Where EA Went Wrong

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Where EA Went Wrong

Electronic Arts' business model is broken. But can it be fixed?

Read Full Article

I agree with everything here...but then I look at Assassins Creed's yearly release and am truly confused at how they get away with it. Maybe because there's nothing else like it...whilst EA try to emulate other existing successes (sometimes steering existing franchises into something they were not intended to be). ie. WOW alternative, gears of war alternative, COD alternative.

Watching EA is like watching a fat man try to roll his way down a street, to bloated to tell he has perfectly good legs to walk on.

Mass Effect probably took three or four years to develop under the then-independent BioWare. Mass Effect 2 took three years. Mass Effect 3 took just two years. Dragon Age 2 was rumored to have been in development for less than a year. I'm sure you can remember the controversies and player frustrations that surrounded these latter two games. While shorter development cycles are crucial for sports games, they're actually harmful for other kinds of games, and the publisher's failure to understand this has damaged the names of good developers and (formerly) successful franchises.

While i am not going to argue that shaving development time happens, is a bad thing and games suffer because of it, there is something important you are overlooking here.

The first installment of a new IP with a new combat system should always take longer then the second or third. It is the foundation they will be built on. That first game has to create and sell an entire universe, while the others simply have to update it.

The first installment needs to decide on genre, tone, lore, characters, themes, initial gameplay design, aesthetics, creating or choosing an engine.......it has to build or decide everything. For the sequels, while the devs should certainly make them distinct games in their own right rather then a quick repeat of the original are still building on and updating what the first game gave us. Mass Effect 2 is a good example. They didn't hesitate to remove anything that brought the experience of ME1 down for most players, tossing out the combat system from and redesigning it from the ground up. ANd yet, even with much less dev time, Mass Effect 2 had much more content then ME1.

There was a company that devoted themselves to only building SUV's, they were called GM. Then they went bankrupt and the US government had to bail them out.

Most insightful article I have read in a long time Shamus no joke (might be my favorite of the escapist). The 3rd point was well researched, reasoned, and it was a 10/10. I actually learned something from reading that article. Please keep up the good work!

Edit: You have gained a fan too. :)

IronMit:
I agree with everything here...but then I look at Assassins Creed's yearly release and am truly confused at how they get away with it. Maybe because there's nothing else like it...whilst EA try to emulate other existing successes (sometimes steering existing franchises into something they were not intended to be). ie. WOW alternative, gears of war alternative, COD alternative.

I'm not entirely sure they have. Assassin's Creed was good, but had some issues. 2 was amazing. Brotherhood was also amazing...except for that ending. But hey, still awesome stuff! Revelations was okay...but now we're getting long in the tooth with Ezio. 3 went to a new hero! But the glitches. And other issues. Can they afford to be that sloppy with Black Flag? If there are similar issues (poorly designed levels, frustrating sequences, glitches galore) will that be the end? Would they have these problems if they weren't being so aggressive on releases?

I think you're right on saying they've gotten as far as they have because it is a unique setting and story. I'm just afraid they've pushed their luck a little too far. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

This article reminded me very heavily of a video on the topic, and has a similar level of just-plain-right-ness. The article just makes sense, and is something everyone at EA should read. This video, too, is a fantastic (and funny) summation of the issues with EA, made shortly after the release of Mass Effect 3, though it is still applicable for EA's current troubles; something that EA should DEFINITELY watch.

In short, EA is scared. They're afraid of losing money and are continuously pulling that slot lever hoping to get a jackpot.

This has become my favorite blog on Escapist, keep up the excellent work. Finally an intelligent, well spoken way of discussing what is wrong with the game industry and not just bashing in general.

Excellent article. Just a shame nobody with decision-making power at EA is reading.

Or was. Maybe the new guy will be less clueless.

EA has games I'd want to play, but I don't because of Origin. Steam is everything I could ever want in a distribution platform and Origin has nothing to offer me but invasive datamining. Screw 'em. I hope their stock price drops below $10 and Valve buys them out. I welcome our new Gaben overlords.

I'd say that EA is being a bit stupid, at least in their choice of executives. Look at the founder, Trip Hawkins. He's an entrepenuer, sure, but he's also an engineer and a game designer; after he left EA, he started 3DO and (after it failed) a new company called Digital Chocolate. You bring up VALVe and Mojang as well in the article, and both of those companies are still being run by gamers and game developers.

Compare that with Executive Chairman Larry Probst and the old CEO John Riccitiello. Both of them are professional businessmen. Naturally, a company needs good businesspeople or it will fail, but it shows a disconnect with the market.

EA doesn't know what they're doing because the executives are not clued into the market. They're trying to run the company based on what they know about other entertainment industries and business in general, and they're not understanding that the game industry is still very young and very much in flux. They want everything to be yearly releases and COD clones because that's what they see working for other games (and for movies; you mention a lot of genres that a studio can produce, but we have to remember that every year a big studio produces at least one movie in each of those genres).

1- EA would rather understand fans of "casual games" than RPG fans.

2- Their problem crash spending is with buying up studios like PopCap AFTER they've made their big hits and before everyone realizes that lightning rarely strikes twice in games.

3- See above. EA could have bought dozens of small studios for the price they paid to PopCap. Only one of them would need to have a hit. Bejeweled and Plants vs. Zombies are not valuable IP that can be mined for years, they're formulas that are easy to copy (see EA vs Zynga).

4- At the end of the FY, I think PC games are such a minor portion of their revenue that Origin is barely worth their time. They're far more worried about the iTunes App Store and about the next generation of consoles' stores than about Steam.

Instead of worrying about their own pipes, I think you'll see EA recommit to having every one of their IPs available in some form on EVERY pipeline available.

AntiChri5:

The first installment of a new IP with a new combat system should always take longer then the second or third. It is the foundation they will be built on. That first game has to create and sell an entire universe, while the others simply have to update it.

The first installment needs to decide on genre, tone, lore, characters, themes, initial gameplay design, aesthetics, creating or choosing an engine.......it has to build or decide everything. For the sequels, while the devs should certainly make them distinct games in their own right rather then a quick repeat of the original are still building on and updating what the first game gave us. Mass Effect 2 is a good example. They didn't hesitate to remove anything that brought the experience of ME1 down for most players, tossing out the combat system from and redesigning it from the ground up. ANd yet, even with much less dev time, Mass Effect 2 had much more content then ME1.

I disagree with you there.

New installments have to update, expand and improve on the previous games.

This is something both ME2 and 3 failed to do.

In number 2 the shooting mechanics were better, but the planetary exploration and Mako were notably absent. Replaced with the scanner and a couple of strictly linear short sections in the Hammerhead. They could have improved the Mako's collision detection and turning circle so it was more forgiving to use (and by extension more fun) whilst replacing the procedurally generated planets with a smaller number of bespoke maps.

The Overlord expansion showed some promise, using the Hammerhead in a similar way to the Mako but with an emphasis on platforming over straight up rock crawling. I really enjoyed that, even if it was only a short section.

By part three the tanks (and exploration) are gone entirely, replaced with a few (IIRC four?) short turret sections within a series of entirely linear infantry maps.

That's not improving anything, that's a race to the bottom, paring out anything and everything deemed unsafe until all that's left are the same homogenous mechanics you find everywhere else. I enjoyed the Mako sections, I am aware that's an unpopular opinion but running down Geth and mercs from the wheel of a space dropped tank was a lot of fun. It was also something that set Mass Effect apart from everything else. I played 3 to finish the story I'd sank over a hundred hours into already, if 3 is representative of the gameplay and design for four then I see nothing to interest me.

Shamus, I'm totally pleased to have you writing regularly for the Escapist again, as your articles always manage to succinctly bring up all the problems I have with the industry.

The ultimate problem is one of priorities. I believe the above-linked video explains it quite succinctly. A smaller studio makes money in order to make games. As long as they turn a profit, things are golden, because that means another game can be made. EA, however, makes games in order to make money, which as an approach in this industry has a whole host of problems. If your priority isn't on the game itself, but on the money it generates for you, then things like quality, craftmanship and re playability go straight out the window. If your game is complete crap, yet still somehow manages to turn a profit, then what incentive have you got to fix all the things that were wrong with it next time round? *Glares at SimCity*

If you look at any company that's still doing well after decades in the industry (Valve, Nintendo, etc), it's because as a general rule, they don't sacrifice the need for quality games at the altar of greater profit share. Valve still takes as long as it feels it needs to work on whatever games it wants to, and releases them when they're ready. Nintendo are quite happy to give a three year development schedule to a handheld title (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon), and fit as much gameplay in as possible.

The reason those companies are still around and still doing well is because they know how to play the long game. Suckering in your consumers with micro-transactions, DRM and day 1 DLC across all your games might net you money in the short term, but it simply isn't conducive to building a healthy long term relationship with your consumers. The reason people stick with Valve is because experience has taught them that a new Valve game is always worth playing. Same with Nintendo. For all their flaws, the same could also be said of Blizzard (depending on how you feel about Diablo 3). EA has fallen into the trap of trying to net as much short-term profit as possible, and allowing the quality of their games to suffer as a result, yet they can't see how many bridges they're burning in doing so.

I'm of the opinion that if you want to make multi-billion dollar profits, the gaming industry is not the place to go. Yes, profits can be large, but costs are currently so exorbitant that you're much more likely to crash and burn than you are ever likely to make that multi-billion pay cheque.

This was a very well written article. EA has been in a lot of trouble for quite some time. If they don't rethink their business practices now, they will eventually reach a point of no return.

IronMit:
I agree with everything here...but then I look at Assassins Creed's yearly release and am truly confused at how they get away with it. Maybe because there's nothing else like it...whilst EA try to emulate other existing successes (sometimes steering existing franchises into something they were not intended to be). ie. WOW alternative, gears of war alternative, COD alternative.

I don't think they will do much longer though. People were getting serious Ezio fatigue by Revelations, and Assassins Creed 3 felt like an unpolished mess.

I know that metacritic isn't the most reliable source, but AC3 has many more negative and mixed user reviews than AC2.

I've personally had enough of the franchise by this point.

Ending an Experienced Points with a to be continued? How could you Shamus? I am kind of hoping, though, that this means you might add a little blurb on what you think Rikki-Tikki-Tello's resignation means for the future of EA.

fix-the-spade:

AntiChri5:

The first installment of a new IP with a new combat system should always take longer then the second or third. It is the foundation they will be built on. That first game has to create and sell an entire universe, while the others simply have to update it.

The first installment needs to decide on genre, tone, lore, characters, themes, initial gameplay design, aesthetics, creating or choosing an engine.......it has to build or decide everything. For the sequels, while the devs should certainly make them distinct games in their own right rather then a quick repeat of the original are still building on and updating what the first game gave us. Mass Effect 2 is a good example. They didn't hesitate to remove anything that brought the experience of ME1 down for most players, tossing out the combat system from and redesigning it from the ground up. ANd yet, even with much less dev time, Mass Effect 2 had much more content then ME1.

I disagree with you there.

New installments have to update, expand and improve on the previous games.

This is something both ME2 and 3 failed to do.

In number 2 the shooting mechanics were better, but the planetary exploration and Mako were notably absent. Replaced with the scanner and a couple of strictly linear short sections in the Hammerhead. They could have improved the Mako's collision detection and turning circle so it was more forgiving to use (and by extension more fun) whilst replacing the procedurally generated planets with a smaller number of bespoke maps.

The Overlord expansion showed some promise, using the Hammerhead in a similar way to the Mako but with an emphasis on platforming over straight up rock crawling. I really enjoyed that, even if it was only a short section.

By part three the tanks (and exploration) are gone entirely, replaced with a few (IIRC four?) short turret sections within a series of entirely linear infantry maps.

That's not improving anything, that's a race to the bottom, paring out anything and everything deemed unsafe until all that's left are the same homogenous mechanics you find everywhere else. I enjoyed the Mako sections, I am aware that's an unpopular opinion but running down Geth and mercs from the wheel of a space dropped tank was a lot of fun. It was also something that set Mass Effect apart from everything else. I played 3 to finish the story I'd sank over a hundred hours into already, if 3 is representative of the gameplay and design for four then I see nothing to interest me.

I disagree with your disagreement. ME2 and 3 expanded and improved on most of the things in the games before them that were worth expanding and improving on. While discarding what wasn't.

I am currently replaying ME1, and the "exploration" in the Mako is making me want to punch a kitten. I have no preoblem with exploration in games, but ME1 did it terribly. It wasn't worth saving. But i will admit, the planet scanning was fucking terrible. Goddamn bane of ME2.

You seem to think that the vehicle segments were a part of what set Mass Effect apart from the "homogenous mechanics" and i couldn't disagree more. The only thing about the mako that wasn't boring and generic was the mountain climbing, which was hilarious at first but got old fast. Almost every game with guns the past few years has vehicle segments where you can mow down or run over guys in a tank or APC or jeep. And almost all of them are better designed. There was nothing uniquely Mass Effecty about the Mako.

What sets the ME games apart, in terms of gameplay, are the powers and the gameplay variation and they certainly expanded on that. ME1 had 6 guns and a dozen or so powers. ME 2 had....what was it 13, 14? guns and roughly the same amount of powers (but they were redesigned to be much more interesting). ME3 has way too many guns and powers to for me to have an accurate count off the top of my hand, and the melee combat has been drastically improved. In ME3, i can perform fantastically as a gun toting soldier and play it as a pure TPS. Or i can ignore guns alltogehter, focus purely on powers and still absolutely kick ass. Or i can ignore them both, go with a melee build and beat the crap out of everything, even on the higher difficulties.

Judging by the pre-release comments of ME1, they wanted to make a shooter that could compete with any pure shooter on the market while still being an RPG where you could practically ignore gunplay in favour of using powers. They never delivered that so well as ME3.

Don't get me wrong, not every step was perfect. There are things ME1 did better then any other game in the series, and all three have unique and serious flaws. BUt i really think that they did "update and improve". IM sorry if it wasn't in the areas you wanted.

IronMit:
I agree with everything here...but then I look at Assassins Creed's yearly release and am truly confused at how they get away with it. Maybe because there's nothing else like it...whilst EA try to emulate other existing successes (sometimes steering existing franchises into something they were not intended to be). ie. WOW alternative, gears of war alternative, COD alternative.

I also agree with everything Shamus said.

As for Assassins Creed, I'd argue their not really - so far they have, but the quality of the games is definitely going downhill, and I'm willing to bet some money that their sells of Assassins Creed are in decline or will be soon.

Though I do think they've keep the decline slow by having two dev teams - one works on AC n, the other AC n+1; this effectively gives each game two years development rather than just one... but yeah, still diminishing returns over the sequels.

Great article, I agree with the points and would love to see EA learn to pace itself properly. It's certainly a disturbing trend to see pacing go completely out the window. The cake analogy is brilliant and as someone who has worked in software testing I can tell you that actual time is necessary to properly make software.

I'd add to that list the incredibly bad understanding of PR. It's almost a moral imperative to not buy their games now. They simply don't understand their customers and that certainly falls under number 1 but it goes further than that. Stuff like lying to our faces and supporting SOPA are ways to make us hate them, let alone forcing DRM that actually cripples a game.

People are quick to take Gabe Newell at his word, despite no accountability.

I fully support the frequent Experienced Points articles, I consider it to be the best column on this site.

I really like this dude's articles. Really nicely written and you make some really good points.

EA seems to have been suffering from "follow the leader" syndrome as of late. Hopefully they can return to their early 2000's days.

excellent article. i hope that your simplification of the problems by relating them to less esoteric examples in the world serves to open eyes both within the company and the community. i know outside of it's walls there are plenty of EA haters, but i still see many defenders as well, and that's a little mind-boggling. i usually get the impression that people who defend EA are just being cool. it's popular to hate EA, so they have to be on the other side of that.

i have one counter-point to this article though. i have had nothing but good experiences with Origin. that's not to say that i'm denying the issues it may have, just that i havent personally been affected by them. in fact, to be fair, i'll share the story. it's short, don't worry.

i had purchased spore and all expansions, as well as sims 3 all around launch, before origin existed. i registered the games, as i usually do. well, years later i had lost the discs, but when origin came out, i decided to contact EA about receiving digital access to games i had physically purchased and registered. after a few minutes of record checking, they granted me the access and i was able to download the games. they didnt have to do this. but they did, and that really sat well with me.

when all is said and done, i don't think my hatred of EA comes entirely from how awful they usually are, but also because i see their wasted potential and think about how much good they COULD do for our industry and culture, and they squander it in the pursuit of a slightly beefier bottom line. but what they are failing to realize is that by alienating us to increase profits, they are losing sales and our respect.

Excellent and insightful as always Shamus!

EA definitely needs to do some soul searching, bring in a good CEO will go a long way. I hope they pull out of their slump.

FFP2:
I really like this dude's articles. Really nicely written and you make some really good points.

EA seems to have been suffering from "follow the leader" syndrome as of late. Hopefully they can return to their early 2000's days.

sammysoso:
Excellent and insightful as always Shamus!

EA definitely needs to do some soul searching, bring in a good CEO will go a long way. I hope they pull out of their slump.

That would be the best thing to happen, and I hope it does.

But I can't help but wonder what will happen if EA doesn't start doing better.
What will it mean exactly for the industry as a whole?

Depending on how things go in the future, I may just find out.

Great article Shamus!
Can't wait to see the next one, but I guess I'll have too.

It may be something that will be covered in next week's article, but it bears note that the things that have made EA "the world's most hated company" (acknowledging the amount of hyperbole that surrounds such a title) are starting to make not buying EA products into something resembling a moral calling. Yes, you can still find people who will buy Battlefield or Madden, just like you can find people who look forward to the reliable comfort of their favorite fast food chain. But many others look at the companies and franchises that are absorbed and see the quality of their work deteriorate. They see hit-makers like George Fan laid off, and the guiding stars of people like the founders of Bioware quietly decide to leave. They see, over and over again, a public-relations mentality based on manipulation and trying to dictate the market's desires rather than listening to customer feedback and trusting the quality of products to carry them through.

When all is said and done, I've stopped buying games from EA because I don't want the medium or the market to look like EA seems to envision them.

Excellent article, and it really says a lot of things that need to be said to EA once all the swearing and hatred has run its course.

The fact remains that EA has control over a lot of great IPs and studios, and if they were to go under then a whole bunch of great studios and talented people are suddenly cast adrift. What we should really hope for is that EA can figure out how to reverse course and focus on taking the time to bring the quality back to their formerly respected franchises before it all comes crashing down.

On a side note, it's nice to see a reminder that, "Companies exist to make money," doesn't justify the awful acts undertaken by that company when those acts are hardly keeping EA afloat let alone making them rich.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Shamus, I'm totally pleased to have you writing regularly for the Escapist again, as your articles always manage to succinctly bring up all the problems I have with the industry.

The ultimate problem is one of priorities. I believe the above-linked video explains it quite succinctly. A smaller studio makes money in order to make games. As long as they turn a profit, things are golden, because that means another game can be made. EA, however, makes games in order to make money, which as an approach in this industry has a whole host of problems. If your priority isn't on the game itself, but on the money it generates for you, then things like quality, craftmanship and re playability go straight out the window. If your game is complete crap, yet still somehow manages to turn a profit, then what incentive have you got to fix all the things that were wrong with it next time round? *Glares at SimCity*

If you look at any company that's still doing well after decades in the industry (Valve, Nintendo, etc), it's because as a general rule, they don't sacrifice the need for quality games at the altar of greater profit share. Valve still takes as long as it feels it needs to work on whatever games it wants to, and releases them when they're ready. Nintendo are quite happy to give a three year development schedule to a handheld title (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon), and fit as much gameplay in as possible.

The reason those companies are still around and still doing well is because they know how to play the long game. Suckering in your consumers with micro-transactions, DRM and day 1 DLC across all your games might net you money in the short term, but it simply isn't conducive to building a healthy long term relationship with your consumers. The reason people stick with Valve is because experience has taught them that a new Valve game is always worth playing. Same with Nintendo. For all their flaws, the same could also be said of Blizzard (depending on how you feel about Diablo 3). EA has fallen into the trap of trying to net as much short-term profit as possible, and allowing the quality of their games to suffer as a result, yet they can't see how many bridges they're burning in doing so.

I'm of the opinion that if you want to make multi-billion dollar profits, the gaming industry is not the place to go. Yes, profits can be large, but costs are currently so exorbitant that you're much more likely to crash and burn than you are ever likely to make that multi-billion pay cheque.

I agree in general with Shamus' points but there are some comparisons in his piece and this quote that are completely "apples to oranges".

The general picture is not "the industry is growing but EA is having trouble", all major publishers that rely on triple-A games are having trouble, with the notable exception of ActiBlizzard. THQ went down not long ago.

Valve is a completely different story, they make money off Steam, they have much freedom because of it. And they don't seem to be much interested in single player games anymore, with DOTA2 being the only major release coming out that we know about, and nothing about Half-Life to be seen anywhere in the future.

Nintendo is also not a simple publisher or dev, they're hardware makers. They always had dominance over the portable gaming market to compensate for when their other divisions were failing. And they were smart with the Wii to not sell consoles at a loss, from day one, which built them some reserves. Even then, Nintendo is feeling increasing pressure on the portable side from smart phones and tablets, and things may change in the near future.

Overall, it's the current development model for AAA games that seems to be in trouble, and EA compounds that with their own failures to better understand the market.

Shamus Young:
EA is chasing trends and stacking all their chips in the same pile, hoping to hit the jackpot. That's not investing. That's gambling. Worse, it's reactionary fad-driven gambling. This is not how you should run a multi-billion dollar company.

Generally good, but this bit I have a problem with.

Relying on proven best-performance and attempting to expand that performance to other areas is certainly *not* gambling, it's at the heart of investing and is generally the proper way to do it. That's why all these companies provide their financials, after all, so that investors can look at their previous performance, pick the guys they think are doing right, and put their money there. Say what you want about the sports games, but those games are hits. More important, they're repeatably hits.. hell, predictably hits, even. So saying, "Wow, we need more of these" isn't gambling by any stretch. When you can predictably get hits out of a sports video game, then it's logical -- if you don't actually know video games very well -- to assume you can do the same out of story driven games. Especially when you're doing so from a studio that has also repeatedly generated hits.

The problem comes when you try to apply proven methodologies to things that aren't similar enough. Story driven games are fundamentally different from sports games. The same methods simply won't work. We know this, being gamers, but business managers may not..they think, "they're both video games, right, so they should both work the same way. "

So yeah, good article, but what EA was doing wasn't gambling. It was investing.. it just didn't understand that what it was investing into was a different animal from what it thought it was.

Good article Shamus, it really highlights how badly EA have been wasting their potential. I will never fathom why EA are so fixated on having all their games appeal to the widest audience possible. Variety helps appeal to wider audiences better and your better placed to set your own new trends instead of playing catch up all the time. I mean if you owned a restaurant that only sold steak and someone else's restaurant does better steak than you, why would anyone come to your restaurant?

Imp Emissary:

That would be the best thing to happen, and I hope it does.

But I can't help but wonder what will happen if EA doesn't start doing better.
What will it mean exactly for the industry as a whole?

Depending on how things go in the future, I may just find out.

Great article Shamus!
Can't wait to see the next one, but I guess I'll have too.

Maybe devs/publishers won't be so quick to make games that have "wide" appeal once they see that it ain't working so well for EA...

The industry will be fine regardless of if EA is still a part of it or not. They don't have the "pull" that they used to.

Excellent article and pretty much summed up what I thought of the way EA was/is heading.

I found myself half way through the article subsituting the word for EA to Microsoft and was finding that nearly every arguement you made more or less is applicable to the way they are operating at the moment. Give or take a few years but both companies are roughly similar in age (i'm sure someone will look it up)and the movement from a small start up to huge comglomerate have definate parallels. From what I've read about it and what I'm seeing crawl out of Microsoft at the moment is more or less a company trying to catch the back end of a wave (Apple) and try and prove it's relevance in a world that has moved on from a company wallowing in a tar pit of it's own making.

EA is just shortsighted. I think both this article and last week's are pretty close to spot on, but I can't convince myself that EA is not greedy, or not any less greedy than other huge corporate entities. Their biggest problem though, is that their greed has blinded them to the way the market actually works.

It is just baffling to me that they fail to understand the difference in markets. It is the first issue brought up in this article, and I think it is their biggest. They see CoD selling the most games, so they assume that is what EVERYONE wants to buy and they homogenize their other titles to fit that mold. But it is just one mold out of a hundred that can work just fine. The only conclusion I can reach to explain this incredible oversight is that their leaders are very simple-minded, one-track thinkers. They see only the biggest, best, shiniest thing in the room and say "Oh, we need that! That's the way we have to go!"

How do they not understand that even if CoD:Blops II sold ten million copies, THERE ARE A HUNDRED MILLION GAMERS IN AMERICA. That leaves ninety percent of the market out of their reach!* It can only be shortsighted tunnel vision, combined with their traditional, and perhaps unremarkable, capitalist greed, that can lead them to where they are now.

*Obviously, I'm making that figure up. But the point is valid and easily recognizable.

Zachary Amaranth:
People are quick to take Gabe Newell at his word, despite no accountability.

Great, now please compare Valve's results with EA's.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here