DICE has already announced that the release date for the game was controlled internally and was not mandated by EA. Further, pushing back a blockbuster title like BF and potentially missing Black Friday/Cyber Monday/Christmas/etc would be a far more damaging situation - the customers don't get their game and their bottomline takes a huge hit from missing such a lucrative window. I think they took the best course of action for both parties and are getting railed for it anyway.
If they have announced a while ago that they were releasing in January or March, I doubt the stock would have fallen as much as it has. The decision to release when it did has more to do with COD's release. I doubt DICE tells EA when they are going to release the game, and not the other way around.
The problem here is that the "g4mers" want to think the suit is somehow done "on their behalf" when nothing could be further from the truth - they just mindlessly support anything that they think will affect a big company negatively. But the investors don't give a shit about the game or the people playing it, they care about the bottom line. And it's exactly this kind of behavior that people are constantly complaining 'ruins' companies or games - financially driven shareholder influence. That is, until it "benefits" them and it's ok because all that matters is "lol screw EA!".
Strictly from an investor point of view, I can see how some of EA's decisions could be negatively effecting their investment. ME3 -> Sim City 5 -> BF4. One blunder after another. After a certain point the EA name is just going to be toxic, which in itself wouldn't effect too much as long as they are giving a good return on an investment. But when the blunders start effecting the stock price, thats when something needs to be changed. I'm just not sure how a lawsuit fixes that, unless its laying the foundation for stockholder revolt. But I admit I dont know how any of this works, its been awhile since I've seen Wall Street.
The fact of the matter is that putting a hold on the DLC and taking ownership of the problem and prioritizing getting it fixed is the best thing they could have done for the people playing the game, the gamer - their customer. They did right by "you". And yet here those same people are hopping the fence as soon as they get the chance and siding with the shareholders - whom they so devoutly oppose typically - all for a chance to slam EA. It's either astonishing hypocrisy or ignorance, I can't really tell which.
I would think investors are bottom line kind of people. In hindsight, the best thing would have been to delay the launch, ensuring the best product, preserving the BF/EA brand, and ensuring future sales via DLC and sequels. But they only come to that conclusion when the money grab fails. You can't do right by gamers and investors if that hasnt been your corporate philosophy from the beginning. EA is in a pickle, as they are getting it from both the customer base and investors. Best solution is simply to do a better job with the games they release. Maybe lawsuits from investors get them to do a better job.
What EA should have done is spun it like they were releasing Battlefield 4.1, with numerous improvements and improved stability. And its a free upgrade, which will support all future DLC. But saying no DLC until the game is fixed means no DLC income to an investor. What's kinda surprising that this is what caused a drop in stock price, and not any of the other issues with Sim City or Mass Effect. Maybe it did, and this is the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.
Facebook
Twitter