EA Montreal boss calls development cost "crazy"
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Dec 2nd 2006 at 7:30PM }
Maybe this explains why EA is laying on the microtransactions pretty thick. According to Alain Tascan, general manager of EA Montreal, it's "crazy" how much game development costs and new business models must be explored. Tascan is the same executive who said Gears of War lacked innovation -- even though he admitted never playing the game.In an interview with GI.biz, Tascan says, "I'm not sure that the model we have here will be the model in 15 years, and that the EA you know today will be the EA you know then." He doesn't feel that companies like EA are driving big game budgets, saying other companies are spending more and EA is, "Just here to deliver the show."
Apparently things are all puppies and sunshine up at EA Montreal. Tascan goes on to say that they have small 35 to 85 member teams there and "small is beautiful." He expresses big budgets don't mean smaller companies are left struggling, "I think there are other ways to consume entertainment today - mobile phones, casual games... Games that take a shorter amount of your time are something where a smaller company can really have fun." In other words, leave the huge budget console games to the big boys and you little guys go have fun and focus on those cell phone and casual things. Wait, so "small is beautiful," but EA will continue to make the big budget games that require big teams to go with big budgets -- interesting, could somebody start the countdown before we get another EA workplace conditions story? There's something strange in the EA water lately and we still can't tell if gamers will benefit.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
teehee @ Dec 2nd 2006 8:56PM
why all the ea hate?
they aren't the devil of a company people make them out to be, their microtransaction model is GREAT.
instead of not including cars in a game, then charging for them later, they only charge for cars you can unlock in the game, you don't have to pay for the items, but can still get them. that is GOOD for the game industry, yet people attack them on it, what the hell.
with this article, it seems ea can do no right, they shouldn't make big budget games but they shouldn't say small stuidos should make small budget games? EA has helped make the industry what it is, EA continues to sell games that sell consoles that lead to more games.
EA is not the devil, they are just someone for people to complain about, like people who complain about microsoft in the computer industry yet post their complaints through a microsoft operating system.
all i have to say is get over yourselves
Foetoid @ Dec 2nd 2006 8:16PM
As soon as they realise that the new development studio they have opened for the Wii only is more profitably due to low dev costs, EA will begin to back the Wii even more.
Hef @ Dec 2nd 2006 8:22PM
When i first got the 3d0 i thought EA were gods. Need for speed, Shockwave and some other stuff like foes of ali were really impressive. Then, although need 4 speed was perhaps technically superior on ps1 it looked like shite to me. And that has continued. I know i'm not alone in avoiding anything with the EA logo. So i haven't bought any of ther games for more than a decade. Bad bad company.
Foetoid @ Dec 2nd 2006 8:39PM
I think really the only GOOD thing EA has done, is The Sims. The overwhelming popularity of that game is nothing to shun (and the be honest, the cutsey Wii version looks awesome...IT HAD BETTER BE ONLINE). I liked NFSU2, but Midnight Club 3 was better, and i still havent seen a good racing game from EA since then.
Noel @ Dec 2nd 2006 8:51PM
Just because he never played the game doesn't mean he was wrong. Gears of War does lack innovation.
What it doesn't lack is polish. Gears of War has great graphics, finely tuned controls and a reasonably engaging narrative. While innovation is necessary to keep the medium progressing, it's also necessary to have games which master the innovations of the others.
MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:59PM
I have to agree with some of what #5 was saying, this is NOTHING compared to what we will be faced in the future. GT HD will be the prime example of microtransaction, even moreso since they will be giving it away via download. The same will hold true for Halo, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear and every other high profile franchises (and can you blame them? There are enough fanboys to make a killing off micros).
I can't wait for the whines in the coming years about microtransactions, you will be begging for EA style micros.
Scott @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:27PM
Of course EA can keep the teams small as long as they keep working their devs ridiculous hours and leave the QA to a monkey with a crack habit.
Burnt Meatloaf @ Dec 2nd 2006 11:49PM
Dev costs depend on talent. If designers and programmers are overextending themselves, or the marketting team is overestimating sales, then they are just bad developers.
Leave it to Nintendo to constantly recycle 20 year old software, and release Twilight Princess (the Wii's most important title) with no graphical enhancements compared to Gamecube, and then herald low dev costs.
Moogle @ Dec 3rd 2006 12:31AM
rofl @ Burnt Meatloaf. Yes, I'm sure there's a lot of code in LoZ:TP that was reused from the original LoZ (20 years old this year). 8 is probably the number you were looking for, OoT released in 1998
Anyway, I think EA's crazy on its own. 35 to 85 is a small team? WTF?!? EA's crazy costs seem to me to be management trying to hedge bets by replicating the formula for the last successful game by doing the same old thing, only with more people. This has always been EA's problem and for all their bluster I don't think they're honestly going to commit themselves fully to their 'small team' and 'original content' promises.
It'll always come down to someone in middle management having to chose between possibly losing his job if the risk doesn't pan out, or the safe and sure route to mediocrity.
Grudge @ Dec 3rd 2006 12:53AM
Consider this my patent statement:
In reality, an object is an object. You can only have so many different types of (for example) wood. And even those varieties are by-products of very few characteristic changes to wood (for example: color, grain spread, etc.)
I don't understand, and never have, why there's so much rebuilding from the ground up on every project. ICe acts like ice regardless of what company is making it. Once you have a basic structure for how an object works, make that open source and leave it up to development teams to do their own tweaking.
All video games are just extensions/abstractions of reality anyway. Why7 not make a basic reality set of objects and let teams go from there?
Oh, right. Patents and money.
Ian @ Dec 3rd 2006 12:32PM
And so begins EA's outsourcing of jobs! I wonder how much advertising budget they have for their games though.....
Galley @ Dec 3rd 2006 9:15AM
Yeah, Need For Speed on the 3DO was the bomb. I picked up a 3DO in 1999 just to play it.
cheese @ Dec 3rd 2006 9:59AM
EA is full of crap. Check out the development cost for Gears of War ($10 million), and you'll realize that EA is just trying to swindle everyone for more cash.
stiill @ Dec 3rd 2006 2:50PM
Yeah, EA isn't driving huge next-gen dev costs. If anyone, it's that company that spent over $30 million on a last-gen title, the Godfather. Who made that one?
hef @ Dec 4th 2006 2:15AM
When i think of need 4 speed on 3d0 i don't feel so stupid for buying that piece of crap. But I was stupid to think that M2 would become a reality. Last lies i ever believed from a console maker! Trip Hawkins if you're reading this you suck!