NKD wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 21:08:
Frankly EA's business model has more in common with Sara Lee than with Unity: selling empty calories to people who don't have the willpower to put down the cupcakes.

I commend you for your beautiful, eloquent statement.

NKD wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 06:19:

InBlack wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 06:09:
You are both missing the point. The point is responsibility. A CEO sets policy and strategy. He doesnt as you say get involved in the 'fine details' of the day to day business but he is the one who dictates what the company should focus on and how, and ultimatively this work ethic is filtered down through the ranks.

Okay. So what's the point we're missing? I don't debate that the CEO takes responsibility for the general direction of a company. In fact I said as much.

He claims because Riccitiello had what he considers a consumer-unfriendly strategy for running EA, that somehow he's going to try crowbarring a completely incompatible business strategy into a very different company. I claim that because he's run diverse companies in the past, there's not much reason to suspect he can't continue to do so in the future.

Am I wrong? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at exactly.

Its not about whether he can run a company, but how he runs one. You are right, there is no way he would implement the same exact same strategies from EA in this case, but is it really foolish to assume that at least some of the 'streamlining' that he is credited for at EA wont be carried over to this new company at a detriment to their customers and ultimately us gamers? (Although it might be benficial to Unity Technologies' bottom line in the short term) In no way am I saying that this is a given, he might be the best thing to happen to Unity since sliced bread but given his track record at EA I dont think its surprising that gamers are sceptical at this point.

InBlack wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 06:09:
You are both missing the point. The point is responsibility. A CEO sets policy and strategy. He doesnt as you say get involved in the 'fine details' of the day to day business but he is the one who dictates what the company should focus on and how, and ultimatively this work ethic is filtered down through the ranks.

Okay. So what's the point we're missing? I don't debate that the CEO takes responsibility for the general direction of a company. In fact I said as much.

He claims because Riccitiello had what he considers a consumer-unfriendly strategy for running EA, that somehow he's going to try crowbarring a completely incompatible business strategy into a very different company. I claim that because he's run diverse companies in the past, there's not much reason to suspect he can't continue to do so in the future.

Am I wrong? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at exactly.

You are both missing the point. The point is responsibility. A CEO sets policy and strategy. He doesnt as you say get involved in the 'fine details' of the day to day business but he is the one who dictates what the company should focus on and how, and ultimatively this work ethic is filtered down through the ranks.

jdreyer wrote on Oct 24, 2014, 02:55:

1. EA won "Worst Company in the World" under Ricci's leadership. TWICE. He set the culture there of treating customers like shit in order to maximize profits. Let's see how that works out for Unity. Game players will put up with shit when they've only got to pay $50. When dev houses are paying $10000s for an engine, they'll look elsewhere if you try and screw them. Lots of companies are now doing the "free" or low-cost game engine thing, like Unreal. There's no room to fuck with devs, who also happen to be among the more intelligent consumers. You say it's apples and oranges, but so far all I've ever seen Ricci cook was apple pie. Can't make that with oranges.

2. I'm sure he had lots of discussions about game engines, their capabilities, their cost, etc. etc. while at EA. His experience there is much more relevant than at Sara Lee.

See this is exactly the kind of shallow reasoning that I'm referring to when I say gamers don't know fuck all about what a CEO actually does. First off, the CEO of EA probably does not make decisions about game engines. It would be incredibly unusual for a CEO of a company that size getting involved in that kind of minutiae. Even when they look to buy out a company to get their tech, that's an idea that generally comes from other C-level execs and they rely heavily on the technical knowledge of those below them to come to the decision.

But more to the point, what works for EA won't necessarily work for Unity. They are very different companies with very different business models. They are not a consumer-facing company for the most part. The only thing consumers know about Unity is what other developers do with it. You seem to be under the impression that John Riccitiello is literally some kind of retarded automaton who doesn't have the ability, despite his extensive business education, to understand that the best approaches for two different companies are as different as the companies themselves.

We're talking about a guy who has been CEO of a company that makes jock straps, a company that makes cakes, and a company that makes games. I'm pretty sure he's got a fairly diverse perspective.

This comment was edited on Oct 24, 2014, 04:48.

NKD wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 21:08:

Creston wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 20:49:

NKD wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:46:
John probably saved EA as COO, and then later on as CEO he was really good for the company.

He was also instrumental in really starting the "Let's bleed gamers for EVERY.FUCKING.DIME.THEY.OWN" mentality that now practically ruins the industry, so yeah, it'll be great to see that pop up in Unity too.

Edit : Several people already made that comment before me. Ninja'd.

Certainly there's reasons for gamers to dislike the guys vision for EA's business model. Not that gamers ever seem to have the balls to stop buying EA games (see my sig) but I digress... but there's no real grounds to say he's a bad choice for a CEO.

Secondly, as I'm sure everyone here is aware, the business models for gaming software and gaming engines are very different. In fact there isn't really a standard model for engines at all. Plus you aren't selling to braindead consumers. You can't dazzle developers with a bullshit trailer or some cinematics. It's apples and oranges. His work as CEO of Unity will be about as relevant to his work at EA as his work at Sara Lee was.

Frankly EA's business model has more in common with Sara Lee than with Unity: selling empty calories to people who don't have the willpower to put down the cupcakes.

1. EA won "Worst Company in the World" under Ricci's leadership. TWICE. He set the culture there of treating customers like shit in order to maximize profits. Let's see how that works out for Unity. Game players will put up with shit when they've only got to pay $50. When dev houses are paying $10000s for an engine, they'll look elsewhere if you try and screw them. Lots of companies are now doing the "free" or low-cost game engine thing, like Unreal. There's no room to fuck with devs, who also happen to be among the more intelligent consumers. You say it's apples and oranges, but so far all I've ever seen Ricci cook was apple pie. Can't make that with oranges.

2. I'm sure he had lots of discussions about game engines, their capabilities, their cost, etc. etc. while at EA. His experience there is much more relevant than at Sara Lee.

NKD wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:46:
Honestly the negative attitudes about John Riccitiello largely come from gamers who know basically zero about business or what a CEO even does. Some game ends up sucking or having questionable design decisions, and somehow that's the CEOs fault. That might be true at some tiny ass developer, but at a large company the CEO is largely concerned with the big picture, not what map size is appropriate for fucking SimCity.

John probably saved EA as COO, and then later on as CEO he was really good for the company. He had a bad year at the end, but still. Unless the dude is bringing the entirety of EA management and development with him, the shortcomings of some EA titles are irrelevant to what he might do at Unity.

There is an old army saying Im fond of and I think it applies here: The troops are only as good or disciplined as their commanding officer is.

This comment was edited on Oct 24, 2014, 04:23.

Honestly the negative attitudes about John Riccitiello largely come from gamers who know basically zero about business or what a CEO even does.

I can't speak for the majority of gamers but the reason I disliked him as CEO is because of how bad the entire company was under him. If it was just the odd bad game from EA there would be little to criticize him for; under his reign EA was notorious for treating paying customers like dirt and consistently ruining great franchises and great studios. That is a direct reflection of who was at the helm at that time imo.

Creston wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 20:49:

NKD wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:46:
John probably saved EA as COO, and then later on as CEO he was really good for the company.

He was also instrumental in really starting the "Let's bleed gamers for EVERY.FUCKING.DIME.THEY.OWN" mentality that now practically ruins the industry, so yeah, it'll be great to see that pop up in Unity too.

Edit : Several people already made that comment before me. Ninja'd.

Certainly there's reasons for gamers to dislike the guys vision for EA's business model. Not that gamers ever seem to have the balls to stop buying EA games (see my sig) but I digress... but there's no real grounds to say he's a bad choice for a CEO.

Secondly, as I'm sure everyone here is aware, the business models for gaming software and gaming engines are very different. In fact there isn't really a standard model for engines at all. Plus you aren't selling to braindead consumers. You can't dazzle developers with a bullshit trailer or some cinematics. It's apples and oranges. His work as CEO of Unity will be about as relevant to his work at EA as his work at Sara Lee was.

Frankly EA's business model has more in common with Sara Lee than with Unity: selling empty calories to people who don't have the willpower to put down the cupcakes.

NKD wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:46:
John probably saved EA as COO, and then later on as CEO he was really good for the company.

He was also instrumental in really starting the "Let's bleed gamers for EVERY.FUCKING.DIME.THEY.OWN" mentality that now practically ruins the industry, so yeah, it'll be great to see that pop up in Unity too.

Edit : Several people already made that comment before me. Ninja'd.

Rest of the world: Helgason is "incredibly naive."

I met John about 18 months ago. We started spending time together during that following half-year, and we really got to like each other a lot.

Oh well, that settles than then. If you two like each other a lot, then he is obviously eminently qualified to be the new CEO.

Hey hey big EA, how many franchises did you kill today?

@ Will

Until people stop buying games from EA, I don't see how they fall. I think people keep buying them because they tend to look fantastic, and are still fun. I think it's the same way a junkie will still overpay for cocaine that's cut with borax in order to get his fix.

jdreyer wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 19:55:

Good for EA doesn't mean good for gamers. Look at all the shit that has happened in the industry, arguably under EA's (his) tutelage since they're the leader:
- Season Passes and (day one) DLC that should have been included
- Removal of ability to mod games
- Online DRM for single player games
- Overpriced "digital deluxe" versions
- Multiplayer forced into singleplayer games for no reason
- Much more bullshit

Almost all of these are perceived as naked money grabs over producing a superior product, and gamers are understandably pissed. And just like the president, the CEO of the leading company in the games industry gets the lion's share of the blame when things go south, and too much credit when things work out. In his case, things went south.

Thank you for this.

Never forgive. Never forget.

EA had a chance to do the right thing and failed at every turn. Turning the entire thing into a milk-factory instead of focusing on quality products.

Their rep is now in the gutter and it'll take a miracle to get it out. They really can't afford to screw up with Hardline.

As for Riccitiello and Unity -- I really like Unity, I love what they've done for the indie scene and budding development studios. I really hope Riccitiello doesn't come in and step on all of that, because I would be really pissed if he did.

A lot of future indie studios kind of depend on tools like Unity to get a jumpstart in the industry.

And that article is funny. I guess it wasn't only Blues that had snarky things to say about this move by Unity. Must have been all over the place for the outgoing CEO to do this the very next day.

I still think Ricci is going to bring Unity to EA and make SimBaker with it, bringing together all of his C-level experience into the ultimate game. I can already smell the bun in the oven.

NKD wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 18:46:
Honestly the negative attitudes about John Riccitiello largely come from gamers who know basically zero about business or what a CEO even does. Some game ends up sucking or having questionable design decisions, and somehow that's the CEOs fault. That might be true at some tiny ass developer, but at a large company the CEO is largely concerned with the big picture, not what map size is appropriate for fucking SimCity.

John probably saved EA as COO, and then later on as CEO he was really good for the company. He had a bad year at the end, but still. Unless the dude is bringing the entirety of EA management and development with him, the shortcomings of some EA titles are irrelevant to what he might do at Unity.

Good for EA doesn't mean good for gamers. Look at all the shit that has happened in the industry, arguably under EA's (his) tutelage since they're the leader:
- Season Passes and (day one) DLC that should have been included
- Removal of ability to mod games
- Online DRM for single player games
- Overpriced "digital deluxe" versions
- Multiplayer forced into singleplayer games for no reason
- Much more bullshit

Almost all of these are perceived as naked money grabs over producing a superior product, and gamers are understandably pissed. And just like the president, the CEO of the leading company in the games industry gets the lion's share of the blame when things go south, and too much credit when things work out. In his case, things went south.

DangerDog wrote on Oct 23, 2014, 19:01:
I'd love full disclosure on how much he's making as their new CEO.

I'd be curious to know too. It has to be a significant pay cut. Maybe he just really likes the idea of the company or something? I don't know. I can't see Unity having the cash to pay him what another company would.

I'd love full disclosure on how much he's making as their new CEO.

Honestly the negative attitudes about John Riccitiello largely come from gamers who know basically zero about business or what a CEO even does. Some game ends up sucking or having questionable design decisions, and somehow that's the CEOs fault. That might be true at some tiny ass developer, but at a large company the CEO is largely concerned with the big picture, not what map size is appropriate for fucking SimCity.

John probably saved EA as COO, and then later on as CEO he was really good for the company. He had a bad year at the end, but still. Unless the dude is bringing the entirety of EA management and development with him, the shortcomings of some EA titles are irrelevant to what he might do at Unity.