all need patches. Great, what a wonderful outlook.

Sam

[mmorgue]

Originally Posted by samkiller42

SO we can expect to see millions more games that all need patches. Great, what a wonderful outlook.

Sam

Yeh, but what software nowadays doesn't need patches? Your OS does, your anti virus software does, browsers always need patches, various other utility and application software needs them too.

Even consoles now have to have patches which in some cases makes it even worse! 5 years ago that was unheard of for a console; to have a game patch.

So, I wouldn't say it's necessarily bad. I agree that EA have had their share of "extrenuous" patching, from experience BF2. But I still wouldnt say it's bad. You can never code a bit of software that will run 100% of the time on 100% of the machines out there, it's impossible due to the almost limitless combinations of hardware/software people have.

[Gunsmith]

"so what does this mean for the future of the companies?"

they're ****ed

[Kufwit]

Nope I can only think that EA buying up the market is a bad thing. They rush games out yes but they leave the lesser programmers to fix the bugs. The latest patch for 2142 has been in beta for months. They have made their money and don't care.

Only by leaving the smaller developers alone can we expect any kind of game advances and diversity. I have experienced EA's tactics too much over the last couple of years (600 hours of BF2/2142) to think anything but bad things about them.

The money machine only constricts any kind of art. I know we need the cash but the people at the top have no clue or simply just care about profits.

just my 2p

[Insilgo]

Originally Posted by samkiller42

SO we can expect to see millions more games that all need patches. Great, what a wonderful outlook.

Sam

I've had a look at some other sites trying to find out some more info and to quote the BBC

"EA says it plans to release four or five games a year from the new studios in each of the 2009/10 and 2010/11 financial years."

It looks on the surface as though the EA convension will continue with Bioware and Pandemic both being "asked" to release a greater number of titles in a much smaller time scale.

While I can appreciate that EA want to see a return on their investment I can't help but feel that this will see a marked degradation in the quality of their games.

I would prefer to wait a little longer for a more polished and enjoyable game rather than a hastily released product. This is especially true for companies such as Bioware which release RPG's where the content and story are integral to the game.

[naokaji]

the issues with the battlefield (and other series) are not only the need to patch and patches not being out for long...

i also find the micro games with in return plenty of addons to make you pay more in total approach completly stupid..

and, why do they need to spit out one version of a game after the other? every year (or even less) they release a "new" one of each name... battlefield, medal of honor, need for speed and so on... whats up with that? wheres the creativity?

[MilkMan5]

IT consolidation will continue to happen – for the good or for the bad, it will happen.

I’m sure Bioware and Pandemic have their reasons (financial gain ).
Unless of course Bioware and Pandemic are in financial sh!t.

I just hope that EA will let all these game developers run independently and don’t necessarily bring everything under one roof.
But we know better.

I remember when EA was just EA Sports – it’s in the game.

[Vash-HT]

Originally Posted by mmorgue

Yeh, but what software nowadays doesn't need patches? Your OS does, your anti virus software does, browsers always need patches, various other utility and application software needs them too.

Even consoles now have to have patches which in some cases makes it even worse! 5 years ago that was unheard of for a console; to have a game patch.

So, I wouldn't say it's necessarily bad. I agree that EA have had their share of "extrenuous" patching, from experience BF2. But I still wouldnt say it's bad. You can never code a bit of software that will run 100% of the time on 100% of the machines out there, it's impossible due to the almost limitless combinations of hardware/software people have.

I was going to right a long response, but Decided to summarize it. You are right, pretty much all software requires updates at one time or another, but the reason people slam EA for it is because they force their games out on a strict schedule even if the game should still be in beta status. I bought BF2 and had to go through all the crap and patching for that, and after the BF2142 beta ended abruptly with tons of bugs still in it I decided not to buy the full game. There are still a lot of companies willing to delay their software to get most of the bugs worked out, and EA sure as hell isn't one of them.

[Aankhen]

As seen on IRC:

<Aankhen``> Oh no.
<Aankhen``> EA bought Pandemic and Bioware.
<Aankhen``> Oh NO.

True story.

[Techno-Dann]

Originally Posted by Kufwit

Nope I can only think that EA buying up the market is a bad thing. They rush games out yes but they leave the lesser programmers to fix the bugs. The latest patch for 2142 has been in beta for months. They have made their money and don't care.

Don't forget the in-game advertising!

[culley]

Originally Posted by MilkMan5

I’m sure Bioware and Pandemic have their reasons (financial gain ).
Unless of course Bioware and Pandemic are in financial sh!t.

Bioware and Pandemic were owned by another company i think or more along the lines of investors so it was not there decision, if i read correctly.

[Dvs98SK]

I'm slowly getting tired of EA. Most of there games suck and now a couple of my favorite companies has been eaten by them.

[devdevil85]

Originally Posted by Dvs98SK

I'm slowly getting tired of EA. Most of there games suck and now a couple of my favorite companies has been eaten by them.

qft. I f***ing hate EA. Their games are too expected and they don't bring anything to the table, and the only thing they have going for them are exclusive rights to player names/jerserys (woohoo!). Playing the NBA demos on PS3 the game with the worst gameplay/graphics was NBA Live '08 (EA Sports). Everything else was innovative, graphically-advanced and played great.....

[Bladestorm]

A sad day, I can't think of many other events that would so instantly dash a developers reputation with the gaming public and being bought up by EA To say nothing of the expected drop in quality over the next couple of years.