Seems to me that the quality of a license is heavily biased towards the team behind it...
Palming off licenses to other developers often results in a substantial drop in quality of the title.
Keeping teams together should be more of a focus for large developers/publishers, as thats where the true value lies, building a working group of developers who know how to function together to make a game.
Aim for well scoped projects which can be developed in half the time allocated, and aim for low turnover rates. Make sure the team is in charge of hiring its new members, that includes upwards and downwards in the heirarchy.

If you can build and retain a team which has the experience of several shipped titles you will find they can really achieve high development velocities and can probably make a successful product out of a wide variety of IPs or game concepts. For example, how often is a teams 'investment in tools knowledge' a factor considered by a publisher or large developer in the decision making process? Also often times, if the same team gets the chance to iterate on their own toolset which they used on the previous title, their advantage in tool maturity and the ability to use those tools effectively will be amplified for the second title.

This apparent move to the hollywood style contractual model of game development (ie: hire everyone, make a game, disband everyone) is understandably to save costs for enormous team sizes, however i think an equal or greater value product or franchise can be made by fewer people with a smaller scoped idea. Smaller scope does not mean smaller success...

just a thought....

I'm a bit surprised EA hasn't kept the names of other closed studios active. Westwood Studios? Hmmm

I suppose it would look bad to kill off a company after 2 years.

Actually this goes in line with EA's current trend of naming their teams. This way they can establish team brand names, but not necessarily have them make the same exact game over and over again the way they used to back when they went unnamed.

@ Josh: All the internal EA dev groups had names back in the mid-late 90s (though they did tend to keep the same franchises year in and out). The EA execs then banned that team branding after the millennium as they said it diluted the corporate brands (EA Sports/EA Games). So this current trend is just a flip-flop to the old ways in that respect.

To break it down:

No details on who or how many Pandemic developers are apart of the "core IP team"

No detail on game platform, release target, or general theme/setting of the "new" game

This is why public companies are bad in my opinion. Salary and bonuses are tied to stock options, which is tied to stock valuation, which is tied to forecast of future company valuation. So how do you artificially raise future company valuation and at the same time justify shutting down an asset that was purchased at a cost that was not exactly in the shareholders best interests? Announce a new title. How you can announce something that doesn't even exist is beyond me. It is like telling your friends you're "pregnant" when you aren't even having sex with anyone. Here is the press release for that:

"We are very excited to announce the latest addition to the successful Bob family line of children. Based upon my birth and the birth of my father we expect another successful entry into our family’s series of children and want to extend our commitment to the Bob family line. The working title of the child is "Bill Bob" and we are at the very early stages of development, and as soon I find a mate we will begin R&D in earnest."

@James Anderson: What if the team wants to do something other than a sequel?

This is why core designers need to work as free agents. They can do a project, and even if the sequels are spun off to other development teams, they would still get compensated. (If their individual name has the clout. But it can't develop that clout until they act as free agents.)

A studio like Pandemic can get shut down, and its owner (EA) can sell off its IP at fire sale prices, with the original studio shareholders now not left with much. But if you are John Smith, core game designer, and you sell all your IP but for residuals, there is *nobody* who can take those residuals away (if you have a good contract) - the contract says that "John Smith" gets paid for X. A contract for that is far stronger than mere IP ownership. Publisher could sell the game, but if your deal is good, and you did a lot as a core creator, you could make a piece off of every sequel ever made for the life of the franchise.

Wake up people. Film directors, writers and actors don't get pwned the way game developers do.

I should qualify that when you start up a game studio you sell all your IP to the studio anyway. So even IP ownership is a myth. Once you get bought out you control nothing - the purchasers control it.

Far better, and more powerful, to do a deal as an individual free agent. (But again, you need to develop your name brand as a creator to the audience - the only brand that you can never ever be separated from.)

"This is why public companies are bad in my opinion"

You're seriously asserting that it's BAD to tie one's compensation to the success of the company they run? One wonders if there's anything these companies could do that wouldn't be criticized.

I realize there are a lot of hurt feelings when a studio gets shut down, and nobody likes losing their job. But the very real, raw fact is that Pandemic wasn't turning a profit. They sank 5 years into the development of Saboteur, and as recently as last E3 they had no real gameplay to show for it.

"How you can announce something that doesn't even exist"

Simple: they're announcing a future title. This is done in just about every branch of media, from the announcement that NBC was re-imagining V, to the constant announcements that X and Y film stars/director will be working on film Z, to the game industry announcements of upcoming titles.

It seems a bit ridiculous to assert that the development of the game was announced to boost short-term stock sales. Games take years to develop, and nobody knows that more than shareholders in game companies.

"Film directors, writers and actors don't get pwned the way game developers do. "

This simply isn't true. Yes, there are films, TV shows, writers, and so forth who 'freelance'. But there are also 'studio' setups where staff writers crank out installations of established product, such as The Daily Show or SNL or comic books. There are also industry shops like WETA and ILM that have permanent staff who work on effects and the like.

The freelance approach has its benefits but it also has its drawbacks. As it's very unlikely that video games will ever become a medium where we have programmers, designers, and voice actors making millions for single-contract engagements, not a lot of people are willing to give up the (relative) security of a steady job to do brief contracts. And given the continued insistence of tying health care funding to full-time employment (along with other benefits) it's probably not a smart approach for many people.