Former EA Exec Indicts Current Management Team for Financial Woes

36
On his personal blog, Mitch Lasky, who formerly led mobile and online at Electronic Arts, painted a sobering picture of the problems facing Electronic Arts in the wake of their poor financials. He describes EA's business model as being built on three legs of support, only one of which remains intact. Only the strength of their digital assets and distribution/partnership titles has saved EA from falling further into trouble. Their once strong sports division has been weakened, he writes, by escalating licensing costs and "failure to transition to a subscription/variable pricing model."

He then goes to some length regarding their second failing leg, the EA Games division. Many see as the heart of the company but Lasky calls it "the greatest failure of Riccitiello's strategy." He points to the massive amounts of money put into projects during his tenure there like Spore and Superman as risky moves that absorbed money that should have been invested in accelerating the move to digital distribution and games-as-service. Instead, he writes, "It's been a very ugly scene, indeed. From Spore, to Dead Space, to Mirror's Edge, to Need for Speed: Undercove, it's been one expensive commercial disappointment for EA Games after another."

In his conclusion, Lasky expresses surprise that EA hasn't already been acquired. Not surprisingly Disney tops his list and he confirms that the interest there extends back to when he worked there in the early 90's. He also tosses out speculation that an even larger corporation could "swallow EA whole."

Lasky puts a lot out there that deserves a moment to digest. While several of his points ring true his relationship must also be considered. Early in the blog he describes how he saw all this coming and recommended a massive shift and restructuring of the company that would have avoided these problems. It casts a "told ya' so" tone to the piece. And while we will never know how things might have worked out had he stayed, his subsequent track record at Benchmark Capital that includes EngineYard, Grockit, Hiplogic, Riot Games, and Vivox has met with only varying degrees of success.

There's no denying the challenges facing EA, and for that matter all video game publishers, in the current market. The digital and service models Lasky advocates will almost certainly become a growth sector as we evolve in the coming years. That said, as his own chart illustrates, Activision steadied its ship on the strength of Modern Warfare. Audiences love the big show, the Avatar's of video gaming, and they're only going to get better. The key for EA and the rest lies in recognizing the right ones and letting the creative teams make them the best they can be.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    January 13, 2010 7:04 PM

    So to be profitable, gigantic game companies have to be assholes? Between Lasky's rambling and Kotick's moneyhat parade, that seems to be the hyperbole-laden cynical message.

    • reply
      January 13, 2010 8:05 PM

      Corporations in general. Don't get me wrong, I'm for capitalism but working for a couple of large corporations in the past 10 years, I'm not really surpised by this. Incompetent management is largely to blame but there are worthless craft level people too.

      There are good large corporations out there, unfortunately, you mostly hear about the idiots.

      • reply
        January 14, 2010 1:53 AM

        Agreed. Chances of management failure almost always increases linear to the size of the company. This is also the case with EA and Activision. Especially with the type of money grubbing suits they have employed.

        I am all for making money with a good product or several of them. The issue that disturbs me is trying to maximize profit regardless of the consequences (mid-term, long-term). This is what makes the difference between "asshole" companies and good ones.

Hello, Meet Lola