I will be buying The Saboteur to make a statement to those who worked on it: Your work was worth it. They can look at the numbers as EA profits from their sweat and say: We did that.
That's worth more to me than the distate I will experience at giving EA my hard-earned dollars.
Chris Hunt, Tom French, Trey Watkins, Mat Everett, Fidde Persson, and everybody else I met at Pandemic: You guys rock, and I have nothing but respect for all of you. I know your passion and enthusiasm will carry you on to great heights, whether it's within the amoeba that is EA, or with a more respectful organization, I can't wait to see what you're all involved with next.
Also: looks like my Pandemic coffee mug just became that much more awesome
EA stands as a disgusting corporate whore, looking for the best buck on an easy night down a dark alleyway. When someone doesn't deliver 200%, when they don't deliver impossible satisfaction, they're left to die on the streets once more.
Dude, calm down a bit. It sucks, but that's business...
I'm done with EA. I've been fed up with the DRM, the crap games and the bugs never getting patched for so long. Now they axe Pandemic. Even though it means quitting the C&C series which has been digital crack to me since I started gaming, I'm not giving EA another penny of my money. Ever. This is the straw that broke the camels back.
If EA is so bad, how come the OTHER developer they bought along with Pandemic is healthy - BioWare.
Face it, Pandemic made itself expendable with some truly half-baked efforts (yes, I'm looking at you, Mercenaries 2.) Had the games they made SOLD, they wouldn't have been shuttered. Period.
One problem with video games as an art medium is that they've still got one foot in the business world. As long as art and business are so closely melded, you'll always have groups like EA who go full-on John Galt on everything. Case in point - the RIAA's restrictions on songwriters and bands.
...Jonah's on to something, though, as much as I love pandemic, Mercs 2 was PAINFUL.
Dude, calm down a bit. It sucks, but that's business...
no, it's not just business. Not when your corporate structure is built on a foundation of crooks that devours everything in it's wake without giving ANYTHING back. Nothing about what EA does as a company is progressive. It is despicable and disgusting, and they will get no satisfaction from me.
From a man who is trying to get into the very industry, seeing studios treated this way is ignominious. I don't view anything about this as business prospects, but rather more potential jobs and creativity being squashed for a quick bottom line.
The real tragedy is that Pandemic isn't being given the shot they deserve. Mercs 2 was hardly a smash hit, sure. But the Saboteur has every bit of potential to be one of, if not their greatest title yet. It was supposed to be the game that puts Pandemic on the level of the big dogs, the stand out title that shows the industry that this is a team that knows what they're doing. They'll never even recieve the chance to see if it was all worth it. EA pulled the plug before the patient could come out of the coma.
Its the problem with large corporations that constantly acquire the innovators. Remember me flipping a lid on the forum board when Intuit purchased Mint.com? Its not much different. The innovator is allured by a fast payday but they loose ultimate control, long term its rarely a good deal.
Can't say I'll never buy another EA game every again, but I'll sure avoid them as I do now. But they seem to have their hands in like every game ever made it seems. Everywhere you look you see their stupid logo. I've met people who worked at EA Tiburon when I attended Full Sail who basically gave the advice to anyone to avoid working for them like the plague. They treat their employee's like crap and of course that doesn't seem to stop there. I guess when you know gamers cannot or are not willing to avoid you(probably because they don't know of these things) you just stop caring about the people who feed you.
I realize emotions may be running high, and it's not my intention to pour fuel on the fire but I think it may be beneficial to pause for a moment before getting caught up in corporate-hate.
The facts are, I don't know Pandemic and I don't know EA.
Regardless of what I personally think, companies make decisions like this based on straight cost/benefit analysis. The point being there are a multitude of reasons why EA may have dumped Pandemic, and no one is in a place to say why unless you work in the financial department of EA. Period. Everything else is conjecture and heated emotions.
Psss, the last two Pandemic games, Mercenaries 2 and Lord of the Rings: Conquest, were weak (though in Pandemic's defense there could also be a multitude of reasons why this is so, but it doesn't change the fact that they were).
*I, like many here, am also pretty interested in what Saboteur has to offer.
Rapid expansion in an exploding industry (down near 1/5th this year) played a part in this. Its easy to jump on the EA hate train, but IIRC they're in the business to license, sell, market, and produce (stamp CDs, ettc.) more than push the envelope of gaming today. Independants WANT this help. With the advent of newer tech, this dev arms race push might go by the wayside, but this is the way business is in this market.
Don't get me wrong, this is sad and very unfortunate, but I think we need to take a collective moment before passing torches and pitchforks.
1)EA is going to start a trend. Basically, have game development teams produce a title up to launch, then right after launch, get rid of their employees. Cutting significant wage costs for the months in between projects before things start rolling. Its almost like seasonal employment.
2) My bigger concern, EA's focus on the "subscription" based games. Basically the Madden's, FIFA's, COD's, Sims. Basically releasing games regularly with a few substantial changes other than changing scenarios, modified gameplay, etc. That is, if a series is not sustainable with minimum development time/expense, EA will axe it. It stifles creativity and anything that doesn't fit into the cookie-cutter mold will no longer exist.
My bigger concern, EA's focus on the "subscription" based games. Basically the Madden's, FIFA's, COD's, Sims. Basically releasing games regularly with a few substantial changes other than changing scenarios, modified gameplay, etc. That is, if a series is not sustainable with minimum development time/expense, EA will axe it. It stifles creativity and anything that doesn't fit into the cookie-cutter mold will no longer exist.
This x100000
As this trend pans out, what we will see is EA, Activision, and Ubisoft becoming nothing more than a gristmill churning out rehashes of the same 15 games; then whenever something innovative comes along, they'll buy the studio, apply their polish, try to make money off of it, and then spit it out to wither away.
Think about this: The Saboteur is an innovative game; sure, it uses many conventions, but there are some new things in there. The striking art style is one, the will-to-fight mechanic another. EA now owns those, and if Sab 1 is successful, there will be a Sab 2 with them, until the Sab is run dry.
If Pandemic was an indie studio and The Sab does well, they could have continued making new innovations.
Indie gaming is where it's at. It's becoming more and more obvious.
Didn't I read somewhere on these boards Sab2 was already setup/in the works? While I agree it's a horrendus trend, it's not like indies wouldn't enjoy the same success.
It's not like indie games are going anywhere. They'll live on on Steam and Impulse and whatever random stuff they offer up. All the PC gamers should be happy. The problem is developing for the consoles - if you want to make the best-looking game, it requires a significant initial investment, and you can't afford that unless you have an awesome amount of VC or personal wealth behind it, or if you're working with a big dog.
EA still has original content and good people working for it. And they and others are not just doing sequels, though the current season sure seems like it (MW2, Assassin's Creed 2, Bioshock 2, Army of Two Two, L4D2, etc) - Mirror's Edge, the original Assassin's and Bioshocks, Dragon Age, The Saboteur... People are too quick to dismiss gaming. I can't remember the last time I bought a yearly rehash like Madden or FIFA, and yet I manage to continue to find games to play. Doom and gloom is useless when as far as I can tell, the gaming world is doing just fine - and the rest of the devs will get members of a fantastic team when Pandemic disbands and they all find new homes.
Furthermore, it's pointless to compare Indie games to huge, triple A games as the business models for them are completely different. EA excels (or at least aims for) publishing large name games on a mass scale. This is the market in which they dealt, especially in the past. The funny thing is that EA has been gaining more goodwill recently because of exactly their move to begin to try to support different business models, in most cases this means publishing (or partnering with) more independent-ish type games. Money to publish games is not magic, it doesn't grow on trees. In order to do this, they have to dump some of their studios that may not be hitting profit margins they think they need in order to maintain their business in the long run (or short run, either way).
Also, I would say the argument of EA buying studios to "profit" off a soon to be released game to only turn around and dump them would hold more water if they hadn't bought Pandemic before Mercenaries 2 and Lord of the Rings: Conquest had been released. In light of this some would say that EA bought Pandemic and supported them through two sub-par games which did not sell as expected before they finally decided to shed the studio, and yet they are still going to see Saboteur through to the end, whatever end that may be.
All this is to not, I repeat not, bash on Pandemic. It's simply my reasoning for believing that the hate towards EA is unjustified in this specific case, especially when nobody knows EA's internal fiscal numbers, projections, responsibility to shareholder's, etc.
Quick question on the aside - how did many of you who think this is 'just business' feel about the article "Video games, controversy, and how we respond?"
Sure, this article isn't perfectly analogous to what's going on with EA (although you could say Konami was just keeping good PR, an aspect of 'just business'), but it IS about video games as art, and if you want to treat video games as art, you can't ALSO treat them as 'just business.'
Art and business don't have to conflict, however - Mondi and Grimnoc have got damn good points - but one side DOES have to take precedence. Does the business side exist to help promote and develop the art that came first, or does the art side exist simply to be a product for the business that came first?
I think you know which philosophy EA takes, and which side developers like Valve take (extremely creative TF2 content free? For how many years?). Of course, now Valve is doing extremely well... And it started with Half Life and Half Life 2, right? The art came first, and the business followed. That's what EA doesn't do.
As this trend pans out, what we will see is EA, Activision, and Ubisoft becoming nothing more than a gristmill churning out rehashes of the same 15 games; then whenever something innovative comes along, they'll buy the studio, apply their polish, try to make money off of it, and then spit it out to wither away.
Think about this: The Saboteur is an innovative game; sure, it uses many conventions, but there are some new things in there. The striking art style is one, the will-to-fight mechanic another. EA now owns those, and if Sab 1 is successful, there will be a Sab 2 with them, until the Sab is run dry.
If Pandemic was an indie studio and The Sab does well, they could have continued making new innovations.
Indie gaming is where it's at. It's becoming more and more obvious.
Continuing on this thread, even our most beloved developer Valve is doing it. L4D2 is more or less the equivalent of what a roster update and an added training camp mode is in an annual Madden title. Its still fun, and many will find its still worth paying for (I did) but ultimately its the gamer that stifles innovation. As long as we line up to buy that yearly Madden, COD, or Guitar Hero title for full price, the publishers will keep investing in it.
I think I would disagree with the comparison of L4D2 to the updates made to a Madden/Sports game. They added quite a bit more content and innovation than a roster change and a few control nuances imo.
It's really unfortunate to see a developer that really took a big swing with a very interesting and innovative game, The Sabotuer, get axed before the game even is released. These conflicts inevitably come up between developers and publishers. Valve had to fight out of Vivendi Games in order to do what they felt they needed to do. There are not many developers that have anywhere near the resources to accomplish that, however.
I will continue to reward gaming companies that release quality, innovative titles and ignore the ones that want me to buy the fifth iteration of a game that is obviously a cash cow being slowly milked.
Counterpoint: Could Pandemic have weathered 2 unsuccessful games, and had the resources to make The Saboteur if they were an indie company?
Counter-counterpoint: Would Pandemic have made the 2 unsuccessful games if EA didn't own them? Did EA have some hand in having them make those two games against the better judgment of the people who otherwise would have been running the company?
I don't know the answer to those questions any more than you know the answer to the questions you posed. Something to consider though as both the games in question game out after EA acquired Pandemic.
primesuspect
Beepin n' BoopinDetroit, MI Icrontian
Comments
That's worth more to me than the distate I will experience at giving EA my hard-earned dollars.
Chris Hunt, Tom French, Trey Watkins, Mat Everett, Fidde Persson, and everybody else I met at Pandemic: You guys rock, and I have nothing but respect for all of you. I know your passion and enthusiasm will carry you on to great heights, whether it's within the amoeba that is EA, or with a more respectful organization, I can't wait to see what you're all involved with next.
Also: looks like my Pandemic coffee mug just became that much more awesome
Dude, calm down a bit. It sucks, but that's business...
Face it, Pandemic made itself expendable with some truly half-baked efforts (yes, I'm looking at you, Mercenaries 2.) Had the games they made SOLD, they wouldn't have been shuttered. Period.
One problem with video games as an art medium is that they've still got one foot in the business world. As long as art and business are so closely melded, you'll always have groups like EA who go full-on John Galt on everything. Case in point - the RIAA's restrictions on songwriters and bands.
...Jonah's on to something, though, as much as I love pandemic, Mercs 2 was PAINFUL.
no, it's not just business. Not when your corporate structure is built on a foundation of crooks that devours everything in it's wake without giving ANYTHING back. Nothing about what EA does as a company is progressive. It is despicable and disgusting, and they will get no satisfaction from me.
From a man who is trying to get into the very industry, seeing studios treated this way is ignominious. I don't view anything about this as business prospects, but rather more potential jobs and creativity being squashed for a quick bottom line.
The real tragedy is that Pandemic isn't being given the shot they deserve. Mercs 2 was hardly a smash hit, sure. But the Saboteur has every bit of potential to be one of, if not their greatest title yet. It was supposed to be the game that puts Pandemic on the level of the big dogs, the stand out title that shows the industry that this is a team that knows what they're doing. They'll never even recieve the chance to see if it was all worth it. EA pulled the plug before the patient could come out of the coma.
Its the problem with large corporations that constantly acquire the innovators. Remember me flipping a lid on the forum board when Intuit purchased Mint.com? Its not much different. The innovator is allured by a fast payday but they loose ultimate control, long term its rarely a good deal.
The facts are, I don't know Pandemic and I don't know EA.
Regardless of what I personally think, companies make decisions like this based on straight cost/benefit analysis. The point being there are a multitude of reasons why EA may have dumped Pandemic, and no one is in a place to say why unless you work in the financial department of EA. Period. Everything else is conjecture and heated emotions.
Psss, the last two Pandemic games, Mercenaries 2 and Lord of the Rings: Conquest, were weak (though in Pandemic's defense there could also be a multitude of reasons why this is so, but it doesn't change the fact that they were).
*I, like many here, am also pretty interested in what Saboteur has to offer.
Don't get me wrong, this is sad and very unfortunate, but I think we need to take a collective moment before passing torches and pitchforks.
1)EA is going to start a trend. Basically, have game development teams produce a title up to launch, then right after launch, get rid of their employees. Cutting significant wage costs for the months in between projects before things start rolling. Its almost like seasonal employment.
2) My bigger concern, EA's focus on the "subscription" based games. Basically the Madden's, FIFA's, COD's, Sims. Basically releasing games regularly with a few substantial changes other than changing scenarios, modified gameplay, etc. That is, if a series is not sustainable with minimum development time/expense, EA will axe it. It stifles creativity and anything that doesn't fit into the cookie-cutter mold will no longer exist.
This x100000
As this trend pans out, what we will see is EA, Activision, and Ubisoft becoming nothing more than a gristmill churning out rehashes of the same 15 games; then whenever something innovative comes along, they'll buy the studio, apply their polish, try to make money off of it, and then spit it out to wither away.
Think about this: The Saboteur is an innovative game; sure, it uses many conventions, but there are some new things in there. The striking art style is one, the will-to-fight mechanic another. EA now owns those, and if Sab 1 is successful, there will be a Sab 2 with them, until the Sab is run dry.
If Pandemic was an indie studio and The Sab does well, they could have continued making new innovations.
Indie gaming is where it's at. It's becoming more and more obvious.
If you care about your business and doing great work, don't sell it. This is what happens.
Counterpoint: Could Pandemic have weathered 2 unsuccessful games, and had the resources to make The Saboteur if they were an indie company?
Probably not, especially considering how both of those games probably had high development costs.
EA still has original content and good people working for it. And they and others are not just doing sequels, though the current season sure seems like it (MW2, Assassin's Creed 2, Bioshock 2, Army of Two Two, L4D2, etc) - Mirror's Edge, the original Assassin's and Bioshocks, Dragon Age, The Saboteur... People are too quick to dismiss gaming. I can't remember the last time I bought a yearly rehash like Madden or FIFA, and yet I manage to continue to find games to play. Doom and gloom is useless when as far as I can tell, the gaming world is doing just fine - and the rest of the devs will get members of a fantastic team when Pandemic disbands and they all find new homes.
Also, I would say the argument of EA buying studios to "profit" off a soon to be released game to only turn around and dump them would hold more water if they hadn't bought Pandemic before Mercenaries 2 and Lord of the Rings: Conquest had been released. In light of this some would say that EA bought Pandemic and supported them through two sub-par games which did not sell as expected before they finally decided to shed the studio, and yet they are still going to see Saboteur through to the end, whatever end that may be.
All this is to not, I repeat not, bash on Pandemic. It's simply my reasoning for believing that the hate towards EA is unjustified in this specific case, especially when nobody knows EA's internal fiscal numbers, projections, responsibility to shareholder's, etc.
http://gaming.icrontic.com/articles/video-games-controversy-and-how-we-respond
Sure, this article isn't perfectly analogous to what's going on with EA (although you could say Konami was just keeping good PR, an aspect of 'just business'), but it IS about video games as art, and if you want to treat video games as art, you can't ALSO treat them as 'just business.'
Art and business don't have to conflict, however - Mondi and Grimnoc have got damn good points - but one side DOES have to take precedence. Does the business side exist to help promote and develop the art that came first, or does the art side exist simply to be a product for the business that came first?
I think you know which philosophy EA takes, and which side developers like Valve take (extremely creative TF2 content free? For how many years?). Of course, now Valve is doing extremely well... And it started with Half Life and Half Life 2, right? The art came first, and the business followed. That's what EA doesn't do.
Continuing on this thread, even our most beloved developer Valve is doing it. L4D2 is more or less the equivalent of what a roster update and an added training camp mode is in an annual Madden title. Its still fun, and many will find its still worth paying for (I did) but ultimately its the gamer that stifles innovation. As long as we line up to buy that yearly Madden, COD, or Guitar Hero title for full price, the publishers will keep investing in it.
It's really unfortunate to see a developer that really took a big swing with a very interesting and innovative game, The Sabotuer, get axed before the game even is released. These conflicts inevitably come up between developers and publishers. Valve had to fight out of Vivendi Games in order to do what they felt they needed to do. There are not many developers that have anywhere near the resources to accomplish that, however.
I will continue to reward gaming companies that release quality, innovative titles and ignore the ones that want me to buy the fifth iteration of a game that is obviously a cash cow being slowly milked.
I don't know the answer to those questions any more than you know the answer to the questions you posed. Something to consider though as both the games in question game out after EA acquired Pandemic.
As Ardichoke said, I'm pretty sure Pandemic wouldn't have made those shitty games or the shitty decisions behind them if EA didn't have a hand in it.
The Saboteur is what they should have been working on. LotR Conquest was the result of EA saying "make this game now"