EA: "Nintendo is the leader, they are getting HALF our emphasis from now on

BIGGEST Publisher to shift half its focus to Wii

According to IGN.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/950/950903p1.html

UK, February 4, 2009 - EA's John Riccitiello has spoken of how the publisher is to place half of its emphasis on the Wii, as it looks to 'rival Nintendo on their own platform'.

"Nintendo is the leader; they're getting half our emphasis in terms of title counts," said Riccitiello in the company's Q3 earning call, picked up by videogaming24/7, confirming that the hugely successful console will be a key platform for EA.

A Wii version of the space-bound survival horror Dead Space, announced in the same call, appears to be one of the first signs of this new focus.

That means fewer EA games on the real consoles.

Sounds good to me.

That means fewer EA games on the real consoles.

morewasabi

hmmm.... instead of just porting over a game, maybe they should be working on a new IP that actually is built around the Wii Motion Controls.

But yeah, this is good news for Wii owners. Maybe others will follow suit and Wii will start seeing some games that I'm actually interested in.

Recently, Sega's CEO said to IGN that original IP wasn't received all that warmly last year and that the reception to said games might have repercussions. Looks like he was right.

What a shame. EA offered up some quality original games last year (Dead Space, Mirror's Edge and Spore spring to mind) and they've picked up the latest Doublefine game (Brutal Legend), so its clear to me that at one point EA was targetting gamers looking for something besides the latest sequel (which is more than can be said for say, Activision or to a lesser extent Ubisoft).

I don't think gamers are to blame or anything (if a game doesn't appeal to a guy, I can't blame him for not buying it) but I also can't blame companies for deciding to rebalance their releases towards safety (cranking out first person shooters on the PS3/X360 or minigame collections on the Wii and safe sequels on all platforms) and telling more of their innovators 'no'. And minigame collections are cheaper than shooters.

While they may continue to make games for the PS3/X360, such games will be developed with an eye for the Wii, and the hardware capabilities are so radically different that EA's future hardcore games will have little value for PS3/X360 owners. This is a sad day. Hardcore gaming is poorer for the loss of EA.

That means fewer EA games on the real consoles.

Sounds good to me.

morewasabi

Took them a while, but only matters if it's a good "half". Master-Thief-09

Recently, Sega's CEO said to IGN that original IP wasn't received all that warmly last year and that the reception to said games might have repercussions. Looks like he was right.

What a shame. EA offered up some quality original games last year (Dead Space, Mirror's Edge and Spore spring to mind) and they've picked up the latest Doublefine game (Brutal Legend), so its clear to me that at one point EA was targetting gamers looking for something besides the latest sequel (which is more than can be said for say, Activision or to a lesser extent Ubisoft).

I don't think gamers are to blame or anything (if a game doesn't appeal to a guy, I can't blame him for not buying it) but I also can't blame companies for deciding to rebalance their releases towards safety (cranking out first person shooters on the PS3/X360 or minigame collections on the Wii and safe sequels on all platforms) and telling more of their innovators 'no'. And minigame collections are cheaper than shooters.

While they may continue to make games for the PS3/X360, such games will be developed with an eye for the Wii, and the hardware capabilities are so radically different that EA's future hardcore games will have little value for PS3/X360 owners. This is a sad day. Hardcore gaming is poorer for the loss of EA.

CarnageHeart

EA sucks. Instead of looking for ways to make good games, and invest in their customers, they are looking for a way to make easy money to make their investors happy, and if that means show stocks for 100, but with a real value of 50, so be it.

They are losing money now, but the sales of EA´s games are great (millions of copies sold), and that´s because they empty the company´s pocket with a corrupted administration, that steal the money and blame it on "the crisis". To add insult to injury, they fired a lot of employees to cover that fact.

It´s funny, but Nintendo it´s the opposite of EA: Nintendo do great and polish games, understand their customers, and have a healthy company full of people who love games, and not only money.

The party is over, EA. I will never buy a game made by you in the future, untill you care about games and gamers.

The party is over, EA. I will never buy a game made by you in the future, untill you care about games and gamers.

MartinCaillou

As a matter of fact, yes indeed.

Dead Space, Fifa 09 and played the mirror´s edge demo.

Dead space is Resident Evil 4, plus Bioshock, plus Alien: it turn out really good, but it was not creative. Sorry. It was an intent to copy succesfull games and make a buck doing so.

FIFA 09: was the best game in the series, but yet the same old game (i prefer PES 09).

And Mirror´s edge... looks to linear to me, and it didn´t interested me enough to buy it. That one, is innovative, i agree with you in that one.

Besides, EA sucks, but 1 out of 10 games are ok, and the games will go on in other studios if EA falls, wich i hope.

Good games will never dissapear. Bad companies should.

Poor performance? their games did really well, compare the millions of units they sold and compare them with other companies. If hey lose money it´s because the administartion don´t do right their job. They bought and destroy competition instead.

They don´t sell as much games as before, because 70% of their games suck or are the same garbage they put out the previous year, and 70% of people is bored and tired of EA and the way they do things.

They want my buck? Then EA has to stop loving ONLY money.

\Besides, EA sucks, but 1 out of 10 games are ok, and the games will go on in other studios if EA falls, wich i hope.

Good games will never dissapear. Bad companies should.

MartinCaillou

As a matter of fact, yes indeed.

Dead Space, Fifa 09 and played the mirror´s edge demo.

Dead space is Resident Evil 4, plus Bioshock, plus Alien: it turn out really good, but it was not creative. Sorry. It was an intent to copy succesfull games and make a buck doing so.

FIFA 09: was the best game in the series, but yet the same old game (i prefer PES 09).

And Mirror´s edge... looks to linear to me, and it didn´t interested me enough to buy it. That one, is innovative, i agree with you in that one.

Besides, EA sucks, but 1 out of 10 games are ok, and the games will go on in other studios if EA falls, wich i hope.

Good games will never dissapear. Bad companies should.

MartinCaillou

Don't buy yearly installments of sports games, and expect them to reinvent the wheel every year.

BIGGEST Publisher to shift half its focus to Wii

TheNextOrder

Skylocke, some aclarations:

I said that EA loves ONLY money. That´s what i think because i see their priorities. Other companies love it too, but, Nintendo, for example, love the games they made, and try with respect the consumers.

You said that EA did a lot of great games in 08, please, Dead space aside, could you tell me wich ones? Please. I want to know.

And my attitude towards EA it´s consequence of what i feel about them, because i played their games, and read about what they did as a company in the past, and worst yet, what they plan to do in the future. My opinion it´s just as passional as your defense of EA. The difference i see, it´s a give plenty of reasons why i don´t like EA, and you didn´t justify your defense.

I challenge you again: EA did more than 20 games in 08, can you tell me wich of them you think are great? Or better yet, tell me what EA decisions you like (i hope you don´t agree with the fire people part).

Translation: GodModeEnabled

right in the money my friend

[QUOTE="MartinCaillou"]

\Besides, EA sucks, but 1 out of 10 games are ok, and the games will go on in other studios if EA falls, wich i hope.

Good games will never dissapear. Bad companies should.

Skylock00

Also, just to add on Skylock's reply. EA just doesn't make games, they're a great publisher and distributor.

They distribute the Valve games like Left 4 Dead and the Orange Box. They also distributed Rock Band, and they published Crysis. And they made some great titles like Dead Space, Skate, Burnout, and Boom Blox. They also took the most chances last year even taking up Brutal Legend. I know everyone already said all these things but the point is, EA isn't that bad. They're good and doing better.

I used to criticize them too, but not anymore.

And another note on Dead Space. Just because you (to Martin, not to Skylock) think it lacks originality or borrows from other games doesn't make it a bad game. You know that almost every game borrows from other games. Why accuse only Dead Space? Just because it's from EA?

Nintendo, for example, love the games they made, and try with respect the consumers.

MartinCaillou

Um...don't think so. Maybe in the past, but if you still think that way than you have to re-examine what Nintendo has been doing the past two years.

EA sucks. Instead of looking for ways to make good games, and invest in their customers, they are looking for a way to make easy money to make their investors happy, and if that means show stocks for 100, but with a real value of 50, so be it.

They are losing money now, but the sales of EA´s games are great (millions of copies sold), and that´s because they empty the company´s pocket with a corrupted administration, that steal the money and blame it on "the crisis". To add insult to injury, they fired a lot of employees to cover that fact.

It´s funny, but Nintendo it´s the opposite of EA: Nintendo do great and polish games, understand their customers, and have a healthy company full of people who love games, and not only money.

The party is over, EA. I will never buy a game made by you in the future, untill you care about games and gamers.

MartinCaillou

I'm sorry but your arguments here are horrifically poor and backed by flimsy rationales.

Every business is propelled by money and if you are going to criticize EA for not respecting their customer base in pursuit of financial gain then where do you find the audacity to claim Nintendo is anything but a complete and total sellout? Did you happen to see the 2008 Wii lineup? If you didn't I'll give you a hint: it sucked. Hard.

EA had an incredible year and most of their product was top shelf.

- Battle Field Bad Company- Excellent FPS with solid multiplayer.

- Dead Space - Probably the best survival horror game in years.

- Mirror's Edge- Conceptually brilliant game with a radically different slant on the FPS and a well-implemented time trial component to expand replay.

- Burnout Paradise- Despite weak demo, an outstanding addition to the series replete with insanely extensive, free DLC.

- NHL 09 - Probably the best Hockey game ever made. The execution of this game is simply superb.

- Army of Two - Vastly underrated title with some truly amazing co-op game play.

The entire "I hate EA" thing is the mantra of the misinformed. EA outpaced most other publishers in 2008 in terms of quality and innovation and games like those posted above prove to me that EA cares more about their consumers than Nintendo does. I've been buying Nintendo products for 20 years and how do they respond this holiday season?

Answer: WiiMusic.

As to business practices, times are tough and layoffs are plentiful. Any company that is having financial difficulties is forced to slash costs and that reality is unfortunate but inescapable. If you don't think these "other" companies you refer to wouldn't do the same thing if necessary (and some already have) you are living in a fantasy world.

I always felt that the EA hate was overblown and ridiculous but given their recent renaissance, the idea of them being loathed for the reasons you list strikes me as flatly nonsensical. If EA is the bad guy then Nintendo is the Prince of Darkness.

Recently, Sega's CEO said to IGN that original IP wasn't received all that warmly last year and that the reception to said games might have repercussions. Looks like he was right.

What a shame. EA offered up some quality original games last year (Dead Space, Mirror's Edge and Spore spring to mind) and they've picked up the latest Doublefine game (Brutal Legend), so its clear to me that at one point EA was targetting gamers looking for something besides the latest sequel (which is more than can be said for say, Activision or to a lesser extent Ubisoft).

I don't think gamers are to blame or anything (if a game doesn't appeal to a guy, I can't blame him for not buying it) but I also can't blame companies for deciding to rebalance their releases towards safety (cranking out first person shooters on the PS3/X360 or minigame collections on the Wii and safe sequels on all platforms) and telling more of their innovators 'no'. And minigame collections are cheaper than shooters.

While they may continue to make games for the PS3/X360, such games will be developed with an eye for the Wii, and the hardware capabilities are so radically different that EA's future hardcore games will have little value for PS3/X360 owners. This is a sad day. Hardcore gaming is poorer for the loss of EA.

CarnageHeart

I think this is a rash decision on EA's part to just shift their development resources to the wii and in a way abandon the HD consoles, most of their current IPs cater more to a more hardcore userbase than those who buy a wii. Unfortunately it's a matter of simple economics but then EA will likely lose even more mindshare to Activision in terms of their PS3/360 software penetration. The advantage of wii development is that it's cheaper to make games on the wii, so it might not be an advantage to devote more resources to wii games, the low budget is what's helping wii games since they're cheap to make and you don't have to sell a ton of copies to recoup development costs. Porting up wii games will create the problem for EA that their games simply will not be competitive on HD consoles, franchises like Medal of Honor already lost so much mindshare among shooter fans that resorting to porting up from the wii will likely kill any good will left for the franchise, would a battlefield game even be competitive on the wii?

It's not like there isn't competition on the wii either, just because Nintendo is making a KILLING on the wii doesn't mean other third-party publishers will, that has always been the case on Nintendo platforms, Nintendo games sell extremely well but only a select few third-party titles actually thrive on a Nintendo platform. EA's development teams making stuff like Battlefield and MOH aren't exactly built to make games like wii fit/play/sports. Maybe they should test out the waters with the Dead Space port before going ahead with their plan.

Sorry guys, but all that you say doesn´t reflect the reality of the facts.

Fact: EA lost money in 2008, and fire employees.

Fact: Nintendo sales are on the sky.

So, if EA is so great and make excelent games, and Nintendo is so bad, why this happen? I don´t agree with you but i respect your opinions, it´s just that they are minority.

And in response to EA do this, EA do that: Everything EA does, can be done better with another company. Thank God they are not the monopoly that they try to be.

Fact: EA lost money in 2008, and fire employees.

Fact: Nintendo sales are on the sky.

MartinCaillou

Sorry guys, but all that you say doesn´t reflect the reality of the facts.

Fact: EA lost money in 2008, and fire employees.

Fact: Nintendo sales are on the sky.

So, if EA is so great and make excelent games, and Nintendo is so bad, why this happen? I don´t agree with you but i respect your opinions, it´s just that they are minority.

MartinCaillou

That's really not fair or reasonable to compare to what EA has done with what Nintendo has been doing.

First of all, Nintendo made it very clear they are reaching out to the casual market, which they have proven, is a bigger market than the hardcore gaming crowd. Secondly, not all of Nintendo games are good nor are they accepted by gamers. Aside from Smash Bros. Brawl and maybe Mario Kart, all Nintendo really did last year was casual stuff. And they've been riding on past titles for the last two years like Wii-Play and Wii-Sports. So you can't say Nintendo is making excellent games because they really haven't made anything new. They didn't even release a major holiday title, unless you think Animal Crossing or Wii-Music was a major release. Another huge release Nintendo brought out was Wii-Fit, and that isn't really a game either.

But in contrast, look at the titles EA put out. Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Army of Two, Boom Blox, Burnout Paradise, and a bunch of others that are all real games for the hardcore market. Like I mentioned before, EA also distributed Rock Band and Left 4 Dead. Even Boom Blox, which is a casual title is much better than any of Nintendo's casual titles. But sadly, it didn't sell. And just because Nintendo games sold more than Boom Blox doesn't mean they're better. It just means that the market is very wierd sometimes and that Nintendo's first-party has always been dominant on Nintendo's consoles.

You really can't come in here and tell me with a straight face that Wii-Fit, Wii-Music, Animal Crossing, or Mario Kart are better than Dead Space, Boom Blox, Burnout Paradise, Rock Band, or Left 4 Dead just because they sold more. That's ridiculous. It's just a shame casual people overlook truly great games like Boom Blox and would rather buy Wii-Play instead. And Rock Band is successful, yet people would rather get Wii-Fit, which is beyond my human comprehension. Does that mean EA is doing wrong and made bad games? Of course not. Super Smash Bros. Brawl is the only great true Nintendo game, which wasn't really made by Nintendo either but from a developer called Sora. Other than that, EA actually made better games than Nintendo did all year long. They just didn't sell, which is a real bummer.

It's not EA's fault. I truly commend them for reaching out with newer IPs and taking more chances than any other developer last year who played it safe. Sales doesn't mean squat. I hope you don't consider Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts, Grim Fandango, or Little Big Planet as bad games, because based on your reasoning, they are because they weren't commercially successful. That doesn't make sense does it.

That means fewer EA games on the real consoles.

Sounds good to me.

morewasabi

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]

BIGGEST Publisher to shift half its focus to Wii

Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="MartinCaillou"]

Sorry guys, but all that you say doesn´t reflect the reality of the facts.

Fact: EA lost money in 2008, and fire employees.

Fact: Nintendo sales are on the sky.

So, if EA is so great and make excelent games, and Nintendo is so bad, why this happen? I don´t agree with you but i respect your opinions, it´s just that they are minority.

ASK_Story

That's really not fair or reasonable to compare to what EA has done with what Nintendo has been doing.

First of all, Nintendo made it very clear they are reaching out to the casual market, which they have proven, is a bigger market than the hardcore gaming crowd. Secondly, not all of Nintendo games are good nor are they accepted by gamers. Aside from Smash Bros. Brawl and maybe Mario Kart, all Nintendo really did last year was casual stuff. And they've been riding on past titles for the last two years like Wii-Play and Wii-Sports. So you can't say Nintendo is making excellent games because they really haven't made anything new. They didn't even release a major holiday title, unless you think Animal Crossing or Wii-Music was a major release. Another huge release Nintendo brought out was Wii-Fit, and that isn't really a game either.

But in contrast, look at the titles EA put out. Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Army of Two, Boom Blox, Burnout Paradise, and a bunch of others that are all real games for the hardcore market. Like I mentioned before, EA also distributed Rock Band and Left 4 Dead. Even Boom Blox, which is a casual title is much better than any of Nintendo's casual titles. But sadly, it didn't sell. And just because Nintendo games sold more than Boom Blox doesn't mean they're better. It just means that the market is very wierd sometimes and that Nintendo's first-party has always been dominant on Nintendo's consoles.

You really can't come in here and tell me with a straight face that Wii-Fit, Wii-Music, Animal Crossing, or Mario Kart are better than Dead Space, Boom Blox, Burnout Paradise, Rock Band, or Left 4 Dead just because they sold more. That's ridiculous. It's just a shame casual people overlook truly great games like Boom Blox and would rather buy Wii-Play instead. And Rock Band is successful, yet people would rather get Wii-Fit, which is beyond my human comprehension. Does that mean EA is doing wrong and made bad games? Of course not. Super Smash Bros. Brawl is the only great true Nintendo game, which wasn't really made by Nintendo either but from a developer called Sora. Other than that, EA actually made better games than Nintendo did all year long. They just didn't sell, which is a real bummer.

It's not EA's fault. I truly commend them for reaching out with newer IPs and taking more chances than any other developer last year who played it safe. Sales doesn't mean squat. I hope you don't consider Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts, Grim Fandango, or Little Big Planet as bad games, because based on your reasoning, they are because they weren't commercially successful. That doesn't make sense does it.

Ask, I think you are making a mistake when you assume that Martin is a gamer. Clearly he is either a stock analyst (profits=quality) or a fanboy grasping at straws. Either way, I'm surprised you and others in this thread have wasted so much (virtual) ink on him.

LOL. It´s truth, i think it´s useless to keep this on. Everyone it´s taking this way too far. Me included. I have my opinion, and you have yours. I can make an autocritic, maybe my points of views were exaggerate. Sorry if it felt that way. But i still think that Nintendo do better games, and respect the customers, and EA doesn´t.

For those who understood what i was saying, and those that expressed their opinions with respect, we´ll see you again in another topic.

But, for those who were unkind, and said things like i´m not a gamer (because i don´t think like you!), well, it´s really your problem. Hope you can deal with that intolerance, it´ll make you lose a lot of possible future friends.

LOL. It´s truth, i think it´s useless to keep this on. Everyone it´s taking this way too far. Me included. I have my opinion, and you have yours. I can make an autocritic, maybe my points of views were exaggerate. Sorry if it felt that way. But i still think that Nintendo do better games, and respect the customers, and EA doesn´t.

For those who understood what i was saying, and those that expressed their opinions with respect, we´ll see you again in another topic.

But, for those who were unkind, and said things like i´m not a gamer (because i don´t think like you!), well, it´s really your problem. Hope you can deal with that intolerance, it´ll make you lose a lot of possible future friends.

MartinCaillou

I very clearly laid out why EA respects their customers far more than Nintendo so where's your response to my argument? Merely saying Nintendo is better and EA sucks doesn't really qualify as much of a thesis.

Dead space is Resident Evil 4, plus Bioshock, plus Alien: it turn out really good, but it was not creative. Sorry. It was an intent to copy succesfull games and make a buck doing so.

And Mirror´s edge... looks to linear to me, and it didn´t interested me enough to buy it. That one, is innovative, i agree with you in that one.MartinCaillou

I have to agree with these points. Dead Space may be an original IP, but the game itself is far from creative or original. It was little more than EA's jump on the Resident Evil 4 bandwagon just as The Godfather was to Grand Theft Auto. These types of games may be new for EA, but not new for gamers. That, of course, does not mean they're bad games.

Mirror's Edge was a truly creative title, but it was a step backwards as much as it was a step forwards. The game features absolutely archaic trial and error design which in my book equates to bad design.

I also don't understand the poor performance argument. Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are million sellers and Spore sold over 2 million thus far. Those are very impressive numbers (especially for Mirror's Edge considering the type of game it is - short, linear, outdated design).

Personally, I think it simply boils down to the fact that EA cannot ignore the fact that Nintendo enjoys the largest console userbase right now. And to be perfectly honest, I really doubt this sensationalistic statement means all that much. The top creative talent at EA will still probably retain the freedom to choose what kind of games to make and what platforms to make them on (or at least have the opportunity to convince the suits to believe in their vision). EA still has the resources to distill those ideas to other platforms (as they did with Spore and now Dead Space).

I'm much more worried about other recent announcements which indicate that EA might go back to extreme franchise milking which would be a shame. They just announced four Need for Speed titles and just as many--if not more--Battlefield games - two of which are almost identical (Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield 1943).

What a shame .... and EA appeared to be making so much progress in 2008. Ah well, I'll miss 'em.

Sadly, I predict this will be a trend. Expect to see more of the publishers and developers we love allocating a hefty portion of their efforts and funds toward the Wii and the Wii crowd. As long as their endeavors aren't too successful, the hardcore can expect to retain some substantial attention.

It makes perfect sense ... the biggest platform gets the lion's share of development time.

Just look at the PS2 from last generation; resources were allocated in exactly the same way.

It makes perfect sense ... the biggest platform gets the lion's share of development time.

Just look at the PS2 from last generation; resources were allocated in exactly the same way.

Dire_Weasel

Who the h*** cares? As long as great games (read: Dead Space, Crysis, Mass Effect...) keep coming out for other platforms, I won't mind at all.Gammit10

I think I'll wait to see if Luigi makes a guest appearance in Mass Effect 2 before I worry. For all I know "half" could mean their sports franchises, as I'm sure they acount for more than half the company's revenue. But I just can't see EA telling Valve that Episode 3 has to be compatible with the Wiimote...I'd love to be there for that conversation. Ricci can't even get Newell to port his company's games to the PS3. We'll probably see less "experiments" like Mirror's Edge, which sucks, but companies like BioWare and Valve will be free to do as they please creatively. Really, when it comes down to it, that's all I really care about anyway. Wii fans are more than welcome to future renditions of LotR Conquest.

As for Wii ports causing 360 and PS3 counterparts to be dumbed down technically, I doubt it. Even the snakes at Eidos still managed to pump out a technically strong 360 and PS3 showing of TRU even as they delivered a Wii version. EA might be sloppy at porting games across consoles of the same generation, but they won't make the mistake of skimping a whole generation's worth of technical details with an audience that will eat them alive for it. I dunno; we'll see. Like I said, I want to see the plan in practice; words are more open to interpretation.

Who the h*** cares? As long as great games (read: Dead Space, Crysis, Mass Effect...) keep coming out for other platforms, I won't mind at all.Gammit10

But I just can't see EA telling Valve that Episode 3 has to be compatible with the Wiimote...I'd love to be there for that conversation. Ricci can't even get Newell to port his company's games to the PS3.Ish_basic

EA has no say in Valve's decision-making process in any way, shape or form. EA doesn't even publish Valve games, but merely distributes them.

I have to agree with these points. Dead Space may be an original IP, but the game itself is far from creative or original. It was little more than EA's jump on the Resident Evil 4 bandwagon just as The Godfather was to Grand Theft Auto. These types of games may be new for EA, but not new for gamers. That, of course, does not mean they're bad games.

Mirror's Edge was a truly creative title, but it was a step backwards as much as it was a step forwards. The game features absolutely archaic trial and error design which in my book equates to bad design.

I also don't understand the poor performance argument. Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are million sellers and Spore sold over 2 million thus far. Those are very impressive numbers (especially for Mirror's Edge considering the type of game it is - short, linear, outdated design).

Personally, I think it simply boils down to the fact that EA cannot ignore the fact that Nintendo enjoys the largest console userbase right now. And to be perfectly honest, I really doubt this sensationalistic statement means all that much. The top creative talent at EA will still probably retain the freedom to choose what kind of games to make and what platforms to make them on (or at least have the opportunity to convince the suits to believe in their vision). EA still has the resources to distill those ideas to other platforms (as they did with Spore and now Dead Space).

I'm much more worried about other recent announcements which indicate that EA might go back to extreme franchise milking which would be a shame. They just announced four Need for Speed titles and just as many--if not more--Battlefield games - two of which are almost identical (Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield 1943).

UpInFlames

What does it take for a game to be considered original? Dead Space's strategic dismemberment doesn't revolutionize the subgenre, but its a fun twist and while it shares the same 'jump-scare' philosophy as RE in terms of pacing its quite different from RE4 (and judging from the demo and reviews, RE5). Dead Space, kind of like Silent Hill and Siren, is a game which shares a genre with RE without merely aping it.

As for Mirror's Edge, it wasn't for me (I'm not a huge fan of platformers) but as I've said before, I don't see old school game design (old games derived their length from challenge and forcing players to learn levels and patterns whereas modern games derive their length more from sheer length and multiple pathways) as being a bad thing now and again. I may have died a bajillion times before I finished Ghouls n' Ghosts, but I enjoyed the climb (and felt really good when I got to the top of the mountain).

Like you, I fear that of the consequences of EA's disappointment is going to be an overrelience on franchises (and I stated in my first post in this thread, innovators will hear 'no' more often).

P.S. - Nice user icon.