The lights are on
In his first quarterly financial call since becoming EA's CEO, Andrew Wilson outlined his goals for the company's game development business.
Speaking to investors, Wilson clarified his vision for EA's future, identifying three priorities the company will focus on in creating its products. First, he wants to deliver amazing games and services. Second, he wants to emphasize people and strategies, including bringing games to a variety of platforms and geographies (though maybe not the Wii U). Lastly, he wants to make games profitably.
Those all seem like admirable goals. Now we have to see if EA has the follow-through to attain them.
Our TakeSetting goals is not difficult, but meeting them can be a challenge. Those three priorities can often be in conflict with each other; creating amazing games isn't cheap, and neither is bringing them to various regions around the world. Even though it's easier said than done, EA might be able to pull it off. The company did just report some impressive financial results, after all.
Email the author Joe Juba, or follow on Twitter, Facebook, and Game Informer.
I hope so considering they publish the majority of my favorite franchises. I think recently they've been doin pretty good though.
Admirable goals, but extremely abstract. Let's hope EA lives up to them.
I will believe it, when I start seeing it. EA has a long way to go in my book.
Like number 3 isn't going to invalidate the first two when it comes down to it...
EA, We Own Everything!!!!!
The 3 laws of EAconomy.
Ea goals in a nutshell hype up are games to more than what they are and make tons of $$$.
Those are all incredibly broad, generic statements, but they sound okay, I guess. Except the part about games "and services".
We saw EA run SimCity like a service, and it sucks. Thinking of games as services basically means releasing unfinished stuff that you must buy into their server-side nonsense and/or endless microtransactions to get any value out of, and that's a terrible business practice that I was hoping would die with this new guy.
NO ONE wants to pay $60 for a 3-hour Mirror's Edge sequel (or Need for Speed game, or Madden, or whatever other IP EA still has) where you must purchase DLC packs at $15 a pop, every 3 months, for the year following release, EA. Learn this lesson....
It would also be nice to see them stop abusing their classic catalog of titles. How they treat Ultima & Dungeon Keeper - with weak, pointless tablet spinoffs - is incredibly insulting considering how irrelevant those series are. They need a proper reboot of these old IP. A real production, for real gaming platforms, targeting the actual fans of these properties if they want them to have any value.... like how 2K rebooted XCOM with Enemy Within. You can't just slap a name on any stupid, cheap iPhone game you have lying around. There's no name value attached to these old brands that means anything to the "Angry Birds set", and you're just pissing off the people who DO remember these games by doing this.
You're first goal should just be, "Stop making obviously stupid decisions". Seriously, EA can't go a month without making some gaffe these days. Like how they think it's a great idea to highlight, in marketing, the parts in BF4 where soldiers PUNCH & KILL DOGS (example: kotaku.com/battlefield-4s-story-trailer-punches-a-dog-right-in-th-1450007669). To those "geniuses", it's a brilliant dig at Riley, the Call of Duty dog. To EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET, it's just tasteless and gross. Does EA really not understand that people like dogs?
EA has its work vut out for them. If they break it down, it can be achieved.
'Creating amazing games isn't cheap'.
It doesn't have to be ludicrously expensive either. Journey cost a few million to develop. That sounds like a lot but its pittance compared to something like Battlefield which easily pushes $100 million. You don't have to spend $50 million making explosions look prettier to make a great game.
Those seem like pretty broad goals. How about goal 1, we will make an NBA game instead of pouring money into the development and then pulling the game just before launch. OR just say forget about it, 2k has basketball on lockdown, now go make NHL better.
Step 1 - Make Games
Step 2 - Question Mark
Step 3 - Profit
Make games profitably? You mean like needing Dead Space 3 to sell 5 million copies to break even when the first two barely sold that combined?
I still would like an explanation about their Nintendo abandonment after so strongly supporting the console when it was revealed.
'I'd also like to say that water is wet, and fire is hot.'