Poll: So have you sent EA the email yet?

[GiantRaven]

Had the video on Extra Credits not come out we'd see A LOT less people care about the ad.

I doubt it. There were a lot of people (myself included) complaining when it first came out.

 

[subject_87]

Nope. I don't really have an issue with how EA markets anything. That's actually been my issue with Extra Credits as a whole. They have this grand idea of how games "should be more", and act like anyone who doesn't agree is hurting the industry as a whole. Sometimes a game is just a game. The show in general, and that episode in particular, just comes off as way too preachy for me.

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that, but EA's marketing in any context would still be pandering, insulting, and setting us all back.

 

[MercurySteam]

There's many ways to look at this. EA's marketing is effective because it's target us, the majority of which are teenagers. I can't be the only one who thought the Dead Space 2 ad was a great thing. Even my sister who's in here 20's and isn't that interested in DS2 though she thought it was a great ad, however to everyone else it's appalling. So it's doing wonders for us gamers, but nothing to improve us in the eyes of other. And to be honest, fuck yes! EA is showing a blatant disregard for all except those who buy and love their games, which is great for us, but not for those who disapprove of gaming.

I think EA is just looking for a different approach which should be praised, but eventually EA's marketing is going to have to start thinking about the industry as a whole instead of just EA and the studios it owns. Though I seriously think Extra Credits forgets what most of us gamers really are like.

 

[Azex]

There's many ways to look at this. EA's marketing is effective because it's target us, the majority of which are teenagers. I can't be the only one who thought the Dead Space 2 ad was a great thing. Even my sister who's in here 20's and isn't that interested in DS2 though she thought it was a great ad, however to everyone else it's appalling. So it's doing wonders for us gamers, but nothing to improve us in the eyes of other. And to be honest, fuck yes! EA is showing a blatant disregard for all except those who buy and love their games, which is great for us, but not for those who disapprove of gaming.

I think EA is just looking for a different approach which should be praised, but eventually EA's marketing is going to have to start thinking about the industry as a whole instead of just EA and the studios it owns. Though I seriously think Extra Credits forgets what most of us gamers really are like.

so are you saying most gamers are 13 year old XBL hate mongering homophobes? cause that aint true at all

 

[MercurySteam]

It was an rpg shooter, ME2 is a shooter with dialouge.

Maybe you were playing a version with all the RPG elements cut out. Things like upgrading the Normandy, customizing abilities, making choices that drastically affect the outcome of the game, moral choice systems......... what game did you play?

 

[Staskala]

However, the question is: So what?
EA isn't there to push the "games are art" argument, they are out to make money.
If stupid, over-the-top, intelligence-insulting advertisements are furthering that goal, then EA, a business, has done everything right.

I find it pretty hilarious (or rather, depressing) that currently you are referring to a company called 'Electronic Arts. The worst thing is that you are completely and utterly correct.

Or do you people seriously believe that the ideals of a niche group are more important than millions of dollars? Thousands of jobs?

I believe that you don't have to give an entire entertainment medium negative connotations to make millions of dollars.

Sadly, EA isn't the cause of said negative connotations.
EA is merely exploiting them. And it's not even just EA.
Marketers have long since realized that rather than fighting against the medium's current perception it is far easier and far more profitable to simply rise controversy and exploit the shit out of it.

That's the simple truth, which says far more about the medium's current state than any EA campaign ever could.

And once again, what you call "negative connotations" are negative connotations according to you.
I think the hundreds of people working at EA and associated companies as well as the investors (without which far less games were being made) are quite happy when EA does good.
As are the consumers who like currently published games by EA.

 

[MercurySteam]

so are you saying most gamers are 13 year old XBL hate mongering homophobes? cause that aint true at all

Sure not. Why, are you?

Just cause I say teenagers doesn't mean I'm not talking about people who are 15, 16, 17, 18, 19+. The average age of the Australian gamer is 34 but that doesn't meanthing EA's marketing isn't targeted at them. Not to mention DS2 sold like blowjob machines.

 

[D_987]

I see what you're saying, but you're missing the point. The point isn't whether or not the ads are helping EA make money. The point is that, whether this helps their sales or not, they're being stupid.

Ok first and foremost the whole point of marketing is to increase sales - you don't increase sales by appealing to demographics that aren't interested in your product, if anything that just turns the demographic you want to appeal to off your product. EA are not "being stupid" by putting out the advertisements they are, gamers are stupid for caring to much about their acceptance in society, and lack of understand of basic business techniques.

But if you're a non-gamer, like--oh, I don't know--my boss, you might say "Oh, Johnson is buying Dante's Inferno, the game where you kill babies. I wonder what other kinds of fucked-up shit that guy is into? I hope I can find an excuse to downsize him before he goes on an office shooting rampage."

These are, of course, misconceptions about video games, the kinds of people who play them, and why they enjoy them, but it doesn't matter in this context because my boss has no reason to try to look past the bullshit. All he knows is what he hears on the news (God help me if he watches Fox News; then he probably thinks I'm a closet rapist as well), what he sees when he walks past the EB Games in the mall, and what he sees in television, magazine, and internet advertisements.

So you're claiming that if someone buys a video-game, that the mainstream press hardly touched, and nobody bar gamers put special emphasis on, that person will be locked within society? That's ridiculous and just untrue. People aren't judged as you're implying from the games they buy in that kind of manner period. Obviously you're over-exaggerating but to a near absurd degree. If you live in America, for example, the odds are very high you know someone who plays games - whatever age you are - I don't recall the exact percentage but the vast majority of people own some form of gaming system. Your argument that games could be put in a negative light due to these advertisements is incredibly naive, besides, advertisements such as these are shown in and around shows based for their demographic.

Or, if they were planning on marketing this game to young men ages 13 to 17 in the first place, why did they design it so that their target demographic can't legally buy the game for themselves? Either way, EA is clearly doing it wrong.

Correct, though one poor example of advertising doesn't warrant this ridiculous over-reaction brought on by Extra Credits.

When I saw the "Your mom hates this" ads for Dead Space 2, I felt genuinely mortified. I thought, "So EA thinks that A) I still care what my mom thinks about my hobbies, and B) I'm GLAD that she hates what I do with my spare time." How am I supposed to be anything but insulted when I hear that?

Now you're changing the situation; it's turned from what other people think of games to what you think of their advertisements and that's completely different. If the advert offended you that much then don't buy the game.

Yes, EA does get a lot of press for doing advertising this way. They get a lot of BAD press. You know that saying "There's no such thing as bad press?" Bullshit! When I hear that you're insulting me to my face and telling everyone that I like it and am going to ask for more, and you're a multinational corporation, you look like an asshole, I look like a *****, and I can't say otherwise because you have so much more clout than I do.

People think that marketing departments at international corporations have a pretty good idea about what their customers want, and how to present their product to their target demographic. If EA's marketing department is doing it right, then apparently we're all a bunch of near-psychotic teenage boys who have wet dreams about committing acts of violence, having reckless sex, and flipping off our parents.

These two paragraphs are so far removed from reality I'm not sure how to respond to them. There's no such thing as bad press - as has been proven time and again, regardless of your opinion on the matter. As for EA's demographic...you're pretty much asking them to lie about the true nature of the game [Dead Space, Dante's Inferno aren't exactly intellectually stimulating products] so you can feel good about your purchase.

For contrast, let's take a look at some game advertising that doesn't make gamers look like a bunch of spastic little shitheads.

Spoiler

<youtube=whUcHSDnQKk>

Good thing they didn't advertise Halo 3 like this! It probably wouldn't have sold very well at all! You remember, the real ad had Master Chief shoving his assault rifle up a brute's ass and pulling the trigger, and using a plasma grenade to blow up a covenant orphanage. That was a lot better.

That's possibly the worst example you could have used; for one it's an advert aimed at a wider market than any other game you've mentioned in this post - Microsoft know people in the aforementioned demographics will buy the game, so they attempt to appeal to those that might not have heard of it before; hence the adverts lack of relevance to the actual product. You try that with another game, say Bulletstorm, who spoofed it, and run that as your main TV advertising campaign you wouldn't gain half the sales.

Compare that to what it looks like above. Next time, D_987, make sure you don't accidentally butcher other people's posts when you reply to them.

I did no such thing, I simply quoted the section of the post I was specifically referring to, I refuse to quote every section of someones post simply because it forms an unwieldy and overly elaborate mess [like the post I'm quoting for example]. Furthermore there's some pretty clear flame-bait in your response I've removed - don't let it continue.

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

If you´re vocal about their ad campaigns, EA execs are gonna say "Cool, so you´ve noticed the ads. Mission acomplished!" Trust me, it will not change their marketing tactics.If anything, it will encourage them to do worse.

Controversy sells.

 

[MercurySteam]

Controversy sells.

Fox News knows this.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

This episode was WAAAAY too preachy. Also I liked Dante's Inferno, even if I didn't like the marketing. so no, no I haven't, nor will I.

 

[GiantRaven]

Sadly, EA isn't the cause of said negative connotations.
EA is merely exploiting them. And it's not even just EA.
Marketers have long since realized that rather than fighting against the medium's current perception it is far easier and far more profitable to simply rise controversy and exploit the shit out of it.

EA may not be source. But they aren't helping combat the problem. Neither are any other company that gets in on the action.

And once again, what you call "negative connotations" are negative connotations according to you.

The idea that videogamers are all violent murderous immature manchild rapists (taking from a variety of different stereotypes and recent news tidbits, not just from EA's marketing) isn't negative?

I think the hundreds of people working at EA and associated companies as well as the investors (without which far less games were being made) are quite happy when EA does good.

The reason said people are quite happy is not about the messages they send and the state of the videogaming medium, but rather the money they make. As long as they make their money, what do they care about the messages they put out? I find that to be a very sad thought.

As are the consumers who like currently published games by EA.

There isn't anything wrong with liking the games themselves. It's just the way EA make people aware of them is completely fucking stupid and has more negative effects on the medium than positive effects.

 

[FernandoV]

It's nice to rally behind a cause but unless it affects gaming sales EA will not care. I'm sure you're all a lot less willing to NOT buy Dead Space 2. You may be willing to do something easy like emailing a letter but if you can't follow through with something that will actually get EA's attention then it's hard to be vindicated in all your outrage :\

 

[Staskala]

Sadly, EA isn't the cause of said negative connotations.
EA is merely exploiting them. And it's not even just EA.
Marketers have long since realized that rather than fighting against the medium's current perception it is far easier and far more profitable to simply rise controversy and exploit the shit out of it.

EA may not be source. But they aren't helping combat the problem. Neither are any other company that gets in on the action.

Point is, why should they?
Like I said, changing the "general public's" perception about video games is a futile task that will only waste resources.
The public won't change their view on video games no matter what you do, it only takes another school shooting and you're back to square one.
How can you fault marketers for simply saying "Fuck it" and taking the easier path?

And once again, what you call "negative connotations" are negative connotations according to you.

The idea that videogamers are all violent murderous immature manchild rapists (taking from a variety of different stereotypes and recent news tidbits, not just from EA's marketing) isn't negative?

It is, to you as a gamer that cares about his and his medium's general perception that is.
Nothing wrong with that, but realize that not everyone shares this thought. In fact, you are a small minority.
Most of the gaming community doesn't care, or at least doesn't care enough to damage sales.

I think the hundreds of people working at EA and associated companies as well as the investors (without which far less games were being made) are quite happy when EA does good.

The reason said people are quite happy is not about the messages they send and the state of the videogaming medium, but rather the money they make. As long as they make their money, what do they care about the messages they put out? I find that to be a very sad thought.

The economic world isn't nice enough to care about such things.
An investor wants to make money.
If company X can make the most artistic game ever but has little promise of profit, yet company Y can make a guaranteed to sell title (as generic as it may be) then who is the investor going to give that money?
Please realize that investors aren't some evil force trying to destroy the medium, they are people who take great risks and want their risks to be worth it. Losing millions of dollars to make an artistic statement isn't an option.

Please also realize that without investors the industry wouldn't exist. Plain and simple.

Are investors worth more than the medium's perception?
Obviously yes, if only for the above mentioned reason.

 

[FernandoV]

Sadly, EA isn't the cause of said negative connotations.
EA is merely exploiting them. And it's not even just EA.
Marketers have long since realized that rather than fighting against the medium's current perception it is far easier and far more profitable to simply rise controversy and exploit the shit out of it.

EA may not be source. But they aren't helping combat the problem. Neither are any other company that gets in on the action.

Point is, why should they?
Like I said, changing the "general public's" perception about video games is a futile task that will only waste resources.
The public won't change their view on video games no matter what you do, it only takes another school shooting and you're back to square one.
How can you fault marketers for simply saying "Fuck it" and taking the easier path?

And once again, what you call "negative connotations" are negative connotations according to you.

The idea that videogamers are all violent murderous immature manchild rapists (taking from a variety of different stereotypes and recent news tidbits, not just from EA's marketing) isn't negative?

It is, to you as a gamer that cares about his and his medium's general perception that is.
Nothing wrong with that, but realize that not everyone shares this thought. In fact, you are a small minority.
Most of the gaming community doesn't care, or at least doesn't care enough to damage sales.

I think the hundreds of people working at EA and associated companies as well as the investors (without which far less games were being made) are quite happy when EA does good.

The reason said people are quite happy is not about the messages they send and the state of the videogaming medium, but rather the money they make. As long as they make their money, what do they care about the messages they put out? I find that to be a very sad thought.

The economic world isn't nice enough to care about such things.
An investor wants to make money.
If company X can make the most artistic game ever but has little promise of profit, yet company Y can make a guaranteed to sell title (as generic as it may be) then who is the investor going to give that money?
Please realize that investors aren't some evil force trying to destroy the medium, they are people who take great risks and want their risks to be worth it. Losing millions of dollars to make an artistic statement isn't an option.

Please also realize that without investors the industry wouldn't exist. Plain and simple.

Are investors worth more than the medium's perception?
Obviously yes, if only for the above mentioned reason.

Well if we took that attitude with everything then we can throw any sort of progress out the window. You are taking a realistic view of the situation but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for progress.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Do you like the common perception that the average gamer is an immature adolescent manchild? If you do, then sure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with how EA market their games, since that is the perception of gamers that they are putting out there.

I honestly could not care about "common perception of gamers". I'm not a gamer. I'm a person with a multitude of interests, games among them. If anyone has an issue with how they market, then I advise you not to buy their games. That's how you bring about change, not posting preachy little internet videos.

 

[Staskala]

Well if we took that attitude with everything then we can throw any sort of progress out the window. You are taking a realistic view of the situation but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for progress.

Please define your idea of "progress".

Why would progress and EA's strategy be mutually exclusive?
You need to cater to the "lowest common denominator" first if you want to get anywhere.
Even within Hollywood the general idea is "Make generic blockbusters to raise the funds and reputation to make the movies you actually want to".

Just see "generic shit" as a neccessary evil to get anywhere rather than something that hurts the industry (by making it grow appareantly).