EA is going to die - and that will improve gaming

[ThriKreen]

I was always told it this way by my professor: If a Kid does something bad, they blame the parents. Not the kid. Just substitute Publisher for Parent and Developer for kid. Since kid's don't have minds of their own until there are adults apparently, same goes with Developers.

Well, if the publisher really did dictate and micromanage everything, why bother with buying an established studio, just hire code monkeys and implement the decisions the managers made.

Oh wait, logic, sorry, need to disable that in threads like this. =P

The publisher can control funding and deadlines, though. Tell a guy to build a house and give him 24 hours and shoddy materials. The next day, there's nothing but a wreck to show for it. Point a the developer and say "Well, HE built the house. Blame him!".

Dev still has to manage project scope and avoid feature creep. Got so much $ for the budget and two years to make a sequel? Don't redesign the game engine or content pipeline in that duration. Don't redo the combat system, just balance it based on player feedback. If there really isn't enough time, speak up and say so, and back it up - don't take it on knowing it is bad and having to rush it to save face (*coughKOTOR2cough*).

 

[Lunar Templar]

Yes, we know EA is "evil" and the "Bane of the Industry" (insert your own here), what ever, same trailer, different park.

But really, in all honesty, kinda tired of hearing it, you and me not buying games is 'EA' on the box isn't going to hurt them, they aren't likely to even notice so long as they have CoD, or Battlefield, I forget which, they look the same to me, and Madden, so if you really wanna hurt them, tell this to THOSE people, get the people that line up like good little sheep for every EA release to stop buying those games, other wise your preaching to the choir

 

[ThriKreen]

And those are just the staff whose departures were made public.
If you're going to call me out on bullshit, at least wait until I actually post some bullshit.

Well, I should have clarified, I was referring to the latter part. One can't dispute the founders leaving obviously. But that's like 4 people out of 400, 450 at the studio.

The key point I'm asking is, do you know what they actually contributed towards each project? If all they did was act as a figure head and just traveled around promoting the game, then they don't have much in the way of the creative process. Or a manager type of a department and just let the underlings do the actual work.

 

[Mayamellissa]

And how long, Sir/Madame, have you been channeling Jim Sterling? Because that is who was reading this to me in my head!

 

[Phlakes]

...I think it's about time to tell you something you apparently don't know.

You aren't the majority.

You are a (very) vocal minority.

No matter how hard you don't buy EA games there are still millions of people who don't care about the things you care about and play them anyway. The first crash came because games objectively sucked. Pretty hard. Nobody wanted to play them because they just sucked across the board. The only thing at that level in recent memory is arguably Colonial Marines (SimCity doesn't count because the actual game bits are fine), which at the very least still works.

Not to say we're not in a bit of a rough spot but you underestimate the industry. People don't get to the top of a corporation by being bad at their jobs. They'll do what keeps the money flowing, and right now they're figuring out what exactly that is. Just be patient.

EDIT: To expand on that a bit- EA's recent experiment with always online single player failed miserably. That's a good thing for you. By now they've most likely learned that always online isn't a viable option with current technology I guarantee they had it planned for more games, and if they have any sense (which, contrary to popular belief, they do) they'll hold off on that until it works.

The same thing will probably happen with microtransactions. The big issue people have with them is that they could be exploitative in the future (since, contrary again to popular belief, they aren't right now). Once they are, people will naturally be a little angry. Zynga tried to survive on that model and they paid the price for not letting go. If EA continues on that path, the same thing will happen, but being a more experienced company they'll be able to adapt.

EDIT 2: Just remember that this industry is still young. EA is going through a bit of a phase right now. Give it time to mature a little before you decide how dead it really is.

 

[aelreth]

If EA were to shut it's doors, it could spook all the money in it's competitors out of the industry.

I'm not sure it's good unless you are prepared to use kickstarter.

 

[deathbydeath]

Maxis has been owned by EA for almost two decades. They are a complete and total subsidiary of EA. The Maxis name exists only in the abstract, now.

Technically the same is true for Bioware now as well. Which makes me look at my copy of Jade Empire and sigh...

Oh man, I really wish that game gets a sequel, a proper one at least.

OP: Eh, it's too early to tell, and a major publisher collapsing won't improve anything. What needs to happen is that game budgets need to start going down; that's the lynchpin for success right now.

 

[Ironside]

Am i the only one who doesn't understand why people feel the need to constantly bring up their dislike of EA? I get why people dont like them - crappy service, ruined franchises, etc, but Jesus Christ let it go and move on - you guys are aware that there are other companies that make games right?

Improve my ass. If EA actually dies, Activision will become the de facto monopoly publisher for big-scale games and when is that good? Unless Microsoft and Sony fight Wold War III over EA's IPs such as FIFA etc. Which wouldn't be exactly good either.

EA isn't only SimCity and FIFA you know.

How would Activision become the monopoly publisher for big scale games if EA died? Maybe in the fps market they would, but there would still be dozens of other companies producing big scale games - Activision wouldnt even be close to a monopoly.

I thought EA had its finances in really good shape because morons keep buying their games, despite them being consistently awful.

Boycotts rarely work as not everyone sticks to them, and if their crappy practices make some gamers happy, then fair enough, I don't care, as I never buy any of their games.

I was under the impression that they were doing pretty poorly in financial terms. They seem to post a loss in most quarters of the year and i believe i remember a pretty large loss in the hundreds of million of dollars in one of the quarters of last year.

 

[Ziame]

Bioware ended up completely rejigging the ending of ME3 simply because of how vocal their fanbase were.

You lost me at this point. Surprised noone picked up on this.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

From your last post, you seemed fully intent on just blaming the publisher. Not the developer.

Because I clarified that they CAN contribute to the problem, in response to posts stating their contribution was minimal at best?

Dev still has to manage project scope and avoid feature creep. Got so much $ for the budget and two years to make a sequel? Don't redesign the game engine or content pipeline in that duration. Don't redo the combat system, just balance it based on player feedback. If there really isn't enough time, speak up and say so, and back it up - don't take it on knowing it is bad and having to rush it to save face (*coughKOTOR2cough*).

We're not arguing that developers can't or don't shit the bed. They do so with fearsome regularity. I am arguing that publishers are quite capable of cutting a project off at the knees, and have done, and will likely continue to do so. They're part of the equation, and get to enjoy their slice of the blame cake when it gets passed around. Especially in the case of a game like Simcity, where the developer/publisher are almost functionally the same entity.

 

[CriticalMiss]

As much as I would laugh at seeing the giant fall, I seriously doubt they would go under. If anything the death of EA could make the industry worse, imagine if Activision bought them out...That certainly wouldn't improve gaming. And while EA care more about money than customer satisfaction, there are other companies out there that are just as bad. EA are just more reviled because of how publicly they cock-up.

It's also a bit naive to dream about a utopian gaming renaissance where every developer is indie, comes out with a 10/10 game and doesn't try to make some money off of the project. Although it would make the industry much more enjoyable.

 

[felbot]

i wish they would go bankrupt already, would be nice to have an industry without greedy shit heads like ea and ubisoft making everything horrible.

 

[Ishal]

Ah yes Nexon. I hear they have a history of making very grindy MMO's. I personally think that if their stocks take anymore major hits (and I do mean major hits) then they'll be in some serious trouble. I didn't realize Maxis was a part of EA for so long, nor did I realize that Sim City was such a big deal. The last one I played was Sim City 2000 on my ps1.

Nexon is the king of the gambler's micro-transaction and baked-in tedium designed to drive people to purchases. They make EA look like a plucky indie company with a heart of gold. You think EA is bad NOW, you wouldn't want to see them purchased by Nexon. Simcity would be FTP, but you'd have to buy "building packs" for $10 that would give you 3 random buildings. Whoops, you got the same 3 again! Better buy another pack!

And people complained that NCsoft would screw with Arenanet and their microtransactions store. There was a lot of hate on the GW2 forums largely due to AION imo. It seemed everyone either hated that or loved it. A common theme in MMO's

Oh... Oh dear god. Nexon was behind Maplestory. I see what you mean now. Yeah if Nexon bought EA it would be a catastrophe, but it would also ensure 100% that I would never buy and EA game ever again, whereas now I'm only at 75%.