What do you think

[FireFlash]

I'm angry just from reading this...

 

http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/

[Moose]

Heh, good point about the football games. But then football's always been about money.

[Morgoth]

Btw when does EA's Slaveholder 2005 come out? :ph34r:

[Morgoth]

Appropriate to the EA Spouse article I found this one where a former EA executive now speaks out how to avoid such bad management decisions that are apparently very common in the game industry. Very good read.

[Nick_i_am]

wow, after this b4me fiasco I didn't like EA anyway. But this is too much.

[Llyranor]

Boycott EA!!!

[Craigboy2]

Yea EA sucks, they are now a money thursting coperation, deal with it and any ways all of their games (besides the the SIM games) are crap.

[Ludozee]

yea EA sucks, they are now a money thursting coperation, deal with it and any ways all of there games (besides the the SIM games) are crap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Generals was nice

[Guaigean]

Believe me when I say that I think what EA did was wrong, but slashdot also had this post http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...&tid=187&tid=10 about the way EA runs things. It gives a little insight into the mentality. Worth a good read for anyone interested in development.

 

For those that are too lazy to click the link, it is a document all about the professional environment of game development written by a professor at Carnegie Mellon. EA apparently has a very viscious ladder to climb, and they weed out the lowest 75% of performers regularly. The paper also shows, though, that if you are that dedicated, and that good, it can be a highly rewarding company.

 

Again, I think what EA did was wrong, but at the same time, people are lining up to work there. And can you really blame a company for rewarding those with extreme dedication and performance? Just a few thoughts.

 

And if ya don't agree, I'm sure you'll let me know.

[pants_happy]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/19/news_6113582.html

[pants_happy]

has anyone else noticed that gamespot always seems to be right on top of game or other info being discussed at obsidian (or interplay back in the days of blackisle)? either the people at gamespot are really bored and just love to read game message boards, or somebody up there is a fan. or, perhaps i'm just slightly paranoid.

[FireFlash]

Believe me when I say that I think what EA did was wrong, but slashdot also had this post http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...&tid=187&tid=10 about the way EA runs things.  It gives a little insight into the mentality.  Worth a good read for anyone interested in development.

 

For those that are too lazy to click the link, it is a document all about the professional environment of game development written by a professor at Carnegie Mellon.  EA apparently has a very viscious ladder to climb, and they weed out the lowest 75% of performers regularly.  The paper also shows, though, that if you are that dedicated, and that good, it can be a highly rewarding company. 

 

Again, I think what EA did was wrong, but at the same time, people are lining up to work there.  And can you really blame a company for rewarding those with extreme dedication and performance?  Just a few thoughts. 

 

And if ya don't agree, I'm sure you'll let me know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's quite of a naive interpretation of Mr. Mellon's paper.

 

My interpretation would be: EA played (and probably payed) Mr. Mellon to deliver them fresh meat right to their doorsteps. It's obvious that some as Mr. Mellon would not be really "embedded" during his term at EA, he would not have to sleep under his desk, nor would he get to see this.

 

Why? Because no company in this business can run with 75% newbies from right university, unless they just want to use them as "fresh meat" to produce sequels. Everyone with a bit of knowledge about the gaming industry and the IT industry knows just how important veterans are. The only setup where you wouldn't need veterans (and I mean, significantly more than 25% veterans) is when you don't to innovate anymore but create games as a manufacturing job rather than a creatiive process. Then you can have a few managers run a team of slaves.

 

Want to know why making games at EA isn't like making games at Obsidian, Troika or BioWare? Why EA tanked with all their MMORPGs? Why EA doesn't put out RPGs?

 

Because RPGs require more than an overhaul in the graphics engine to sell again, unlike SportGame 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 .... You can't take KotOR, rename it Kotor II, III, etc and sell it a year later with a graphics update. It requires work, experience, talent and a lot of creativity to create RPGS, it requires veterans training newcomers and it requires understanding of what makes RPGs great. None of these things is of interest for EA - they churn out sequels for the mass market, and every once in a while buy a successful newcomer who has a good franchise that you can convert into a sequel fest (Battlefield anyone?).

 

Why did EA scrap all the MMORPGs they started? Think about it - if you have a 50+% turnover rate, you just can't do it, it's a long term commitment - and EA is, as far as I can see, more interested in short term, shareholder pleasing quarterly results.

The smaller RPG companies seem to have a much smaller turnover rate, I could only find information on BioWare ( http://pc.ign.com/articles/549/549530p2.html ) - but 3% sound like a lot more happy workenvironment than 50% if you ask me.

 

Sorry, this has nothing to do with "weeding out 75% slackers", it has something to do with getting 75% stupid fresh meat that's not burned, enthusiastic and too blinded to see that the recipe to make games at EA is "burn out and throw away".

 

I hope this thread is not seen as "EA bashing", it's not meant that way - it's meant to

explain the business model EA has chosen to adapt, and from a pure, american point of view (capitalism regulating itself), it's a valid model, especially if the market accepts it - and it does, otherwise, why do all the sequels sell so well...

[Guaigean]

Not really sure how much interpeting I did, other than saying the business model basically works for EA. As for "weeding out 75% slackers", I actually said "they weed out the lowest 75% of performers". That doesn't make them slackers by any means, just not as high performing as the top 25%. As I stated, I definitely think EA's human resources management is extremely lacking, but their profit margins work for them. Aside from having a large strike of workers and all production ceasing, EA has no motivation to change,