What's better for gamers - a huge company like EA or a bunch of little companies?

[Peench]

By now we've all heard the news: EA has made a strong bid for Take Two (link). They made the offer to Take Two and Take Two told them no so they're taking their offer directly to the investors. We've seen EA taking over companies before so that part really isn't new. But on the heels of the Vivendi deal, it got me thinking.

What's really better for gamers? Is it better for us to have a huge company with large resources in terms of money and talent? Or is it better for us to have a bunch of little gaming companies putting out random games?

I'm torn on this one. While I don't particularly care for the "it's as good as last year" mentality that EA has exhibited lately, having a bundle of resources behind a company will allow for major titles that really push this generation's hardware. We may have better graphics, better sound, better stories, etc. Or we may just end up with the same steaming pile of crap that was shoveled on us last year.

Do huge companies go out looking for that next big breakout game that might make us all happy to be gamers? Or are they so beholden to their investors that they rely almost exclusively on the "sure thing" sequel to last year's sports title. Sure I'm picking on EA, but if they acquire Take Two and become the largest gaming company out there (again), I fear the kind of sequel crap we might come to see in the future. What will happen with Bioshock? I guess I'm digressing from the main question here, but it does concern me.

So I'm not sure on this one in terms of which would be better for us. What do you all think?

[dmiller68]

I think it will mean a lot less innovation for cool new titles. EA has none as far as I can see. At the same time it should give more money to create new games.

[Lord Sam]

Monopolys are never good for the consumer.

[Quo]

Smaller every time. Sure big money is nice and helps on long-term projects, but the guys with talent can find funding. The EA mentality of squeezing something dry, over-hyping and overcharging is bad news for gamers.

[lovekeiiy]

I'm not against big companies, just the ones like EA. It's really a hard question to answer. Mainly because of the money that is required for some of the big games to be made. We're not talking a few hundred thousand dollars a couple million. Big titles like the GTA, Tom Clancy, Madden, Final Fantasy are not cost close to twenty million to make, never mind the cost of promotion.

What's happening now is because of the cost, they company are a bit more weary to take some chances on new innovations and so forth because if the game flops, it could mean the end of that company. This is where big companies can take a chance because it's not going to put the company under.

That said, some companies just take safe route because they know it will make money, ie EA and Madden. I think Ubi does some games. Assassin's Creed was pretty risky. It sold fairly well, so they did ok. I look the Tom Clansey games. Ubi does innovate the games, but it's not every game. GRAW is a fine example of it. I think GRAW2 was what they really wanted to do in GRAW1, but I'm assuming they just ran out of time to implement some of the features.

The small companies are the ones where probably a lot of the new ideas come from. But they are taking big risks, or just don't the resources or time to figure out to work the ideas well some times. It wasn't like IDsoft was big when I release Wolfenstein and Doom.

[TheEman28]

I too am also torn on this. While I understand that this happens in business a lot, it all depends on the intentions of the take over. Some companies benefit from a bigger company taking them over because of the increased resources made available through the aquisition. The main resource is money of course

In other cases the buyout means doom for the intellectual properties and the employees. I have been involved in this first hand where the buying company keeps the employees aboard for a limited time (mostly for their "tribal knowledge") and then they are let go because they are not "value added" anymore. Their brains are picked clean and tossed away like a turkey carcass after Thanksgiving dinner. It is also a great way for a company to eliminate their competition.

This is why I lean towards the smaller companies. Competition always helps the market place, either in cost of product, giving consumers a choice, and spawning new, creative ideas and designs for the industry. The main problem I see with EA is that they can't help but stick their hands into the businesses they take over. Most of the time dismantling them until the are just a skeleton of the former company. If only they used their monetary muscle and help the smaller companies grow under them, independantly. Only then can a takeover/buyout be beneficial for both parties and the industry.