Contributing to the environment is, of course, the economy. However, the success of social gaming is both a symptom of the current climate and a factor aggravating the wounds of traditional game publishers. EA recently announced that it would be released fewer, but better games. While this scaling back of content is a sign that media conglomerates might be able to move in and make some hefty purchases, I wouldn't say that it's an entirely desperate move. As Winkler and Cox explain:
Publishing video games is like making movies: Invest millions developing titles and pray for blockbusters. As in Hollywood, the trick is to establish successful franchises and regularly ride them to riches. Studios look for the next Harry Potter. Game publishers search for the next Call of Duty.
On the other hand, social gaming requires a lot less investment in individual titles, especially at the start. Here quantity -- generally at the expense of innovation -- is a dominant factor. It isn't surprising that traditional published like EA have to move away from a model like that, and personally, I don't think it's upsetting, either.
It's silly to drop all the time and resources to produce a well-polished but terrible game. You can either be the dexterous indie developer that blows everyone's mind with their quirky innovation, or you can funnel millions into creating a breathtaking, blockbuster experience. There is rarely room for middle ground.
I fully support EA's decision to let the smaller companies do what they do best. Their purchase of Playfish shows that they're willing to get into the field of social gaming, without making the mistake of pitting their big titles against the likes of stuff you play for 5 minutes a day on Facebook.
