# data[].attributes.headline
EA Is Shooting Itself In The Foot With 'Apex Legends' And 'Anthem' ... Again

# data[].attributes.subject
EA Is Shooting Itself In The Foot With 'Apex Legends' And 'Anthem' ... Again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At first, it seemed like Anthem might have caused a problem for Apex Legends. EA had spent months hyping up a big release in mid-February, and it arguably could have really sapped attention from a new free-to-play battle royale just as it was getting established. The pendulum swings fast in the gaming industry, however: we're just a week into Apex Legends, but it looks like it's time to have the opposite debate. Will the newly ascendant Apex Legends take attention away from Anthem?

Note that both of these are published by EA, which seems to have set up a situation where success for either one of its games would have caused an issue for the other one. It's decided to shoot itself in the foot, it just can't decide which one to aim for.

I can't imagine the success of Apex Legends won't be felt when Anthem hits its actual release date. Both are different genres, but they're both online titles designed to suck up as much attention as possible for as long as possible, with in-game loops of loot and reward to keep people playing. And they appeal to similar demographics, which is more important than genre when you're thinking about competition. If you're trying to get a particular kind of gamer to fork over $60 for Anthem at launch, it doesn't help when that gamer is already deeply-invested in a brand-new free-to-play sensation. And when someone decides to grab a new game, they're just more likely to download the free-to-play game that everyone is talking about rather than the $60 box.

To a certain degree, this sort of thing is unavoidable: games come out all the time, and there's no real way to guarantee that you're going to be able to release the game in a quiet point. Late December and January arguably constitute the last true part of the calendar without many releases, but there's a reason for that. Apex Legends' February 5 release date is about as early as publishers go in the year.

However, there should be at least one part of this whole thing that's avoidable, and that's releasing your own games right next to each other. Because while EA has no control over when other publishers release their games, it does have control of when it releases its own games. And it's just a bit mind-boggling that it has chosen to release two major titles in just under two weeks, even if Anthem's release date is, how you say, more complicated.

At this point, Apex Legends is clearly chewing up a huge portion of the limited time and attention available in the AAA video game industry, and that's a problem for anyone trying to launch a major title. This is great news for EA, publisher of Apex Legends. It's just a bit mysterious that EA, publisher of Anthem, chose to release these games in such a way that they can't avoid competing with each other.

Fans of the space know that we've been here before, with the same publisher and the same developer. EA dropped Respawn's Titanfall 2--arguably the best FPS of the generation--right in-between Battlefield 1 and Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, dooming it to avoidable obscurity. The publisher seemed to feel that Titanfall 2 would not compete with Battlefield 1, a proposition that seems just about as ridiculous as arguing that Anthem would not compete with Apex Legends.

I think that both of these games can likely succeed, but when Anthem finds its base and gets going it will inevitably do so after having been needlessly hamstrung by its own publisher. I hope someone at Respawn makes a call over to Bioware: it's a developer that knows this particular, strange situation better than anyone.

I'm a freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The New Republic, IGN.com, Wired and more. I cover social games, video games, technol>...

Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EA Is Shooting Itself In The Foot With 'Apex Legends' And 'Anthem' ... Again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At first, it seemed like Anthem might have caused a problem for Apex Legends. EA had spent months hyping up a big release in mid-February, and it arguably could have really sapped attention from a new free-to-play battle royale just as it was getting established.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Titanfall studio Respawn sold to EA | VentureBeat

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Titanfall studio Respawn sold to EA | VentureBeat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Electronic Arts announced it will acquire Titanfall maker Respawn Entertainment for as much as $455 million on Thursday, in its biggest deal since it acquired PopCap Games for $750 million in 2011. The deal brings Respawn's Titanfall property into EA's fold of first-person shooter franchises.

The reaction of fans was mixed, as some worried that EA might eventually shut down Respawn, as it recently did with the 70-person Visceral Studios in Redwood City, California. But EA paid $2.2 million per employee to get the 205 employees of Respawn, and shutting it down so soon would be silly.

I talked about the deal with Vince Zampella, CEO of Respawn, and Patrick Soderlund, executive vice president at EA. They say that the opportunity arose and the timing was right to take the familiar relationship to the next level. They said that Respawn will operate autonomously and continue its work on a Titanfall game, a Star Wars game, and a non-Star Wars, non-Titanfall virtual reality game for the Oculus Rift VR headset.

"We want to have the best games. We have a good relationship," Soderlund said. "The creative freedom is still here: DICE, BioWare, our studios have creative freedom and creative integrity. That's what gets those studios to make great games."

Kotaku reported that Nexon had a deal to buy Respawn first, but EA made a counter offer and clinched the deal. Both EA and Nexon declined to comment on that.

Here's an edited transcript of our interview.
GamesBeat: I thought I would ask this in the most humorous and outrageous way possible. Is Respawn still making its Oculus VR game and does that mean EA is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into VR?
Vince Zampella: Yes, we are still making the Oculus game, and I'll let Patrick answer. Do you feel like you are kicking and screaming?

Patrick Soderlund: No. I don't feel like we are. VR for EA is, as I have said many times before - We are big believers in the medium. We are big believers in the immersion and what VR can do. We put the Star Wars VR experience out and it is still one of the better ones. It shows you can make a real game instead of just small demos. We have other things in development in prototype mode now. The fact we get to work with Oculus and Respawn on this is great. This is the biggest experience we will build at the moment. I love it. I don't know why the perception is we are against VR. We are not.
GamesBeat: Why is this deal happening now from both of your perspectives?
Zampella: We have worked together a long time from the inception of the studio. It has come up from time to time. I feel like now, where we are in the industry and what we can do. How do we take a next step in making bigger better games? From the Respawn side, it is a no brainer that this will allow us to do something greater.

Soderlund: From the EA perspective, I would echo what Vince said. For us, it is about making sure we are partnering with the best teams in the industry. With Respawn, I know we have two of the best teams in the industry. We also have seasoned leadership teams. And a very good relationship with Respawn. For us, it was a natural evolution. It isn't more complicated than that.
GamesBeat: Is anything happening in the game industry and the process of making more games that made this more likely?
Zampella: We see the need for bigger resources to make bigger games that are at the right level of competitiveness. EA has great knowledge for live services stuff that we are looking at and the game industry is transitioning to that. We can learn a lot from.
GamesBeat: In some ways, some of EA's games haven't been as huge hits as EA might have liked, and for you, Vince, Titanfall 2 wasn't as big as you might have liked. Did that create an impetus in pushing you guys together?
Zampella: Maybe not so directly. It's always good to have better alignment and better resources. So we can do the game that we want to do and properly position it and market it. There is a benefit to it for sure. I don't know I would directly tie it together like that.
GamesBeat: You have been working on these Titanfall and Star Wars games for a while. How is the progress on those?
Zampella: Great. There's always, when you look at games in development, there are a thousand things left to do. I'm always a stickler for that. The Star Wars game is coming along. That had a milestone recently and it looks fantastic. In Titanfall, we are exploring some things that are looking some things that are looking really good right now. The Oculus one as well.
GamesBeat: The Oculus game is a new intellectual property, and that is important to you?
Zampella: Doing innovative experiences is really more what it's about. Doing great IP is important too.
GamesBeat: EA just shut down Visceral. Did that worry you, Vince, about how far into the future you have to think here?
Zampella: Nope.

Soderlund: I think it is important to make sure to go back to the Visceral decision. It was a creative call. A creative decision. It has nothing to do with Respawn. They are not linked at all.

Zampella: We have to stay successful. Just as we have done independently. We constantly have to push ourselves to be more and more successful and that will breed our success within EA.
GamesBeat: As far as being independent, were there pluses and minuses for you?
Zampella: It's always a balance. You have to worry about security and foundation of the company. How do you get to new games while still maintaining old games. I am not worried. I think the creative freedom is still here. So we get the best of both worlds.

Soderlund: When you worked inside EA at DICE, or BioWare or Vancouver, they all have creative freedom and creative integrity. There are different cultures in different locations. That's what gets those studios to make great games. We are not interested in changing any of that. We want to keep what is great here. One of the reasons we are going into this acquisition is because of what Respawn is. It would be very unwise of us to change any of that.

Zampella: Ultimately, it is a contract with EA. We have to collaborate well together and that doesn't change.
GamesBeat: Patrick, is it important for EA to have a leadership position in first-person shooters?
Soderlund: EA is a big company. We want to lead in all genres. It's not about that, to be honest. It's about getting closer to a partner we have know for a long time. A partner that I have a lot of respect for. A partner that can be even better with us together than separately. We found from the dialogue that we can learn from Respawn. Vince will join my executive team as one of my direct reports. Vince will have an ability to affect other games inside of EA and that is a good thing. For me, there are multiple reasons why this makes sense for us.
GamesBeat: The fans are going to have a very big reaction to this, I'm sure. I'm curious for what you are looking for in some of that reaction.
Zampella: Ultimately, my message is we are still Respawn and we are going to make the same games we did before, and hopefully better. Anyone who is a fan of Respawn should trust us that what we are doing what we think is best for the future of Respawn and our games. We intend to deliver to our fans everything and more than we did in the past.
GamesBeat: Can you say this is going to be great for the future of Titanfall?
Zampella: It doesn't change the future of Titanfall. Except maybe we get more resources and better alignment. There are only positives to come from it. We are not going to drastically change the game because of it. But we may get resources to make the game slightly better.
GamesBeat: Is it possible that more than one studio could work on Titanfall?
Zampella: We haven't discussed anything but if it is the right idea, sure.
GamesBeat: How long ago did the conversation start? Was it recent or a long time ago?
Soderlund: We have been partners for so long. Discussions like this come and go. We have certainly talked about it before. We came to a point now where it made sense for both parties.

Zampella: We've been flirting for years. We just decided to date.
GamesBeat: Sounds like you got married. Anything else you'd like to say?
Zampella: It's a good move and the right time. It positively impacts the team and the fans and the games. We are excited about it. We have 205 people in beautiful downtown Chatsworth. We are hiring.
GamesBeat: The Oculus deal still stays the same and it is not affected in any way?
Zampella: It's still the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electronic Arts announced it will acquire Titanfall maker Respawn Entertainment for as much as $455 million on Thursday, in its biggest deal since it acquired PopCap Games for $750 million in 2011. The deal brings Respawn's Titanfall property into EA's fold of first-person shooter franchises.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Fortnite" now has more than 200 million players - Business Insider

# data[].attributes.subject
"Fortnite" now has more than 200 million players - Business Insider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Fortnite" is stronger than ever, with more than 200 million registered players.

That's a huge increase from June, when just 125 million players were registered.

Additionally, "Fortnite" has more than 80 million monthly players.

The biggest game in the world - "Fortnite" - is showing no signs of slowing down.

That's clear from the latest statistic to come out of "Fortnite" creator Epic Games: More than 200 million players have registered accounts, Epic Games confirmed on Tuesday.

Between June 2018 and November 2018, 75 million new players registered, putting the total at more than 200 million.

That's a pretty remarkable number. It puts "Fortnite" registered player numbers in the same realm as the most popular games of all time - games like "Tetris" and "Minecraft" and "Grand Theft Auto 5."

That said, there's a big difference between "Fortnite" and those games: "Fortnite" is free, and available on pretty much anything that will play video games. It also doesn't hurt that the focus of "Fortnite" is an online-only multiplayer mode named "Battle Royale" that's endlessly re-playable.

It's that mix of attributes that's helped "Fortnite" become the most popular game in the world since the Battle Royale mode launched in September 2017.
Read more: Forget about 'Fortnite' - the new 'Call of Duty' makes 6 brilliant changes to the Battle Royale formula
It's been barely a year since "Fortnite" began its climb to the top, and already its victory dances have bled into professional sports.

It feels like months since Drake joined up with Tyler "Ninja" Blevins to stream the game on Twitch, thus boosting its visibility even more - but that's because it was months ago, way back in March. March!

And now, just one year after Battle Royale hit "Fortnite," more people are playing it monthly than there are people living in Drake's home country - by a factor of two! Way to make Canada look underpopulated, "Fortnite."

And if we're talking about registered players? At over 200 million, "Fortnite" has a player base that's nearly two-thirds of the entire US population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How big is 'Fortnite'? With more than 200 million players, it's now equal to nearly two-thirds the US population

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Fortnite" is stronger than ever, with more than 200 million registered players. That's a huge increase from June, when just 125 million players were registered. Additionally, "Fortnite" has more than 80 million monthly players. The biggest game in the world - "Fortnite" - is showing no signs of slowing down.

# data[].attributes.headline
'Apex Legends' reaches 50 million players in one month - Business Insider

# data[].attributes.subject
'Apex Legends' reaches 50 million players in one month - Business Insider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Apex Legends" is a new Battle Royale video game from Respawn Entertainment and Electronic Arts.

Respawn announced the game on February 4th and released it for free on the same day for Windows, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4.

More than 2 million players downloaded "Apex Legends" during its first day, and it's currently the most-watched game on Twitch, the top video game streaming platform.

Less than a month later the game has already crossed 50 million players.

Electronic Arts and developer Respawn Entertainment shocked the video game world in February when they revealed "Apex Legends," a new Battle Royale shooter, and immediately released the full game for free.

Battle Royale describes a relatively new genre of game popularized by "Fortnite" and "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds," the two most-played video games in the world. "Fortnite: Battle Royale," is free-to-play and has more than 200 million players worldwide - the creators of "Fortnite," Epic Games, reportedly earned $2.4 billion in 2018 from the sale of cosmetic items within the game.

"Apex Legends" is a clear challenger to "Fortnite," with Electronic Arts adopting a free-to-play model similar to "Fortnite" for its own Battle Royale game. While the surprise announcement of "Apex Legends" only brought in about 90,000 viewers at its peak on its first day, word traveled fast - more than one million players downloaded the game in the first eight hours it was available.

If you're new to the game, here's what you need to know about "Apex Legends."

Vincent Zampella, CEO of Respawn Entertainment, said the "Apex Legend" player base reached 2 million in less than 24 hours, and one month later, he tweeted that the game had surpassed 50 million players.

"Apex Legends" quickly became the most-watched video game on Twitch too, with more than 390,000 concurrent viewers watching live a day after the game's release. The game is fast-paced and features unique characters, rather than the generic avatars of "Fortnite" and "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds."

Here's how the early growth of "Apex Legends" compares to "Fortnite":

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The new game challenging 'Fortnite' has reached 50 million players in its first month

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Apex Legends" is a new Battle Royale video game from Respawn Entertainment and Electronic Arts. Respawn announced the game on February 4th and released it for free on the same day for Windows, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4.

# data[].attributes.headline
Report: EA Paid Ninja $1 Million To Play 'Apex Legends', Which Is Way Too Little

# data[].attributes.subject
Report: EA Paid Ninja $1 Million To Play 'Apex Legends', Which Is Way Too Little

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If Apex Legends is on top of the world right now, you can chalk that up to tight gameplay from some of the best developers in the world of first-person shooters. You can also chalk it up to EA's surprise marketing strategy, however: the publisher announced this game on a Sunday and released it on a Monday, with nary a hint of traditional advertisements, TV spots or anything else--the Sunday in question was the Super Bowl, too. When it dropped, EA paid a bunch of the biggest names in streaming to play the thing for a solid week, rocketing it to the top of the Twitch charts and virtually guaranteeing millions of eyeballs already interested in battle royale. It worked: Apex Legends recently hit 50 million players and is getting ready to launch its Season 1 battle pass to try and capitalize on that.

Thanks to a recent report, we have a slightly better idea of exactly how much money EA paid at least one big name streamer. An anonymous source told Reuters and others that the company paid Ninja $1 million to play Apex Legends, showing the game off to his more than 13 million followers on Twitch alone.

It sounds like a lot of money. It is a lot of money! If you were to pay me $1 million to play a video game for a week, I would do so happily. But it actually feels like an incredible steal, something that's only been proven by how successful Apex Legends has been since it debuted a little over a month ago. I think we can assume that Ninja was the most expensive streamer on EA's list, with other names like Dr. Disrespect likely commanding high prices alone. There's a pretty big gap between the top streamers and those on the bottom of the list, however, so let's be generous and say that this campaign costs $10 million. Again, this is a wild guess based on that first figure and might be pretty generous. But even if we go with that, it's a steal.

According to Adage, the most expensive TV ad in 2018 was Sunday Night Football, coming in at $665,677 for a 20-second spot. Other high-cost ads include things like This is Us, clocking in at $433,866 and The Big Bang Theory, clocking in at $285,934. If you've ever watched football and been bombarded by TV ads for an upcoming game, it's not hard to imagine how those numbers could add up very quickly.
According to EA's earnings, the company spent $641 million on marketing in 2018.
With those numbers in mind, $1 million for Ninja starts to look very cheap, and I have to imagine that Apex Legends got the best streaming deal we'll see for a long time. This marketing campaign was a chance for some of these big names to flex their muscles and show that they could market a game with almost no traditional help. EA got a relatively cheap price not just to show people this game, but to show it directly to the people most likely to play it: Ninja's viewership is a much better demographic than a given football game, to be sure. Expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing in 2019 and beyond, as well as a lot higher prices.

I'm a freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The New Republic, IGN.com, Wired and more. I cover social games, video games, technol>...

Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Report: EA Paid Ninja $1 Million To Play 'Apex Legends', Which Is Way Too Little

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If Apex Legends is on top of the world right now, you can chalk that up to tight gameplay from some of the best developers in the world of first-person shooters.

# data[].attributes.headline
EA defies Belgian loot box decision, setting up potential “gambling” lawsuit | Ars Technica

# data[].attributes.subject
EA defies Belgian loot box decision, setting up potential “gambling” lawsuit | Ars Technica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Video game loot boxes
View more stories
In the months since the Belgian Gaming Commission determined that certain video game loot boxes constituted illegal gambling, publishers like Blizzard, Valve, and Take-Two have removed loot boxes from their games in the country. Electronic Arts, though, has yet to remove the randomized items from its recent FIFA games, a decision which seems poised to set up a court fight.

Machine-translated reports from Belgium's Niewsblad and Metro newspapers suggest that Belgian gaming commission has now referred the matter to the country's public prosecutor's office, which is conducting an investigation into it.

Any such prosecution would then go before a judge, which may be a legal battle EA is looking for. In a May conference call, EA CFO Andrew Wilson stated the company's position that the loot boxes in FIFA are not a form of gambling. That's "firstly because players always receive a specified number of items in each pack, and secondly we don't provide or authorize any way to cash out or sell items or virtual currency for real money," Wilson said.

"We're working with all the industry associations globally and with regulators in various jurisdictions and territories, [and] have established that programs like FIFA Ultimate Team are not gambling," Wilson said at the time. (EA was not immediately available to respond to a request for comment)

While government bodies in Belgium and the Netherlands have determined that loot boxes are a form of gambling, commissions in the UK and New Zealand have come to the opposite conclusion. In the US, legislators in several states and the US Senate are looking at the issue, though no legislation has yet been enacted.

Electronic Arts disclosed the odds for FIFA's Ultimate team card packs back in July, a move that hasn't stopped some players from spending five-figure sums on the digital trading cards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EA defies Belgian loot box decision, setting up potential "gambling" lawsuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View more stories In the months since the Belgian Gaming Commission determined that certain video game loot boxes constituted illegal gambling, publishers like Blizzard, Valve, and Take-Two have removed loot boxes from their games in the country. Electronic Arts, though, has yet to remove the randomized items from its recent FIFA games, a decision which seems poised to set up a court fight.

# data[].attributes.headline
Apex Legends Has Made A DAMN Point - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
Apex Legends Has Made A DAMN Point - YouTube

# data[].attributes.headline
What Apex Legends Is Doing Now Is Insane - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
What Apex Legends Is Doing Now Is Insane - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Apex Legends Is Doing Now Is Insane