Well, aside from the guy that gave them assassin's Creed who he fired twice. Second time just to get his hands on the game the dude wasn't allowed to make at Ubisoft.It puts things into perspective. Just how shitty EA is compared to how Ubisoft's CEO Yves Guillemot cares about his employees and studios.
You probably killed Dead Space 4 as well.
Monsters.
I've played video games for almost 30 years. I've never ever bought an EA title, and I just realized that few years ago. Never on the NES, neither on the SNES nor the PS2.
I guess this will go on.
You've missed a lot of good games.
You've missed a lot of good games.
So what did EA do to fuck them over except cancelling the game? He says he took the money for staying exclusive to them and paid them out as bonuses, and then had zero overhead in case of a game getting cancelled?
Everyone misses good games. Can't play everything.
Crossing off one of two shitty publishers isn't much of a big deal.
While this isn't too surprising for us old folks, a small reminder for younger gamers -- in comic form:
Is the company behind Project Cars that much better than EA? For how long did they talk about the Wii U version of Project Cars, saying how great it was, before making the public finally realize that it was a vaporware project?
They gave them money to not sign a deal with another publisher, which would secure their future, and promised to make another game with them which they had no intention of doing. It's pretty clear.
EA signed an exclusive deal with SMS with no intention to publish their game. SMS could not go to other publisher nor even use their own developed tech (until they bought it back through a middle enterprise they created for that reason alone).Wait, I may be missing something here, but the way it's worded it sounds like they got 1,5 mil without even needing to develop a game. Since EA did not actually buy their company but apparently the rights to develop Shift 3 what prevented them to start working on whatever else they wanted, with 1,5 mil more in the bank?
I get that he paid coworkers, bonuses, ecc, and that's his business. I'm trying to understand things from EA's perspective, since I fail to see how paying a large sum of money to a developer for a project they'll then cancel could benefit their business. Or even damage the developer, since Slightly Mad had not yet started to work on it. Technology theft may be one reason, but PCars CEO did the sensible thing in that regard.
Not trying to bash Slightly Mad, I'm trying to understand how these things work
Great post and both things are exactly the same. I've learned something new today, thank you.
Idiot.
We deserve another SaboteurScum.
I miss Pandemic.
Some stupid questions, you mean. Cancelling a game and killing a dev team sounds the same to you?You're welcome. I was just asking some questions here.
You're welcome. I was just asking some questions here.
You're welcome. I was just asking some questions here.
EA signed an exclusive deal with SMS with no intention to publish their game. SMS could not go to other publisher nor even use their own developed tech (until they bought it back through a middle enterprise they created for that reason alone).
I'm going to be devil's advocate here, but why did it nearly kill the company if he paid them bonuses out of the 1.5 million he got from the deal? From how he talked about it, it's like he got the lump sum, paid the staff and then the deal got took away.
What will of happened, is that they were promised 1.5mil, the CEO got excited and then paid all the staff bonuses out of their kitty when they didn't have the formal guarantee that money will be available to him and the deal got took away.
That isn't EA sabotaging, that's the CEO giving away money he doesn't have. He nearly killed his own company. EA was just acting like any big company, where things change all the time.
I'm going to be devil's advocate here, but why did it nearly kill the company if he paid them bonuses out of the 1.5 million he got from the deal? From how he talked about it, it's like he got the lump sum, paid the staff and then the deal got took away.
What will of happened, is that they were promised 1.5mil, the CEO got excited and then paid all the staff bonuses out of their kitty when they didn't have the formal guarantee that money will be available to him and the deal got took away.
That isn't EA sabotaging, that's the CEO giving away money he doesn't have. He nearly killed his own company. EA was just acting like any big company, where things change all the time.
I'm going to be devil's advocate here, but why did it nearly kill the company if he paid them bonuses out of the 1.5 million he got from the deal? From how he talked about it, it's like he got the lump sum, paid the staff and then the deal got took away.
What will of happened, is that they were promised 1.5mil, the CEO got excited and then paid all the staff bonuses out of their kitty when they didn't have the formal guarantee that money will be available to him and the deal got took away.
That isn't EA sabotaging, that's the CEO giving away money he doesn't have. He nearly killed his own company. EA was just acting like any big company, where things change all the time.
EA just don't give a damn, right? this is messed up all around
EA signed an exclusive deal with SMS with no intention to publish their game. SMS could not go to other publisher nor even use their own developed tech (until they bought it back through a middle enterprise they created for that reason alone).
That list of companies is basically my childhood and it's been fucked by EA. Fuck EA. Fuck Konami, why do all the big publishers have to be the worst companies.Old school hatred of EA is best type of hatred. Origin Systems, Bullfrog, Westwood, Bioware, Maxis. I will always remember you guys before the corruption.
Given the role Patrick Bach was in at the time, I would guess this was actually gross incompetence that was effectively akin to sabotage, though I don't think that has much meaningful difference to the studio involved.
What I mean by that is that Patrick Bach (former CEO of DICE) was put in charge of the "First Person and Racing division" and was tasked with items like "Add sim racing to the Need For Speed franchise". He does so by contracting an external developer, and then signing contracts with them so that they agree not to go to another publisher instead, and that EA at least gets to use their technology and continue on with another developer if Slightly Mad decides to head out the door, securing the business. However, the order comes down that the series is selling badly and the game is canceled, but the issue is that independent developers need six months to negotiate a contract with a new publisher, leaving Slightly Mad totally screwed unless another publisher decides to show them mercy very quickly.
The issue is that you should never sign a developer into a contract like that unless you're 100% confident you will actually publish their next game.
The deal was made before Shift 2 went into production, the 1.5 million was given as a bonus as long as they promised they wouldn't make Shift 2 and then go and have discussions with other publishers. When Shift 2 completed development, despite receiving good reviews, they said "we're not going forward with Shift 3" and tried to pull a fast one with ownership of their tech.
I don't get both your reasonings to why this makes it better?Say you start a new company. You are doing well. Promising start, good foundations, decent tech. A huge company like EA comes in with a big fat wad of cash and promise of taking you under its wing.
Sure we can pick it apart online on GAF, but in the real world...you work for years in the cold and EA offers that? Veeerrry attractive. Short term...you tie yourselves into them, you reward the staff that stayed with you during the salad years and then....
EA turn round and laugh. There was no next game and now your tech and hands are tied to EA. You can't go elsewhere and EA won't use you.
You become a sitting duck and without nimble action, like setting up a shell to buy back the tech, you'd get washed away very quickly.
I stopped after Battlefield 4. Biggest trash fire of a launch title I have ever dealt with. I guess it is easy for me since I do not care about sports games, despite watching both football and futbol.EA man... Not even once.
I stopped buying games from them years ago on principal. I can't do anything about companies like this aside from refuse to give them my money.
Are you telling him his son isnt really named Luigi? :/The same asshole with "I love Nintendo! My son's name is Luigi!"
That's actually pretty neat.A few minutes after that in the video, he talks about his savagery towards EA, and gives details on how they "tried" to steal their tech. This is the summary though.
The company knew the deal with EA was shady, and there were signs before they signed. However, they desperately needed to sign a deal, so had to move forwards. In the contract EA wanted them to sign, there was a clause that EA would get to keep all of the tech from the project, with the exception of third-party technology (which makes sense -- obviously EA wouldn't ever expect to own FMOD through this company).
Before the contract was signed though, they created a new company called Middleware Limited, transferred all of their tech to be under that company, and then licensed it from that company and EA had no idea. They then signed the contract. EA later tried to get the tech, but the CEO was able to give them the finger saying it was licensed from a third-party and they couldn't have it.
Fucking savage.
A few minutes after that in the video, he talks about his savagery towards EA, and gives details on how they "tried" to steal their tech. This is the summary though.
The company knew the deal with EA was shady, and there were signs before they signed. However, they desperately needed to sign a deal, so had to move forwards. In the contract EA wanted them to sign, there was a clause that EA would get to keep all of the tech from the project, with the exception of third-party technology (which makes sense -- obviously EA wouldn't ever expect to own FMOD through this company).
Before the contract was signed though, they created a new company called Middleware Limited, transferred all of their tech to be under that company, and then licensed it from that company and EA had no idea. They then signed the contract. EA later tried to get the tech, but the CEO was able to give them the finger saying it was licensed from a third-party and they couldn't have it.
Fucking savage.
Dare I risk the ire of the anti-EA brigade, but am I missing something?.
They signed the team with 1.5 million, then cancelled the game, and this nearly killed the company?, how does that work?, was it that he spunked the 1.5 million before they started on the game leaving the team in financial stress?
Not that EA aren't a corporate monster, I am just curious if there is more to this.
They knew the deal was shady and signed the deal anyway and nearly went bankrupt? but at least EA couldn't use their tech lol
EA's plan all along was to steal the tech along with key employees for their own studio.
Wow.
EA is the devil.
The CEO in the video mentioned Robert "Patrick" Söderlund (EA VP) by name as the main devil behind it all.
Wasn't he the asshole doing the EA press conference at E3 this year?