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

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.

Comments

RIP Respawn

[HalAtWork]

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

EA Games

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:EA Games

[ckatko]

"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.

Re:EA Games

[Dogtanian]

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.

Re:EA Games

[thomst]

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 ...

Re:It's what they do

[UnknownSoldier]

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)

MBA

[sanf780]

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?

Re:MBA

[perpenso]

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.