EA Says It Deserves Better: “We’re Not Just a Bunch of Bad Guys”

[Tsing]

Having won the title of "Worst Company in America" two times in a row, EA doesn't rank highly with gamers, but EVP of strategic growth Matt Bilbey believes his company deserves better. Bilbey recently opened up about his "struggle" with EA's poor reputation.

"25 years at EA and I still struggle with the external perception that we're just a bunch of bad guys," says Matt Bilbey, EVP of strategic growth at EA. "We love making and playing games. Unfortunately, when we make mistakes on games, the world knows about it because it's of a size and scale."

Despite negativity stemming from loot boxes to lay offs and the shuttering of classic studios and franchises, Bilbey believes EA cares very much about the industry and the success of its developers. He mentions EA Originals to defend his case, a label that has made quite a number of indie titles possible.

Originals sees EA publish and promote new games from indie studios, and give every penny of profit back to the developer. EA only takes enough money to cover its costs. It's a deal so good that Jonny Hopper of Glowmade exclaimed on stage that he "couldn't believe" the contract he had been sent. To these creators EA isn't some super villain. Quite the opposite.

 

[xGryfter]

While I do agree with most of what Bilbey says, a majority of the people at EA probably love games and the industry. The problem is those people are largely irrelevant and make very few of the final decisions. The people who don't give a ****, many in marketing, executives and especially share holders are the ones making the final say on things and they are the ones people are talking about. A developer can create a great game with many wonderful ideas which can then be twisted... corrupted by EA's requirement to please share holders.

 

[Grimlakin]

You know if EA didn't buy studios then seem to just milk them as all of the talent left for other projects/studios then perhaps people wouldn't feel that way about their business practices?

 

[Brian_B]

EA only takes enough money to cover its costs.

It's like a vampire saying they only take enough blood to sate their hunger.

They are a publicly traded company. They have shareholders to pay. They have an obligation to extract as high a margin as the market will allow, and to expand their sales and revenue to the best of their ability.

The rank and file are all about the games they make, and I'm certain many of them have passion about it (otherwise, the pay isn't great, the hours are horrible, and the work environment leaves a lot to be desired: if they didn't love it they would all be pounding out Cobal at a bank making $$$).

The board members are just trying to raise those dividends. Right now, buying and shucking studios is profitable. Loot boxes and praying off whales is profitable. Milking popular IPs with thin annual releases is profitable. Cookie cutter mobile releases are profitable. The board will direct the company to continue to do so for as long as it continues to work, no matter how much passion or creativity or drive their rank and file may possess. The board cuts the pay checks, and therefore makes the rules.

All that said, there's absolutely no reason you or I couldn't be EA shareholders. Anyone can go buy shares. I chose not to though.

 

[DejaWiz]

He's making statements about how EA used to be: passionate and motivated about making the best games in the industry.

The problem is, EA strayed from that over two decades ago and has become a beast that devours the competition under the guise of a "cohesive merger", spits out the bones, and then on to the next because it must be constantly fed.

The food source is starting to wane, so now that beast has turned its attention to the rapid influx of small snacks in hopes of building a huge stockpile: getting as many of their own customers to constantly open their wallets as many times as possible by incorporating PTP/PTW microtransactions in almost every product released.

...it's eaten up all the steaks and chops, and has moved on to gathering up berries and raisins fast enough to build a mountain while simultaneously eating them.

 

[Dan_D]

The problem is that people end up financially, emotionally (or both) invested in games they play. When EA forces games to market before they are ready and the games end up being bug ridden, poorly made and utterly broken, people get pissed off. Then on top of that, EA tries to nickle and dime you to death with micro transactions because $60 up front isn't enough.

I'm all for added content and keeping games fresh over the course of a year or more. I'm absolutely fine buying things that enhance my game play experience, or crap that I simply want to have in game. So long as its optional and I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. The problem is that EA (and others like them) sell you parts of the original game pulled out to fleece customers for extra cash or they sell things that should have been part of the original game. In Anthem, why should I have to spend $10 or $20 on black and gold armor that's identical to the base Javelin suit? That makes no sense. It's just ****ing greedy.

EA's marketing machine sets expectations high, but its management over projects is so piss poor, the hype could never be lived up to. This problem is especially bad when we are talking about beloved franchises where players have hundreds of hours and a significant sum of money tied up in the series. The Mass Effect and Dragon Age series are great examples of what I mean and BioWare is an example of a mismanaged studio, that's treated poorly. You can't help but be mad when EA releases a game like Mass Effect 3 in its original state, or Andromeda as broken as it was. It was an otherwise decent game marred by being so low quality at launch it became an internet meme.

EA mismanages the studios under them. You have games like Anthem and Mass Effect Andromeda with over half a decade of development that was directionless leading to ridiculous crunches at the end to get them done. These are games that by some reports had little done beyond some initial pre-alpha prototyping at the end of three or more years. Employees by some accounts are treated extremely poorly and it shows in the products themselves. Things are rushed, poorly thought out and broken.

Essentially, EA is like American car companies throughout the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. When you have decades of mistreating people and fleecing your customers over ****ty products, it turns out customers and the general public will end up thinking of you as the bad guy. Who knew?

 

[DejaWiz]

The problem is that people end up financially, emotionally (or both) invested in games they play. When EA forces games to market before they are ready and the games end up being bug ridden, poorly made and utterly broken, people get pissed off. Then on top of that, EA tries to nickle and dime you to death with micro transactions because $60 up front isn't enough.

I'm all for added content and keeping games fresh over the course of a year or more. I'm absolutely fine buying things that enhance my game play experience, or crap that I simply want to have in game. So long as its optional and I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. The problem is that EA (and others like them) sell you parts of the original game pulled out to fleece customers for extra cash or they sell things that should have been part of the original game. In Anthem, why should I have to spend $10 or $20 on black and gold armor that's identical to the base Javelin suit? That makes no sense. It's just ****ing greedy.

EA's marketing machine sets expectations high, but its management over projects is so piss poor, the hype could never be lived up to. This problem is especially bad when we are talking about beloved franchises where players have hundreds of hours and a significant sum of money tied up in the series. The Mass Effect and Dragon Age series are great examples of what I mean and BioWare is an example of a mismanaged studio, that's treated poorly. You can't help but be mad when EA releases a game like Mass Effect 3 in its original state, or Andromeda as broken as it was. It was an otherwise decent game marred by being so low quality at launch it became an internet meme.

EA mismanages the studios under them. You have games like Anthem and Mass Effect Andromeda with over half a decade of development that was directionless leading to ridiculous crunches at the end to get them done. These are games that by some reports had little done beyond some initial pre-alpha prototyping at the end of three or more years. Employees by some accounts are treated extremely poorly and it shows in the products themselves. Things are rushed, poorly thought out and broken.

Essentially, EA is like American car companies throughout the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. When you have decades of mistreating people and fleecing your customers over ****ty products, it turns out customers and the general public will end up thinking of you as the bad guy. Who knew?

The nail in EA's coffin, for me, was how they treated Origin Systems. Ultima IX had so much promise of being the greatest open-world fantasy RP/adventure game in history, but EA forced Garriott and team to rush it. What we got was a content cut, pseudo-open world, unstable bug-ridden mess because EA wanted Ultima turned into a subscription based MMO, thus UO was forced to the front burner. In a sense, I'm glad it tanked in a relatively short amount of time.
What I especially despise is that EA can now forever give the finger to the greatest RPG series creator (Garriott) and ensure that he can never reclaim/restart his past company: they retained the murdered brand's name by assigning it to their digital download client. That's just petty, imo.

 

[Niner51]

They are using the "poor me" tactic? They deserve everything that they have had thrown their way IMO.

 

[raz-0]

EA... when you want it on schedule, regardless of if it works or is a pile of hot garbage.

 

[northrop]

This news story got me curious to see what was the last EA game that I have purchase for myself.

Drum roll....

It's Mass Effect 2... which was released almost a decade ago (Jan, 2010).

 

[HAL_404]

This news story got me curious to see what was the last EA game that I have purchase for myself.
Drum roll....
It's Mass Effect 2... which was released almost a decade ago (Jan, 2010).

ME3 is still ok for $20 @ EA (if memory serves it used to be less) and Mass Effect Andromeda they couldn't give it away (I recall seeing it for $15) now it's $30

IMO ME Andromeda is not worth $30, has extremely repetitive gameplay (find the 3 monoliths then go into the vault that opens, save the planet by activating the vault, rinse, repeat)