As of December 22, shareholders have approved the largest deal in gaming history: Electronic Arts is going private in a transaction valued at $55 billion.
The headlines focus on the price tag—$210 per share—but the structure of the deal matters more. The consortium led by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), alongside Silver Lake and Affinity Partners, is executing a leveraged buyout that fundamentally changes how EA operates financially.
How the EA Buyout Is Structured
This differs from Microsoft's Activision acquisition, where Microsoft paid cash from its own reserves. The EA deal relies heavily on debt financing.
The breakdown:
- $36 billion in equity from the investors (PIF, Silver Lake, Affinity)
- $20 billion in debt financing (JPMorgan Chase)
That $20 billion debt load now sits on EA's balance sheet. For context, EA generated approximately $7.5 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025. Carrying debt nearly three times annual revenue creates significant financial pressure. Debt at this scale typically requires aggressive servicing, which often translates to cost-cutting measures.
Private Equity vs Public Game Companies
The PIF's gaming investments through Savvy Games Group show mixed patterns worth examining.
The optimistic scenario: When Savvy Games Group acquired mobile publisher Scopely for $4.9 billion, they maintained operational independence. Scopely subsequently launched Monopoly Go, which has generated over $5 billion in revenue. If EA receives similar treatment—capital investment without operational interference—the studios may maintain stability.
The cautionary scenario: When a $2 billion deal with Embracer Group collapsed, it triggered a chain reaction that led to studio closures, including Volition (Saints Row). EA's complex network of studios could face similar pressures if financial performance doesn't meet debt service requirements.
Which EA Studios Are Safe — And Which Aren't
With $20 billion in debt to service, EA will likely prioritize projects with predictable returns and shorter development cycles.
Lower risk: EA Sports franchises (FC, Madden, College Football) and The Sims represent recurring revenue streams. These properties generate consistent cash flow, which makes them essential for debt repayment.
Higher risk: BioWare, DICE, and Respawn face more uncertainty. BioWare currently has fewer than 100 employees working on Mass Effect 5. In leveraged buyout scenarios, studios requiring 5+ year development cycles for single titles often become targets for restructuring. If cash flow becomes tight, selling or closing studios with longer development timelines follows standard private equity practice.
What Saudi Ownership Means for Creative Direction
Questions exist about creative direction under PIF ownership. The PIF functions as an investment vehicle for the Saudi state. While they've maintained hands-off approaches with minority stakes in companies like Nintendo and Capcom, full ownership presents different dynamics.
Some industry observers wonder how games featuring diverse characters and themes—like Dragon Age or The Sims—will be handled. The more pragmatic view suggests that profit drives decisions. If content performs well globally, it likely continues. Regional variations for different markets represent another possibility.
What Happens to EA Games in the Next 5 Years
The deal places EA in a financially constrained position rather than an ideologically driven one.
EA is no longer subject to quarterly earnings pressures from public markets, which removes one constraint. However, it now faces a substantial debt repayment schedule, which imposes another. The most probable outcome involves tighter operational controls rather than immediate content restrictions.
Expect increased emphasis on live-service monetization, mobile integration (building on Scopely's success), and potential sales of dormant intellectual properties like Command & Conquer to improve cash flow.
The shareholders have exited with their returns. Now the studios need to generate the revenue to make the financial structure work.