Complete list of EA's mistakes for future reference (in progress)

[BusaLova]

First ever post on Escapist because I'm so sick and tired of the gaming industry's bullshit. Who am I? Long time gamer since 3 years old, now 27. I haven't spent a penny on anything new videogame related since 2005 because I don't feel they deserve any of my money.

---------------------------------------

TOPIC INTENT

This topic is to list all actions that EA of America has made in their long history that we, customers and potential customers, perceive as mistakes. From poorly thought out DRM (Simcity always online) to keeping-the-game-hostage microtransactions in the new Dungeon Keeper to EA's immediate agreement to SOPA which would eventually shoot themselves in the foot if it passed, to their desire to be voted Best Company in America. I chose EA for this list because they are a prime example of bad business practices - possibly even more so than Activision, Ubisoft and Square Enix.

Everything we perceive as mistakes that ruined the company's credibility, goodwill, our trust in them, how deserving we feel it is towards earning our money.

What do I want to accomplish with this list? It will serve as a reference towards avoiding business pitfalls. How to avoid responding improperly to customer base complaints. Why rushing your products to cash in on a popular trend is never a good idea. How microtransactions can, to the customer, be felt like being aggressively coaxed into spending money for more entertainment. How your methods of combating pirates can spill over to your loyal customers, inconveniencing their use of your product when they have nothing to do with your 'pirate problem'. Why the hoarding of intellectual property licenses can, as is often the case, destroy the production of new games in that franchise. When buying a game dev company and tearing apart it's developer team can result in the death of a game franchise.

How a long history of bad moves followed up with a public statement to better it's ways followed up with a repeat of bad moves (Two times Worst Company in the US, desire to become Best Company, release of new Dungeon Keeper and it's response to bad press) reveals hollow and ultimately self-serving intentions and a new meteorite strike to your credibility. How the inclusion of Internet connection to your products can be thoroughly abused to make money at every opportunity, when there are ways to handle it gracefully instead.

And so on.

My hope is that making a comprehensive list that is as complete as possible about how not to do business, will teach others not to make them, or change the ways of the current big players. We all learn from one another. Hopefully a group of smart people in a position of power will take this list to heart when setting up a company themselves. Also, this list isn't meant to drive EA into the ground. A company of their size can do wonderful things for the industry. When they change their ways to do as good as possible, adhering to methods customers appreciate, EA will be embraced. I want to see good videogames made by respectable companies as much as anyone.

---------------------------------------

LIST SETUP

The second post will be the actual list, with each entry explaining in essence why it deserves to be on the list.

Example : ''DRM : Anti-piracy tool. Born out of the notion that the company's product is illegitimately obtained by a consumer. Measures to prevent this from happening inconveniences legitimate customers when it's not their problem, yet are affected anyway. End result is an unpleasant service which breeds further piracy and/or a loss in customer loyalty.'' This entry will be accompanied by a prime example of bad DRM - The Season Pass. Finally, the entry will end with a note on how to include DRM properly and in a customer friendly way, again followed by a good example.

---------------------------------------

YOUR CONTRIBUTION IS NEEDED

I'm going to need a lot of help putting together this list. EA has been around since 1982 and is currently a $4.000.000.000 company with more than 3000 employees. Throughout their history there are lots of things they have done right, and lots of things they have done wrong. Both are needed to form a list of good reference. Please post in this topic with anything you feel will be relevant to the list, and :

----- Please motivate your answer carefully. -----

---------------------------------------

PERSONAL INSPIRATION FOR THIS TOPIC

http://consumerist.com/2013/04/05/ea-admits-it-can-do-better-but-blames-worst-company-success-on-homophobes-and-whiny-madden-fans/

http://consumerist.com/2013/04/09/ea-makes-worst-company-in-america-history-wins-title-for-second-year-in-a-row/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts

http://paulgraham.com/boss.html

http://paulgraham.com/convince.html

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120911/19410320351/hard-paywall-can-be-huge-barrier-between-customer-paying-you.shtml

 

[BusaLova]

List of mistakes in progress (subject to change)

- Digital Rights Management

What it is :

How it's implemented :

Why it's good or bad :

Relevant examples :

How to improve :

-------------------------------------------------------------

- Microtransactions

What it is : Small in-game purchases of additional content for real money. Costumes, weapons, in-game currency, reputation, vehicles, map packs, special missions, etc.

How it's implemented : Comes in many varieties.

Version 1 - ''Paywall'' ; Forcing the player to pay a certain amount of money before a section of the game can be explored or continuing to play altogether. Also called ''Keeping the game hostage''.

Why it's good : This can be good (for the developer and publisher) as it allows the player to experience the game for free for a certain amount of time, before the choice to pay for the full product is introduced. The player will have had time to make up his mind based on his playing experience whether he wants to continue or stop playing that game. Not unlike (but not exactly like) a demo version of a complete game.

Why it's bad : The moment at which the game bars the player from continuing to play can come across as arbitrary and unexpected which feels anything but pleasant. The incentive to continue playing might be diminished if there's nothing new and different to experience but the game the player was playing minutes ago (no new costumes, weapons, map packs, etc). The price of the full game might not feel reasonable for the full product.

Relevant examples :
Related examples :

How to improve : A warning of a paywall prior to starting the game. A look into what the payment will yield (Chapter 1-4 for $5, Chapter 5-8 for an additional $5, Chapter 9-12 with side missions and upgradeable equipment for $10, etc).

Version 2 - ''Half products'' ; A game sold for full retail price with lots of features missing to be sold as downloadable content. Also called ''Nickle-and-diming''.

Why it's good : A complete version of the game with all features purchased might instill pride in the player for the ultimate experience. This will also promise (not guarantee) a certain amount of income for the developer and publisher after the initial purchase of the game.

Why it's bad : Traditionally, a game you bought was the game you got - It had everything on it waiting to be unlocked or earned. With DLC, these features need to be purchased, sometimes for unreasonably high prices. The expectation is unpleasantly ruined for the player and the demand for money for the complete experience adds to the unpleasant discovery. The total sum of DLC could even add up to and beyond the full retail price ($60 retail + $1 - $100 for all DLC)

Relevant examples :
Related examples : Dungeon Keeper Mobile, a plethora of mobile games

How to improve : The additional content has to be bountiful and attractive - a lot of extra gameplay to experience to justify it's price. The introduction of said paywall needs good timing and plenty announcement to feel less intrusive.

Version 3 - ''Running on fumes'' ; A game designed to be so slow and cumbersome, lacking in interactivity to the degree that buying in-game currency speeds up the gameplay to the point where there will be traditional gameplay as consumers are used to.

Why it's good : This design could potentially bring in a lot more money for the developers and publishers than a traditional game for a $60 retail price because it's designed to pay to play, then pay more to play more. The game can still be played the traditional way by the player, albeit for a much slower speed, sometimes with long pauses of no gameplay in between. However, this design is of no benefit for the consumers.

Why it's bad : The interactivity becomes so slow as to be worthless and completely unattractive with zero replay value. Consumers will feel conflicted between wanting to play the game yet having to part with their money for limited gameplay. Such a design is so unorthodox and hostile from traditional videogame design that it breeds contempt in the consumer. Can cause bad publicity and financial problems for overspending by consumers victim to the temptation of gameplay as well as in certain age groups.

How it's improved : The wholesale removal of this design as it holds no benefit for the consumer.

-------------------------------------------------------------

- Public Relations

What it is :

Apparently current PR policy :

Why it's bad :

Relevant examples :

How to improve :

----------------

- Hoarding IP's, franchises and game companies

----------------

- False promises

----------------

- Lawsuits

 

[Qvar]

The recent Dungeon Keeper fiasco, to begin with.
Ruining Dead Space.
Pulling games out of other stores to force people install Origin.
Cutting games so they can sell more DLC.

 

[Qvar]

The recent Dungeon Keeper fiasco, to begin with.
Ruining Dead Space.
Pulling games out of other stores to force people install Origin.

These are subjective issues and I personally have no problem with these at all.

I like Origin, I like the direction that Dead Space went, and as far as Dungeon Keeper goes, it is an Ios game. It is, okay, as far as ios games go.

I don't see how the quality of Origin has anything to do with the commercial strategies designed to force people into it.

 

[CriticalMiss]

The recent Dungeon Keeper fiasco, to begin with.
Ruining Dead Space.
Pulling games out of other stores to force people install Origin.

These are subjective issues and I personally have no problem with these at all.

I like Origin, I like the direction that Dead Space went, and as far as Dungeon Keeper goes, it is an Ios game. It is, okay, as far as ios games go.

How is manipulating the ratings system to weed out anything less than a 5 star rating not objectively bad?

 

[deathbydeath]

Are we allowed to say good things about EA? For example, their "fertile years" in which we got games like Mirror's Edge, Mass Effect 1, Dead Space, Shank, and Dragon Age Origins, as well as their (albeit short-lived) push for smaller-scale games as highlighted by that "EA Indie Bundle" sale on Steam a few years back.

EDIT: I'm not a corporate apologist, and I think there's a reason why all the things I mentioned happened a few years ago, but I just want to balance things out because I really like those games I mentioned.

 

[Qvar]

How is that any different then being forced to use steam to play your games, or being forced to use steam or see no sales on your game at all?

Oh well excuse me then, if Steam does it then it surely must be the best thing in the world.

Also I blame Steam for not selling me games at a reduced price without actually using their store.

If you are trying to say that there are no game sales outside Steam for steam games anymore, you're a filthy liar.

 

[BusaLova]

Yeah you can say good things. I don't think the quality of the 'game' portion of their games is the source of our complaints - they're not. EA does produce a lot of quality games. It's all the bullshit surrounding their games that gets on our nerves.

I don't know enough about Origin at this point to have a definitive opinion about it. I'm curious to know what exactly it is that people hate about it. From what I understand the idea behind Origin isn't something scorn worthy, just it's implementation is unsatisfactory.

 

[Qvar]

Yeah you can say good things. I don't think the quality of the 'game' portion of their games is the source of our complaints - they're not. EA does produce a lot of quality games. It's all the bullshit surrounding their games that gets on our nerves.

I don't know enough about Origin at this point to have a definitive opinion about it. I'm curious to know what exactly it is that people hate about it. From what I understand the idea behind Origin isn't something scorn worthy, just it's implementation is unsatisfactory.

When I got the Sims 3 from humblebundle, I tried to play it on Origin. Let's just say that it takes "considerably" longer to get through all the login crap, even if it's an EA game, you are already logged into your Origin Account, and Origin only handles EA games.

 

[BusaLova]

I get your point about not wanting to pay a company you don't like. What can be done about that though? Would the franchise still exist to this day if it wasn't for the publisher, let alone selling the latest game in that franchise through the publisher? I don't think so.

Although it's true that a publisher will only buy a game company when they feel they can make money with it, you have to remember that a publisher will only do that when they feel a game in that franchise will be bought by the people interested in it.

I might add Origin to the list of mistakes when good argument(s) are given with well-worded explanations. Or I'll make a well-worded explanation out of the arguments myself. Like I said, I don't know Origin well enough myself to pen it down properly yet.

 

[Qvar]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I have no problem with EA games requiring origin and I have no problem with Valve games requiring steam. My problem is that all these 3rd party games require steam to operate. I am in a small minority that feels that all the publishers should have their own digital distribution system so that way I don't have to give money a company that I do not like in order to play my games (aka valve). It was because of me needing to use steam in order to play Dawn of war 2 that put valve on my hated companies list. The went from utter apathy to hate because of that.

Why does that happen, anyway? Does Steam force the publishers to put their games exclusively through their app, or do they freely choose to?

I highly doubt that Valve is forcing say, Bethesda, to put Skyrim as "download via steam only", since you can buy any humblebundle game, give steam 0$, and yet download the game from the page or from steam if you prefer. That doesn't seem a hoardng scheme to me.

 

[Qvar]

Yet you still need steam to play it. Just think about it, if skyrim was not on steam and didn't require steam and the only way to get it was through brick/mortar stores and humble bundle, what percentage of the current total sales do you think skyrim would have? My money would say maybe 60-70% of the current total sales. That much power scares me because it is getting to a point where people are/will eventually following though on the threat of "steam or no sale". How can anyone not see that as scary?

So you're basically saying that you hate Steam because they're succesful, even if it's not their fault that they're so good (well, I guess in a sense it is their "fault") that everybody wants to do their business through them.

Then what does this have anything to do with Origin insulating itself? It's the exact opposite. One doesn't want anything to do with others games. The other has an army of publishers wanting in, by their own volition. Why do you even bring this up, if not because the hatred is blinding you, I can't figure out, but it certainly isn't on-topic.

Inb4 Valve is the devil because it purchases companies against their will.

 

[aceman67]

How about EA's handling of SWTOR's Free-to-play transition (More like free-to-play-as-long-as-you-don't-mind-being-gimped). I got the game for christmas when it came out and subscribed right until it went free-to-play.

I took a break from gaming when that happened and when I wanted to play I was bombarded by "Pay money to unlock this", for instance, only having 6 character slots per-server AND ONLY having 4 of those 6 active. Another would be forcing you to pay for the ability to unify your armor colors, or being able to hide your head-slot item.

EA should have taken a page out of Perfect World's handling of Star Trek Online's transition to F2P, which I think is one of the best F2P games around (with the exception of the lock-boxes, which I don't bother with unless I'm selling off discontinued boxes that get rare for a tidy sum of EC). You can play the game start to finish, access all content with no limitations, and even earn Zen (the games store currency) by gathering in-game currency (Dilithium).

You could, theoretically, never spend a cent but still get things off the Zen-Store if you grind hard enough.

SWTOR is an awesome game to play if your subscribed, but it will pester you and severely limit your ability to progress (gimped XP, limited/locked subscriber only quest rewards, Limited amount of money you can have, no guild-bank access, can't send or receive in-game items/money, limited access to group/end-game/pvp content and limited rewards from all of those).

And the worst offense of all: Items that give you an edge in-game can be purchased for money. This breaks the game's Fairness.

Its a prime example of what NOT to do in a F2P game.