-
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
The Faceless Master
Member
RIP Criterion
JC10001:
> But they could recover more easily than MS because they have more support.
Take away EA's games. Then put the remaining PS2 launch line-up against the remaining Xbox launch line-up. Imagine that the two systems came out on the same day. Believe me, Sony wouldn't be where they are today without EA.
> But they could recover more easily than MS because they have more support.
Take away EA's games. Then put the remaining PS2 launch line-up against the remaining Xbox launch line-up. Imagine that the two systems came out on the same day. Believe me, Sony wouldn't be where they are today without EA.
Datawhore said:
If the future of several LARGE publishers, and few others, actually pans out (i.e. consolidation), those large publishers, more than able to cover the costs of their own technology, are unlikely to seek out EA for Renderware. If these publishers (including EA), for example, control 90% of content out there, as many see, then really it'll only be EA's games and some of that remaining 10%, that will use Renderware. Hardly a basis for calling it a "platform" on the same footing as base hardware.
Datawhore said:
Only the smaller devs would accept a royalty model.
Datawhore said:
What happens if/when smaller publishers start getting gobbled up and we're left with, maybe 10 or less publishers floating around? I don't think publishers of such size will need to look outside for technical help.
Even forgetting about the consolidation scenario, post-EA, I can see more reasons why a publisher would not go with Renderware when they might have before. And one other thing - going with middleware != going with Renderware..that'll probably be more evident as we go forward, because as I said before, I think this deal could lead to an opportunity for other companies to step forward and make offerings in the market.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
cybamerc said:
EA helped get the PS2 off the ground with SSX, yes. But it's still kind of a poor comparison. Just because Sony didn't have a killer launch with the PS2 doesn't mean they won't or can't have one for the PS3.
I mean heck, I could easily see following games on sale within 3 months of the PS3 launch:
Tekken Tag Tournament 2 or Tekken 5.5
At least 2 Capcom games (an Onimusha or RE type game and a fighter)
Ridge Racer 6
Gran Turismo 5
New franchise from Naughty Dog
New franchise from Insomniac
Something from Square Enix
Metal Gear Solid 4
Twisted Metal 6
JC10001:
> Just because Sony didn't have a killer launch with the PS2 doesn't mean they won't or
> can't have one for the PS3.
But who says M$ can't have a better one for Xenon?
Sony 1. party launch games are traditionally weak. I wouldn't expect too much from them for PS3.
> I mean heck, I could easily see following games on sale within 3 months of the PS3
> launch:
I think you're being just a wee bit optimistic
And underestimate M$' talent (read: deep pockets) for acquiring 3. party exclusives.
> Just because Sony didn't have a killer launch with the PS2 doesn't mean they won't or
> can't have one for the PS3.
But who says M$ can't have a better one for Xenon?
Sony 1. party launch games are traditionally weak. I wouldn't expect too much from them for PS3.
> I mean heck, I could easily see following games on sale within 3 months of the PS3
> launch:
I think you're being just a wee bit optimistic
And underestimate M$' talent (read: deep pockets) for acquiring 3. party exclusives.The Shadow
Member
So long Criterion! Say high to Crytek on your way out.
Mr_Furious
Member
It's never too late, IMO. The current games in development can get completed (wrapping up this gen) but with next gen technology and engines being developed and surely licenced by the IDs, Cryteks, Epics, etc of the industry (and others springing up all the time), Renderware will be less and less attractive especially if EA gets greedy.Datawhore said:
norinrad21
Banned
MetatronM said:
IAWTP
Oh fuck.
I can just imagine the press release...EA 're-allocate', 'consolidate' studio, few were put on the leave, bla bla bla, most were offered realocation package, bla bla bla, everything is great, the sky is blue and the EA execs are laughing all the way to the bank.
pilonv1 said:
I can just imagine the press release...EA 're-allocate', 'consolidate' studio, few were put on the leave, bla bla bla, most were offered realocation package, bla bla bla, everything is great, the sky is blue and the EA execs are laughing all the way to the bank.
Mr_Furious said:
Also, a blanket "they", suggesting all or most publishers, is a little inappropriate. The vast majority of games don't use Renderware (if 25% are, 75% don't). And *any* development team that becomes dependent on any aspect of their code or development environment is very very unwise..one of the fundamental rules of good software engineering is portable code and modularity. They should be able to relatively easily plug their game logic code out of one engine and into another.
All that aside, Furious's point about generational transitions is a very valid one - going into a new generation, it'd be much easier for any "dependent" developers to switch away from a technology.
I'm neither a fan of nor hate EA. I haven't bought an EA game... ever.
I don't see what the big deal is.
Renderware isn't the only middleware on the market, if EA gets too greedy companies will use other means. Renderware doesn't have a lock on the industry; most games use 1 or more middleware, at least, in part. If EA doesn't get too greedy, its not uncommon, at all, for a business to outsource a project to or use the products of their competitors as long it helps their bottem-line. The only thing might prevent this are personal vendetttas.
Criterion will likely still exsist, even if it is under a new name. If this aquisition was hostile, I'd understand the complaints, but it doesn't appear to be. This should be a good thing for Criterion. It means stability, increased marketing power, and more resources for the company and its products.
I know some of you just plain hate EA, but there are far worse things that could have happened and far worse companies that could have aquired Criterion. EA has got to be a better match for the company than Canon.
I don't see what the big deal is.
Renderware isn't the only middleware on the market, if EA gets too greedy companies will use other means. Renderware doesn't have a lock on the industry; most games use 1 or more middleware, at least, in part. If EA doesn't get too greedy, its not uncommon, at all, for a business to outsource a project to or use the products of their competitors as long it helps their bottem-line. The only thing might prevent this are personal vendetttas.
Criterion will likely still exsist, even if it is under a new name. If this aquisition was hostile, I'd understand the complaints, but it doesn't appear to be. This should be a good thing for Criterion. It means stability, increased marketing power, and more resources for the company and its products.
I know some of you just plain hate EA, but there are far worse things that could have happened and far worse companies that could have aquired Criterion. EA has got to be a better match for the company than Canon.
SiegfriedFM
Member
Can anyone put together a list of all developers that EA has swallowed throughout the years? It would make an interesting (and depressing) read.
Obviously there are differences, cja, but what I was focusing on was one key similarity: that game developers and publishers often license/obtain some segment of the tech and tools they use to build a game from competitors, whether that's a genre-specific engine or a more generalized middleware solution. There's always strings attached to any practice that doesn't involve complete self-reliance - you line your competitors coffers a little and, if there isn't a code of respect and integrity practiced among the parties involved, sharing code/tech/tools has considerable potential to ruin someone's business. In that respect it doesn't matter whether its an engine or a middleware suite that we're talking about.cja said:
Those are assumptions that are hardly conclusive. What proof exists that Criterion truly gave the best it could offer to third parties? And why are we presupposing that they suddenly won't do the same under EA?
Hmmm...whichever ones realize that business is business, not personal. The ones that realize that using EA's version of Renderware will probably help their project more than it will EA. The one's that realize that they already do this with other companies...etc.
kaching said:
No proof, obviously, but Criterion had a much greater motivation to give everything they could than EA will have. Renderware was a large portion of Criterion's revenue, but it'll be a drop in the ocean for EA..it'll be far more viable for EA to risk the credibility of the technology by witholding "the best bits" for themselves. For Criterion, their games really became a showcase for Renderware, and thus it was not in their interests to use anything their customers couldn't, but with EA..I don't think it'd matter to them so much, because as I said, Renderware is not their bread and butter in the same way it was for Criterion.
I have no idea what the exact profitability is for Renderware but if Criterion's claims that 25% of all console game SKUs use Renderware, then you're probably rushing to judgment on that drop in the ocean comparison. And what's to say that EA can't turn it into a healthy new profit stream for them? I really don't see how it's so clear cut that EA's motivation is definitely less than Criterion's.gofreak said:
Does EA need to do that? Is there any reason to believe that their massive profitability is suffering or somehow threatened in any measurable fashion because they haven't benefited from the best that Renderware has to offer or because of what Renderware enables their competitors to do?
By the same token, they don't put their development customers first in regard to using Criterion's latest and greatest breakthroughs. From interviews at the time, Alex Ward indicated that Burnout 2 shipped with a number of optimizations above and beyond what standard Renderware offered at the time, and Burnout 3 will as well (from the Eurogamer interview):
They give themselves an edge in doing this. Not unlike what you're claiming EA will do.
kaching:
With EA, a direct competitor to so many licensees in so many markets, now controlling Renderware, there's a lot more potential for conflict of interest with licensing.
Many hardware specific optimizations for Renderware are driven by Criterion's game development. So, those would obviously have to be developed in a Criterion game first - since that's their origin - before they could be available to Renderware licensees.
With EA, a direct competitor to so many licensees in so many markets, now controlling Renderware, there's a lot more potential for conflict of interest with licensing.
i dont see the problem, and im no EA fan (neither do i hate them, i just dont play sports games, were they making road rash games...i'd hit it, i love road rash).
look at what EA does, they are predominantly a multiplatform company, they NEED renderware, they are just setting themselves up for easier portability and profitability for the future by obtaining renderware, and not to mention Burnout, a popular franchise.
start getting worried when they buyout Namco and cancell niche stuff like katamari damashi.
look at what EA does, they are predominantly a multiplatform company, they NEED renderware, they are just setting themselves up for easier portability and profitability for the future by obtaining renderware, and not to mention Burnout, a popular franchise.
start getting worried when they buyout Namco and cancell niche stuff like katamari damashi.
WasabiKing
Member
Mr_Furious said:
They will be happy if they get a percentage/fee.
Mr_Furious
Member
Why would other companies (like UbiSoft or Sega) be happy about paying a percentage/fee to EA? Or are you saying that EA's competitors would be happy to get a percentage/fee? In either case I'm confused by your post.WasabiKing said:
Obviously, Criterion has to develop, test and prove the optimizations work before selling those optimizations as upgrades in their Renderware package, but that doesn't mean they have to also profit from their own game product based on those optimizations first, well in advance of any known 3rd party Renderware project taking advantages of those same optimizations.Lazy8s said:
Same could be said of any development platform controlled by a single company...more power to initiatives like XNA, like you said
Mr_Furious said:
I'd like to see Take-Two pull all Renderware-enabled development from GTA: San Andreas or any of their other high profile Criterion-fueled games. It's just not gonna happen.
Any game that is currently using Renderware will continue to do so, since the fee has likely already been paid.
There's no doubting that Renderware is the most popular middleware solution available today. All I'm saying is that it will be a difficult and expensive transition for devs/pubs to switch to another middleware solution for their games, regardless of the stage of development.
Its entirely possible (and good for the industry) that another middleware solution will emerge that will likely be just as good, if not surpass, EA/Criterion's future offerings. That may not be until 2005/2006 though.
kaching:
There's nothing to suggest they've done those kind of politics; that quote from the interview certainly doesn't imply it. With Criterion's place as a small developer within the industry, they wouldn't have had anything to gain anyway from holding back a more enhanced Renderware for themselves as if the presence of other random Renderware titles with those slight upgrades would've had any attributable impact on the sales of their specific, mildly popular racer.
EA, though, is a publisher with a brand that covers many dozens of products a year across a full range of game markets. That's enough product such that a better brand image could be built by using enhanced development tools while withholding them from competitors.
Lazy-
You can try to rationalize it any way you want but the quote clearly demonstrates a choice was made by Criterion not to offer a version of Renderware that had the latest optimizations before they shipped a game product of their own with the latest optimizations. Its not politics, just business. I'm not condemning them for it, but let's call it what it is - they gave themselves an edge over their clients, while at the same time making one hell of an advertisement for their product.
You can try to rationalize it any way you want but the quote clearly demonstrates a choice was made by Criterion not to offer a version of Renderware that had the latest optimizations before they shipped a game product of their own with the latest optimizations. Its not politics, just business. I'm not condemning them for it, but let's call it what it is - they gave themselves an edge over their clients, while at the same time making one hell of an advertisement for their product.
Well, if that's the way you see it, why would you think EA would worry?
Right, they are one of the most equal opportunity of game developers right now in terms of multiplatform support, with a massive amount of game development experience. Who better to further the development of a multiplatform middleware product? They obviously do have the opportunity to capitalize on advancements first and I already acknowledged this as a potentially double-edged sword in my first post in this thread. But that's impossible to avoid.
EA's games built with in-house tools compare quite favorably with most games produced using Renderware. There's very little to gain in that respect. And EA is having very little problem surpassing their competitors by a large margin on a regular basis. There's no reason to block or withhold from them, its a waste resources. Why do that when you could profit from them instead? EA has probably just taken a good, long look at the proliferation of 3d platforms that's set to occur in the next few years (PS3, Xbox2, N5, PSP, DS) and observed that existing 3d platforms like PC and PS2 and possibly others will remain viable for some years to come, leading to the possibility that middleware could become a very lucrative revenue stream, since developers are likely to clamoring for anything that makes it easier to port their content between those platforms as easily and efficiently as possible.
cybamerc said:
EA "Math"
Sell Madden 2006 across 3 platforms (Xbox, PS2, GC) with royalties to 1st Party
PS2: 3.5 Million units
Xbox: 1 Million units
GC: .4 Million units
GBA: .3 million units
Total Sales = 4.3 Million Units
VS
Sell Madden 2006 only on "EA Console"
EA Console: 2.5 million units
No GBA, PS2, GC, or Xbox sales
(2.5M is very optimistic, considering their installed base would likely be lower than PS2-esque levels. You can't assume that all 70 million PS2 owners bought a PS2 to play EA games.)
Even with a $7-10 standard platform fee (which is often waived by 1st parties), I would take 4.3 million unit sales over 2.5 million units any day.
I think EA agrees. As does Activision, Ubi Soft, etc.... each has a games portfolio that rivals a 1st Party Publisher. Why don't they make console platforms? Because there's no money to be made on hardware (see Xbox) and its is more profitable to simply make software for every platform under the sun.
Unless you can make margin on the hardware like Nintendo with the GBA, the only legitimate reason to be a first party, is that you believe you can make higher profits by charging a license fee to 3rd Parties on your closed platform. EA has just gained that ability with the Criterion acquisition without the associated risk of negative margin hardware, while retaining the significant benefits (see EA "Math") of a 3rd Party Publisher.
TheGreenGiant
Banned
we might see BURNOUT 3 on gamecube then. EA isn't afraid of purple lunch boxes.
You're talking about two completely different levels of abstraction here though, Renderware is much higher level then that for most part, and is also mostly built on top of SDKs/API provided by hw makers.kaching said:
I'd rather have a focused group designing the tech - one of the reasons most big developers don't license out tech like this is that they can't even agree on using one standard internally, let alone offer it to others.
Knowing what I know of EA's internal development organization, I can at best be skeptical of the benefits of this. Fact is that even talking about "EA technology" is something of an oxymoron as just about every team of theirs uses a different set of tools, from a dozen or so different internally developed middlewares to 3rd party licesnsed stuff.
Now the way I see this is two-fold, either Renderware development will remain mostly independant team, see limited use within a few of their internal teams, and get licensed out in much the same manner as things have been now, or it'll get absorbed, in which case unless things within EA change and they get some semblance of an internal standard for development software, you may as well say RIP renderware.
Well it should be noted that Renderware is among the cheapest middleware solutions, period, which helped drive its popularity. Licenses for stuff like Unreal etc. for instance, are quite a bit more expensive.
Datawhore:
> 2.5M is very optimistic, considering their installed base would likely be lower than PS2-
> esque levels.
Likely yes. But if EA had launched a system against PS2 the PS2 likely wouldn't have done as well as is the case. And 1. parties traditionally enjoy a higher marketshare on their own systems so even with a smaller install base the overall sales can be higher (see Sega).
> You can't assume that all 70 million PS2 owners bought a PS2 to play EA games.
Of course they didn't. But a lot of them did. And if EA were to make another system I'd imagine they would try harder to secure proper 3. party support than the last time.
> I think EA agrees.
Right now they do. In the future, I'm not so sure.
> As does Activision, Ubi Soft, etc.... each has a games portfolio that rivals a 1st Party
> Publisher.
None of those come close to EA.
> Why don't they make console platforms?
Because they don't have the name, the money nor the system selling franchises.
> Because there's no money to be made on hardware (see Xbox)
Xbox isn't profitable because M$ has too much money and the people in charge were clueless.
> and its is more profitable to simply make software for every platform under the sun.
Tell that to Sony/Nintendo/Sega.
> 2.5M is very optimistic, considering their installed base would likely be lower than PS2-
> esque levels.
Likely yes. But if EA had launched a system against PS2 the PS2 likely wouldn't have done as well as is the case. And 1. parties traditionally enjoy a higher marketshare on their own systems so even with a smaller install base the overall sales can be higher (see Sega).
> You can't assume that all 70 million PS2 owners bought a PS2 to play EA games.
Of course they didn't. But a lot of them did. And if EA were to make another system I'd imagine they would try harder to secure proper 3. party support than the last time.
> I think EA agrees.
Right now they do. In the future, I'm not so sure.
> As does Activision, Ubi Soft, etc.... each has a games portfolio that rivals a 1st Party
> Publisher.
None of those come close to EA.
> Why don't they make console platforms?
Because they don't have the name, the money nor the system selling franchises.
> Because there's no money to be made on hardware (see Xbox)
Xbox isn't profitable because M$ has too much money and the people in charge were clueless.
> and its is more profitable to simply make software for every platform under the sun.
Tell that to Sony/Nintendo/Sega.
cja already addressed this in his response to me. See my response in turn. http://www.ga-forum.com/showpost.php?p=197462&postcount=117Fafalada said:
I am not oblivious to the differences between these different levels of abstraction, Faf. But the basic practice of sharing code with competitors is the same.
Thanks for the insight into EA's technology infrastructure, not that I'm surprised given that it's much the same within most large organizations. I'd suspect that the move to purchase Criterion and Renderware is specifically as an end run around their own internal fragmentation in seeking to put together a more cohesive middleware product solution. Since they're already fragmented internally, I doubt there would be much effort made to completely assimilate Criterion's organization if they can't really unify their own existing departments.
Also, thanks for the info on the pricing of Renderware relative to other middleware/engine products.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"Since they're already fragmented internally, I doubt there would be much effort made to completely assimilate Criterion's organization if they can't really unify their own existing departments."
Well, EA do have a unified next gen engine/dev system underway as far as i know.
So, i think they *were* on their way to having a unified set of tools / systems.
Well, EA do have a unified next gen engine/dev system underway as far as i know.
So, i think they *were* on their way to having a unified set of tools / systems.
kaching:
Also, it's not like a new Renderware revision comes out every day. A whole bunch of new features like that are accumulated before being ready to release at the next regularly scheduled update, excluding the stuff offered at the support site. It's just part of the natural development cycle for the product and not some scheme to give their game division, with its one or two products and mild popular impact, an advantage.
No, it doesn't. The Criterion team that focuses specifically on the Renderware side doesn't even get the finalized implementation of a new feature that comes from the game side - from which they'd still have to make into a generalized solution for the toolset - until it's gone through final QA in the game, which happens at the very end of the development cycle.
Also, it's not like a new Renderware revision comes out every day. A whole bunch of new features like that are accumulated before being ready to release at the next regularly scheduled update, excluding the stuff offered at the support site. It's just part of the natural development cycle for the product and not some scheme to give their game division, with its one or two products and mild popular impact, an advantage.
Criterion's game output is too small and limited to be capable of seeing benefit from such a ploy. With more influence comes more responsibility, though, which is why there is more potential for conflict of interest with EA, the biggest publisher, than with Criterion, a small developer.
This wasn't being argued.
Depends on whether EA moves to Renderware. Regardless, companies like their closest challenger in sports marketshare (who is still way behind them), Visual Concepts, has outsourced products which use Renderware and still outclass EA's game.
The issue wasn't of their likelihood nor intention to use such tactics. Rather, it was the greater conflict of interest that could arise with someone of their size than with Criterion.
Haha, some good comedy here.
Lazy8s says that EA buying Renderware will lead to EA licensing an inferior version to outsiders while using a better version in house to make their software look better.
And he says thank goodness for XNA, which is an "initative" from another very large corporation who has a very long history of using this same tactic of withholding API features from outside developers in the PC software market.
Hell, at least Renderware will stay multiplatform.
Lazy8s says that EA buying Renderware will lead to EA licensing an inferior version to outsiders while using a better version in house to make their software look better.
And he says thank goodness for XNA, which is an "initative" from another very large corporation who has a very long history of using this same tactic of withholding API features from outside developers in the PC software market.
Hell, at least Renderware will stay multiplatform.