Accurate. Very limited data showing that a material% of EA Sports games customers (FC, Madden) were buying Bioware games. Converse likely higher, but mostly because penetration of EA sports games was already so high.
EA never really spoke about a consumer as being a consumer who es. (Unlike at Square Enix where you had RPG fans who bought across titles.) Rather EA spoke about portfolio construction, a very different concept.
So to the point below, the boycott here is meaningless. Also if there were enough Mass Effect fans for it to have meaning, the sales would have been higher for the titles.
EA never really spoke about a consumer as being a consumer who es. (Unlike at Square Enix where you had RPG fans who bought across titles.) Rather EA spoke about portfolio construction, a very different concept.
So to the point below, the boycott here is meaningless. Also if there were enough Mass Effect fans for it to have meaning, the sales would have been higher for the titles.
I have a hard time believing the people buying Mass Effect and Dragon Age are the ones playing Madden and College Football.
You've effectively boycotted this company your whole life.
0
0
16
648
Jacob Navok retweeted
It is very interesting the extent to which when they want to claim sportswashing, it's Saudi Arabia buying EA, but when they want to bash PE, it's a PE fund buying EA and not a sovereign fund.
This is Schrodinger's acquisition in games media.
Either way they want to hand wave that the studio, if it made money, would be kept alive. But this fact is conveniently ignored.
This is Schrodinger's acquisition in games media.
Either way they want to hand wave that the studio, if it made money, would be kept alive. But this fact is conveniently ignored.
Why private equity acquisitions like the one that just claimed BioWare are so dreaded pcgamer.com/gaming-industr…
3
1
25
1,501
Jacob Navok retweeted
I keep seeing people ask why Saudi Arabia borrowed money to buy EA when it could afford to pay cash. This is basic corporate finance.
I bought a car earlier this year. I could have paid cash, but I financed it through Toyota.
Why? Because I expected to earn more on the cash I kept invested than the loan cost me.
The same principle applies to EA.
PIF can afford the acquisition. That doesn't mean tying up another $18 billion in cash is the optimal use of its capital.
Borrowing preserves capital for other investments. Corporate interest expense also provides tax advantages, subject to deduction limits.
Saudi Arabia can afford to pay cash. However, the expected return on keeping that capital invested exceeds the after-tax cost and risk of the debt.
That's why companies with enormous cash reserves still borrow money. John Riccitiello himself used this strategy many times, both at EA and at Unity.
I bought a car earlier this year. I could have paid cash, but I financed it through Toyota.
Why? Because I expected to earn more on the cash I kept invested than the loan cost me.
The same principle applies to EA.
PIF can afford the acquisition. That doesn't mean tying up another $18 billion in cash is the optimal use of its capital.
Borrowing preserves capital for other investments. Corporate interest expense also provides tax advantages, subject to deduction limits.
Saudi Arabia can afford to pay cash. However, the expected return on keeping that capital invested exceeds the after-tax cost and risk of the debt.
That's why companies with enormous cash reserves still borrow money. John Riccitiello himself used this strategy many times, both at EA and at Unity.
This is correct, but I want to address this dumb point I see about PE and debt. I dunno who sold the idiots replying on comments to me this tune about PE and debt killing Bioware, but PIF (Saudi sovereign fund) owns 93.4% of EA.
That is not PE. If you think that is PE you are a moron and/or a Canadian lawmaker.
There is debt. Their owners can pay off that debt instantly if they wanted to. This is just basic financing stuff.
PE did not kill Bioware. Nor did Saudi Arabia. Bioware killed Bioware for making games that were going to be losses.
7
2
55
5,741
I keep seeing people ask why Saudi Arabia borrowed money to buy EA when it could afford to pay cash. This is basic corporate finance.
I bought a car earlier this year. I could have paid cash, but I financed it through Toyota.
Why? Because I expected to earn more on the cash I kept invested than the loan cost me.
The same principle applies to EA.
PIF can afford the acquisition. That doesn't mean tying up another $18 billion in cash is the optimal use of its capital.
Borrowing preserves capital for other investments. Corporate interest expense also provides tax advantages, subject to deduction limits.
Saudi Arabia can afford to pay cash. However, the expected return on keeping that capital invested exceeds the after-tax cost and risk of the debt.
That's why companies with enormous cash reserves still borrow money. John Riccitiello himself used this strategy many times, both at EA and at Unity.
I bought a car earlier this year. I could have paid cash, but I financed it through Toyota.
Why? Because I expected to earn more on the cash I kept invested than the loan cost me.
The same principle applies to EA.
PIF can afford the acquisition. That doesn't mean tying up another $18 billion in cash is the optimal use of its capital.
Borrowing preserves capital for other investments. Corporate interest expense also provides tax advantages, subject to deduction limits.
Saudi Arabia can afford to pay cash. However, the expected return on keeping that capital invested exceeds the after-tax cost and risk of the debt.
That's why companies with enormous cash reserves still borrow money. John Riccitiello himself used this strategy many times, both at EA and at Unity.
This is correct, but I want to address this dumb point I see about PE and debt. I dunno who sold the idiots replying on comments to me this tune about PE and debt killing Bioware, but PIF (Saudi sovereign fund) owns 93.4% of EA.
That is not PE. If you think that is PE you are a moron and/or a Canadian lawmaker.
There is debt. Their owners can pay off that debt instantly if they wanted to. This is just basic financing stuff.
PE did not kill Bioware. Nor did Saudi Arabia. Bioware killed Bioware for making games that were going to be losses.
7
2
55
5,741
AI wave is inevitable regardless of what happens with individual products
FUTURE OF GAMING DEPENDS ON FORTNITE x DISNEY🔴
Epic Games has become the biggest most aggressive user of AI in gaming industry. As Disney mode will heavily use AI to be generated, even down to art or core systems.
Which means:
🔴IF IT FAILS:
There will probably be a major push AI in building video games, and studios will focus on traditional ways of game creation again
🔴IF IT SUCCEEDS:
Epic Games including every other gaming studio will use this mode as an example to push AI onto every games creation as far as it is possible.
So future of how games are made truly depends on how well Disney x Fortnite goes...
6
2
18
2,149
you must follow the full orthodoxy! no dissent may be permitted.
Developer Of 'Ecosocialist' Game Future? No Thanks! Offers Refunds After Using AI Despite Calling It 'Technofascist': kotaku.com/developer-of-e…
1
0
11
1,391
This is correct, but I want to address this dumb point I see about PE and debt. I dunno who sold the idiots replying on comments to me this tune about PE and debt killing Bioware, but PIF (Saudi sovereign fund) owns 93.4% of EA.
That is not PE. If you think that is PE you are a moron and/or a Canadian lawmaker.
There is debt. Their owners can pay off that debt instantly if they wanted to. This is just basic financing stuff.
PE did not kill Bioware. Nor did Saudi Arabia. Bioware killed Bioware for making games that were going to be losses.
That is not PE. If you think that is PE you are a moron and/or a Canadian lawmaker.
There is debt. Their owners can pay off that debt instantly if they wanted to. This is just basic financing stuff.
PE did not kill Bioware. Nor did Saudi Arabia. Bioware killed Bioware for making games that were going to be losses.
It wasn’t private equity that killed BioWare. It wasn’t capitalism. “Dragon Age: The Veilguard” lost about $200 million.
There is no economic system and no conceivable owner who keeps a video game studio that loses that much money operating.
8
3
51
8,218
Jacob Navok retweeted
Hollywood called Netflix “cr-p.” Then it dismissed YouTube as UGC. Now it says AI video isn’t “good enough”
Watch the Kira trailer and remember this is the worst fully Gen AI content will ever be.
lightshedtmt.com/2026/10/23/dea…
Watch the Kira trailer and remember this is the worst fully Gen AI content will ever be.
lightshedtmt.com/2026/10/23/dea…
3
8
33
8,216
Tim's making a really important point here and I think people fundamentally misunderstand it.
Let's paint a scenario. You are an indie developer and you want to make a game.
Traditional game development will take you 1 year and cost you $200,000 in outsourcing costs to buy itional programming resources.
AI assisted game development will take you 3 months and cost you $50,000 in credits + some additional resources.
In a good scenario your game could make $200,000 and break even, but in many scenarios you mortgage your house and no one sees your game and you are out your savings.
Now, with the anti-AI mania, Valve is forcing real economic harm on you because you get the equivalent of hate mobs at your door for your choice of tooling.
Your economic viability is harmed because Valve chooses to put a label on you that generates negative attention. It makes your economics worse.
Anti-AI proponents will point out that this proves their hate campaigns work. The appeal is not to them, because they are morons, but to developers to stand up to Valve and say remove these labels so that we can have livelihoods. And Valve makes money of you either way.
Stand up for your rights, devs!
Let's paint a scenario. You are an indie developer and you want to make a game.
Traditional game development will take you 1 year and cost you $200,000 in outsourcing costs to buy itional programming resources.
AI assisted game development will take you 3 months and cost you $50,000 in credits + some additional resources.
In a good scenario your game could make $200,000 and break even, but in many scenarios you mortgage your house and no one sees your game and you are out your savings.
Now, with the anti-AI mania, Valve is forcing real economic harm on you because you get the equivalent of hate mobs at your door for your choice of tooling.
Your economic viability is harmed because Valve chooses to put a label on you that generates negative attention. It makes your economics worse.
Anti-AI proponents will point out that this proves their hate campaigns work. The appeal is not to them, because they are morons, but to developers to stand up to Valve and say remove these labels so that we can have livelihoods. And Valve makes money of you either way.
Stand up for your rights, devs!
@Filmbot There is a real economic cost to Valve’s foray into forced political disclosures. Besides taking 30%, they’re also taking a potentially even larger fraction of developers’ revenue and livelihood by undermining their business with these AI hate campaigns.
354
51
580
259,521
Jacob Navok retweeted
@JeffSmithsterr@GoldenKaoshat come every 6 months. if you are $150m in and they come back with garbage your choice is to release it or pay them another $50m to fix it. if your job as management is to make the creative decisions and fixes for them then you are not a publisher you are the studio head. it is the job of bioware to make the creative, it is the job of EA to market and distribute it.
1
1
8
353
It is very interesting the extent to which when they want to claim sportswashing, it's Saudi Arabia buying EA, but when they want to bash PE, it's a PE fund buying EA and not a sovereign fund.
This is Schrodinger's acquisition in games media.
Either way they want to hand wave that the studio, if it made money, would be kept alive. But this fact is conveniently ignored.
This is Schrodinger's acquisition in games media.
Either way they want to hand wave that the studio, if it made money, would be kept alive. But this fact is conveniently ignored.
Why private equity acquisitions like the one that just claimed BioWare are so dreaded pcgamer.com/gaming-industr…
3
1
25
1,501
Note that I do not believe a $500m budget was authorized.
I am sure Gears of War was authorized, originally, at a substantially smaller budget.
But once you are $200m in and the game is no where close to ready, do you cancel it? Never make another GoW again?
What happens is the game fails a greenlight and time passes, and as time passes burn increases, and the budget goes higher not because it was authorized but because it cannot go back in time and fix itself. Your money is a sunk cost.
I did a thread on this a few months back for anyone interested: x.com/JNavok/status/…
I am sure Gears of War was authorized, originally, at a substantially smaller budget.
But once you are $200m in and the game is no where close to ready, do you cancel it? Never make another GoW again?
What happens is the game fails a greenlight and time passes, and as time passes burn increases, and the budget goes higher not because it was authorized but because it cannot go back in time and fix itself. Your money is a sunk cost.
I did a thread on this a few months back for anyone interested: x.com/JNavok/status/…
Only an incompetent ‘leadership’ team would authorize $500 million for a new Gears of War game.
The original Gears of War was made for around $12 million. It turned a profit.
Gears of War 2 had a budget of around $20–$30 million. It turned a profit.
Gears of War 3 cost $46–$60 100 million in revenue.
Gears of War: Judgment? Made for $60 million. Tighter margins.
Here’s where costs skyrocketed, but margins and potential profits didn’t.
Gears of War 4? Rumored to have cost over $100 million. Game Pass cannibalizes sales, and performance was weaker than in the Xbox 360 era.
Gears 5? Rumored to have cost $100–$200 million. It outsold Gears of War 4, but Game Pass obscures actual sales figures.
Gears of War: E-Day’s budget? Over $500 million.
How, exactly, is that supposed to make financial sense?
11
2
27
3,921
I did not see this attitude among Japanese game devs when working at Square Enix.
...and sadly I know a lot of AAA devs who have active disdain for their gamer audiences. It's something that's perhaps always existed but it's been noticeably worse since the mid 00s' (2005/6 or so). I never understand these ppl and think 'why are you even making games? your attitude is the toxic part. customers always whine...deal with it'.
3
5
76
3,018
Accurate. If Bioware gamers made a difference in EA pockets Bioware would still be open!
Good luck lmao
EA's modern (largely sports) audience is super casual.
Those gamers do not and probably have never touched a BioWare game, let alone a single-player rpg. They do not care.
If they did, far bigger things they would've protested before this.
2
1
26
942
Is the definition of passion "subsidize money losing businesses"?
Art can be done with passion because it's solo artists being paid by rich patrons.
Studios require lots of people with salaries, this requires investment, investment requires returns.
You can have games driven by passion, it's called indies and it thrives on Steam.
Art can be done with passion because it's solo artists being paid by rich patrons.
Studios require lots of people with salaries, this requires investment, investment requires returns.
You can have games driven by passion, it's called indies and it thrives on Steam.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is under fire over an old post he argues that studios going that don’t make money is “economically realistic” and “deserve the axe”🚀
He said this in reference to Looking Glass studio closing, and followed that “a studio that goes bankrupt deserves to on to say there is room for niche studios as long as they manage to turn in profit, but studios with large overhead that aren’t profitable shouldn’t remain open.
His concluded that “The dinosaurs die, but the way is cleared for cooler life forms to evolve.”
This led to major backlash, especially in an industry where many layoffs and studio shut down occurred, not necessarily due to low profits, but excessive greed and insurmountable expectations from execs that treat gaming as purely a business, devoid of any passion😡
2
1
23
1,352
Tim Sweeney says sky blue, receives backlash from pro-steam bot accounts.
Tim Sweeney is facing backlash after an old post resurfaced where the Epic Games CEO argued that studios going bankrupt “deserve the axe.”
Talking about Looking Glass shutting down Sweeney called it “an economically realistic day”
Sweeney also wrote that “a studio that goes shut down”, arguing that companies that fail financially shouldn’t necessarily be kept alive.
His conclusion is that “The dinosaurs die, but the way is cleared for cooler life forms to evolve.”
15
4
127
2,785