Slashdot Mirror


EA Shuts Down Pandemic Studios, Cuts 200 Jobs

lbalbalba writes "Electronic Arts is shutting down its Westwood-based game developer Pandemic Studios just two years after acquiring it, putting nearly 200 people out of work. 'The struggling video game publisher informed employees Tuesday morning that it was closing the studio as part of a recently announced plan to eliminate 1,500 jobs, or 16% of its global workforce. Pandemic has about 220 employees, but an EA spokesman said that a core team, estimated by two people close to the studio to be about 25, will be integrated into the publisher's other Los Angeles studio, in Playa Vista.' An ex-developer for Pandemic attributed the studio's struggles to poor decisions from the management."

30 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. EA by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    EA destroys and corrupts whatever it touches. A developer being bought by EA is the kiss of death for all their franchises, IMO. The classic example is Westwood Studios and a series that was very dear to me, Command & Conquer.

    At least we'll always have new versions of Madden!

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:EA by Geekner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This shouldn't come as a suprise, look at Pandemic's release history. While there are a few good games here, most of them are quite average to mediocre. They seem to release little other than sequels and middle-of-the-genre titles. I doubt their sales records were spectacular. Thus, when EA started to hurt, they went to cut the least profitable studio.

      I wonder what will happen to their next game, The Saboteur, which is due out in 3 weeks. It is worth noting that they have no other projects announced recently, perhaps this was long on the horizon.

    2. Re:EA by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      Yup...I miss the old Westwood so much. Command & Conquer was such a great series before EA got their hands on it. I was actually recently playing over the original again after downloading it from an abandonware site*, and it's still far better than most of the recent ones. Generals isn't bad, though the whole 'generals abilities' thing and unlimited cashflow buildings take a lot out of the game. But C&C3 and RA3 are both complete garbage. Such a huge loss...

      I still remember playing on...what the hell was it called? Westwood chat? Whatever the hell it was, I remember playing those games online over dial-up back when I was only 8 years old. Ahh, the good old days :)

      And nurple maps...and how incredibly easy it was to mod those games - hell, even at 8 years old I could figure out how to create new units just by editing the rules.ini file. I did always prefer Red Alert though, mostly for the skirmish play.

      *I downloaded it only because it was more convenient. I do actually own the game - 3 copies of it in fact. Two of them are the original DOS version, the third is C&C Gold.

    3. Re:EA by Oewyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While i've been a fan of RTSs since the days of the brotherhood of nod, it does seem to be much more difficult to find good ones these days.

      In particular co-op RTSs seem to be non-existent and most that do support it seem like it was added at the last moment on a whim. If you're interested in a game that has more focus on the S part of RTS, and excellent co-op opportunities, i recommend AI War: Fleet Command. It's an indy game written by a developer who actually cares about it's playerbase(No i'm not that developer, but I do play the game), and makes free DLC available almost every week with bug fixes, gameplay improvements, new units, etc. The gameplay is very asymmetrical. The enemy has already taken over the galaxy and is now distracted with other pursuits. The more planets you capture and the more structures you destroy the more annoyed the enemy becomes, sending larger and more powerful fleets against you. You can't go recklessly taking over every planet you encounter because the enemy would soon be mighty pissed and send everything it has against you.

      It's not for everyone, however you should at least check it out if you're finding the RTS platform has been lacking as of late.

    4. Re:EA by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that the Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights IP is tied to the D&D license - from Hasbro.

      Knights of the Old Republic? LucasArts and Hasbro.

      They'd lose Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Jade Empire - and bunch of technology, naturally.

    5. Re:EA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Westwood and Origin both hung themselves with the rope that EA gave them. Pandemic did the same, as the second link in this story makes clear. All this shows is that when you give people a bigger budget, the problems don't go away, they get bigger too. It has nothing to do with EA buying the studio; having EA around to bankroll the studio just makes the death spiral that much more spectacular.

    6. Re:EA by MemoryDragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the worst example is Origin, instantly after EA bought Origin things went down the gutters, I will never forgive EA for killing Ultima the game series which is the grandfather of all western rpgs.
      Without Ultima 7 there neither would be any Gothic or anything from Bethestha.

    7. Re:EA by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try Warzone 2100, free as in beer and speech. Massively configurable units, a tech tree that's bigger than the NSA's, artillery based combat, and if you don't like it, you've got the source and can pimp it up.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    8. Re:EA by Psychochild · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's interesting is that Bioware merged with Pandemic before being bought by EA. Seemed odd that an RPG developer would get together with an FPS developer like that. Also seems strange that if Pandemic was so poorly managed as indicated in other comments that an amazingly well-run company like Bioware would merge with it. Another oddity here is that Riticello, the current CEO of EA, was one of the people who orchestrated with Bioware/Pandemic merger before EA acquired them and he became CEO.

      Given all these facts the closure of Pandemic could be a deep betrayal or someone getting their freedom after a big payout. Ah, the world of game business.

      At any rate, I keep reminding people that Bioware is now owned by EA. Other studios manage to put out a few good games before they're killed off by EA, too. So, keep hoping the streak lasts.

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
    9. Re:EA by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seems to me that it boils down to building the most powerful units in the largest quantity.

      That's a bit trite. Given the vast tech tree and weapon-vs-target modifiers in Warzone 2100, "most powerful" is largely subjective. What's more "powerful", super-heavy tracked bodies with heavy cannons, packs of light-bodied VTOLS with tank-killer missiles, or swarms of cyborgs with lasers? And how about the decision whether to build mobile units, or to go hog wild on building long ranged fixed artillery and then creep spotters forward?

      It might be possible to win the campaign using nothing but heaviest-tanks-with-heaviest-guns, but you'll lose a lot of them to defences and tank-killer units. Warzone 2100 rewards you for using mixed forces of tanks, VTOLs, AA, artillery, repair units, spotters and cyborgs and deploying them intelligently against appropriate targets.

      The huge maps also provide multiple choke points and opportunities to build forward repair/fire support outposts, rather than the C&C variants where you generally turtle up just your main base and then break one or two decisive choke points.

      If you've just dipped into Warzone 2100, I'd recommend giving it a second look. There's a lot of depth in there.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    10. Re:EA by Nossie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One word:

      BULLFROG.

    11. Re:EA by numbski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have long boycotted EA - anything they make I won't buy, period. They mistreat their workforce, they use business practices that are borderline illegal to illegal (not paying aged football players for their rights and going around them), to just plain evil - like buying the exclusive rights to just about every kind of american football, and to the ESPN name just so they wouldn't have to compete with Visual Concepts/TakeTwo on Madden, after a sound trouncing from NFL2K5, then having the gall to have a shareholders meeting where the CEO says "we have to make sure this is not repeatable" about All-Pro Football 2K8 - essentially then making sure that VC/T2 can't resign those legends to do 2K9/2K10 (whichever release they managed to hit).

      Enough is enough already.

      It's getting more and more difficult to boycott them though. Not because they're making better titles, but because they own or are buying up just about everyone. Rock Band as their name slapped on it. Brutal Legend. I mean COME ON. They get their cut just about everywhere. BOOM BLOX. Freaking Boom Blox.

      I. AM. SO. SICK. OF. EA.

      E. A. Sports. We own the game. All of them.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    12. Re:EA by Nossie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so true....

      I was almost thinking Sims 3 might bring them back into quality...

      Then I found out about them releasing a half finished empty game that micro transactioned you into the ground...

      First sims game I actually bought - and it will be the last.

      Spore was a great idea - that EA management managed to butcher because their 'user groups' felt were too intelligent for the masses.

      Simcity Societies ... what? !

      I realised then, whatever was left of maxis was gone.

      I dont really think the problem is that hard to find... to quote a kotaku comment:

      "Somehow, this pushes EA back towards the top of my hated publishers list"

      Outside of jock sports I believe people now vote with their wallets after being repeatedly raped over stupid release after stupid release watching their favourite brands/houses becoming assimilated. I'm also sure that whenever workers are being told they are being taken over by EA, those that dont jump out the window and commit suicide scurry home to update their resume. Hardly a great work ethic is it?

  2. The 25 employees who remain ... by Haxamanish · · Score: 3, Informative
  3. Re:Good by almechist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pandemic studios never made anything worth having

    I beg to differ. Battlezone 2 was and still is one of the best games ever made, easily one of the most immersive games around, one that never gets stale, which is maybe why it still has a loyal following. What other game from 10 years ago still has new mods coming out, to say nothing of substantial revisions to the original game done by some of the original programmers working on their own time?

  4. They are NOT hurting for funding by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This makes sense. EA is strapped for cash. It's not like they just designed, developed, leased, furnished, and staffed a couple of storefronts on prime real estate to advertise one game to a limited audience.

    Companies don't know how to manage money anymore. Long term gains (like a productive group with experience working together) are traded for short term gains (advertising gimmicks) so often that nowadays it's just the expected mode of operation.

    I don't know too much about Pandemic Studios in particular, but I've been hearing about a LOT of layoffs at EA, and at the same time it's almost like they are throwing money away on brand placement. No company ever thinks to improve their bottom line by steadily generating quality product anymore. The money that goes into solid development is always the dregs of money first given to analysts and marketers.

    I'm normally not a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-establishment labor-theory humanist, but things like this (especially with the oft-cited 'global economy') really and truly make me sick.

    1. Re:They are NOT hurting for funding by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair, there is very little evidence that EA could, in fact, improve their bottom line by steadily generating quality product. Since they've never managed to steadily generate quality product, we'll never know.

    2. Re:They are NOT hurting for funding by wynterwynd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't disagree with your stance on EA, but I don't think that EA spending this money on the storefronts in the article is really a big waste.

      It's a marketing test bed, basically. Some junior executive somewhere "synergized" the apple store concept and made a couple stores to test out EA Active on their target market, namely moms whose kids have Wiis (I have no doubt these stores were in malls), and to get some feedback on the product. The market for that is gigantic and right now there's only Wii Fit and a handful of others to tap into it.

      I don't think a 6 months worth of rent and cheap labor at two locations is more expensive than a large focus study to improve your product or a massive blanket ad campaign that your market won't identify with, each costing millions. Plus their results will be more real and targeted.

      And I think 6 months is a good estimate; they won't be around long, I'm sure. Note the decor from the pic in the Kotaku article. Note the lack of permanent fixtures. Stylishly minimalist, yes. Moves out easily, too.

      EA has to keep trying things like this. It is a giant lumbering beast, borne of an economic boom and grown under those times of plenty. It consumed its kin and grew more massive still, and now it is a large, unwieldy thing and times are getting slim. It must feed on new cash crops, or limbs begin to wither and fall away. So you'll likely see more gimmick attempts to make a signature brand or one-up breakout successes, any attempt to sustain the creature. I don't think they'll succeed. EA doesn't make games anymore, they just buy people who do.

      --
      "Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
    3. Re:They are NOT hurting for funding by Vr6dub · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Shift was a crap game. They released it half-finished, car selection sucks, engine and car tuning is SOOOOO generic, suspension tuning is all bugged out, opposite-lock not required (all cars seem to magically neutral-drift through all corners). I could go on and on. To even suggest that Shift be put anywhere near Gran Turismo or Forza is laughable.

      I will admit I really like the direction they took the series and the game sounded GREAT but I think we'll have to wait for Shift 2 or 3 before they've found the proper recipe.

  5. Re:Good by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Informative

    What other game from 10 years ago still has new mods coming out, to say nothing of substantial revisions to the original game done by some of the original programmers working on their own time?

    4x4 Evo2 http://vales.com/evo2/default.asp

    And yes, I know you were being rhetorical, but you did ask.

  6. Re:Damn it, EA... by Renraku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    EA really is the touch of death.

    They suck up a company and intellectual property, they cut the budgets, take over management of the game, and demand a copy be on the shelves six months from three months ago, whether it's ready to go or not. They'll release an alpha build if that's what it takes, then they'll take it out of the ass of the company they bought when the game fails. They never take responsibility for their actions.

    I pray EA never comes out with a Wing Commander game. The Command and Conquer days have long since been over, the dream has been killed off. I don't want that to happen to Wing Commander. From my experiences with the SNES Wing Commanders and the Privateer games, I hold those sacred in my heart. EA doesn't need to fuck those up, either, but neither will they sell the IP in fears that it might conflict with Madden games.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You...are...so...wrong

      Destroy All Humans 1 & 2 is damn good game series.

    Mercenaries 1 & 2 is also a good games.

  8. Conflict of interest? by xswl0931 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The interesting part of this is that the CEO had EA purchase his old company for a high amount of $$$ and only two years later shut it down while he personally pocketed several million.

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96237-Analyst-Chews-Out-EA-CEO-Over-Pandemic-Closure

  9. From an ex-Pandemite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm an ex-Pandemite.
    For me, the turning point was around 2006, with the new hardware generation. There were lots of really passionate people here, but the development and design methodologies that worked well in the previous gen simply did not scale up with the larger projects, and things got confusing and out of hand. This was compounded by each internal team having their own unique technology and tools. The amount of redundancy, knowledge lost and effort wasted between projects was quite substantial, not to mention a somewhat lack of ownership or accountability. I was hoping that Sab would be the turning point, but it looks like it is not to be (good news is that last I heard, all SKUs are golden). I hope that many will be able to enjoy it.
    What really irks me is that this was a really passionate and talented bunch with so much potential. Definitely the best group I've had the honor to be with, and possibly ever will be.
    Cheers to the 16, 18, and 19.

  10. Re:Good by Pouvoir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Full Spectrum Warrior was quite innovative and in my opinion, one of the best games last generation. I also crack out Battlezone 2 once in a while, and few games have me coming back after such a long time. Unfortunately, it does seem they missed the boat a bit for this gen, but the Saboteur looks quite promising. You may not like the games they have produced, but celebrating the loss of hundreds of jobs is unwarranted. It must be great to celebrate years of work and dedication with a pink slip as your product is about to hit the market, especially with the holidays coming up.

  11. Re:Damn it, EA... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tried to play the SNES version one day, it was not that bad it mostly was a 1:1 port of the PC version, Wing Commander 1 was a very basic game to begin with limited by the machines of that time. Wing Commander 2 was the one which gave the series its good name and Wing Commander 3 was the one which made it famous. (And Wing 4 killed it thanks to EAs heavy influence which you can contribute to everything which sucked at part 4)

  12. Re:Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Star Wars Battlefront I has shit play control and crap camera behavior (not to mention generally shitty graphics.) Star Wars Battlefront II eliminated everything good about the first game (huge maps, more vehicles) but gave great play control and much better camera behavior. It's hard to say either of them is really a fantastic game; if you put the two of them together, you'd have one fantastic title. I have both, can no longer bring myself to play SWBF I as I always feel like it's cheaped me to death, but play SWBF II occasionally when I just want to get in some killin'. It has perhaps the best play control of any console FPS (at least that I've played so far) but the scope is a bit pathetic, especially since the second game is ostensibly based on the same engine, so there is NO excuse for not including all original maps. The original had far MORE maps, also; it's not just that it had a lot of good ones that there's no good counterpart for in the sequel.

    So yes, although SWBF II has good play control, I would say both it and the original are mediocre at best.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Re:Good by Fallingcow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, that's basically my experience with them. I still install & play the first one sometimes, mostly to play single-player with bots and do Hoth over and over, or to play the galactic conquest mode or whatever it's called. It's not a great game, but come on, Hoth!

    II was terrible, though. Maybe it's better multiplayer?

  14. EA reminds me of something by dosilegecko · · Score: 2, Funny

    In one of the G4 TV series code monkeys episodes, one of the game developers, BolecoVision, has its managers using whips and axes to flay and behead its workers who aren't up to par/can't take the stress anymore. This reminds me of EA for some strange reason.

  15. Re:Damn it, EA... by Edgewize · · Score: 3, Informative

    Citation Needed.

    Please provide one example of where EA released an alpha build. Or one example of where EA purchased a game already in development and then immediately diverted funds.

    As much as you would like EA to be the big bad wolf knocking over studios left and right, the facts are that almost every studio that has gone down in flames under EA's ownership has done so due to its own people dropping the ball.

    If you read any of the ex-Pandemic posts you will see that it was local mismanagement which led to poor quality product, not EA interference.

    Likewise if you read the Escapist's article on the acquisition of Origin, one the most important quotes is this:

    Garriott: "We doubled the size of the company from 200 to 400 that first year. We went from 5-10 projects to 10-20, and staffed those projects almost entirely with inexperienced people. It won't surprise you to learn those projects were not well managed. That was totally Origin's fault. We failed, and we ended up killing half of those products. That's probably what set up the EA mentality that 'Origin is a bunch of [deleted],' pardon my French."

    This is a common pattern. EA buys a studio and gives the studio exactly what it wants, and the studio immediately hires new people and doubles its burn rate, spending tons of cash on payroll. And yet at the same time, the number of quality products at the studio declines. Growing pains, inexperienced management, whatever the cause, the result is the same. EA buys a successful studio, gives them money, the studio stops being successful.

    Of course the game will be shipped before the studio says it's 100% done, because the studio is never going to claim that a shitty or buggy game is 100% done. The fact that it is still not a good game after 24 months of very-high-budget development does not mean that EA should pay for another 12 months. It means that the studio failed.