Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie
Sure if the company operates on a "this team generated this much money and are profitable so let's invest in them". Unfortunately most companies operate by saying "thanks for the profits. Now what group is going to give us the best ROI if we invest more in them?" And the NHL series is going to lose that battle almost every time.
You aren't going to cut that team because they reliably bring in a nice baseline income but if it is a limited growth market you aren't pouring much extra money into it. And it is limited growth compared to other franchises they have or new franchises they can develop...or at least that is clearly the determination they have made.
Read earnings reports from EA and you'll see things like Battlefield had more than 21 million new players join...a 50% increase over the previous incarnation at this point. 21 million players for Fifa 17 including 12 mil who did the new game mode Journey (that type of numbers engaged in a game mode makes extra sales now and moving forward). Fifa Mobile had a base of 95 million players. NBA Live mobile 70 million players. SIMS active users increased 33% year on year. No matter how perfect a NHL game the resulting sales just can't match the growth of other EA and EA Sports properties. So they don't see the money.
|
Seems to me you are taking a pretty simplistic view of how large companies work. Having worked in multiple billion dollar software companies myself, business units are always looking for ways to improve their balance sheets. In my experience even though corporate leadership often prioritizes the large money making ventures, if a smaller business unit has a plan to increase revenue and profitability, then they get what they need to make that happen.
I'm not sure I've been around any corporate exec who takes the attitude you describe above of "lets just keep this small revenue stream trickling along", but more like "this quarter is the most important quarter ever, what can we do to squeeze out every single dollar of revenue we can?!?!?!?!"
So to me, the burden lays on the EA Vancouver team for not innovating or trying to be better. And to dovetail into something else that just popped up, there is always the argument about minor graphics enhancements occurring. The retort is always that "there are separate teams for that" but I think after 20 or so years, that the producers of the game have shown they are unable to do both. So maybe they should cut their budget and investment into chewing on mouthgaurds and put it into AI that can figure out how to stop the cross crease pass or short side top shelf backhand. (examples may be outdated, I haven't played in a few years)
I guess bottom line for me is this: a big reason I am even a hockey fan is because of NHL94. While Canadians may take for granted that the EA series is just support for a sport everyone already knows about, there are lots of places where creating a quality product can make a difference. They were able to do it in the 90's with several good games and also in the mid 2000's when the skill stick came along and brought a lot of fresh blood into the series. If the EA Vancouver team could actually improve their product, maybe they could bring in another wave of new fans and make the game enjoyable for everyone.