Maybe EA is trying to turn over a new leaf - adding a ton of talented, independent minded studios to their fold. EA will do well to essentially operate like Sony's worldwide studios - do the publishing, marketing and distribution for lots of other studios exclusively and also developing titles in-house. In that case it could be good for everyone - the studios themselves can focus more on content, on making great games, and less on making sure they see the light of day.
Not that I...
Weird. Intel's cool though so maybe good news for everyone.
Aren't you assuming that everyone owns a 360? And that all they want to do is watch upscaled DVDs, and nothing in HD? For the $49 plus the cost of the cheapest 360 - $279 - you're already over the price of other upscaling DVD players, or Blu Ray players - and you are within $70 of a PS3 - which upscales, plays Blu Ray movies and games.
I just think your logic is a bit flawed.
That's still pretty pricey for a paperweight. No thanks :P
That's too bad - he was one of the few execs that was worth listening to. Hopefully he's on to better things.
Maybe he was just playing devil's advocate to a degree - that would make a lot of sense in the context of GDC. But yeah, outside that contact it sounds pretty dumb.
"Why should we develop for home?"
"Umm, because people will like it? You know, if they like you games they buy them? Uhhh..."
@ 6.1 - you must never have tried to use the D-Pad for quick select in Oblivion :)
These bitbag people can barely string a sentence together, but I bet they are getting a lot more traffic from this sort of flame-tastic speculation.
I'm pretty sure that if you tried to fight with chainsaws they would bounce off each other and injure those wielding them pretty badly.
Does PhyreEngine require a dev kit?
Personally I didn't feel like Gears set the bar for anything in the first place and I don't expect Gears 2 to raise the bar on anything either. The amount of marketing hype around Gears is just obnoxious - let the game speak for itself, don't tell us how awesome it is - we can decide for ourselves.
This is coming from someone who didn't like Gears 1 very much - I know a lot of you did - so just take it for what it's worth.
I believe Activision actually has the Bond license for games. Rare owns the code, and Microsoft owns rare - but Nintendo published the game. Additionally the actors retained rights to their likenesses.
Nintendo is not cool with a game they published coming out on another system.
I'm not usually one to complain about submissions, but this is just blatant Spam. Look at the image for goodness sake! The "story" is post from a blog about how you should buy a magazine? Can you hear they Python's singing?
We can only hope it's as awesome as the music video!
That's so cool.
Trying to decide whether Hillary or Obama is more shady is kinda like deciding which poop smells worse. Yeah one probably does, but they are both still poop.
And I agree, the Clintons - were they not the Clintons - would (should) probably be in jail.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Vote Ron Paul.
Vote Ron Paul!
Holy crap! Gears 2 has destructible environments!! Amazing technological advancement (if all you've ever played is Gear 1).
:P
Sour grapes much?
Of course competition is good. My point was more about competitive advantage. EA is good at publishing and marketing, and not so much at making creative content. So if EA sticks to what they are good at and the studios stick to what they are good it then everyone stands to gain from it.
Ideally EA, or another such company, would exist just to provide top tier publishing etc. for independent studios. Studios would have more creative control and a company like EA wouldn't need to b...