Champion Rising

Of course, that's the positive spin. Looked at from another angle, Riccitiello's strategies are both risky in the extreme. By continuing to develop the company's core business while expanding into the casual market, he risks spreading EA too thinly across markets which arguably don't have many economies of scale between them. By working on original IP and investing heavily in development for the sake of quality, the company takes creative risks that could end up costing heavily in the event of a flop - and of course, it bets a great deal on its own ability to assess "quality", which has not always been a surefire skill of publishers in the past.

Yet that's exactly what makes Riccitiello into one of the most interesting and successful business leaders in the games industry today - arguably the top of that elite list, in fact, since Satoru Iwata's star is presently in (hopefully temporary) decline. He takes risks, engaging in strategies that much of the rest of the industry is willing to pay lipservice to but unwilling to actually back up with money and manpower.

If you look at EA's risk profile, the extraordinary thing about it is that every major risk facing the company right now is a calculated gamble - with a precipitous downside but an equally steep upside. Other companies in the industry are exposed to external risks, factors outside their control which could damage them seriously if they turn in a contrary direction. EA, however, has knowingly entered into each of the biggest risks it faces, girding itself for the challenge and expecting to reap huge rewards in the end.

Riccitiello into one of the most interesting and successful business leaders in the games industry today - arguably the top of the elite list

What are those key risks? There are four, as I see it at present - two product risks, and two strategic risks, all four carrying with them the potential for great rewards should they turn in EA's favour.

The product risks, first. All new IP is risky, of course, and all core product launches carry with them a heavy degree of risk, but in EA's case, this year it is challenging two of the largest and best-established products in the industry. Sensing blood in the water after Modern Warfare's developers defected to form a new studio at EA, the company has openly relished going head to head with Activision's Modern Warfare 3 with this year's Battlefield 3 release, repeatedly talking up the rivalry in the press. It's less keen to position Star Wars: The Old Republic as a direct rival to World of Warcraft, but the comparison is there nonetheless.

The rhetoric around the two launches makes sense. With Battlefield 3, EA has an opportunity to steal Modern Warfare's crown outright, and it's determined to capitalise on that. It's a big if, but if it can perform as well as it hopes, by the end of this year EA could be the publisher of the world's biggest-launching game franchise - quite possibly retaking the third-party publishing crown from Activision on the way. With The Old Republic, however, the race is a marathon rather than a sprint. A strong launch will be an excellent indicator, but we won't have a clear idea of whether the game is going to overtake, coexist with or be steamrollered by Blizzard's World of Warcraft for several months to a year after launch. For now, managing expectations by talking sweetly about WoW and positing healthy co-existence is a sensible strategy.

Then there are the strategic risks. Firstly, there's Origin - an attack on Steam which starts to make more sense if Riccitiello is really serious about actually turning it into a major open distribution platform, rather than just an EA-exclusive store. Even so, there's a fairly solid chance that the coming year or two will see EA's content crawling back onto the Steam portal - it's hard to overestimate just how absolutely vital to PC game distribution Steam has become in recent years, and striking out on its own just ahead of two huge game launches, while daring, is also risky even by EA's recent standards.

Secondly, of course, there's PopCap. I maintain that this is the biggest risk Riccitiello has taken yet - a massive, expensive step into a sector which, while profitable and rapidly growing, is still in its infancy and hugely open to growing pains, not least as a result of being buffeted about by policy changes from the companies in charge of it. Even if Battlefield 3 can't displace Modern Warfare at the top of the military shooter genre, it'll sell well. A flop from The Old Republic would be damaging and financially painful, but EA could absorb it. Origin could be a disaster and EA forced to run back to Steam with its tail between its legs, but it would lose a lot more face than anything else in that eventuality. If PopCap, however, fails to perform to expectations - well, EA will survive, but it's unlikely that shareholders would countenance Riccitiello remaining in charge.

But that's exactly the kind of management style that a company like EA needs, I believe. Far too many firms in the games business are run in a way that's more suited to commodity industries than to a fast, dynamic media industry - focused on safe, incremental growth without recognising that in this kind of industry, that's a recipe for steady decline. Without risk-taking - measured, intelligent risk-taking, but regular, significant risk-taking - no business will get far in videogames. One can question EA's purchase of PopCap; one can argue that The Old Republic will struggle against WoW, or that Origin is merely tilting at windmills; but these risks are the result of the same culture and strategy that has turned EA around so far, and on the strength of recent results, I think Riccitiello has earned some benefit of the doubt.