@ban_hammer: *or, not are

ban_hammer

@qhue: but movies don't have bugs are technical glitches, well you could release patches nowadays, but its best to have the best possible copy before retailing it

ban_hammer

This is a significant indicator of EA's new priorities. Stopping guidance is a pretty big deal.

baccardi84

Smart move since games have such a long development cycle. And with all the delays this generation- it seems like they are looking ahead. Here's to better games.

symeon6

A financially inclined friend of mine (who isnt a gamer) once asked me : "If Hollywood can stake out a movie release date 2-3 years in advance and meet that date reliably and publishing houses can do the same, why can't the software industry?"

I initially replied that the creative process in making software was fundamentally different what with additional variables and more new technologies per effort compared to filmmaking. In retrospect, however, from a financial perspective I can see his point. To him its a question of can you meet your date or not and if not why would I have confidence that you know what you are doing. We are certainly much more tolerant of delays from the software industry than we are of any other artistic or technical entity (with the notable exception of aerospace)

qhue

This is great news for EA and the games they manage. Basically they can now shift releases as and when they see fit to make sure the quality is higher. A win for gamers.

EMPTYUK

"But in the event those two conflict? "Ship time will give before quality," Riccitiello said."

Not sure if that was a smart thing for JR to say...I can't remember where it was from, but I remember reading someone being quoted as saying "a delayed game can eventually turn out well, but a bad game stays bad forever" (if anyone remembers who said that lmk).

But this is pretty much brings back bad memories of EA's rush to ship vs. quality (Madden for PS3 for example...) Not sure if this is what ppl want to hear, but I could be wrong. What's the point of shipping a title on time if its quality will be questionable and may not sell well anyways...

Anyways, not sure why JR would go and take a firm stance like this instead of deferring the question to a "case by case basis" or something.

This is giving more ammo to companies like Activision Blizzard whose msg has continuously been "quality first" (whether or not it's true is irrelevant - they've been consistent with the msg!)

The whole avoiding quarterly guidance is really suspect...quarterly guidance can be one way for investors/shareholders to decide whether or not their interests are being best served by the executives on a consistent basis. Avoiding quarterly guidance is pretty much EA bowing out of the spotlight and giving up the crown (and spotlight and pressure) to AB. At the same time, without quarterly guidance, analysts won't be able to take positions on the company's performance which could be either a good thing...but I'm not sure if I see the stock jumping up...I mean most investors could dump it knowing that they won't be getting as much information as they used to going forward.

Noc

@Noc: might want to re-read that statement mate, he's saying he will delay the game instead of releasing a bad game on time.

geoffcbassett

@Noc: You misread the quote. What it meant was that they'll delay the game for quality if they need to.

Now all that remains to be seen is whether they'll stick true to that. EA has been getting better, but I'm still keeping a good eye on them.

ChaosBahamut

Great post, there may not be many people interested in this part of the business but keep it up. It's a good complement to cake pictures and such.

EA is looking really strong right now, IMO. They have some great games in development and the commitment to quality looks like it is more than just talk.

Guile0

EA does something bad: 100+ comments. EA does something smart: 11 comments.

anable

This is great news. This means developers will have more time to finish a product.

I'm guessing EA saw the evidence of COD4 and GTA4. IW refused to release a COD annually, instead mandated a 2 year cycle. And Rockstar delayed GTA from early last fall to late this spring to polish it up. Giving developers enough time to complete their games leads to better games, exponentially better sales, and skyrocketing profits.

Lixie

Finally a year after announcing changes at EA, something is actually done.

I am still going to avoid buying EA games but I hope they continue to make real changes.

NullsRevenge

@Noc: IMHO, avoiding quarterly results is a good thing. Too many companies aim for quarterly numbers to impress their investors and the analysts, and instead cut their throat for long-term growth. It all becomes flash over substance.

If EA is serious about this and they lose some investors because of it, then good riddance to the day traders who are trying to make a quick buck with an unreasonable and unsustainable rate of growth. As long as their 3-year plan doesn't completely collapse, they'll do better in the long run, which is important.

</rage mode off>

Now let's see if they're really serious about it.

Jazhuis

That's a smart decision on EA's part, but I'm doubtful investors will go for this kind of structure. Instead of little quarterly fluctuations when a title misses a ship date, EA will get one massive dump annually. I don't believe this will improve the quality of their products as much as it will improve the amount of time they have before they announce bad news.

boopadoo

That should've been "any" really bad news

Heywoodjabloume

@boopadoo: This is the correct answer. EA is doing this so that they can delay or hide and really bad news...EA is headed for trouble...just give it a couple years at most.

Heywoodjabloume

@Heywoodjabloume: Google doesn't provide guidance either. So should we start shorting it?

baccardi84