When I spoke with [Epic president] Mike Capps, he said EA works "checklist-style" -- where they tell you which services they want, and you provide them. Valve told me similar things, indicating they leave most of those boxes un-checked.

DD: Yep. (laughs)

How accurate is that metaphor?

DD: We don't necessarily hand them a menu and wait for them to check boxes, but we do have rather mature and sophisticated processes. We more or less step in where our partners indicate they need some assistance. Where our partners don't need assistance, we're not going to try and get in the way, because that's rather inefficient.

It's that "bull in a china shop" versus "delicately walking through a china shop" nuance that represents what the new EAP is attempting to be: high-level customer service where the customer is asking for service.

If somebody every five minutes comes up to you and says, "Can I clear that tray? You want me to clear your tray?," the service gets to a certain level. It's like, "Look, I don't need you to clear the tray. I'll tell you when I need you to clear the tray." So if you want, we wait for you to finish the meal, then we come and ask you.

It's a strange metaphor, but it's just not imposing yourself when you don't need to be imposing yourself into a situation.

So is that a problem with executives at EA who are not accustomed to that kind of mentality? Because historically, that's a change.

DD: Those who would not be named at this point? (laughs)

What I'd equate it to is that there's one steering wheel and two front seats. Three years ago, EA always had to have their hand firmly on the wheel, and in many cases on the driver's seat. Now, we're far more comfortable sitting in the passenger seat, ready to lend a hand so you can adjust your glasses.

It's a difference that is represented by John's and Frank's leadership, and it's a philosophical thing that carries throughout the whole EAP organization. I think it's also having a very mature team of game-savvy experts who work worldwide in EAP, and the quality of those individuals is fantastic, maybe even relative historically.

We've continued to add people with more and more game experience, with the ability to judge those situations in terms of when to get involved, and when to back off. What I want to have is a strong team of people who can come in and consult with our partners, and have the maturity to know when to step in rather than step on a bunch of toes.

While I've talked to several studios that indicated EA is hands-off if requested, those are studios that are already quite successful, so there's less risk operating that way. Is it really more of a sliding scale where you appraise studios individually?

DD: Well, it's based on the assessment we make of any studio. Those are certainly studios each with a long successful history with other partners, and certainly their work stands on its own merit.

With regards to how much we step in -- whether it's a highly-successful studio with a long history, or a very creative studio with not as long a history -- we're trying to take a more modest approach, and not force ourselves upon the studio, but to try and demonstrate a value add by virtue of the decades of experience the people in EAP have.

It's more or less the partner wanting to hear what we have to say, rather than, because we're funding a project, us forcing our opinion on a prospective partner. Obviously, we're not going to let any partner go sideways, but it's really them wanting the participation based on the value we bring.

But, for example, Flagship and Hellgate: London did basically implode. Should you have stepped in more?

DD: Yeah, I mean... We're certainly sad with the results for Flagship and what's happened with Hellgate, because at the time we signed it, we were trying to get involved in a very complicated relationship between Namco and Flagship. We were coming late to the party, and trying to do whatever we could to sprinkle the game magic on the project and get it headed in the right direction.

Flagship Studios' Hellgate: London

I think that's an example where all three parties had the best interest of the game in mind, and sometimes the game doesn't work out. Hellgate is still an incredible concept. The guys who worked on it spent thousands of hours trying to make that concept work, and sometimes we just don't see something. Sometimes, we just didn't take enough time. Sometimes, things don't work out the way you expect.

It's kind of like a film with all big stars -- on the script, it should be successful, but the movie doesn't turn out as good as everybody hoped. That's why EAP takes a portfolio approach with its games. You have to place a lot of bets, and hope for a lot of hits.

Were you actually funding it, or were you just marketing and distributing, or what?

DD: We were co-publishing with Namco. I'm not going to dodge a bullet -- we had people who were actively working with them on the title. We thought it would have been slightly higher quality than it turned out to be, and I think the problem with the game was that by the time it got really good, we were four to six months post-release. That was too late; we'd lost the fanbase.

It was strictly an issue of the gameplay and game quality needing to be higher at the start. Unfortunately, Flagship was in a situation where they weren't in a position to hold the game any longer, and the situation kind of took over.

Bill Roper said this week that there were conversations about EA acquiring the studio. Was that a serious discussion?

DD: I can't really comment on any kind of acquisition conversation. I know I wasn't involved in any of them.