You Won't Have John Riccitiello to Kick Around Anymore

<p>Even though he's a millionaire I truly feel bad for Mr. Riccitiello. He tried with the EA partners thing and gave us some great games like Mirrors Edge, Dead Space Series and Saboteur. Unfortunately, they did not do well and he tried to copy the Activision / Blizzard model and that failed miserably.</p>

But, but, I like kicking John Riccitiello. Especially in the nuts.

Wow a Nixon quote as the article headline. Harsh.

EA has made some stupid mistakes, but a world without EA Games is not a world I want to live in. EA has some great titles and releases more games then any other publishers out there. Just in 2012 they gave us SSX, Syndicate, Kingdoms of Amalur, NFS MW, BF3 expansions, NHL13, etc...

Quoted for Teenage Mutant Ninja-tellos.

@blackout62: Sorry to be that guy, but cardinals conclave not enclave. That is all.

Leonardo leads Riccitiello does machines.

Yea, this has been a long time coming and im surprised it took this long. Still, i'll be amazed if whoever gets his job makes any noticeable difference in the reputation and overall quality of things at EA.

Did anyone else enjoy the irony of Origin putting damn near EA's entire library on a huge sale coinciding with this announcement? Can't imagine that's an accident, no matter how much EA wants to insist this departure isn't at least partly a PR move.

I'm not surprised. At the end of the day, it's about money. And this guy's mistakes over the years were starting to ruin the reputation of EA to the point where they might start losing money. So they had to take action to make it seem like they're addressing the problems that now has many people in the gaming industry looking at EA as an evil game developer. Will this change eliminate the problems with the developer? Probably not, but it's about saving face by looking as if action has been taken.

I think people need to remember that many CEO's are directed to operate in certain ways, or must please those they answer to by performing in a favorable manner. When Riccitiello was hired by Electronic Arts in 2007, EA bought both Bioware and Pandemic Studios from Elevation Partners, a company Riccitiello co-founded after leaving EA the first time. As CEO of EA he presided over games like Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Mirrors' Edge and Dead Space. Granted games like DA:O had long been in development, but 3 years of development fell under his watch at EA.

So why did everything go so sour with Dragon Age II, Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3? Who was really pushing for Star Wars: The Old Republic? The way games and customers were treated was actually improving and then it fell through the floor again. This incredible need to control and micro transaction the hell out of products. Releasing games unfinished, or cutting development time down to get a quick turnaround. This all looks like a big u-turn from what people were coming to expect from this "new" Electronic Arts.

And now Riccitiello resigns? Following resignations by Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk? That's just weird.

That true, he gets flack for doing his job the way he is supposed to do it. It was his job to get maximum benefit/return for investors in a way that is aligned with how the board of directors views how that should be done. If EA has a Google like policy of "don't be evil" he might have had latitude, but that not how investor in EA saw it.

There is more and more talk about how investors should not be able to shape for corporation comply with laws - environmental, regulatory, etc. And, that the 'expectation of return on investment' cannot outweigh fair and honest business practices or the corporation's employees goals to be more fair, affordable, green or whatever...if they choose to be that way. It may seem dangerous in investors minds, to lose some control, but we have seen too much corporate greed caused by the only overriding goal to be maximum return quickly instead of sustainable return over the long term.

@tangoup: You do realize that these companies have to make money, right?

And Assassin's Creed the first actually sold pretty well, and UBI still did some very nasty anti-consumer things with the sequels (the DRM).

Bottom of it all, yes, they could persevere and make sequels - what if those don't sell? That's the problem with shareholders and open stock companies.

"The progress EA has made on transitioning to digital games and services is something I’m extremely proud of. However, it currently looks like we will come in at the low end of, or slightly below"

Yeah, just slightly.

@tpoppapuff said:

I agree, it was a very disappointing year for games. That was your point, right?

I'll give them credit for trying new IP, but how many of those you listed were actually successful at all? Not many, which is why they promptly gave up on that strategy and went back to running proven franchises into the ground.

I think he actually did a decent job of turning the EA supertanker around if you look at how they were hemorrhaging money a few years ago, but at the same time they have managed to fuck up games which should have been almost impossible to fuck up. Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises in particular should have been twice as successful as they were, imo. They also decided to go aggressively against Activision on Acti's turf (MMO, FPS) and bounced right off every time they tried.

OK, seriously, a game company is not entitled to sell tens of millions of copies of new IPs.

Assassin's Creed was a successful new IP this gen. Lots and lots of people liked it.

Uncharted was a successful new IP this gen. Lots and lots of people liked it.

Gears of War was a successful new IP this gen. Lots and lots of people liked it.

Borderlands ...

Demon Souls ...

Mass Effect ...

etc. etc. etc.

Just because a new IP has been released doesn't mean it automatically has to sell well. Just take the example of Assassin's Creed. The first game was met with a lot of criticism and even scored well below AAA game average on review sites but Ubisoft persevered and two years later tried to address many of the issues surrounding it by releasing AC2. Even though it has become an annualized franchise, think of where Ubisoft might have been this gen had it given up on AC after the first game?

Skate, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were released right around the time EA was getting a lot of flak for its business practices. Now I loved Skate but the sequels weren't much of an improvement, I hate survival horror and Mirror's Edge could have well become the AC killer if EA just had the courage to actually put time into developing it.

EDIT: And Mass Effect doesn't count. The first game was already out when EA bought Bioware, correct? But good on them from bringing ME1 to the PS3 though.

Well I certainly am going to miss kicking him around. Oh and new IP'S. I would say if Peter Moore wants to do it LET HIM!

"The Simpsons: Tapped Out" lol

I know there was plenty of coverage of the deal, what I mean is that I haven't seen it mentioned in write-ups like the one in Forbes that have brief accounts of his mistakes. They all talk about the investment in ToR, the getting voted worst company thing, some mention buying PopCap and Playfish - but I haven't seen anything indicating that EA overpaid for Bioware and Pandemic.

I mean maybe they didn't overpay, what do I know, but I'd they'd have to ship a heck of a lot of games at a substantial profit over their normal development cost to recoup $800 million and they already dissolved one of the studios...

Goodbye John Risotto~

@inappropriate_touchscreen: When your choices are a board room full of balding/ grey-haired men...well you're not going to get much else.

Maybe they should get someone who isn't an old grey-haired / balding man to run the company for a change?

He had a fight with his brother and it turned white, apparently. Wait... wrong company.

Why does his hair look like he stole it from a porcupine?

To be "fair", the CEO knows or has very little control over what individual units, including Maxis, are doing. They rely on subordinates to run around the business and report to them how parts of the company are doing. Getting rid of Riccitiello is good in the sense he was the guy who was ultimate saying "yea/nay" to the larger questions but if the subordinate management is still there reporting the same stuff then it doesn't matter who is the next CEO where they will still get the same if not similar advice.

So. If EA were to stop doing micro-transactions, and then every one else then jumps on the micro-t bandwagon, does EA lose?

Sim City was the last straw... Maybe EA will start making good games again!

EA has employees making terrible decisions and convincing others in the company they are good. CEO and board be damned.

What do you mean "franchise" Mass Effect? It was always conceived as being a trilogy last I checked...

The guy catches a lot of flak for the missteps and almost no credit for the good things (although, when things aren't going well, the guy at the top has to fall on the sword and be villainized regardless of the circumstances). EA is a very large corporation with many moving parts, shareholders to keep happy, board members who may not always see eye to eye, and a passionate yet very hard to please customer base. I believe he had his customers in mind with the direction he tried to push the company (spearheading EA's original IP initiative is the first thing that comes to mind), on one hand it was to drive revenue but on the other it was to give us what we were all asking for (thus, hopefully, achieving the companies revenue and growth goals). This did result in quite a few very fun games, some of which are among my favorites of this console generation. Unfortunately it didn't quite work out the way he envisioned it would, and in the end, the company exists to make money. The people rejoicing in what they deem to be someone's failures doesn't make sense to me, you vote with your dollars, so you seem to have gotten what you wanted. Right?

Shrug. Not sad to see him go, doubt anything will change. Funny that apologists are blathering about new IPs? Bashing EA for lack of creativity is so 10 years ago guys. The current thing is their monstrously anticonsumer, squeeze every dollar to please stockholders damn the impact on the actual quality of game experience attitude. Never cared about the old thing, I actually like sequels, but pretty mad about the new thing, personally.

You cut one head of the Hydra and another will take its place.

Riccitiello is only probably the tip of the iceberg. EA along with Activision has an attitude towards its customers that could be classified as somewhat anti-consumerist.

Peter Moore would be my choiche for the new EA CEO.

Mirror's Edge

@legion_: If Dr Ray was actually interested in the job (I have a feeling he has no interest whatsoever) I'm sure that the job could be his. I actually don't think that the next CEO will come from the internal structure. Right now the board will be looking for someone with a dynamic image and some ideas for changing the company's image; they won't find significant change from an internal search so will look externally (I hope).

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Good riddance John Ravioli..

This. Honestly couldn't have put it better myself. Anyone thinking Riccitiello's departure will usher in a new golden age of innovation and creativity for EA needs to have their head examined.

Too bad Dr. Ray isn't with the company anymore, I always dreamed of him rising up to become the new EA Overlord. He probably could have even changed EA's public image.

Every CEO gets forced out at some point in their career. Or you know, like five times.

I'm glad he's gone. Heartless? Maybe. Whatever. I'm glad he's gone.

The replacement (my money is on Peter Moore) will be just as UGH, but I am curious to see how it all turns out.

This made me laugh more than I'd like to admit.

Weird, because here I was thinking that they have one of the biggest shooter franchises in the world. Oh, and I guess all that Sims money doesn't count either.

Riccitello has a unfair reputation. Under his leadership, we saw tons of new IP released. Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Dante's Inferno, Army of Two, Boom Blox, Brütal Legend, Bulletstorm, Create, Crysis, Dragon Age, FaceBreaker, Kingdoms of Amalur, The Saboteur, Shank, Skate and Spore, and that's just naming the biggest.

On top of that, he greenlit tons of weird sequels, like Alice: Madness Returns. And he of course was a driving force behind some of the best sequels in older franchises, like Need for Speed.

It's easy to make someone out to be a villain when you don't know anything about the man or his work. It's a shame his legacy will be ruined by guys like you.

Say what you will about John Riccitello, but he led the strongest push in new IP's this whole generation. He tried putting out new IP's that weren't just first person shooters, and gamers thanked him by not buying those games (Mirror's Edge and Dead Space spesifically).

Can't blame the man for pushing sequels when people obviously don't want original IP's.

Will be interesting to see what John Riccitiello does next. He seems to know a lot about gaming with having worked at EA for so long and having invested in studios like BioWare. I hope he stays in the games industry.

I also hope EA get someone who is more of a gamer than a business/sales person in.

Pour one out.

Yup. Your logic is just that, your. I do have to admit though that your Colbert look of the world is amusing.

Let me break down the "enigma777 logic" since you obviously can't grasp it. I GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR EVERY SINGLE GAME THAT CAME OUT UNDER HIS WATCH. Capiche?

It doesn't matter if he initiated the projects or not. He saw them all through. And don't give me bullshit like "any CEO would have done this or that in his place!" That's a complete load of crap and you know it.

A good man lost his job today. You disagree? Well, I literally and figuratively DGAF!

So I guess by @enigma777 logic, James Washington Carver invented the peanut butter, right.

DA was in development since 2004. You wanna credit him with the garbage that is DA2, go ahead.

Dead Space was probably already underway in some form or the other when he came in. Now Mass Effect was pretty much the reason they bought Bioware so they could franchise Mass Effect, so sorry no credit here.

Now how in hell are you gonna give him the BF3 credit?! Again a game in a long standing franchise. BF3 would have been made even if Daffy Duck would have the CEO.

Now, I'm not gonna be all hating on him because I actually liked what he did with EA's Partners program, even though that kinda backfired, but don't give him credit when he shouldn't get it.

@jimbo: ME3's ending was bad. The rest of that game was better than pretty much better than everything else out last year with a small handful of exceptions, none of which were in the shooter or rpg genre. I mean The Walking Dead was barely a game (but an absolute must play) and X-Com which honestly benefitted from the entire genre going on hiatus for about a good decade plus (or at least felt like it). After that, what? You can make arguments for Far Cry 3 and Journey but I wouldn't say they are necessarily better, maybe just as good.