EA redundancies rise to 1000

By Oli Welsh Published 19 December, 2008

Studios under threat of closure.

Electronic Arts has revealed that it's to reduce its worldwide work force by 10 per cent, or some 1000 jobs. That's 400 more than it said it would at the end of October.

It will also "consolidate or close" at least nine studios and publishing offices. The Black Box studio in Vancouver will be merged with the EA Canada development facility there. Most of this restructuring will take place by the end of March 2009.

EA previously said it would be cutting 6 per cent of jobs, or 600, on the back of second-quarter losses.

Along with the loss of jobs will be the loss of some games from the company's busy release schedule. "EA is implementing a plan to narrow its product portfolio to focus on hit games with higher margin opportunities," says the release.

We all know what the means, even though it's followed up with "the company remains committed to taking creative risks".

Tough times ahead.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (44) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • Dizzy #1 3 years ago

    First buy everybody, then fire them. Good job EA.

    Companies should be a bit more reluctant to get "bought" by EA.

  • Eraysor #2 3 years ago

    My only worry is that staff will leave and be absorbed into Activision, which may as well be the new EA.

  • chrisjm #3 3 years ago

    so basically the original stuff they promised us will most likely be canned and back to the yearly fifa and other franchise updates.

  • shinki #4 3 years ago

    EA have been making so many great decisions recently and it's sad to see they aren't paying off. I really hope they keep their promise about creative risks and don't go back to the old EA (or the current Activision).

  • peterfll #5 3 years ago

    Sorry, I must have clearly missed something in the news that said games sales are plummeting?

  • hoster #6 3 years ago

    "Well this sucks, but hopefully it'll show any desperate independent devs out there that selling out to a publisher won't necessarily provide them with any more security.

    Independence ftw!"

    Yeah, tell that to Free Rads...

  • DrRobotnik #7 3 years ago

    While I agree with you wholeheartedly shinki, the fact is that there are too many people that are happy to buy yearly updates for publishers to stop making them. As frustrating as it is, the consumer is ultimately responsible for the lack of creativity in the games industry.

    It's the same with films - If we stopped watching crap movies (yes, I'm looking at you not another 'generic' movie), studios would have to stop making them and have no choice but to risk new ideas and stories. The fact is, we want the same old thing wrapped in a shiny new package... at least many of us do.

    Might as well throw in how AWESOME Left4Dead is, despite its 'trying too hard to be cool' title.
    Edited by DrRobotnik at 19/12/08 @ 16:26

  • DFawkes #8 3 years ago

    If their profits weren't in the millions, I'd buy their garbage. Truth is, most of those people will be fired just to make a bit extra profit. Probably, I'm not an economics expert.

  • HolyJebus #9 3 years ago

    There goes Mirrors Edge 2. Not that it's developed in Canada but I don't think it was that successful so will prob get the chop.

  • Discalceaterabbit #10 3 years ago

    Truth is, this has nothing to do with money, those members of staff who are being let go have had five haircuts, and now need to be re-authorised.
    Edited by Discalceaterabbit at 19/12/08 @ 17:30

  • Fl0yd #11 3 years ago

    Won't somebody think of the shareholders?

  • The-Bodybuilder #12 3 years ago

    Whoever thinks gaming is untouchable better think again.
    With less risks come less diversity and originality. If you think having brown-FPSs after FPSs are bad, its gonna get worse.
    With less risky, but more mediocore and copy-cat games (along with less output in general), sales wil most-definately dwindle.

  • The-Bodybuilder #13 3 years ago

    >"Independence ftw!"

    Definately. Just look at FRD.

    oh.

  • m0thr4 #14 3 years ago

    First buy everybody, then fire them. Good job EA.

    Companies should be a bit more reluctant to get "bought" by EA.

    Hah! They often don't have a choice. It's called asset stripping and is a normal (although highly immoral) part of capitalism.
    Edited by m0thr4 at 19/12/08 @ 18:55

  • VMerken #15 3 years ago

    As always, we'll see. And we're seeing now.

  • shotgun44 #16 3 years ago

    You people realise that many big companies have debts in the millions if not billions? Just because EA is massive doesn't mean that they are making huge profits. Those debts have to be paid at some point. Truly sorry to hear about the people losing their jobs but companies aren't formed for the sake of giving peple jobs...

  • Dan234 #17 3 years ago

    Time to look at older games, because with EA churning out their usual yearly instalments, no smaller studios to bring out new ideas as they've been bought up and fired, and no new studios starting up in this economic climate, there's not going to be a great selection.

  • KingPepper41 #18 3 years ago

    If this is happening to Massive companies like EA as well as smaller games Publishers, and the games Industry is making huge profits every year, year after year increasing its profits, the FAT CATS at the top,have all the profits, that's my opinion, who are a bunch of Greedy F**KERS .
    Just because they are not getting as much money for themselves anymore, because of increased over heads, Licences and the total cost of games production and due to piracy as well.
    EA obviously were trying to buy out the competition, but failed thankfully, for all of us........ There must be a GOD after all ;o)

    So in the end, the people at the bottom of the ladder, the staff who design and create these games, are the ones who get booted out. OH YEAH THANKS ALOT ELECTRONIC ARTS :o(
    Edited by KingPepper41 at 19/12/08 @ 20:52

  • Albull #19 3 years ago

    Sadly it is true that no one is immune to this. It's called a recession and it means your job is at risk no matter where you work.

    A quick look on Wikipedia says their net income for 2008 (as so far reported) is -$454 million. That ain't good folks.

    *sigh* and I just got made redundant today also. Its in the air folks, if you start smelling it start looking for something else.

  • Bobs #20 3 years ago

    "As always, we'll see. And we're seeing now."

    Wise words my friend…?

    It is a bit weird that Developers should be in trouble as we're often told that the video games industry is thriving. I work in the industry however and I can see that things are getting worrying. I think the biggest problem is the money and time it takes to create a AAA title, you'll need to find and pay 50-100 people for maybe 3/4 years. You'll be under huge pressure to deliver on time (which I have never witnessed by the way - everything has problems - everything gets delayed) Everyone needs to be happy, senior management, marketing -in all regions, development management. Everyone is critical from day 1. Everything changes from the original core vision once everyone else gets their mits on it. A film director has the respect to pull off a vision and have everyone work towards that goal. Too often in the games industry a Game Director is simply the person responsible for the development of the company's project- and nothing more.

    Towards the end of a project, management bear down and force it to finish on time. Rightly so, but it often means key features are cut and some of that final polish is missed

    Once a project is complete if it gets a good 84% review score, that might not be enough. It needs to be getting 88, 89 or above to generate enough sales to make a profit. If your going to fork out £50, your going to buy a game which has reviews over 90% so end result is that many pretty good games which cost a fortune to make, don't sell enough because they weren't 'the best'

    What can be done? I dont know for sure, but I do think developing a game needs to be easier and tools to enable this would be extremely popular

    What EA is up to though I dont know because i would have thought they were the one company who should be doing well

  • Daikon #21 3 years ago

    Once a project is complete if it gets a good 84% review score, that might not be enough. It needs to be getting 88, 89 or above to generate enough sales to make a profit. If your going to fork out £50, your going to buy a game which has reviews over 90% so end result is that many pretty good games which cost a fortune to make, don't sell enough because they weren't 'the best'

    Many customers don't read any reviews but simply go for the name associated with the game, which is why EA makes so many sports games with yearly updates.
    This is also exactly why movie tie-ins can sell extremely well, even though the game itself is crap (hello Spiderman).

  • The-Bodybuilder #22 3 years ago

    I guess the wii really is the answer....

  • jglover4 #23 3 years ago

    @ukshaun - you have zero sympathy for 1,000 people being made redundant because you happen to think that they company they work(ed) for isn't making games that you consider decent? Well done on being an utter cretin and a waste of space.

  • BlackKraken #24 3 years ago

    Thank god the highly paid utterly useless jobs have been kept safe.
    How many companies have been destroyed so the guys who work at marketing at EA get to keep their BMW's?

    Seven each. One fur ever' dai o' la week! Cushty!

  • MaxiSleep #25 3 years ago

    Quality control in EA has been terrible over the years.

    Need for Speed is the classic example. It has had terrible framerates for ages, and in a driving game that is the worst possible sin.

    Rather then spend money on artists they need to invest in core engineering staff to work on the game engines, and reduce the number of core supported engines. When a game design is brought to the table key KPIs such as framerate/latency need to be established and when they are not met root cause needs to establish who is to blame (i.e. engine/Art assets/level design) and those people need to loose their bonus for the project.

    If the technical aspects of the game are good I have no problem buying an annual update. Some days all you want is a burger after all :)

  • TravisTouchdown #26 3 years ago

    Bobs, you don't really work in the industry, do you? Or maybe you're in QA. Not to belittle you if you are - but it certainly doesn't sound like you've been knocking about for very long... despite some wise words.

  • L0cky #27 3 years ago

    'Truth is, most of those people will be fired just to make a bit extra profit.'

    Not to derail the comments into a commentary on modern capitalism, but this is one of it's flaws. I think capitalism can only be a truly good thing with proper regulation, one being a minimum profit margin before your company is allowed to lay off staff without them being able to claim unfair dismissal. If your company lets you go to meet a quartely target, yet they're still making millions or billions, I think you should be entitled to complain.

  • binky #28 3 years ago

    UKShaun. Twat.

  • swisstony99 #29 3 years ago

    EA released 17 games this year with a metacritic of 80 or over, compared to 7 last year. They've made some record revenues but posted losses. Quality is going up, costs are too. Something had to give and people and buildings are of course the key way to do that.

    You can't just keep posting losses and expect to stay afloat. That's bad for every employee, not just those of us made redundant.

  • knightmt #30 3 years ago

    I think you are pretty hardcore if you work in the Games industry,
    it may be an amazing year for players,
    but I really cannot imagine the stress of the sort of competition that is going on.

    All this talk of scores is secondary to sales.
    p.s. I think that original titles with good a grasp of basics have more legs than expected.
    Christmas is a bastard for quality.
    Edited by knightmt at 20/12/08 @ 12:20

  • Bobs #31 3 years ago

    TravisTouchdown, why not elaborate? What is it exactly that you disagree with? ……im interested to know

  • CaptainScarlet #32 3 years ago

    We all want those next generation titles. Welcome to the sad but ultimately true cost of next gen development.

  • Quine #33 3 years ago

    I think the main problem the industry is facing right now is availability of credit. Getting finance to fund your 3-year project isn't as easy as it was a year ago, so regardless of headline profits even big firms are going to be finding it hard to keep their studios funded.

  • Bonus #34 3 years ago

    As for the "wont somebody think of the shareholders" comments, I'd put money on every single EA dev studio employee being an EA shareholder.

  • actionfitz #35 3 years ago

    "EA is implementing a plan to narrow its product portfolio to focus on hit games with higher margin opportunities,"


    Back to the old way of doing things then?
    release the same game every year with a new number next to the name?
    /sigh

  • BonzoBanana #36 3 years ago

    I think EA's massive expansion was credit financed rather than through safe but much slower profit. This means EA is much more at risk with the credit crunch. They will probably have to start selling assets if cost cutting doesn't work.

    Developers really have three choices when it comes to making money, continue a franchise like Halo pr Tomb Raider or make something exceptionally good that is new or lastly produce something on a strictly low cost basis like a puzzle game or something that can be achieved quickly and sell profitably with low promotion costs even with relatively low sales.

    Free Radical had a franchise in Timesplitters but choose to pursue Haze a totally uninspired and poorly coded halo wannabe. Now they are gone. EA management know what they are doing they will survive. They manage problems well which is why they are still going when other software companies have gone to the wall.

  • Doctor_What #37 3 years ago

    John Ricitello has always cared about the shareholders more than the interests of his staff. The easiest way to look quickly profitable is to reduce your monthly costs, and the quickest way to do that is cut people and buildings. The problem is that they are losing their talents to other companies, and in years to come they may find that recruitment becomes harder. This in turn will make games production not only harder, but more expensive. Yes, a talented coder costs a lot, but th saving in time and final quality of output makes them worth it.

    EA has been getting flabby in the middle management, so it would do the company good to lose them, the trouble is that they are the people deciding who to lose, not the people being fired.

    They did this at around the same time last year, and they'll soon get a reputation for working people to death then firing them at the end of projects. I suspect that this won't be the last time we'll see these big layoffs from EA, and possibly another seasonal one next year too. Me? I'd need a hell of an assurance before I work for them again.

    The staff are, once again, the victims of mismanagement. This hits them and their families very hard at a terrible time for the economy. Good luck to them, my thoughts are with them all.
    Edited by Doctor_What at 21/12/08 @ 18:18

  • barnard666 #38 3 years ago

    shame after such a good year for gamers.

  • Postumo #39 3 years ago

    Maybe they should invest less money on shitty Need for Speed games and more money on developing good games

  • bad09 #40 3 years ago

    As long as FIFA (of course it will be!) and the Dead Space sequel are fine I'm all good.

    Shame about the people losing their jobs tho :(

  • ED209 #41 3 years ago

    I'm pretty sure the "wont somebody think of the shareholders" comment was a joke, in the vein of the simpsons "won't somebody think of the children". And it made me laugh. But then I'm not a humourless c...

  • SEVQA #42 3 years ago

    I’m’ afraid I can’t give EA any respect as a story I would like to share with you all:

    After leaving EA for about 2 years I decided to go back, and had to go trough a new recruitment process that involved a stealth psycho analysis test. I communicated to the straight out of university HR girl that I oppose such a test being dyslexic and having previously worked at EA for a position higher than the one I applied for. I was ignored as I ignored all the questions in the test that involved match triangles into varying shapes. At the end of the test I was informed that I came top in the game related questions but bottom for the visual related (not doing them may have had something to do with it!) and therefore was told I wouldn’t even be allowed to be interviewed – only upon being marched out the front door I demanded to see someone superior and reiterated my concerns towards peoples human rights and what felt like psychological intimidation as any and everyone who is dyslexic would fail this test. Guess what they interviewed me to shut me up and further had the cheek to question my observational skills! Therefore their psycho analysts test hidden amongst game related questions was both discriminatory and demeaning. I feel sorry for those who have lost their jobs and envisaged such a scene as when a corporation start repressing the little people it’s to separate their worth from the company, which is disgusting and dam EA to hell!
    Edited by SEVQA at 23/12/08 @ 17:13

  • Rombote #43 3 years ago

    @SEVQA: What sort of job you were applying for? Seems a pretty weird thing to do, unless it was for a testing job involving a lot of applicants, hence a filter technique such as basic psychometrics.

  • SEVQA #44 3 years ago

    Hey Mr 12 post's Rombot

    I’m not going to tell you what the job was I was applying for as I question your motives having such a low post rate - the role is irrelevant as no doubt the majority of people who lost job's this Xmas were testers and proves my point about the little people being shat on.

    QA, Localisation and Compliance work is ,MSMD after all (Monkey See Monkey Do) (the term Microsoft elitist have for software testers) so why should a corporation treat you as an individual when they could get an animal to do the job for peanuts! – Right!

    Wrong - Some of the best programmers, artist's and designer's were testers if not all of them - so how can a corporation judge an individual's worth and future potential with filter technique’s and stealth psychometrics – and I emphasize stealth as its not made clear to the applicants that its a psychoanalysis test. The analysis questions are sporadically spread out through this seemingly fun test as I mentioned before being dyslexic I recognised the questions from test's I had undertaken many years ago during lower education, with the difference being I knew that was the case at the time.

    I will repeat that the recruitment process was intimidating, discriminatory and demeaning and shame on EA and shame on you ‘Rombot’ for having such a narrow minded mentality!