The Idle Thumbs Podcast Episode 6: Shoveling Your Hat and Crow

[syntheticgerbil]

Well, EA doesn't really make games, so he's wrong anyway.

[Sully907]

I want to say one of the first EA partners games was timesplitters future perfect back on the ps2/xbox. That was a good start. They didn't actually call it EA partners then though.

[Marek]

  syntheticgerbil said:

Well, EA doesn't really make games, so he's wrong anyway.

???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts#Studios_and_subsidiaries

Wait, maybe you were trying to be wrong on the internet? If so that'd be pretty meta.

[Garple]

  Marek said:

Wait, maybe you were trying to be wrong on the internet? If so that'd be pretty meta.

That's a spicy meta-ball!

[Thompson]

  GrouchoClub said:

That's a spicy meta-ball!

[syntheticgerbil]

  Marek said:

???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts#Studios_and_subsidiaries

Wait, maybe you were trying to be wrong on the internet? If so that'd be pretty meta.

Ergh, I guess I should have expected this. They aren't *really* a dedicated developer, so that's why I said they don't "really" make them. I do realize somewhere out there EA must have a dedicated EA employee that is making a dedicated EA game with his business card saying "EA GAME DEVELOPER."

That list you sent, without clicking on all of the items, are just mostly studios they bought out and renamed or they are smaller publishing branches of EA. They aren't really in the habit of setting up studios themselves as EA GAME MAKING STUDIOS and then working away on something.

I'm sure one of their subsidiaries that they developed from the ground up in the 80s does this somewhere but I looked around a while back and couldn't say I solidly found anything that regularly made games from then until now.

EDIT:

Okay, I was wrong, found one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA_Montreal

And it gives out my reasoning:

  Quote

It is one of a few examples where EA created a new studio instead of acquiring one. In 2006 with the acquisition of Jamdat, its Montreal offices were moved to the location of EA Montreal studio.

And go figure, they make games I don't give a shit about.

Even their biggest one, according to Wikipedia, EA Canada was once Distinctive Software until they were bought out.

EDIT AGAIN:

Looking through the list more, the actual list of EA developed games from studios they didn't buy out to chose from is confined to EA Montreal and Visceral Games (formerly EA Redwood Shores). So, I guess you could lump in the games from the other 40+ studios they bought out over the past 25 years all as EA made games but then by that standard you could make any argument about EA's game quality ever with that amount of different developers and studios under one hat.

Edited April 20, 2010 by syntheticgerbil

[Bury]

  syntheticgerbil said:

So, I guess you could lump in the games from the other 40+ studios they bought out over the past 25 years all as EA made games but then by that standard you could make any argument about EA's game quality ever with that amount of different developers and studios under one hat.

Huh, nobody is making this argument.

I guess you're right that publishing games is not "making games" per se but it's pretty reasonable to say that EA is makingpublishing some pretty good games now.

[syntheticgerbil]

  Bury said:

I guess you're right that publishing games is not "making games" per se but it's pretty reasonable to say that EA is makingpublishing some pretty good games now.

Yes I will agree with the latter.

[Alex P]

I finally got the reference to Jake's laugh and the ensuing "holding a raptor claw."

Also, HOLY SHIT JEFF GOLDBLUM IS THE CYBERWIZARD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51WO8GOIKfA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51WO8GOIKfA

Edited April 29, 2010 by Alex P

[Marek]

syntheticgerbil: so, basically, they do make games. Lots. Internally. Does it really matter whether the studios were once acquired or built by EA from the ground up? It seems like kind of a random criterion. Many of the studios listed have been part of EA for years, sometimes over a decade, so you can expect them to be fully integrated into the EA structure with product development processes and decisions occurring from within the company. Saying they don't make games just isn't accurate.

However, obviously it's correct to say that games published under EA Partners weren't made by EA (I personally think some of the best games they've published have come from that label.)

[Sleepdance]

  miffy495 said:

The best nicknames just fit and need no examination of their origins. You can't force them, and you can't explain them. Just roll with it, there's no need to examine everyone's nickname.

For some weird reason I've been called smiley by couple of people for quite some time now. And the fun thing is that I can be extremly sarcastic and pessimistic for long periods of time.

[syntheticgerbil]

  Marek said:

syntheticgerbil: so, basically, they do make games. Lots. Internally. Does it really matter whether the studios were once acquired or built by EA from the ground up?

Yes because I think those studios are still their own studios whether EA used divide and conquer tactics to take them over or not.

It would be inaccurate to compare each development house to another for instance because even though they are all under the same EA brand, they wouldn't be making similar games.

I don't think it's fair to act like they really are out to make games. They are foremost in the business of "owning a bunch of shit." It's the American way.

It would be like saying Sony BMG makes music, when they really don't. They are just a large entity that owns a fourth or more of all of the major music labels out there. Sure they have a producing crew that finds pretty teenage faces and write for them, makes their backing tracks, and auto-tunes them, but they also own a lot of artists who were artists with or without the label. The artists wouldn't usually be branded as SONY. People don't run around saying SONY makes some great music they have some great music developers (besides the stock holders and upper management I would suppose).

So basically I'm saying big business entities that attempt to own everything can go shovel a ton of dicks down their throat, because I don't think they count as legitimate makers of anything just for the sake of grabbing everything they could wrap their money hands around.

So yeah, you're right they do make games the way Disney makes games, but I'm not going to recognize the studios they own as anything more than who they were before they were bought out.

Edited April 20, 2010 by syntheticgerbil

[Chris]

  syntheticgerbil said:

Yes because I think those studios are still their own studios whether EA used divide and conquer tactics to take them over or not.

It would be inaccurate to compare each development house to another for instance because even though they are all under the same EA brand, they wouldn't be making similar games.

I don't think it's fair to act like they really are out to make games. They are foremost in the business of "owning a bunch of shit." It's the American way.

It would be like saying Sony BMG makes music, when they really don't. They are just a large entity that owns a fourth or more of all of the major music labels out there. Sure they have a producing crew that finds pretty teenage faces and write for them, makes their backing tracks, and auto-tunes them, but they also own a lot of artists who were artists with or without the label. The artists wouldn't usually be branded as SONY. People don't run around saying SONY makes some great music they have some great music developers (besides the stock holders and upper management I would suppose).

So basically I'm saying big business entities that attempt to own everything can go shovel a ton of dicks down their throat, because I don't think they count as legitimate makers of anything just for the sake of grabbing everything they could wrap their money hands around.

So yeah, you're right they do make games the way Disney makes games, but I'm not going to recognize the studios they own as anything more than who they were before they were bought out.

There's a difference between contracting musicians and actually having full-time game developer employees at internal studios. Electronic Arts employs thousands of actual game developers. Electronic Arts makes lots and lots and lots of games.

Also, what about the numerous studios that have been part of EA for so long that they no longer employ any of the employees that worked there before EA first acquired them? How can you possibly still consider that to still be the studio that existed before EA bought it?

[syntheticgerbil]

  Chris said:

There's a difference between contracting musicians and actually having full-time game developer employees at internal studios. Electronic Arts employs thousands of actual game developers.

Why's that? The rights to the music and recordings is owned by Sony. They pay for the studio time, the producer and engineer's salary as well as the marketing and manufacturing.

  Chris said:

Electronic Arts makes lots and lots and lots of games.

...through buying out companies that were making games before EA put down their dollars.

  Chris said:

Also, what about the numerous studios that have been part of EA for so long that they no longer employ any of the employees that worked there before EA first acquired them? How can you possibly still consider that to still be the studio that existed before EA bought it?

Well since I'm actually not interested in any games developed by EA owned studios (besides Westwood before they were bought out), I don't really consider it much at all either way. I DO consider them some sort of bastardization of what they once were. Either way, one studio owned by EA is most likely not going to have the same production methods or be homogeneous to one of the other 40 studios EA owns.

If I came upon had a lot of money and I bought out EA tomorrow and changed all the names of the companies to GerbilBastard Industries or some sort of merger with that name, would you guys say I make a ton of games, then?

The only way I could really see their takeovers as more "legitimate" would be if they liquidated every studio they bought out and had them join in teams on some main central studio industry, no subsidiaries needed. It seems silly to throw some of their buyouts a bone and let them keep parts of their company identity but to still assume in the end they are EA.

I would bet you two still refer to Pixar as making Pixar movies, not Disney, even though they are in separate studios it's all the mouse's money right now, right?

Edited April 20, 2010 by syntheticgerbil

[Sully907]

That's a very strange attitude to take man, avoiding all EA published games because they are a big corporation/bought out a developer you liked a long time ago. You should really be more open minded then that.

[syntheticgerbil]

  Sully907 said:

That's a very strange attitude to take man, avoiding all EA published games because they are a big corporation/bought out a developer you liked a long time ago. You should really be more open minded then that.

That's not why. Currently, going through Marek's list, I see almost all of these companies just happen to make games that don't interest me. I don't boycott EA. Dante's Inferno is pretty idiotic, but whatever.

I don't know where you got that I don't buy EA published games, because I have bought many games they have published over the years, brand new even for the most part. Many Dynamix games were released by EA before Sierra bought them out (I have also never considered members of Dynamix to be Sierra employees). Hardly any games I own or have been interested in have been internally developed by EA or by a studio they own. I could probably dig at least one up somewhere I'm sure.

Sure I don't endorse oversized business or repeated buy outs and I long for much stronger antitrust laws in the US, but it's not going to solve anything if I refuse to buy games EA publishes even if they are by developers or designers I love.

Edited April 20, 2010 by syntheticgerbil

[Snooglebum]

To counter all this dry production talk, I present to you: Mr. Bucket in the Ides of April. Starring the Idle Thumbs crew as robots.

http://tindeck.com/listen/pxup

[Sully907]

ok I misunderstood, it's just when someone makes a blanket statement they don't have interest in ANY GAME a huge publisher puts out, it makes me raise my eyebrows a little bit.

[syntheticgerbil]

I don't see how that was a blanket statement. I said, "Well since I'm actually not interested in any games developed by EA owned studios (besides Westwood before they were bought out), I don't really consider it much at all either way."

I'd say that's still pretty accurate to how I feel. They've always done much better at publishing than developing. I'm just not interested in anything I actually saw on the lists of games developed by them or their owned subsidaries (Bioware included if you're curious).

[spindrift]

"EA doesn't make games"

"Yes they do"

"No they don't"

"Yes, they actually really do."

"But they don't make games that I like."

[tm_drummer]

this must be said: LOL.

[syntheticgerbil]

  spindrift said:

"EA doesn't make games"

"Yes they do"

"No they don't"

"Yes, they actually really do."

"But they don't make games that I like."

Er, except I'm still not counting all of the companies they own.

Also, I said they don't really make games. Really being the operative word. As in, they aren't really someone you go to to say, "MAN, EA SURE IS A GREAT DEVELOPER." I did say earlier I do realize they make games themselves somewhere buried in all the companies they bought out, but I guess you didn't read that part because you'd rather boil everything I have to say down into you hilarious comment that adds absolutely nothing worth discussing.

[Patters]

  syntheticgerbil said:

Er, except I'm still not counting all of the companies they own.

Also, I said they don't really make games. Really being the operative word. As in, they aren't really someone you go to to say, "MAN, EA SURE IS A GREAT DEVELOPER." I did say earlier I do realize they do make games themselves somewhere buried in all the companies they bought out, but I guess you didn't read that part because you'd rather boil everything I have to say down into you hilarious comment that adds absolutely nothing worth discussing.

You however would not be wrong in saying "EA includes several great developers"

[syntheticgerbil]

I guess you could say "includes," but I'd probably say "owns."

[spindrift]

  syntheticgerbil said:

Er, except I'm still not counting all of the companies they own.

Also, I said they don't really make games. Really being the operative word. As in, they aren't really someone you go to to say, "MAN, EA SURE IS A GREAT DEVELOPER." I did say earlier I do realize they make games themselves somewhere buried in all the companies they bought out, but I guess you didn't read that part because you'd rather boil everything I have to say down into you hilarious comment that adds absolutely nothing worth discussing.

My worthless post was was pointing out the utter ridiculousness of your line of reasoning.

You said EA doesn't make games. That was your original argument. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary you then conceded they do make games, technically, you suppose. But not really.

That is some Ebert grade semantics right there.