Electronic Arts - Resistance Is Futile?

Thanks to USNews.com for its feature discussing the increasing dominance of videogame publisher Electronic Arts, pointing out that, using figures from its recent financial results, that: "In 1999, EA had eight platinum, or million-plus-selling, titles. In the past year, it produced 27 of them. Back then, EA possessed 10 percent of the North American game market. Today, it has captured 22 percent of it." The article discusses EA's wish "to double the size of the company every four or five years", and also talks about revenues from online gaming, where it's hoped "some 15 to 20 percent of EA revenue should come from... during the next console cycle", despite the "costly failure" of The Sims Online - however, EA CEO Larry Probst "...guesses that future online gaming will follow the cable television model, where you will pay a subscription to access various 'channels' of gaming services"),

Comments

I don't know

[man_ls]

I don't know what it means, but EA is sponsoring a new degree program at UCF, it memory serves me correctly.

Not just a new class or set of classes but a whole new specialized degree.

Bigger is easier

[Tyggyr]

Budgets are getting bigger. Development times are longer. Teams are (much) bigger. Licenses are more expensive. Game complexities are bigger.

As long as those trends continue, and they likely will, EA is one of a vanishingly small number of publishers that can fund a significant number of high-end titles. Few publishers seem able to increase their hit rate, so they need to ship several titles annually in hopes of scoring big.

It'll take an order of magnitude improvement in development tools before the smaller guys can compete at this level. And unfortunately the tools developers haven't stepped up to the plate yet.

Look for more consolidation over the next 3-5 years. It's going to get much harder for the little guy before things start to shift again.

EA's only real danger is its own weight.

Re:Bigger is easier

[linzeal]

A significant amount of effort could be cut from the production of games if more artists were willing to copyleft their works. I once saw 100 different 3-D models to represent buildings in a subdivision casually submitted for destruction after they were finished building it instead at the very least giving it to the citizens so they could have a cool 3-D flyover for their neighborhood.

Re:Bigger is easier

[nelsonal]

This is very similar to Hollywood's maturity from the 30s and 40s to modern day. In the early days of movies, there were lot's of studios and movies were cranked out because they were cheap to produce. Later as budgets became larger, the more successful studios began buying up the smaller studios until only a few big distribution comapnies exist today. As video game budgets increase similar things will happen. Of course, just as Blair Witch gets made for a few thousand there will be occasional game titles that catapult new developers to the big leagues, but they will more than likely do it with the assistance of one of the bigger names.

Re:Bigger is easier

[cujo_1111]

Does that mean the number of blockbuster summer release crap games will increase as the industry 'matures'?

I damn well hope not.

Re:well they did

[man_ls]

EA bought out Westwood, the developers of BF1942, among the two bigger name ones.

I don't think I've played a game recently that didn't have EA at the beginning of it.

Under my guidance Britannia will flourish....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a Larry Probst icon with Borg-like appendages is appropriate for all future EA articles. They're about as aggressive as Microsoft.

Please, I'm not some anti-capitalist rookie, I just think it would be super funny.

How about just a picture of the Guardian from Ultimas 7-9?

Many folks online have drawn parallels between the plight of an EA controlled Origin Systems and the plots of those Ultima games. Pirt Snikwah? The Cube, the Sphere, the Dodecahedronwhatsit?

EA's Law

[schnits0r]

"size of the company doubles every four or five years" (See. Moore's Law)

The Inevitable Shift of Electronic Arts

[MiceHead]

I'm hoping that Electronic Arts's transition from boutique software house to publishing juggernaut leaves room for -- well -- other boutique software houses. Many here must recall the early days of EA. They published titles that their small teams were passionate about; and while I've enjoyed many of EA's recent, grander offerings, they appeal to me in a much different way.

For the time being, the advent of a middleware industry is making it easier -- not harder -- for smaller studios to produce good-looking titles with depth. Consider that there are many audio libraries, 3D engines, and AI middleware libraries which are quite reasonably priced. Smaller studios seem to go strange and wonderful directions with these; (if you haven't already, try some of the Indie Game Jam titles, which make use of a simple, standardized physics engine).

I labor under the impression that the gaming public has a desire for boutique products; if I'm wrong, I don't mind taking my licks and moving to something more productive.

Re:The Inevitable Shift of Electronic Arts

[AuMatar]

The problem isn't the code. Its the non-technical creative aspect. Artwork especially, but sound as well. These are hard to make, and there isn't a corresponding movement to open source in their community. The artists I talked to despised the idea- that they couldn't control exactly how anything they ever created was used down to the last detail. I don't quite understand their viewpoint, but it exists.

Thats the roadblock. Open source and libraries will fix the technical side, the artistic is still up in the air.

Re:The Inevitable Shift of Electronic Arts

[May Kasahara]

The artists I talked to despised the idea- that they couldn't control exactly how anything they ever created was used down to the last detail.

Part of the reason that may be is due to artists' egos ;) As an artist's or musician's work is considered a more "visible" aspect of a game, so naturally they'd want to take full credit. There's also the fact that, with some exceptions, artists aren't used to working on collaborative projects, be they open source or not.

No original thoughts out of Probst or EA.

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for EA for about 3 years. I worked for Kesmai (Legends of Kesmai, Air Warrior, et. al.) for about 5 years before EA bought them.

The "cable tv" model of online gaming pricing isn't any new idea. It's been discussed for at least as long as I've been in the industry. The latest incarnation of it is SOE's "basket" pricing. The biggest (and probably fatal) flaw with the idea is that people don't have the time or inclination to learn or play more than

It's funny that the financials hint at EA wanting ~12% of their revenues to be from online gaming. It's alost pretty funny to see that they only mention The Sims Online as a failed online albatross around their necks. Here's a more complete list: * EA.com - the entire service failed * Majestic - Rumored $9M+ to make. Shut down less than 2 months after launch. * Motor City Online - showed such promise too * Earth & Beyond * TSO - I just don't see how it will ever turn a profit. * UO2 - stillborn The only success EA has had in the pay-to-play online space is Ultima Online. They had Air Warrior with 40K+ paying users dev costs on the running version paid for. They killed it (supposedly) because 40K wasn't good enough. EA.com games were all going to run 100K users. Except for UO they've *never* come close to hitting that goal with a game.

EA can crank out the Madden year after year. They can crank out movie license games too. They know how to do that. They haven't shown that they have any institutional knowledge of the online space, though.

Re:No original thoughts out of Probst or EA.

[Anonymous Coward]

They also killed Privateer Online, Battletech 3025 (MMP Battletech anyone?), and a whole host of other titles. Many of these cancellations were accompanied by the associated teams being laid off. Being a part of EA rapidly came to mean dreading the first quarter of the fiscal year. March is almost always EA's layoff month. It appears that the foolishness of laying off an entire team at one whack hasn't dawned on them yet. Much of their competition in the MMP space (and other markets) has come from ex-EA employees. The Privateer Online team wound up becoming the Star Wars Galaxies team for SOE. The Ultima Online 2 team comprises a large chunk of the developers over at NCsoft Austin working on Richard Garriot's next game, Tabula Rasa. ION Storm Austin recruited much of it's talent from EA layoff's. As did Digital Anvil and Wolfpack studios.

EA's bumbling in the MMP market is often amusing, however, as they can't seem to grasp that it takes longer than a year to produce a MMP product of any worth. On top of that, they seem eternally frustrated by the continued success of the now ancient Ultima Online. EA wants and expects to have 6 month to a year product cycles. To have a game live on for 7 years drives them a bit batty. Not only are they dumb as fence posts when it comes to the MMP market, but they don't listen to those of their employees that have been there before and repeat mistakes made with previous products.

They also tend to be total jerks. When UO: Third Dawn was coming out, they had just laid off the UO2 team (I forget if Kesmai was shutdown that March or the next) and when speaking to the survivors they were asked if the Origin name and logo were going away (it had certainly felt like that for a while). The CEO asked what the employees thought and everyone vehemently expressed their desire to keep the OSI name and logo. At this, he stated that he had a strong belief in the employees of OSI and would make certain that the OSI name and logo continued to exist. Then the Ultima Online: Third Dawn retail boxes were handed out to everyone. No Origin logo...anywhere. No mention of OSI as an entity, studio, nothing. Except in the fine print of the license agreement. Plenty of EA logos everywhere, though (actually EA.com, the bizzare, doomed to failure enterprise that was to be structured around magically converting the 1.5 million unique visitors of Pogo.com, which they had just bought for around $150 million, into $10 a month EA.com subscribers). No subsequent product would ever carry the Origin name. Just this last March, EA shutdown the Origin studio in Austin.

Of the great PC gaming companies of the 90's, EA has taken over and slowly strangled to death Bullfrog, Westwood, Origin, Kesmai, and Maxis among a number of other smaller companies.

Re:well they did

[Quarters]

DiCE, the developers of BF1942 weren't bought by EA. They entered into a multi-year publishing contract with them.

That was a brilliant move by the DiCE guys, as EA has shown that it *always* committee's the purchased studios to death and then axes them.

In my opinion...

[GaimeGuy]

EA is way too big. They eat up small, well-respected studios like a bad habit (Maxis and Westwood are the two prime examples of this). And we all know where the Command & Conquer series went after EA got it. Frankly, I hate EA. Their games all use the same basic engines, yet they can continue to reuse it year after year after year and sell several million copies of games. I mean, I, personally, get sick of hearing people at school talk about nothing but MADDEN, MADDEN, NBA LIVE, MADDEN, TIGER WOODS PRO GOLF, MADDEN, MADDEN, MADDEN. For every Madden EA makes, they make 50 horrible games. I just get sick of seeing them grow and grow. EA is poisoning the industry, and I don't know if it'll ever stop.

Re:In my opinion...

[Babbster]

EA doesn't "eat up" small companies. It pays the proprietors good money for them. If the owners don't like what happens after they become part of EA, that's just their tough luck - they've probably got the scratch to try again with a new company if they really care that much. If consumers don't like it, they can stop buying EA games. As large as EA is, they're still not the only game in town.

Size doubles every 4.5 years?

[-kertrats-]

2004: 22% 2008: 44% 2013: 88% 2017: 176% 2022: 352% 2026: ??? 2031: PROFIT!

Re:Size doubles every 4.5 years?

[istewart]

Keep in mind that the video game market grows over time (or at least should), therefore EA will have to continue to increase their size in order to keep up.

they are a virus

[Anonymous Coward]

EA buys out companies, assimilates them into their huge pile of crap, then has those companies produce cheap crappy sequals to the companies previously awsome franchise, thus producing a "platinum" game, but in the process running that brand name into the ground. Then EA moves on and does it to another company and another franchise

(yes I'm bitter about how westwood studios went down the pipe after EA bought them)

Question for Probst

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me ask Probst this:
Would Arcades have been as successful in the 80's if they charged a membership fee instead of a quarter per play??

One bad thing about EA games is...

[jocmaff]

The User Interface on their games are usually garbage.

I also have one beef about a current release. 2004 Fight Night. While at first it seems amazing later you realize that there really are no custom characters because they all max out at 100 stats accross the board after a few days of play.

the Old EA

[MrLint]

I sorry i miss the old EA. one of my first game purchases was starflight, and i waited eagerly for starflight 2. Racing destruction set on the c64, Theme Hospital by bullfrog published by EA (that i just played again last week)

and no post is complete without the 7 cities of gold and marble madness:)

*sigh*