I don't want to pee on anyones parade but history has shown that studios usually do not survive the death of the parent. Bioware and Maxis will not be dancing on EAs grave because they will have been shut down before that happens. Yes the IP may survive and something like Fallout going to Bethesda is possible (ie it ends up with someone who understands the genre) but it is just as likely that Mass Effect will wind up at We Only Make Shooters Inc.
How to Fix Electronic Arts
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Honestly, I don't even care if the new CEO plays videogames. I just want someone who understands the needs of the community and finds a way to make money without ruining everything.
Maybe Valve could buy up EA...
Maybe Valve could buy up EA...
"Leadership takes vision. And you can't have a vision unless you have passion. The leadership of EA does not have a visible passion for videogames."
I absolutely agree with that statement, and it feels like once a generation (console) or so that this comes out. Then they get complacent and happy to cash-in on that waning passion...then the next console comes out and we rinse and repeat.
I absolutely agree with that statement, and it feels like once a generation (console) or so that this comes out. Then they get complacent and happy to cash-in on that waning passion...then the next console comes out and we rinse and repeat.
You make some good points, but I'm actually going to have to defend EA to a certain extent here. The big problem is that this is not, in fact, a problem unique to the gaming industry as you suggest. Management is inherently an entirely different job requiring an entirely different skill set from the people they are managing. For example, hospitals are rarely managed by doctors. This is for the obvious reasons that doctors have dedicated their lives to being doctors; not only do they lack any training in management, most have no desire to spend their time shuffling paperwork when they could be out doctoring. It can be a problem sometimes, when the management and doctors don't understand each others' point of view, but for the most part it's unavoidable because neither has the skills or inclination to do the job of the other.Shamus Young said:
Gaming is no different. Of course it would be nice to have games companies managed by people who enjoy making and playing games. But those people want to spend their time making and playing games, and they can't do that if they're responsible for the management of a large company. So just as in every other field, the people actually doing the work will stay doing the work, while dedicated managers are employed to do the management part.
I think the main problem with EA isn't that the management don't understand games, it's that they don't understand games but think they do and interfere with their production. As long as both parties understand their respective limitations, they can get on just fine. A developer may not have much understanding of finances, tax codes and various legal thingies, so they need to listen to the managers on those points. On the other hand, the mangers need to accept that they don't know much about games development and need to listen to what the developers say on that front. It's only when one of the sides starts interfering in the work of the other that problems start appearing.
This so much.Antari said:
EA is beyond redemption. It badly, BADLY, needs to go under.
I would squee if I heard Petroglyph bought back Command & Conquer and renamed themselves Westwood Studios.
Hey Shamus, I know don't know if you ever look at the stuff posted here, but aside from yourself and Extra Credits, I have a hard time finding any gaming media that looks at games in such a thoughtful, forward-thinking manner. Admittedly I don't spend my time scouring the net for these kinds of things, but video games aren't my profession and I would rather not spend my time sifting through the same and the hype for something worthwhile. Is there any place you frequent that you could recommend (or frankly, anyone else who appreciates this kind of view of the world of gaming)?
So, exactly like the Starbucks in the real world.Shamus Young said:
Zing!
Seriously. The Starbucks corporation doesn't care about coffee. Fortunately for them, neither do most consumers. This is why they roast their coffee so dark. It's not better. It masks the inferior quality of their beans. The other reason why they're successful is because they mimic the appearance of an Italian coffee shop. They aren't one in reality. More like the amusement park facsimile of one. This works because most of the US doesn't have a strong coffee culture and can tell when it's fake, like Starbucks.
I didn't realize Shamus was posting articles again, he had been away for so long. They are always thought out and well written, thanks Shamus!
This is why I hate EA in a single sentence. This is why we call EA greedy and not Valve. I feel like Valve made a great product then asked "How can we use this to pay the bills?" I feel like someone at EA said "My money fort only has 2 rooms, how can we squeeze more money out of these fools? Guess we will have to make another game."
Another is the marketing method. If marketing were a conversation, Valve came over to my house, brought a coffee and a sample box for me and said "you can buy any of these, look we even reduced the price a stack!". EA came to my house with a gun, bundled me off to the Origin warehouse, pointed a gun at my head and said "LOOK BUT DON'T TOUCH UNTIL YOU PAID FOR IT! WE'RE ON TO YOUR CRIMINAL WAYS!"
Lets boil this down to a single concept that the column strongly hinted at - EA's practices are so bad they made me not want to buy Mass Effect 3 or SimCity 5. Congratulations EA, you win the award for anti-marketer of the year.
You are hoping the IP can be saved. I wouldn't be surprised that if EA were to go under so much IP would go down with it, just because it is so contaminated with EA's bad practises.Cid SilverWing said:
True, Shamus, but to do that would probably uproot more than just EA's CEO. We might be talking a new board of directors too, and I don't think those people are very inclined to give up their seat in a (still relatively) profitable company.
While I'm hoping that EA eventually evolves into the gamer-run company that would benefit the industry, I think we'd have to wait a couple of years for that reality to happen.
While I'm hoping that EA eventually evolves into the gamer-run company that would benefit the industry, I think we'd have to wait a couple of years for that reality to happen.
I strongly disagree with this fearful sentiment. If EA were to go under there would be a massive bid for the IP's and studios meaning a lot of people WON'T lose their job just transfer to a new company. For those that lose their job they will do what ever other person who loses a job does, find another one.Revolutionary said:
I really hate the whole "too big to fail" mentality that cooperations are trying to make people believe. People losing their jobs would be a short term damage to the industry while keeping EA as they are now is a LONG TERM damage to the industry.
The fact DICE had to literally beg EA to give them the go to make Star Wars Battlefront 3 shows us that they're leadership is still woefully out of touch of the gaming culture; that match was made in heaven really and EA didn't see it until they were beat over the head with it by DICE guys.
