Post by: Savior on May 27, 2005, 03:40:45 PM
I Like Ubi Soft alot. Splinter Cell, and Prince of Persia are two franchises i enjoy. I hope they arent bought out, unless its by Nintendo.
Post by: Arbok on May 27, 2005, 05:17:14 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on May 27, 2005, 07:45:26 PM
One thing I will say is that their obsession with voice-only-no-text seriously pisses me off and I hope they get bought by a company that won't let them waste any of their budget on voice acting.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 27, 2005, 08:34:58 PM
I don't like Ubisoft so I don't really care if they get killed off. But I really hate EA and I don't like this recent trend of them taking over everything. The problem with corporations is they're so impersonal. If an individual pisses me off I can DDT their ass. I can't DDT EA. I can't even give them the finger. They're like the Nothing from the Neverending Story, clearly a major threat but lacking any physical existence.
Post by: jasonditz on May 27, 2005, 08:37:15 PM
Post by: ThePerm on May 27, 2005, 09:04:46 PM
i like ubisoft..and i like what their doing atonomously..except prince of persial. Sandsm of Time kicked ass...warrrior within pissed everyone off who liked sands of time. In fact they made it the opposite of every reason why people liked sands of time over every other bs game.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 27, 2005, 09:54:31 PM
I wonder if the gov would even allow for UBI and EA to merge, they're the two largest publishers in the US, that would create a quasi-monopoly and therefore call the authorities on their case.
Post by: ShyGuy on May 27, 2005, 09:54:39 PM
But seriously, if the next gen games are going to require an average of a 100 workers per title, only the ginormous publishers will be able to put out more than two or three games a year.
I just get nervous of Microsoft getting cocky and buying EA.
Post by: Caillan on May 27, 2005, 10:10:57 PM
I think eventually we'll see only a few big publishers running the industry, because you need quite a bit of capital to set one up, but until then I think as much diversity as possible is a good thing.
Post by: ThePerm on May 27, 2005, 10:33:47 PM
but seriously if there are only a few third parties..they will compete with each other at least..and there will be a bigger rivalry...in the 8bit/16 bit days there were more then just two devolopers...but there were thousands of them like there is now. The industry was pretty much dictated by Nintendo and sega's licensing. Pc was in the mix..but it was its whole other thing. With sony completely getting rid of standards, and microsoft merging console gaming and pc gaming into redundancy...there are too many damn games coming out...too much competition. If a few games compete against each other thats fine..but a few thousand..thats a "blood bath"
Post by: Caillan on May 27, 2005, 11:01:18 PM
Quote
but seriously if there are only a few third parties..they will compete with each other at least..and there will be a bigger rivalry
Why? What examples of this can you provide of this? Fewer competitors will make it easier to collaborate. Once again I'll cite the oil industry as a clear example.
I don't quite understand exactly what you're saying, but even if there is an over-arching rivalry between two big console manufacturers, there can still be lots of smaller third parties as well. And what's wrong with having so much competition? You don't have to buy the crap games, and if anything they should encourage publishers to assert standards of quality, or at least be pickier about what they publish. Then they won't be wasting their time.
Post by: jasonditz on May 28, 2005, 07:01:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: CaillanQuote
but seriously if there are only a few third parties..they will compete with each other at least..and there will be a bigger rivalry
Why? What examples of this can you provide of this?
EA and Sega Sports last year.
Post by: jasonditz on May 28, 2005, 07:17:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I think they're trying to get sold before EA can assimilate them.
I wonder if the gov would even allow for UBI and EA to merge, they're the two largest publishers in the US, that would create a quasi-monopoly and therefore call the authorities on their case.
Ubi's number two in the EU, not in the US. Even combined their total revenue for last year was only about $3.5 billion worldwide, which is still incidentally not as much as Nintendo's almost $5 billion.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 28, 2005, 08:26:02 AM
Generally, fewer companies will breed an oligopoly, see the MPAA or RIAA for examples. Hell, we're already seeing a form of oligopolic practices, namely price fixing, in the videogame market. You don't see publishers trying to undercut each other, they all sell at 50$ because that's the accepted price. Sometimes they try to grab more with the most hyped games but generally games go for 50 unless they believe the game doesn't sell.
Post by: dack25 on May 29, 2005, 08:28:40 AM
Post by: jasonditz on May 29, 2005, 09:11:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Last year Ubi was number two and Activision #3 in the US, IIRC. Nintendo was below both of them. Ubi doesn't service Japan so that's where the extra money is coming from.
Generally, fewer companies will breed an oligopoly, see the MPAA or RIAA for examples. Hell, we're already seeing a form of oligopolic practices, namely price fixing, in the videogame market. You don't see publishers trying to undercut each other, they all sell at 50$ because that's the accepted price. Sometimes they try to grab more with the most hyped games but generally games go for 50 unless they believe the game doesn't sell.
Seems like again, the EA Sports vs 2K Series was a good counterexample of publishers trying to undercut each other instead of price-fixing.
In fact, it seems like I'm seeing a LOT more games that come out at less than $50 now than I did, say, 17 years ago. And yet 17 years ago, the dollar was worth a lot more, and you had a lot more publishers.
I wish I'd had as many options for $20 games when I was a kid. I remember saving up all summer one year to buy Might and Magic 2 for the Sega Genesis. It cost me $69.99 at Toys R Us. When's the last time any of us paid $69.99 for a console game that didn't come with any hardware?
Post by: jasonditz on May 29, 2005, 09:13:14 AM
Post by: ThePerm on May 29, 2005, 10:32:18 AM
Post by: Galford on May 29, 2005, 05:01:46 PM
Post by: Savior on May 29, 2005, 06:07:14 PM
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on May 29, 2005, 07:19:25 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on May 31, 2005, 04:06:57 AM
Post by: stevey on June 02, 2005, 06:22:42 PM
Post by: Arbok on June 02, 2005, 06:24:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: stevey
I hate ea they just wan't money.
Isn't that the reason why companies exist in the first place?
Post by: Pale on June 02, 2005, 06:31:16 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on June 02, 2005, 09:29:38 PM
Post by: Pale on June 03, 2005, 04:33:50 AM
I don't really think it will happen though.
Post by: jasonditz on June 03, 2005, 09:05:28 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on June 03, 2005, 11:28:44 PM
Post by: jasonditz on June 04, 2005, 09:27:35 AM
It leaves you wondering, of course, how on earth they expect to attract new third parties. They're basically making everyone start development on a competitors system and hoping they'll jump over at a later date. Well, either that or reverse engineer their system and whip up something so good on your own that they can't ignore you anymore.
