Label president Gibeau says studio independence is key, though some game elements are mandatory
Should an EA Games studio not want to include online functionality to a project, a managing exec at the company has said he would “inspire” the team to think again.
In an interview with Develop, EA Games label boss Frank Gibeau said he “firmly believes that the way the products we have are going they need to be connected online”.
He said, elsewhere, that dev autonomy was of the utmost importance.
When asked on what call he would make if the two principles clashed – if a studio thought its game isn’t appropriate for net features – Gibeau said he’d find a way of turning them around.
“I don’t go up to every game team and ask – what is your deathmatch mode?” he said.
“I look at how to make games a broader idea with online services.”
Advertisement
Develop put to Gibeau that EA therefore insists on certain features to be added to games – something which appears to go against its aim to foster studio independence.
“Well you say ‘insist’, I say inspire,” Gibeau retorted.
“What I learned early on in my career was that, if you’re going to lead a creative team, you have to inspire people. They’re the ones living in the game.”
He said his partnership with EA studios is “about collaboration – looking at being both critically acclaimed and commercially successful.”
Gibeau’s comments come as the relationship between developers and studios is perhaps under more scrutiny than ever.
In March, one of the most lucrative studios in the business – Infinity Ward – was thrown into disarray as swathes of staff left amid a row with its publisher Activision.
The studio’s co-founders, Jason West and Frank Zampella, set up their own studio and signed with EA Partners.
“I like to give studios a lot of creative autonomy, and that’s certainly proven by the types of games we’ve brought out over the last couple of years,” Gibeau added.
He went on: “It’s one of my core cultural studio values to allow developers to decide more on what they want to build. And a studio’s creative call needs to be balanced against a commercial imperative, and if you look at online these days – that’s the place to be.
“Game makers, the really good ones, they want to make great games but they also want to make blockbusters. One of the things they need to do is balance that out – I have the right team to help them.
“I volunteer you to speak to EA’s studio heads; they’ll tell you the same thing. They’re very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay.
“I always found it a big problem when a game’s executive producer would come up to me and ask what I should do next. I would always respond that’s not my job. You’re job is to come up with the creative vision, mine is to edit and tweak so it’s a bigger commercial opportunity. I’m very clear about that.”
The second half of Develop’s interview with Gibeau can be found here.
Sorry I left my corporate bullcrap translation device at work, what is this guy trying to say?
"if a studio thought its game isn’t appropriate for net features – Gibeau said he’d find a way of turning them around."
Matt: I think what it translates to is... if he sees a team leaving out a potential revenue stream (i.e. online), he's going to give them some grief until they sort it out.
This is nothing to do with inspiration or creative enhancement, this is adding the greed factor to everything EA can churn out. EA don't want games that result in a one-off purchase, with no prospect of raping the gamer's pocket, on a regular basis.
Online = DLC = more money = bigger salary for Gibreau = less consideration for the quality the gamer is getting.
Pretty standard comments from an upper-level money man at any large company. Although unfortunate for developers and the quality of the games, it's what you'd expect him to say.
“What I learned early on in my career was that, if you’re going to lead a creative team, you have to inspire people. They’re the ones living in the game.”
Although on face value the above comment is fine, translated according to the other comments, that must mean: "What I learned early on in my career was that, if you’re going to control a creative team, you have to tell them what to do. They’re the ones actually making the damned thing."
Also, as part of the game's development and a potentially crucial part of making it a success, shouldn't he also be "living in the game?"
The games themselves are not always made better by online functionality, but it makes investors feel like the game (or rather, the IP) can be monetised more effectively and over a longer period of time, lessening risk of investment and hopefully increasing profit:
"And a studio’s creative call needs to be balanced against a commercial imperative, and if you look at online these days – that’s the place to be."
Money, money, money...
He said his partnership with EA studios is “about collaboration – looking at being both critically acclaimed and commercially successful.”
———————
Then why do so few of EA's games meet these goals?
it is probably a reference to the fiasco happening in Activision with them downsizing or axing so many of their studio.
Search for Kotick, activision, courtcase, bizzare, infinity ward, blur ... to name a few key words and you will see what I mean.
