EA CEO steps down

#4557356 Posted on: 03/19/2013 10:01 AM

---

he'll have plenty time to play SimCity now.

EA CEO steps down

If he can log in

#4557455 Posted on: 03/19/2013 12:58 PM

---

This has probably more to do with the SW: TOR debacle as well as lose franchises (Crysis 3 is bombing and MOH is dead) than SimCity, though SimCity is probably just the final icing on the cake.

#4557461 Posted on: 03/19/2013 01:08 PM

---

Whenever I hear of people resigning, I wonder...why not just do a better job instead of running away? It's harder to find a job after that right?

#4557474 Posted on: 03/19/2013 01:27 PM

---

Two weeks notice sounds more like being fired.

Anyways, he gets a nice fat settlement package of $1.8 million dollars plus stock options.

#4557478 Posted on: 03/19/2013 01:30 PM

---

Because usually the resignation is for public image, behind the scenes they are forced out by the board.

I'm also pretty sure the guy was probably doing the best job he can. Problem is now in days everything is about short term profits when running a company. Couple that with the game industry cost inflating beyond all reason it's becoming very difficult to run a company that produces AAA titles. EA is not the only company with a plummeting stock value or has had financial trouble.

It's funny because people don't want to hear about increased game prices, $70 was the rumor for PS4 launch and people lost their ****. Yet when adjusted for inflation games have never been cheaper to purchase. But then look at the cost of development. Games are nearing $200m in dev costs. From a CEO perspective you need to make the company more money than last year, so what do you do? You DLC it up.

#4557479 Posted on: 03/19/2013 01:30 PM

---

it's about taking responsibility for your failures. and it's not like he needs a job. he's well off.

#4557487 Posted on: 03/19/2013 01:48 PM

---

Because usually the resignation is for public image, behind the scenes they are forced out by the board.

I'm also pretty sure the guy was probably doing the best job he can. Problem is now in days everything is about short term profits when running a company. Couple that with the game industry cost inflating beyond all reason it's becoming very difficult to run a company that produces AAA titles. EA is not the only company with a plummeting stock value or has had financial trouble.

It's funny because people don't want to hear about increased game prices, $70 was the rumor for PS4 launch and people lost their ****. Yet when adjusted for inflation games have never been cheaper to purchase. But then look at the cost of development. Games are nearing $200m in dev costs. From a CEO perspective you need to make the company more money than last year, so what do you do? You DLC it up.

Of course. We've reached a limit where people aren't willing to pay more for a base game...But still demand better and better graphics, storylines, gameplay.

And then they expect magic.

EA tries to pull the money from other areas, like piracy, like DLC, like in-game content, subscriptions..and people get angry at that too. They refuse to pay more, they refuse to allow EA to scrape anything extra, and then they **** all over any non-AAA game. Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large this is the way things work.

At this point, as a game company, the only way to get any kind of support from an increasingly toxic community is to have a major developer or CEO who is outwardly involved, apologetic, and understanding...but still implement many of the same policies anyway, at the same prices.

Single player games, especially PC ones, are almost dead and all of you still sit and look and blame and hate. You hate because you stopped truly enjoying games a while ago. Now you're just a blogger. You're negative because people listen to those who are negative, either to argue with them, or agree. Positivity fades into the background. You used to enjoy these games, and be so excited when they came out. Every game had problems, Diablo III had huge DRM and network problems when it came out but you ****ing love that game because back then, you were a different person with a better outlook on gaming instead of the cynical trash everyone puts out today.

The truth is, AAA and even AA titles, especially offline single player ones just don't make money. They're hardly worth making. Best you can hope for as a developer is that they do -ok- and you sell some DLC with it.

#4557495 Posted on: 03/19/2013 02:00 PM

---

That's like telling someone to just be taller. Some people just can't do it.

#4557509 Posted on: 03/19/2013 02:24 PM

---

When you see a person resigning, usually they have in fact been fired. However to fire someone and have this show publicily provides alot of negative publicity, especially for a company such as EA who is under enough scrutiny already.

I agree though SWTOR was one of the worst (or epic) failures in the game industry and if i recall correctly the fastest MMO ever to go Free to play. EA have only themselves to blame however pushing for tight deadlines instead of allowing companies like bioware to hold back launches to provide us with quality, not bug ridden messes. Best example is Mythic and Warhammer who wanted 6months more to finish the product. EA said no, and the subs ran dry quickly.

#4557511 Posted on: 03/19/2013 02:26 PM

---

Of course. We've reached a limit where people aren't willing to pay more for a base game...But still demand better and better graphics, storylines, gameplay.

And then they expect magic.

EA tries to pull the money from other areas, like piracy, like DLC, like in-game content, subscriptions..and people get angry at that too. They refuse to pay more, they refuse to allow EA to scrape anything extra, and then they **** all over any non-AAA game. Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large this is the way things work.

At this point, as a game company, the only way to get any kind of support from an increasingly toxic community is to have a major developer or CEO who is outwardly involved, apologetic, and understanding...but still implement many of the same policies anyway, at the same prices.

Single player games, especially PC ones, are almost dead and all of you still sit and look and blame and hate. You hate because you stopped truly enjoying games a while ago. Now you're just a blogger. You're negative because people listen to those who are negative, either to argue with them, or agree. Positivity fades into the background. You used to enjoy these games, and be so excited when they came out. Every game had problems, Diablo III had huge DRM and network problems when it came out but you ****ing love that game because back then, you were a different person with a better outlook on gaming instead of the cynical trash everyone puts out today.

The truth is, AAA and even AA titles, especially offline single player ones just don't make money. They're hardly worth making. Best you can hope for as a developer is that they do -ok- and you sell some DLC with it.

I think you're projecting.

Games are great fun, and I do look forward to new releases.

Grid2 in May, for example, I've preordered.

I'd like to suggest that EA needs to change hands, not just who pulls the strings.

Either that, or games producers need to learn how to do it alone without the need of a publisher. I appreciate games cost money to make and market, but surely it's better to borrow and beg a commercial bank or investment to get your AAA product to market?

Or is it that all heads of all companies are fundamentally the same and lack vision?

#4557512 Posted on: 03/19/2013 02:28 PM

---

They have to get someone who at least might maybe play a game just like once or twice a year.
The Bastage let moh die a horrible death like it was runned over in the street and he did not even stop to help.
I';d be like you you and you take him and get the flock outta here

#4557517 Posted on: 03/19/2013 02:36 PM

---

It'll never happen. AAA titles cost way to much to develop and have absolutely zero guarantee of a return, a bank is not going to let you borrow that kind of money for that much of a risk. Valve understood this from the start, which is why they developed their own platform to deliver content and pretty much all their games are low cost development. Just look at 38 Studios for example, hundreds of millions of dollars invested into a game that returned close to nothing. Big publishers like EA are willing to do it because they grew with the industry and know how to market games to be safe and make returns through DLC and means.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way defending EA's CEO, just saying that expecting the current quality of games to remain at the same base price and not having DLC is extremely unrealistic. Either the cost of the game needs to increase, or the quality of the game needs to decrease.

#4557579 Posted on: 03/19/2013 04:05 PM

---

Main problem with today's games is that most can't decrease much further then what they are at release.

Yea cost and development goes up, but majority of games haven't been getting better. Until QA steps up I don't think a base price increase is warranted. And day 1 DLC is just as bad.

#4557594 Posted on: 03/19/2013 04:26 PM

---

It'll never happen. AAA titles cost way to much to develop and have absolutely zero guarantee of a return, a bank is not going to let you borrow that kind of money for that much of a risk. Valve understood this from the start, which is why they developed their own platform to deliver content and pretty much all their games are low cost development. Just look at 38 Studios for example, hundreds of millions of dollars invested into a game that returned close to nothing. Big publishers like EA are willing to do it because they grew with the industry and know how to market games to be safe and make returns through DLC and means.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way defending EA's CEO, just saying that expecting the current quality of games to remain at the same base price and not having DLC is extremely unrealistic. Either the cost of the game needs to increase, or the quality of the game needs to decrease.


EA are capable of doing it, because they have high quantity of titles published every year and have got xmas sewn up tight.

Cost of development is directly proportional to the size of the game you create. Now, if you are trying to have as many levels as the next game in your genre because it gives someone in marketing something to put in the press releases, you will fail. If however you are trying to make an interesting game for $10 that can be completed in a few hours that moves you; you may succeed.

Trying to go out into the world with a kick-ass FPS is very wishful, but building a back catalogue of 2D games which could be sold to the mobile/tablet market and stream users for $10 is totally doable. See: popcap.

From there you could ramp up staff, invest some of the $ into R&D for tools/middleware and one day maybe have a shot at creating an FPS.

At each new stage, you get more funding and the risk is offset by the back catalogue and general marketability of the company.

#4557619 Posted on: 03/19/2013 05:02 PM

---

Cost of development is directly proportional to the size of the game you create.

Uh there is a loose correlation between the two but it's hardly directly proportional. Witcher 1 & 2 both cost $7,000,000 to create roughly. You think Crysis 3 cost that much, despite being like 5 hours long?

And anyway my point is most companies taking that route would have to abandon AAA development, which you agree with me on. I honestly think it should happen and would like to see it occur because there is way more innovation in cheaper indie games then there are in major titles.

Main problem with today's games is that most can't decrease much further then what they are at release.

Yea cost and development goes up, but majority of games haven't been getting better. Until QA steps up I don't think a base price increase is warranted. And day 1 DLC is just as bad.

That's because the cost all goes into artists. You want good graphics? You can throw money at that and make it happen. Like you can hire 1000 people to make new levels all day. But in terms of game design, you can't just hire more people, you need to hire the right people and those people are usually not available.

But yeah the significant majority of the cost of development is in graphic artists. All those textures and polygons and level design cost $$$.