Greed is Good: In Defense of EA

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

- Gordon Gekko, "Wall Street"

Every time the word "consolidation" (or even "EA") is in a headline, the gamer reaction seems to immediately be "this is horrible." It's as if we - the deep geek gamer community - have decided that big = bad without equivocation. It's the same mentality that assumes all indie movies will be good, and all unsigned bands are somehow more pure and therefore better.

I have a low tolerance for this.

The Story

The headline, in this case, is that EA has offered $2 billion in cash for Take-Two Interactive. EA's offer is, on the surface, great for Take-Two shareholders, and merely expensive (short term) for EA shareholders. Consequently EA shares sank 5 percent, while Take-Two shares rose 50 percent yesterday.

Normally that would be the entire headline, but in this case Herb Greenberg, a Wall St. Journal columnist known for doing his legwork (and being unforgiving of Take-Two), has connected some rather interesting dots for the Take-Two shareholders. Specifically, he thinks Take-Two's already slightly-questionable management enacted a classic poison pill - a barrier to being taken over - with a particularly self-serving twist. In a normal poison pill, the board of a public company puts in place provisions that make it really, really expensive for an outside firm to start gobbling up shares and take over. Poison pills usually benefit a large portion of shareholders, creating backstops like "in the event we get acquired, all shareholders get double their money." This time, it looks like only senior management gets the benefit. So far at least, the new Take-Two management doesn't seem a whole lot more reputable than the old.

So is this just another case of the gigantic fish swallowing the simply big fish? Death to innovation! Long live the Borg!

Not so fast.

Screw the money, what about the games?

Large players - those with big, big capital reserves - are extremely important. While the Horatio Alger version of the American dream makes for good theater, the struggling ragamuffin rarely goes on to be Mr. President. Big companies like Microsoft, the old AT&T and HP can afford to spend money on science experiments. Without the occasional pool of unfettered funding, Bell Labs would never have invented radio antennas or discovered cosmic background radiation; HP Labs wouldn't have developed the atomic clock or the LED. Apple, which, with a market cap 5 times Electronic Arts, can hardly be considered scrappy anymore, would never have made the iPhone without cutting their teeth decades earlier on the Newton.

So even in a vacuum, with no additional information, I'd be reluctant to buy into the big = bad argument. But lets look at recent history. ERTS CEO John Riccitiello has been on the job for less than a year. Before this he was pulling together Bioware and Pandemic, and I haven't heard many complaints that Mass Effect-in-progress was pressed flat under the thumb of an oppressor. It's premature to say that Riccitiello is somehow poison for games outright.

Riccitiello says he wants to model his company along a "label" line, like a giant movie or record company. If he delivers, this is a good model. A company like News Corp. has tremendous power to make good things happen simply because they can afford to make so many bets. For every FOX News there's a wonderful piece of children's animation coming from Blue Sky. For every 20th Century Fox brings you "Alvin and the Chipmunks," there's Fox Searchlight presents "Juno" or "Garden State."

The model of large-distributor/small-label model works, and works well. Distribution, financing and production lend themselves to economies of scale; creativity, arguably, doesn't. But with games I'd argue that the two have to live hand in hand. Why are we so quick to dismiss EA and praise Valve, when Valve is simply doing what Riccitiello says he wants to do with EA (Portal anyone?)

Partly because as consumers we're entitled to be skeptical. EA has had its share of missteps in the past. Between labor disputes, craptacular games, and all sorts of balance sheet and board room shenanigans, they've earned our skepticism. But let's give them credit where it's due. EA is a tremendously solid distributor of games. As a developer, they make multi-platform titles and they make money - an important thing to the health of the industry. And they can make good games. The Sims was a flat out brilliant game, and the sequels, even the endless expansions, have been well done. Everyone I trust has told me that NHL '08, the product of EA Canada, is the best EA sports game in years. There are few games I've ever been as excited about as Spore. And while EA publishes a ton of games it doesn't develop, how EA handled Rock Band speaks volumes for their commitment to customers regardless of the studio that did the heavy lifting.

There's also evidence they're committed to getting things done right, rather than fast. Spore seems to have been given as much time and money as it wants, and how EA has handled Army of Two delays strikes me as wise. Sure, we can look at the mediocrity that is the EA Sports portfolio and claim all this other stuff is exceptions, but that's a bit like overlooking the glory of the XBOX 360 community system to instead focus on how much you hate Windows Server 2003.

As a potential benevolent overlord, Riccitiello is saying all the right things. Does he look like a used car salesman? Absolutely. Has he been unbelievably honest and self-deprecating for the CEO of a $20 billion public company? Absolutely. Whether you believe him or not, it takes phenomenal balls to say things in public like (paraphrasing) "we missed the Wii" or "sequels suck." While the gamerati have been lambasting him for the mandatory "synergistic efficiency thrombobulator" comments he's had to make while dodging direct questions on this deal, lets give the guy props for making the comments all over the web in the first place. Far more than most CEOs, Riccitiello has gotten in front of his customers - not just his analysts - and been vocal and straightforward since he took the helm. When was the last time we heard Ben Feder talk about gaming? Not about filings and takeovers, but about the actual state of the industry, games development, how games are made and played? How many people even know that Ben Feder is even Take-Two's CEO?

Is Greed Good?

Obviously, it's not all roses and sunshine. Business never is. EA is making the bid because they think it makes them money long term. Some of this is as simple as getting the teams and brands of Irrational and Rockstar in-house. But it's also about consolidating sports. EA will benefit from consolidating the EA and 2K sports lines in a way no other acquirer would. While I'd love to see three competing titles for every major sport, we don't live in that world. Competition is important, but the ultimate competition for Madden '09 is not in fact 2K Sports' All Pro Football. The competition is watching TV, going outside, reading a book, or playing a different kind of game altogether. Ultimately, crappy games won't sell as well as good ones, because we as consumers have unfettered discretion as to how we spend our entertainment dollars and hours.

I also believe that capitalism is ultimately a good thing. I'm not willing to go all the way down the Gordon Gecko path and claim that greed is inherently good, and personally I'd love to think that Dwarf Fortress developers Tarn and Zach Adams could rule the world. But getting good independent games to the mass market takes real money, and the Adams' brothers still struggle to pay the rent. Investors - particularly venture capital investors - don't back an independent company without an exit strategy: a way to actually get cash back out of the company they're supporting. And the only two exit strategies for a small, independent game company are go public or get bought. Large players with cash and a penchant for spending it provide the path for entrepreneurs to back new companies.

Put aside Take-Two's sordid past, or even what Bill Harris so appropriately called "skullduggery" in how they've managed their otherwise business-as-usual poison pill. I have a strong belief that Riccitiello at least understands that in order to make an assbucket of money, gamers have to buy his games. This means, whether they are casual games or hardcore games, they eventually have to be good. I believe Riccitiello understands this, and that it means you have to treat Spore differently than Madden, and that you have to be willing to delay Army of Two and take the PR heat from GTA IV head on. The best I can say of Take-Two is that they let Levine make his game, and they've been afraid enough of Rockstar to leave them alone while they sit around doing calculus and looking up precedents in the boardroom.

I don't particularly care about Take-Two, the company. I care about the properties and people who live inside it. Take-Two is not a company with a long history of plain-dealing and wise management. There is no outcome in Take-Two's future that has it disperse into a half dozen small, scrappy, innovative and profitable companies in a kind of retro-fantastical unconsolidated wild west. This is reality. I'd rather see the games I love and the teams I respect end up in the hands of competent, stable management than squirm in the grip of unprofitable and seemingly unsure hands.

Comments

Bravo. Excellent article, Rabbit, and a clear articulation of points you've made on the podcast previously. I couldn't agree more with your preamble against the snobbery associated with games, developers and companies that actually are successful.

I agree with this article 100%.

Rabbit, you never cease to amaze Sir!

This is one of the best pieces I have read in a long time.

Rabbit~
Good article as always. I agree totally that big does not necessarily equal bad, and its true that Riccitello has definitely put himself out there in front of customers so kudos to him. But I have to say that this line:

Rabbit wrote:

There is no outcome in Take-Two's future that has it disperse into a half dozen small, scrappy, innovative and profitable companies in a kind of retro-fantastical unconsolidated wild west.

It brought back the memory of the AT&T breakup, where there were I think 7 baby bells and 3 or 4 were failing, 2 or 3 were muddling along and 1 or 2 actually became something. Just a random thought about breaking up take two and where it would be in 5 years.

Yup, very nice read.

I seem to recall listening to a conversation (was it the GWJ conference call?) about the bifurcation of gaming development budgets into the multi-gajigglions and the small indies, with very few in the middle ground that it takes to execute an innovative game really, really well..e.g. Portal. Hopefully EA can try a few more "middle-ground" titles using the studio system.

rabbit, fantastic article and you make a lot of good points. Unfortunately, it hasn't swayed my position very much and if people want to call me a snob for my continuing skepticism, so be it. I'm not naive and I know that even when GTA4 is a massive success, it will never be enough to put Take-Two into a position to self-sustain in the long term and likely, they will be acquired. I don't even care that much if they stay wholly independent. But I don't want EA getting even larger and swallowing up some of the most valuable IP in the industry. I honestly wish Take-Two would get acquired by a media company like Harmonix did.

You make a lot of good points about John Riccitiello and compared to Larry Probst, I think the guy is an awesome breath of fresh air to a company that really needs it. But talk is cheap. He hasn't been on the job long I know but he has done nothing yet to indicate that EA is changing for the better. If he does what he's going to and EA actually starts taking real risks on new, innovative IP, fostering creativity, stops pushing out buggy, unfinished games and stops turning established franchises like Need for Speed and Burnout into little more than interactive advertising platforms, I will be the first in line to shake his hand and say "Good job!" But let's not forget, Take-Two wanted to open formal talks after GTA4 shipped but because Riccitiello wanted them on the cheap, he released a letter to Strauss Zelnick to the public in order to start the ball rolling and generate shareholder ire. If he really believes that the value of GTA4 is already baked into their offer, then waiting until the game ships shouldn't matter. Its a slimy tactic, common though it is, but slimy.

My only real concern at this point is not about any one specific company, it's that at the rate things are going, in 5 years there will only be 2 or 3 entities left publishing games on any major scale. I don't see how anyone can make an argument that having virtually no competition and only a handful of publishers is good for gamers. When these 2 or 3 publishers have enough in-house development staff to create any idea they have internally, where are independent developers going to go to get their games published? We're already seeing that starting today. Look at the majority of hit games from last year, how many of them were produced by external development houses? EA will also now have a near monopoly on sports games and with this acquisition, will now own exclusivity over the NFL and MLB. EA (among others) has demonstrated in the past that they don't care about innovation, they care about monetization through iteration. Yes, they've released things like The Sims and Spore is coming but make no mistake, they greenlit those projects because they saw an opportunity to milk it through the exact model they're using (i.e. new expansions every few months.) I have no problem with companies making money because I eventually hope mine will too. But whether in games, other forms of media or anything else, I have a problem with 1 or 2 companies owning everything. History has shown that massive consolidation is almost never good for consumers.

Poison pill? Hardly. More like opportunistic looting. Couple million here or there doesn't make any difference on a $2B deal.

It's an interesting time to go after Take-Two, you're betting that GTA4 won't be a huge flop and you're left with a $2B turd. Take-Two's stock price pre-buyout offer already reflected the market's expectations for GTA4 and it's revenue contribution, so it's not like you're trying to get a bargain by buying it before the stock explodes post-GTA4 - unless you think it's going to do substantially better then expected.

As for EA, I'm sure it's a comfort for some smaller developers to get picked up by a Sugar Daddy and have financial security. I wonder how many relax and take a more methodical/productive approach to development and how many kick back, pour another drink and slack off knowing they don't have 2 months of funding left to get a game done before they're on the street collecting pogey.

This is a good read, and I see your point, but I'm not convinced.

My problem with all the consolidation is that big companies play it safe. They don't have to make great or innovative games to make money, they just have to be good enough. You mention Bell Labs, but where is the video game equavilent to this? Are you saying it could exist with a bigger company? Other then Spore, what big budget games from a major studio have not been safe?

Are you saying that Riccitello would make a good video game overlord because Ben Feder doesn't have a great public image? How is this a good thing? You're giving Riccitello too many props. He hasn't done anything yet.

Well written indeed.

Someone should post this over at gtaforums so the kids over there "MIGHT" read it all the way through and stop complaining that "OMG if Electronic A$$ takes over Take two GTA will come out every year and suck and stuff"(x500) I go there because 80% of the time the "official news" section has a well consolidated list of newish gta news, magazine scans, etc. but god the kids and their whining are the sole reason I never post there. But alas you take the good with the bad.

MikeMac wrote:

As for EA, I'm sure it's a comfort for some smaller developers to get picked up by a Sugar Daddy and have financial security. I wonder how many relax and take a more methodical/productive approach to development and how many kick back, pour another drink and slack off knowing they don't have 2 months of funding left to get a game done before they're on the street collecting pogey.

I don't really think there are any developers in the Take 2 stable to whom that would apply.

We're already seeing that starting today. Look at the majority of hit games from last year, how many of them were produced by external development houses?

OK, I see this. But then, haven't we just spent many months talking about what a phenomenally good year this was for games? So which is it? I'm pressing the devil's belly button on this, and I am aware of it. I know we have yet to see how this "new EA" deals with unknown properties. My point here is simply to say that I believe we are facing at least the promise of a new EA, that they've apparently restructured to match the promise, and what few pieces of evidence we've seen are pointing in the right direction.

As for Feder - I don't know the guy, but this is partially my point. It's not about "good" public image, it's about ANY public image. I do believe it's extremely important for management to actually know, understand, and be able to talk about their business. I'm giving Riccitello for talking the talk - and so far he hasn't failed to walk the walk yet. I'll be the first one to pile on if he does.

Is it okay, as a gamer, that I take the position that benefits me? This merger means one thing to me. It is the end of 2K Football and College Hoops,and the end of decent support of online league play in sports games. In fact, I'd say its effect on sports games in general is going to be overwhelmingly negative.

Now, maybe I should just be mad at Take 2 for running such a crummy operation. That's what put them in this position.

But EA is not adding anything that they cannot already do now. This move eliminates a TON of competition, but really doesn't make EA any better.

It was a nice article, but unfortunately, just because you can make a case for capitalism, doesn't mean there is anything good about this particular takeover. That's what seemed to be missing from the article.

Wonderful article, Rabbit. Way to bring this news piece back home to the games that matter most. I think EA's arm EA Partners (EAP) is a good opportunity to allow external development of games to still flourish. It seemed to help Valve (on the physical copy side) and Rock Band.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

He hasn't been on the job long I know but he has done nothing yet to indicate that EA is changing for the better.

Right, as Rabbit pointed out, he has been on the job for less then a year. Reorganization plans, like shifting to this 'LABEL' method, take time. We are seeing the first examples of the positive results from this corporate structure: Rock Band. I agree with Rabbit that it will work, but I believe any now is still too early to make a conclusive statement on the results.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

But let's not forget, Take-Two wanted to open formal talks after GTA4 shipped but because Riccitiello wanted them on the cheap, he released a letter to Strauss Zelnick to the public in order to start the ball rolling and generate shareholder ire

That's just smart business. It's not slimy. Zelnick wants to wait so they have more leverage when GTAIV sells through the roof. No other company had serious offers, and Riccitello jumped at the right time. I have to disagree with the point your trying to make with this statement. Why would you not want to get something on the cheap if you know it's going to be more expensive later on. I bought AudioSurf before it was released so I got a dollar off and did not have to pay a higher price. Is that slimy?

I'd rather see the games I love and the teams I respect end up in the hands of competent, stable management than squirm in the grip of unprofitable and seemingly unsure hands.

The problem is we won't know the cost until it happens. Teams, especially successful ones in the game industry, are fragile. Here there is a big impetus of change being applied and we expect the teams to stay together under the unproven promise of stable management. Buying out a game company may as well throw a grenade into a room and expect the people in the room to wait for management to come in and disarm it sometime in the next 10 seconds. Did I mention this room has windows to the outside were bags of cash await?

The impetus of change works both ways to dissolve productive teams. One obvious example of how positives effect negatively is when critical members get promoted out of hands on positions. Another is offering promotions or bonuses to only a portion of the team. While it may in fact be fair in regards to responsibilities on past projects, do you think that there was ever a person on the lower end of the totem pole who was content with getting less? If the seeds were there already, it will only be magnified.

If Take 2 has been able to survive unstable management due to a handful of successful franchises, how do we know that EA hasn't done the same thing only they haven't had the detriment of a bigger fish to swallow them up? Maybe EA has unstable management and has been able to survive on a few successful franchises and has gotten bigger and more bloated by buying successful franchises they can't create?

rabbit wrote:

OK, I see this. But then, haven't we just spent many months talking about what a phenomenally good year this was for games? So which is it? I'm pressing the devil's belly button on this, and I am aware of it. I know we have yet to see how this "new EA" deals with unknown properties. My point here is simply to say that I believe we are facing at least the promise of a new EA, that they've apparently restructured to match the promise, and what few pieces of evidence we've seen are pointing in the right direction.

No disagreement and you're right, no one can deny that last year was incredible and the majority of the titles we saw were either from internal development or external developers under acquisition such as Irrational. Ubisoft Montreal alone is proof that internal development teams can put out some amazing stuff as good as any external shop. That said, EA's recent efforts (some pre-Riccitiello) have also shown that the management of that internal talent has a lot to do with how creative and non-corporate those titles are. I am all for Riccitiello's proposed vision and as I said, if he delivers on it my opinion of EA will change for the better. But I would like to see this actually happen before they get their hands on Take-Two and properties like BioShock, GTA and my beloved Midnight Club (which I believe can't integrate into EA with Need for Speed present.) And I believe that ultimately, most innovation does come from independent developers. This consolidation really worries me in that soon, they'll have nowhere to go because large publishers who can just create the teams they need will have no need for external developers, or their risky ideas.

rabbit wrote:

As for Feder - I don't know the guy, but this is partially my point. It's not about "good" public image, it's about ANY public image. I do believe it's extremely important for management to actually know, understand, and be able to talk about their business. I'm giving Riccitello for talking the talk - and so far he hasn't failed to walk the walk yet. I'll be the first one to pile on if he does.

He hasn't walked at all so I don't think he's failed or succeeded. I think it's good that he's come out speaking but its the rare exception. How many successful publishers have executives with media personalities? Have you ever read an interview or a talk from Yves Guillemot or Brian Farrell? Flatter than a peanut butter sandwich shoved under a crunching programmer's office door. What does give me some confidence in him is that he knows that what he says is being watched by people who (like me) won't hesitate to step on his throat if he doesn't live up to it. He is setting the bar for himself and I hope that's an indication of how seriously he takes things. I would love to see him set a trend for publishers to start doing this kind of thing more. I'd love to see Yves Guillemot with a community blog.

Kolbo wrote:

That's just smart business. It's not slimy. Zelnick wants to wait so they have more leverage when GTAIV sells through the roof. No other company had serious offers, and Riccitello jumped at the right time. I have to disagree with the point your trying to make with this statement. Why would you not want to get something on the cheap if you know it's going to be more expensive later on. I bought AudioSurf before it was released so I got a dollar off and did not have to pay a higher price. Is that slimy?

That comparison is not relevant to the discussion. You are buying one unit of a game, you aren't buying the developer, the rights to the game and every other one he's ever made, thousands of people's jobs and ensuring your dominance in one of the most popular market segments. It is slimy to on one hand, say your offer is fair because you took supposedly took into account the massive value of GTA4's guaranteed success but then pull a stunt like this because the owners of Take-Two wanted to wait until after the game ships to see if your estimate was wrong and that they may be worth more than you thought. As I said, if Riccitiello feels that his offer fairly takes into account GTA4, then why can't he wait to open formal talks until after it ships (which Zelnick is willing to do)? Why pull this stunt of releasing a letter to the public to piss off Take-Two shareholders when you only have to wait a couple of months? Just because it makes good business sense doesn't mean it isn't a lousy thing to do.

Take Two is going to be acquired. This isn't something EA came up with, Take Two is open for bidness and listening to offers. Whether it's EA or Viacom or News Corp or someone else, they'll be bought by someone else.

I know I was referring to one unit and that Take-Two is bigger, but I was breaking it down to the simplest level. Why would you not buy it at a time when you can get it cheaper before it gets more expensive? You said you own a business, wouldn't you do the same? I just think it is wrong to refer to that as slimy. Zelnick is slimy for trying to prevent any of this bid offering from EA from going public.

And piss off Take-Two shareholders?? I bet they were ecstatic because their stock jumped 50% in one day. Ask Trainwreck of Cramps. The stock hasn't been that high for 2 years and it gave them a chance to sell on a long-dormant stock, if they so choose.

And it would've gone to that same place or higher after their first quarterly report after GTA4 ships. Understand, if what Zelnick says is true (and I'm not saying anything anyone is saying in this little executive pissing match they're having is true), his objective isn't to hold EA off in the hopes of never selling the company, it's that he wants to wait until after GTA4 to open formal talks so that they can get the most money possible for the shareholders. He isn't convinced that EA's offer is enough to take into account what they view GTA4's potential success to be. It certainly won't be less after GTA4 but it could potentially be more. If it is, they and the shareholders get more money. If it isn't, they take the $2 billion dollars a few months later and there's no problem. EA wants to avoid having to pay more and they are using this cheap tactics to aggravate shareholders into pushing them to accept the offer now. Sure, that's in their best interests and it's Riccitiello's job to pursue those interests. That doesn't make the tactic any less reprehensible.

rabbit wrote:

The best I can say of Take-Two is that they let Levine make his game, and they've been afraid enough of Rockstar to leave them alone while they sit around doing calculus and looking up precedents in the boardroom.

Maybe you were waxing hyperbolic, but why would an executive of a company be doing calculus? I know you deal with finance, so you would know much better than I, but I always thought finance/bookkeeping was just addition and multiplication (and the occasional compound interest formula). If it was hyperbole, just ignore me.

I just realized that "hyperbolic" can be a literary term or a mathematical term. Never noticed that before.

*Legion* wrote:

Take Two is going to be acquired. This isn't something EA came up with, Take Two is open for bidness and listening to offers. Whether it's EA or Viacom or News Corp or someone else, they'll be bought by someone else.

Exactly.

That's a point that has been missed by a lot of the pundits...Take Two has been flirting with EA for a while, but for some reason EA and Take Two could never come to mutually acceptable terms.

The question was not IF someone was going to take over Take Two, but who, and when. The Take Two catalog is too lucrative for EA/Microsoft/etc. to overlook.

THQ is next, if Epic isn't snapped up by Microsoft first.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

He isn't convinced that EA's offer is enough to take into account what they view GTA4's potential success to be. It certainly won't be less after GTA4 but it could potentially be more....If it isn't, they take the $2 billion dollars a few months later and there's no problem.

For the last GTA (San Andreas) (2004) the market was at most a $2 increase to the stock price. Before all of this market reaction to EA's bid, I don't imagine the stock price would have risen too far above $23 at the most (Friday's close was mid-$17). The market's price had already reacted to the future value and the news of all of pre-orders.

The offer for $2 billion won't be there in a month. It is naive to think the offer will be there later if they find out they didn't get as big a gain in stock as they thought.

mateo wrote:

That's a point that has been missed by a lot of the pundits...Take Two has been flirting with EA for a while, but for some reason EA and Take Two could never come to mutually acceptable terms.

No question. The market has spoken on that. EA almost bought Take Two in April has one of Riccitello's first acquisitions, but he was quoted as saying along the lines that the EA's infrastructure was not ready yet. He was speaking to the reorganization of the Label model.

I can't see Microsoft entering into this bid war. They are too busy with Yahoo. Same with Microsoft getting Epic. They have to finish this Yahoo deal, first.

Tthe man should be entitled to the sweat of his brow, and all that.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

My only real concern at this point is not about any one specific company, it's that at the rate things are going, in 5 years there will only be 2 or 3 entities left publishing games on any major scale. I don't see how anyone can make an argument that having virtually no competition and only a handful of publishers is good for gamers. When these 2 or 3 publishers have enough in-house development staff to create any idea they have internally, where are independent developers going to go to get their games published? We're already seeing that starting today. Look at the majority of hit games from last year, how many of them were produced by external development houses?

As much as I agree with pretty much all of the points you're making, I think your argument is going into the wrong direction here. I mean, of course few monopolists are not the best base for future innovation on the market, but to say that the poor independent game developers can't sell their "great ideas" because the big companies have the power to literally beat them to the draw - well, where's the problem if, with all their power, they still sell you some decently crafted ideas?

I think I still know what you're talking about, though. Easy games sell better then innovative ones, especially with a lot of advertising power behind them. But still, my personal impression is that last year(s) went particulary well for indepenent game companies, with Portal, Steam, and also free sets of tools like XNA (and, again, the Valve SDK)

It seems to me you're arguing that big isn't bad, not that greed is good. Different points. Or maybe we have different definitions of greed? To me, greed implies that the amassing of wealth takes place at the expense of others to some extent. EA's past behavior of shoveling out sub-par, glitzy crap, seems more driven by greed than their current behaviour, which seems to actually care about delivering a good experience to the consumers as well.

Yeah, they did put out The Sims, which *is* fantastic and the most original game to come along in ages, but that game was made by Will Wright hiding away a couple of programmers to get it started, and then was on the verge of cancellation numerous times because it didn't fit into any easily understandable genre, and then finally released with little support from marketing. The Sims was made in *spite* of (then) EA.

Ultimately, what matters to me is that the creative people who make the games I enjoy have the space to be creative and inventive. If the way that's going to be accomplished is to have EA grow into a gigantic benevolent dictator that has the a near monopoly on the industry, fine. AT&T Bell had money to spare for research and make all those discoveries because it was a near monopoly as well. But forgive me if I'm a wee bit skeptical.

There was a story dug up from GameCyte posted on Blue's News this morning talking about how at the same same EA registered the EATake2.com domain (the site they are using to pimp their proposal), they also registered EAUbisoft.com. They likely did this just to avoid a squatter taking the domain but it certainly raises an eyebrow as to their future intentions. Tom Cruise help us all if EA gets them too.

rabbit wrote:

an assbucket of money

I want to see this phrase more often in the financial press.

"Today, Citigroup announced that it lost an assbucket of money last quarter. They reduced losses by an assbottle by cutting their dividend."

It could spice up some of those news stories!

I feel obligated to link to Bill Harris' piece on this today.

His conclusion:

So yes, EA acquiring Take-Two is a very bad deal for us, but we were already getting a bad deal.
All this "nation conquering," though, has a curious result, at least for me. I find that I spend far more time with the "town" and "island" developers, and the more time I spend there, the more I find that those guys are far more interesting, anyway.

How I get paid to write and Bill doesn't is just a testament to the fact that there's no making sense of the world any more. I don't necessarily agree with him, but if we we're trading barbs, I'd cede the debate just on principle.

I would never be able to articulate my point of view so well as Mr. Harris did. Well done sir! Pownced.

I don't necessarily agree with Bill's piece. I love Bill's stuff, but his reasoning here strikes me as speculative and slightly paranoid. It's a healthy, well-informed paranoia, but I'm just not sure that the creative homogenization he fears will actually occur. It could. But there are indications that it won't.

So far Riccitello seems intent on preserving the creative freedom and cultural independence of EA's acquisitions. Whether this actually happens remains to be seen, but so far what he's saying sounds very good. Not just for EA's bottom line, but for gamers. Given the production and budgetary challenges that studios currently face, EA's financial resources could just as easily translate to more creative freedom for its studios, not less.