What is EA actually doing wrong as a developer?

[Random Argument Man]

How about 'they can't make anything new and good!'

Dead Space Meta Review score:
Xbox 360: 89
Playstation 3: 88
PC: 86

Mirror's Edge Meta Review score:
Xbox 360: 79
Playstation 3: 79
PC: 80

How the heck are those not good scores?

Review scores are shit. The people that like the game will give it a high score, the people that hate the game will either ignore it or give it a 1.

We're talking about journalists here. When they review a game, they have standards to follow. How does the control works, Are the graphics presentable, Is it fun, what's new, how does the story progress and etc etc.

They base their scores on that.

Ah, I knew it would be a problem when I posted without reading the whole thread.
But still, journalists, or publishers in this case have to sell their product. This product depends on revenue created by subscribers and advertisements.

Since this thread is about EA, a publisher for loads of smaller developers, you get this problem where, if a journalist gives game X a poor review, then EA can just refuse to send an early copy of game Y. If this happens a lot, then the people reading the magazine/website/blog will go somewhere else for pre-release information and early reviews.

Well, at some point the game should be released. So, what's stopping the reviewer to get a copy? (Other than cost, if you're Australian).

 

[Russ Pitts]

However, Dead Space was developed by an affiliate of EA named Redwood Shores.
Mirror's Edge was only published by EA. Developed by DICE.

I have to correct you on this. Redwood Shores is EA. They simply call it "EA Redwood Shores" (or EARS) to differentiate it from other EA studios, like EA Los Angeles. EA Redwood Shores is, for all intents and purposes, the "main" EA studio, where they make practically all of the sequels about which you guys are currently complaining, in addition to Dead Space, which is apparently the first original IP they've worked on for something like 15 years.

It's also an incredibly awesome building. We were there a couple of weeks ago, and you'll see some of our visit on this week's The Escapist Show. They have an entire long hallway set up like a museum exhibit, showing off artifacts from the company's long, long history of making games. It's really quite impressive.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

If sales of Dead Space and Mirror's Edge proved anything, then the answer would be no given that even though EA developed/published new IPs, we gamers didn't buy them as much as we did for sequels and well known franchises.

Dead Space sold extremely well. It was Mirror's Edge that ended up lacking in sales.

 

[squid5580]

It seems that every 12.8 seconds EA releases a sequel title. By far the best example of this is Medal of Honour. Why would a developer continue to repackage the same game over and over? MoH Vanguard and MoH Airborne I am looking at you.
The simple answer is that they sell. So to every gamer out there, if you want to see less of sequels then stop buying them.

Can anyone name a good EA game that isn't a sequel?

Is there actually anything wrong wih wringing a franchise until it last drop of preciuos money oozes from it broken carcass?

Edit: What I am actually trying to do here is find out why EA has gotten the reputation it has.

Yes I can Dead Space! Loved that game. It is not EA's fault whatsoever. EA obviously doesn't have a bad rep as popular belief might have you think. People are always buying thier games so they must be doing something right. Just there is a group of people who think companies making truckloads of money and not making games that cater to their tastes (see Wiihate) are evil and blah blah blah. They firmly believe the indusrty revolves around them and if they don't buy the games because they don't like them then the industry is doomed since thier small minds will not allow any room to realize other people have different tastes and/or opinions than themselves.

 

[Phyroxis]

I think they're just fine.

 

[Flour]

Well, at some point the game should be released. So, what's stopping the reviewer to get a copy? (Other than cost, if you're Australian).

Both the price of games(up to 70 euros here in Holland, which would be comparable to Australian prices), and the fact that once a game is released, a games magazine is already too late with it's review. The time factor isn't a big problem for online reviews, but they have the money problem, because gamers aren't going to a website that only reviews last week's games.

 

[sneak_copter]

However, Dead Space was developed by an affiliate of EA named Redwood Shores.
Mirror's Edge was only published by EA. Developed by DICE.

I have to correct you on this. Redwood Shores is EA. They simply call it "EA Redwood Shores" (or EARS) to differentiate it from other EA studios, like EA Los Angeles. EA Redwood Shores is, for all intents and purposes, the "main" EA studio, where they make practically all of the sequels about which you guys are currently complaining, in addition to Dead Space, which is apparently the first original IP they've worked on for something like 15 years.

I'll have to watch that. Well, it's still a little money-grabbing with Dead Space being the first original IP in 15 YEARS.

 

[Mischiviktus]

They offshot studios make the good games, EA just handles shipping and finances. The problem is they want to make those games into cash cows, Aka- Dead Space DLC being just flame graphics for stupid amounts of bucks.

 

[Jabbawocky]

I don't know but they cannot be doing too badly as they seem to hve been linked to absorbing almost every struggling developer into their collection.

 

[Doug]

It seems that every 12.8 seconds EA releases a sequel title. By far the best example of this is Medal of Honour. Why would a developer continue to repackage the same game over and over? MoH Vanguard and MoH Airborne I am looking at you.
The simple answer is that they sell. So to every gamer out there, if you want to see less of sequels then stop buying them.

Can anyone name a good EA game that isn't a sequel?

Is there actually anything wrong wih wringing a franchise until it last drop of preciuos money oozes from it broken carcass?

Edit: What I am actually trying to do here is find out why EA has gotten the reputation it has.

Yes I can Dead Space! Loved that game. It is not EA's fault whatsoever. EA obviously doesn't have a bad rep as popular belief might have you think. People are always buying thier games so they must be doing something right. Just there is a group of people who think companies making truckloads of money and not making games that cater to their tastes (see Wiihate) are evil and blah blah blah. They firmly believe the indusrty revolves around them and if they don't buy the games because they don't like them then the industry is doomed since thier small minds will not allow any room to realize other people have different tastes and/or opinions than themselves.

Don't get me worry, I like some of there games (I occasionally even enjoy playing the Sims), but they do screw things up alarmingly. Spore, for example, should have been far better than it ended up being. We were promised a rich filling stew, but ended up with watered down soup. Add to that, their policies on DRM makes me hate them - although they might be rethinking, as 'The Sims 3' is going to be DRM free, apparently.

 

[gustcq]

I really don't know what went wrong with EA, they even losing their sports dominance, cept Madden of course.

 

[squid5580]

It seems that every 12.8 seconds EA releases a sequel title. By far the best example of this is Medal of Honour. Why would a developer continue to repackage the same game over and over? MoH Vanguard and MoH Airborne I am looking at you.
The simple answer is that they sell. So to every gamer out there, if you want to see less of sequels then stop buying them.

Can anyone name a good EA game that isn't a sequel?

Is there actually anything wrong wih wringing a franchise until it last drop of preciuos money oozes from it broken carcass?

Edit: What I am actually trying to do here is find out why EA has gotten the reputation it has.

Yes I can Dead Space! Loved that game. It is not EA's fault whatsoever. EA obviously doesn't have a bad rep as popular belief might have you think. People are always buying thier games so they must be doing something right. Just there is a group of people who think companies making truckloads of money and not making games that cater to their tastes (see Wiihate) are evil and blah blah blah. They firmly believe the indusrty revolves around them and if they don't buy the games because they don't like them then the industry is doomed since thier small minds will not allow any room to realize other people have different tastes and/or opinions than themselves.

Don't get me worry, I like some of there games (I occasionally even enjoy playing the Sims), but they do screw things up alarmingly. Spore, for example, should have been far better than it ended up being. We were promised a rich filling stew, but ended up with watered down soup. Add to that, their policies on DRM makes me hate them - although they might be rethinking, as 'The Sims 3' is going to be DRM free, apparently.

I could list 100s of games that should have been better than what the end product was. Spore should have or could have been better but it also could have been alot worse. I don't see Atari sucks threads poppin up daily cuz Alone in the Dark didn't live up to the hype.

As for the DRM issue well you are placing the blame at the wrong feet. They are trying to stop people from stealing thier product (or pirate them if you find "STEALING" offends you). If people didn't support piracy then you wouldn't have to worry about DRM or anything like it. I am not saying the way the DRM worked was a good idea since the effect it had on the real customers (or that it even dented the issue in the slightest). I just find it hard to blame them for trying to stop people from taking a product they invested huge amounts of time and money into for free.

 

[Weaver]

EA made Henry Hatsworth and the puzzling adventure, which may be the greatest 2D platformer I've played in the last 5 years, so it's not all bad.

My biggest problem with EA is just... they're such dicks. I was mad at EA for using Securom with install limits(more like f*ckUrom) and mad at Sony for making it. The PC is my main platform, and it just pissed me off a LOT.

 

[Doug]

It seems that every 12.8 seconds EA releases a sequel title. By far the best example of this is Medal of Honour. Why would a developer continue to repackage the same game over and over? MoH Vanguard and MoH Airborne I am looking at you.
The simple answer is that they sell. So to every gamer out there, if you want to see less of sequels then stop buying them.

Can anyone name a good EA game that isn't a sequel?

Is there actually anything wrong wih wringing a franchise until it last drop of preciuos money oozes from it broken carcass?

Edit: What I am actually trying to do here is find out why EA has gotten the reputation it has.

Yes I can Dead Space! Loved that game. It is not EA's fault whatsoever. EA obviously doesn't have a bad rep as popular belief might have you think. People are always buying thier games so they must be doing something right. Just there is a group of people who think companies making truckloads of money and not making games that cater to their tastes (see Wiihate) are evil and blah blah blah. They firmly believe the indusrty revolves around them and if they don't buy the games because they don't like them then the industry is doomed since thier small minds will not allow any room to realize other people have different tastes and/or opinions than themselves.

Don't get me worry, I like some of there games (I occasionally even enjoy playing the Sims), but they do screw things up alarmingly. Spore, for example, should have been far better than it ended up being. We were promised a rich filling stew, but ended up with watered down soup. Add to that, their policies on DRM makes me hate them - although they might be rethinking, as 'The Sims 3' is going to be DRM free, apparently.

I could list 100s of games that should have been better than what the end product was. Spore should have or could have been better but it also could have been alot worse. I don't see Atari sucks threads poppin up daily cuz Alone in the Dark didn't live up to the hype.

As for the DRM issue well you are placing the blame at the wrong feet. They are trying to stop people from stealing thier product (or pirate them if you find "STEALING" offends you). If people didn't support piracy then you wouldn't have to worry about DRM or anything like it. I am not saying the way the DRM worked was a good idea since the effect it had on the real customers (or that it even dented the issue in the slightest). I just find it hard to blame them for trying to stop people from taking a product they invested huge amounts of time and money into for free.

Atari do suck - in fact, they suck alot harder than EA, but here's the simple reason why Atari is not on the 'anti-' list - Atari don't own half the game industry, never really got into the whole strip mining of purchased companies, and haven't boiled away all the originally and joy from the companies they bought. Spore just happens to be the latest example - all its novelly boiled off until only a game with the depth of a spoon remains. Atari are so far gone, they fall off the end of the chart of shit - no one really expects a good game from them these days.

As for DRM, have a look at the 'Impossible DRM' from Shamus Young (who draws the 'Stolen Pixels' series on the Escapist). And stop assuming just because I think EA are ridiculously stupid in their DRM policies that I am a pirate/thief. Pirates piss me off no end, but EA have spent alot of money pissing off their customer base so I find it hard to sympathise with either side in the DRM war. If they'd invested the money into the customers who'd actually payed for the games, they'd massively improved their sales, or at least no wasted it on ineffective DRMs. Hell, Spore was cracked weeks before the official release date.

Frankly, EA have spent alot of cash fucking the customers - they'll have to spend alot more to win their trust back - and they have made a start, which is good, but they have a fair way to go yet.

 

[DrHoboPHD]

Recently the quality of EA titles seems to have increased. (Dead Space is an extremely fun example of this.)

However....they ARE responsible for canceling Dungeon Keeper 3 and as such have earned an eternity of my ire.

 

[squid5580]

It seems that every 12.8 seconds EA releases a sequel title. By far the best example of this is Medal of Honour. Why would a developer continue to repackage the same game over and over? MoH Vanguard and MoH Airborne I am looking at you.
The simple answer is that they sell. So to every gamer out there, if you want to see less of sequels then stop buying them.

Can anyone name a good EA game that isn't a sequel?

Is there actually anything wrong wih wringing a franchise until it last drop of preciuos money oozes from it broken carcass?

Edit: What I am actually trying to do here is find out why EA has gotten the reputation it has.

Yes I can Dead Space! Loved that game. It is not EA's fault whatsoever. EA obviously doesn't have a bad rep as popular belief might have you think. People are always buying thier games so they must be doing something right. Just there is a group of people who think companies making truckloads of money and not making games that cater to their tastes (see Wiihate) are evil and blah blah blah. They firmly believe the indusrty revolves around them and if they don't buy the games because they don't like them then the industry is doomed since thier small minds will not allow any room to realize other people have different tastes and/or opinions than themselves.

Don't get me worry, I like some of there games (I occasionally even enjoy playing the Sims), but they do screw things up alarmingly. Spore, for example, should have been far better than it ended up being. We were promised a rich filling stew, but ended up with watered down soup. Add to that, their policies on DRM makes me hate them - although they might be rethinking, as 'The Sims 3' is going to be DRM free, apparently.

I could list 100s of games that should have been better than what the end product was. Spore should have or could have been better but it also could have been alot worse. I don't see Atari sucks threads poppin up daily cuz Alone in the Dark didn't live up to the hype.

As for the DRM issue well you are placing the blame at the wrong feet. They are trying to stop people from stealing thier product (or pirate them if you find "STEALING" offends you). If people didn't support piracy then you wouldn't have to worry about DRM or anything like it. I am not saying the way the DRM worked was a good idea since the effect it had on the real customers (or that it even dented the issue in the slightest). I just find it hard to blame them for trying to stop people from taking a product they invested huge amounts of time and money into for free.

Atari do suck - in fact, they suck alot harder than EA, but here's the simple reason why Atari is not on the 'anti-' list - Atari don't own half the game industry, never really got into the whole strip mining of purchased companies, and haven't boiled away all the originally and joy from the companies they bought. Spore just happens to be the latest example - all its novelly boiled off until only a game with the depth of a spoon remains. Atari are so far gone, they fall off the end of the chart of shit - no one really expects a good game from them these days.

As for DRM, have a look at the 'Impossible DRM' from Shamus Young (who draws the 'Stolen Pixels' series on the Escapist). And stop assuming just because I think EA are ridiculously stupid in their DRM policies that I am a pirate/thief. Pirates piss me off no end, but EA have spent alot of money pissing off their customer base so I find it hard to sympathise with either side in the DRM war. If they'd invested the money into the customers who'd actually payed for the games, they'd massively improved their sales, or at least no wasted it on ineffective DRMs. Hell, Spore was cracked weeks before the official release date.

Frankly, EA have spent alot of cash fucking the customers - they'll have to spend alot more to win their trust back - and they have made a start, which is good, but they have a fair way to go yet.

Woah man slow down. I was not accusing you or any other individual person of piracy. I am just saying that because of a group of people out there pirating these games they have to try and do something. The unfortunate part is that everyone suffers for it. I do agree that they should invest more into the paying customer but right now that is an impossibility since they can't tell who is or isn't.

As for EA buying 1/2 the indusrtry and ruining it (to summarize your paragraph) well if that is truly the case they will die like the rest of the companies that have gone the way of the dinosaur lately. Since as of right now they seem to be going strong they must be doing something right. Most of their games may not appeal to you (or me for that matter Dead Space was the last good EA game I have played and there was only a select few before then). Since people are buyng them I can only assume that there are others who do enjoy thier games.

 

[Doug]

It seems that every 12.8 seconds EA releases a sequel title. By far the best example of this is Medal of Honour. Why would a developer continue to repackage the same game over and over? MoH Vanguard and MoH Airborne I am looking at you.
The simple answer is that they sell. So to every gamer out there, if you want to see less of sequels then stop buying them.

Can anyone name a good EA game that isn't a sequel?

Is there actually anything wrong wih wringing a franchise until it last drop of preciuos money oozes from it broken carcass?

Edit: What I am actually trying to do here is find out why EA has gotten the reputation it has.

Yes I can Dead Space! Loved that game. It is not EA's fault whatsoever. EA obviously doesn't have a bad rep as popular belief might have you think. People are always buying thier games so they must be doing something right. Just there is a group of people who think companies making truckloads of money and not making games that cater to their tastes (see Wiihate) are evil and blah blah blah. They firmly believe the indusrty revolves around them and if they don't buy the games because they don't like them then the industry is doomed since thier small minds will not allow any room to realize other people have different tastes and/or opinions than themselves.

Don't get me worry, I like some of there games (I occasionally even enjoy playing the Sims), but they do screw things up alarmingly. Spore, for example, should have been far better than it ended up being. We were promised a rich filling stew, but ended up with watered down soup. Add to that, their policies on DRM makes me hate them - although they might be rethinking, as 'The Sims 3' is going to be DRM free, apparently.

I could list 100s of games that should have been better than what the end product was. Spore should have or could have been better but it also could have been alot worse. I don't see Atari sucks threads poppin up daily cuz Alone in the Dark didn't live up to the hype.

As for the DRM issue well you are placing the blame at the wrong feet. They are trying to stop people from stealing thier product (or pirate them if you find "STEALING" offends you). If people didn't support piracy then you wouldn't have to worry about DRM or anything like it. I am not saying the way the DRM worked was a good idea since the effect it had on the real customers (or that it even dented the issue in the slightest). I just find it hard to blame them for trying to stop people from taking a product they invested huge amounts of time and money into for free.

Atari do suck - in fact, they suck alot harder than EA, but here's the simple reason why Atari is not on the 'anti-' list - Atari don't own half the game industry, never really got into the whole strip mining of purchased companies, and haven't boiled away all the originally and joy from the companies they bought. Spore just happens to be the latest example - all its novelly boiled off until only a game with the depth of a spoon remains. Atari are so far gone, they fall off the end of the chart of shit - no one really expects a good game from them these days.

As for DRM, have a look at the 'Impossible DRM' from Shamus Young (who draws the 'Stolen Pixels' series on the Escapist). And stop assuming just because I think EA are ridiculously stupid in their DRM policies that I am a pirate/thief. Pirates piss me off no end, but EA have spent alot of money pissing off their customer base so I find it hard to sympathise with either side in the DRM war. If they'd invested the money into the customers who'd actually payed for the games, they'd massively improved their sales, or at least no wasted it on ineffective DRMs. Hell, Spore was cracked weeks before the official release date.

Frankly, EA have spent alot of cash fucking the customers - they'll have to spend alot more to win their trust back - and they have made a start, which is good, but they have a fair way to go yet.

Woah man slow down. I was not accusing you or any other individual person of piracy. I am just saying that because of a group of people out there pirating these games they have to try and do something. The unfortunate part is that everyone suffers for it. I do agree that they should invest more into the paying customer but right now that is an impossibility since they can't tell who is or isn't.

As for EA buying 1/2 the indusrtry and ruining it (to summarize your paragraph) well if that is truly the case they will die like the rest of the companies that have gone the way of the dinosaur lately. Since as of right now they seem to be going strong they must be doing something right. Most of their games may not appeal to you (or me for that matter Dead Space was the last good EA game I have played and there was only a select few before then). Since people are buyng them I can only assume that there are others who do enjoy thier games.

Ok...Sorry for the reaction, it just seemed from the 'STEALING' bit that you where implying something. My bad. Anyway, I do hate piracy and what it does to publishers - but I feel EA's reaction to piracy is ineffective, and actually hurts both them (in terms of money wasted and customers *upset*) and the customers.

For example, I could have downloaded the no DRM crack and used that without SecuRom infesting my system. I didn't, as happens, but I'm not happy with them over it regardless, especially for Spore, a game that seemed so grand and scaling in the early GDC demos, but ended up so...lacking, in anything, really. The Galactica scale map does convey the sense of scale well, but ultimately, it just lacks anything to do, or anything worth exploring.

And the buying thing, well, that was awhile ago - Bullfrog, Westwood, all that. Sequels became cash ins, and many sequels where killed that would have been fun, but didn't offer EA the return on investiment of Madden '99 or whatever year it was. Basically, everything that is wrong with Activison now is what was wrong with EA then.

And I will admit, I have been somewhat surprised by EA lately in some area's. Brutal Legend, for example, I would never have guessed they'd take up. Schafer doesn't have a good record with sales (see Grim Frandigo (and if anyone knows where I can get a digital copy of it, let me know) and Pyschonauts).

Mirrors Edge and Dead space (A game I've not played but been told about) have shown EA are taking risks on new games - I just feel fustrated they could have had this back in the day, before they wasted all the talent with inhumane working conditions, stifling 'risky' games, and generally just stuck to remaking the same low risk games. Add to that, a policy of poor customer support (anyone who's had to use EA automated 'support' will agree, I think) and bad customer relations (DRM).

Really, its no some much hate, when I get right down to it, its the way they casually wasted what they had and could have done for short-term profits, which is biting them in the buttocks now.

 

[squid5580]

Ok I am not going to quote that cuz it will end up taking a page in itself (and I can't seem to get a handle on how to edit quotes without screwing them up). No the stealing or piracy bit was because of this forum and in no way directed at you. I have seen alot of discussions where people get downright offended if you dare call piracy stealing. And how it is different than going into a store and swiping a product off a shelf or something along those lines (I still don't see how but that seems to keep thier consciences clear).

It seems to me that EA has screwed up in the past (and now with the DRM thing) but they also seem to be learning from said mistakes. Them scrapping the DRM for Sims 3 is proof of that. Sure not all of thier games are going to be solid gold but at least it seems they are making the effort. We can't really expect them to take huge risks on a game like Pyschonaughts or Beyond Good and Evil when we won't take a risk on buying them. We gamers (as a whole) need to prove we are mature enough and brave enough to buy an innovative game as well as them needing to make them. Which is difficult in this day and age when reviewers give 10s to the 2nd to millionth sequel to a game and yet whine and ***** when a truly innovative game comes along but because it didn't have this feature or that. And I know not everyone listens to reviews and yada yada yada but at the same time they are the ones who are directing how the industry should go. They can't listen to the fans because they are well stupid. Can't listen to the haters cuz they can't seem to offer anything productive. So the only option is the journalists and half of them are a joke.

 

[out0v0rder]

They aren't developing any games. That is what they are doing wrong as a developer. They are publishing just fine though.

 

[Doug]

No the stealing or piracy bit was because of this forum and in no way directed at you. I have seen alot of discussions where people get downright offended if you dare call piracy stealing. And how it is different than going into a store and swiping a product off a shelf or something along those lines (I still don't see how but that seems to keep thier consciences clear).

Sadly true. I recall seeing the self-serving 'piracy is right because...' threads.

It seems to me that EA has screwed up in the past (and now with the DRM thing) but they also seem to be learning from said mistakes. Them scrapping the DRM for Sims 3 is proof of that. Sure not all of thier games are going to be solid gold but at least it seems they are making the effort. We can't really expect them to take huge risks on a game like Pyschonaughts or Beyond Good and Evil when we won't take a risk on buying them. We gamers (as a whole) need to prove we are mature enough and brave enough to buy an innovative game as well as them needing to make them. Which is difficult in this day and age when reviewers give 10s to the 2nd to millionth sequel to a game and yet whine and ***** when a truly innovative game comes along but because it didn't have this feature or that. And I know not everyone listens to reviews and yada yada yada but at the same time they are the ones who are directing how the industry should go. They can't listen to the fans because they are well stupid. Can't listen to the haters cuz they can't seem to offer anything productive. So the only option is the journalists and half of them are a joke.

Well...when put like that, I have to agree. Although Psychonauts at least was more a victim of poor marketing caused by a late switch in publisher, and in the small size of the publishers.