• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

EA predicts lots of d00m3d companies next gen

To anyone who thought it was because of the magic 'd' word -- no, it's not a Nintendo related thread. Alfred Hermida at the BBC speaks to EA:

The coming of the next generation of consoles is going to be like a forest fire for the games industry, according to games giant Electronic Arts.

It estimates these will be between 100 and 200% more costly to make than current titles.

"The transition is a very painful process for every game developer," said Jeff Brown, vice president of corporate communications at EA.

"We look at the transition like a forest fire. It makes the healthy trees stronger, but burns away the weeds," he told BBC News Online.

But he added that EA was ready for the transition and its balance sheet justifies his confidence.

The company has revenues of nearly $3bn (£1.65bn), profits of $577m (£306m) and a market value of $15bn (£8.28bn).

It has based its success on a tried and tested strategy of game franchises, which has so far proved very lucrative.

The latest version of its American football franchise, Madden NFL 2005, has sold more than 1.3 million copies in its first week of release in the US.

EA is gearing up for a similar onslaught in Europe with the latest incarnation of its Fifa soccer title, due in October.

"This particular quarter is looking exceptionally well," said Mr Brown.

Games formula

There is some debate as to whether innovation and creativity is suffering as game publishers become increasingly unwilling to back any project that lacks a built-in audience.

A glance at the games charts in the UK shows that most of the titles in the top 10 are either sequels or tied to a film.

Many have come from the EA stable, but it makes no apologies for sticking to a successful formula.

"The franchise strategy is good for the company, investors and consumers as this is a hit-driven business," said Mr Brown.

He explained that EA had honed its franchise strategy, learning with every new version of a game. And he argued it also sat well with investors, who could forecast sales of a hit series.

"More importantly, it is good for the consumer as video games cost a lot of money to make and have a high price at retail," he said. "If you buy three or four games a year, you don't want to make a mistake."

However, he admitted that there was a risk that a franchise could be exploited.

"I'm not going to say that every game is perfect," admitted Mr Brown. "But if studios don't deliver a high quality game, there is hell to pay internally."

Small fry

Looking to the future, EA expects further consolidation in the industry.

Criterion has been working on a new version of the Burnout game
In the last year, a number of well regarded UK game studios have folded, such as Kaboom, Rage and Lost Toys.

Facing the future, the remaining ones may not have the time and money needed to develop games that harness the increasing power of computer processors and graphic chips.

"No, some won't survive," admitted Mr Brown candidly. "But the demand for content means that even big companies like EA have to go to these small developers."

Even some of the bigger fish, like the people behind Tomb Raider, Eidos, are in talks over a possible takeover bid.

EA's name has been mentioned as a potential suitor, but Mr Brown declined to be drawn on the speculation.

"I'm not going to tell you that we are not in the hunt for talent," he said, "but I would not make any assumptions."

EA recently snapped up the Guildford-based developer Criterion Software. It is the name behind the Burnout series of games and is working on a new first-person shooter known as Black.

"The first thing we wanted was the people who worked there," said Mr Brown, adding that EA was also after the studio's games.

But the purchase also gave EA control over a technology called RenderWare, which is widely used by its competitors to help make games.

"RenderWare is significant for EA in terms of getting ready for the next generation of console," he said. "It is quite a significant asset."

If they're right, which they probably are -- not good. :(

Thom
 

RevenantKioku

PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
It sucks that there's such a crashing line between art and business, but hey, its still business.
 

Li Mu Bai

Banned
If they're right, which they probably are -- not good. :(

Thom

Of course they're right. Even the XNA initiative & the multiple Open GL source tools for the PS3 (& presumably the Revolution as well) won't depreciate development costs by that significant a margin so that the smaller devs. can survive & thrive. Sadly enough.
 

IJoel

Member
Say what you will about EA, but they know the market. Acquiring Criterion was a really great business move, and I'm very surprised no one else acquired them before. Their RenderWare middleware is widely used and the way it looks, next gen, it'll grow even more.
 

drohne

hyperbolically metafictive
if the next generation is a forest fire, then ea's the pyromaniac found nearby with more matches and gasoline than anyone really needs.

...and i'm smokey the fucking bear. ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT ELECTRONIC ARTS.
 

Subitai

Member
Yeah, EA is certainly the best at handling the business side of games. If they're going crazy dealing with production costs, it's certainly going to be worse for everyone else.
 
I'd seriously be happy playing games on current platforms for many more years. The third parties in danger should keep putting titles worth playing out on these systems and remove some of the incentive to buy the newer ones. But whats the bet 99% of them plough millions into making graphical rehashes on the new systems anyway?
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
Didn't EA say the same stuff a good two or three years ago?

I think it's just they're official line justifying their own existence and why their industry absorbing ways are not only normal but actually good for the industry. It's their raison d'etre, if you will ("everybody small will fold...being huge and only making established formulaic franchise games is good for the industry and the consumer").

That's not to say they are wrong. It's impossible to deny EA's business savvy. It's just something EA has been saying for a while now.
 

Alcibiades

Member
MetatronM said:
Didn't EA say the same stuff a good two or three years ago?

I think it's just they're official line justifying their own existence and why their industry absorbing ways are not only normal but actually good for the industry. It's their raison d'etre, if you will ("everybody small will fold...being huge and only making established formulaic franchise games is good for the industry and the consumer").

That's not to say they are wrong. It's impossible to deny EA's business savvy. It's just something EA has been saying for a while now.

Yeah, and two/three years ago, 3DO, Acclaim, Midway, and Eidos were all good and happy, now their in financial trouble and are quickly losing even more steam by not being able to support the whole market (GCN included), so companies like Activision and UbiSoft are happy to reach the fullest audiences while the rest just dribble into bankruptcy, obscurity, or get bought out.

Midway and Acclaim were at their prime the last time they made a Nintendo system their leading platform, and just look at them now that they choose to not give much to the Cube (having developed equally at first). Franchises like Turok and All-Star Baseball hit the ground, Midway had to shut down Atari Games (their best asset IMO with San Francisco RUSH being favorite of mine). Same thing with LucasArts, they are a shrinking last time I heard about some job cuts or something... (no game with the selling power of Shadows of the Empire, Episode I: Racer, or Rogue Squardron, and their best-selling this gen is Rogue Squardron II on GCN)...

EA said it would happen, and it's happening...
 

ourumov

Member
drohne said:
if the next generation is a forest fire, then ea's the pyromaniac found nearby with more matches and gasoline than anyone really needs.

...and i'm smokey the fucking bear. ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT ELECTRONIC ARTS.

IAWTP

ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT ELECTRONIC ARTS

We should do a campaign !
 

dog$

Hates quality gaming
efralope said:
Midway (was) at their prime the last time they made a Nintendo system their leading platform
Midway did not consider a Nintendo system as their leading platform in 1983.

Anyway, this parallels a lot of what Yamauchi said years ago. Nothing too surprising, and there's always going to be small exceptions to the trend (Unity and Alien Hominid come to mind first). If small companies can't figure out how to establish and profit off of a small fanbase, it's their own fault.
 
You know, there's disney that does all the Mickey Mouse and Lion King stuff. But they also own Miramax, you know the studio that put out those Tarantino flicks...
I am thinking as gaming development gets more consolidated that the big publishers will have subsidiaries established for more experimental or raw and artistic games because there is a potential market there and once you've monopolized sports sims those other potential markets are your ticket to growth-- Hence, EA hooks up with Criterion, Free Radical, Oddworld Inhabitants etc.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
There will come a point when the playing field can be levelled between big and small companies...size will be important in the short/medium term, but in the long run I think it'll be very possible for smaller companies to create competitive products on all levels (obviously, creatively they already can - but in terms of scope, marketing, distribution etc. there will come a point where they can compete more favourably on those points). Technology is the answer..as long as the platforms remain relatively open, smaller companies could flourish in the long run, once things have shaken out.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
My first reply was in response to the grain of replies in the thread - I've just actually read the original article, and my one lingering question is - when they talk about there being hell to pay internally if a game is not of high quality..how do they determine the quality of a game? Every publisher thinks their own games are great, and even if outside opinion differs, they rarely recognise that in a meaningful way. Maybe EA do things differently..hopefully..

I've got a feeling a lot of people are having a worried look at the future of the industry, and just see EA, hence the doom and gloom in threads like these..but I don't think it'll be quite as they see it. EA is a very strong force, but there are quite a few others that will persist.
 
"More importantly, it is good for the consumer as video games cost a lot of money to make and have a high price at retail," he said. "If you buy three or four games a year, you don't want to make a mistake."

Am I the only one that found this comment interesting, regarding licenses and game quality? Exactly how are licensed games good for the consumer? Should they buy Samurai Jack the game because they like the TV show? How about Charlie's Angels the game? This reasoning is incredibly flawed.
 
gofreak said:
There will come a point when the playing field can be levelled between big and small companies...size will be important in the short/medium term, but in the long run I think it'll be very possible for smaller companies to create competitive products on all levels (obviously, creatively they already can - but in terms of scope, marketing, distribution etc. there will come a point where they can compete more favourably on those points). Technology is the answer..as long as the platforms remain relatively open, smaller companies could flourish in the long run, once things have shaken out.

This, IMO, is exactly what will happen. In fact, it's already happened in so many times before, but in smaller instances. In the end, the cycle of development/publisher rise and fall/ebb and flow is pretty much a natural occurance, IMO. The only real problem is that game development is getting more and more expensive, even if you don't factor in associated technology and research costs. Making games, as they are generally evolving as whole, is going to cost more and more regardless of advances in technology. People are expecting more and more content, so it's just going to be this way anyway.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
MightyHedgehog said:
This, IMO, is exactly what will happen. In fact, it's already happened in so many times before, but in smaller instances. In the end, the cycle of development/publisher rise and fall/ebb and flow is pretty much a natural occurance, IMO. The only real problem is that game development is getting more and more expensive, even if you don't factor in associated technology and research costs. Making games, as they are generally evolving as whole, is going to cost more and more regardless of advances in technology. People are expecting more and more content, so it's just going to be this way anyway.

I know, but I'm making the (hopeful?) assumption that by the time modes of distribution/marketing have been transformed etc. for the mass market, we will have better content creation tools across the industry that can level that particular playing field. Even without them, independent hits are possible that don't rely on epic content..
 
gofreak said:
I know, but I'm making the (hopeful?) assumption that by the time modes of distribution/marketing have been transformed etc. for the mass market, we will have better content creation tools across the industry that can level that particular playing field. Even without them, independent hits are possible that don't rely on epic content..

No argument from me. I concur.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
The coming of the next generation of consoles is going to be like a forest fire for the games industry, according to games giant Electronic Arts.

It estimates these will be between 100 and 200% more costly to make than current titles.

"The transition is a very painful process for every game developer," said Jeff Brown, vice president of corporate communications at EA.

"We look at the transition like a forest fire. It makes the healthy trees stronger, but burns away the weeds," he told BBC News Online.

But he added that EA was ready for the transition and its balance sheet justifies his confidence.

The company has revenues of nearly $3bn (£1.65bn), profits of $577m (£306m) and a market value of $15bn (£8.28bn).

It has based its success on a tried and tested strategy of game franchises, which has so far proved very lucrative.

The latest version of its American football franchise, Madden NFL 2005, has sold more than 1.3 million copies in its first week of release in the US.

EA is gearing up for a similar onslaught in Europe with the latest incarnation of its Fifa soccer title, due in October.

"This particular quarter is looking exceptionally well," said Mr Brown.

Games formula

There is some debate as to whether innovation and creativity is suffering as game publishers become increasingly unwilling to back any project that lacks a built-in audience.

A glance at the games charts in the UK shows that most of the titles in the top 10 are either sequels or tied to a film.

Many have come from the EA stable, but it makes no apologies for sticking to a successful formula.

"The franchise strategy is good for the company, investors and consumers as this is a hit-driven business," said Mr Brown.

He explained that EA had honed its franchise strategy, learning with every new version of a game. And he argued it also sat well with investors, who could forecast sales of a hit series.

"More importantly, it is good for the consumer as video games cost a lot of money to make and have a high price at retail," he said. "If you buy three or four games a year, you don't want to make a mistake."

However, he admitted that there was a risk that a franchise could be exploited.

"I'm not going to say that every game is perfect," admitted Mr Brown. "But if studios don't deliver a high quality game, there is hell to pay internally."

Small fry

Looking to the future, EA expects further consolidation in the industry.

Criterion has been working on a new version of the Burnout game
In the last year, a number of well regarded UK game studios have folded, such as Kaboom, Rage and Lost Toys.

Facing the future, the remaining ones may not have the time and money needed to develop games that harness the increasing power of computer processors and graphic chips.

"No, some won't survive," admitted Mr Brown candidly. "But the demand for content means that even big companies like EA have to go to these small developers."

Even some of the bigger fish, like the people behind Tomb Raider, Eidos, are in talks over a possible takeover bid.

EA's name has been mentioned as a potential suitor, but Mr Brown declined to be drawn on the speculation.

"I'm not going to tell you that we are not in the hunt for talent," he said, "but I would not make any assumptions."

EA recently snapped up the Guildford-based developer Criterion Software. It is the name behind the Burnout series of games and is working on a new first-person shooter known as Black.

"The first thing we wanted was the people who worked there," said Mr Brown, adding that EA was also after the studio's games.

But the purchase also gave EA control over a technology called RenderWare, which is widely used by its competitors to help make games.

"RenderWare is significant for EA in terms of getting ready for the next generation of console," he said. "It is quite a significant asset."
I think I've found teh secret message.
 
gofreak said:
I know, but I'm making the (hopeful?) assumption that by the time modes of distribution/marketing have been transformed etc. for the mass market, we will have better content creation tools across the industry that can level that particular playing field. Even without them, independent hits are possible that don't rely on epic content..

I don't know. The game industry is running on this false economy.. they want to continue the growth trend, but they don't want to bring games into the impulse-buy price range. They instead thrive on a hit driven market where the demands seem to be for "bigger and better". Bigger worlds: GTA, online gaming... better graphics: Halo, Splinter Cell... and to be able to compete in those kinds of areas you're just going to need money/investment. The big boys will always be able to do either of them much better than the little guys. Unless they can do the ultra rare and come up with a compelling gameplay experience that simply must get out there - then it's going to be more and more rare to see successful upstarts. And it's those kind of creators, born in the roots of gaming as gamers themselves, that we've had the best companies like DMA design / Rockstar North for one example. What now? You're going to have to get your idea past a board of directors at some kind of mega publisher? This kind of consolidation is not necessarily guarunteeing a quality gaming experiences, it's guarunteeing profitable ones.

As for the modes of distribution/marketing and the tools that creators have access to, we're already getting quite advanced. Prospective publishers and console manufacturers have good programs in place for marketing -- that is, if your product is deemed sellable. And the tools? Can new forms of renderware type technology and other middleware really stem the bleeding that a 200% rise in development costs will cause?

I'm probably not 'in the know' as much as many of you people here, but to me this just doesn't read good at all.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
I think the bigger and better approach will begin to peter out as the industry matures, and consumer taste/value-judgement matures (though admittedly this may take *quite* some time). I also think games definitely should be brought into a more affordable price range to elicit more regular purchases..it is true that many people simply buy a few games a year and expect epics, but it doesn't have to be that way. Make them cheaper, and consumers will be more willing to accept "alternatives" to the epic, for what they are.

Really, that's already kind of happening, but we don't really think about it as part of the "proper" games industry (see: the popularity among women of online card games, flash games etc.).
 
Yeah, but really, it's already like this. While I can see the push for big, hugely expensive titles will taper off, the lure of the brass ring is still going to be there. Everyone else will just ride.
 

P90

Member
Yamauchi has been saying this for much longer. He predicted that the current gen would hurt smaller houses. Yamauchi>>>>>>EA
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
It's been predicted at the beginning of every transition period that I can remember. Yamauchi and EA aren't blessed with any particular foresight, at least as regards this particular issue...it's just always been the way, and will continue to be the way as the industry goes through its growing pains.
 

teepo

Member
god of war is being made by a team if 20

doom3 was made by a team of about 20

then we have all those graphicaly intensive pc games. this article is full of shit. i hear it every generation.
 

dskillzhtown

keep your strippers out of my American football
drohne said:
if the next generation is a forest fire, then ea's the pyromaniac found nearby with more matches and gasoline than anyone really needs.

...and i'm smokey the fucking bear. ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT ELECTRONIC ARTS.


What? So you are saying that without EA, the games would be cheaper to make? Ummm...explain that logic, if there is any. EA does not control how much it costs for games to be made.

EA is buying smaller dev houses because if they didn't get bought out, they would be out of business as they can't afford to make games on their own. I remember EA saying this 2 years ago and giving an example of how if one game flopped for a smaller company, the company would be close to going out of business because they are so expensive to make. Whether people want to admit it or not, without EA, there would be alot of out of work game makers around the world. People are too busy with their EA hate to see that.
 

ge-man

Member
gofreak said:
It's been predicted at the beginning of every transition period that I can remember. Yamauchi and EA aren't blessed with any particular foresight, at least as regards this particular issue...it's just always been the way, and will continue to be the way as the industry goes through its growing pains.

Exactly. I think people are expecting a big onslaught of mergers and company failures in one generation when the reality is that this is something that is slowly happening as the industry becomes bigger.

I don't have a big problem with this fact except with what MetatronM pointed out--it sounds more like they EA are justifying their own business model, a model that is heavily focused on acquiring licenses and coming up with winning formulas. Personally, I don't think that's what the industry should concentrate on, but I rather not say more and steer the discussion towards EA.
 

dskillzhtown

keep your strippers out of my American football
Well, EA has a business model that is working. It is like Dell, every other company was bitching and moaning about the Dell business model and how it is bad for PCs and such. But years later, Dell is doing great business. I just think that if it is working, you really can't knock the company for doing it. Now, if you want to discuss the fact that because of economics of the business, the smaller companies are being eaten up but bigger ones, then that is a discussion worth having. Personally, I don't care if all games come from Sega, EA, THQ, or whoever. As long as there is a variety and something for everyone to play.

I think a big void in the business is the kiddie games. I mean games that a 4 or 5 year old can pick up and play. Seems that the industry is only targeting the 18-34 male at this point. I could see how a smaller dev house could fill that niche for kiddie games, but if they are bought by a major, that focus would be shifted.
 

ge-man

Member
If it wasn't for the fact that Nintendo has had to fight an image problem, I'd think they could easily fill that hole that you're describing.
 
"I think a big void in the business is the kiddie games. I mean games that a 4 or 5 year old can pick up and play. Seems that the industry is only targeting the 18-34 male at this point. I could see how a smaller dev house could fill that niche for kiddie games, but if they are bought by a major, that focus would be shifted."

I think those are covered (the recent Shrek 2 game along with Spongebob and other Nickelodeon games) it's just that they don't get much attention here for obvious reasons. They do tend to sell pretty well though.
 

jarrod

Banned
SolidSnakex said:
"I think a big void in the business is the kiddie games. I mean games that a 4 or 5 year old can pick up and play. Seems that the industry is only targeting the 18-34 male at this point. I could see how a smaller dev house could fill that niche for kiddie games, but if they are bought by a major, that focus would be shifted."

I think those are covered (the recent Shrek 2 game along with Spongebob and other Nickelodeon games) it's just that they don't get much attention here for obvious reasons. They do tend to sell pretty well though.
Yep, Nintendo and THQ rule the lucrative kid crowd. Konami, EA, Bandai, Capcom, Activision, Sega and Sony are making inroads there too with various properties and licenses.... even Microsoft's been trying (this was one of the primary motivations in developing Blinx and buying out Rare). Kids mean money.
 
EA is going to have their own shit to deal with next gen.

Their Next Gen game team size is going to have to double as well as keep this gens team sizing around the same. This is because not only do they have to deal with 3 arguably healthy systems, but plan for the next three without cutting their own throats.

That is most likely why Renderware was bought as it gives all the teams a solid foundation to start work on. Their costs in people and salaries are going to skyrocket though. Their entire business model is about covering all the bases.
 
Top Bottom