Feature: 1P vs 2P #6 - EA
Posted 14 Sep 2008 at 21:36 by Tom Phillips
Contributed to by 1P and 2P
A necessary evil, or a mistaken force for good? 1P and 2P debate the Core gamers' most debated third-party: the behemoth that is EA.
2P: It's a big enough target!
1P: It's impossible!
2P: Always with you what cannot be done�
1P: Pff. Talking of big enough targets, bought the latest FIFA yet?
2P: No. Why would I buy it?
1P: I don't know� maybe because you're a slave to the corporate machine?
2P: Actually, that takes us back nicely to big targets: what's with the EA hating?
1P: I hated EA before it was fashionable!
2P: You hate anything that you think dilutes the market.
1P: Well don't they? Yearly updates, cross-platform editions, tired graphics and a lack of new ideas can only damage the market as a whole. Instead of supporting smaller developers, the public only get to hear about the big boys.
2P: The lower profile houses still churn out classics that sell well regardless. I agree that EA have almost a stranglehold on the sport market, but is that really such a bad thing?
1P: Two words: healthy competition. No competition means no need to innovate and no call to change a predictable formula.
2P: Did you even play FIFA 2008? It had motion controls! Motion!
1P: You forgot to put "badly executed" before "motion controls".
2P: At least they tried, and it certainly worked a lot better than PES, didn't it?
1P: No.
2P: So did!
1P: No.
2P: They did! Unless you were a great big arm-flinging imbecile� oh, I see how you wouldn't go for them, yeah. Must have been an incredibly stressful experience for you.
1P: Smaller dev companies mean more growth in the creative end of the market. If there were only a couple of large houses doing all the work, then the need to innovate goes right down. These boys would get so big � like EA, that brand alone would be enough to sell their product.
2P: I see what you're saying, the smaller companies have more incentive to push the boundaries of creativity amongst hundreds of competing products.
1P: So you're agreeing with me?!!
2P: Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you? I agree that you have a point, but I don't agree with your overall argument. In fact, let me turn it on your head for you. These big, high-profile companies like EA produce games of admittedly questionable quality, but what they do make are games that get a lot of people interested in the industry. Perhaps some guy walks into his local shop to buy Madden, while waiting in line a little game called "Timesplitters 3" catches his eye. The boxart is nice and the splurge on the back is welcoming enough to make him give it a try and suddenly your big evil corporation has made a sale for your little software company behind a café.
1P: How likely is that? Casual gamers don't really spend that much on gaming.
2P: Where's your proof?
1P: My proof is shut your pie hole!
2P: But by your definition, would you not say that Nintendo are big and evil? Constantly updating old franchises and rarely coming up with anything new, it sounds like anyone else, really.
1P: What did you just say about Nintendo?
2P: Nothing! Just saying that your terms seem to fit Nintendo just as well as EA.
1P: �
2P: I mean, look at Animal Crossing: City Folk, structurally its exactly the same title released on the N64 years ago, then on the 'Cube, then again on the DS.
1P: You know I know where you live, don't you?
2P: Yes.
1P: Well: now REGGIE KNOWS!
2P: Really? Your personal friend, the Reggienator?
1P: �
2P: Come on.
1P: It's a cool name for a goldfish, okay?
1P and 2P invite you to air your feelings about the subject below...
Missed previous issues?
