Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EA Buys Out a Game Studio After Shutting Another One Down 3 Weeks Ago (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the welcome-to-the-family dept.

EA has acquired the video game studio Respawn Entertainment. "The studio, co-founded by former Infinity Ward chiefs and Call of Duty co-creators in the wake of their departure from Activision, has been bought out in a deal whose total value could reach $455 million," reports Ars Technica. "The news by itself may seem odd, considering that EA shut down one of its other wholly owned studios, Visceral Games, only three weeks ago." From the report: A report from Kotaku sheds light on why EA made the move: as a response to another game publisher, Korea's Nexon, making a formal bid to buy Respawn outright. Nexon currently publishes a mobile spinoff of Respawn's Titanfall shooter series. Kotaku, citing sources close to the matter, claims that Nexon had bid to buy the company outright. EA exercised its contractual right to match the offer, Kotaku says, and it ultimately outbid Nexon. Among other things, the buyout preserves Respawn's continued work on an upcoming EA game set in the Star Wars universe; EA currently enjoys an exclusive license to making Star Wars-related video games, and any takeover by another company would have to resolve whether or how such a project would continue in production. Respawn's Star Wars project still does not have a title, a release date, or revealed gameplay footage. Respawn announced its work on an additional, unnamed VR game at Oculus Connect 4 last month; the EA statement says that project will continue apace, as well.

57 comments

  1. It's what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many have they closed over the years ?

    1. Re:It's what they do by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      EA - Extinguish Again?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re: It's what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL this is the best thing I've seen on slashdot in a while. Beats the old Russia/Trump trolls hands down.

    3. Re:It's what they do by Zephyn · · Score: 1

      Buy 'em and bury 'em. Less competition in the market means that they don't have to try as hard.

    4. Re:It's what they do by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The EA kiss of death is well documented by Forbes and Wikipoodia

      1. Kesmai (2001)
      2. Bullfrog Productions (2001)
      3. Westwood Studios (2003)
      4. Maxis. (2004)
      5. Origin Systems (2004)
      6. Pandemic Studios (2009)
      7. Phenomic (2013)
      8. DreamWorks Interactive (2013)
      9. Black Box Games (2013)
      10. Mythic Entertainment (2014)
      11. Visceral Games (2017)

    5. Re:It's what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visceral was never an independent studio. It wasn't the "kiss of death" for the studio - it was the studio's creator.

    6. Re: It's what they do by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      You may as well ask why bears shit in the woods or racoons rummage through trash. It's what they do. It's instinct.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    7. Re: It's what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Penis bird?
      I've seen handcarved wooden ducks that seem to just be flat on the bottom.
      Then you flip it over and there is a dick recessed in the middle.
      For some reason my aunt had like a dozen of these fuckers around her house. They were all male.

    8. Re: It's what they do by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Anatomically correct drakes?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    9. Re:It's what they do by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Shame about Bullfrog, as now would be a great time for a remake of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., as we look to be heading into that era, in a rather tepid fashion right now as the various corporations that control various governments look to be waging war on each other, the corporations that is via the governments they control, infinite greed simply demands it must occur and psychopathy will ensure it does occur, after a fashion. Early warning and active policing with investigation and prosecution will limit potentially extremely negative outcomes (keeping in mind biological warfare target agriculture, crippling digital infrastructure, directly attacking major investments in third party countries and disabling executive leadership via various means or at least subverting it).

      All the US governments fault when they started to play the privatisation of war and espionage to maximise corporate profits. You have corporations developing and implement the skills and mind set of being permanently at war and with the developed skill of putting it into practise, with their profits being bound to directly actively murdering people. Stupid, stupid, stupid and you will pay a very severe price for that stupidity unless corrective actions are taken. Now that should make for good gaming ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:It's what they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No exactly the same, but Satellite Reign is obviously inspired on it (or some kind of spiritual successor).

    11. Re:It's what they do by GNious · · Score: 1

      Based on this, I'd suggest to give Brigador a try, along with giving the audiobook a listen.

    12. Re:It's what they do by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Add Bioware there.. I might still technically be a brandname under EA, but it is pining for the fjords.

  2. RIP Respawn by HalAtWork · · Score: 3, Funny

    Titanfall 2 was excellent, thanks. Good luck to all employees.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
    1. Re:RIP Respawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2bad their publisher decided to release it in the week between BF and CoD. Maybe it would have done better and they wouldn't have gotten bought out. stupid publisher

    2. Re:RIP Respawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the publisher was?

      Now - what a strange coincidence don't you think?

  3. maybe sherman oaks is cheaper thsn s.f. ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can write off part of the closed studio ? And it bevomes cheaper to close one buy another ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  4. EA Games by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where game studios and franchises go to die.

    It's pretty much all they do today. Find a studio that has a hit or even a hit series, buy them, crank out a few crappy knockoffs with micropayments or "keep paying if you want to get the whole game eventually", until the last fan of the series walks away in disgust, then throw it away and abuse and kill the next good idea someone else had.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:EA Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the reason for the EA sale is because when TItanfall2 was released EA put it up against one of their mega blockbusters. Battlefield 1 I think. Since EA was publishing both they accidentally promoted their game over Titanfall 2.

      Now Respawn are selling themselves to EA and EA are, to paraphrase, saying "well this is the only way we can avoid unfortunate missteps like what happened with Titanfall 2"

      This is the same shit Zenimax does. Work with a studio in some capacity, usually as publisher. Deliberatly torpedo their game to put them in dire financial straits, then offer to buy them to "save" them. Beat them like a dead horse until they stop delivering blockbusters while meddling in every aspect of their development throughout. Then shut the studio down and farm their IP's out to some new shmucks.

      The real sad thing here though is that the guys at Respawn were so completely stupid to sign a deal with the devil in the first place. They started their new studio to get away from one evil conglomerate (Activation) and then immediately jumped into bed with EA. I don't know if that's monumental greed or stupidity, but either way I can't bring myself to feel sorry for them. It's not even like EA did a good job with Titanfall 1 to warrant them signing up for Titanfall 2.

    2. Re:EA Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I miss the time when EA was more known as Electronic Arts and they and Activision actually produced quality games with no gimmicks. Nowadays both companies just do anything they can to grab as much money as they can by being the absolute worst publishers.

    3. Re:EA Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... put them in dire financial straits ...

      ... completely stupid to sign a deal with the devil ...

      Interesting, it's Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) in real life.

    4. Re:EA Games by ckatko · · Score: 2

      "Those who can't innovate, acquire."

      Google. Facebook buying Oculus and Snapchat. AOL in the 90's buying Winamp. The list goes on, as corporations become so large they can no longer innovate (because innovating often requires changing an entrenched corporate culture) so they just start buying.

      AAA studios have been out of ideas for awhile.

      Hell, they always tell us "ideas are dime a dozen" and then you find out Hollywood paid $400,000 for a movie script. Hmm. Perhaps "dime a dozen" is just what they tell everyone to try and make people think their good ideas aren't worth shit to save some money.

    5. Re:EA Games by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. Always struck me as ironic that one of the most highly-regarded publishers of the 1980s- which had a reputation for good-quality games and crediting their authors- went on to become the complete antithesis of this.

      I've heard some pinpoint the change to the early 1990s, around the time of the 16-bit console era (Mega Drive/Genesis and SNES). It's probably not coincidental that- in hindsight- this is around the time they showed the first major signs of what would later become a hallmark- their reliance on franchises- with new versions of the John Madden games coming out every year or so.

      But I suspect it's also no coincidence that this would have happened around the time founder Trip Hawkins basically left the company (according to Wikipedia, his involvement was reduced significantly from 1991 onwards (in order to focus on the ill-fated 3DO) and he finally resigned from the board in 1994). From what I can tell, the original company reflected his vision, and it wouldn't be surprising that with him gone it may have lost its soul.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    6. Re:EA Games by ckatko · · Score: 1

      (Snapchat was a typo from when I was building the comment.)

    7. Re:EA Games by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Yep. I miss the time when EA was more known as Electronic Arts and they and Activision actually produced quality games with no gimmicks.

      Now you have me pondering hooking up the ol' Apple IIGS and seeing decades later if I can manage to get through Legacy of the Ancients.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    8. Re:EA Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideas are a dime a dozen. Working out the details is a bit more difficult...

    9. Re:EA Games by thomst · · Score: 2

      Chris Katko commented:./p>

      "Those who can't innovate, acquire."

      Google. Facebook buying Oculus and Snapchat. AOL in the 90's buying Winamp. The list goes on, as corporations become so large they can no longer innovate (because innovating often requires changing an entrenched corporate culture) so they just start buying.

      Google (by which ITIYM Alphabet) doesn't just acquire companies randomly. It buys companies - mostly start-ups - because it has a use for their technology and talent pool, rather than their products. Often it will simply absorb them into an existing unit. The really innovative ones end up in Project X, Alphabet's skunkworks, where it incubates WAY new tech. (That's where Google's autonomous vehicles - you know, the ones it uses to shoot Streetview footage for Google Maps - originated, for instance.)

      Facebook, likewise, makes strictly strategic purchases. Oculus was acquired because Zuckerberg was convinced that VR was going to be The Next Big Thing. The fact that, so far, VR has mostly been a giant meh is, I'm sure, a surprise to him, just as it has been for Samsung. As the Danish proverb reminds us, "Prediction is difficult - particularly about the future." But, again, there's an actual strategy, and a vision driving these takeovers, just as is the case with Alphabet.

      But AOL was a case of a company whose strategy consisted of confining its customers to a "walled garden" merging with Time Warner because the idiots who ran TW somehow thought that would be a good idea. The two companies had nothing in common, achieved no economies of scale or synergism by their marriage, and abysmally failed to craft a clear, well-thought-out plan for their combined future. Instead, they went on a buying spree, acquiring everything from Netscape to Winamp, and managed (or, rather, mismanaged) to completely devalue every product they acquired. That, in turn, is because they had no fucking clue what made those products special to begin with, and therefore they efficiently smothered the innovators who originally brought them to market by forcing them into the same kind of MBA-driven, management-by-spreadsheet executive culture that Steve Balmer imposed on Microsoft a decade later. Because the actual talent behind those products dived overboard as soon as possible after they were acquired - and no one in the AOL-TimeWarnerpus knew how to recruit and nurture their replacements - development stopped, users abandoned them, and they all wound up as liabilities, rather than assets on the corporate books.

      That's the key difference: Alphabet and Facebook value the technology and talent they acquire. They nurture the talent and encourage development of the technology. (in Alphabet's case, technology and products are treated as separate issues - and the tech is considered the more important of the two.) Unlike AOL/TimeWarner, they both know WHY they're buying a given company, and HOW that company's people and tech are expected to help them achieve their corporate vision.

      They value their new acquisitions. AOL/666 didn't - which is why both Alphabet and Facebook are thriving, and AOL/Timewhatsis are now divorced, AOL is irrelevant, TW has been eaten by Comcast, and all of their joint aquisitions have created only smoking craters in the modern techscape.

      It's MBAs, my friend. They're business killers. Just look at all the value Steve Ballmer drained out of Microsoft during his tenure as CEO ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
  5. Bizzare Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The headline appears to imply that all game studios are equal, which is an absurd proposition. It's like saying that all programmers are equal and that any programmer can be replaced by a H1B who barely speaks English.

    Obviously, the game studio they shut down lacked the skills that EA wanted, while the one they just bought has the talent that EA require.

    I'm not saying this is a good thing, and it will likely result in the destruction of Respawn, but the headline is patently absurd.

    1. Re: Bizzare Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The companies were doing fine until EA purchased them. See opportunists post above. The programmers have 0 to do with this. They were obviously good enough for EA to buy them in the first place. And what about these new programmers? When they milk a game and close the studio, will you use the same excuse?

      The studios do well until EA steps in, applies their micro transaction template to the games, milks them, fans get mad, close studio. It's a proven formula for them.

    2. Re:Bizzare Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not buying studios, so much as licenses and franchises. And maybe a few key staff members.

      Everything else can be thrown in the garbage, EA style. They are modern day corporate asset-strippers.

    3. Re:Bizzare Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not what it's implying. How about this headline:

      Local man courting younger woman after the unsolved strangling death of estranged wife

      Probably could apply to a lot of EA's moves.

  6. MBA by sanf780 · · Score: 2

    Is this one of these MBA things where you try to get the optimum short term benefit at the cost of long term investments? I understand that sometimes you need to cut your losses short, but to sack so many people because some manager took the wrong bet?

    1. Re:MBA by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is this one of these MBA things where you try to get the optimum short term benefit at the cost of long term investments?

      No, because in business school MBAs are taught not to manage for short term benefits. That such a path likely leads to the demise of a company.

      I know that sounds confusing to many. I once believed as you suggested. I spent decades thinking I knew what MBAs were about. Then I went to business school and learned the truth. Part of the fun of business school was laughing at how wrong I was in my various beliefs.

      Let me try to explain it in a different way. Image how technology, science, programming, hacking, etc is portrayed in TV and movies, how journalists describe things in the main stream press. Pretty disappointing huh? Guess what, their portrayal of business and MBAs is just as bad, just as inaccurate.

      So, here's the secret to what an MBA program is. Its not like a normal Masters program where you take a deeper dive in core subjects and a deep dive into some specialty. Its actually a shallow dive into many different unfamiliar topics. Topics that cover a fairly complete range of activities across a company or organization. You take a few accounting classes, are you now an accountant, no. You take a few strategy classes, are you now a business strategist, no. A few management classes, a few marketing classes, a couple economics classes, a product development class, an operations class, an information technology class, etc. Are you now an expert in anything? Not anything you were not already an expert in before you started the MBA program. So what the hell, what's the point? The purpose is that all these different specialties within a company/organization have to coordinate. To better coordinate it helps if they can talk to one another effectively. So a person who was an engineer before the MBA program is still an engineer afterwards. However all those shallow dives into other areas allow the engineer to see things from the perspective of non-engineers. If that engineer has to communicate an engineering issue or need to these others he/she can do so more effectively, can be more persuasive, will likely get the engineering issue/need greater consideration. And conversely when an issue or need from the outside is "more important" he/she is better prepared to understand why. This better understanding might lead to finding a better alternative. So an MBA is really about better coordination and better communication between teams that normally would be somewhat isolated from each other. This can lead to a healthier and more successful company.

      Now some of you are surely thinking about some manager with an MBA who was a complete a-hole, or a pointy-haired boss (FYI, Dilbert is beloved in business schools too). Well, that person was likely an a-hole long before they went to business school. That PHB, likely clueless long before they went to business school. Again, business school doesn't really change who you are, its just supposed to give you new tools and new perspectives. Can it fail to do so, sure, like any other degree program there are ticket punchers who manage to graduate without retaining very much.

    2. Re:MBA by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      An MBA's role is not to make a profit. An MBA's role is to *maximize* profit. That's where the destructive behavior comes from.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:MBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, because in business school MBAs are taught not to manage for short term benefits. That such a path likely leads to the demise of a company.

      If you had more experience working with MBAs when they get into the real world, you'd realize that whatever they're taught, it isn't working.

      Many of us have seen the wholesale destruction they have wrought, running companies into the ground. But weirdly the depth of their failure is the one thing they don't have a KPI for.

    4. Re:MBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what your saying is a-holes and PHBs become MBA

      MBA knowledge of the subjects they "shallow" dive is basically useless as they still know F-all but now get management positions to screw up the work of people who actually know the subject..

    5. Re:MBA by perpenso · · Score: 1

      An MBA's role is not to make a profit. An MBA's role is to *maximize* profit. That's where the destructive behavior comes from.

      Not to the extent of "destructive behavior" that harms the company. For example if a CEO at a publicly traded company makes a short term decision that is destructive in the long term the failure is not in their MBA training. Their MBA training actually teaches them not to do so. Interestingly MBA training considers CEOs (or any employee) acting in personal self-interest rather than in the company's interest. An MBA would say that the incentives are wrong. They are taught that if you reward bad things you will get bad things, even from otherwise good people. Again, Dilbert is much beloved in business school too. Wally and his minivan are likely to come up while discussing this topic. http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-...

    6. Re:MBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what your saying is a-holes and PHBs become MBA

      Nope, I'm saying a-holes and PHBs are everywhere, including business school. Business school doesn't create them, no more than elementary school, high school, college, ...

      MBA knowledge of the subjects they "shallow" dive is basically useless as they still know F-all but now get management positions to screw up the work of people who actually know the subject..

      They are taught to be aware of this. They are taught to weigh heavily the opinions of the experts, of the experienced. They are given examples, role models, of CEOs who would visit the workers and low-level managers on the "factory line" to find out the truth of what is going on. To use a military sort of analogy, they are taught that a general does not learn what is really going on by reading a report or talking to a colonel, rather they learn the truth by talking to a sergeant.

    7. Re:MBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, because in business school MBAs are taught not to manage for short term benefits. That such a path likely leads to the demise of a company.

      If you had more experience working with MBAs when they get into the real world, you'd realize that whatever they're taught, it isn't working.

      No more than software developers who are taught how to write maintainable, reliable and high quality software. The problem is not in their training, the problem is in not following their training. Shall we blame Computer Science programs for Adobe Flash?

      Many of us have seen the wholesale destruction they have wrought, running companies into the ground. But weirdly the depth of their failure is the one thing they don't have a KPI for.

      I've certainly seen my share of f'ups and head-scratchers over 30+ years. By both managers/executives with and without an MBA. As I mentioned elsewhere, sometimes this is due to very poorly chosen rewards and incentives. Which is something MBAs are cautioned about in business school, that if you reward bad things you will get bad things even from good people who know better.

    8. Re:MBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right that MBA programs don't make assholes, but you also have to look at the type of people who decide to get MBAs and why they choose that route. Nothing stops someone from becoming a manager without an MBA, but if you want be a Captain of Industry then you go to a top tier MBA program so you can meet all the other future Captains of Industry. It's about moving up the corporate ladder until you reach the top!

      So when you get to a company, you don't stand still. No one gets promoted by doing nothing and just keeping the status quo. Do something! The fact that EA would close down one gaming studio and turn around and buy another just weeks apart, is exactly what someone with an MBA who is concerned about moving up the corporate ladder would do. If things don't work out, then reach out to the network from your MBA program and try to land softly at another company. Rinse and repeat.

    9. Re:MBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software developers generally aren't, CS education is not what it once was. We have graduates in CS now who have never coded anything.

    10. Re:MBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right that MBA programs don't make assholes, but you also have to look at the type of people who decide to get MBAs and why they choose that route.

      I have. The 130+ that I went to school with for 3 years were overwhelmingly non-a-holes. The many hundreds more I have met were also overwhelmingly non-a-holes.

      Nothing stops someone from becoming a manager without an MBA, but if you want be a Captain of Industry then you go to a top tier MBA program so you can meet all the other future Captains of Industry.

      That is another misconception. Few MBAs are on the captains of industry path. Many are "regular" sorts of managers that want to learn to be better managers. The majority of my class were not traditional business major types. 1/3 were coming from a science and engineering background. National statistics show that this is quite common. So for many MBAs they are simply learning about traditional business topics for the first time, well in a structured academic sense.

      The fact that EA would close down one gaming studio and turn around and buy another just weeks apart, is exactly what someone with an MBA who is concerned about moving up the corporate ladder would do.

      That is wild-assed-uninformed-speculation. Here is alternative wild-assed-uninformed-speculation. Unexpectedly a competitor offers to buy a studio working on a critical project. We have the contractual right to counteroffer. We end up agreeing to buy the studio but don't have the available cash flows to pay for the deal, we have to cut expenses somewhere. We can close a non-ciritical studio to cover this unexpected deal. Its a negative-negative decision, either way there will be pain. Let the studio working on a critical project go to a competitor or shut down a non-critical studio. We can't do both, we have to chose one. So what is the right call? What is the 3rd alternative? Sometimes you are in a f'd up situation and all options suck. Again, the preceding is speculation, just like moving up the ladder.

      Don't be misled by buying another studio a few weeks later. That purchase deal was made long before it was announced. It is likely that the unplanned purchase somehow contributed to the closure of the other studio.

    11. Re:MBA by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's all about perverse incentives. The MBA can make a year's salary in a year by playing it straight, or a year's salary in a few days by being dishonest...It's not even a contest, is it? It's just rational behavior.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:MBA by perpenso · · Score: 1

      It's all about perverse incentives. The MBA can make a year's salary in a year by playing it straight, or a year's salary in a few days by being dishonest...It's not even a contest, is it? It's just rational behavior.

      What makes you think perverse incentives are something specific to MBA types? Any company can f'up their incentives and MBA and non-MBA management and regular employees will take advantage. The problem is with the person and business school does not change the person's inner core.

    13. Re:MBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They are taught to be aware of this.
      In one specific course you are aware of, or all ot them? Seems like the definition shifts to whatever you want it to be.

      > who would visit the workers and low-level managers on the "factory line"
      Except that they don't in general actually do that. Since they know nothing about the actual means of production, typically C suite MBAs especially those brought in from other industries, avoid talking directly to front-line (not low-level) staff like the plauge, and instead go for excessively centralized KPI management, and polishing their narratives on Corporate Social Responsibility (for example, sacking people with experience whilst announcing they won't hire any more in a place they already decided not to hire in because that place passed a bathroom law or some such, whilst saying nothing about their activities in another place with the death penalty for activities which are perfectly fine in the place they are complaining against).

  7. EA Games Old Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EA Games: Ruin Everything!

  8. so what was the last EA title game made?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not include EA sports shits. Also excluding studios they enslaved, forced to give birth to the titles in their womb & then had them executed.

    So any original & worthwhile EA titles since 1997?,,,, I thought not.

    slashdot fortune
            gilded
            "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

  9. Some facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before you all go and rant about EA closing down a studio they bought...

    Visceral was an internal studio. It was the re-branded EA Redwood Shores studio located on the EA corporate HQ campus. It was never just some scrappy kids making games who got chewed apart by the big bad EA. Everyone who ever worked there (including myself way back in the day) knew exactly who they were signing up to work for. I'm sad to see it imploded, but this story doesn't fit your David vs Goliath narrative.

  10. they were essentially backed into a corner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by nexon, who first pitched an offer to buy them. ea would have lost their chance had they not exercised their right to match any offer for the company.

    either way, ea or nexon, that game franchise is now fucked.

  11. This is why I'm not a Cxx by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    I just don't get this shit. When I was a young'un, back in the 80's, I survived my first layoff. Why? Were we losing money? No, it was because Someone We'd Never Heard Of said we would grow 10% this year, and we only grew 9%. Bunch of fucking layabouts, lets fire 10% of those lazy ass fuckwits, none of them management, and promote 5% of them into management positions. That can only help, right?

    It was in the 80s the MBA became a thing. It was also in the 80s that the Great Decline started.

    1. Re:This is why I'm not a Cxx by perpenso · · Score: 1

      I started in the 80s too. I had similar views to what you just expressed. Actually, its not an MBA thing. How I found out such views were wrong: https://games.slashdot.org/com...

    2. Re:This is why I'm not a Cxx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were wrong earlier, you're still wrong here. I guess you don't want your MBA to be considered worthless (but that's too late).

    3. Re:This is why I'm not a Cxx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were wrong earlier, you're still wrong here. I guess you don't want your MBA to be considered worthless (but that's too late).

      Bad guess. What I don't want is to perpetuate the false narrative of what an MBA is about. I'd like more engineers to have an open mind about it. There are good things to be learned there. Many engineers will ultimately find themselves in management. A little "book learnin" aint gonna hurt. I've seen many an engineer turned manager make mistakes that some of the "book learnin" would have avoided.

      But don't let this stop you from commenting on a topic you are ignorant of. Please continue.

    4. Re:This is why I'm not a Cxx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but you are ridiculous. Tarring anyone who disagrees with you as being "ignorant" of the special field of study you are selling, via the disparaging term "book learnin'", whilst in reality the field is plagued with febrile narratives.

      But don't let that stop you peddling snake oil. Truth is your MBA buddies probably achieve success by stating the obvious or hiring consultants to state it for them, harnessing anti-competitive forces, stacking the management of the larger corporations where they get a foothold with golf buddies, and favoring vendors which provide kick-backs in the form of airline tickets and the next gig.

  12. explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video games are not Electronic Art and those insulting jocks need to GTFO.