EA Reshuffles, Turns BioWare Into A Full EA Label

Swiped from Akuza89 on the General board.

[quote]So I found This ...

There have been a few changes at EA in the last twenty four hours. Former EA Games head honcho Frank Gibeau will now take up a new position as head of EA Labels, and Peter Moore, who previously headed up the EA Sports label, has been promoted to COO, a position that's been vacant since John Schappert jumped ship to Zynga earlier this year.

On top of that, EA Labels themselves have seen a new addition to the ranks. Canadian developer BioWare has been fully absorbed into EA's fold, given a label status that brings the collective group to a nice, round four: EA Games, EA Sports, EA Play and BioWare.

CEO John Riccitiello posted a brief entry up on the EA's news stream entitled 'Changing and Growing', acknowledging the new changes and waxing lyrical over the strength in depth he feels EA is now showing:

First, I think it’s a great reflection on EA that we are able to tap so much world-class leadership from within our own ranks.  The depth of talent and leadership in this company is inspiring.

Second, as I look across EA and back on its history, I come to an important realization.  The people who succeed here are the ones who map their creative vision over a deep understanding of what our consumers want.  Our Label structure reflects that strategy.  It creates a close partnership between developers and product marketers that connects the creative process to our consumers. - John Riccitiello, Electronic Arts' CEO


I found it over here[/quote]I hate to say it but this will probably mean that Mass Effect 3 will be the last Bioware game I buy.

 

What little pretense that they had of being out of EA's control will now vanish quicker than an icecube in the Sahara.

 

Now I know that there are many here who've liked the changes in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age II in the name of streamlining since EA bought Bioware, I however am not one of them.

 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 3, 2018 Views 0 Applies to:

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

[quote user="voteDC"]I hate to say it but this will probably mean that Mass Effect 3 will be the last Bioware game I buy.[/quote]Was probably going to be my last BioWare game anyway so this changes very little for me.

 

Guess people can look forward to ME getting the Halo/COD treatment from this point onwards. Whether that's a good/bad thing only time will tell.

And I was wondering why Mass Effect is a better game than the second one.

[quote user="Schuey19"]

[quote user="voteDC"]I hate to say it but this will probably mean that Mass Effect 3 will be the last Bioware game I buy.[/quote]Was probably going to be my last BioWare game anyway so this changes very little for me.

 

Guess people can look forward to ME getting the Halo/COD treatment from this point onwards. Whether that's a good/bad thing only time will tell.

[/quote]What kind of treatment is the Halo treatment?  I understand the CoD treatment part but not Halo.  Besides as much as people seem to hate on EA(I used to be one of them) they seem to let some of their developers do there own thing so to speak.  DICE being the main example.  I would even say as much as people might not agree, EA has let Bioware do their own thing as well.  The streamlining that some dislike was more than likely a Bioware thing.  Im not saying EA is great or anything, but they are learning from there mistakes.  At least Activision didn't buy them.

 

The Halo treatment to me would mean that an online element will be introduced and that will get the focus. After all why take the time to do a story driven DLC like Lair of the Shadowbroker when a map-pack can be knocked out ina  fraction of the time for the same amount of points.

 

Look at the games that Bioware made before EA bought them, then compare them to those made after.

 

Lord knows how Dragon Age: Origins, what I consider to be the last proper Bioware game, escaped the taint of EA. Look at Dragon Age II though, it's a shell of a game compared to its predecessor.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that I bought Bioware games such as Mass Effect for a different reason than I bought titles like Gears of War.

 

But as I see Bioware, whether of their own choice or that of their EA bosses, shifting their titles into 'streamlined' versions of what they used to be and in the case of the Mass Effect series trying to be more like Gears, why would I just not go and buy Gears of War.

 

Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age II were not what I wanted from Bioware titles, if that is what others want then fair play to them, I just can't support it.

The Halo treatment (to me) is when a franchise, initially drive by the story, sacrifices the quality of the the story just to continue to push additional installments out the door - and adding an online component like vote says could be a contributing factor.


Halo was the story of Master Chief, in the same way that ME is the story of Shepard, but with this news I fully expect to see a number of spin-offs in the ME franchise just like ODST, Reach, Halo Wars & the new Halo trilogy.


Like I said, only time will tell if it's a good or bad thing, and I made no predictions either way, but in general and in all forms of entertainment I prefer quality over quantity.


@BeastMMB You mention DICE, and look at what happened with Mirror's Edge. Refreshingly new IP but the sequel is basically in limbo for two reasons because DICE's focus was put into Battlefield 3, but more importantly EA is trying to find a way "to go from version one to version two so that it sells two to three times as many, it finds a much bigger audience."


Sound familiar? Sounds like that wider audience that BioWare are looking for with ME3.


Again, EA, BioWare & DICE are all businesses so the bottomline is obviously to make the most amount of profit as is possible, and I'm not so stupid as to think anything else. But when a global corporation takes over a smaller more independent company, it would also be stupid to think that they won't/don't impose that same corporate mentallity on their new acquisition, and just look how will that mentallity as worked for Activision on the Guitar Hero franchise.

 

[quote user="voteDC"]

The Halo treatment to me would mean that an online element will be introduced and that will get the focus. After all why take the time to do a story driven DLC like Lair of the Shadowbroker when a map-pack can be knocked out ina  fraction of the time for the same amount of points.

I don't think ME will ever be an online focused game unless they make an MMO.

Look at the games that Bioware made before EA bought them, then compare them to those made after.

Yes but most changes Bioware has Implemented in the sequals were from feedback from their fans.  Maybe not the right ones, but the most vocal fans anyway. 

Lord knows how Dragon Age: Origins, what I consider to be the last proper Bioware game, escaped the taint of EA. Look at Dragon Age II though, it's a shell of a game compared to its predecessor.

Wasn't Origins published by EA.  What makes you think that they would skip influencing that game, but still influence every other Bioware game?

[/quote]

 

 

 

In response to your last question, that is why I said 'lord knows how it escaped the taint of EA.'

First thing that came to mind when I read the topic to this thread was.... "Ah crap."  But you know, I used to have a personal "boycott" towards purchasing anything EA, mainly because of them buying out exclusive rights of the NFL license for their lousy Madden franchise, preventing the competition (2K Sports) from kicking their butts every year.  2K's NFL series was just plain awesome.  Plus EA's games were never that great to begin with.

 

Even though I haven't bought a football game since 2005, I have noticed that the quality - (I still use that term loosely when it comes to EA!) - from the EA brand has been getting somewhat better, outside of their sports department, of course.  But it's probably due to the fact what BEASTmmb said above me, that Electronic Arts seems to allow their developers to do their own thing - by not getting in the way, so to speak - like with DICE and Bioware.

 

Now, I don't know how much influence, if ANY at all, did EA put on Bioware to make this game "more appealing to the masses" by making it a more 3rdPerson/Action/Adventure-ish compared to the first Mass Effect, which in my opinion is still a better game.  I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that's good, but for me personally, I enjoyed ME1 much more than ME2.  I love on ME1 when you start a new campaign with your stats really low.   And if you pull your sniper out, it's all over ther place.  Same thing with the accuracy of the pistol and the AR.  But as you progress you become hardcore with those weapons.  I also liked that you had to lay points accordingly on whatever you desired, including Renegade or Paragon.  If you weren't high enough on a certain stat then you couldn't say that dialogue option or perform that action.  Or if your health was too low or Soldier Hardening, and if you wanted to be better, put your stats toward that.  I loved it.  But in ME2, I feel it was simplified or just taken away.  But like I said, I don't if that was EA, or was it Bioware.

 

But with all that being said, no way is ME2 a terrible game.  I still like it very much, as it still beats out 98% of other games out there.  And with all the anticipation of the forthcoming ME3, I'm almost certain it will live up to the hype.  Maybe not to the "back to the roots" of the 1st game like lots of you all including myself wishes, but I'm certain it will not disappoint.  And no, I really don't mind an Action/Adv/3rdPerson RPG hybrid.

As much as it upsets me to see BioWare become even more so "EA", really? You are going to stop supporting BioWare because of this? The people and culture of BioWare are still the same. Their games are still high quality. Don't just brush them off because EA is the publisher. If you ditch any game published  by the major third parties (EA/Activision/Ubisoft), you pretty much brush off the majority of games.

But also think of this. Mass Effect would not be the scale it is without the support of EA. Microsoft did nothing for BioWare for marketing the game. EA's marketing is huge. This has allowed Mass Effect to grow into more than just a game but a whole brand. A universe that was made so massive and detailed is being given the opportunity to take full advantage of that. Sure, the strength of Mass Effect sits with the trilogy, but a universe with so much depth means more games to make, movies, books, comics, etc. To me, it's like Star Wars but better. Of course the strength sits with the movies, but the universe expanded to other media, my take is the games. KOTOR, Battlefront, Republic Commando, and soon SWTOR. Thats what really made Star Wars for me. One of my friends is into the books.

To sum it all up, hate on EA all you want. But without proper support, Mass Effect would have been just a shell of its potential. With BioWare becoming one of EA's Labels, it hurts, but it could also be one of the best things ever for BioWare. Don't just assume it will be terrible. Wait and see before you start judging.

It saddens me, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 forums used to always be filled with joy and people happily discussing the game. But the Mass Effect 3 forums has become a wasteland to the likings of the Modern Warefare or Gears of War forums. Just people constantly proclaiming dissapointment, anger, etc. Its even worse considering the game isn't even out yet. The is the first time I've posted back here in a long time, and only because of this reason.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.