EA says "Challenge eveything!"..

Fascinating read. I give EA a couple more years before this collapses on them and other "game giants" consume their resources.
 
EA is WAYYYYYY to big to collapse any time soon. thats like seeing microsoft fall in the next couple years
 
rusty said:
EA is WAYYYYYY to big to collapse any time soon. thats like seeing microsoft fall in the next couple years
Click to expand...

That's what people used to think about Eidos and Vivendi/Sierra.
 
MartinX said:
That's what people used to think about Eidos and Vivendi/Sierra.
Click to expand...

No, EA is way bigger than Eidos and Vivendi/Sierra ever was.
 
coffee33 said:
I found a pretty good read on a big gaming publisher thats a good morning read, enjoy. Scroll down to the post called " EA: The Human Story".
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
Take care
Click to expand...


where you been? Because seriously, this was a huge story about 2 months ago. I mean shit man it was on CNN and all the news channels. And you are going to say that you just found this? :eek:
 
pistola said:
No, EA is way bigger than Eidos and Vivendi/Sierra ever was.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

Size and market position in no way secure a companies position irrevocably.

In fact, there's a strong school of thought that says the bigger and more dominant a company is the harder it is to maintain that dominance.

If a market is worth having, then it's worth taking, and buying out/ slapping down an endless stream of competitors gets expensive.

Big fat companies get complacent, get sluggish and lose the ability to innovate, sometimes all it takes is one good idea/piece of luck by some small, fast, innovative company to blow the whole thing up.

See also: IBM
 
MartinX said:
Big fat companies get complacent, get sluggish and lose the ability to innovate, sometimes all it takes is one good idea/piece of luck by some small, fast, innovative company to blow the whole thing up.

See also: IBM
Click to expand...


WOW, that epitomizes EA

IMO of course
 
MartinX said:
Irrelevant.

Size and market position in no way secure a companies position irrevocably.

In fact, there's a strong school of thought that says the bigger and more dominant a company is the harder it is to maintain that dominance.

If a market is worth having, then it's worth taking, and buying out/ slapping down an endless stream of competitors gets expensive.

Big fat companies get complacent, get sluggish and lose the ability to innovate, sometimes all it takes is one good idea/piece of luck by some small, fast, innovative company to blow the whole thing up.

See also: IBM
Click to expand...

:D

logo.jpg
 
If karma is real then EA is doomed. DOOMED. And not in a good Id software kind of way.
 
corrosive23 said:
where you been? Because seriously, this was a huge story about 2 months ago. I mean shit man it was on CNN and all the news channels. And you are going to say that you just found this? :eek:
Click to expand...


Wow dude get off his nuts obviously a lot of people havent seen it, I for one havent so chill. This is a forum, forums are for disccusion.

Good read, thanks.
 
Hehe sorry guys if its been posted before but I live a sheltered life away from media :p

Did you hear about EA moving to china also? Guess they pissed to many americans off.
 
EA won't collapse for two simple reasons: they own the exclusive right to create NFL games and NASCAR games.

You've got 2 billion dollars a year right there.
 
I think this is part of the price we pay to be able to buy new games for $50-55. That price hasn't changed much in 10 years, but the cost to make a top-tier game has increased exponentially.

I'm not saying that it's ok to shaft people, but just that it's a contributing factor.

Then again I can buy a new movie for $20 and they cost millions to make with huge salaries to the actors... so, maybe someone's lifestyle at EA needs to be a bit less lavish?

EAs games generally suck anyway in my opinion. They don't make games that are fun anymore. They make games that make lots of money by catering to Joe Idiot. I can honestly say I haven't bought an EA game in years.
 
Astral Abyss said:
I think this is part of the price we pay to be able to buy new games for $50-55. That price hasn't changed much in 10 years, but the cost to make a top-tier game has increased exponentially.

I'm not saying that it's ok to shaft people, but just that it's a contributing factor.

Then again I can buy a new movie for $20 and they cost millions to make with huge salaries to the actors... so, maybe someone's lifestyle at EA needs to be a bit less lavish?

EAs games generally suck anyway in my opinion. They don't make games that are fun anymore. They make games that make lots of money by catering to Joe Idiot. I can honestly say I haven't bought an EA game in years.
Click to expand...

most of hollywood hasnt made a good movie in years either
 
MartinX said:
Irrelevant.

Size and market position in no way secure a companies position irrevocably.

In fact, there's a strong school of thought that says the bigger and more dominant a company is the harder it is to maintain that dominance.

If a market is worth having, then it's worth taking, and buying out/ slapping down an endless stream of competitors gets expensive.

Big fat companies get complacent, get sluggish and lose the ability to innovate, sometimes all it takes is one good idea/piece of luck by some small, fast, innovative company to blow the whole thing up.

See also: IBM
Click to expand...
Excellent! Another point...right on topic being...who is going to want to work for EA when they've already got a "sweatshop" reputation. It won't be heresay anymore in a year or two it will be a known fact and EA will have two options. Either radically change their culture to better accomodate their employees or lay down and die. Which do you all think they'll do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top