clipunderground
Member
FUCK! >_<
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EA aquires CRITERION!!!
- Thread starter boutrosinit
- Start date
I'm not so concerned with them picking up Criterion, the games developer, but the acquisition of Criterion, the middleware developer and provider of the most popular third party engine, IS more disconcerting. Though I think it could spur demand for alternatives, which may be a good thing afterall..
Criterion claim 25% of all game console skus use Renderware. If this deal goes through EA will own the technology that is behind everything from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to Sonic Heroes. The likes of Konami and Activision will be scurrying to see what code they shared with Criterion to get Winning Eleven and Tony Hawks onto the PS2.rs7k said:
cja said:
Damn. Criterion must make a huge amount of bank on Renderware alone. You would think they wouldn't be needed to be bought out. EA probably ponied up a HUGE amount of money. It's an intriguing story though. If the EA buyout goes through Criterion is probably going to piss off many Renderware partners, yes?
CrimsonSkies
Member
"From here, it looks like EA might be getting close to the ammount of internal devs and resources to launch it's own platform in a gen or two (well, after next gen maybe)"
EA could launch a hardware platform right now and do better than even Sony with it in North America and Europe. They would be like Microsoft in Japan though. So if you ever see them buying Japanese developers then Sony should worry. However, it's fairly obvious that EA isn't as stupid as Sega. They don't want anything that loses them money, which is exactly what hardware does in the console world. All the R&D, marketing, design, fabrication, money hats, internal game develpment costs, courting of 3rd parties, etc.
I guess they were impressed by Black.
EA could launch a hardware platform right now and do better than even Sony with it in North America and Europe. They would be like Microsoft in Japan though. So if you ever see them buying Japanese developers then Sony should worry. However, it's fairly obvious that EA isn't as stupid as Sega. They don't want anything that loses them money, which is exactly what hardware does in the console world. All the R&D, marketing, design, fabrication, money hats, internal game develpment costs, courting of 3rd parties, etc.
I guess they were impressed by Black.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
I'd love to see EA release their own console.
They wouldn't need to be the most powerful system out there to be successful. They could develop a console that is somewhere in the middle of the road in terms of performance that is cheap to manufacture. They might lose a little money on each system sold but they would gain additional revenue via 3rd party licensing fees. They would also receive a higher profit margin for their own games because they wouldn't need to pay the fees to Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft.
They wouldn't need to be the most powerful system out there to be successful. They could develop a console that is somewhere in the middle of the road in terms of performance that is cheap to manufacture. They might lose a little money on each system sold but they would gain additional revenue via 3rd party licensing fees. They would also receive a higher profit margin for their own games because they wouldn't need to pay the fees to Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft.
And I here I thought gaffers had nothing but disdain for Renderware 
It wouldn't be like this is the first time that developers/publishers have licensed tech/tools from their competitors...iD's engines over the years, the Unreal engine, BGDA engine on this gen's consoles, etc. Hell, when you get right down to it, just about everyone uses their competitors dev tools - PS2 developers use the PS2 SDKs provided by Sony, who also makes software for the PS2, MS with DirectX/XNA, Nintendo, etc.
EA's move hardly represents anything unprecedented. In fact, the only thing that could be considered unprecedented was that a software maker of this size *hasn't* been officially licensing out some of their tech/tools before this!
In all honesty, who would you rather have building your game development tools - a company that has absolutely no experience actually designing games, or one that has extensive experience? Double-edged sword, either way.
It wouldn't be like this is the first time that developers/publishers have licensed tech/tools from their competitors...iD's engines over the years, the Unreal engine, BGDA engine on this gen's consoles, etc. Hell, when you get right down to it, just about everyone uses their competitors dev tools - PS2 developers use the PS2 SDKs provided by Sony, who also makes software for the PS2, MS with DirectX/XNA, Nintendo, etc.
EA's move hardly represents anything unprecedented. In fact, the only thing that could be considered unprecedented was that a software maker of this size *hasn't* been officially licensing out some of their tech/tools before this!
In all honesty, who would you rather have building your game development tools - a company that has absolutely no experience actually designing games, or one that has extensive experience? Double-edged sword, either way.
Jonnyboy117
Member
Someone needs to Photoshop the junk ball from Katamari Damacy as EA rolling over and collecting companies to become bigger and bigger.
Mrbob said:
I don't know..I envisage a scenario in a few decades where publishers are no longer needed. Think: iTunes for games, no publishers, just the developers making their stuff available directly. I hope this happens..power to the developer! With a mature development environment, we could see Indies flourish, and much needed injection of variety and competition. Fingers crossed.
Very different imho, these are engines for specific game genres and couldn't be construed as middleware. If you want to develop an FPS then using id or Epic technology is a good, though expensive, way of doing so but you know the majority of the code is owned by the licensor.kaching said:And I here I thought gaffers had nothing but disdain for Renderware
It wouldn't be like this is the first time that developers/publishers have licensed tech/tools from their competitors...iD's engines over the years, the Unreal engine, BGDA engine on this gen's consoles, etc.
Contrast the licensees of the Quake III engine with the many companies who use the Renderware platform. The likes of KCET and Neversoft used it to quickly and easily port their existing code to difficult next-gen platforms (PS2 ahem), the large majority of the code has been written by the developer but they use middleware for speed and ease of development plus porting to other hardware formats.
They still have to deal with the 1st party tools. The press release makes it clear EA will be mixing and matching their own tech with Renderware for their own internal use while still trying to sell the Renderware platform to third parties. These third parties knew that under independent (Canon) control they were getting the best Criterion could offer, now they know they'll just be offered an inferior subset of EA's technology.
How many of the following companies are going to accept EA making money from and owning the libraries they use?
Okay, excluding EA.
eshwaaz said:
For what it's worth, Def Jam 2 is going to have a M rating (mainly for the lyrics). Because of this, I can fully see EA having Black be M. 'course, we have no idea if anything in Black fully makes a case for a M rating.
cja said:
Eh, the regulations are just a formality, in a month, EA will officially have 'em.
SantaCruZer said:
Obviously you've disregarded the entire EA BIG line, as well as some of the sports titles..heh.
Lost Weekend said:
they don't need to know - they own the middleware. The HW doesn't matter - its all about the software.
Renderware is hardware agnostic. EA is now essentially the platform holder for all next-generation consoles. This literally gives them more power than Sony, MS or Nintendo in the next-gen.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
DSN2K said:now they have renderware the only thing they are missing is a console.
Thats what I was thinking...be scared. A console that has Madden as a exclusive, you could say bye bye to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo for that generation.
They might have just become the most powerful Platform Holder.
Publisher XYZ, "We don't develop games for Microsoft's Xbox 2 or Sony's PS3. We develop games for EA's Renderware4."
Just like Sony, MS and Nintendo receive royalties for games sold for their platforms, EA will now make royalties on 25% of all games sold. Expect that 25% to increase going into the next-gen.
Publisher XYZ, "We don't develop games for Microsoft's Xbox 2 or Sony's PS3. We develop games for EA's Renderware4."
Just like Sony, MS and Nintendo receive royalties for games sold for their platforms, EA will now make royalties on 25% of all games sold. Expect that 25% to increase going into the next-gen.
WasabiKing
Member
They'll likely license out Renderware, much like it was done before. So it's possible that Take Two will still earn EA money, heh... I'm actually surprised that EA hasn't licensed out their EA Sports Online libraries...
I wouldn't say that. While a risky move I think EA could pull it off. EA has come a long way since 3D0. But the thing is, EA has a pretty good thing going on PS2 and right now there's no reason to jeopardize that. But the way they're expanding right now I think they will eventually have to move into other areas to keep growing as a business. Engine licensing is one such move. They've mentioned movies. But really, soon there won't be much more they can do to secure growth for their game business... except launching their own hardware.Mrbob said:
norinrad21
Banned
BurnOut 3 finally comes to the GC, theres no way EA is going to leave the Cube out in the cold.
Datawhore said:
I don't agree with this. First of all, I think Renderware is licensed based on a once-off fee per game, not based on royalties. If they tried to switch to that model, developers would flee..it'd be cheaper for them to roll their own, or go with another engine. Second, this doesn't make EA "the most powerful Platform holder". The vast majority of games out there weren't developed using Renderware. It's not like EA's software (Renderware) is the Gatekeeper to console hardware. Finally, if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo got pissed with Renderware's prevelance or EA's business model with it, they could very simply strike EA/Renderware of their list of approved Middleware providers..bye bye Renderware outside of EA's own studios. Of course, that's highly unlikely to happen, and they'd have to all do it together to prevent a backlash from EA in terms of game support...but in terms of platform access etc. the power is still with the manufacturers. Everyone, even those using Renderware etc., still use the manufacturer's tools.
Mr_Furious
Member
I don't think it is in any of EA's competitor's best interest to make EA richer. I'm predicting that most of them will either seek out different engines to license or create one in-house. This could be a blessing in disguise (depending on how you view this news).cja said:
Some numbers have been thrown around suggesting that 25% of current games in development use Renderware. Assuming this is true, and based on the fact that next-gen games development costs are likely to soar beyond the financial capabilities of all but the biggest pubs (EA, Activision, Ubi, Sony, MS, Nintendo, Square, TakeTwo), I wouldn't be surprised to see this % increase in the future.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Criterion currently has two licensing models for Renderware - a one time fee or a licensed royalty rate. Either way, EA is likely to explore both.
Smaller publishers and those struggling to make the transition to next gen due to financial problems (Acclaim, Midway, Interplay, Atari, VUG, etc.) may actually welcome this development since they can now piggyback on EA's next-gen R&D efforts without incurring millions in transition costs. If I was faced with the option of bankrupcy in 2006 or paying EA a one time lump some of 500K per game or a 5% royalty fee, the decision is pretty easy.
Many publishers will start to view Renderware4 as a platform and less as a middleware solution now that EA has gotten behind it. (IMHO)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Criterion currently has two licensing models for Renderware - a one time fee or a licensed royalty rate. Either way, EA is likely to explore both.
Smaller publishers and those struggling to make the transition to next gen due to financial problems (Acclaim, Midway, Interplay, Atari, VUG, etc.) may actually welcome this development since they can now piggyback on EA's next-gen R&D efforts without incurring millions in transition costs. If I was faced with the option of bankrupcy in 2006 or paying EA a one time lump some of 500K per game or a 5% royalty fee, the decision is pretty easy.
Many publishers will start to view Renderware4 as a platform and less as a middleware solution now that EA has gotten behind it. (IMHO)
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Grizzlyjin said:Thats what I was thinking...be scared. A console that has Madden as a exclusive, you could say bye bye to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo for that generation.
If an EA console was made, basically the majority of the mainstream audience would go with them.
If this happens, the company that would be the most irrevocably damaged is Microsoft. Their biggest markets (NA, EU) are the ones where EA really dominates. Sony would also be drastically affected but they could survive thanks to the slew of mainstream and not-so-mainstream franchises they have in their catalogue (as well as all that Japanese 3rd party support). If all 3 hardware manufacturers lost EA, Nintendo would lose the least. The kind of games that EA makes have never really been that big on Nintendo's recent systems. No doubt losing EA would hurt Nintendo... just not as much as it would hurt Sony & MS, imo. People still pretty much just buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo's games. Nintendo and Sony would probably have JP to themselves.
JC10001 said:
If EA created its own console, they would lose most of their value (and revenues) if they produced games only for that system.
Why only make Madden 2007 for the EA Console when you can make 7 versions and sell millions more across all platforms?
Being platform agnostic is where the money is for EA. Renderware makes that proposition even stronger.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
cybamerc said:
Perhaps I should rephrase that statement. I should probably say that MS would be the most irrevocably damaged. You're right, Sony would technically lose the most. But they could recover more easily than MS because they have more support.