Electronic Arts Acquires Criterion

[BigDirty]

EA purchased the European studio Criterion (known for the Burnout series), which EA has already slated to publish Burnout 3 later this year. However the key point of the accquisition doesn't look to be titles, but the Renderware middleware software that Criterion developed that was used in games including Grand Theft Auto 3/Vice City/San Andreas, World Series Baseball/ESPN 2K, along with many others.

While the licensing of Renderware will continue through the current and next generation of the tools, EA may change the licensing of it.

Now for my take-

EA is big, huge, gargantuan, and the restriction of the use of Renderware could just crush some of the smaller studios. Personally I don't see Blue Shift being able to use Renderware for a Baseball game anymore, since I doubt EA would want to let its tools be used to make the competition flourish. We're looking at a big shift in the industry in the next few years.

[Thunderscope]

I'm sick of EA, most of their games suck to begin with. However as long as Madden is around they will always be on top...

[snotknocker]

Some of the smaller studios will take a blow, most will get back up... brush themselves off and keep plugging away. EA will definately benefit from this acquisition but the little guy will adjust and use the next best thing maybe even to the point of creating the new best thing. Then the cycle will repeat itself. I don't think the industry shift will be to drastic.

[PsyClerk]

Dammit, EA is getting too big. Their catchphrase will soon change from "Challenge Everything" to "Publish Everything."

[XboxMaster]

Dammit, EA is getting too big. Their catchphrase will soon change from "Challenge Everything" to "Publish Everything."


No shit, I hope sometime in gaming history that they go bankrupt. Their games aren't even that good? I think Need for Speed: Underground and the original Medal of Honor are the only two games I've enjoyed thoroughly from them.

[peteloaf]

Whew, when I read the topic I thougt it was the Laser Disc/Dvd Criterion people, I almost crapped myself.

I personaly refuse to purchase anything with the EA logo on it because of thier handling of System Shock 2, Thief II, and Alice. I.E. release a popular game, watch it sell well, then FIRE everyone involved and reap the benefits. Also I'm still mad about Thrill Kill too...

[EddieBelfour]

Whew, when I read the topic I thougt it was the Laser Disc/Dvd Criterion people, I almost crapped myself.

I personaly refuse to purchase anything with the EA logo on it because of thier handling of System Shock 2, Thief II, and Alice. I.E. release a popular game, watch it sell well, then FIRE everyone involved and reap the benefits. Also I'm still mad about Thrill Kill too...


damn me too man. i thought that newer copies of Yojimbo and band of outsiders would come with cheaper goals and 88-67 wins.

[uesc]

ea just needs to come out with their own system and be done with it!

i've been an ea hater for a while now, and i will have to break that tradition to buy burnout 3, but that's it!

it's kinda sad to see the small developers crushed under the giants like EA

[XboxMaster]

ea just needs to come out with their own system and be done with it!

i've been an ea hater for a while now, and i will have to break that tradition to buy burnout 3, but that's it!

it's kinda sad to see the small developers crushed under the giants like EA


I've also been an EA hater ever since I turned an Xbox fanboy because of the whole PS2-exclusive thing. I've warmed up to them now that they are on LIVE, have acquired some games like Burnout 3 and TimeSplitters 3, and because they actually have one or two games on their roster I'm looking forward to. But I still dislike them, just not as much.

[sying]

EA=The new Microsoft

[Kaijufan]

I think Nintendo needs to buy up developers like this if they want to do well aganist Sony and Microsoft, who have more third party support then the Cube does.

[Sk]

I think Nintendo needs to buy up developers like this if they want to do well aganist Sony and Microsoft, who have more third party support then the Cube does.
In all truth I didn't buy my gamecube for its third party support (thats what my ps2 and xbox are for), for me its all about the first and second party games. Got to love the cube's origonality.

[KingDox]

EA=The new Microsoft

no, EA = MTV of video games

sure they may put out a good item from time to time but most of the stuff they pump out is midiocore mainstream crap.

I am getting Burnout 3 since it is made by the same guys who made part 2. But just wait and see, EA will fire all the people who made part burnout 2 & 3 when they start making burnout part 4. And then part 4 will suck since it will be all about getting spinners on your SUV and getting mad props for your bling.

[XboxMaster]

EA=The new Microsoft

no, EA = MTV of video games

sure they may put out a good item from time to time but most of the stuff they pump out is midiocore mainstream crap.

I am getting Burnout 3 since it is made by the same guys who made part 2. But just wait and see, EA will fire all the people who made part burnout 2 & 3 when they start making burnout part 4. And then part 4 will suck since it will be all about getting spinners on your SUV and getting mad props for your bling.


I love that analogy!!! EA = MTV of video games, I love it! I'm about to put that in my sig.

[Kaijufan]

I think Nintendo needs to buy up developers like this if they want to do well aganist Sony and Microsoft, who have more third party support then the Cube does.
In all truth I didn't buy my gamecube for its third party support (thats what my ps2 and xbox are for), for me its all about the first and second party games. Got to love the cube's origonality.
I also bought my Cube for the first and second party Nintendo games (and the occasional third party exclusive, like Tales of Symphonia). However, to sell systems they more then just the sequels to their classic series.
I was disapointed when Nintendo decided to let Silicon Knights and Factor 5 go their seperate ways. Too Human could have been a major system seller for the Revolution, and as long as the next Factor 5 Star Wars game had no on foot missions, it would have also been great and a system seller for the Revolution.
If Geist turns out to be a good game I bet Nintendo will make N-Space a second party developer, which would be a wise move.

[epobirs]

I don't think the situation will necessarily play out as the OP suggests. A number of prominent development houses license out their engines and tools. id's licensing business is their biggest source of net revenue. Their own games serve as marketing tools for the lucrative licensing. Other examples are the widely licensed Unreal engines. The list goes on. Once you've shipped the first product with a particular set of tools it isn't all that hard for skilled coders to analyze the game and figure out how it was achieved. It's far better to simply offer the engine and tools for an attractive price than have it copied with no reward to the original developer.

EA has examined creating or acquiring their own platform on several occasions. At one point Trip Hawkins was courting investors for a takeover of Commodore. EA had a lot invested in the Amiga and was frustrated by Commodore's fumbling of it. (The C64 was still a serious profit center then, too.) At the time EA was still resistant to closed platforms like the NES and producing unauthorized games. That deal never come together but Trip Hawkins did come to appreciate the advantages of Nintendo's publishing model.

Console companies are like casinos. The house always wins. When a third party game is published the console company gets a chunk of cash for every unit manufactured over and above the profitable fee the manufacturing itself. If the game does well the console is made more attractive and the publisher may order more units and pay more royalties. If the game does poorly it is soon forgotten but the console company still got it's royaltie. So long as it doesn't let quick cash overwhelm its judgement it can keep the truly awful titles to a minimum and prosper.

Trip Hawkins then left EA, recruited some of the primary Amiga engineers and started 3D0. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Anyways, EA has much more t gain from continuing the sales of Renderware than keeping it to itself.

[rocksolidaudio]

I don't think the situation will necessarily play out as the OP suggests. A number of prominent development houses license out their engines and tools. id's licensing business is their biggest source of net revenue. Their own games serve as marketing tools for the lucrative licensing. Other examples are the widely licensed Unreal engines. The list goes on. Once you've shipped the first product with a particular set of tools it isn't all that hard for skilled coders to analyze the game and figure out how it was achieved. It's far better to simply offer the engine and tools for an attractive price than have it copied with no reward to the original developer.

EA has examined creating or acquiring their own platform on several occasions. At one point Trip Hawkins was courting investors for a takeover of Commodore. EA had a lot invested in the Amiga and was frustrated by Commodore's fumbling of it. (The C64 was still a serious profit center then, too.) At the time EA was still resistant to closed platforms like the NES and producing unauthorized games. That deal never come together but Trip Hawkins did come to appreciate the advantages of Nintendo's publishing model.

Console companies are like casinos. The house always wins. When a third party game is published the console company gets a chunk of cash for every unit manufactured over and above the profitable fee the manufacturing itself. If the game does well the console is made more attractive and the publisher may order more units and pay more royalties. If the game does poorly it is soon forgotten but the console company still got it's royaltie. So long as it doesn't let quick cash overwhelm its judgement it can keep the truly awful titles to a minimum and prosper.

Trip Hawkins then left EA, recruited some of the primary Amiga engineers and started 3D0. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Anyways, EA has much more t gain from continuing the sales of Renderware than keeping it to itself.

= first sensible thing that's been said in this thread.

[BigDirty]

I don't think the situation will necessarily play out as the OP suggests. A number of prominent development houses license out their engines and tools. id's licensing business is their biggest source of net revenue. Their own games serve as marketing tools for the lucrative licensing. Other examples are the widely licensed Unreal engines. The list goes on. Once you've shipped the first product with a particular set of tools it isn't all that hard for skilled coders to analyze the game and figure out how it was achieved. It's far better to simply offer the engine and tools for an attractive price than have it copied with no reward to the original developer.

EA has examined creating or acquiring their own platform on several occasions. At one point Trip Hawkins was courting investors for a takeover of Commodore. EA had a lot invested in the Amiga and was frustrated by Commodore's fumbling of it. (The C64 was still a serious profit center then, too.) At the time EA was still resistant to closed platforms like the NES and producing unauthorized games. That deal never come together but Trip Hawkins did come to appreciate the advantages of Nintendo's publishing model.

Console companies are like casinos. The house always wins. When a third party game is published the console company gets a chunk of cash for every unit manufactured over and above the profitable fee the manufacturing itself. If the game does well the console is made more attractive and the publisher may order more units and pay more royalties. If the game does poorly it is soon forgotten but the console company still got it's royaltie. So long as it doesn't let quick cash overwhelm its judgement it can keep the truly awful titles to a minimum and prosper.

Trip Hawkins then left EA, recruited some of the primary Amiga engineers and started 3D0. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Anyways, EA has much more t gain from continuing the sales of Renderware than keeping it to itself.

I can see where you're points come in, I doubt that Renderware will become immediately extinct, I'd be more than willing to bet that its use by directly competitive studios (like Visual Concepts/Blue Shift for use in the ESPN 2K series) becomes very restricted. If a company appears as if it would be a direct threat to an EA Franchise title, I'd be more than willing to bet that they would have a hard time licensing Renderware.

As for licensing as a form of revenue, id, Digital Extremes, and until now, Criterion (amongst others) licensed out the engines because they didn't have their hands in the publishing pot, where, unfortunately, the most money in the industry is. EA publishes, and they publish so much that they are the biggest game publisher.

There's two shifts that I could see occouring:

A. The quick death of a console platform. One of the benefits of Renderware is that it was excellent for porting software between all four of the major platforms (XBox, PS2, GC, and PC). If EA keeps a tight grip on RW, which I see as plausible, the combination of developers/production staff/publishers will have to more carefully choose what platform they are going to release titles on. A more difficuly port means more hours and possibly more missed milestones.

B. A studio is going to come out with another tool set, and there will be one game that uses it (a la GTA3), that sets the world ablaze. The combination of the tools and the game will cause a similar software shift like that of GTA3.

[Thunderscope]

Who buys a GC for 3rd Party games?