That is almost a given, yet there are times that we are setting the bar to below zero. As such we should have a larger look at politician as they heed and hurt gamers, whilst in other cases do it the opposite way and still hurt gamers. As an example I hand to you the Financial Review (at https://www.afr.com/technology/ea-s-australian-chief-finds-his-salary-in-the-political-firing-line-20251015-p5n2nj) where we are given ‘EA’s Australian chief finds his salary in the political firing line’ and we are given “Senior American lawmakers say the Australian chief executive of video gaming giant Electronic Arts has failed to make a case for an $83 billion sale of the business to Saudi Arabian interests and suggested he has been motivated by the promise of a significant windfall if the deal proceeds.” So, in the first. Why does he have to make a case? That might be the case, but it is a gaming concern and we have seen how gamers and gaming were called all kinds of foul (or was that fowl) and gamers were the start of nearly all things evil (I never agreed to that, but fine). As such we are given “Democratic Party senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal wrote to Trump administration officials and to EA, the developer of video game titles including The Sims, Battlefield and Madden NFL, with “profound concerns” about the deal led by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund.” And I have to ask, did they open their mouths when Microsoft went to town on gamers and gaming systems? A simple question, or are American companies beyond reproach? But the story gets a little more complex and we are seeing this with “The Gulf kingdom’s Public Investment Fund has proposed to purchase the company alongside Silver Lake and Affinity Partners, an asset manager operated by Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law.” As such Saudi Arabia is merely part owner (I did not know that), as such as we are given ““While the benefits of the acquisition are clear for you, the financial return for the three investors is less certain,” Warren and Blumenthal wrote in a letter to EA chief executive Andrew Wilson, who began working for the software giant in its now closed Gold Coast office in 2000.” I wonder how this is seen when we take that sentence apart. We have “While the benefits of the acquisition are clear for you” is the first part and he is the CEO, is he not? “the financial return for the three investors is less certain” is the second setting and here I say. Why do you care? Were you two shaking your tail feathers when WiseTech spend billions on “US-based supply chain software company E2open”? I see this all as some form of islamophobia. It seems that Saudi Arabia is good enough if it fills your pocket, but if they make wise investments, something is off according to you? And with gaming, we know you never held any of it in high regards, as such I have to wonder what the game is here. In addition we were given that you apparently had “profound concerns”, as such, what were these concerns? It seems that the media isn’t giving them and they seemingly aren’t asking them either. Will Andrew Wilson have ulterior motives? I do not know, but it is likely that he has his bank account as ulterior motive and in a greed driven atmosphere that makes perfect sense, so whilst the article gives us “EA gave Wilson responsibility for reviving its FIFA franchise, and he helped create a tool that incentivised players to make in-game purchases that ultimately became a bigger revenue stream than the game itself.” As such the game made a comeback and HE DID IT and as I see it he should be allowed to cash in. And as it stands The Saudi Arabian government and the two others see it that way.
The greed game tends to work in any direction, not only in the direction into America, but out of America as well. But perhaps the media will give us the entire setting of “profound concerns” at some stage, because that missing piece is seemingly central in this.
And don’t get me wrong, the man was paid $280,000,000 in 12 months, as such he made more money in 1 year that I’ll make in several life times. That setting is giving him leeway, because if he didn’t live up to that income, the buy would have never proceeded and in all this we see two democrats? So, what do they bring to the gaming table? Just a small question to cleanse the pallet.
So does Saudi Arabia have ulterior motives? Likely, because they are now part owner of a $55,000,000,000 software house and as I see it (I wrote about this before) they have a massive push to bring their own streaming solution to 1.7 billion consumers and that is merely the Islamic part. As I see it, they have the option to reach a lot more and with FIFA (or whatever EA renamed it into) a lot more coming in all kinds of ways and I predicted a growth from $6 billion annual to $15-$20 billion annual in first instance, but that before they bought EA, now there is not predicting how far this goes. But as I see this, I also smirk (an essential evil) as Microsoft is losing more and more ground in more places. The draw back from the game the played and gaming is nice, but when you lose, you tend to lose big. The expression “Go big or go home” comes to mind. It comes from the setting that encourages putting in maximum effort and committing fully to a task or goal, or to not attempt it at all. And they have been playing sloppy with too many settings for too long. I remember in 1998 that they had this setting wondering “why go for 100%, when 80% is fine” I never agreed with that part and too many agreed with it, because that is the sales setting, getting them over the ‘threshold’ and now we see that others are giving it their 100% and they are setting the new markers, they are the upcoming rulers of more and that might be frightening the American ‘dealmakers’ as they forgot (willingly or not) on how to give 100% to the task. A setting that comes with divided attention.
Have a great day and enjoy the day before the politicians ruin that too.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 