EA: The Business of Telling People What They Want

[Frostbite3789]

It's called focus testing.

Of course, design something by committee and it always sucks, as it attempts to cater to all demographics and never really excels at any one feature/genre/whatever.

But then if the developer designs how they want, you get the gamers who go "ZOMG I wanted a RTS game, why did you make it a FPS game?!?!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

See, what you just did there? That takes critical thinking. It's easier to shout and whine and blame.

 

[Frostbite3789]

And the topic came up when Homer was trying to describe the kind of car he'd like to drive, and every time he described a feature he wanted the engineers shot in down. IE:

Homer: I'd like a big car.
Engineer: We don't have big cars.
Homer: Well why not?
Engineer: Because Americans don't want big cars.
Homer: Oh...

And it reminds me ever so much of EA...

As much as it pains me to say something which might be misconstrued as a defence of EA, but...
The car Homer designed was a hideous monstrosity that ruined Herb's company.

Well to be fair, Homer wasn't really designing a car the people wanted. It was a car he, and only he, wanted.

Which is the problem. No matter which part of your fanbase you choose to cater to, the part of the fanbase that went unfulfilled will complain. So what do you do? Do you cater to the masses, making money and pissing off the niche, or do you cater to the niche, pissing off the masses and losing money?

And still managing to piss off the niche, because every detail they wanted wasn't fulfilled. Oh and they still won't buy your game.

 

[HarryScull]

i dont mean to be sir buzzkillington but we all know EA is bad, why do people still insist on making threads about it, its the equivalent of making threads ranting about why rape is bad, we all agree, it hold no discussion value, posting about it wont stop it so what's the point of banging on about it?

 

[BreakfastMan]

Um... Isn't that the definition and goal of marketing? Kind of hard to fault a company for using a time-tested business practice. Especially when it seems to be making them money hand over fist.

Besides, I thought we wanted game companies to act like businesses, not art houses, didn't we?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Every single company EA has bought out and sunk was working at or near the height of their game right as they were bought out, and immediately fell (arguably with the exception of Maxis, but I still found SimCity 4 to be vastly inferior to SimCity 3000. That and I hated The Sims)

With EA, the original fanbase is ignored entirely, and the successful developer is no longer allowed to succeed as they had before (which is the OPPOSITE of what EA promises).

So rather than just letting the developer keep on doing what actually works, their IPs get milked until people realize what's up and when they fail to meet quotas, EA liquidates their company and keeps their IP so that they can't go BACK to being successful.

This is great from a quick-and-dirty money making scheme, but terrible for gaming as a whole.
It's the same exact problem that keeps me out of theaters. Nothing is especially interesting. I can tell by the trailer now whether a movie is going to be a dud or something I'd actually enjoy with alarming regularity just because of how formulaic it's become.

Of course, the problem with letting the fans decide what goes into the design comes back to the point that people think they know what they want, until they actually get it.

...Actually, that idea is in itself flawed, to the point where I'd call it a platitude.
People really do know what they like and what they want. They just don't understand the problems of instant-gratification, or the importance of context.

Some things just don't mix well together, even when we think they will.

 

[Gamergeek25]

Hasn't this already been discussed to death already?

 

[PurePareidolia]

I don't buy Bioware being forced into mediocrity by EA, I think they've been perfectly capable of doing it themselves and people should stop making excuses for them.

 

[Aeonknight]

WAAAH! EA's a business! WAAH!

Haven't we cried wolf about this enough times as a community? EA goes with investments that ensure profit in order to stay in business. If you don't like that, then just don't buy the fucking game.

I'm guessing if EA was as terrible at making games as so many gamers like to delude themselves into thinking they are, they would have gone out of business years ago. At this point, I'm thinking you're just buying their games so you can feel ripped off.

You want sympathy? Look in the dictionary between "shit" and "Syphilis".

Bioware Customer: I'd like a complex, choice and characterization driven story please.
EA: Gamers don't want story. They want cover based shooting.
Bioware Customer: Oh...

Spoiler: This game broke revenue records set by Avatar

I think they might be right.

Meh, people can keep bitching about EA's business practices. But their opinion and voice has absolutely zero weight so long as they continue to support said business practices. And with the vast number of ME3 threads, my guess is large number of escapists fit that description.

If you hate the company, stop buying their games. Anything/everything else is just noise.

 

[MrFalconfly]

But then if the developer designs how they want, you get the gamers who go "ZOMG I wanted a RTS game, why did you make it a FPS game?!?!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't think people complain they wanted a RTS and got a FPS if they were told from the beginning that it's going to be, indeed, a FPS. Now if they were told it was going to be a RTS, then I'd agree with them when they complain about it being a FPS, really.

And again, people who take their attitudes too far do not invalidate the complaints that are legitimate, say, "Hey, devs. This is kind of exactly what you specifically promised us it wasn't going to be."

This was what basically happened to Westwood.

They made C&C and C&C Red Alert. Then they got bought up by EA who promptly gave them a bigger budget to try and expand the C&C series (this resulted in C&C 2 Tiberium Sun). Now at the same time EA made their own studio using the Westwood name (Westwood Pacific) and they made C&C Red Alert 2 (which were arguably seen as one of the best in the C&C series). Then came the problems starting with C&C Renegade. Renegade was a business failure (some liked it but it wasn't enough). This followed by "Earth and Beyond" (an MMORPG which too was a catastrophic failure) and a C&C based MMORPG (one that didn't even launch) basically killed off Westwood.

TL;DR:
EA killed off Westwood because of poor choices made by Westwood.

Captcha: forbidden fruit

Well I guess saying Westwood isn't the greatest ever is kind of like eating the forbidden fruit.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

It sure is cool to 'hate' EA isn't it

 

[zeit]

Everyone hates EA and yet they are just as big and successful as ever. EA is a shitty company but you can't put all the blame on them. Most people don't care who makes their games, they just want to play the new Madden with nothing changed except the roster, or the new Battlefield game which is just a shitty CODMW3 clone.

 

[Tanakh]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Well, you are certanly "damned" to sell millions of copies if you focus test, massively promote and concensus desing a decently done forgettable AAA game. I don't really get what you mean by damned in that case; thake CoD:MW3 for example, can't be less innovative, but Activision didn't meant it to be, it was made to make money, and it did.

If players that want to experience new things outside the vanilla AAA game start to gravitate away from AAA games, that is only expected and healty. It might be a little annoying to you how much some people complain, but bear in mind that a lot of the users of this forum are very young (some others like me are just immature ), so patience.

And all my favoirite games are ones in which the devs did what they wanted (and went right). I honestly think you can't make a really brilliant game without a game dev mostly following his vision, though for some devs perspective here and there could be healty.

 

[McMullen]

WAAAH! EA's a business! WAAH!

Haven't we cried wolf about this enough times as a community? EA goes with investments that ensure profit in order to stay in business. If you don't like that, then just don't buy the fucking game.

I'm guessing if EA was as terrible at making games as so many gamers like to delude themselves into thinking they are, they would have gone out of business years ago. At this point, I'm thinking you're just buying their games so you can feel ripped off.

You want sympathy? Look in the dictionary between "shit" and "Syphilis".

Bioware Customer: I'd like a complex, choice and characterization driven story please.
EA: Gamers don't want story. They want cover based shooting.
Bioware Customer: Oh...

Spoiler: This game broke revenue records set by Avatar

I think they might be right.

Meh, people can keep bitching about EA's business practices. But their opinion and voice has absolutely zero weight so long as they continue to support said business practices. And with the vast number of ME3 threads, my guess is large number of escapists fit that description.

If you hate the company, stop buying their games. Anything/everything else is just noise.

Careful, you might make all those "I hate EA and would like to not buy their games, but I must have ME3!" types here realize that they will sometimes have to make sacrifices to get what they want. The strain of it may break them.

 

[LilithSlave]

EA does annoy me, especially if how people talk about them is true. Every discussion I come across makes it sound as if the only market they care about catering to are frat boys.

And yet, there are EA games of my variety, like Alice: Madness Returns. And I don't think that the flaws in that game are EA's fault, either(with the exception of horrid DRM on the PC version).

Most of my favourite gaming companies are Japanese, anyway. But EA certainly isn't one that has ever ringed up positive emotions for me. At least with a company like Rare, it makes me think of good games like Donkey Kong Country. When I hear of EA, I think of bland sports games I'd never want to play, and basically the Nike of the gaming industry.

What we all should have learned back in the 90s is to ignore them and not give them our money. How did anyone here actually get enticed by their games anyway? They've never had an enticing selection of games. Of all the games by them that interest me, I can name off less than a dozen if I stretched it.

 

[ThriKreen]

I don't think people complain they wanted a RTS and got a FPS if they were told from the beginning that it's going to be, indeed, a FPS. Now if they were told it was going to be a RTS, then I'd agree with them when they complain about it being a FPS, really.

And again, people who take their attitudes too far do not invalidate the complaints that are legitimate, say, "Hey, devs. This is kind of exactly what you specifically promised us it wasn't going to be."

While my example was wildly exaggerated on purpose, the point that you missed is that regardless of whatever PR tells us about a game, the people will always create this expectation in their heads that it will be the next messiah of games. And yet naturally, it never is, as several decades of gaming should have shown that is the case for reality.

You'd think people would be able to temper their expectations, since, you know, devs aren't capable of reading every customer's minds of their wants and desires, and are making a game THEY think would be fun.

But like that stops the gamers from acting like my example. Maybe this would be a better representation:

Devs: Hey we're going to offer you an apple, it's going to be delicious and juicy and you'll love it!
Gamer: YAY! It's gonna be awesome!
Devs: Here it is! A granny smith!
Gamer: WTF, why did you give us an orange!
Devs: Uh, we said we were giving you a really good apple, not an orange.
Gamer: It might as well be an orange! I hate granny smith!
Other gamer: Uh, hey, I like granny smith apples...
Devs: See, some people like it. You might too.
Gamer: Shut up, I wanted the red delicious! I was expecting a red delicious! You suck!
Devs: But we never said we were giving you a red delicious, just 'an apple'.
Gamer: I don't care, I want a red delicious! I'm contacting the BBB and complaining that you're engaging in a bait'n'switch!
* Devs facepalm.

See, what you just did there? That takes critical thinking. It's easier to shout and whine and blame.

Eh, I've been on both sides of the issue, and lean more towards supporting what the devs want. Especially when a lot of the forum posts are often along the lines of group A wants X, but group B wants Y, and X and Y are mutually exclusive (happens way more often than you think).

For instance, I'm a big time Syndicate/Syndicate Wars fan and was hesitant about the new Syndicate. I looked a bit more into it, it actually looked interesting, and eventually decided to bite the bullet and buy it. And was pleasantly surprised that it's actually not that bad a game. In fact, from my initial plays the multiplayer coop component is actually pretty decent, but I really do need to get a regular group to play it with instead of random pubbers. It'll be interesting to see what they do with the 'PAYDAY: The Heist' developers.

Not to say I wouldn't mind a proper RTS mode of Syndicate, but the FPS version isn't that bad either.

^^^^^ Oh ho, see what I did there? ^^^^^

Moral of the story is, (dis)like the game for what it is, not what you think it should be.

Heck, I was even OK with Duke Nukem Forever. It's not the greatest game out there (but I was expecting that). But at the same time, it certainly not the worst, yet some people seem to act like it personally killed their whole family. Heck, MP was fun as well, all the crazy antics reminiscent of the original Duke Nukem 3D.


Well, MOST changes, I really didn't like the idea of the FPS X-Com set in the 1960s.