Game Over or Level Up? Inside EA’s Buyout Reshaping the Future of Gaming
- Arlene Hassan
- 7 days ago
- 6 min read
The news broke like a digital earthquake: first soft tremors on X; by the morning of 29th September 2025, #EABuyout had surged across social media. Electronic Arts– the studio behind FIFA, Battlefield, Apex Legends, and perhaps most culturally resonant, The Sims – had been acquired in US$55 billion all cash deal by a Saudi backed consortium: the Kingdom’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), private equity firm Silver Lake, and Affinity Partners, Jared Kushner’s investment vehicle. For many, the headline signalled ambition; for others, a reckoning.
Within hours, some of The Sims’ most prominent creators voiced their objections. Kayla “Lilsimsie” Sims– whose YouTube channel reaches over two million subscribers and who has been a key figure in EA’s creator – brand partnerships, from anniversary promotions to having the in-game cowplant named in her honour– announced her departure from the EA Creator Network in a community statement. She told fans she could no longer align herself with the company. “The values represented by those acquiring EA are fundamentally at odds with what I stand for,” she said, calling the moment “a nightmare for the community.”
James Turner followed suit, removing his creator code and expanding into other content. Meanwhile Plumbella, a longstanding voice in the community, went further. In a public statement, she affirmed she would no longer promote EA’s future content unless the company reaffirmed its commitment to inclusive values that have long made The Sims a cultural sanctuary.
These aren’t far-left provocateurs. These are creators who have built their reputations on The Sims as a space for queer storytelling, identity and belonging. Their coordinated withdrawal is not a performance– it is a deeply moral reckoning. The ownership may be unclear but the concern is real.
For millions, The Sims is more than a game: it is a refuge. A place where disabled players design accessible homes, where LGBTQ+ players build families, where people of colour see themselves reflected though custom content, and architecture students test their first designs. With over 60 million total players and an estimated 20 million active monthly users, the franchise underpins a vibrant creator economy worth tens of millions each year. When its leading voices push back, it's not just a business dispute– it's a cultural alarm bell.
Beyond creators, the buyout threatens broader community dynamics. The Sims forums, Reddit communities, and Discord serve as a crucial space for dialogue, collaboration, and learning. Players often share tutorials, mod packs, and inclusive storytelling resources. Many young players, particularly from marginalised backgrounds, rely on these digital spaces to express themselves safely– spaces that are now in flux.
The ripple effect extends to education. Teachers and professors in design, architecture, and computer science use The Sims as a teaching tool, demonstrating principles of spatial planning, urban design, and narrative structure. Any shift in the game’s development philosophy could limit its utility in these educational contexts, reducing the opportunity for creative learning.
There is also a social impact dimension. The Sims has long been a platform for intergenerational play: parents explore storytelling alongside children, and young adults experiment with identity-building in a low risk environment. For these players, the game functions as both entertainment and social scaffolding, helping develop empathy, problem solving, and digital literacy skills. Disruptions to community engagement or creative freedoms could undermine these social benefits.
The scale of the acquisition underscores its gravity. EA reported US$7.4 billion in annual revenue, with a striking 73 percent derived from line service– microtransactions, expansion packs, and recurring in-game purchases. Meanwhile, the global gaming market reached US$184 billion in 2024, easily eclipsing film and music collectively. For Saudi Arabia, the acquisition is part of a much larger vision: PIF had invested over US$40 billion in gaming and esports since 2021, aiming to grow the industry’s contributions to its GDP from 0.3 percent to 1 percent by 2030.
PIF’s Deputy Governor, Turqi Alnowaiser, defended the move in EA’s own press release: “This partnership will help further drive EA’s long-term growth, while fueling innovations within the industry on a global scale.”
Critics, however, see it differently. Former Sims designer Charles Longon warned that “whoever owns IP owns influence… it is what allows [a brand] to be universally appealing.” In geopolitical terms, this is not just entertainment– it's a strategy.
The buyout also reconfigures EA’s operational landscape. Moving from a public to a private company under a sovereign fund trades transparency for discretion. As a public company, it was accountable to shareholders and regulators; now, its operations will be far less visible. Will creative decisions now be made in secret? Will community priorities matter, or will financial imperatives dominate? Large leveraged buyouts often pressure costs, risking that experimental, community-led projects fade while established franchises expand.
Beyond those structural changes lie a deeper ethical concern: we simply don't know how or to whom, this money will flow. The involvement of a sovereign fund raises the possibility that revenues, generated by players and fans, might be channeled in ways that contribute to human rights violations or other morally problematic ends. For a community built on the values of inclusion, empathy and creative freedom, that makes the deal feel like more than just a business transaction.
As the new owners lean into automation, these concerns deepen. Reports suggest the consortium plans to accelerate AI across animation, environments, and quality assurance testing, potentially reducing staff by 10-20 percent.
Andrew Wilson– CEO of EA– has repeatedly said generative AI is central to the company’s future. During a recent investor call, he asserted that “more than 50% of our development processes will be positively impacted by the advances in generative AI.” At a separate earnings briefing, he described AI as “powering our future,” emphasising its growing use in design, animation, and storytelling. Meanwhile, through its partnership with Stability AI, EA formally committed to embedding AI-driven tools in content creation– from texturing to 3D environment generation to rapid integration workflows.
Taken together, these moves show a clear push for automation across core development pipelines. If studios begin relying heavily on AI, the reduction in human roles could shrink opportunities for diverse perspectives– fewer humans in the room means fewer voices shaping games.
For The Sims community, the stakes are personal. Player feedback has shaped meaningful inclusivity, from pronouns to skin tones. Youtube channels generate tens of millions of monthly views. Twitch streams rank high in simulation gaming, and modders sustain monetisable microeconomies. Yet this deal feels like a threat to cultural safety. As Plumbella put it: “The Sims is my safe place. If it stops being safe, I stop playing.”
These concerns are not arising in a vacuum. The PIF’s expanding involvement in sport and entertainment has heightened anxieties tied to geopolitics, regional conflicts, and the growing reach of Saudi influence across global culture. Critics argue that these high-profile investments amount to “sportswashing,” using the glamour of sport to divert attention from the Kingdom’s contested human rights record—particularly in relation to women and LGBTQ+ communities.
The acquisition fits a broader global pattern. PIF already holds major stakes in firms like Nintendo, Capcom, Embracer Groups, Take-Two, and Activision Blizzard. The Kingdom is also investing billions to build out a national gaming hub. To some analysts, this is a deliberate campaign to rebrand Saudi Arabia’s image through entertainment, or it's an economic diversification; but it undeniably extends cultural influence.
Industry watches warn that consolidation on this scale carries risks. Esports analysts note, “Investment can elevate the region’s gaming footprint. But consolidation is dangerous. When one entity owns too much cultural infrastructure, creativity suffocates.”
No one knows for certain whether this will be a turning point for the better or a landmark in cultural centralisation. Will EA emerge as a global powerhouse of innovation– or a platform ruled by distant power brokers?
The screen is still loading. The next move– by creators, by players, by the company itself– could determine whether we see Game Over or Level Up. Before we press next, we must ask: Who will build the worlds we want to live in, and who will guard them?
Comments