EA plans to slash game output

By Fred Dutton Published 3 December, 2010

Less is more!

EA has revealed that it plans to release around 40 per cent fewer games next year.

Speaking at the Reuters Global Media Summit this week, as reported by Wired, chief cigar chomper John Riccitiello revealed that EA expects to release 35 games this fiscal year, down from more than 50 last year. But what about next year?

"I don't think it goes to 10 or 15 or even less than 20, but there's some number probably between the low 20s and the high 20s that's right," he predicted.

The strategy is partly down to cutting costs, partly down to making better games and partly down to a new focus on the digital market.

Riccitiello has been all about risk-avoidance of late. Earlier this week he ruled out a purchase of troubled Rock Band developer Harmonix explaining, "We're still out of favour. Moves that look like I'm doubling down on yesterday would make it harder still to convince investors that tomorrow is the Promised Land.

"I'm sure some smart investor will buy the business feeling that they can catch a falling knife but more people have been cut trying to catch falling knives than have benefited from getting the timing exactly right."

Like it or not, this cautious approach seems to be paying dividends.

"I think we're at the classic hump where we've told people where we're going. There's evidence we're going to get there, but Vegas isn't putting money on it because we're only in the fourth inning," Riccitiello said at the Reuters pow-wow.

Among the 20-something titles you'll see from the super-publisher next year are Dead Space 2, Bulletstorm and Battlefield 3.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (22) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • TitusCrow #1 1 year ago

    This "polish it to it shines" and then release has been working for Blizzard for ...well ever. TBH I think this is a good idea, I don't think we want lots of games desperately trying to compete for internal resources, while sticking to set in stone draconian release schedules. Net result to gamers they get a buggy unfinished sub par game, lose faith in the dev team and publisher and sales are pretty medium. Also you don't build franchises on average games ( please don't point out Assassins creed it sold well even after average scores )
    Edited by TitusCrow at 03/12/10 @ 21:56

  • drhickman1983 #2 1 year ago

    I'd much rather developers and publishers slowed down output to create better games. Of course, as stated in the article, making higher quality games is only partly the reason, but as long as it does equate to better games overall it's no bad thing, and will be great for the companies image.

  • feistycheese #3 1 year ago

    Hmm, Im all for the idea of this, but I think it could be a smokescreen and they may abandon new and interesting game ideas and instead concentrate on those games that bring in more money year on year (eg. FIFA, Madden etc)

  • Kami #4 1 year ago

    Quality over quantity... how I long for that day...

  • HittenMitsurugi #5 1 year ago

    I feel a little dirty saying I have faith in EA but over the past few years they are seeming to be on the right path so think this is probably good news.

    /remembers posting in EA threads years ago saying wouldn't touch an EA game with a bargepole. How times change!

  • thedgam #6 1 year ago

    7 or 8 years ago, you could only dream of EA saying such things. Well, my dream has come true.

  • Shikasama #7 1 year ago

    Put that into perspective.

    How many of those games are already ear marked for annualised titles and carbon copy sequels? this isn't particularly good news.

  • gjgjg #8 1 year ago

    Wow, 2 promising statements from 2 big publishers about improving quality. Hopefully these set a precedent for others!

  • ubergine #9 1 year ago

    I think I actually feel sorry for EA!

    After being the industry villain for (ten years?) they attempted to remodel into a business I can respect, but despite some deserving attempts at new IP they just aren't getting due rewards for that, either in sales for quality products (RB3) or in quality for mega-marketing ventures (MOH).

    Hopefully Respawn can reinvent Call of Medal of Honour Duty sufficiently to make it worthwhile.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #10 1 year ago

    @ubergine - True, but I suspect that in the long term, they'll reap the benefits of the effort they've put into establishing new IP. Mirror's Edge and Dead Space might have underperformed at launch (though they seem to have been slow-burners), but there will be a lot more hype surrounding the sequels now that the original games have been established as quality titles.

    I can't remember which developer recently said that there are 'too many good games', and the guy got a lot of ridicule for it, but there is a problem of satuation in the marketplace. There really is a significant amount of titles in the marketplace right now, far more than most gamers can realistically be expected to purchase. This kind of satuation is undesirable to all publishers, so I feel it is the right attitude to keep resources a little more focused.

  • sjmlondon #11 1 year ago

    It would help if game releases were spread a bit more evenly throughout the year rather than a quiet summer and then loads released in late October / early November. Inevitably some will get overlooked

  • linksdad #12 1 year ago

    How is 15 less than 50 a 40% reduction? Its a 30% reduction. If they were to increase production from 35 to 50 then it would be a 40% increase.

  • tossetaz #13 1 year ago

    Too many games are released and too many games could use more groundwork and polish, I'm looking at you Fable 3 and Force Unleashed 2 to mention a few. EA will be wise if they release fewer games of higher quality.

  • chrisjm #14 1 year ago

    it is EA... so more likely fewer games, the same quality just less new ideas and more recycling of franchises.

  • polaris70 #15 1 year ago

    @PS_2010
    Then you are missing out on some quality games in my opinion. Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Mass Effect spring to mind.

  • intpleeus #16 1 year ago

    I wouldn't touch a bargepole with an EA game.

  • SeesThroughAll #17 1 year ago

    I'm looking at you Fable 3 and Force Unleashed 2 to mention a few.

    Fable 3? But isn't Fable 3 from MGS?

  • Tiresias #18 1 year ago

    while I agree that quality over quantity sounds great, in reality this is basically a nice way of putting that a lot of devs are going to be out of jobs...inevitable in the recession and all but surprised that so many people are fooled by the spin that this is something about trying to improve quality rather than just cutting costs...reasonable to do but people in the industry will suffer

  • Sevens #19 1 year ago

    Oh great, the digital market. That one sucks.

  • Bremenacht #20 1 year ago

    #20 - I agree. I wonder if we'll see any studios go, if they follow the Activision recipe for success.
    Edited by Bremenacht at 05/12/10 @ 20:35

  • Lord_BeeJee #21 1 year ago

    @HittenMitsurugi
    Dont be misled, theyŕe still too big a company to think of anything else but money. This is probably preemptive damage control for the upcoming closure of some studios.

  • muscleblade #22 1 year ago

    @SeesThroughAll

    I think he was talking generally as none of those are EA games.