Electronic Arts Investors Don't Give a Shit About Quality
And that's official
22 Jul 2008
Electronic Arts CEO, John Riccitiello, has had an enormous fit of clarity and honesty. At least he has if were are to believe good old Dean Takahashi over at Venture Beat.
He interviewed Riccitiello following E3 and came up with the following:
"I don’t think the investors give a shit about our quality. They care about our earnings per share."
Let's get this straight. Electronic Arts - like every corporation - is in business in order to "maximize stockholder value". Basically, that's all it's in business for. Therefore, if the stockholders really don't give a shit about quality, there's nothing stopping EA from dolling it out.
\ advertisement /
/ advertisement \
/ advertisement \
We'd prefer to think that it's possible to make money by not doing so. We hope Riccitiello does to.
See Venture Beat.
Share this item on...
Comments
4 comments posted.
No, what I was talking about was the relationship between "quality" and money. Better quality would mean more money if people buying (paying money for) the games sought quality.
But due to the lack of this relationship, EA are correct. To fix this problem, people need to base which games they buy on quality. And, obviously there are other factors, but, nevertheless, the better taste people had, the more of an incentive EA would have to make better quality games.
Ultimately, I don't mind what EA or its investors think, because I choose to buy what I want to play.
First comment
Posted by realvictory
I would like to think that people who actually buy games care about quality, and consequently avoid buying shit games. But I don't - so I see EA's point.
Latest comment
Posted by realvictory
Art Green wrote:
I don't think you completely understand what Riccitiello is saying. He's saying that investors care about the bottom line (because they've got their money invested in the company to succeed.) Gamers care about the quality of EA's games because they have money on the line because they purchased the title.
That's all. No reason to get up in arms about it.
That's all. No reason to get up in arms about it.
No, what I was talking about was the relationship between "quality" and money. Better quality would mean more money if people buying (paying money for) the games sought quality.
But due to the lack of this relationship, EA are correct. To fix this problem, people need to base which games they buy on quality. And, obviously there are other factors, but, nevertheless, the better taste people had, the more of an incentive EA would have to make better quality games.
Ultimately, I don't mind what EA or its investors think, because I choose to buy what I want to play.
Post Your Own
Companies
People
Competitions
There are no competitions running right now.
If you've entered one of our recent competitions, then check out the winners
If you've entered one of our recent competitions, then check out the winners
Polls
Related News
Latest News
Latest Features
| Review// LittleBigPlanet | 15|Oct |
| Preview// Midnight Club: Los Angeles - Multiplayer | 1|Oct |
| Interview// Pristontale II, The Creative Force | 1|Oct |
| Interview// Gears of War's Cliff Bleszinski | 29|Sep |
| Preview// Gears of War 2 | 29|Sep |
| Review// WipEout HD (PS3) | 25|Sep |
| Interview// Bioware's Miles Holmes | 24|Sep |
| Interview// Michael Rawlinson: General Manager ELSPA | 22|Sep |
| Developer Diary// Cliff Harris on Valve and Google and Freedom | 22|Sep |
| Review// Star Wars: The Force Unleashed | 16|Sep |