By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
De85 on 09 February 2009
Edit Thread
dbot said:
De85 said:
dbot said:
snipped

 

@De85 - The ability to release the sequels in the trilogy on all platforms is far more valuable than the ability to release the original on the PC.  That is why I think the agreement between EA and MS was purely a financial agreement.  MS didn't have any control over the sequels so why would EA give them control?

 

 

Out of all possible terms for the deal I think financial would be the least likely.  EA is losing money, and MS already has tons of it.  That kind of deal just wouldn't make sense, and is why I think it involved publishing rights for the sequels.  Hell, maybe MS even gave them a little extra cash to even it out, but I see no plausible scenario where EA paid MS.

What do you think has more value the ability to publish the original Mass Effect on the pc, or the ability to publish all of the sequels and market any other assets related to the IP to the PS3?  EA paid a premium for Bioware and cannot justify the expense without marketing its IPs on all available platforms.

Disclaimer: I own all 3 consoles, have never played Mass Effect, will not play its sequels, and I really don't care if it comes out on the PS3.  I am trying to argue the point from the perspective of EA as a business.

 

 

I'm not arguing that point, undoubtedly making it multiplat would make make more money fro EA, but consider the facts:

1. MS did not give away the PC publishing rights for the first title for nothing.

2. MS does not need cash from EA.

The only thing it would have made sense for MS to go after in the PC publishing deal would be rights to future games.  They don't care about making deals that are good for EA as a business, but in bettering the 360's library.