Am I the only one who won't care

[darkpower]

This is in fairness to EA and that. They have made a few good games (Rock Band).

 

But with all the EA controversy, I feel as if I'm the only one who won't mind it too much or will hurt gta f EA does buy Take Two. Maybe not too much to be a huge concern.

 

Hell, it might actually be a good thing if they want GTA4 to last, because you KNOW EA will be all about making games last...right?

 

But yeah, it's not in any way good, but I don't think the world will end if it does.

 

Am I the only one to think this?

[Walgreens]

I dont think it will really matter until the nest rockstar game goes into development.

[yonkers749]

yes, i do beleive you are the only one

[dirtycopVCPD]

 

This is in fairness to EA and that. They have made a few good games (Rock Band).

 

But with all the EA controversy, I feel as if I'm the only one who won't mind it too much or will hurt gta f EA does buy Take Two. Maybe not too much to be a huge concern.

 

Hell, it might actually be a good thing if they want GTA4 to last, because you KNOW EA will be all about making games last...right?

 

But yeah, it's not in any way good, but I don't think the world will end if it does.

 

Am I the only one to think this?

 

I think I'll get on the devil's advocate boat as well. EA may very well be greedy but it isn't stupid. I seriously doubt they're going to risk GTA going the way of the Tony Hawk series and end up tanking due to over saturation. They probably understand why Rockstar is successful and I doubt they would be dumb enough to kill the golden goose by not letting them do their own thing.

Edited March 13, 2008 by dirtycopVCPD

[alb-mac]

EA is clearly doing this for money. Why would they mess around with this game which they know will make them even more money? I don't know, but I do know that I wouldn't like it if EA takes over Take-2

[YourNeighborhoodKiller]

I'm not really too worried. But I just hope the games, don't turn into sh*t.

[stevenkb5258]

I personally think that the reason people are so freaked out about it is that people are afraid of change. EA is this super giant that crushes whatever is in its path and people are afraid that since EA is big and has many big titles, they will neglect the GTA IV part. If EA does take over, they would to be smart to keep the franchise just how it is because they would be sitting on a potential goldmine.

 

I would personally like to see EA just move along and not take over. They don't need to take control over the entire market and should embrace smaller companies like Take 2.

 

[wutangblade]

Nope, not just you. As I've said before, it would be dumb for EA to change anything when it comes to GTA and I'm sure they know that

[swishersweets20031]

far as what i see.. the only argument about EA taking controll over T2's baby is.. the game would be mass manufactured sequal after sequal as far as the game getting not as good or too many mass produced sequals with no care into the creation.

 

C'mon that isnt true thats someones opinion.

As it goes i wouldnt mind having sequals lined up right after the game as lost its touch and have it alot sooner than 4 or 5 years later as it goes now.

 

Plus this is business kids.. most people on this forum are what.. 13-17 teen years old. Money talks. Do you really think this would change how the game is made much.. i doubt it. there is the basic formula for GTA that all of them Fallow. The thing that is going to ruin GTA.. is that GTA is going to get OLD just like the mortal kombat series.. it just got old. and it is allready starting to in my opinion with GTA.. what more is there to do in it really.. its the same game over and over, chase crook, shoot cop, drive car, steal car.. how exciting is duck and cover going to be when you allready done that in other games .. shoot em up bang bang once you complete the game who cares. Bells and wistles dont excite me.

the game could end up being better or could be worse.. make your judgements after 4 comes out and see how it really slides.

Edited March 13, 2008 by swishersweets20031

[Deffpony]

I doubt that EA would be dumb enough to revamp the R* developement team with how successfull they have been. The only concern I have is that take two has obviously been doing a great job at whatever part they play in R* and the development of their games, so why should they have to give up what they so rightfully earned.

[yonkers749]

take 2 should terminate the contract with rockstar, then let EA take over, start a new company, resign rockstar. problem solved

[CrazeLaze]

Hasn't really bothered me yet, I just hope if it happens , they will let R* call the shots.

[Mafioso86]

if R* is kept on and given creative control over GTA games I have no issue... though I think you guys are being naive in your thoughts that EA won't turn the game into sh*t. Money is what matters to them... not quality. Saint's Row was sh*t but it sold.... GTA has an even better brand name and can sell more... if EA gets a hold of the GTA name they could very well start dumping out a new "Saint's Row" every December with titles like GTA:XTREME DOUCHE EDITION

[geomy]

Oh no! More resources, more marketing, more exposure, more money!

 

Rockstar has nothing to worry about. Take Two are the ones sweating...as they should be. GTA is their flagship title, but what else do they have to offer? 2K sports? Sid Meier? C'mon...if it wasn't for R*, Take Two would be likened to any old second rate publisher. EA would be smart to do like they did to Blackbox...Make a EA:Rockstar division and let those guys do their own thing. Slap an EA logo on the box and everyone is happy.

 

Except Take Two.

[5HT2a]

I've already posted this somewhere else, but it is important to repost. I think we have a lot of band wagoners on this forum who hate EA because everyone else does, and on the other side we have people who are being objective just for the sake of being objective. Unfortunately, the bandwagoners are right, EA will f*ck up GTA:

 

Criticism

 

EA is often criticized for buying smaller development studios primarily for their intellectual property assets, and then making the developers produce mediocre games on these same franchises. For example, Origin-produced Ultima VIII: Pagan and Ultima IX: Ascension were developed quickly under EA's ownership, over the protests of Ultima creator Richard Garriott,[11] and these two are considered by many[12] as not up to the standard of the rest of the series.[13][14]

 

EA is also criticized for shutting down its acquired studios after a poorly performing game.[15] [16][17] The historical pattern of poor sales and ratings of the first game shipped after acquisition suggests EA's control and direction as being primarily responsible for the game's failure rather than the studio. Magic Carpet 2 was rushed to completion over the objections of designer Peter Molyneux and it shipped during the holiday season with several major bugs. Studios such as Origin, Westwood Studios, and Bullfrog had previously produced games attracting a significant fanbase, and when they were closed down many top designers and programmers refused to stay with EA and formed rival studios. Many fans also became annoyed that their favourite developers were closed down, but some developers, for example the EALA studio, have stated that they try to carry on the legacy of the old studio, in this case Westwood Studios. EA has also received harsh fire from labor groups for its dismissals of large groups of employees during the closure of a studio (see below). Such was the case with the game GoldenEye: Rogue Agent.[18]

 

The lack of support is notable in many games, assured by the fact that EA declared openly that it would no longer support relatively new but still buggy titles, like Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Need for Speed: Underground and some of the latest Command & Conquer[19] games.

 

EA has also been criticized for other aggressive business methods like the acquisition of 19.9 percent of shares of its competitor Ubisoft in what was called a "hostile act" by Ubisoft CEO, Yves Guillemot.[20] However, this has not materialized into anything hostile and Guillemot later indicated that a merger with EA was a possibility.[21]

 

[edit] Employment policy

 

Electronic Arts has been criticized for employees working extraordinarily long hours—up to 100 hours per week— and not just at "crunch" times leading up to the scheduled releases of products. The publication of the EA Spouse blog, with criticisms such as "The current mandatory hours are 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.—seven days a week—with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behaviour (at 6:30 p.m.)".[22] The company has since settled a class action lawsuit brought by game artists to compensate for "unpaid overtime".[23] The class was awarded $15.6 million. As a result, many of the lower-level developers (artists, programmers, producers, and designers) are now working at an hourly rate. A similar suit brought by programmers was settled for $14.9 million.[24]

 

[edit] Exclusive licenses

 

After Sega's ESPN NFL 2K5 successfully grabbed market share away from EA's dominant Madden NFL series during the 2004 holiday season, EA responded by making several large sports licensing deals which include an exclusive agreement with the NFL, and in January 2005, a 15-year deal with ESPN, much as with Take Two Interactive's exclusive licensing deal with baseball's Major League.[25] The ESPN deal gives EA exclusive first rights to all ESPN content for sports simulation games. On April 11, 2005, EA announced a similar, 6-year licensing deal with the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) for exclusive rights to college football content.[26]

 

[edit] Game quality

 

For 2006, the games review aggregation site Metacritic gives the average of EA games as 72.0 (out of 100); 2.5 points behind Nintendo (74.5) but ahead of the other first-party publishers Microsoft (71.6) and Sony (71.2). The closest third-party publisher is Take 2 (publishing as 2K Games and Rockstar) at 70.3. The remaining top 10[27] publishers (Sega, Konami, THQ, Ubisoft, Activision) all rate in the mid 60's.

 

However, EA's aggregate review performance has shown a downward trend in quality over recent years and is expected to affect market shares during competitive seasons. Pacific Crest Securities analyst Evan Wilson has said, "Poor reviews and quality are beginning to tarnish the EA brand. According to our ongoing survey of GameRankings.com aggregated review data, Electronic Arts' overall game quality continues to fall...Although market share has not declined dramatically to date, in years such as 2007, which promises to have tremendous competition, it seems likely if quality does not improve."[28][29]

 

EA has also received criticism for developing games that lack innovation vis-à-vis the number of gaming titles produced under the EA brand that show a history of yearly updates, particularly in their sporting franchises. These typically retail as new games at full market price and feature only updated team rosters in addition to incremental changes to game mechanics, the user interface, and graphics. One critique compared EA to companies like Ubisoft and concluded that EA's innovation in new and old IPs, "Crawls along at a snail's pace."[30], while even the company's own CEO, John Riccitiello, acknowledged the lack of innovation seen in the industry generally, saying, "We're boring people to death and making games that are harder and harder to play. For the most part, the industry has been rinse-and-repeat. There's been lots of product that looked like last year's product, that looked a lot like the year before."[31].

 

[edit] Editing of Wikipedia

 

On August 15, 2007 it was revealed that IP addresses registered to EA had made changes to its Wikipedia entry favoring EA.[32][33] The changes made included downplaying the importance of the founder of EA, Trip Hawkins, as well as playing up the importance of former CEO, Larry Probst.[32] Other changes included attempts to remove information regarding the infamous EA Spouse scandal, which involved the poor treatment of workers. In addition, several paragraphs under criticism were removed completely. [32]

 

EA's response was that "Many companies routinely post updates on websites like Wikipedia to ensure accuracy of their own corporate information."[34] It did not, however, address the specifics of the changes.

[Mafioso86]

Oh no! More resources, more marketing, more exposure, more money!

See those things have a way of destroying all that was pure and good about something. You may be right about them keeping R* on and if they did that would be awesome and everything, I'd have no issue.... but I'm just really scared that they won't.

[Coons2k4]

I personally dont give 2 sh*ts, so your not alone.

 

Bottom Line: if future GTA are sh*t, no one will buy them, simple as that. Now please put an end to these f*cking threads, they are completely useless.

 

The mods should just instantly lock any thread covering this worn-out issue.

[sharpshooter_08]

I personally dont give 2 sh*ts, so your not alone.

 

Bottom Line: if future GTA are sh*t, no one will buy them, simple as that. Now please put an end to these f*cking threads, they are completely useless.

 

The mods should just instantly lock any thread covering this worn-out issue.

i got a question for you do you go into every EA/take 2 games threads and just complain if you got a problem with it just report it and the mods will handle it

 

PS: i am not trying to be a prick but you just as anoing as the people makeing the threads in the first place

 

 

[tld]

Thats such a stupid thing to say.. if they take over it COULD end the gta franchise or f*ck it up forever

[JHughes1882]

EA has no real passion. Chances are Rockstar North will disband, GTA development will move in house at EA and we will loose what make GTA great.

[The Unvirginiser]

Dosn't really bother me

[dragonrock]

And so what if GTA turns into sh*t and lost? Its only a small fraction of your life I hope that can be easily forgotten.

[sattizahn]

EA is in it for money, but they didn't get were they are today being complete idiots. EA has more money than anyone on these damn forums, so I wouldn't bash them too hard...

 

EA knows why GTA makes money, and they know why they want to buy it (to make money). Therefore, they can't change the way GTA is made, etc, or else they won't make that money.

 

 

 

 

No matter what happens, just remeber: EA has more money than you do

 

 

[Jimmarn]

Imagine how the next GTA will be like if EA gets the game... It'll be EA commercial's/Posters over the whole city...

[crackdawg]

Who cares if it falls into the hands of entities dictated by the people who never wanted to see it published. If it does get published it'll be shallow and linear like other EA games.

 

In essence R* is being railroaded by there haters. There is almost certainly going to be a delay if this goes down before April 29. But yeah...who cares.

 

.o(When you think society can't produce a being as stupid as the one you conversed with yesterday. It goes and totally redeems itself.)

 

EDIT: A R* software engineer owes it to the supporters to leak the game in ISO or media and source code before this goes down. There hard work is going to be destroyed by chicken hawk bible salesmen whose bigoted ideals will be made the bottom line through all media. There own gods literature even disagrees with them.

Edited March 13, 2008 by crackdawg

[rubix99]

EA is in it for money, but they didn't get were they are today being complete idiots. EA has more money than anyone on these damn forums, so I wouldn't bash them too hard...

 

EA knows why GTA makes money, and they know why they want to buy it (to make money). Therefore, they can't change the way GTA is made, etc, or else they won't make that money.

 

 

 

 

No matter what happens, just remeber: EA has more money than you do

Of course they will change the way its made..... all they need is the title to get it to sell. They will fire all the Rockstar developers and have it developed by EA in house.

 

Unfortunatly its the gaming public that have made EA the company that it is.

[5HT2a]

EA is in it for money, but they didn't get were they are today being complete idiots. EA has more money than anyone on these damn forums, so I wouldn't bash them too hard...

 

EA knows why GTA makes money, and they know why they want to buy it (to make money). Therefore, they can't change the way GTA is made, etc, or else they won't make that money.

 

 

 

 

No matter what happens, just remeber: EA has more money than you do

I don't think you have quite figured out EA's sales strategy yet. Companies like EA favor quantity over quality because they know that with a reputable name like GTA, they can milk out 4 or 5 crappy games in 5 or 6 years before people catch on and stop buying it. Their goal is not to make GTA last forever, it is to make as much money as they possibly can in as quick a time and possible. And when they have made GTA so bad it is practically unplayable, they will buy out another great independent publisher/developer and milk all of the good out of that game too.

 

EA has, and will again, change winning formulas in order to make more money in less time. Face it, if this deal goes through GTA as will know it will only be a shadow of its former self. But keep on saying you don't care and it's not a big deal like your doing, and "oh GTA is such a tiny fraction of my life", cause when GTA 5 comes out and sucks, you will be the first ones complaining. Honestly, if GTA wasn't important to you, you would not be on this forum right now.

 

I don't know too much about economics, but if we were all to buy stock in Take Two, would we possibly be able to prevent the takeover by leaving too little for EA to get into the board room?

[payne8567]

 

This is in fairness to EA and that. They have made a few good games (Rock Band).

For the record, EA didn't make Rock Band, Harmonix did. EA just published it. That's like saying Take-Two makes GTA.

 

@5HT2a When R* contract expires in 2009, they can jump ship but will not carry with them the rights to GTA. Therefore, EA would continue to make EA but R* could easily begin their own new series (basically a GTA clone) sort of like how Rock Band is a reiteration of Guitar Hero made from the original developers.

[hawkstorm182]

yes, i do beleive you are the only one

Nah, he's not the only one. It doesn't really bother me. GTA wont change drastically because its still being made by the same people think about it, A book for example an author writes it a publisher publishes it. Are you telling me that harry potter was written by the publisher not the author.

[5HT2a]

yes, i do beleive you are the only one

Nah, he's not the only one. It doesn't really bother me. GTA wont change drastically because its still being made by the same people think about it, A book for example an author writes it a publisher publishes it. Are you telling me that harry potter was written by the publisher not the author.

Has anybody even read the criticism of EA that I posted here?