Q: Many see EA as an evil company which in resemblance of etc MS kills the creativity in the gaming industry. Do you see any reason for people saying something that like?
A: Yes I do. And that's something we think about a lot in EA. You have to understand that this company turn over 3.5 billion dollars annually, which make us a huge company. We're even the biggest in Europe. But when you work at a studio in EA, you don't have responsibility for 3.5 billion, you have responsibility for the game you create. You put down all your creative talent and soul for games like Fifa, NHL, and Bond.
I am not so worried that EA is a big and clumsy company. EA is like a federation of contractors, many small companies in one place. Each of us run their own company.
One thing that worries me is the lack of competition. One of the best things that happened to us the last 5 years is that Konami did a really good Soccer game. Nobody really paid attention to it.
We thought we had the best soccer game, so we relaxed. During 2000, and 2001 we fell asleep, and they who created and sold the game also fell asleep. It wasn't until Konami's market value raised a lot thanks to this game; we became awake and realized we got to do something.
Same thing happened with Madden in the USA. Sega did a really good football game, and said they would challenge us, and everybody in EA, (florida to canada) worked hard to correct the mistakes we have done to get us back on track.
I am not worried that EA continues to grow; I just wished that there was something in every genre that challenged us. Etc Call of Duty. These guys made a really good shooter, and frighten the life out of our Medal of Honor studio in LA. There is nothing as motivating as competition.
(Jumping some questions)
Q: One of the reasons that EA are accused of milking the market on money is because you release yearly updates of your best selling games.
A: They do the same thing in Premier League! Every year they play soccer in the same way, even if the players are exchanged, year after year. What should we do? Skip a season? On a more serious note, I guess you mean our sports games that are released yearly. People are demanding it, and still want it since we are selling very well of them.
As people are walking to the arena, they walk to the game store and buy a new EA game. It's obvious in sports games, but it's not so obvious in etc Bond games. We used to create a new bond game when a new movie came out. About every 4th year. Demand is ruling this development. People want more bond games, they like it.
Much of Electronic Arch's success is built on renewing license and brands. Instead of making a game, and go further on with the next game, we try to see every title as potential franchise.
If we make a medal of honor that is successful, we won?t go further with etc a space game.
We do it again, we move to a new place, and make new levels. If you liked the last one, you will love the new one. The developers are getting better for each day, and the games get better where the demand is.
Of course there are exceptions. Lara Croft franchise as an example. They just didn't release the same game every year; they released new games that were worse. Even at our place there are new games that are worse than old ones.
Q: License games have a tendency to sell it self. Especially your bond games have been mediocre, but have sold well. Doesn't it feel bad that a much better game without a famous character at the cover will be suffering?
A: A fantastic game that didn't sell that well was Prince of Persia. Year before that I loved Ratchet and Clank, a game that sank like a stone the day it was released. It didn't sell at all. It was a pity.
They who buy the consoles when they are first released are hardcore gamers. If they have succeed releasing PoP when only the hardcore gamers owned the consoles it would have been the best selling game. Worse figures, but at a better percentage.
When they consoles get cheaper, people who never played games before starts buying games. And what does it make someone that never bought a game before? Do they buy Splinter Cell or Zone of the enders? No they are afraid of them because they think they're hardcore. These people buy games they recognize. They know what Bond does.
Q: You mean there is no place for the hardcore gamer?
A: No, quite the opposite. Our business concept was built for people who bought 15 games a year. What a I meant is that as a publisher you got to identify your target audience. If you are well aware that you create gamers for the hardcore audience, and are happy with 500,000 ex, and can get some kind of economy of that. Congratulations.
I think Ubisoft expected a lot more from PoP.
(Jumping some questions)
Q: How does Electronic Arch look at next generation?
A: First of all you have to be aware that PS2 will have a very long tail. When PS3 is released we still think that PS2 are attractive for developers and gamers. Sony thinks that there will be games on the current generation to 2010. We don't see any reason to doubt that. We think they are correct.
One year after PS2 was released, we did a harry potter game to all formats, inclusive PS1. It still sold 10 million ex! It was then we knew that there was a market for old consoles. So we wont stop making games for PS2 and Xbox in a long time.
Another aspect is that we must do two things at the same time. Develope games for the old machines, and to the new.
The day PS3 and Xbox2 are released, Fifa and Need for Speed must be there at the same day! We think our size is an advantage. Not many companies are able to make that transition.
Q: What do you think of the outcome in the next gen consoles?
A: Well say what you want about Xbox, it might been taken a beating this generation, but MS learn quickly. They learn by their mistakes and wont do them again. We think that MS will do a lot better with xbox2. They won?t beat Sony and PS3, but they will definitely be bigger.
(Jumping some questions)
Q: You are known for keeping your deadlines, even if there are exceptions. Do you see any problem with this strict policy? I know some examples that would have been better with longer development time.
A: Absolutely. I think about The sims online, that would have needed another 6 months in development. It's because of that we have softened a bit. Earlier we haven't allowed a day of delay. Now we allow some delays in order to not make the same mistakes again.
What we do when we meet our deadlines is that we fly in people from the whole world (that works with a product), double the amount of people and their work hours. Sometimes we even take help from people outside in order to finish our product.
When people in a development team just want to add another car or some extra courses, we say no. Only three more months they say. You get 18 months, and throw in that car in the next game instead.
Q: It's quite the opposite with Valve and Bungie who says they are finished when they are done.
A: Yeah from the beginning it was a Japanese thing to say when it's done. In some way it's a disservice for those who buy the game if Bungie had made a game between the last one and that one who is coming in November. Would you have bought it?
Q: Yes but...
Exactly. If they say that there would only have a few upgrades? I would have bought it anyway. They could have done it. They should have done it. At EA we would have done it. To let people wait for 4 years sucks! I would have bought a new game annually from Bungie. They have a philosophy that works for them, and the game will be awesome when it comes out. I don't care if it's not the same as the last game, I would have loved it anyway. The consumers don?t take any damage that games in a serie are released every year. Quite the opposite.
(Jumping some questions)
Q: What I think is fascinating is that you can buy an optional license game from EA, and it might not the the greatest game, but it wont be bad either.
A: I agree. An EA game is like an Audi, or a grander Saab. It?s not the fastest or most luxury car, but when you turn the start key it will work, and it will go forward. It's a reliable car. With the thought what a car costs, who wants to take a chance and risk a bad and glitchy game? Building a confidence in our customers is important.
Q: Is that something you are proud of? To have a high lowest level, with few extra special games?
A: I think the special games are here. The sims made a genre of its own. NFSU was the best racing game last year, and for several years Medal of Honor have been the best shooter on the market.
At the same time I don?t think that you buy an EA game for that Doom feeling. ?Wow I have never seen anything like it? It?s nothing that you experience with our games. Instead, you?ll enjoy many entertaining gaming hours, and you don?t need to feel cheated. It?s respect towards the buyers. It?s not a bad philosophy, and I will not say I am sorry for it. We have 3 billion on the bank every year that proves it.
***************************
oh yeah, and I just became Father last nigh!
huray champagne for everybody here!
A: Yes I do. And that's something we think about a lot in EA. You have to understand that this company turn over 3.5 billion dollars annually, which make us a huge company. We're even the biggest in Europe. But when you work at a studio in EA, you don't have responsibility for 3.5 billion, you have responsibility for the game you create. You put down all your creative talent and soul for games like Fifa, NHL, and Bond.
I am not so worried that EA is a big and clumsy company. EA is like a federation of contractors, many small companies in one place. Each of us run their own company.
One thing that worries me is the lack of competition. One of the best things that happened to us the last 5 years is that Konami did a really good Soccer game. Nobody really paid attention to it.
We thought we had the best soccer game, so we relaxed. During 2000, and 2001 we fell asleep, and they who created and sold the game also fell asleep. It wasn't until Konami's market value raised a lot thanks to this game; we became awake and realized we got to do something.
Same thing happened with Madden in the USA. Sega did a really good football game, and said they would challenge us, and everybody in EA, (florida to canada) worked hard to correct the mistakes we have done to get us back on track.
I am not worried that EA continues to grow; I just wished that there was something in every genre that challenged us. Etc Call of Duty. These guys made a really good shooter, and frighten the life out of our Medal of Honor studio in LA. There is nothing as motivating as competition.
(Jumping some questions)
Q: One of the reasons that EA are accused of milking the market on money is because you release yearly updates of your best selling games.
A: They do the same thing in Premier League! Every year they play soccer in the same way, even if the players are exchanged, year after year. What should we do? Skip a season? On a more serious note, I guess you mean our sports games that are released yearly. People are demanding it, and still want it since we are selling very well of them.
As people are walking to the arena, they walk to the game store and buy a new EA game. It's obvious in sports games, but it's not so obvious in etc Bond games. We used to create a new bond game when a new movie came out. About every 4th year. Demand is ruling this development. People want more bond games, they like it.
Much of Electronic Arch's success is built on renewing license and brands. Instead of making a game, and go further on with the next game, we try to see every title as potential franchise.
If we make a medal of honor that is successful, we won?t go further with etc a space game.
We do it again, we move to a new place, and make new levels. If you liked the last one, you will love the new one. The developers are getting better for each day, and the games get better where the demand is.
Of course there are exceptions. Lara Croft franchise as an example. They just didn't release the same game every year; they released new games that were worse. Even at our place there are new games that are worse than old ones.
Q: License games have a tendency to sell it self. Especially your bond games have been mediocre, but have sold well. Doesn't it feel bad that a much better game without a famous character at the cover will be suffering?
A: A fantastic game that didn't sell that well was Prince of Persia. Year before that I loved Ratchet and Clank, a game that sank like a stone the day it was released. It didn't sell at all. It was a pity.
They who buy the consoles when they are first released are hardcore gamers. If they have succeed releasing PoP when only the hardcore gamers owned the consoles it would have been the best selling game. Worse figures, but at a better percentage.
When they consoles get cheaper, people who never played games before starts buying games. And what does it make someone that never bought a game before? Do they buy Splinter Cell or Zone of the enders? No they are afraid of them because they think they're hardcore. These people buy games they recognize. They know what Bond does.
Q: You mean there is no place for the hardcore gamer?
A: No, quite the opposite. Our business concept was built for people who bought 15 games a year. What a I meant is that as a publisher you got to identify your target audience. If you are well aware that you create gamers for the hardcore audience, and are happy with 500,000 ex, and can get some kind of economy of that. Congratulations.
I think Ubisoft expected a lot more from PoP.
(Jumping some questions)
Q: How does Electronic Arch look at next generation?
A: First of all you have to be aware that PS2 will have a very long tail. When PS3 is released we still think that PS2 are attractive for developers and gamers. Sony thinks that there will be games on the current generation to 2010. We don't see any reason to doubt that. We think they are correct.
One year after PS2 was released, we did a harry potter game to all formats, inclusive PS1. It still sold 10 million ex! It was then we knew that there was a market for old consoles. So we wont stop making games for PS2 and Xbox in a long time.
Another aspect is that we must do two things at the same time. Develope games for the old machines, and to the new.
The day PS3 and Xbox2 are released, Fifa and Need for Speed must be there at the same day! We think our size is an advantage. Not many companies are able to make that transition.
Q: What do you think of the outcome in the next gen consoles?
A: Well say what you want about Xbox, it might been taken a beating this generation, but MS learn quickly. They learn by their mistakes and wont do them again. We think that MS will do a lot better with xbox2. They won?t beat Sony and PS3, but they will definitely be bigger.
(Jumping some questions)
Q: You are known for keeping your deadlines, even if there are exceptions. Do you see any problem with this strict policy? I know some examples that would have been better with longer development time.
A: Absolutely. I think about The sims online, that would have needed another 6 months in development. It's because of that we have softened a bit. Earlier we haven't allowed a day of delay. Now we allow some delays in order to not make the same mistakes again.
What we do when we meet our deadlines is that we fly in people from the whole world (that works with a product), double the amount of people and their work hours. Sometimes we even take help from people outside in order to finish our product.
When people in a development team just want to add another car or some extra courses, we say no. Only three more months they say. You get 18 months, and throw in that car in the next game instead.
Q: It's quite the opposite with Valve and Bungie who says they are finished when they are done.
A: Yeah from the beginning it was a Japanese thing to say when it's done. In some way it's a disservice for those who buy the game if Bungie had made a game between the last one and that one who is coming in November. Would you have bought it?
Q: Yes but...
Exactly. If they say that there would only have a few upgrades? I would have bought it anyway. They could have done it. They should have done it. At EA we would have done it. To let people wait for 4 years sucks! I would have bought a new game annually from Bungie. They have a philosophy that works for them, and the game will be awesome when it comes out. I don't care if it's not the same as the last game, I would have loved it anyway. The consumers don?t take any damage that games in a serie are released every year. Quite the opposite.
(Jumping some questions)
Q: What I think is fascinating is that you can buy an optional license game from EA, and it might not the the greatest game, but it wont be bad either.
A: I agree. An EA game is like an Audi, or a grander Saab. It?s not the fastest or most luxury car, but when you turn the start key it will work, and it will go forward. It's a reliable car. With the thought what a car costs, who wants to take a chance and risk a bad and glitchy game? Building a confidence in our customers is important.
Q: Is that something you are proud of? To have a high lowest level, with few extra special games?
A: I think the special games are here. The sims made a genre of its own. NFSU was the best racing game last year, and for several years Medal of Honor have been the best shooter on the market.
At the same time I don?t think that you buy an EA game for that Doom feeling. ?Wow I have never seen anything like it? It?s nothing that you experience with our games. Instead, you?ll enjoy many entertaining gaming hours, and you don?t need to feel cheated. It?s respect towards the buyers. It?s not a bad philosophy, and I will not say I am sorry for it. We have 3 billion on the bank every year that proves it.
***************************
oh yeah, and I just became Father last nigh!
huray champagne for everybody here!
