I haven't been able to write like I've wanted; it's been frustrating because there have been many thoughts swirling around this grey matter I call a brain. I'm preparing for the aforementioned trip to the UK; recovering from the holidays (the activity made me ill); and there was the press event I attended for CDV Games. I like CDV, they're good people. They're primarily a publisher so their games are often hit-or-miss but you can't fault them for not making an honest effort for each of their titles. I like publishers that are good to their developers, honest with them, and still hold to their contracts. More integrity like this in business - not just gaming - would make the world a better place.

It was at the press event in San Francisco that I spoke to two other members of the press about something that had been swirling in my head for a while. EA Games. They're a giant in this industry and have been for some time. I follow them as best I can. They send us an inordinate amount of press releases; of course, they publish an inordinate amount of games. But, they're not particularly forthcoming with product for reviews. Nor are they responsive to requests. (If a publisher reads this, a simple, "I'm sorry, but we can't provide you with that as this time" rather than complete silence goes a long ways towards a positive reputation with the press.)

I run a Tier 2 site. This means that we really don't rate their time. They want "quick and dirty" reviews that are all about the "shinies". I hate shinies; I want to talk about the game. That's ok, I really don't fault EA. It's becoming an (unfortunate) common trend with the larger publishers.

Anyways, I've been noticing that over the past three years or so of acquisitions, re-naming of said acquisitions and launch of product that EA's actual quality of games has steadily decreased to the mediocre. Mediocrity isn't bad in a start-up; it's the kiss of death in a multi-million dollar conglomerate. They pump out sequel after sequel with incremental improvements - or in the case of this year's sports line-up, removal of features - and fewer and fewer new IPs. When they do have a new IP, it's through acquisition and they re-brand the studio immediately.

I think this last part is the problem.

You see, the consumer doesn't often look at brand name, not really. But, if pushed hard enough, there is brand recognition. And EA has forced that. In the past, when they were building their "empire" it worked for them. However, now that the quality of their titles has slowly declined and fewer and fewer new titles are being produced the net effect is that "EA" is a problem. If they hadn't re-branded every single studio to the EA brand then the mediocrity of the titles would be diffuse and spread out over many different labels and EA wouldn't be the recognizable factor. What once was a strength is now a liability.

The writers I was talking to thought it would make a great editorial. I told them they couldn't steal my editorial! But...today I found this: Analyst: EA Brand Tarnished. Convergence is lovely.

And you know what? This isn't new. Vivendi/Universal used to be a powerhouse. But, a succession of poor games that they published (but were smart enough not to brand) was bringing them down. (VUGames had other issues to be sure but this was certainly a problem.) They owned the brand Sierra Games, a studio which they closed two years ago but still had rights to; no more VUG, hello Sierra! Many gamers have very fond memories of Sierra and this will only help them long term.

However I'm not sure EA "gets" it. N'Gai Croal of Newsweek is a respected reporter who I've followed since he joined the publication. He's published a 3-part interview with Larry Probst, CEO of EA and it's like the Giant who can't see the Lilliputians. The man is just out of touch.

I guess all this rambling is because I see this as worrying. Infrogrames bought the Atari name (which hasn't been owned by Atari since 1964) because Atari used to mean something. Now it means half-assed games. VUGames had to change their name. EA needs to wake up.

And yet, shouldn't the answer be to make better games? Stop sacrificing quality for quantity?

And if you're going to buy a studio, great - fund them! But allow them an identity of their own. Microsoft has historically left it's studios with their own identity. We in the consumerist press and the hardcore gaming enthusiast may know that it's not quite that simple but the majority of the people who truly matter - the people who BUY games, they look for names like Bungie, Rare, Ensemble (ok, maybe not Ensemble) but it's not Microsoft they're looking for unless it's Flight Sim.

There's a lesson in here to be learned somewhere...

Today "concise" eludes me.