Sounds like EA is coming to grips with the fact the EA name just doesn't register as "quality." I mean that since the sports divisions faultered EA no longer reigns supreme. When I see the EA brand I no longer think that the game is going to be good. I used to think Ubisoft meant something was going to be good, but no more. It is sad to see these brand names drop. Capcom brings up good feelings. Square Enix is losing it's luster. The game business is so tough. A few bad games can just kill an over all reputation. I do hope that this keeps these big names from rolling out the crap in the future though.

Austin,

I don't think that's really what's going on here, because Electronic Arts is surely going to continue putting its logo prominently on the front of all the games it develops (and publishes, depending on the funding agreement), as well as in a splash screen when the game is loaded up. Now it's just "Electronic Arts and Visceral Games present" rather than "Electronic Arts and EA Redwood Shores present" or what have you. Most average gamers already don't bother learning what studio develops a particular game, so I can't see this move having much effect on them.

"Most average gamers already don't bother learning what studio develops a particular game, so I can't see this move having much effect on them."

All companies have more stakeholders than consumers though. Names are meaningful and significant components of brand identities. They are also intellectual property. If this renaming is any indication of a new brand strategy to be rolled out worldwide, what does that mean for new and existing EA studios, such as in terms of autonomy and rights issues?

I think companies are realizing having similar names is a bad idea. bad studios/products drive the brand down more than good studios bring it up. Having unique names allows for name recognition from the public for the great studios, but one or two bad eggs can erase that goodwill. Plus employees feel slightly less like a cog in the great EA machine.

Good for them. It is good to get a better hold on the creative identity that they work under.

Now, can we have Dead Space 2 please? The original Marker is still out there and there are freaks to dismember. They should leave the game play alone because if it is not broken the should not try to "fix" it. Just make the story deep, dark, and crazy as hell. ;) Because we all know Issac is loony as a sh*t house rat after the first game. Descending further into madness like in "Eternal Darkness" would be fun.

Average gamers don't care about names: Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. Those are names average gamers care about a great deal. After them, EA and Ubisoft are the most well known. Other names that register with huge numbers of gamers: Blizzard and Square Enix. EA rules the sports name game world. Ubisoft is attached to Tom Clancy. Blizzard and Square Enix have WOW and Final Fantasy. Ninteno: Mario. Microsoft: HALO (most people think). Sony: OMG?

I think the masses do care about names. How about all those Sims gamers, they don't know EA is attached? Madden faithful don't know EA Sports rules that roost?

And all these names are very important by the symbiotic relationship between company and quality of game. It is no different than brand recognition for cars and trucks.

Consumers are more savy than just: hey that's a fun game, duh I'll buy it. Nope, they are thinking wow, I like EA the Sims, I might like Spore. But if you burn them. It hurts the brand. Name recognition as it is tied to quality is crucial.

If I was the Dead Space developer I would be doing the same thing. Even if EA's trademark is prominently displayed, right now based on EA's drop in popularity and quality of many, many of it's titles, -- I would be trying to distance myself from EA.

The Visceral name is a great idea. It pulls me away from that bland conglomerate name that just means diluted games for the uneducated masses, yes that is what EA means now. Just ask any Madden fan what they think EA has done for their cash cow, I mean, wink, franchise.

"Those are names average gamers care about a great deal."

Yes, there are outliers. Frank N. Magid Associates published a report for the 2006 MI6 conference that suggested only 2% of buyers consider the publisher or developer when purchasing games. Online sources, such as Joystiq, paint a different picture, but keep in mind their specific audiences. Magid suggested that 25% of buyers are trendsetters whose haunts are such sources.

I just want to say I believe the name change is a strong decision for EA Redwood Shores, now Visceral. I am one of the 2%-25%, as referenced by Morgan, that does incorporate the brand name into my game buying choices. This by no means suggests that I am a big brand name follower, however brand names can be a good indication of the quality of game you're going to get. Now, I personally will read a number of reviews from different sites and magazines before making a purchase, simply because I don't have the money to just blow it on any game. However, as of recently, EA has been slacking in many of the their titles, which does make me more cautious when looking to buy a game of theirs. However, even though published by EA, Mirror's Edge was developed by DICE, a trusted name in gaming which has always put out a pretty strong quality of game, therefore I trusted Mirror's Edge would follow suit.

Also, I agree with people in saying that the name change is good simply because it gives consumers a more focused idea of the kind of game you're going to be getting. When you see a game is developed by Ubisoft or EA, you don't know what you're going to get, it could be anything from a Tom Clancy game, to the Sims, to a Ninja Turtles game, to Football game. By renaming and channeling their creativity, it gives the consumers a clear idea of what they will get.

At the end of the day though, it's all about the games that get put out there, and if those games are quality, it's hard to care what studio they came from.....Does anyone know who or what studio made Braid?...probably not, but it's a damn great game.

I think it's a great decision on EA's part. Last couple of years, it would seem to me that EA is trying to copy UBISOFT's success in creating strong, original IP, and DEADSPACE was a great example of this. With separate development houses doing the "licensed" stuff, it makes sense that the Madden and movie licensed games would carry the "EA" logo, while the original stuff would go under studios establishing their own identity. It reminds me of Disney's "Touchstone Studios" label or Sony's "Columbia" brand.

I hope it works out well for them.