Valve to talk buyout options with EA

I just cringed so much my testes withdrew back into my abdomen. I sure hope this doesn't happen! Valve, please...for my sanity at least and for the rest of us, don't do it.
 
Wow you guys are really acting idiotic. EA is actually a pretty dedicated company to gaming and like every company have mad some mistakes before. Gees, The truth is EA could help Valve publish games more effeciently than once every 10 years. I see this as a good thing personally.

[ Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello has spoken out, claiming that the company that once published a Jurassic Park-branded fighting game and a James Bond racing effort is no longer "in the business of exploiting other people's licenses with bad quality games."

"I think what redeems our industry is quality and I think we take a step back every time we take a license and exploit it with a crappy game--that's not what we're about," Riccitiello told MTV Multiplayer. "We've been there, most of our competitors are there or have been there. That's not what we do. We're not really after that market."

While not all of EA's licensed products have been as "out there" as the fighter Warpath: Jurassic Park, many of the movie-inspired EA-published titles--such as Batman Begins, Catwoman, Superman Returns--have been derided as subpar.

Riccitiello expressed his belief that "a lot of the intellectual property we create are better than the license," stressing the studio's recent push towards creativity with internal titles like Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Boom Blox and Spore.

"That doesn't mean there isn't room for great licenses," he clarified, providing Madden NFL, NBA Live, NHL, and Harry Potter games as examples of quality license use.
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54023
Click to expand...
 
FlyinBrian said:
Wow you guys are really acting idiotic. EA is actually a pretty dedicated company to gaming and like every company have mad some mistakes before. Gees, The truth is EA could help Valve publish games more effeciently than once every 10 years. I see this as a good thing personally.
Click to expand...

Valve makes amazing games because they don't give a s*** about deadlines.
 
They also dont have an infinite amount of money either to be able to do that all the time. With EA they would get more powerful design tools, money to develop the game the way they want it instead of until they run out of money and have to release it. EA has been more layed back on deadlines. Look at Warhammer they got delayed like 4 times because Mythic told EA they were not ready. I am just saying. It's still to think Ea buying valve wouldnt be good. I bet you the devs at Valve know that too or they wouldnt be so willing to sale.

Besides that do you really think Valve dont want a slice of that console Pie ? You know that has a lot to do with an EA buyout as well since EA games spawn multi-platforms.

"This just in, Businesses want to make money"
 
Chombo said:
My guess is that EA will dismantle STEAM in favor of their existing online distribution method.
Click to expand...

That would make no sense, from a business standpoint. They are better off in keeping Steam and take part of the profits.
 
FlyinBrian said:
Wow you guys are really acting idiotic. EA is actually a pretty dedicated company to gaming and like every company have mad some mistakes before. Gees, The truth is EA could help Valve publish games more effeciently than once every 10 years. I see this as a good thing personally.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point, as I already mentioned in my first post.
This is in no way a bad thing for Valve and obviously EA, but I do fear that, with the amount of news talking about EA buying every other game company, it becomes a monopoly and that can only hurt the consumers, in the long run.
 
Chombo said:
My guess is that EA will dismantle STEAM in favor of their existing online distribution method.
Click to expand...

haha. I can see it now. EA agents in black business suits and sunglasses come into valves offices to pull the plug
 
Silus said:
That would make no sense, from a business standpoint. They are better off in keeping Steam and take part of the profits.
Click to expand...

I disagree. From a business standpoint you it makes little sense to have two seperate electronic distribution methods. Having to maintain both would be a waste. They could keep Steam and toss D2D but I don't think they would since EA publishes more games than Valve does.
 
Silus said:
I agree to a point, as I already mentioned in my first post.
This is in no way a bad thing for Valve and obviously EA, but I do fear that, with the amount of news talking about EA buying every other game company, it becomes a monopoly and that can only hurt the consumers, in the long run.
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand some of the fears. Infact John Carmack said at Quakecon it was because of Valves reccomendation to them that they decided to sign with EA. So the old EA is gone and dead and I wish people would let that go.

The way I see it is this, For gaming to continue on as many platforms as we have today the smaller companies just cant keep up generally. But, with a few giant companies owning the little ones gaming can happily be developed for everyone and bikini clad ninjas will fall from the sky. I think in the end it will be Microsoft Studios, EA, Activision-Vivendi pretty much producing most of the games we play over the next 10-15 years.
 
Silus said:
That would make no sense, from a business standpoint. They are better off in keeping Steam and take part of the profits.
Click to expand...

Chombo said:
I disagree. From a business standpoint you it makes little sense to have two seperate electronic distribution methods. Having to maintain both would be a waste. They could keep Steam and toss D2D but I don't think they would since EA publishes more games than Valve does.
Click to expand...

It's true that EA publishes more games, but I think Steam is better than D2D. I expect Steam to be one of the reasons EA is interested in Valve. Steam has a lot more than Valve's games remember. I wouldn't be surprised if the portfolio was even in size. Merging the two largest would be a big step towards a centralized piracy-free game distribution system.
 
MrMike said:
It's true that EA publishes more games, but I think Steam is better than D2D. I expect Steam to be one of the reasons EA is interested in Valve. Steam has a lot more than Valve's games remember. I wouldn't be surprised if the portfolio was even in size. Merging the two largest would be a big step towards a centralized piracy-free game distribution system.
Click to expand...

Steam is head and shoulders above D2D. I also understand that Steam has a lot of other things going for it. However my point is that I don't think EA would continue to have two different electronic distribution sources. Either you bring the existing EA titles onto Steam or the Valve titles onto D2D. Which one do you think they would choose?
 
Valve is an extremely dedicated group of individuals who would certainly not let EA move in and start tearing things down and/or telling them how and when to develop their titles.

EA is "dedicated" in it's own way, and could offer a great deal of funding for Valve, but I'm sure Valve would have about one-hundred clauses in the contract about what they'll allow EA to be involved in/make changes with, and what they will not budge on regarding their development, Steam etc.

There's far more to a business contract than just, "EA buys-out a company, then destroys everything on which it's based" scrawled on a cocktail napkin. Countless pages of legally binding agreements have to be agreed upon, and there's nothing EA can do to change that, and Valve is not going to allow themselves to be dictated regarding things they feel the do that help create and distribute truly quality games.

Some might see EA as "the devil of the PC gaming world", but they are not omnipotent, and cannot simply move in like a bad house guest and wreck the place, so people need to just calm down.

Valve, if a merge even happened, would continue to do things the way they feel is best, just having more funding to do so, and work out how and with what EA get it's "slice of the pie" in what ever ways they feel are best that would not hurt Valve or it's workings/reputation.
 
STEEL_BALL said:
What ever happened to the days when John Carmack was all about developing games that pushed the technology of the PC?!?! Oh, I forgot, EA is publishing Rage:(
Click to expand...
And? Doom 4 doesn't even have a confirmed publisher yet, and that's hitting the same number of platforms as Rage. So I don't quite understand how there could be any "EA influence" there.

sugii said:
I'm sure that was before the Ferrari and the Fortune.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure John had his first Ferrari by the time Doom rolled out, as did John Romero -- who can't afford Ferraris any more :)
 
I wouldn't believe this, but then again our biggest american beer company sold out recently. Valve is dead to me if this happens, at least I have plenty of great memories.
 
EA is swelling way too much, and they're headed for an implosion.

Then the next age of gaming will come, and the little studios will come out from the rocks they've been hiding under.
 
EA should burn in hell. I'm sure the console guys are happy being fed the same game every year, but that's not what annoys me about them. Check their wikipedia for shit they've pulled off.
 
SWEET WE CAN GET A HALF LIFE EVERY 6 MONTHS

They'll keep the engine, graphics, story and mechanics, just change the names.
 
If this does happen and EA is smart... They use the steam platform as their distro for digital downloads and can their own.



But by god.. PLEASE PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. EA is a terrible fucking company and shits on games for shits and giggles.
 
Infaustium said:
Valve is an extremely dedicated group of individuals who would certainly not let EA move in and start tearing things down and/or telling them how and when to develop their titles.

EA is "dedicated" in it's own way, and could offer a great deal of funding for Valve, but I'm sure Valve would have about one-hundred clauses in the contract about what they'll allow EA to be involved in/make changes with, and what they will not budge on regarding their development, Steam etc.

There's far more to a business contract than just, "EA buys-out a company, then destroys everything on which it's based" scrawled on a cocktail napkin. Countless pages of legally binding agreements have to be agreed upon, and there's nothing EA can do to change that, and Valve is not going to allow themselves to be dictated regarding things they feel the do that help create and distribute truly quality games.

Some might see EA as "the devil of the PC gaming world", but they are not omnipotent, and cannot simply move in like a bad house guest and wreck the place, so people need to just calm down.

Valve, if a merge even happened, would continue to do things the way they feel is best, just having more funding to do so, and work out how and with what EA get it's "slice of the pie" in what ever ways they feel are best that would not hurt Valve or it's workings/reputation.
Click to expand...

Good post, and good points too. I guess the underlying fear in all this is the possibility of EA f'ing up everything at Valve. But I have to give them credit; they haven't messed with BioWare yet after acquiring them!
 
EA only needs their own console and they would pretty much own the gaming industry.
 
EA will probably buy Valve right before they start working on the Soldier upgrades/achievments. Soldier will end up getting a football launcher for a weapon and some lame sports game related achievments after the entire Valve team is put to work on some soccer game and a couple of janitors are put in charge of TF2.
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
My point exactly.
Click to expand...

Then it wasn't much of a point, because it would have been removed shortly after for your lack of believable sources.


This one was pretty funny though LOL:
Editing of Wikipedia

On August 15, 2007 it was revealed that somebody with an IP address linked to EA had made changes to its Wikipedia entry.[49][50] The changes made included erasing Trip Hawkins as founder of the company and adding a paragraph emphasizing the work of former CEO, Larry Probst, attempts to remove information regarding the infamous EA Spouse scandal, which involved the poor treatment of workers and several paragraphs under criticism were removed. [49]
Click to expand...
 
EA isn't as bad as it used to be. The PC platform simply is a fraction as profitable as the console market and EA knows this. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised to see more bidders coming to the table on this one.. namely Activision and Microsoft.

you heard it first.
 
theNoid said:
EA isn't as bad as it used to be. The PC platform simply is a fraction as profitable as the console market and EA knows this. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised to see more bidders coming to the table on this one.. namely Activision and Microsoft.

you heard it first.
Click to expand...

I think "fraction" is a bit of an exaggeration, since PC games tend to cost less to develop.

Plus this thread has some decent numbers for PC, from EA. http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1330668
 
PornoSatan said:
Then it wasn't much of a point, because it would have been removed shortly after for your lack of believable sources.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. lol

For discussion's sake how many "sources" would it take to stick a wiki entry and mark it as truth?
 
E.E.L. Ambiense said:
Good post, and good points too. I guess the underlying fear in all this is the possibility of EA f'ing up everything at Valve. But I have to give them credit; they haven't messed with BioWare yet after acquiring them!
Click to expand...

Thank you, and I do certainly understand that, given EA's track record with things, that at first glance, people would be concerned.

However, people have to understand how such things actually work, and that EA isn't going to do any "damage" to any developer unless the developer has not taken the proper steps to protect themselves and what they do, by laying down their terms strictly and precisely. Valve definitely is a developer who is certainly smart enough to do those very things and protect their interests and reputation.

People really need to take the time to understand how these things work, such as the things I've "outlined", and tone down the "drama"... but then again, what fun would the conversation be without "drama" and "bashing" and schizoaffective levels of paranoia and fears over their favorite game developer being devoured by the pure essence of evil that is EA? :rolleyes:

;)
 
Buying up other companies is only one way that EA is becoming a monopoly. EA also keeps buying up a lot of exclusive rights. The best example is when EA bought the exclusive rights to make NASCAR racing sims. It is widely known among racing sim fans that Papyrus made the best NASCAR racing sims, but when EA bought the NASCAR rights Papyrus was no longer able to make NASCAR sims. Since EA has been gobbling up exclusive rights then there is less and less competition in certain game generas. With hardly no competition EA knows that it can rush out the same games every year and gamers have few alternate choices.

Personally I think exclusive rights promotes laziness. The best thing to do is, for example, let EA make their NASCAR sim and let Papyrus also make their NASCAR sim then the formula is simple. Which ever makes the best game will be more successful and thus the driving force behind quality and competition is maintained.
 
STEEL_BALL said:
Buying up other companies is only one way that EA is becoming a monopoly. EA also keeps buying up a lot of exclusive rights. The best example is when EA bought the exclusive rights to make NASCAR racing sims. It is widely known among racing sim fans that Papyrus made the best NASCAR racing sims, but when EA bought the NASCAR rights Papyrus was no longer able to make NASCAR sims. Since EA has been gobbling up exclusive rights then there is less and less competition in certain game generas. With hardly no competition EA knows that it can rush out the same games every year and gamers have few alternate choices.

Personally I think exclusive rights promotes laziness. The best thing to do is, for example, let EA make their NASCAR sim and let Papyrus also make their NASCAR sim then the formula is simple. Which ever makes the best game will be more successful and thus the driving force behind quality and competition is maintained.
Click to expand...

Thats just an excuse. Whats stopping Papyrus from making another car racing game? I suppose they could do a generic stock car racing game and not use anything thats been licensed.
 
Chombo said:
Thats just an excuse. Whats stopping Papyrus from making another car racing game? I suppose they could do a generic stock car racing game and not use anything thats been licensed.
Click to expand...

Yeah but who is going to buy it? Nascar is the pinnacle of stock car racing, that very name itself sells the game. IT doesn't matter if their game actually is better, If they don't have the Nascar name, or the nascar decaling on cars or the drivers from nascar, the game itself is worthless at finding itself a fanbase, because no one is going to care about it.

Same goes with their exclusive rights to the NFL trademarks. I have played the last few years of madden, and it just looks the same year after year. No one else can come in and make a better NFL game because you can't use their trademarks. And no one is going to buy the game if you attempt to use anything other than NFL trademarks for the same reason, the NFL is the pinnacle of the sport of football.

Valve is all about producing a great game, and releasing it when its ready, if EA comes in, all of a sudden its about meeting deadlines, look at crysis, for an example.
 
Madden doesn't change year and year because football doesn't change year after year. What do you people want, jetpacks, diablo-type loot, and magic spells?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top