EA Labels president Frank Gibeau says new IP is the publisher's "lifeblood," but acknowledges it's too late in console cycle to release new properties.
Electronic Arts is currently working on three to five new intellectual properties for next-generation platforms, according to comments from EA Labels president Frank Gibeau. Speaking to CVG, the executive explained that building new IP is the "lifeblood" of EA, but stopped short of confirming the publisher would definitely release these titles.
"Some of them might come to market, some of them might not," he said.
Gibeau explained that if EA were to release these new properties at present, they would not flourish, due to the late stage of the current console cycle. He said EA would receive favorable press for doing so, but it would be difficult to sell the requisite copies for the endeavor to prove worthwhile.
"Right now if I was coming out with a brand new IP that nobody had ever heard of, it would be very difficult to get the mindshare of gamers," he said. "You might get really good press for introducing a new IP, but to sell a couple of million units to break even on it at this point in the cycle…discretion's the better part of valour, to hold it a little bit so you get a whole new market refresh and reset."
Speaking generally about developing new franchises, Gibeau explained that EA has a responsibility to at least attempt to expand and diversify its software portfolio.
"It's an entertainment business. You have to surprise people and you have to take risks. If you don't, you die," he said. "So constantly trying to stay fresh from an entertainment standpoint is a difficult challenge. But it's something we try to do at EA and I think we have a better track record than most in being able to innovate and build franchises over time and introduce new ideas."
Regarding next-generation platforms, EA announced in May that it was investing $80 million in future console development in 2012, but did not elaborate further. During the 2012 Electronic Entertainment Expo last week, the publisher revealed that Mass Effect 3 was in development for Nintendo's next-generation platform, the Wii U.
I look forward to digging them out of the bargain-bin. Oh, wait, there wont be any retailers by then. I look forward to not playing them.
I would have to agree with the EA guy, the market is saturated with poor quality games and or dominate franchises with yearly releases. A new fresh IP would sale, and even get noticed but it would have such a hard time trying to gain market penetration to get it money back, heck I think it would have a hard time just getting its ads noticed.
I would also hold back a new IP - esp if new next gen engines, graphics, controls would make it better. Right now this console gen is long in the tooth, its easier to develop for, its cheaper to push out a game, which you would think means alot of awesome games - but instead it means alot of crappy games pushed out the door based on the disney channel flavor of the weak.
Publishers are spending more money on advertising then the game themselves. At least when new consoles are out, each new game will get its own press just because the market is not so crowded.
What alot of people dont seem to realize if your setting on a great IP your hoping to have 3-5 big games out keeping a ton of talent working for you for many years. To bring out part one on this gen and the rest next gen will be alot harder. New skills to learn, new teams to create, etc.
While current consoles will have games made for many more years do you really think it would be wise planning a 5 game IP for this gen.
So basically I would hold that new IP back, and have the next gen Assassin's Creed, Gears of War, Uncharted, Bioshock- I mean really if a Bioshock came out right now do you think it would gain enough traction for a sequels.
"It's an entertainment business. You have to surprise people and you have to take risks. If you don't, you die," When did this suddenly become a Game of Thrones? You win or you die? Seriously, EA?
While reading your comment I was expecting you to somewhere say.
"This coming from EA!?" The guys who are all about playing it safe?"
They used to make good NFS, then they made random racing games with NFS name, and now they're so desperate that they're reusing the entire friggin name! NFS Hp, NFS MW...
And then there's MoH which is a dumb CoD, unlike it's original and innovative predecesors.
Then there's BF...
Then there's EA (crappy) sports
What could they possibly do "new"?
EA, your only salvation now is sticking to the dumb sheeps that buy any crap. Any gamer will keep a good distance of your games.
The lifeblood? Are you sure about that EA? It seems that you make all of your money on pushing out derivative sequels and expansion packs. New IPs seem to be nothing more then sugary cupcakes for you.
Just imagine if EA and Activision were to merge one day..
Holy mother of hell.
Maybe that would even be enough for God to intervene :| Or the super-best friends with Seaman and Swallow.
Even after two years of next gen, people will widely play ps3,360 because those systems are all that many gamers need. Not so many will abandon this gen (except Wii) and move on to next gen so easily. 360,ps3 will be so affordable, that their sales will continue to be high and so should games. Many of my mates still consider to buy ps3 now that it's cheap enough. EA should seriously consider continue making games for this gen and Wii U
"It's an entertainment business. You have to surprise people and you have to take risks. If you don't, you die,"
Wtf happened to EA!?
I kinda agree with him there. Yeah there a bunch of consoles in people's homes now, but without the right amount of marketing, it might not spark enough interest. Now if you release that title, or those titles alongside a new console, you're sure to have people pick it up, especially if there aren't a bunch of launch titles available.Even if it's released within the first year of the next gen system I'm sure it will sell well. Gamers are real hungry for games for their new system after it's released, not to mention there won't be a whole lot available at first.
"new IP" doesn't necessarily mean original concept. most of their new games this generation have relied heavily on the mechanics of other games
It's good that they are working on new IP's, but if they think they will sell over 2 million on the new consoles immediately after launch, they are crazy. They will literally need to wait at least 1-2 years for the user base to grow before bringing any of those new IP's to market. New IP's don't usually become phenomenon overnight. You should need to sell 2 million copies to break even. If that's the case, you are spending way to much on development or taking to long to get the game complete. A decent game should take no more then 12-18 months to complete. Average game should cost $3-$10 million to make. If you sell 1 million copies at $60, the publisher/developer should get at least 25-35% of that. Which is like $15-$20 per game. That's $15-$20 million right these. This doesn't include DLC. That's twice it it cost to make the game. The problem is developers and publishers end up spending way, way too much on developing 1 game. $20 million+ is too much for one game.
@XanderZane You obviously have no clue what you are talking about if you think a AAA game can be finished in 12 months for under $10 million. That's the type of cost you see for a budget game and the development cycle for an iOS game. No game with the scope and scale of the average $60 game could be made that quickly. $10 million might be possible just for production, but you need to add another $10 million for marketing if you want to sell over a million copies. A AAA game requires the work of 100+ people earning around $100,000 a year. For a two year development cycle (how long it takes 100 people to make a AAA game) that's $20 million. Add in licensing costs, physical costs like office space and computers, and manufacturing costs and a game easily can cost $30 million just to produce. Add in marketing and you can see a game cost anywhere from $50 million total to $150 million for something like Call of Duty.
"couple million units to break even"
This is the problem with the industry these days. Too much mismanagement of funds and pretentious overproduction of nearly every title that comes out. Every game, even major ones, doesn't need overpriced voice actors, special effects, and a Hollywood budget to be good.
Overspending on this crap is sinking the industry. If it takes 2 million sales to just break even you are doing something VERY wrong.
@Dumachum To an extent. Games do benefit from spending lots on their development. The problem is not how much they're spending, it's what they're spending it on. They spend too much money on the parts of a game that don't need to be fancy.
New EA IP = a moderately good initial game that's simple enough in concept that they can turn out a new version every year with minimal changes.
God, I hate EA soooo much these days...
@ninjaroach81 Truth be told that's how new IP should work. It's nice when they can add and improve things but I HATE when companies spend years and years to make a bunch of changes that barely pan out. Diablo 3 anyone? I'm not saying D3 isn't a fun game but it lacks depth, it lacks balance (both in characters and difficulty level along with gear = power therefore skill is less required after a while) it lacks that same oomph and feeling of personalisation. Hell they made some good changes and it's a good game but look at others like Mass Effect, how can the 'changes' they made from ME1 to ME2 all be considered good, sure we all loved the cinematic elements and smoother mechanics but the RPG mechanics taking a hit was an issue.
Look at games like Uncharted as well, absolutely no progression in the series but people love it. Sorry if I've sounded like I'm ranting but my point is new IP's are made and get fans, they shouldn't be altered and tweaked nine ways to sunday till they lose and gain fans in odd measurements just to see which is most successful (money wise) they should be just improved on VERY slightly and cater to the fanbase. Why get fans just to lose them? progression is good but not if you seek change just for change sake.
This is a true sign that the 720/PS4 are right around the corner. EA wouldn't want to sit on games for too long because they need to keep the cash flowing.
They could still release something for this gen with less budget. Less on the graphics and more on the gameplay and story can make a game that doesn't cost millions for the publisher and good money for the gamer.
Its good WiiU is getting Mass Effect 3, but I don't really see the point when it missed out on ME1 & 2 with all the DLC...
@Hillsy_ Maybe they'll include some kind of comic to tell what happened in the previous titles, but it's EA, so yeah, why the hell a sequal on a console that didn't have the previous installments.
@Hillsy_ AND Pointless ending you forgot :D
@Hillsy_ Agreed. Didn't see the point in ME2 on the PS3, certainly don't see the point in only having the last game.
This kind of confirms that the next consoles are coming out holiday 2013. EA wouldn't hold out on new IPs if the new consoles weren't so "close" to coming out.
@okassar Hey it was over a year after the 360's launch before Sony released the PS3. I bet its going to be in the next year and a half when the new Xbox comes out but I don't think its going to be this holiday season.
@okassar Or they mean Wii U? But that's too many IP's to make for one console. So it does sound logical that Sony and M$ have already gotten some dev kits out, or just hinted that the consoles are coming out soon.
hey EA, PC's today can handle next generation gaming already, bring it on
ah I forgot, you don't care.
thank you consoles for holding up human progress.
@PeterDuck Dude you have to realize people just want to play games that's why they buy consoles. It's cheaper and easier to maintain. Like honestly do you wan't to bring a huge @$$ pc to your friends house just to play a game with him?
Some people would just rather not pay thousands of dollars just to play games on a pc, that's why crysis 2 sold more on consoles then it did on pc
@PeterDuck Yes, consoles are holding back PC gaming, but also consider this: PCs are holding back PC gaming.
A PC game is usually developed to be scalable and to be able to run on as many different machines as possible.
That means that, while a game might look great on a machine with a Core i7, a GTX 690, and 16 gb of RAM, it's still not utilizing that hardware to its full potential, because that game also has to be able to run on a 3-year old machine that only has a Core 2 Duo, 2 gb of RAM and Integrated Graphics.
@Spartan_418 PC gaming is holding back PC gaming, because all anyone cares about is visual effects. There are no gameplay advancements made with all the potential power PC has to offer, even with the need to be able to run on multiple rigs. Low end rigs still offer more than consoles and it isn't used. The simple fact is, that PC gamers can be easily wowed by a pretty picture and that's why PC gaming doesn't grow.
@Sepewrath Yeah, and when PC gamers look at things like Kinect and PS Move, which in -some cases- offer innovations that improve gameplay, they dismiss them as "pure gimmickry" and pretend that there's nothing their mouse + keyboard can't do.
Also, low-end rigs don't really offer any more than consoles. If a machine only has 2 gb of RAM, and more than half of that is taken up by Windows, then the amount of power that a game is able to use is fairly comparable to a PS3 or 360.
EA did create Origin though albeit not perfectly. They have to believe there is some profitability in PC's as well
@PeterDuck Don't blame the consoles, pc's are crap anyway.
if it wasn't for consoles' popularity and limited capabilities, we would have had next gen by now.
pc's are crap because...? they can handle next gen?
@PeterDuck Okay. Whatever that meant.
what you just said about my "opinion" is that your opinion and it is not shared by the majority of the population.
@PeterDuck That's just an opinion. It's not shared by the majority of the population. *You're* Sorry about that.
that's what next gen is mostly about.
and it's "you are"
@PeterDuck You consider graphics the decider of each generation of gaming? Ugh, sorry your wrong.
@egger7577 These are words of a genius. The last sentence is 100% truth.
@PeterDuck @i-like-me Anyone who mentions consoles are holding PC's back always forget PC exclusive games with lesser graphics like WoW, and recently Elder Scrolls Online, are held back to ensure maximum distribution across all builds of PC's. There may be options to improve the graphics, but ultimately, things can only be improved so far because the minimum design is set so far back. A lot of people don't own the most up to date gaming rigs and devs have to consider that when they design PC games these days. So, the next time you want to whine about console tech, remember this: the success of games like WoW have done a heck of a lot more to propogate the "appeal to the lowest common denominator" design philosophy for PC gaming than anything that has happened on consoles. And no, patched graphical upgrades doesn't count. It's not much of a step up and really doesn't advance the game. It's a new paint job at best.
@PeterDuck I meant to make them not to buy them as much as something like battlefield 3 looks light years ahead of games on console only a company like EA with a well established brand as battlefield could justify the cost of doing something like. Could you imagine how hard it would be for a new IP to be successful if battlefield 3 graphics became the expected level you just would end up with more and more cookie cutter sequels.
The last couple years of a console generation is usually the best time to be a PC gamer, which of course is now.
Don't worry, I dont do personal crap and ad-homs , unlike 95% of gamespot users.
actually console games are on average $ 10 more expensive than PC games. PC games on steam are on average 10$ less and there is no retail tax. Also, steam has 40 million users, a substantial amount.
@egger7577 Yeah I admit that if you want the most cutting edge tech you have to go with PC's. I get where you're coming from.
With this console generation stretching out there seems to be a lot of console vs PC argument going on with people standing by one and rudely dismissing the other.
Personally I prefer consoles more, simply because that is where the franchises I play can only be found but that doesn't mean I dismiss the PC.
Oh I'll still be gaming on consoles, mostly for exclusives but all multiplats I'll be picking up on the PC. The argument was about next gen technology and not necessarily gameplay or story. Remember, if you're talking about next gen, it can be done now at home on a PC. That's my argument; EA doesn't need to wait for the future to develop the games. They also did create Origin so they must have something up their sleeve.
The point I was making is that a lot of people make up excuses why they perfer consoles without actually playing a good game on the PC. Video games are the only market where you see such fanboyism. How many people are going to dispute that their Honda Civic is better than a Ferrari without driving one; probably none.
@egger7577 I don't know what the deal is with PC elitism. Many of the best games of all time are on consoles and the only way to play the latest from Nintendo, Sony, and some third parties. I'm more concerned with gameplay and story than graphics.
If you like PC better that;s fine but why the arrogant condescending attitude about it?
@PeterDuck If it weren't for consoles games would be too expensive to make consoles keep the budgets realistic and this is coming from a PC gamer before you accuse me of being a console fanboy or something
Most people that argue in favor of the consoles are too lazy to do anything better and are satisfied with substandard gaming. They lack any technical expertise or know how, nor care to learn anymore. Lastly, they're 12 years old, have no money and received one as a Christmas gift from their parents. Plus don't even get me started on the "I perfer consoles because I like to lay on my couch argument either". This can be done on a PC and only compounds to the laziness argument.
I recently used to be a console only gamer via PS3 mostly because I was uneducated in anything else. I absoluletly loved, loved BF3 when it released but I knew there was a much much better version out there I couldn't play. Suffice to say, I built a new PC after doing some research and I don't regret a moment of it. For starters, the game looks absolutely friggan beautiful, it's larger, faster paced and better controlled. Except for maybe a couple exclusives I want to try down the road, I won't be using the PS3 anymore except for Bluray. Trust me, until you sit in front of a PC in true HD with everything in real time, you have no clue what your missing.
"Most people that own consoles wouldn't care to update their graphics card or anything like that"
umm, because they can't. You cant update your console graphics card.
'Less gamers = companies competing for fewer customers = less capacity for developers = less good games."
The points you have mentioned having to do with my main point about current generation of consoles entrenching and establishing themselves enough in the society wherein few console gamers want new generation gaming because they are perfectly happy with their 6-7 year old hardware, THUS limiting the devs capabilities and desire for creating next gen. gaming. Frankly I am surprised there is even talk of next gen. gaming. It is clear that most console players would prefer to play the same console for decades.
"Developers know exactly how every 360 or every PS3 is going to handle a particular game."
I've played plenty of console games that lagged in the 23-25 FPS area. You wouldn't encounter that problem on a mid-powerful PC. MORE SO, don't forget, most console games they make have to be within the similar graphical capabilities within a generation, and most devs keep using same engines over and over again, like unreal engine 3. There is little room for advancement within one generation of consoles. And now we can barely get to next gen because people will keep saying: "I am perfectly happy with my xbox"
"Lastly, I will never hook up my damn computer to the TV, and I like laying down on my couch with a controller in my hand and a nice blanket while facing my 60" plasma."
personal preference, hence irrelevant to my point about consoles holding up and postponing technological gaming progress.
@PeterDuck Consoles most definitely progress gaming. Most people that own consoles wouldn't care to update their graphics card or anything like that, so they wouldn't be gaming nearly as much if it weren't for consoles. Less gamers = companies competing for fewer customers = less capacity for developers = less good games. That's not accounting for piracy either, which is much more common among the "PC master race."
There's also the development advantage. Developers know exactly how every 360 or every PS3 is going to handle a particular game. It quickens the development process and gives developers more time to focus on important things.
Lastly, I will never hook up my damn computer to the TV, and I like laying down on my couch with a controller in my hand and a nice blanket while facing my 60" plasma.
Content you might like…
Users who looked at this article also looked at these content items.
Avalanche Studios co-founder says developer's ambition is for action, not moments that make players cry; steampunk-style game on hold. Full Story
- Posted May 15, 2013 6:33 am PT
4A Games creative director Andrew Prokhorov thanks Jason Rubin for telling the studio's story, but says, "We deserve the ratings we get." Full Story
- Posted May 16, 2013 12:44 pm PT