EA CEO John Riccitiello Steps Down

[Xenocity 343]

I wonder if this change means EA will finally start developing for Nintendo systems again in a meaningful way.

[macvirt 361]

Heh. Hehehe. 

 

[paeng 2,525]

But it is too invested in to that format for it to adopt another format. It is unable to restructure itself for that purpose, it has too many dependancies of a financial nature for running ventures, investors are not going to let it overhaul itself without first meeting all the running dependancies. EA has no real option other than even more firmly planting its feet on the road of already chosen strategies and to invest more in marketing for guising the continuation of the course.

 

Hmmm... sounds like that species that went out a million years ago. Maybe EA better turns to selling vacuum cleaners and such - anything that does not involve a sense of creativity and art.

[Catchin22 299]

This guy will get a severance package larger than what most of you make in a life time, and have time to sit on some of the nicest beaches in the world now. Showed him! Heads will ROLL!!!

[Geisty 0]

 

 

I think there is a $$$ job opening in John Riccitiello's SC region

 

Was EA the most hated game publisher before John was ceo? Or did they become the most hated game publisher because he took the lead?

Yes EA has been hated since the late 90s.

 

Not true. They started going downhill around 2004/2006-ish, around SimCity 4's release. 

The began in the late 90s when they started acquiring developers (most who were struggling).

 

We can all argue on whether or not EA has ever produced quality games.

For me, it was when they grabbed the sole rights to all NFL games, thus destroying the series that IMHO was much better than the madden games of the time(NFL2k).

[Hoipus 292]

I've heard that lately their core sports licenses have been at risk of being revoked. Does anyone know more about this?

[Hellken 1,658]

 



 
 
 
 
 
Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/SimCity/comments/1ajt2h/found_him/

[Catchin22 299]

lol! Ironic how many memes / insults this game can provide against the people who made it.

[azxcvbnm321 17]

We'll see, but I doubt that marketing will be either the focus or answer to EA's problems.  You can't market a bad game once word gets out.  And EA already has good brand awareness, they just need to put out solid games.  

[frdrcklim 139]

seeing this after coming home from work, best news i've heard all day

[SilentKK8 1]

Ha as if this is going to change the way EA works!

 

They are in too deep and to reform would means the whole company has to change.  they are far too big for that! So a bit of publicity and back to business as usual! 

[Metalpuritan 161]

I think there is a $$$ job opening in John Riccitiello's SC region

 

Was EA the most hated game publisher before John was ceo? Or did they become the most hated game publisher because he took the lead?

MY hate for EA began with the release of Mass Effect 2, the DLC for that and just grew from there, now I am boycotting EVERY new game they make from pretty much that point till now and into the future.

 

I want full complete games or I'm out!  No more of this DLC garbage they sell for unreasonable prices.  Look at the Sims3, that game is now over 300 dollars for the complete set!  What is THAT all about!?  I couldn't care less about DRM, I buy all my games legit, so I don't care about that.  All I want is quality and for it to be priced reasonably, to me that is not an unreasonable demand/request.  I just can't convince myself that asking for quality is too much to ask for.  

 

Quality is not what we are being given these days, anymore most of you all would buy any old game they threw your way.  Can you blame the makers for that?  Not really, if you all will buy any old piece of junk, why wouldn't they take advantage of that?  I can't say I wouldn't.  If you are willing to just throw your money at me and all I have to deal with is a bunch of whining?  Sure why not!

 

I removed myself from the equation by not buying games from game companies that have shady business practices.  I am not a part of the problem any more and never will be again.  I am however waiting for the rest of you to catch up.  How much more will it take?  They messed up with SimCity 2013, if they were to come with a new CoD would you buy that?  I wouldn't, no matter how much I wanted to play it, it goes against my boycott.

 

This CEO stepping down/getting fired is going to do little if anything at all to turn this company around.  His sole job was to make money for the investors, that is what CEO's do, that is their job, that is the job of every CEO in every company.  CEO's are legally obligated to make a profit for investors, they can even be imprisoned for failing at making money.  If I was a CEO of a game company and I decided we would give all our products away and we would stop making games and start making...pencils, I would be thrown in prison, that is how it goes.  Stocks would drop drastically and the investors would be out all their money and they would bring criminal charges against me.

 

This CEO stepping down, is the last person who should have stepped down.  We should see developers, marketers and a whole slew of others stepping down, but that isn't what is happening.  As far as I am concerned his stepping down does nothing except please the ignorant masses.  Look at all the people celebrating here this man's stepping down!  I hope they do not actually expect things to change, because they won't.  Sometime down the line, you are going to find yourself standing in line to get a product that is again, broken.  A new CEO is just another guy who's sole responsibility is to make the investors money, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

On a more broad note, this is why capitalism eventually fails.  How much can you charge for the same product you were producing 20 years ago at a fraction of the cost?  A product that was sold 20 years ago for 10 dollars now being sold for 60 dollars, a 600% increase, what over the last 20 years has inflated 600%?  Nothing.  Investors want to make a profit on their investments, they then sell their investments to someone else who in turn wants a profit on their investments, rinse and repeat, and now you have a bloated product that is now so over priced the only way it can go is down.  The failure of capitalism.  Since the basis of capitalism is currency, that also makes all currency destined to fail as well.  Good luck getting people to give up their money with nothing to give them in return though.

[Jokurr 175]

For those of you who are claiming this as “the best news in years” could you please explain to me what exactly it is that John Riccitiello himself did, that EA would not have otherwise done if someone else was at the helm?

 

From what I could tell he was probably one of the better CEOs that the company had, he actually played video games in his spare time unlike many of his predecessors, and as such was more in tune with what the average customer’s wants were. Unfortunately for him, EA is too much of a giant corporate morass that is too big for any one man, even the CEO, to fundamentally change. My prediction is that little will change once a new CEO is appointed.

[simcopops 37]

Ea shares have shot 2.5% today on the back iof this news

[uebs 11]

The CEO sets the vision and guides the company in a direction...

 

The question that most comes up would be they would have to do what they did or they would hack off the shareholders...

 

Coscto I believe hacks off their shareholders a lot by paying their workers more than norm.  Costco values their workers more than shareholders which is okay, because shareholders have other companies to invest in.

 

CEO's who value their shareholders over their employees or customers are just greedy or just don't get it.

[Camlon 50]

CEO's who value their shareholders over their employees or customers are just greedy or just don't get it.

If they valued their shareholders, they would release better games.

 

EA has been way too short term focused. In the short term releasing mediocre rushed games is very beneficial. It will cut down on costs, and sales will be almost the same.

 

However in the long term it causes problems. Some of these intended mediocre games are going to be absolutely terrible, as games tend to be worse than expected. That will often destroy the whole series. For instance Sim City Socities flopped, but it did have some sales. They released an expansion and it was a total financial failure. 

 

EA needs to get a more long term perspective. 

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

I wonder if EA went completely out of business, what would happen with the aquired games? Would the source codes be free or what?

To be honest I don't know much about EA because I never really followed them.the only EA PC game I have is SC4. All I know is that this whole money matters thing is irrelevant to the products that are being sold because its not about the product anymore. That's the real tragedy.....games are just fast whores now for many companies. I would hope the next CEO would have power that caters to a more reasonable approach to the customers. The true math is that if your product is good, it will feed the company for a very long time. Conspiracies against unsuspecting customers between CEOs and shareholders is just an industry being robbed and gutted. What I do wish for in the future is that good game developers stop selling out to big companies so that the talented can keep control of their beloved. Then we wouldn't have these problems.

Being afraid of pirates and designing a product because of their behavior will only create a relationship between the company and the pirate and screw the real paying customers who are supposed to understand the fight that have nothing to do with them. SimCity4 is just screaming at EA as a shining example of a successful title that brings profits for many years and also gameplay that is deep and can be creatively satisfying and yet this proven formula just flies over their heads like its nothing. So the argument about companies following "safe formulas" to make money just shows how somebody is NOT paying attention and doing real math. Though SC13 is failing, they still made a lot of money. So imagine if the game was user friendly and was actually good. Come on CEO, think.

[uebs 11]

If they valued their shareholders they would release better games? not necessarily...

 

They would create a system that locks users in and that would require users to buy DLC's to make the game somewhat enjoyable...

 

Create a base game

release DLC's

After 3 or 5 years, release a new game, make all the old DLC's not compatible.

Sell new game

Sell same DLC's but which are compatible with the new version.

 

another example would be their sport franchises, make small incremental upgrades, kill off all the older versions, force users to re buy just to play multiplayer for current year...

[elektrichead22 10]

As a fan of music and a part time paid in beer n whiskey musician maybe this analogy can put this in perspective.... EA is the MCA GRIFFIN of the 80s and early 90s. they are a bands payday... almost every great musician puts out there best product the first go around... some put out a semi decent product the second... EA took the big record company model thinking that people will continue to buy music by the same artist... Is it ever as good ...???? Sadly no.... I can only think of a handful of artists that have redeemed themselves after a handful of flops prior to their independent label release. ones 25 years later are usually just nostalgia,,,, what new release robert plant song is on your playlist right now?

[jguy 5]

Eh, I have mixed reactions about this.

 

In one hand, John was indeed doing a poor job. Keep someone in a position of power and have them keep losing money and stocks keep going down and pretty soon....no more EA. Investers wouldn't want to invest in a company that keeps hemmoraging money. See, you have to think as an investor:

 

* Company losing money after new CEO

* Company profits go down after new CEO

* Fire CEO

* Things rebound. Company is profitable. No results yet, just the fact that the stocks were going down when that CEO was hired and now that CEO isn't there anymore means things are better from an investment standpoint

 

The PERFECT example of this is Groupon's CEO stepping down earlier this year. Stocks instantly rebounded, as much as up to 20%. But not all of it is about being an investor. Recall the previous CEO's name was Larry Probst. Recall the notorious practice under his leadership of EA buying up struggling publishers, making one or two more games and then running the franchise into the ground and forgetting about it. The Ultima series was/is a good example of that.

I've always had fallout when it came to EA. When they bought Westwood and came up with C&C Red Alert 3 and Generals, that's when my hatred started for them. In my opinion they completely botched up that series. If anyone played the original Command and Conquer or Red Alert and perhaps still to date cannot or has immense trouble beating both campaigns back to front, you know exactly how I feel. when EA takes over series/other publishers, they usually make one decent game and then screw up the rest of the series by making the graphics horrible (I still love the 1995 graphics of Command and Conquer or the 1996 graphics of the original Red Alert) or the games too easy (I remember taking hours and hours of strategy and planning to beat a level on Command and Conquer or a skirmish on Red Alert on easy...but yet the hardest difficulty on Red Alert 2 or 3 has me breazing through the game in mere hours).

EA started as a publishing house for many many sports games, racing games and other games which would use a similar or the same gaming engine/platform with some names changed and teams/players shifted around or all around removed. As such with sports games, they needed to be remade every year (but again, not much changed from game to game). Perhaps they've changed their gaming model from those days to current, but stuff is changing too dramatically once they take over a publisher. Perfect example was Command and Conquer again. They changed almost EVERYTHING about that series when they took it over. The failures of SimCity just are icing on the cake.

 

Overall, though, this is sort of a blessing for me. Larry will only be in charge of the company for a short time, and maybe they'll find someone more level headed and not so concerned with the investors but concerned enough to keep the company profitable.

[Camlon 50]

If they valued their shareholders they would release better games? not necessarily...

 

They would create a system that locks users in and that would require users to buy DLC's to make the game somewhat enjoyable...

 

Create a base game

release DLC's

After 3 or 5 years, release a new game, make all the old DLC's not compatible.

Sell new game

Sell same DLC's but which are compatible with the new version.

 

another example would be their sport franchises, make small incremental upgrades, kill off all the older versions, force users to re buy just to play multiplayer for current year...

To be able to sell DLCs you need to first have an enjoyable game and a huge player base. They can make as many DLCs as they want for Sim City Societies, but it won't lead to any revenue.

 

There is nothing wrong with DLCs and you can earn a lot of money from it. Sims 3 is an example of that. Its a quite enjoyable game, and has a lot of DLCs that you can download. However, if you release a bad game then people are not going to buy DLCs to fix it.

 

So I still hold the statement. If EA valued their shareholders, they would release better games.

[azxcvbnm321 17]

Absolutely.  I am an EA shareholder, indirectly through a mutual fund.  I want EA to make quality games so that they can sell more games and make a bigger profit for me.  Businesses cannot stay in business for long if they don't offer what customers want, EA has been losing money for years until 2012 which looks more and more like a blip in their streak of losses.  

 

That said, it's much harder to make a good game and execute on a plan than just stating, "We will make a good game".  Execution is difficult, otherwise we'd all be perfect and all games would be perfect.  

 

I believe EA has to make lower cost games that are not meant to be for everyone across all platforms.  They should make a SimCity for those who like city builder games.  It will not have the frills of GlassBox and being able to see every vehicle, but traffic and the core mechanics would be good.  People like me would buy that game.  I think the problem with EA and a lot of other companies recently is that they try to make a game that will appeal to everyone and that everyone can play regardless of it's on laptop, console, or desktop.  That really reduces the options of the developers and programmers.  They have to build for the worst computers and dumbest people.  They have to make sure the program can run on weak computers, which is why SimCity2013 can only use one core.  The pathing algorithms could be so much more complex if they could use 4 cores.  RCI is dumbed down because they wanted to make sure everyone could play and be successful.  That leads to a shallow game.  Not all games should be for everyone.  EA has to learn this and not put so many resources into making big time games.

[macvirt 361]

For EA to make quality games as a foundation for their business development a lot would have to change. For starters, they would have to adopt a radically different model. For EA it pays to not have quality as the foundation for their model, but efficiency of marketing plus sales versus costs. 

 

It is a reality of today that businesses do not stay in business longer if they offer what customers want. It happens, but it is a rarity. Overall businesses stay in business because they invest more in the arts of marketing and sales rather than investing in just what the customer wants. Don't get me wrong here, one has to have an idea of what customers want, but this is generally approached from the angle of what can we make so that it sells the most. 

What customer types have which expectation patterns IS a strong element of that, but it is a tactical element - one that takes place on a development / production level - and not a strategic level. 

 

EA has set a range of strategic directives for its subsiduaries. Those work within the constraints of those directives. Their research takes place after those directives are set on an entirely different level. And even then their research is focused still on mapping what user types (different from "customers") share in expectation patterns which is then translated in to mapping out production according to first and foremost using these results to cater to the strategic targets. 

 

SC2013 already is a classic textbook example of how a publisher active as an investment broker takes its steps on a strategic level in service of developing a lock-in service model controlled strictly through a services platform. It is equally a classic textbook example of how a subsiduary tasked with production for a venture is required to work within the constraints imposed by these strategic targets according to instructions, timeline, resource allocation and so forth. 

 

If you want EA to make money for investors, you should encourage them to learn from the SC2013 case in terms of figuring out the lapses in marketing, resource allocation planning and sales, so that in the future they do not allow prospect and existing customers to see the differences between marketing of a product and the realities of the origins, the release, the state of and the specifications of a product. 

 

In simpler terms, if you want EA to make money, you have to encourage them to invest deeper in to the Big Lie methodology in order to be smarter about it. I'm sorry, but that is how it is. You need not worry, EA is perfectly aware of this, and is already showing signs with the departure of its latest CEO to commit themselves further and deeper on that road. 

 

As for taking an angle of low cost productions, rest assured that is well under way. SC2013 is at its core a fine example of revisions in that focus element of strategy. Ofcourse one has to punch through some creative accounting, in many ways very similar to that of how the movie industry has come to work, but it is quite clear in the briefs. 

 

But yes, EA will continue the roadmap of reboot, DLC and services platform for its AAA mainstream titles, it will continue to invest further in the values of data mining and profiling research, it will strengthen efforts towards enablement of services platform technology for targeted contextual advertising, and so forth. Again, business as usual.

 

What it will not do is engage in quality first productions, it will not engage in niche genre products beyond the reboot formula where one can tie seperate titles to a same market, it will not loosen the leash around the necks of the poor folks who do the actual work, they will further focus wide rather than deep.

[CaptCity 4,908]

This is wondering away from the purpose of this forum, which is for discussing the playing of SimCity.