It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Profitless prosperity at EA(23 posts)(23 posts)
(23 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 13, 2010
avatar
mogamer: And EA has a nasty habit of buying up studios only to close them down in a few years. The money that's wasted by doing that, could have been spent to hire more developers. And don't say it's because EA wanted those IP's. Look at how many IP's EA has wasted over the years.

Not sure this is a bad idea from their POV, the less games there are on the shelves the more chance there is that the customer will buy one of yours.
Posted January 13, 2010
avatar
mogamer: And EA has a nasty habit of buying up studios only to close them down in a few years. The money that's wasted by doing that, could have been spent to hire more developers. And don't say it's because EA wanted those IP's. Look at how many IP's EA has wasted over the years.
avatar
Egotomb: Not sure this is a bad idea from their POV, the less games there are on the shelves the more chance there is that the customer will buy one of yours.

Ya, but they spent hundreds of millions of dollars for the company that owned Bioware and Pandemic. It will be pretty hard to make that money back with only Bioware. RPG's take a long time to make and normally aren't that big of sellers. I know that Bioware has been merged with Mythic to make MMO's. But really, after WOW, how much money have MMO's made?
Posted January 13, 2010
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: I've been saying pretty much the same thing as that analysis for a while now: EA is bringing in plenty of money... they're just spending even more than that. One thing I'm wondering is just how much of the costs in total is being spent on marketing. With many AAA games the marketing budget actually ends up surpassing the development budget, and I have a hard time believing that the ROI when spending that much on marketing is particularly good.

And when its marketing for dante's inferno, it damages the business rep as a side effect
Posted January 13, 2010
avatar
drmlessgames: At the risk of sounding ignorant and stupid, what do you mean by china being the usa's biggest lender nowadays? Everyone has a debt in china institutions ?

China owns about $1- 3 trillion (i cant remember the exact number but it's a fairly large fraction) of America's national debt right now. If they were to suddenly want their money back the United States would go bankrupt. However, they will never do it because we're their largest trade partner so for now they need to keep us alive. Just hope they never find a large enough partner to replace us...
Posted January 14, 2010
Foreign owners of US Treasury Securities (September 2009)
Nation billions of dollars percentage
People's Republic of China 798.9 B 23.35%
Japan 751.5 B 21.13%
United Kingdom 249.3 B 6.42%
Oil exporters 185.3 B 5.52%
Caribbean banking centers 171.7 B 5.64%
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
Not quite a Trllion but... the quarter is new :) and someone had to get that bailout all paid up... and at 700Billion.... Well lets hope China and Japan continue to buy our debt lol..
Posted January 14, 2010
avatar
akwater: Foreign owners of US Treasury Securities (September 2009)
Nation billions of dollars percentage
People's Republic of China 798.9 B 23.35%
Japan 751.5 B 21.13%
United Kingdom 249.3 B 6.42%
Oil exporters 185.3 B 5.52%
Caribbean banking centers 171.7 B 5.64%
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
Not quite a Trllion but... the quarter is new :) and someone had to get that bailout all paid up... and at 700Billion.... Well lets hope China and Japan continue to buy our debt lol..

Japan's busy bailing out their own airlines.
avatar
mogamer: And EA has a nasty habit of buying up studios only to close them down in a few years. The money that's wasted by doing that, could have been spent to hire more developers. And don't say it's because EA wanted those IP's. Look at how many IP's EA has wasted over the years.
avatar
Delixe: In fairness EA has not done that in years. Pandemic was the exception but in Pandemic's case they were continuing to make poor quality games and they were not selling. Eventually EA just stopped paying the bills.

Should've waited until The Saboteur came out, then make the final call. They'd be surprised how popular a black/white/color WWII game would sell.
Post edited January 14, 2010 by michaelleung
Posted January 14, 2010
avatar
Stuff: Wall Steet Logic:
"In our view, the company has excellent assets, but continues to spend too much money in creating and marketing them."
Not sure how spending less on creating and marketing will help sales. Shareholders seem to be EA's main concern nowadays.

I actually agree with that.
Best (worst) example is which come into my mind is oblivion. Picard? really? was he really needed there? or a great voice actor at a tenth of the cost would perform similarly.
Fallout 3 had the same with PC dad (whose name i don't remember but apparently is a big deal.
or maybe it is not that big of a deal: a single actor and ads milked it...
What the guy said that EA should cut costs on making games and promotion. Not to cut quality or effectiveness but just costs as a single product costs a lot but doesn't bring enough dough to justify the investment.
which can be done somewhere else where an invested dollar bring bigger cut.
The good thing is i believe we are going there. The closer we get to ultrarealistic graphic the cheaper it should be to make a game. Right now it is opposite as more complex engines take more work to make them... work.
but if we hit the mark then the engines will be tweaked not reworked.
Posted January 14, 2010
avatar
Stuff: Wall Steet Logic:
"In our view, the company has excellent assets, but continues to spend too much money in creating and marketing them."
Not sure how spending less on creating and marketing will help sales. Shareholders seem to be EA's main concern nowadays.
avatar
lukaszthegreat: I actually agree with that.
Best (worst) example is which come into my mind is oblivion. Picard? really? was he really needed there? or a great voice actor at a tenth of the cost would perform similarly.
Fallout 3 had the same with PC dad (whose name i don't remember but apparently is a big deal.
or maybe it is not that big of a deal: a single actor and ads milked it...
What the guy said that EA should cut costs on making games and promotion. Not to cut quality or effectiveness but just costs as a single product costs a lot but doesn't bring enough dough to justify the investment.
which can be done somewhere else where an invested dollar bring bigger cut.
The good thing is i believe we are going there. The closer we get to ultrarealistic graphic the cheaper it should be to make a game. Right now it is opposite as more complex engines take more work to make them... work.
but if we hit the mark then the engines will be tweaked not reworked.

Good point, I agree . . .
That would be a definite cut . . .lots ppl could have done the Picard lines just as effectively. Seems they never cut the obvious waste though . . .=)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Profitless prosperity at EA(23 posts)(23 posts)
(23 posts)