71–80 of 204 posts
Westwood, Origin, Bullfrog, Maxis.... EA's strategy seems to be "Buy studio, make them shovel a couple incomplete games out of the door, close studio, repeat." Okay, they're asshats. What I don't get is, how does this make them any money? They're basically strip-mining the games industry, is this really more profitable than actually making good games?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the plus side, it looks like there is a vacancy in the simulation game market...
Coincidentally I was just looking back into the state of city simulation games the other day. On my list of "Games I have played beyond any reasonable number of hours" is Sim City 4 with the various mods available. I was, like most, disappointed with the 2013 offering. Cities XL never really piqued my interest, and I've also switched entirely to Linux for my desktop needs. Then the other day I heard about an upcoming…
but can you even??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a strategy, it's better than being profitable: it's predictable. The forecasts for the upcoming financial quarters are much more likely to be accurate when you only work with known IP. The CEO is more beholden to analysts and stockholders than to customers. He has more to lose by failing expectations than he has to gain by exceeding expectations. Therefore, EA adopts a strategy that minimizes variance rather than…
This is pretty much how a deadly virus works, right? Infect a particular game brand (cell) by buying (infecting) it, generate enough new copies of the virus (selling the game), then destroy it and release the virus onto the next cells. If the analogy is correct, the game market will either die, find a cure and eject EA or EA adapts and finds a way to coexist such as not to kill the host cells anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coincidentally I was just looking back into the state of city simulation games the other day. On my list of "Games I have played beyond any reasonable number of hours" is Sim City 4 with the various mods available. I was, like most, disappointed with the 2013 offering. Cities XL never really piqued my interest, and I've also switched entirely to Linux for my desktop needs. Then the other day I heard about an upcoming…
> I was, like most, disappointed but can you even??
He was disappointed, a sentiment that was shared by many others.
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'r…
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.
Westwood, Origin, Bullfrog, Maxis.... EA's strategy seems to be "Buy studio, make them shovel a couple incomplete games out of the door, close studio, repeat." Okay, they're asshats. What I don't get is, how does this make them any money? They're basically strip-mining the games industry, is this really more profitable than actually making good games?
EA has at least one other strategy, with EA Sports: every year they come out with a new and improved Football, Basketball, Hockey, Golf, etc. and people get it. Madden NFL has been going since 1988. To be fair, EA Sports did discontinue some of their less popular games, such as Rugby and Cricket.
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'r…
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.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a strategy, it's better than being profitable: it's predictable. The forecasts for the upcoming financial quarters are much more likely to be accurate when you only work with known IP. The CEO is more beholden to analysts and stockholders than to customers. He has more to lose by failing expectations than he has to gain by exceeding expectations. Therefore, EA adopts a strategy that minimizes variance rather than…
This is pretty much how a deadly virus works, right? Infect a particular game brand (cell) by buying (infecting) it, generate enough new copies of the virus (selling the game), then destroy it and release the virus onto the next cells. If the analogy is correct, the game market will either die, find a cure and eject EA or EA adapts and finds a way to coexist such as not to kill the host cells anymore.