Neoseeker : News : EA CEO John Riccitiello steps down, temporary replacement named
Sort by date: ascending descending
-2 thumbs!
^
hiigaran Mar 19, 13
quote Slash
EA was "shit" yet you bought their games anyway.
hahaha
unless someone tries a demo of a game, theres no way to tell if a game is shit or not to the individual. reviews might help, but only to an extent.

also, i torrent, so i never support the company, unless i absolutely love the game. so ive only ever paid for 2 or 3 games.
1 thumbs!
^
Praetorian_Lord Mar 19, 13
quote hiigaran
also, i torrent, so i never support the company, unless i absolutely love the game. so ive only ever paid for 2 or 3 games.
In that case you don't have a right to complain anyway.
-1 thumbs!
^
hiigaran Mar 19, 13
quote Praetorian_Lord
quote hiigaran
also, i torrent, so i never support the company, unless i absolutely love the game. so ive only ever paid for 2 or 3 games.
In that case you don't have a right to complain anyway.
about online passes, and those silly things argued in the other thread? yeah youre right. ill complain all i want about the quality of the game, though, and tell myself im glad i didnt buy the game (well, that depends on the game of course, and whether or not i actually liked it).
0 thumbs!
^
TurMoiL911 Mar 20, 13
quote
not to mention lost reportedly $200 million through Star Wars: The Old Republic.
That can't be right. $200 million was the estimated cost of development. SWTOR would have had to have made zero money for that to happen.
Staff
0 thumbs!
^
RabidChinaGirl Mar 20, 13
quote TurMoiL911
quote
not to mention lost reportedly $200 million through Star Wars: The Old Republic.
That can't be right. $200 million was the estimated cost of development. SWTOR would have had to have made zero money for that to happen.
That was supposed to be a "cost" that got mixed up with "lost." Thanks for the catch (and reading all the way to the bottom).
0 thumbs!
^
nipsen Mar 20, 13
Did people miss the line about how.. paraphrasing: "Riccitello was handpicked by person who now steps in as CEO during a transitional period"?

If you think Riccitello had any say in, for example, the push for microtransactions, the amazing commercialisation of Dead Space, Battlefield, etc., etc. Or that he had a hand in picking Medal of Honor over a new Mirror's Edge game.

Or that the idea to save pennies on server support for BF3 by first not putting out enough servers - then removing the ping limits in order to use overseas servers for load-balancing (i.e., using servers 600ms+ away, since they are always empty during the night-time, etc) - before then actually selling people server space... on those existing server providers, with the same scheme with no max-ping or throughput filtering, essentially cheating people to purchase the bad solution EA offered in the first place, while they were obviously hoping that their privately bought servers would function better.

If you think Riccitello had a hand in that personally, you're wrong. Riccitello, compared to the guys he sits next to, is a guy who loves games and practically sees value in something that doesn't actually make a profit.

Like Brad Borne said at some point, after FPA was picked up by EA to be released under "EA 2d", when asked how it was to work with a large publisher: "EA loves fancy pants!".

The thing is that the company is set up to make as much money as humanly possible. And EA actual knows that if they don't literally put out Satan and Ahriman together as front-figures, you will still buy their games. They know that concerns like artistic creativity or innovation -- just isn't important to get a reasonably good game out that sells 5million discs. They know that Battlefield 3 sold masses of discs, even though the online lagged for everyone, on all platforms, regardless of internet connection. They know that their extreme DRM policies don't significantly affect their sales-numbers.

That's what is driving this. If they didn't make money, on it - it would of course stop in an instant. But enough people accept what they're doing as perfectly fine. And that's the way it's just going to be - nothing will change with a new CEO.
0 thumbs!
^
Zombie_Barioth Mar 20, 13
You certainly have a point but at the same time it can be rather difficult to discern between what are his words and what are those of the company. As a CEO he also should be aware of most of whats going on around him, he might not be able to do much about it but he still stuck by the company while it was happening so you could say hes just as liable as the rest of them.

I have no sympathy for the company as a whole but if this is a case of him being stuck between a rock and a hard place deciding between his loyalty towards the company and his morals then I can understand where hes coming from. It takes a lot of guts to quit under those sort of circumstances.
0 thumbs!
^
nipsen Mar 21, 13
I wasn't defending the guy. I was just explaining that he only looks like he's concerned about games relative to the guys next to him.

Meanwhile, would EA really be criticized in any way now if their earnings had been better? Even if they are criticized now - do "people" have specific gripes? Answer to either of those is generally speaking no.
0 thumbs!
^
Zombie_Barioth Mar 21, 13
I wasn't saying you were, I was pointing out that the actions of your company reflects on you weather you took part in them or not. He knew about at least most of what EA has been doing but still chose to stick around.
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -
Newsletter
Latest News
Latest Inhouse
OCZ RevoDrive 350 480GB Review AMD A10-7800 Kaveri APU Review Seagate Enterprise Capacity 3.5 HDD v4 6TB Review Cooler Master Nepton 280L Liquid Cooler Review Fractal Design Core 3300 Mid Tower Case Review EVGA Tegra NOTE 7 & ASUS Transformer Pad TF701T Review
(0.1140/mc/web3)