EA reportedly cancels another Titanfall game, lays off several hundred employees

Engadget - Apr 29th, 2025

Electronic Arts (EA) has announced significant job cuts and game cancellations as part of its ongoing restructuring efforts in the gaming industry. The company plans to eliminate between 300 and 400 positions, with around 100 from its subsidiary Respawn Entertainment. Alongside the layoffs, EA has also canceled an unannounced game from its Titanfall franchise, code-named R7. This project was reportedly an extraction shooter set in the mech-meets-parkour universe but was not close to release. Respawn also mentioned the cancellation of two 'early-stage incubation projects' as part of their strategic realignment.

These decisions reflect EA's strategy to refocus on more profitable franchises such as Apex Legends and the Star Wars Jedi series. The company has already previewed a new game, Star Wars Zero Company, which follows the Xcom tactical style. This move is part of a broader trend of cost-cutting within EA, which has already seen about 1,130 jobs axed in 2023 and a further five percent reduction in workforce in 2024. These actions underscore the challenging environment in the gaming industry, where companies are forced to streamline operations and prioritize projects with higher profitability potential.

Ea Apex Legends Job Cuts Respawn Entertainment Titanfall Star Wars Jedi Game Cancellations

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a clear and timely account of EA's recent layoffs and game cancellations, supported by reputable sources. It effectively communicates key facts but lacks depth in perspective and transparency regarding source material. While it is of significant interest to the gaming community, its impact and engagement are limited by the absence of diverse viewpoints and detailed analysis. Overall, the story is well-structured and accessible, but could benefit from greater context and exploration of the broader implications for the industry and workforce.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on EA's layoffs and game cancellations, citing specific numbers and projects affected, such as the 300-400 layoffs and the cancellation of the Titanfall game, R7. These claims are supported by reliable sources like Bloomberg and statements from Respawn. However, the exact number of layoffs and details of the second canceled game remain less clear, indicating areas needing further verification. The story's main claims align well with reported facts, providing a high level of factual accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on EA's layoffs and game cancellations, presenting the company's actions without much input from affected employees or industry analysts. While it mentions Respawn's future focus on certain franchises, it lacks a broader industry perspective or commentary from stakeholders like employees or gaming experts. This limited viewpoint could lead to an imbalanced understanding of the situation, as it does not explore the implications for the workforce or the gaming community.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and concise, effectively conveying the main events and their implications. The language is straightforward, and the structure logically presents the sequence of events. However, the lack of detailed context or explanation for some claims, such as the specifics of the canceled games, might leave some readers with unanswered questions.

Source quality

The story references reputable sources such as Bloomberg and official statements from EA and Respawn, which enhances its credibility. However, it does not provide direct quotes or extensive details from these sources, which could strengthen the article's authority. The reliance on a few key sources limits the diversity of perspectives and insights, which could impact the depth of the reporting.

Transparency

The article lacks explicit transparency regarding its information sources, as it does not directly cite or link to the original reports or statements. While it mentions Bloomberg and Respawn's statements, it does not explain the methodology or context behind these reports. This lack of transparency can affect the reader's ability to assess the reliability of the claims and understand the basis of the reporting.