I believe it would be more apt to compare to BioWare's {BW} experience. I am new to Divinity but I have played BW's games for a while.
I was apprehensive when E.A. {Electronic Arts} bought them out. I read a little of BW's experience and it is rather interesting and basically the following.
Everyone blames E.A. but they are barking up the wrong tree for the most part. E.A. itself is a conglomerate corporation and fails to make any games. It is a bean countor distributor/publisher of games. The studios it owns make games.
BW {BioWare} said E.A. pretty much leaves them alone as far as what games to make and creative licenses. I am sure if they failed as much as Mythic; Then E.A. may want to 'merge' them with another studio. Instead, BW is a great success for E.A. and ironically E.A. merged Mythic into BW.
Free Market with myriad amounts of competition is something I favor a great deal. Thus I am all for Larian, Bethesda, Obsidian, et cetera all going their own way and refusing to sell out to E.A. or any other conglomerate corporation. I just wanted to say that to dissuade the notion I am supporting E.A. However, I also disfavor hating on corporations for the sake of their profits and capitalism.
This is extracted from the site I posted earlier:
Why the holy-fire view of William M. Hawkins III, founder of Electronic Arts? Because (as this exec explained) EA meant to win in the computer game business not only by making good games, but by preventing competitors from making good games too - by actively interfering with their ability to do business. As one example, EA had filed a frivolous lawsuit against Origin. Forced into a costly out-of-court settlement, Origin execs asked Trip Hawkins why he had allowed the suit; he responded, "This is just business. This is the way we're going to win."
Furthermore, EA was all about marketing. For Hawkins the question was never, "How good is this game?" It was always, "How can we sell this?" To high-minded execs at Origin - makers of the Ultima and Wing Commander series, the high priests of the high end, who valued commitment to an artistic vision - this attitude was sacrilege.
Even without EA's intervention, EA still had the final say as a publisher especially being owner or parent of those studios for that matter. Deadlines? Let's extend it or release it (usually release it and release other content for DLCs later). Manpower? Let's put some to online gaming first and neglect single player (why Ultima 9 was not welcomed by the community and Origin studios got sank for that matter). Cancel the game? It didn't sell well so we'll cancel it (
Threaten the fans for its success).
I didn't say I hate EA or any for-profit big corporations. What I didn't like is how they sacrifice a quality of the game with their direction. They also have the notion that making online games is the holy grail of gaming. For cash grab it is, but the quality of the game is being sacrificed for a quick return.
Sims 4 was initially developed for an online platform. The reason why the foundations of the game fell short was for that reason. Dungeon Keeper was also ruined because it was developed for a mobile platform. Command and Conquer was discontinued because it will be an F2P RTS and the community didn't like it. Mass effect 3 ending would also be different had there no intervention from EA. You know what happened with the release of Sim City and et cetera.
In fact, D:OS would also have been a disaster had it not for the kickstarter and early access release from Steam. Especially the early access because people have tried it out and gave out feedback.
I like kick starter since I have seen both Obsidian and Larian use to get more investment capital for games. I think that basically gives game studios less incentive to be absorbed into a conglomerate corporation.
I also like kickstarter. It gives marketability for the product as well as the funds. Don't forget steam early access.
Dragon Age and Mass Effect are on both consoles and I have yet to hear BioWare or E.A. complain about the game sales for consoles. Both games are as fast, or slow, as the gamer wants it to be. Limiting a game to just the PC fails to make sound business sense; Even Blizzard has realized this and is releasing their Diablo to both PS4 and XBox1. Bethesda is releasing their Elder Scrolls Online to both consoles too.
I'm really not against console releases once it has been released for the PC first. PC games are easily patchable and won't cost a dime a compared to console releases. Additionally, PC users would also enjoy full interface as compared with a limited interface a console user will have. I will probably see a limited interface with a D:OS console release like changing hotbars into quick keys or dial keys just to satisfy controller support.
Talking about ESO, they had a disastrous launch during the PC. Lot of bugs and exploitable glitches. Good thing they moved the console release to iron out first the bugs or it'll hurt them in the long run.
