Eidos and Square Enix Birth Great Things

tombraiderEidos was founded in 1990 and has been the king of its own destiny since its inception. As part of Square-Enix, Eidos and its destiny were called into question, would they continue to run the show or would they become one with Square-Enix. Square-Enix has come out to say they’ll be leaving Eidos to themselves and allow creativity to flow between the companies.

“This is an exciting beginning to what I believe will be an incredible journey. I am very happy that Phil Rogers has agreed to lead Eidos in what I see as an international marriage between our two companies, a marriage that will give birth to great things. Eidos is a content rich company and a culturally significant business to the Square Enix group.” (kotaku)

Square-Enix is playing it safe with this acquisition because this isn’t a great enviroment for shaking things up internally within a development studio. Eidos is well known for Tomb Raider, Hitman, Deus Ex, Thief and many other great projects and have built a solid foundation for the future.

A mind-share between these two groups is a powerful enemy to the competitors if they’re able to open a good dialog between the two companies and share resources, tools and engines. In a world of cost savings and salary cuts, leaning on each others resources to build a better product is a win.

At least we won’t have to call them Square-Enix-Edios because that’s just a mouthful!

0 thoughts on “Eidos and Square Enix Birth Great Things”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Activision: Cleaning House, Losing StudiosActivision: Cleaning House, Losing Studios

Now that Activision has merged up with Blizzard all under Vivendi it’s time to consider what to do with all the additional overhead, management, internal studios and sheer amount of people working on projects within their organization. In other words, it’s time to trim the fat and get leaned out for the long haul.

This isn’t unexpected news, the only way to grow more effective as a large company is to remove some of the access baggage that can slow you down and let your competitors take control. This is a sad job which nobody takes pride in (most normal people anyway) but it could mean the difference between rising to the top and sinking like a brick.

“We are focused on improving efficiency across the combined organization and are concentrating on businesses where we have leadership positions that are aligned with Activision Publishing’s long-term corporate objectives,” Activision Publishing CEO Mike Griffith said in a statement. (gamespot)

It’s important to be aggressive as a large company, just like you would be as a startup company. There is a reason startup companies grow into powerful competitors that win, grow and eventually become (or be purcahsed by) larger companies.

As part of this move some staff will be migrated to new projects, persumably reporposed into other divisions or allowed to find new jobs somewhere else. This is called “realignment” by those in the management organization, and currently those up for realignment are:

  • Radical Entertainment (Prototype, Crash of the Titans)
  • High Moon Studios (The Bourne Conspiracy, Darkwatch).
  • Massive Entertainment (World in Conflict, Ground Control)
  • Swordfish Studios (50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, Cold Winter)

These realignments along with other organizational changes will effect a few working game titles:

  • Brutal Legend
  • Ghostbusters
  • Wet
  • Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena
  • World at Conflict: Soviet Assault
  • 50 Cent Blood on the Sand
  • Zombie Wranglers
  • Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust
  • Several Xbox Live Arcade titles

At this point we’re not sure which, if any, will continue to be developed under Activision and which will be sold off to other companies or retired. Surely, those money making titles will be sold off if Activision has no plans to finish them.

Again, it’s hard to consider this a bad decision. This is a decision of growth over having too many “Cooks in the kitchen” making soup. It’s better to have rock solid titles of epic proportions than a large pool of mediocre titles with minimal sales and bad reputations, and that’s why they spend a lot of time in the office working on this and having a type of  office chair for long hours on a computer is really helpful in this area.

It’s not that the titles they’re questioning are necessarily bad, but are not the leading titles in their space and are should be either given a stronger team to work on them or retire them entirely. To build a stronger team with passion and direction it might be best to sell the franchise(s) to other organizations so they can do it right with time and attention to detail.

(Thanks, gamespot)

Episode 244: Goodbye 2011Episode 244: Goodbye 2011

It’s the final podcast of 2011, as Jonah, Jordan and Paul will not be podcasting next week. However, there’s plenty of news, reader feedback and a Gaming Flashback of the terrible PlayStation One game, Irritating Stick.

The news for this week includes:

  • EA selling virtual car for $100 in NFS World
  • Modern Warfare 3 beats Avatar
  • Naughty Dog: Move to next-gen is “terrifying
  • Star Wars: The Old Republic sales could already be 1.5M
  • Man sues Sony for ToS update forbidding suing
  • Nintendo only showing E3 Wii U demos at CES 2012

The question of the week is “What game are you most interested in for 2012?” Let us know what you think, and see you in 2012.

PlayStation 3: Not About Quantity, About ProfitabilityPlayStation 3: Not About Quantity, About Profitability

The Xbox 360 price drop rumors flow like water and it’s all but officially been announced at this point. What about PlayStation 3 and their price? No.

Nobuyuki Oneda, the Sony’s chief financial officer said, “our plan is not to reduce the price. Our strategy is not to sell more quantity for PS3 but to concentrate on profitability.” (gamespot) This makes complete sense coming from their chief financial officer, as their motivation is to make money, not lose it.

The question remains, how will they actually make money if they’re no longer in the race for competitive market prices? Considering game licensing must Net them some amount of profit Sony’s idea seems to be the exact opposite of their original PlayStation method: saturate the market and sell them all games.

So far we’ve seen very few “need to have” games for the PlayStation 3 console while Xbox 360 continues to build a substantial library and Wii continues to break sales records for apparently no reason. When a game publisher has to decide on a platform to launch a new game, why would they choose the one that doesn’t care to be competitively priced in the market? The one that doesn’t care about quantity of sales?

Sony intends to reverse the entire razor blade philosophy where one sells a cheap razor and charges users for the blades over and over again. Their take on this concept is to sell really expensive razors and put out small half-quality blades. Is that a good market strategy at this point?