5 ms·

The disappointing thing is that EA did go through a periodo f promising change - one that the free market rejected. This would be about 2008-ish - EA invested

The disappointing thing is that EA did go through a periodo f promising change - one that the free market rejected. This would be about 2008-ish - EA invested heavily in new franchises, or different takes on existing ones. Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Battlefield: Bad Company (a huge departure from the Battlefield norm), etc. None of which sold particularly well, and pretty much Dead Space is the only one that lived on as a franchise. The market voted with their wallets for more sequelitis.

tlogan 14y ago
Not sure about transformation - I never saw anything good in their books not in plans. My understanding that only reason why EA stock up last 3 months is because it is heavily shorted stock.
- josh2600 14y ago
  Sorry, how would being heavily shorted drive the stock price up?
  - tlogan 14y ago
    Short squeeze (they also call it dead cat bounce) or shorts are just taking their profit off the table. In this case, it is just "dead cat bounce".
  - emp 14y ago
    The short are taking their profits - buying to cover their positions.
CanSpice 14y ago
Dead Space sold two million copies as of August 3, 2010. Mirror's Edge sold more than two million copies according to an EA court document released October 2010. BF:BC has sold over 2.5 million copies according to VGChartz. BF:BC2 has sold nearly four million copies. Oh, and it's a sequel to BF:BC, so that franchise lives on. And these are games that the free market rejected?
- munificent 14y ago
  What were their production costs? How much profit did they make?
  - Gormo 14y ago
    Does it matter? If their production costs are too high, they should find better ways of controlling costs; a game that sells 2.5 million copies is still a game that the market has validated.
    - munificent 14y ago
      > If their production costs are too high, they should find better ways of controlling costs; They do: they find other games that are more profitable to make. > a game that sells 2.5 million copies is still a game that the market has validated. Corporations don't exist to be "validated" in some nebulous. They have to make money. I could get the market to wildly validate any product: give it away for free, or, hell, pay people to use it. That unfortunately doesn't make for a successful business.
      - Gormo 14y ago
        The point is that if 2.5 million people are willing to buy the game, the demand side of the equation is a settled one, and it's up to the supplier to find a way to turn that demand into a viable profit. If EA can't, then it's a problem with their own operations, not a problem with the product. If someone else can produce a title that satisfies the demonstrated market demand for city-simulation games by producing one that is profitable, then they'll win and EA will lose.
- Jare 14y ago
  When you are dealing with AAA budgets, anything less than 3M copies is likely a loss, and you usually have to venture into 5M copies to start actually making money, generating value and creating confidence in the brand / IP. The AAA arms race has destroyed many studios, IPs and careers. 10 years ago, it used to be that one single hit could pay off your other 9 underperforming titles. With budgets going up 10x and top sales going up at best 2x, that balance can't hold and you have to be ruthless killing underperformers. I'm not a fan of Bobby Kotick (I was part of one of his layoffs!), but look at how he has led Activision as a company.

tlogan 14y ago

Not sure about transformation - I never saw anything good in their books not in plans. My understanding that only reason why EA stock up last 3 months is because it is heavily shorted stock.

josh2600 14y ago
Sorry, how would being heavily shorted drive the stock price up?
- tlogan 14y ago
  Short squeeze (they also call it dead cat bounce) or shorts are just taking their profit off the table. In this case, it is just "dead cat bounce".
- emp 14y ago
  The short are taking their profits - buying to cover their positions.

CanSpice 14y ago

Dead Space sold two million copies as of August 3, 2010. Mirror's Edge sold more than two million copies according to an EA court document released October 2010. BF:BC has sold over 2.5 million copies according to VGChartz. BF:BC2 has sold nearly four million copies. Oh, and it's a sequel to BF:BC, so that franchise lives on. And these are games that the free market rejected?

munificent 14y ago
What were their production costs? How much profit did they make?
- Gormo 14y ago
  Does it matter? If their production costs are too high, they should find better ways of controlling costs; a game that sells 2.5 million copies is still a game that the market has validated.
  - munificent 14y ago
    > If their production costs are too high, they should find better ways of controlling costs; They do: they find other games that are more profitable to make. > a game that sells 2.5 million copies is still a game that the market has validated. Corporations don't exist to be "validated" in some nebulous. They have to make money. I could get the market to wildly validate any product: give it away for free, or, hell, pay people to use it. That unfortunately doesn't make for a successful business.
    - Gormo 14y ago
      The point is that if 2.5 million people are willing to buy the game, the demand side of the equation is a settled one, and it's up to the supplier to find a way to turn that demand into a viable profit. If EA can't, then it's a problem with their own operations, not a problem with the product. If someone else can produce a title that satisfies the demonstrated market demand for city-simulation games by producing one that is profitable, then they'll win and EA will lose.
Jare 14y ago
When you are dealing with AAA budgets, anything less than 3M copies is likely a loss, and you usually have to venture into 5M copies to start actually making money, generating value and creating confidence in the brand / IP. The AAA arms race has destroyed many studios, IPs and careers. 10 years ago, it used to be that one single hit could pay off your other 9 underperforming titles. With budgets going up 10x and top sales going up at best 2x, that balance can't hold and you have to be ruthless killing underperformers. I'm not a fan of Bobby Kotick (I was part of one of his layoffs!), but look at how he has led Activision as a company.