Shem wrote:
/cry
Take-Two board rejects EA bid
Activision Blizzard is still one damn big company. It just seems like EA is taking complete control because they make more of the games that gamers like us like.Blehm98 wrote:
/me wonders when EA's going to take over enough for congress to step in and complain
Last edited by Poseidon (2008-03-26 12:20:25)
Not they're telling shareholders to reject the bid. It's up to the shareholders.kptk92 wrote:
Take-Two board rejects EA bid
They will when they rush developers to release a half-tested game.Mitch wrote:
EA is a publisher. Not a game coder. They won't cause bugs to magically appear.
They're good at making money. That's what businesses tend to do... Make money.steelie34 wrote:
it has nothing to do with the fact they only publish games. it's the way they do business that fails.
WRONG! EA publish AND develop games. I suggest you visit their site.Mitch wrote:
EA is a publisher. Not a game coder. They won't cause bugs to magically appear.
I'm not a business expert, but paying people to make patches and add updates has a 0% profit margin. Once you've paid for a game, they've got your money. As long as they keep a game semi-decent, people will pay for servers. Which is how EA work.HurricaИe wrote:
A good publisher would make sure that its developers make quality games and fix issues as quickly as possible (read: not how long it took for DICE to fix fuckin BF2 1.3)
And Jord, surely a business that works like Valve (they're usually nice) or Harmonix (they've been really good with fixing people's Rock Band controllers) would make more money because they don't treat their customers like shit, right?
No profit margin, no. But if it keeps the people happy (and 1.3 was a far cry from even a quarter-decent), then those customers will want to do business with them again.jord wrote:
I'm not a business expert, but paying people to make patches and add updates has a 0% profit margin. Once you've paid for a game, they've got your money. As long as they keep a game semi-decent, people will pay for servers. Which is how EA work.HurricaИe wrote:
A good publisher would make sure that its developers make quality games and fix issues as quickly as possible (read: not how long it took for DICE to fix fuckin BF2 1.3)
And Jord, surely a business that works like Valve (they're usually nice) or Harmonix (they've been really good with fixing people's Rock Band controllers) would make more money because they don't treat their customers like shit, right?
Indeed you are correct. This is the exact reason they are starting up with this payable content updates. Basically the only way companies are willing to update games is for more money.jord wrote:
I'm not a business expert, but paying people to make patches and add updates has a 0% profit margin. Once you've paid for a game, they've got your money. As long as they keep a game semi-decent, people will pay for servers. Which is how EA work.HurricaИe wrote:
A good publisher would make sure that its developers make quality games and fix issues as quickly as possible (read: not how long it took for DICE to fix fuckin BF2 1.3)
And Jord, surely a business that works like Valve (they're usually nice) or Harmonix (they've been really good with fixing people's Rock Band controllers) would make more money because they don't treat their customers like shit, right?