I think EA officially decided to stop answering to its customers.

[Allthingsspectacular]

This is my theory, but EA is not stupid. They wouldn't have gotten to the point they are at now by being stupid.

If we were to go under the assumption that they're trying to maximize profits through game sales, none of their recent moves make any sense. With the declaration that every game they publish must have a social element, and the continued "war" against second hand games.

Anyone who has even the most remote ear to the ground, let alone the biggest game publisher on the market, would know that dedicated single player games DO sell well. And if you put ANY thought into it whatsoever, you would find that used games actually help sales in the long run, not damage it. Also, putting talented development studios out of business for one reason or another then just as quickly buying up another one.

Let's go back to the point that EA is not stupid. So why would they do these things even though they know that it may very well damage long term sales?

Because they aren't trying to sell to us. They're trying to sell to investors. EA isn't stupid, but investors are.

Suddenly this makes a lot of sense. Used games are an easy scapegoat to sell to investors. Social media has exploded, so investors would love to hear social media being incorporated into games. And investors will easily buy into "smart" business decisions of dropping a studio to save money and then buying up another one. Which to them looks like EA is expanding and is seeing potential growth.

This is also why we get consistently bloated projects that are doomed from the start just because it might be like Call of Duty, World of Warcraft or God of War.

Do you think that's true? I just came up with this on the spot so tell me what you think.

 

[yuval152]

But after the sales will be damaged won't the investors leave EA to rot?

 

[A Satanic Panda]

Once you go public, you never go back. Here's to hope Valve doesn't ever tell investors how rich they are.

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

But after the sales will be damaged won't the investors leave EA to rot?

If they were going to leave due to poor sales, they would have already.

 

[Lilani]

But after the sales will be damaged won't the investors leave EA to rot?

That would be true if the gaming community could learn to punish companies for their poor behavior, rather than bitching and moaning about how much they're being screwed and then obligingly bending over every time EA tells them to.

 

[matthewemz]

Oh no! EA please don't rip Bioware to pieces! Well...more than you have done anyways...

 

[matthewemz]

Oh no! EA please don't rip Bioware to pieces! Well...more than you have done anyways...

 

[ProtoChimp]

This is my theory, but EA is not stupid. They wouldn't have gotten to the point they are at now by being stupid.

If we were to go under the assumption that they're trying to maximize profits through game sales, none of their recent moves make any sense. With the declaration that every game they publish must have a social element, and the continued "war" against second hand games.

Anyone who has even the most remote ear to the ground, let alone the biggest game publisher on the market, would know that dedicated single player games DO sell well. And if you put ANY thought into it whatsoever, you would find that used games actually help sales in the long run, not damage it. Also, putting talented development studios out of business for one reason or another then just as quickly buying up another one.

Let's go back to the point that EA is not stupid. So why would they do these things even though they know that it may very well damage long term sales?

Because they aren't trying to sell to us. They're trying to sell to investors. EA isn't stupid, but investors are.

Suddenly this makes a lot of sense. Used games are an easy scapegoat to sell to investors. Social media has exploded, so investors would love to hear social media being incorporated into games. And investors will easily buy into "smart" business decisions of dropping a studio to save money and then buying up another one. Which to them looks like EA is expanding and is seeing potential growth.

This is also why we get consistently bloated projects that are doomed from the start just because it might be like Call of Duty, World of Warcraft or God of War.

Do you think that's true? I just came up with this on the spot so tell me what you think.

Yeah but listening to stupid investors that are dooming their company is a pretty stupid thing to do. And while trying to please them may seem the only option I refuse to believe it is. They've backed themselves into a corner and despite what people say they are losing business and gamers are starting to grow backbones. Not everyone but a good amount, EA's stock price can attest to that.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Oh no! EA please don't rip Bioware to pieces! Well...more than you have done anyways...

Bioware is dead.

 

[Rednog]

Anyone who has even the most remote ear to the ground, let alone the biggest game publisher on the market, would know that dedicated single player games DO sell well. And if you put ANY thought into it whatsoever, you would find that used games actually help sales in the long run, not damage it.
Used games are an easy scapegoat to sell to investors.

Here's the problem, a game can sell "well" but the question remains of how long someone who purchased it held onto the game. Let's not kid ourselves here, people will flip almost every game out there as soon as they finish it. Hell the sentiment pops up on the escapist all the time, if it doesn't have some sort of magical replay ability it just isn't worth holding onto.
And this replay-ability is sadly achieved by a good chunk of games by jamming in some sort of multiplayer component.

Second, you claim that if you put any thought into it whatsoever you will find that used games actually help sales in the long run. I'm sorry but this is pure speculation, and one that is easily argued.
People will always say oh well sales of new games are helped because people come in and trade their old stuff and buy new stuff. Yea, great, but that isn't always the case. Plenty of gamers who choose to sell games do it because of financial reasons, and when they roll into a game store and trade in their old stuff, why would they not choose the used copy of a game that just came out, it's going to be $5 less and in most cases will have no difference whatsoever. Thus perpetuating the used cycle.

Oh but you might argue that it will attract sales for the sequel, and that people who pick up the used cheap might be inclined to pick up the 2nd one new. Pure speculation, and once again there is no proof that a new copy will be purchased over the used copy that is $5 less which will appear on the shelf within the first week, people on a budget can and will go for the $5 less used one.
Or how about games that just don't get sequels.
Or the simple fact that the majority of a games sales are made in the first month or so, there really is no long term argument that says yes used game sales are going to help a game's sale over time. Heck, I would argue the opposite, the longer time goes on the odds are that the used games will slowly ratchet down in price whereas the new games will stay fixed and the used game's lower price will be even more appealing.

It really isn't an easy scapegoat, used sales are a legitimate thing to be questioned. At the end of the day it does impact the industry, I doubt we can ever get pure number out of it, but when places like Gamestop are making millions from used sales one cant help but question.

 

[Terminate421]

I think it happened the moment someone wrote down the concept of Dead Space 3.

"Its still a scary game but we're making it less scary to appeal to a broader audience"

Thats like making a flamethrower out of water.

 

[lithiumvocals]

Well, I've checked a list of upcoming titles that are published by EA and I can't say I'm excited for any of them. So I don't have to worry about supporting Big Brother.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Single player games sell, that's true. But then you look at the profits of the F2p/multiplayer market and jaws shall be dropped.

Jeah Skyrim may sold a bazillion copies, but that was an exception. And you shouldn't take the exception as a comparison to the avarage sales/profits.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Thats like making a flamethrower out of water.

Sweet concept! Lemme see about that...


Awesome! I'll get back to you in a month after I have a working prototype.

OT: EA can go do what that water did.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

But after the sales will be damaged won't the investors leave EA to rot?

In the long term yes, but if the seemingly never ending cycle of boom and bust in the global economy has taught us anything, it's that if the short term reward seems juicy enough, big business doesn't give a shit about the long term (or learning from its mistakes).

 

[rob_simple]

But after the sales will be damaged won't the investors leave EA to rot?

That would be true if the gaming community could learn to punish companies for their poor behavior, rather than bitching and moaning about how much they're being screwed and then obligingly bending over every time EA tells them to.

Nail on the head, right there. Gamers are the absolute worst people in the world for 'ZOMG YOU ARE RUINING MY FAVOURITE SERIES BUT I'M STILL GOING TO BUY IT AND ALL THE DLC AND THE UNOFFICAL TOASTER OVEN AND TEA TOWELS.'

Unless gamers are willing to develop a spine and sacrifice playing a decent game once in a while to make the it clear what we expect from developers then they'll forfeit the right to complain about companies like EA pulling the same shit over and over again.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I'm sorry I can't hear you because I have my tinfoil hat on. iIt prevents crazy conspiracy theories from getting in!

I don't think either of these things have anything to do with trying to make there company more attractive. Used games are an issue all developers face and deal with in different ways. It's not as if only EA sees used games as potential money that was lost and is trying to do something about it. As for the social element, I honestly think EA thinks its being progressive with this statement. It's saying that it understand today highly connected online world and its supporting the idea that no game is an island by making that idea part of all its games. I think they actually are progressive here as soon enough truly single-player games will be rare since it will be purposely hamstringing your game as thing becomes progressively more connected. You can easily make the argument that every game you buy on Steam is not single player due to their game community stuff and I think most game series will eventually have something like this, making every game no longer single player.

 

[Mirroga]

I think it happened the moment someone wrote down the concept of Dead Space 3.

"Its still a scary game but we're making it less scary to appeal to a broader audience"

Thats like making a flamethrower out of water.

Is that quote for real? Can you tell me the source. Because that quote is just too good to be ignored. It needs to be abused.

 

[BreakfastMan]

But after the sales will be damaged won't the investors leave EA to rot?

That would be true if the gaming community could learn to punish companies for their poor behavior, rather than bitching and moaning about how much they're being screwed and then obligingly bending over every time EA tells them to.

B-but Jim Sterling told me that I can buy whatever I want without remorse, so long as I ***** about it online! Are you telling me that Jim Sterling is actually wrong about something? D: