6 ms·

This is just my opinion, though semi-backed by conversations I've had with people who work at EA. EA Gameplan in a nutshell. 1) Force studio to make changes t

by kenrikm 12y ago

This is just my opinion, though semi-backed by conversations I've had with people who work at EA. EA Gameplan in a nutshell. 1) Force studio to make changes to a game that benefit the EA but have no tangible (or very little) benefit to the customers (Forcing use of Origin, Sims being online only, etc..) 2) Act surprised when the proverbial shit hits the fan with angry customers. 3) Let said customers know that "you're sorry" and they "have been heard" "loud and clear". 4) Close studio that you forced to make the game breaking changes (or at a minimum lay off most of the staff) 5) Repeat 1-4 yearly.

iamartnez 12y ago
What about DICE? And BioWare? I wonder if DICE came to the negotiation table more prepared and/or with something up their sleeve. It could be that EA is hands off so long as a studio produces highly profitable titles. As soon as there's a dip, snip snip.
- sb057 12y ago
  It's widely agreed that Battlefield has been on the decline since 3 (3 being the first game released under EA). Bioware has been putting out exceedingly mediocre games since their purchase, not to mention are the laughing stock of many gamers.
  - parasubvert 12y ago
    That's rather hyperbolic. Battlefield 4 has done reasonably well - about 70% of the sales of Battlefield 3 since its release (1.5 years vs. 4 years). As for Bioware, the success of the Dragon Age franchise both in terms of reviews and sales is indisputable. SWTOR is also profitable at a recurring revenue stream even though it's not huge. I have no love for EA but there is a reason they make money - they do just enough to crank em out.
  - eropple 12y ago
    Calling Mass Effect 2 and 3 "exceedingly mediocre" puts you in a camp that is, by pretty much any metric, very fair from the mainstream. And I wonder who these "many gamers" are who think BioWare is a laughingstock. Do elaborate, please.
    - dkbrk 12y ago
      I, for one, was extremely disappointed in Mass Effect 2 as compared to the original. As a result, I didn't buy the third. Mass Effect, was, in my opinion, truly inimitable. While the sequels may have kept the setting and had very high production values, at their core they were little more than a sequence of cover-based setpieces and cutscenes. Dragon Age 2 was even more of regression from Dragon Age: Origins. Origins may not have had quite the same depth as truly old-school CRPGs such as Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment, but it took many ideas from that heritage and translated it into something indubitably modern. I wouldn't call BioWare a laughingstock, but they certainly haven't fared well creatively under EA.
      - sesqu 12y ago
        Mass effect 2 was perhaps the best game in the series, but it was a very different game than mass effect 1. While the core mechanics were the same, it was extremely episodic and the plot was flimsy. I recall ME3 reeled it back a bit, doing away with some of the annoying exploration stuff, but suffered from third installment syndrome.
        ansible 12y ago
        I, like others, was disappointed in the ending for Mass Effect 3. This guy took the time to explain it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs Even with their "improvements" to the ending, it was still just choosing what color explosion you got.
        izacus 12y ago
        I'm sorry, but last I recall ME3 was a 20-30hour long game that is way more than just a 10-minute ending sequence. Maybe criticism of it should take that into consideration?
  - the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
    > It's widely agreed that Battlefield has been on the decline since 3 (3 being the first game released under EA). This is so wrong, it's not even funny. DICE was acquired by EA 10 years ago. All Battlefield games except the original one were created since then. Also it's generally accepted that BF3 was the best Battlefield game so far, with BF4 probably going to overtake it in customer satisfaction with the current Premium program.
- kenrikm 12y ago
  Lets not forgot that EA took the BioWare name slapped it on a completely different studio and released mediocre games with it. DICE is in fact the exception, though they are like the golden goose, then consistently produce quality titles, I expect that if that were to change EA would attempt to terminate them as well.
  - skuhn 12y ago
    DICE has barely been able to release a non-Battlefield game since EA bought them, despite a much more varied output before acquisition. I imagine that isn't too great for employees at the time who didn't want to make pew pew simulators for all eternity. Exceptions to the rule: - Mirror's Edge - Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (w/ Criterion) - Medal of Honor (multiplayer only) And that's it. That they weren't allowed to make a straight up sequel to Mirror's Edge, and only now are coming out with a "reboot" says a lot to me about EA's control over their output: crank out Battlefield games or lose funding.
- chaostheory 12y ago
  Bioware has had some major issues under EA as well. DICE works because they create games that work really well with EA's strategy: hollywood-esque action games for the masses
- johansch 12y ago
  Interestingly, one of the DICE founders (Patrick Söderlund) now runs both EA Games and EA Sports - meaning most of the game franchises except for the mobile and casual stuff.
  - iamartnez 12y ago
    This is where my curiosity lies. I wonder if the DICE founders were very sharp, knew what they were getting into, and had the leverage to set the kind of terms that would maximize their chances of success. For example, I think they decided to keep the studio in Stockholm. That might have went a long way to keep the EA influence down and letting them focus on building blockbuster titles. Perhaps EA is a sink or swim kind of organization (on that level)? In a harsh kind of way. In reality most franchises do eventually sink.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Bioware peak was 1998-2006 with NWN, BG 1&2, DA:O, KOTOR and JE. After that it was mediocrity all the way. ME combat mechanics brought the whole franchise down, SW:TOR was pointless (and not bioware). And Dragon Age II and Inquisition were plain boring.
  - lqdc13 12y ago
    Completely agree, but I think we're in the minority. Most people seem to enjoy the streamlined style of their new titles.
deciplex 12y ago
That might be what they do, but I doubt it is fully intentional, since this is a remarkably stupid "game plan" which makes little financial sense. In the case of SimCity they have murdered what was once a popular and highly-profitable franchise. Rather it is likely a combination of fantastically stupid middle managers driven by conflicting and dysfunctional incentives coming down from upper management and the board. (BTW I just described 90% of apparently-stupid corporate behavior.)
pyrrhotech 12y ago
except that it's working very well for them. Have you taken a look at the stock price recently? Apparently customers opinions aren't bothering them too much
- politician 12y ago
  It doesn't matter. They aren't selling deodorant -- their customers in 10 years aren't going to be the same group of people as their customers today. See also: Hasbro, Disney.
flomo 12y ago
> Forcing use of Origin, Sims being online only So much smoke has been blown about these things, it has almost been overlooked that SimCity apparently just wasn't a very fun game. Tiny cities, bugs, overly-complicated simulator that was never really taken advantage of, etc. Had they just delivered something like SC3 with snazzy graphics, I think the silent majority (such as myself) would have purchased and played the hell out of it without a second thought to the Origin/online issues.
- sorenbs 12y ago
  I played it on a slow 3g connection in Bangladesh, and it mostly worked. What really killed it for me was the feeling that the feedback you got from the game wasn't consistent with the internal state of the simulation leading you to take counterproductive actions.
  - flomo 12y ago
    It certainly wasn't ideal and a legitimate issue for a lot of people. But at the same time there was a group of huge loudmouths who went on the warpath because piracy/paranoia/EA hatred/whatever. The whole SC incident bothers me because there was so much screaming about the online stuff. Yet it took two weeks before you started seeing gameplay reviews which finally started admitting "Hey, this just isn't very fun..." EA brought this on themselves, so they deserve it. But I think a good game would have survived the furor. SimCity4 was a very long-tail title. (And it was pretty broken out-of-the-box, and only really playable with mods.)
    - mattmanser 12y ago
      Why? It was a poster boy for a cause. Sim city, the very definition of a single player game, forced in to some sort of Frankenstein online game for no real purpose. Gamers had had enough and sim city made a convenient rallying point. It's a bad trend that a lot of games are going through they try and force you to enjoy some sort of multiplayer or social mode with no benefit to the single player experience. And no way to turn it off.

by kenrikm 12y ago

iamartnez 12y ago

What about DICE? And BioWare? I wonder if DICE came to the negotiation table more prepared and/or with something up their sleeve. It could be that EA is hands off so long as a studio produces highly profitable titles. As soon as there's a dip, snip snip.

sb057 12y ago
It's widely agreed that Battlefield has been on the decline since 3 (3 being the first game released under EA). Bioware has been putting out exceedingly mediocre games since their purchase, not to mention are the laughing stock of many gamers.
- parasubvert 12y ago
  That's rather hyperbolic. Battlefield 4 has done reasonably well - about 70% of the sales of Battlefield 3 since its release (1.5 years vs. 4 years). As for Bioware, the success of the Dragon Age franchise both in terms of reviews and sales is indisputable. SWTOR is also profitable at a recurring revenue stream even though it's not huge. I have no love for EA but there is a reason they make money - they do just enough to crank em out.
- eropple 12y ago
  Calling Mass Effect 2 and 3 "exceedingly mediocre" puts you in a camp that is, by pretty much any metric, very fair from the mainstream. And I wonder who these "many gamers" are who think BioWare is a laughingstock. Do elaborate, please.
  - dkbrk 12y ago
    I, for one, was extremely disappointed in Mass Effect 2 as compared to the original. As a result, I didn't buy the third. Mass Effect, was, in my opinion, truly inimitable. While the sequels may have kept the setting and had very high production values, at their core they were little more than a sequence of cover-based setpieces and cutscenes. Dragon Age 2 was even more of regression from Dragon Age: Origins. Origins may not have had quite the same depth as truly old-school CRPGs such as Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment, but it took many ideas from that heritage and translated it into something indubitably modern. I wouldn't call BioWare a laughingstock, but they certainly haven't fared well creatively under EA.
    - sesqu 12y ago
      Mass effect 2 was perhaps the best game in the series, but it was a very different game than mass effect 1. While the core mechanics were the same, it was extremely episodic and the plot was flimsy. I recall ME3 reeled it back a bit, doing away with some of the annoying exploration stuff, but suffered from third installment syndrome.
      - ansible 12y ago
        I, like others, was disappointed in the ending for Mass Effect 3. This guy took the time to explain it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs Even with their "improvements" to the ending, it was still just choosing what color explosion you got.
        izacus 12y ago
        I'm sorry, but last I recall ME3 was a 20-30hour long game that is way more than just a 10-minute ending sequence. Maybe criticism of it should take that into consideration?
- the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
  > It's widely agreed that Battlefield has been on the decline since 3 (3 being the first game released under EA). This is so wrong, it's not even funny. DICE was acquired by EA 10 years ago. All Battlefield games except the original one were created since then. Also it's generally accepted that BF3 was the best Battlefield game so far, with BF4 probably going to overtake it in customer satisfaction with the current Premium program.
kenrikm 12y ago
Lets not forgot that EA took the BioWare name slapped it on a completely different studio and released mediocre games with it. DICE is in fact the exception, though they are like the golden goose, then consistently produce quality titles, I expect that if that were to change EA would attempt to terminate them as well.
- skuhn 12y ago
  DICE has barely been able to release a non-Battlefield game since EA bought them, despite a much more varied output before acquisition. I imagine that isn't too great for employees at the time who didn't want to make pew pew simulators for all eternity. Exceptions to the rule: - Mirror's Edge - Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (w/ Criterion) - Medal of Honor (multiplayer only) And that's it. That they weren't allowed to make a straight up sequel to Mirror's Edge, and only now are coming out with a "reboot" says a lot to me about EA's control over their output: crank out Battlefield games or lose funding.
chaostheory 12y ago
Bioware has had some major issues under EA as well. DICE works because they create games that work really well with EA's strategy: hollywood-esque action games for the masses
johansch 12y ago
Interestingly, one of the DICE founders (Patrick Söderlund) now runs both EA Games and EA Sports - meaning most of the game franchises except for the mobile and casual stuff.
- iamartnez 12y ago
  This is where my curiosity lies. I wonder if the DICE founders were very sharp, knew what they were getting into, and had the leverage to set the kind of terms that would maximize their chances of success. For example, I think they decided to keep the studio in Stockholm. That might have went a long way to keep the EA influence down and letting them focus on building blockbuster titles. Perhaps EA is a sink or swim kind of organization (on that level)? In a harsh kind of way. In reality most franchises do eventually sink.
venomsnake 12y ago
Bioware peak was 1998-2006 with NWN, BG 1&2, DA:O, KOTOR and JE. After that it was mediocrity all the way. ME combat mechanics brought the whole franchise down, SW:TOR was pointless (and not bioware). And Dragon Age II and Inquisition were plain boring.
- lqdc13 12y ago
  Completely agree, but I think we're in the minority. Most people seem to enjoy the streamlined style of their new titles.

deciplex 12y ago

That might be what they do, but I doubt it is fully intentional, since this is a remarkably stupid "game plan" which makes little financial sense. In the case of SimCity they have murdered what was once a popular and highly-profitable franchise. Rather it is likely a combination of fantastically stupid middle managers driven by conflicting and dysfunctional incentives coming down from upper management and the board. (BTW I just described 90% of apparently-stupid corporate behavior.)

pyrrhotech 12y ago

except that it's working very well for them. Have you taken a look at the stock price recently? Apparently customers opinions aren't bothering them too much

politician 12y ago
It doesn't matter. They aren't selling deodorant -- their customers in 10 years aren't going to be the same group of people as their customers today. See also: Hasbro, Disney.

flomo 12y ago

> Forcing use of Origin, Sims being online only So much smoke has been blown about these things, it has almost been overlooked that SimCity apparently just wasn't a very fun game. Tiny cities, bugs, overly-complicated simulator that was never really taken advantage of, etc. Had they just delivered something like SC3 with snazzy graphics, I think the silent majority (such as myself) would have purchased and played the hell out of it without a second thought to the Origin/online issues.

sorenbs 12y ago
I played it on a slow 3g connection in Bangladesh, and it mostly worked. What really killed it for me was the feeling that the feedback you got from the game wasn't consistent with the internal state of the simulation leading you to take counterproductive actions.
- flomo 12y ago
  It certainly wasn't ideal and a legitimate issue for a lot of people. But at the same time there was a group of huge loudmouths who went on the warpath because piracy/paranoia/EA hatred/whatever. The whole SC incident bothers me because there was so much screaming about the online stuff. Yet it took two weeks before you started seeing gameplay reviews which finally started admitting "Hey, this just isn't very fun..." EA brought this on themselves, so they deserve it. But I think a good game would have survived the furor. SimCity4 was a very long-tail title. (And it was pretty broken out-of-the-box, and only really playable with mods.)
  - mattmanser 12y ago
    Why? It was a poster boy for a cause. Sim city, the very definition of a single player game, forced in to some sort of Frankenstein online game for no real purpose. Gamers had had enough and sim city made a convenient rallying point. It's a bad trend that a lot of games are going through they try and force you to enjoy some sort of multiplayer or social mode with no benefit to the single player experience. And no way to turn it off.