The critically-acclaimed EA Wii game “Boom Blox” is not a failure commercially, EA CEO John Riccitiello told me yesterday during an interview in his company’s E3 booth regarding the state of the games publisher. Instead, it’s a success with Pink Floyd potential. And he’d even like to do a sequel.

Here’s our chat about that topic. The rest of my E3 interview with him will run next week.

MTV Multiplayer: “Boom Blox” is a lot of people’s favorite Wii game so far. But a lot of those same people have been looking at the sales figures, seeing that only 60,000 copies were sold in the first month, and I need to know what you were expecting in terms of performance for “Boom Blox.” Are you as worried or panicked as some of these fans are about what “Boom Blox”’s success — or lack thereof — means?

John Riccitiello, CEO of Electronic Arts: First off, we had a week’s sales with no advertising. Last time I checked MTV wasn’t a financial network, but .. it met our expectations. “Boom Blox” was a competent seller in the month it was introduced and only had a week of sales without advertising. So it’s doing actually quite well. We haven’t announced a sequel, but I would tell you that I certainly am curious [about doing one]. It’s a hit title.

Multiplayer: So everything you guys were doing in terms of making “Boom Blox” — making an original game for the Wii — is still something you guys feel will work? This is not a sign to EA that “Boom Blox” wasn’t the right direction?

Riccitiello: Given that you come from a music network, I think “Boom Blox” is going to be the “Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side of the Moon’” for games. It’s going to last a long time. I think it’s going to be a favorite for a long time. If you haven’t picked it up there’s really nothing like it out there… frankly I’m addicted to it. My kids are into it. It’s a great title.

We haven’t heard anything from Electronic Arts about “The Godfather 2″ video game since it was quietly confirmed during a shareholder meeting last summer.

But EA CEO John Riccitello broke that silence at the William Blair Investor Conference yesterday, where he also commented on sales of “Boom Blox.”

He didn’t reveal much about “The Godfather 2,” but said it’s a game EA will “be talking about a lot this fall.” He then went on to tease the new gameplay.

“You can play this game both at this street level, much like ‘GTA’ or a ‘Vice City’-style game,” said Riccitello. “But you can also play it top-down, almost like you’re in an RTS, where you’re controlling the strategy of the boroughs, you can see what’s going on and play it [on a] very different level. It’s a very unique and differentiating gameplay experience.”

It sounds like EA is mixing genres in “The Godfather 2.” Does that excite you?

You’re looking at a coveted creation from the lead programmer of “Spore”’s creature editor. EA Maxis software engineer Dan Moskowitz made countless monstrosities over “Spore”’s development, but this remains one of his favorites.

The creature’s name is Cheeky Monkey. “I particularly think this one is cool, because it shows off how flexible the animation system is,” he told me.

Have you thought about what you’ll make in “Spore”? Check out another one of his creations — a pear-shaped thing named Bosc Johnson — by reading on.

Read more…

Electronic Arts has consistently proven to be a surprising innovator on Wii. “Madden NFL 08″ stumbled a bit, but the developers’ Family Play initiative, designed to revamp “Madden” for a more casual crowd, was a step in a promising new direction.

A few weeks ago, EA announced an all-new sub-brand for EA Sports, entitled Freestyle, alongside an evolution of their Family Play interface philosophies designed for Wii: All-Play.

“The Freestyle brand is aimed at those gamers who are looking to enjoy the ‘lighter side of sports,’ regardless of what platform they play on,” said EA Sports senior director of brand marketing Reg Hamlett in an e-mail interview with MTV Multiplayer. “The brand houses games hinged on the suspension of the traditional rules of sports.”

Arcade-styled boxing game “Facebreaker” arrives under the Freestyle moniker this fall. And while Freestlye isn’t just for Wii, it certainly seems most apt for Wii, especially since both initiatives were announced the same day.

But what makes All-Play so different?

Read more…

Rockstar’s Dan Houser said f— it.

Nintendo said it doesn’t exist.

And whatever it is, EA said that “The Sims” isn’t it.

So what is “casual gaming”?

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of “casual” is something “occurring without regularity,” “occasional,” “employed for irregular periods, “met with on occasion and known only superficially” and “lacking a high degree of interest or devotion” or “done without serious intent or commitment.”

However, in gaming, the term “casual” is used to refer to a genre of games. But what really defines a “casual game”? Is it the core audience that plays it? Is it the kind of gameplay a title offers? Or a game’s wide-spread appeal?

When Nancy Smith, Global President of “The Sims” at EA, was asked about the label “casual,” she said, “I don’t think of ["The Sims"] as casual. We were one of the first games that started to attract a broad audience. We were one of the first games that bought in women.”

Meanwhile, Nintendo Europe’s senior marketing director Laurent Fischer told CVG he thinks the idea of the casual gamer is a myth entirely: “For me, you are a gamer or non-gamer… I think most of you know that you can spend ten or twenty hours on an internet flash game and have not realised. The guy who plays these games regularly - he’s a core gamer.”

As for the word “casual,” he said, “I don’t like this word casual so much. Because people consider that casual needs to be something easy. If you’re good at any game you can play at a high difficulty level. There is no casual gaming. There is just a different way to play.”

Clearly, casual games are booming. Why are publishers suddenly uncomfortable with the “c” word? What do you think defines a “casual gamer” or a “casual game”? Should the term “casual” be embraced or tossed out?

Analysts look at bottom lines. They make recommendations for people to make money. Cynically, you’d think an analyst would recommend sequels, annualization, keeping the talent making them behind the scenes.

That’s not necessarily what Evan Wilson, senior research analyst at Pacific Crest Securities, advocates. He sees financial successes coming from elevating talent, and making them a reason a consumer is interested in your project from the get-go.

“There are very few people in this world who know how to create hits. Not create a hit, but create multiple hits,” said Wilson in an e-mail exchange. “Those creative minds should be recognized and remunerated in the video game industry for their contribution as much as other forms of media. From a business perspective, that might be more expensive, but if the reward is better selling games the trade-off is worth it.”

But that’s not how the industry works right now, unless you’re a Will Wright or Hideo Kojima. Isn’t elevating creative minds a risky, expensive gamble? Why would Wilson — an analyst who should be identify how shareholders can profit, not developers – recommend that transition?

“I’m a stock analyst,” he said. “It’s my job, first and foremost, to improve the performance of my clients’ investments. That is done by not only recommending what is underestimated in share prices, but also helping them steer clear of what’s overestimated.”

A big problem, he said, is tha publishers view developers as interchangeable cogs.

Read more…

The past few days have not been the relaxing post-GDC weekend hoped for by the Multiplayer crew. Thanks, Electronic Arts!

The blogosphere has been digging deep into EA’s public attempt to purchase Take-Two Interactive, but while most of the world is wondering “what’s next?,” Multiplayer figured it was worth a trip into the past, too.

How did a company responsible for some of our industry’s most influential and controversial video games become a source of financial instability and a revolving door of managerial problems?

Take-Two emerged in 1994 with FMV-heavy adventure game “Hell: A Cyberpunk Thriller” (a project we’re sure Dennis Hopper was quick to forget) and 3D space combat title “Star Crusader.” Both actually appeared on the ill-conceived 3DO platform.

Their first notable move — in retrospect, at least — came during the release of 1996’s “Grand Theft Auto” from then-DMA Design (who they eventually purchased in 1998, when picking up BMG Entertainment’s games division). Knowing how big the series would eventually become, the box art’s description of the game is especially funny:

“Grand Theft Auto — Murder, road rage, pimping, bank raids, hijacking, armed robbery, extortion, adultery, smuggling, petty thievery, drug busts, police bribes, unlawful carnal knowledge and double parking!”

I wonder if they’ll bring back pimping in “Grand Theft Auto IV“?

While Take-Two is best known for “GTA” these days, that hasn’t always been the case. Read on for more about how Take-Two became the Take-Two of today, and a look at the strangely simultaneous rise of “GTA” and corruption within the publisher’s upper echelons.

Read more…

In a conference call to further detail plans to purchase Take-Two Interactive, EA CEO John Riccitiello offered some insight about his plans for the combined company, if the deal went through.

First of note for gamers is that Riccitiello said “I wouldn’t change a line of code in ‘BioShock‘ nor would I in ‘GTA‘ or ‘Max Payne‘… what we would do is sell more of it.” He said EA’s distribution network could get those games in places Take-Two doesn’t reach.

He also said the purchase was enticing for EA because his current company is “underrepresented in M-rated content.” Getting the creators of “GTA,” he noted, would suddenly give EA the top M-rated content in the world.

Riccitiello also name-checked Sid Meier of Firaxis and Greg Thomas of 2K Sports studio Visual Concepts and as valued members of Take-Two. Regarding the potential combination of EA and Take-Two’s sports business, Riccitiello said that he thought highly of Thomas but that “in terms of the sports business, from any sort of organizational perspective, we think it is way too early to comment.” He also shot down the idea that the purchase would leave EA without competition in sports, naming “Wii Sports” and “Hot Shots Golf” among the company’s apparent rivals.

The lion’s share of Riccitiello’s praise during the call was for the top men at Rockstar Games, whose distinct publishing labels were cited as an inspiration for EA’s current structural division. Financial analysts on the call tried to get Riccitiello to address their feelings that it would be expensive to bring Rockstar Games’ management into the EA fold, but the EA CEO said the conference call wasn’t the proper forum to discuss how EA could pull that off.

Riccitiello did reveal that EA’s interest in Take-Two goes back quite a bit. He said that his first inquiry into Take-Two began last summer and noted that he put the brakes on an attempt by EA to buy Take-Two when he took his CEO spot at EA last April. “At the 11th hour I recommend the board not to pursue it,” he said. He felt his own company needed to shift its own structure into its current four-division set-up before taking on Take-Two.

Riccitiello and CFO Warren Jenson also stated on the call that they were surprised at Take-Two’s rejection of EA’s offer. “It is our objective to make this a friendly deal,” Jenson said. They said they expected someone to buy Take-Two, whether it’s EA or not.

(On a side note, tomorrow will mark one year since Riccitiello was announced as the next CEO of EA, though he didn’t assume the position until April. The executive has written quite a first year for himself at the publishing giant. )

Earlier today, Electronic Arts revealed that the company is actively seeking to purchase Take-Two Interactive.

EA has also put up a website answering some of our questions about what it would do with Take-Two; we also got Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter to comment on what he thinks is an inevitable purchase.

Clearly, this possible merger concerns gamers. EA has been criticized for buying small development studios with successful IPs, only to have them produce second-rate titles following the acquisitions. The company has also been known to close down acquired studios if their titles don’t sell well.

In fact, at the DICE Summit held in early February, we reported that EA CEO John Riccitiello admitted that EA “blew it” when it came to keeping top-notch studios such as Origin, Bullfrog and Westwood prosperous; all three studios are now defunct.

With that in mind, we decided to put together an overview of EA’s previous development studio purchases:

• 1991: Distinctive Software (now EA Canada); purchased for $11 million

• 1992: Origin Systems (now defunct)

• January 1995: Bullfrog Productions (now defunct)

Read more…

When big financial news is breaking in the gaming industry, I look to Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter to break things down. I caught him on the phone today while he was having brunch at a yacht club (the same yacht club he was last brunching at when the Activision Blizzard deal was announced).

Who is this EA-Take Two deal good for? What would happen with sports and the cost of sports games? And why does he think Rockstar won’t necessarily be a part of the deal?

Pachter broke it down for me…

Multiplayer: Is this a good deal for EA? Good for Take-Two?

Michael Pachter: Probably yes and yes.

Read more…

As part of its public announcement to purchase Take-Two Interactive today, game publisher Electronic Arts has launched a website that addresses the possible fates of the most prominent parts of Take-Two’s business. You can read the lengthy EA-to-EA interview at EATake2.com, but here’s how they answered a few of our questions:

• Would this deal mess with the makers of “Grand Theft Auto“? EA asks and answers as follows:

Do you intend to kill or restrict any of the R* franchises?
We strongly believe that behind all the controversy is a core of great intellectual property and development talent. These titles don’t sell millions because they’re controversial; they sell because they’re great games. We have no plans to change that.

• But doesn’t EA already have a sports division? So wouldn’t this crush Take-Two’s baseball, basketball and hockey franchises?

Would you kill 2K Sports?
Any integration starts with our respect for the teams and people that make great games. Beyond that, it’s too early to discuss plans for managing Take-Two.

• EA just bought Pandemic and BioWare, so why reach for Take-Two now?

Why now?
We’ve waited to ensure that our proposal did not disrupt development on GTA IV. The game is scheduled to launch in about two months, which means the core development should be essentially complete.

At the same time, the reorganization of the EA Labels is basically done and our newest studios – BioWare and Pandemic – are settling in. Under the reorganization, creative teams at EA have a new sense of freedom and responsibility. There are more brand-new titles in development today than at any time in our history.

Finally, this is a good time to align our publishing strengths to Take-Two’s game roster. A timely integration would give a big boost to Take-Two’s games that are scheduled for release later this year and for their entire catalog leading into the holidays.

Okay, gamers, time for you to weigh in. Which games’ fates and which studios’ futures are you most curious about?

[UPDATED with comment from Take-Two]

Video game publisher Electronic Arts announced today that it is attempting to buy Take-Two Interactive, publisher of “Grand Theft Auto,” “BioShock” and the 2K Sports line in a stock purchase valued at $2 billion.

The announcement stems from a post-Valentine’s Day February 15 rejection by Take-Two Interactive executive chairman Strauss Zelnick of EA’s initial offer and a subsequent rejection of a second one offered on February 19.

As a result EA is taking the issue public. CEO John Riccitiello said in today in a press release detailing the deal: “Our all-cash proposal is a unique opportunity for Take-Two shareholders to realize immediate value at a substantial premium, while creating long-term value for EA shareholders. Take-Two’s game designers would also benefit from EA’s financial resources, stable, game-focused management team, and strong global publishing capabilities.”

EA’s attempt to purchase Take-Two Interactive comes less than three months after Activision and Vivendi announced their plans to merge into a company called Activision Blizzard in a deal valued at $18.9 billion.

We’ve put in requests for comment to Take-Two and Rockstar. EA will be holding an 8AM eastern time tomorrow to further discuss the company’s hopes for its planned purchase.

[UPDATE: Feb 24, 5:11PM ET]

In response to EA’s online charm offensive seemingly aimed at Take-Two Interactive’s stockholders, the Board of Directors at Take-Two has issued a press release detailing their rejection. Calling the $26 per share offer “inadequate inadequate in multiple respects and not in the best interests of Take-Two’s stockholders,” they say that EA’s proposal “substantially undervalues” their company.

Regarding “GTA IV” Take-Two’s Zelnick stated: “We offered to initiate discussions with EA on April 30th, 2008 (the day after ‘Grand Theft Auto IV’ is scheduled to release). We believe this offer demonstrated our commitment to pursuing all avenues to maximize stockholder value, while we believe that EA’s refusal to entertain this path is evidence of their desire to acquire Take-Two at a significant discount, whereas we believe this value rightly belongs to our stockholders.”