• 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.

Project Cars CEO talks about EA attempting to sabotage his company

PnCIa

Member
Dare I risk the ire of the anti-EA brigade, but am I missing something?.

They signed the team with 1.5 million, then cancelled the game, and this nearly killed the company?, how does that work?, was it that he spunked the 1.5 million before they started on the game leaving the team in financial stress?

Not that EA aren't a corporate monster, I am just curious if there is more to this.
Please read the quote in the OP carefully:

We’ll give you 1.5 million if you agree not to talk to any other publisher, to agree any other games or work on any other arrangement with any other publisher. And we’ll give you 1.5 million and we’ll sign Shift 3
This effectively means that they took the 1.5 million in good faith because EA wanted them to make Shift 3. But EA also bared them from any other financial security that is not from EA themselves, which means that they now relied on EA for their future. Then EA just refused to actually fund the development of Shift 3, leaving Slightly Mad floating around because they agreed beforehand to not take any other contracts. Scummy as fuck.

These scummy business tactics apply to all major and even minor companies. They are not you friend.
 
Don't quite get the second one. EA made them sign a contract (was this the same as the $1.5m one in the first example?) which included all the rights to all the tech for a game, but when they tried to get the tech they found that it had been shuffled off to a third party company to get around the contract? Sounds more like EA got screwed in that case, albeit no doubt deservedly. Or did they try to hide the clause?
 

danowat

Banned
Please read the quote in the OP carefully:


This effectively means that they took the 1.5 million in good faith because EA wanted them to make Shift 3. But EA also bared them from any other financial security that is not from EA themselves, which means that they now relied on EA for their future. Then EA just refused to actually fund the development of Shift 3, leaving Slightly Mad floating around because they agreed beforehand to not take any other contracts. Scummy as fuck.

These scummy business tactics apply to all major and even minor companies. They are not you friend.

Yeah, I get that, but wouldn't that requirement become null and void once they cancelled the game? wouldn't the contract have had an out if they cancelled the development of the game?

I guess it's down to the fine print on the contract.
 
Yeah, I get that, but wouldn't that requirement become null and void once they cancelled the game? wouldn't the contract have had an out if they cancelled the development of the game?

I guess it's down to the fine print on the contract.
Yep, you can be sure that EA had a clause in there that would require them to pay back the money.
 

eXistor

Member
I almost can't even blame these big publishers; it's what they do, it's what they are born to do. They go to hell and look for the most morally void people they can find and take them and put them in charge of big businesses. It's why they're so succesful: they have no soul.
 

King_Moc

Banned
Yeah, I get that, but wouldn't that requirement become null and void once they cancelled the game? wouldn't the contract have had an out if they cancelled the development of the game?

I guess it's down to the fine print on the contract.

But then they have to go and find a new contract. They were supposed to already have one. They could have gotten another one much sooner if not for EA.
 

UrbanRats

Member
WTF! I was planning to get the new NFS game but nope! Not after this.

They also fucked Titanfall 2!

It puts things into perspective. Just how shitty EA is compared to how Ubisoft's CEO Yves Guillemot cares about his employees and studios.
You know him personally? No shit they try to sell themselves and their company as big game lovers, but it is still just marketing.
EA does have a particularly bad record in killing studios, but it's not like there aren't bad stories about Ubisoft, Bethesda, etc etc.

"Companies are not your friends", applies in that sense, too.
 
Before the contract was signed though, they created a new company called Middleware Limited, transferred all of their tech to be under that company, and then licensed it from that company and EA had no idea.
Fantastic business strategy, glad they were able to get one over EAs goons with this!
 

danowat

Banned
But then they have to go and find a new contract. They were supposed to already have one. They could have gotten another one much sooner if not for EA.

Yes, that would definitely be an issue, but on the flip side they still had 1.5 million to produce the product they'd signed on for, (which they didn't have to do in the end) just a shame they spent it before the EA decided to can the project.

A good bit of forethought in making a company to transfer the tech to, smart move, and one that probably saved the game we now know as Project Cars.

EA, and the other big pubs are shady as hell when it comes to these sort of business practices, the same thing, while not at all right, manifests itself in a lot of other businesses as well.
 

PantsuJo

Member
EA killed Dead Space and ruined Mirror's Edge.

And holy shit, they ruined NFS too.

I won't never forgive them. In fact, I hate them. Damn EA.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
I'm going to play Devil's advocate and ask whether what's mentioned in OP is no different then what other publishers would do?

I can see the publisher wanting to keep the tech of the team they were paying to work for them.
Also, EA wanted to lock them down for Shift 3 in the event that Shift 2 was a success. When Shift 2 sold like shit, they shitcanned Shift 3, which isn't unheard of in the industry.

I mean yeah, EA's a lousy company. But this instance sounds like run of the mill shit that happens in the entertainment industry.
 
It's not an unreasonable comment. There are a lot of sociopaths in corporate leadership positions. It's an advantage.

100% true. Take it from someone with several years experience on Wall Street. Sociopaths galore. And that's not an ounce of hyperbole. EA's management cadre of scummy cunts would fit in quite well.

I've always been happy to buy a lot of EA games...almost always used. Titanfall and TF2 are the only exceptions going back at least 10 years because I wanted to support Respawn's excellence. EA can, indeed, go fuck themselves, however.
 

Wamb0wneD

Member
Now cancelling an announced title is scamming?

When the reason is that the console isn't powerful enough yes. It's almost like they would know that from the beginning and then asked for money anyway. They also didn't compensate those backers in any way as far as I know.

This isn't the topic for that though.
 

Tapejara

Member
So this happened 5 years ago (2012)? Wonder why Ian Bell didn't talk about it before now? Other developers should know this before signing anything with EA.

Based on the interview, it sounds like Slightly Mad wasn't in the best place financially back in 2012 (Bell had to remortgage his house following the Shift 3 cancellation, and mentions that the funds from doing so would have only kept the lights on for another three months). As much as Bell felt screwed over by EA, it also probably isn't a great idea to piss off one of the biggest third party game publishers when you and your company are struggling. Now that Slightly Mad is in a healthy place with its own IP, Bell probably feels more comfortable telling the story knowing he won't have to strike up a new deal with EA or Söderlund any time soon.
 
Did they take EA's money? I mean seriously, I don't feel bad for them in the least. EA was strategic using the plain language in the contract and they behaved similarly keeping their tech using a technicality in the contract.

They understood the risk of cancellation when signing, however they wanted $1.5 million. Now they want to bitch and act like a naive upstart being taken advantage of by big ol' EA. Please. Nobody put a gun to their heads.
 

Mascot

Member
The EA stuff wasn't even the most interesting part of that interview. It's well worth a listen in its entirety.
 
Best thing to do is exactly what these guys did in regards to creating middleman companies you "lease" your own shit from.

You'd be surprised how often this is done in every business to protect from exactly this kind of thing.

Fuck EA.
 

fresquito

Member
Did they take EA's money? I mean seriously, I don't feel bad for them in the least. EA was strategic using the plain language in the contract and they behaved similarly keeping their tech using a technicality in the contract.

They understood the risk of cancellation when signing, however they wanted $1.5 million. Now they want to bitch and act like a naive upstart being taken advantage of by big ol' EA. Please. Nobody put a gun to their heads.
Armchair philosophy at its best.

When your team is in need of funding, you take whatever it's needed to survive.

When the reason is that the console isn't powerful enough yes. It's almost like they would know that from the beginning and then asked for money anyway. They also didn't compensate those backers in any way as far as I know.

This isn't the topic for that though.
The game was initially planned as a PS3/XboxOne title. The WiiU was not out of scope at that moment.

All backers that asked for a refund got it, second, all backers got back more than thrice their investment. Hardly what you'd call scam.

You are right on the last part of your post. 1/3.
 

leeh

Member
I'm not sure your reason to be obtuse on purpose, but yeah, whatever you say.
In due respect you're being obtuse by simply saying EA are completely in the wrong. Yeah, the tech stuff is extremely sleezy, but him nearly crashing his own business by being money happy on the bonuses? Not EA's fault.
 

fresquito

Member
In due respect you're being obtuse by simply saying EA are completely in the wrong. Yeah, the tech stuff is extremely sleezy, but him nearly crashing his own business by being money happy on the bonuses? Not EA's fault.
Paying your workers extra for their support through the darkest times when you sign an exclusive deal with the biggest publisher in the world is being money happy now? EA wanted to kill the studio in order to get their tech and some workers. This CEO, if anything, was clever enough to provide his workers a safe enviroment even when things went south.

I guess you are the type of person that faults women's clothing when they get assaulted.
 
More like, when you want to give your team bonuses with money you don't have.

I don't know where this is coming from but it certainly wasn't the video. The contract bonus was given two months into Shift 2's development as a "keep working with us, don't approach other publishers once this project is done and we'll give you 1.5 million to stick around for Shift 3."

The money was given when the contract was signed (years in advance). You're arguing a point under a false premise. He didn't give that money away as bonuses and have to pay that money back, EA lost it since they decided to not go ahead with Shift 3. He remortgaged his house to continue paying his employees and keep the company going. That money didn't go back to EA.
 
While it does indeed sound shady, this is also the guy who was an arrogant prick towards a lot of forum users during the early days following the release of Project Cars. Hardly a beacon of shining humanity himself.
 
Wow.

EA is the devil.

The CEO in the video mentioned Robert "Patrick" Söderlund (EA VP) by name as the main devil behind it all.

Electronic+Arts+Debuts+New+Games+E3+Conference+EFMJGu3mQ-Fx.jpg


Wasn't he the asshole doing the EA press conference at E3 this year?

He already comes across as a unlikeable and scummy guy if you see him. No surprise.

Dont give a shit if your son is named Luigi.
 

MadMod

Member
This is incredibly interesting, I wish we had more knowledge of the things that go on behind the scenes. I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg with these deals and practices. Its disgusting what they tried to do, especially when hundreds of peoples jobs were on the line.

I don't respect it, but I've always known things like this would be happening, I'm just happy they were smart enough to get out of this situation and out maneuver EA with the third party shell company. I know that there's a lot of companies that have probably had this happen before to them and we have no idea.
 

Calabi

Member
Dare I risk the ire of the anti-EA brigade, but am I missing something?.

They signed the team with 1.5 million, then cancelled the game, and this nearly killed the company?, how does that work?, was it that he spunked the 1.5 million before they started on the game leaving the team in financial stress?

Not that EA aren't a corporate monster, I am just curious if there is more to this.

1.5 million isnt enough to develop a game thats barely a fraction of what they might need to develop a full triple AAA game. There usually in the 50 millon ballpark. And EA said it wasnt for the game, it was to keep them on hold for the game, with the caveat they cant go anywhere else. And they cant start the game without the go ahead from EA and full budget to do so. Its clearly a trick to kill or take the company.

This is so depressing, its not like there isnt a lack of developers of triple AAA games anyway. And EA has to destroy them on purpose. What with Bethesda doing this as well its amazing there's as many left as there are.

I feel like its the ultimate goal of capitalism to eventually eat itself. I'm not sure anyone can deny general company diversity hasnt declined overall, it definitely has in the Triple AAA arena, with quite a bit of it purposeful.
 

leeh

Member
I guess you are the type of person that faults women's clothing when they get assaulted.
Fuck you. Comments like that should get you banned.

I don't know where this is coming from but it certainly wasn't the video. The contract bonus was given two months into Shift 2's development as a "keep working with us, don't approach other publishers once this project is done and we'll give you 1.5 million to stick around for Shift 3."

The money was given when the contract was signed (years in advance). You're arguing a point under a false premise. He didn't give that money away as bonuses and have to pay that money back, EA lost it since they decided to not go ahead with Shift 3. He remortgaged his house to continue paying his employees and keep the company going. That money didn't go back to EA.
From your OP:
And we’ll give you 1.5 million and we’ll sign Shift 3
So they took the 1.5mil once they finished Shift 2 and was waiting on EA to sign Shift 3. They should of never spent that money until it was a done deal, which it couldn't of been.

I don't feel like I'm mixed up here.
 
F

So they took the 1.5mil once they finished Shift 2 and was waiting on EA to sign Shift 3. They should of never spent that money until it was a done deal, which it couldn't of been.

I don't feel like I'm mixed up here.

I guess this was like a retainer. $1.5 million is only enough to keep a big studio running for a few months. So, it's "get your team in place, ramp up on tech for Shift 3, rest of the money comes then". Then it's "Psyche! There is no Shift 3 and no more money!"

Left them scrambling for plan B with zero warning, and little funds.

That said, there are two sides to every story. It would be ridiculous to suggest that EA were not ALLOWED to cancel Shift 3.
 
Fuck you. Comments like that should get you banned.


From your OP:

So they took the 1.5mil once they finished Shift 2 and was waiting on EA to sign Shift 3. They should of never spent that money until it was a done deal, which it couldn't of been.

I don't feel like I'm mixed up here.
It was their fault to the extent of taking on good faith the exclusivity deal and not get new projects into the pipeline, as part of the deal. But they're in a more disadvantageous position as it is, so they took what looked a sure done deal.
 

leeh

Member
I guess this was like a retainer. $1.5 million is only enough to keep a big studio running for a few months. So, it's "get your team in place, ramp up on tech for Shift 3, rest of the money comes then". Then it's "Psyche! There is no Shift 3 and no more money!"

Left them scrambling for plan B with zero warning, and little funds.

That said, there are two sides to every story. It would be ridiculous to suggest that EA were not ALLOWED to cancel Shift 3.
But legally, they were in their right to-do so. Whatever agreement they had written for that retainer would of been made known and they should of not spent it until the contract was signed and it was a done-deal.

I recently won a bid to do some work for a large entity and got a lump sum with it to allow for expanding of tools and the team to be able to do the work. Two weeks later, the entity got a new development manager who revised the deal and pulled it all. I knew that could happen and I didn't spend it.

It's seriously common and he should of known better tbh.

It was their fault to the extent of taking on good faith the exclusivity deal and not get new projects into the pipeline, as part of the deal. But they're in a more disadvantageous position as it is, so they took what looked a sure done deal.

That isn't how you run a business though, you don't do things like that in "good faith".
 

danowat

Banned
My issue. I hate EA, but battlefield is probably my favorite gaming series.

This thread really have people defending EA? Good grief, there really is a Defense Force for everything.

It should be possible to provide a counterpoint for discussion without people resorting to shouting "defense force".

It's not as black and white as you're for this and against that.
 
This is big corporate for you, go watch that McDonald’s documentary/movie and tell me you will eat there again.
I understand EA did something shitty, but the guy also took the 1.5mill and agreed to the terms.
 
It should be possible to provide a counterpoint for discussion without people resorting to shouting "defense force".

It's not as black and white as you're for this and against that.

There’s a clear history here. It’s pretty obvious what they’re about. Sure, the company that signed the agreement is at fault, but there’s really no defending EAs knack for butchering studios.
 

Madness

Member
There's no precedent. It's unprecedented.

It's like people have ignored 2 secades of shitty behavior by EA,killing studios, running franchises into the ground, and people still jump at the chance to work with them. Look how they effectively buried Titanfall 2 that the CEO was like ask EA about Titanfall 3 and the PR person says something and he goes whatever the fuck that means.
 
I'm sorry, but I have to assume SMS read these contracts. If EA cancelled it, I'm sure it did not guarantee a Shift 3 in the first place.

As for the tech, they reacted correctly and were not forced to pass on the tech.

So, what's the issue?
 
Top Bottom