Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
That line belongs to Ubisoft more than EA.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rumor: EA to layoff 500-1000 people [EA: We're hiring 100's, headcount up this year]
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
There is so much wrong with this post.
I see many publishers citing used game sales, piracy, and the economy, but very few blaming HD Development costs (one of the "excuses" listed earlier). HD Production costs are something we mention here, and something B developers mention, but not the big publishers.
This is because HD Development costs are, in theory, under the publisher's control, and failing to reign in costs would most definitely be the executive's fault. Take note that all of the explanations that publishers willingly offer are caused by things not under their control. Gamestop pushes used game sales; consumers pirate; the recession caused the economic problems. In this case, it isn't just psychologically pleasing to blame everyone else but themselves; it is professionally expedient. Executives who admit it's their fault lose bonuses or jobs.
This is because HD Development costs are, in theory, under the publisher's control, and failing to reign in costs would most definitely be the executive's fault. Take note that all of the explanations that publishers willingly offer are caused by things not under their control. Gamestop pushes used game sales; consumers pirate; the recession caused the economic problems. In this case, it isn't just psychologically pleasing to blame everyone else but themselves; it is professionally expedient. Executives who admit it's their fault lose bonuses or jobs.
like what?
Visualante2
Member
I label that all as terrible management of production. Wonder how Remedy made a premium game with such a small team.. apparently they managed their outsourcing exceptionally well. The tools have improved, it's possible to be agile, but not when you're managing some 800 person team in Montreal.
Glass Rebel
Member
He's still right on most of the stuff though, even if the package is shit.
Marty Chinn
Member
Yes, they have control over it, but at the same time they don't. HD Development costs are a result of expectations from the press and the consumers. To pull back on some of those things, could hurt sales too. It's a sort of damned if you do, and damned if you don't situation now.
How exactly is he right?
SWTOR has 1.7 million subs as of march and is in no danger of going F2P anytime soon. (Also subs have probably gone up because of the deals they're running and the release of 1.2)
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/03/09/star-wars-the-old-republic-subscription-numbers-stabilize-at-1/
SWTOR has over 200,000 lines of dialogue compared to Skyrims 60,000.
Explain to me how they're being greedy by putting there game on a platform that will result in less sales.
Also a game being exclusive to Origin is no different than a game being steamworks (the exception being Skyrim because of the workshop). One is just simply more popular than the other.
EA's evil for trying to make money?
A book with more pages is not automatically better then one with less.
SWTOR doesn't even use Origin DRM lol. Hell, you don't need to install Origin once to even play the game, retail or digitally.
The storylines in SWTOR are definitely higher quality than the Skyrim stories. Elder Scrolls was never known for it's high quality story. It's mostly just a fun sandbox game to dick around in.
I never said SWTOR writing was better.
I was responding to "Hey, Skyrim has voice acting, except Skyrim is a good game."
It's a unfair comparison because SWTOR has over 3 times as much dialogue as skyrim.
I forgot about the SWTOR/Origin thing.
I don't really agree -- this all assumes they continue their laser like focus on the PS3/360 to the detriment of everything else. The big publishers remain consistently absent on the handheld systems; they never embraced the Wii and allowed it to sink, despite obvious, strong interest from consumers; Facebook and iOS have EA, but Ubisoft, Take 2, and Activision have all largely avoided those platforms thus far.
It would be understandable 10 years ago, when the traditional home console ecosystem represented something like 80% of the gaming market. But today? There are lots of other avenues, and most of these publishers seem to be incapable of harnessing any of these new opportunities.
Ogrekiller
Member
It's called having self control.
And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if all these HD productions were as much a result of the developers pushing and demanding more money to fulfill their artistic needs and visions.
Customers didn't demand 512mb of ram from Microsoft in the 360 and got it; it was Epic who did that.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I think EA hired up expecting current gen retail growth and it's just not there. And growth is the key word. Remaining stagnant but profitable isn't good enough for a public company. They purport to be creating more digital properties but it's too late for that to have an effect on this year's bottom line. They'll continue fish for a digital hit, but I expect them to start investing heavily in next gen soon if they haven't already. They've traditionally relied on AAA blockbusters with reliable sequel sales to create revenue.
Glass Rebel
Member
As I said, the package was garbage but the main point still stands: EA sucks.
I don't really care about SWTOR and its thousand lines of dialogue, I never played it and never will.
What I care about though is that 500-1000 people will lose their job because of bad management. I care about the fuck up of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. Even if it doesn't affect me directly, I don't like online passes invading every game. I'm fed up with EA forcing people to use an inferior product in Origin and keeping games off Steam.
In short: If you're doing shit, I'm gonna give you shit.
that is because you have to have creative people to do that. And creative people are motivated by having an initiative + money coming directly from what they do. And in large corporations like EA these people are bogged down in bureaucracy and ranks.
Visualante2
Member
I see it more as if producers/managers are promising the publisher features that the team can't deliver on. There is no understanding from the coal face of how long it takes to implement back of the box features, and publishers don't care about their quality of life, they just throw people at the problem. I appreciate I'm making generalisations from outside observations but if everyone was more honest about what can be delivered in a reasonable time frame maybe we'd be better off.
One of the things that was refreshing about Sony when I received a talk from them was like "we might hire 4 or 5 people over the next year, we're all about steady growth". I know they're not immune to studio closures, but they don't go on big hiring and firing sprees so much as others.
Marty Chinn
Member
The Wii's target audience was different than the PS3/360. For many genres, you weren't going to find the audience or the success on that platform. That's why there is a stark contrast between the type of games you see on each of the platforms. It goes both ways too. Stuff that did well on the Wii wouldn't mean it would do well on the PS3/360. THQ learned that the hard and stupid way that will probably put them out of business now.
A lot of the alternate means of revenue like Facebook and iOS are still unproven for the long term. Developers/publishers right now are still trying to find out what works and what doesn't. That's one of the reasons not everyone has jumped in. Some think it's a bubble that's going to burst. Even if they did, is this really where we want to see the market shift as core gamers?
That's actually not how it works. Budgets get out of control as projects get behind or other problems arise during development that then puts the project in jeopardy. More money is thrown at it in order to try to save the project rather than cut their losses. Of course it goes against normal business concepts of sunk costs, but these publishers are counting on that revenue to be generated by the title, so that's why they sink more money into it. Otherwise they'll miss out on the quarter financial statements. Everything comes down the the quarterly reports. I've experienced this many times first hand and in fact I have a job because of it.
I'm not saying developers/publishers don't have their own issues about planning, and realistic expectations of timeline and so forth, but a part of the whole HD production is definitely a result of the expectations and demand for it. Graphics are often the first impression that people have on a game before even the gameplay and that visual look can damn a game. Just hang out with an average gamer in college, and you'll hear these things. Gameplay has always been paramount in my eyes, but I have seen first hand how important graphics can be.
bigtroyjon
Member
Without the bad management, those 500-1000 people don't have a job in the first place.
Glass Rebel
Member
Oh sorry then, that makes it obviously much much better.
I don't think Opiate was asking to release PS360 games on Wii or vice versa. But that publishers branch out and exploit different opportunities present in different markets by embracing different business models.
bigtroyjon
Member
EA has lost a ton of money inefficiently employing way too many people for the projects they had. Without that shitty management they would have been leaner and there would have been less jobs in the industry. The money would have gone into EA's bank accounts instead of employee paychecks.
Shitty management always leads to more employment, not less.
dragonelite
Member
I do think he is right without bad management studio wouldn't get so fat to the point they have to cut away all the fat. Maybe EA is planning to slow down in anticipation of Next gen consoles.
michaelius
Banned
Dear EA please go and die...
... also way to go to Richitello... you need to force your studios to release more of those legendary IPs as dumbed down shooters...
and don't forget to push Orgin on all your customers that will surely help sales when people hate it
oh and keep making all that great day one DLC which was obviously cut from your games this will bring so many new customers and keep old ones so happy
... also way to go to Richitello... you need to force your studios to release more of those legendary IPs as dumbed down shooters...
and don't forget to push Orgin on all your customers that will surely help sales when people hate it
oh and keep making all that great day one DLC which was obviously cut from your games this will bring so many new customers and keep old ones so happy
AngryPyros
Member
While trying to find just how accurate the site that started these claims is, I found this:
http://www.develop-online.net/news/40502/Rumour-EA-set-to-axe-500-1000-staff
That seems...pretty final.
http://www.develop-online.net/news/40502/Rumour-EA-set-to-axe-500-1000-staff
EA said:
That seems...pretty final.
That is correct. The Wii was only one of my examples, and is the least significant I feel; it is not a "new opportunity" at this point. Whatever fruit might have been plucked from that tree remained unpicked for so long that it has long since withered.
These untapped opportunities go in all directions; from the extremely casual and (at least on GAF) loathed Facebook style social gaming, all the way to the other end of the spectrum to complex strategy games which have largely gone overlooked by the big publishers because they can't figure out how to transition them to consoles.
The reason why Zynga, Gameloft, (did you know Gameloft has more employees now than Take 2 does?) Valve, and Rovio have managed to grow so rapidly is that the big players -- who can normally crush the little guys with their sheer financial muscle -- have effectively left a power vacuum on iOS/PC/Facebook, and this has allowed new players to rush in and fill the void. If EA/Activision/Take 2 had all been there early and competing seriously in those markets, I have absolutely no doubt that Zynga, Valve and Gameloft either would not exist today or would be much smaller companies.
Glass Rebel
Member
You guys make it sound like good management wouldn't have led to more jobs and that it's not a big deal that this many people lost their job.
dragonelite
Member
Good management make good use of financial resources and won't let a studio get to fat.
For me personally i rather have a job with bad management and get cut away.
And if i did my job right i at least have a extra company i can reference too.
Instead of not having a job and missing that extra reference. And so far as i have heard if you want to work in the gaming industry make sure you are flexible if you aren't a lead of head at the studio especially if your in art assets. Can't confirm this but that is what i have heard.
That a game can sell 13 million units and still contribute to a "poor" year is a damning statement on the current state of the industry.
If you're making a game that sells 13 million units and you still have to make lay-offs, you're not doing it right. You're failing and you should stop.
If you're making a game that sells 13 million units and you still have to make lay-offs, you're not doing it right. You're failing and you should stop.
Glass Rebel
Member
I'm gonna take your word for this but I still think it's pretty alarming if this is how the industry "works".
The problem is there's one game selling 13 million, but meanwhile they're spending $200+ million on a shitty TOR, god knows how many millions worth of development and marketing for Dragon Age 2, who knows how many millions for marketing Need For Speed The Run, etc. and getting voted as the worst company in America in the meantime.
It's bad decisions coming from the top. TOR would be doing much better if it was free to play because when people see the low quality of the game and realize they're paying a monthly fee on top of the $60 price tag it's obviously a turn off. Need For Speed The Run had no reason to exist as a full fledged console release and have the advertising it did. It was a shitty game that would have done better as a budget title or scaled down to be a mobile game. Dragon Age 2 simply should not have been released in the state that it was and someone should have known you don't spend that much money marketing a game that's that bad.
These kinds of bad management decisions that come from not reasonably looking at what the product actually is and living outside of that products means, whether above or below, have led to the vast majority of the problems we've seen from devs who are in financial trouble.
Meanwhile you have smart developers making games they know can't lose. People like to say it's a shift to Facebook/IOS etc. but it's really not that. What it is is making a product that fits your companies budget and putting it in the best position to succeed or at least break even while growing a fanbase using the best avenue available to you. This doesn't apply to just IOS/Facebook but also mobile, XBLA, PSN, Steam, etc. It's a shift towards better management.
Something like Trine = smart move.
Something like Binary Domain = not so smart.
dragonelite
Member
Just look a lot of job ads for the industry they always are looking for people who worked on or shipped 2~4 AAA titles. So maybe that one job you had at EA you can now put as a reference will increase your title count and your chance on getting a better/next job.
That is my view so far im still a student so no real world experience.
Can you explain exactly how TOR is a low quality game?
I could go into detail why the TORtanic is the TORtanic but I would suggest you go and TORture yourself to find out if all the available information isn't enough to help you get an idea.
Still wondering how a game with 1.7 million subs is somehow a failure.
Because there's nowhere close to 1.7 million subs for one.
Which reminds me, there ahsould be an EA earnings meeting coming up either this week or next. I wonder how they're going to try and spin TOR this time?
http://www.vg247.com/2012/03/08/star-wars-the-old-republic-sitting-at-nearly-1-7-million-paid-subscribers/
But I'm sure your non existence source is much better.
Glass Rebel
Member
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/0...republic-subscription-numbers-stabilize-at-1/
Well, I hope EA isn't lying.
Edit: beatn
Playing the game itself and keeping up with all the people who track the stats of each servers population is probably a pretty good source. Also reading between the lines of EAs bullshit spin helps too.
Did you even read your own link?
Those "1.7 million paying subs" include people who got a free month with the game. They are only "paying" in that they paid for the box. And a lot of people who buy an MMO buy a 3 or 6th month sub along with it. Sub numbers tend to trail well behind actual player counts for a while.
Most IOS/Facebook/XBLA devs are probably losing money. There's no such thing as a game that can't lose. Yes there are success stories but for every one of those there are 100 failures.
Those "1.7 million paying subs" include people who got a free month with the game. They are only "paying" in that they paid for the box. And a lot of people who buy an MMO buy a 3 or 6th month sub along with it. Sub numbers tend to trail well behind actual player counts for a while.
someone else said:
Most IOS/Facebook/XBLA devs are probably losing money. There's no such thing as a game that can't lose. Yes there are success stories but for every one of those there are 100 failures.
Glass Rebel
Member
So what you're saying is you can't? From what I've played of it TOR is flawed but certainly far from being a low quality game.
Yes, it's from February which mean alot of players have already pass there free month.
Also from this article....
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/03/09/star-wars-the-old-republic-subscription-numbers-stabilize-at-1/
Clearly I should trust you with server tracking rather than EA who knows exactly how many subscriptions they have.
And EA isn't a biased source with a vested interest in using fuzzy statistics to make they subscriber base seem as large as possible? Both options you presented are absurd; it's not one or the other, it's neither.