Full said:
Well, uh... that's kind of out of the blue, I guess.
Happy trails, I suppose. Hopefully this means EA won't be as much of a dick anymore. It probably won't do anything, though. I'm not even sure what he did.
He was the boss of the company. It -might- make a huge difference ... or none at all. Really depends on how smart EA's shareholders are about who they get to replace him.
cyvaris said:
NOOOOOO!!
Now who will Jim make fun of?!
Simples - that heavy rain guy (the one who said/implied graphics == emotion) he did a whole episode about.
Him and the Gears of War guy.
EDIT:
Cowabungaa said:
wombat_of_war said:
that was unexpected and good news, his policies have basically alienated gamers and come close to destroying EA
Yeeeaaaah not really. Or at least not exclusively, not even remotely even. Don't forget about the huge team around him and the stockholders he answers to.
Honestly I blame stockholders for a bigger part of the issues than these CEO's. Most of the investors care fuck-all about videogames. They just want profit. No wonder you get a CEO who makes sure that happens. Hence why I wouldn't be surprised if EA gets a CEO now that isn't all
that different.
But here's the thing - he HASN'T turned a profit - or at least, not the profits they where after. The problem is the shareholders are not being logical, and are being self-destructive; The policies of John Ricc and Co look, to shareholder flawed logic, to be sensible and reasonable - DRM to counter pirates, DLC/online passes to tackle the second hand market - but in reality they don't work and anger EA's customers to the point they stop buying.
They aren't voting for profit really, their voting for what they think is profit but is likely ruin. You can be a profitable, even greedy company, and still have great customer loyality; look at Apple, look at Valve, look at all those trainer companies who have thousands of kids buying overpriced shoes.
The problem is not greed vs not-greed, the problem is effective/smart business vs stupid business.
