• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Stock Ticker: Why EA's Market Valuation Has Crashed

Actually, Rayman Origins may be an example of where things should be heading too. That came out at $50, seemingly tanked... yet was still profitable for Ubisoft apparently! If more games could be like that rather than going for massive budgets and failing a 3 million units or whatever.

And that's part of the problem with EA for the longest time I believe, they've had this "go big or go home" mentality since the 90s. To some degree you need it for a larger business, unfortunately, but it seems nowadays they're aiming at TOO big to be at all reasonable.
 
Didn't EA come up with the online pass, originally called "Project 10 Dollar"? If so, fuck 'em. Fuck their DLC-whoring ways. Cunts can go under for all I care.

I don't know if they were the very first to do it, but they were definitely the ones who popularized it starting with Mass Effect 2. I do believe they were the first this gen that started charging for cheats and other former unlockables.
 
EA died for me the minute they started taking games out of steam and requiring origin.

I have over a hundred games in steam and will be adding more next week.

If EA wants my sales again they need to dump origin as a requirement.
 
I went in for a horror game, and what I got was a dark shooter that was trying to be RE4. Sorry I have bad taste.

Oh no you didnt!

Re4 was great but i had more fun with dead space. I think dead space was one of the great new ips of this generation. Im hoping it stays that way.

EA died for me the minute they started taking games out of steam and requiring origin.

I have over a hundred games in steam and will be adding more next week.

If EA wants my sales again they need to dump origin as a requirement.

As someone who like you has 90% of his games on steam i still dont get the problem of origin. Its totally smooth and problem free. Customer service has been top notch (cant say that for steam), and i just got a free game. Origin is ok and understandable. Why pay someone when you can do it yourself?
 
I went in for a horror game, and what I got was a dark shooter that was trying to be RE4. Sorry I have bad taste.

While I think Dead Space 1 was ok, it was pretty clear EA created it as a RE4 ripoff but with some modern mechanics here and there. I think they like to say it's a system shock spiritual successor but there aint nothing system shock about Dead Space.
 
While I think Dead Space 1 was ok, it was pretty clear EA created it as a RE4 ripoff but with some modern mechanics here and there. I think they like to say it's a system shock spiritual successor but there aint nothing system shock about Dead Space.

. Saying dead space is an re4 ripoff is like saying any 3rd person horror shooter is an re4 ripoff. Dead space is faster paced and much more sci fi.
 
. Saying dead space is an re4 ripoff is like saying any 3rd person horror shooter is an re4 ripoff. Dead space is faster paced and much more sci fi.

I believe early concept images of Dead Space show sci-fi armor literally pasted over a Leon Kennedy model from RE4, so I think there's some clear inspiration between the two. And while I'm not big on Dead Space, I never once said the game was bad and everyone who liked it should feel bad, just not my particular cup of tea. I'll even concede it has more passion put into it than traditional EA products, which is a very rare thing to behold.
 
. Saying dead space is an re4 ripoff is like saying any 3rd person horror shooter is an re4 ripoff. Dead space is faster paced and much more sci fi.

Ehhh nah it's pretty clearly inspired by RE4. It's like they took the mechanics from that game, spruced it up a bit in ways that incompetent Capcom didn't even do for RE5 (like move and aim) and put a lot of jump scare moments like the old RE games had.
 
Oh no you didnt!

Re4 was great but i had more fun with dead space. I think dead space was one of the great new ips of this generation. Im hoping it stays that way.



As someone who like you has 90% of his games on steam i still dont get the problem of origin. Its totally smooth and problem free. Customer service has been top notch (cant say that for steam), and i just got a free game. Origin is ok and understandable. Why pay someone when you can do it yourself?

I don't trust EA with any of my information. If they ever put in a full opt out of their data scanning i would consider origin. I'm fully invested in steam, obviously, and don't care to add a data collection app to my pc just for one or two games.
 
Actually, Rayman Origins may be an example of where things should be heading too. That came out at $50, seemingly tanked... yet was still profitable for Ubisoft apparently! If more games could be like that rather than going for massive budgets and failing a 3 million units or whatever.

I do love to hear Ubisoft on Rayman - they seem to really feel its found its 'place'. Obviously its got a more contained team working on it as oppose to these sprawling staff games - which they ofc also develop but at least they have some variety to keep themselves secure.
(not to mention the number of IPs they've got sitting for another go)

I don't think anyone wants publishers to 'not' produce some of these AAA games they produce, only wake up and realise that not every single game will be able to manage this.

Rayman for Ubisoft is a pretty fat franchise in that theres a few spin offs here and there. I think their just happy with what they've got, it makes money and if it takes off/grows - all the better.

Ubisoft probably have the best mix of franchises (and solid fan bases on a number) of one of the 'big' main publishers; and already are developing new IPs that their pretty much saying 'were making this whether it has a console capable of it or not'.

Hopefully other publishers get a grip and get back to the sustainable business model.
 
EA did not publish ME1, so they didn't publish a 'trilogy'.

EA did publish ME1 on the PC.

I don't think we'll see EA shut down very soon here, BUT I honestly wouldn't be surprised if John Riccitiello got thrown out. The question then becomes whether they get a replacement that carries out what he claimed to be focusing on back in 2007, makes it into something more like it was before then (possibly worse), or if the new guy would end up just killing the company super fast.

If Riccitiello does get canned, then I think the one part of EA most likely to get pretty well fucked over is BioWare. Riccitiello was the one who orchestrated EA's 1 billion dollar acquisition of BioWare/Pandemic and what does he have to show for it? While their games are generally well received critically, no BioWare game sells really, really well. They do 'good' but not Call of Duty or Skyrim good. And that's speaking nothing of how TOR is floundering about. So you have a pretty costly acquisition with only 'pretty good' selling games and one of EA's most costly games to develop ever which is again only doing 'ok.'

So far, it seems EA has been pretty hands off with BioWare, in so far as Zeschuk and Muzyka have seemingly gotten in lockstep with EA philosophically, thus BioWare becoming its own label within EA.

So if some new person came into EA, I'd expect the first thing to potentially get busted up would be how BioWare is being handled.
 
. Saying dead space is an re4 ripoff is like saying any 3rd person horror shooter is an re4 ripoff. Dead space is faster paced and much more sci fi.
Gears of War was outright stated to have been inspired partially by RE4. So... actually, yeah, by proxy a lot of modern 3rd person shooters COULD be called RE4 ripoffs, though it's more accurate to say Gears of War built on RE4 then many ripped off Gears in turn.
I don't think anyone wants publishers to 'not' produce some of these AAA games they produce, only wake up and realise that not every single game will be able to manage this.
Definitely, some games either have that much ambition or are just popular enough they can do it, I don't really want the likes of GTA to be throttled when they can clearly sell multiple millions. Hell, I'd want FF throttled more for the sake of becoming more open ended again and coming out quicker, not because it'd be irresponsible to spend a budget that'd require a million or two million copies to be profitable. Though with FFXIII-2's sales maybe they DO need to aim lower too...
If Riccitiello does get canned, then I think the one part of EA most likely to get pretty well fucked over is BioWare.
Yeah, it does seem likely that any significant upheaval in EA will result in Bioware's death, the best we could probably hope for is that Bioware's kept from ever making anything extraordinarily expensive again and definitely no MMOs, but is allowed to do what they want otherwise.
 
Their management style leads to shitty games. Destroys franchises, at high cost. They focus on quarterly earnings in a market with 2-3 year (or at least should be) dev cycles. Good riddance.

Hope their good employees find work elsewhere.
 
EA stock vs Valve stock:

FC2fI.jpg


Legal reasons. It's not really their fault.

When the games EA are offering for free on EA's DD service were developed by EA studios, published by EA, and distributed by EA, said offer being limited to NA is absolutely EA's fault.

From wiki:



Yeah, now tell me why on earth would you want to be with EA in any way

We won't know if Valve has gone elsewhere until another retail release is on the horizon. Both Dota 2 and CS:GO are DD-only, so that day is a long way off.
 
Looking at those charts, it's kind of funny to see EA and Take Two's positions, considering the EA takeover attempt a while ago.
 
Well hopefully they can now finally stop being able to afford the ability to hoar out the Porsche license so Forza, GT and all racing sims can enjoy Porsches openly.
 
They can die after I get my 10K2 trophy in BC1. But no sooner. >:|
 
While I think Dead Space 1 was ok, it was pretty clear EA created it as a RE4 ripoff but with some modern mechanics here and there. I think they like to say it's a system shock spiritual successor but there aint nothing system shock about Dead Space.

Ripoff is a strong word. But if we're going that far pretty much every single third person shooter this generation is a RE4 ripoff. It influenced practically all of then.

Gears of War started as a first person shooter. Cliffy changed the game after he played RE4. Still Gears refined a lot of gameplay mechanics from other games. Calling GoW a ripoff is a disservice to the contributions it made to the genre.

The same goes with Dead Space. It implemented a lot tried and true gameplay mechanics but it still refined then and brought new ideas to the table.

But I'm not going to keep arguing about that with you. It's useless. You're blind by your disgust with then. Most people accusing EA have conceded that they still make some good games and every now and then try to innovate. People defending EA have acknowledged that they make mistakes constantly and and many times adopt policies unfair to both clients and employes.

I'm not trying to insult you or anything. I just find it difficult to take your opinions seriously when you're seemingly incapable of recognizing that everything is not as black and white as you're painting it.
 
If you look at the graphs, you'll see that Take-Two's stock price has also suffered a very precipitous decline and ActivLizzards's is barely keeping pace with the S&P 500.

The fact of the matter is that this industry is -- to put it frankly -- in a whole lotta trouble. It's by far the most poorly-managed industry out there today, largely because it has absolutely no idea how to rationalize costs.
 
I'm not trying to insult you or anything. I just find it difficult to take your opinions seriously when you're seemingly incapable of recognizing that everything is not as black and white as you're painting it.

I think it is pretty black and white. I literally do not like any of their games they make and when I rant in other threads about why I'm really hating this industry and the kinds of games they focus on, EA games are right at the front of my memory. Everything they make is diluted into some homogenized genre to try to sell to casuals and try to make COD sales.

Those simple minded dumb games, from ANY publisher, no longer appeals to me. It's just that that's pretty much all EA makes whereas others have at least 1 or 2 IPs that don't really fit that. We'll see how Sim City turns out but I have no doubt EA will find a way to ruin it. They're already off to a good start with always online DRM.
 
The crash and burn mentality isn't a crash and burn mentality. It's a "refresh and renew" mentality.

I like a strong video game industry. I buy tons of games. I play tons of games.

And that's awesome. I've found that my interest has shifted in recent years from AAA packaged products to smaller games. That said, I'm not ready yet to be relegated to the basement again. Perhaps I'm still clinging to the outdated notion that the dedicated game console still has a place in today's market. I've been playing games in front of my TV since 1982. I know that the “industry” will be fine if there's an EA implosion. I'm just worried what the industry will look like if there is. I'm not ready yet to see the industry relegated to mobile smartphone platforms to survive or F2P microtransactions in every game. I still want those tent pole, blow my socks off, Michael Bay experiences to exist in 10 years. I just worry that the day EA implodes and the day Madden doesn't appear on store shelves is the day the canary takes out the whole coal mine. I don't want to see Words with Friends 3 and Angry Birds 4 be the killer apps of next-next gen machines.
 
so you think it's great that you want 7000 people to go unemployed?

This has already been covered in the thread but if it has to happen it has to happen. I'd be willing to bet at least half of them would be able to get jobs around the industry immediately following a EA collapse.

The other half would find other customer service jobs in India. There's no shortage of those over there :P
 
Your arguments in the thread have a fatalistic nature, if I read them correctly.

I wouldn't say fatalistic; obvious aggregate market demand drives the industry and the aggregate market is made up of individual agent humans, so in that sense, it's not pre-ordained or anything. EA could change, or people could change the way they react. Anything is possible.

But I'm also not going to pretend that this discussion thread is going to drive EA to change its ways. There's a lot of corporate inertia in every major corporation out there. Many corporations seal their fate long before the market kills them by making poor managerial and corporate culture decisions which renders them paralyzed with inability to adapt to changing conditions. So if EA is going to die, they probably won't realize it until it is too late.

I guess the strongest argument I want to make is that people shouldn't attempt to normalize the status quo. Change can be very good, especially when there's a strong case to be made for the harm the status quo causes. Simply because EA currently exists and employs people doesn't mean it's the optimal arrangement of resources.
 
Simply because EA currently exists and employs people doesn't mean it's the optimal arrangement of resources.
.

Weird how others keep wanting to replace free labor market dynamics with sympathy and welfare as if that is going to be sustainable solution.

EA:
$4.143 billion revenue in 2012? equals $76 million Profits,
Welcome to the games industry /sigh

Yay! Can't wait for next gen with falling revenues and significantly rising development costs. Oh, look! There's Moore at the helm of another sinking ship disaster. /historic irony
 
EA:
$4.143 billion revenue in 2012? equals $76 million Profits,
Welcome to the games industry /sigh

And that is EXACTLY what I mean!

In fact, it's AN IMPROVEMENT over the previous 4 fiscal years where EA experienced significant losses.

March 31, 2011
Revenue: $3.589 billion
Operating loss: ($312 million)

March 31, 2010
Revenue: $3.654 billion
Operating loss: ($686 million)

March 31, 2009
Revenue: $4.212 billion
Operating loss: ($827 million)

March 31, 2008
Revenue: $3.665 billion
Operating loss: ($487 million)

Simply put, this company sucks goat nads.
 
But I'm also not going to pretend that this discussion thread is going to drive EA to change its ways. There's a lot of corporate inertia in every major corporation out there. Many corporations seal their fate long before the market kills them by making poor managerial and corporate culture decisions which renders them paralyzed with inability to adapt to changing conditions. So if EA is going to die, they probably won't realize it until it is too late.

This is what I'd drawn my conjecture of fatalism from. The more we know the causes, and in time, the more EA's current position seems inevitable.
 
I mean, Criterion was the single most popular middleware producer last generation. Think about that. Dozens, maybe hundreds of games used Criterion's engine. EA bought them, and so for the better part of the generation, UE3 was the only viable engine choice. Thankfully Unity is doing well and has been pretty aggressive at targeting team sizes and platforms that are emerging, so we're back to having an alternative, but still!

This wasn't something I was aware of. This is the kind of thing I dislike about the rights corporations in general have to control innovation and creativity through takeovers, buyouts, and the blanket of trade secrecy, but that's another topic.
 
And that is EXACTLY what I mean!

In fact, it's AN IMPROVEMENT over the previous 4 fiscal years where EA experienced significant losses.

Simply put, this company sucks goat nads.

EA acquired a lot of important studios for their portfolio unless you want to say Popcap and Chillingo aren't money makers.
 
I like several of their games but not some of their methods and the way they treat customers.

Overall if the developers who work for EA can survive and make the games I want without them, I don't mind, if not I would like that EA keeps existing. And really, I find the fact that EA backs several different projects to be better than if they supported few games but those few games were extremely successful and they made more money.
 
And that is EXACTLY what I mean!

In fact, it's AN IMPROVEMENT over the previous 4 fiscal years where EA experienced significant losses.

Oh wow...seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this industry?
Its just utterly ridiculous; annoys me when businesses have so the wrong strategy cause we all know they could use what they have much much more effecitvely.

EA acquired a lot of important studios for their portfolio unless you want to say Popcap and Chillingo aren't money makers.

When you acquire a business you have to add value to them (unless you get a really great deal, in which case its easy) - which is part of their problem, but the better revenues in 2012 might be a sign of popcap working out.

Generally though I haven't seen/heard anything to say their acquisitions have added to the value of anything within EA or the other business...and with Origin...EA are just rudderless, they have no real direction except to get more bloated it seems.
 
When you acquire a business you have to add value to them (unless you get a really great deal, in which case its easy)

indeed. this is _the_ problem with EA. it grows to grow. it is engaged in an arms race against itself. EA is a great example of how vicious the winner's curse can be when buying software firms because you're basically betting against the managers/owners of the company you're buying that you think their company is more valuable than they do.

the screwed up nature of this is obvious when you compare EA to activision. activision really is COD, Blizzard (but primarily WoW), and a bare handful of other studios and properties (few of which interest me, but I recognize that a lot of them are popular moneymakers or were recently, i.e. guitar hero, tony hawk, skylanders). They have a very narrow business focusing on traditional retail games and WoW. They're a lot like nintendo in the simplicity of their model. (sell cheap hardware on which to play the same mario and pokemon games over and over) and bethesda (sell elder scrolls games over and over, and when you branch out, make the game just like elder scrolls but use another known brand) and valve (as far as I can tell, the only valve original property is half-life. and all the new properties they launch start out cheap and then ramp up for sequels or are based on existing user-mods with known fanbases)

By comparison, EA is the complete opposite. Rather than trying a lot of cheap things, waiting for success, and then building on the successful ones, EA throws tons of money at projects in their infancy in the vain belief that they can pick winners. This model has largely failed in trying to replicate the success of COD and WoW, and I expect it will continue to fail. This model may work quite well if the only barometer is creating good games, but it's a joke of a business plan because it's so expensive and so dependent on big hits. This chasing winners phenomenon is the same thing that is killing THQ and that killed Copernicus. Putting big bets on expensive new IP is an awful idea.

EA is a shining success in the areas where they follow the activision model: EASports, Maxis, their non-TOR bioware games, and their racing franchises. (i would also say battlefield, but I don't know how much they over-advertise those games in the hope that they'll be COD) I don't know what to make of the Popcap and Playfish acquisitions because I don't play those games, but I could see those being strong acquisitions for the company for the same reasons.
 
Wasn't it only a few years ago EA were the good guys? Like it was BAD->Good->BAD again.
They named their cash register after one of the studios they destroyed. The one that parodied them as a force for evil in one of their own games pre-acuisition. They were never the good guys.
 
Well, this.will shake up the industry if they go under.

If this has shown anything it's that companies don't tend to learn from their mistakes. Now learning from the mistakes of other companies? You talkin' some astrophysics crazy jive stuff there now; git on.

I think this is all just a premature consequence of what many people have seen coming for some time. The massive, and rising, costs of games being developed are not sustainable. When one title can make or break your company, sooner or later - and quite often sooner - your company is going to break. The solution of course is massively scaled back game development. Given many of my most fond gaming memories of recent times have been on Live/XNA/PSN, I can't say I'm upset about that.
 
Top Bottom