Where EA Went Wrong
Electronic Arts' business model is broken. But can it be fixed?
Read Full Article
Electronic Arts' business model is broken. But can it be fixed?
Read Full Article
Where EA Went Wrong
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
I agree with everything here...but then I look at Assassins Creed's yearly release and am truly confused at how they get away with it. Maybe because there's nothing else like it...whilst EA try to emulate other existing successes (sometimes steering existing franchises into something they were not intended to be). ie. WOW alternative, gears of war alternative, COD alternative.
While i am not going to argue that shaving development time happens, is a bad thing and games suffer because of it, there is something important you are overlooking here.
The first installment of a new IP with a new combat system should always take longer then the second or third. It is the foundation they will be built on. That first game has to create and sell an entire universe, while the others simply have to update it.
The first installment needs to decide on genre, tone, lore, characters, themes, initial gameplay design, aesthetics, creating or choosing an engine.......it has to build or decide everything. For the sequels, while the devs should certainly make them distinct games in their own right rather then a quick repeat of the original are still building on and updating what the first game gave us. Mass Effect 2 is a good example. They didn't hesitate to remove anything that brought the experience of ME1 down for most players, tossing out the combat system from and redesigning it from the ground up. ANd yet, even with much less dev time, Mass Effect 2 had much more content then ME1.
Most insightful article I have read in a long time Shamus no joke (might be my favorite of the escapist). The 3rd point was well researched, reasoned, and it was a 10/10. I actually learned something from reading that article. Please keep up the good work!
Edit: You have gained a fan too.
Edit: You have gained a fan too.
I'm not entirely sure they have. Assassin's Creed was good, but had some issues. 2 was amazing. Brotherhood was also amazing...except for that ending. But hey, still awesome stuff! Revelations was okay...but now we're getting long in the tooth with Ezio. 3 went to a new hero! But the glitches. And other issues. [http://kotaku.com/5967220/assassins-creed-iiis-final-chase-sequence-was-the-worst-thing-i-played-all-year] Can they afford to be that sloppy with Black Flag? If there are similar issues (poorly designed levels, frustrating sequences, glitches galore) will that be the end? Would they have these problems if they weren't being so aggressive on releases?IronMit said:
I think you're right on saying they've gotten as far as they have because it is a unique setting and story. I'm just afraid they've pushed their luck a little too far. Here's hoping I'm wrong.
This article reminded me very heavily of a video on the topic, and has a similar level of just-plain-right-ness. The article just makes sense, and is something everyone at EA should read. This video, too, is a fantastic (and funny) summation of the issues with EA, made shortly after the release of Mass Effect 3, though it is still applicable for EA's current troubles; something that EA should DEFINITELY watch.
In short, EA is scared. They're afraid of losing money and are continuously pulling that slot lever hoping to get a jackpot.
In short, EA is scared. They're afraid of losing money and are continuously pulling that slot lever hoping to get a jackpot.
This has become my favorite blog on Escapist, keep up the excellent work. Finally an intelligent, well spoken way of discussing what is wrong with the game industry and not just bashing in general.
Excellent article. Just a shame nobody with decision-making power at EA is reading.
Or was. Maybe the new guy will be less clueless.
EA has games I'd want to play, but I don't because of Origin. Steam is everything I could ever want in a distribution platform and Origin has nothing to offer me but invasive datamining. Screw 'em. I hope their stock price drops below $10 and Valve buys them out. I welcome our new Gaben overlords.
Or was. Maybe the new guy will be less clueless.
EA has games I'd want to play, but I don't because of Origin. Steam is everything I could ever want in a distribution platform and Origin has nothing to offer me but invasive datamining. Screw 'em. I hope their stock price drops below $10 and Valve buys them out. I welcome our new Gaben overlords.
I'd say that EA is being a bit stupid, at least in their choice of executives. Look at the founder, Trip Hawkins [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trip_Hawkins]. He's an entrepenuer, sure, but he's also an engineer and a game designer; after he left EA, he started 3DO and (after it failed) a new company called Digital Chocolate. You bring up VALVe and Mojang as well in the article, and both of those companies are still being run by gamers and game developers.
Compare that with Executive Chairman Larry Probst [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Probst] and the old CEO John Riccitiello [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Riccitiello]. Both of them are professional businessmen. Naturally, a company needs good businesspeople or it will fail, but it shows a disconnect with the market.
EA doesn't know what they're doing because the executives are not clued into the market. They're trying to run the company based on what they know about other entertainment industries and business in general, and they're not understanding that the game industry is still very young and very much in flux. They want everything to be yearly releases and COD clones because that's what they see working for other games (and for movies; you mention a lot of genres that a studio can produce, but we have to remember that every year a big studio produces at least one movie in each of those genres).
Compare that with Executive Chairman Larry Probst [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Probst] and the old CEO John Riccitiello [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Riccitiello]. Both of them are professional businessmen. Naturally, a company needs good businesspeople or it will fail, but it shows a disconnect with the market.
EA doesn't know what they're doing because the executives are not clued into the market. They're trying to run the company based on what they know about other entertainment industries and business in general, and they're not understanding that the game industry is still very young and very much in flux. They want everything to be yearly releases and COD clones because that's what they see working for other games (and for movies; you mention a lot of genres that a studio can produce, but we have to remember that every year a big studio produces at least one movie in each of those genres).
1- EA would rather understand fans of "casual games" than RPG fans.
2- Their problem crash spending is with buying up studios like PopCap AFTER they've made their big hits and before everyone realizes that lightning rarely strikes twice in games.
3- See above. EA could have bought dozens of small studios for the price they paid to PopCap. Only one of them would need to have a hit. Bejeweled and Plants vs. Zombies are not valuable IP that can be mined for years, they're formulas that are easy to copy (see EA vs Zynga).
4- At the end of the FY, I think PC games are such a minor portion of their revenue that Origin is barely worth their time. They're far more worried about the iTunes App Store and about the next generation of consoles' stores than about Steam.
Instead of worrying about their own pipes, I think you'll see EA recommit to having every one of their IPs available in some form on EVERY pipeline available.
2- Their problem crash spending is with buying up studios like PopCap AFTER they've made their big hits and before everyone realizes that lightning rarely strikes twice in games.
3- See above. EA could have bought dozens of small studios for the price they paid to PopCap. Only one of them would need to have a hit. Bejeweled and Plants vs. Zombies are not valuable IP that can be mined for years, they're formulas that are easy to copy (see EA vs Zynga).
4- At the end of the FY, I think PC games are such a minor portion of their revenue that Origin is barely worth their time. They're far more worried about the iTunes App Store and about the next generation of consoles' stores than about Steam.
Instead of worrying about their own pipes, I think you'll see EA recommit to having every one of their IPs available in some form on EVERY pipeline available.
I disagree with you there.AntiChri5 said:
New installments have to update, expand and improve on the previous games.
This is something both ME2 and 3 failed to do.
In number 2 the shooting mechanics were better, but the planetary exploration and Mako were notably absent. Replaced with the scanner and a couple of strictly linear short sections in the Hammerhead. They could have improved the Mako's collision detection and turning circle so it was more forgiving to use (and by extension more fun) whilst replacing the procedurally generated planets with a smaller number of bespoke maps.
The Overlord expansion showed some promise, using the Hammerhead in a similar way to the Mako but with an emphasis on platforming over straight up rock crawling. I really enjoyed that, even if it was only a short section.
By part three the tanks (and exploration) are gone entirely, replaced with a few (IIRC four?) short turret sections within a series of entirely linear infantry maps.
That's not improving anything, that's a race to the bottom, paring out anything and everything deemed unsafe until all that's left are the same homogenous mechanics you find everywhere else. I enjoyed the Mako sections, I am aware that's an unpopular opinion but running down Geth and mercs from the wheel of a space dropped tank was a lot of fun. It was also something that set Mass Effect apart from everything else. I played 3 to finish the story I'd sank over a hundred hours into already, if 3 is representative of the gameplay and design for four then I see nothing to interest me.
This was a very well written article. EA has been in a lot of trouble for quite some time. If they don't rethink their business practices now, they will eventually reach a point of no return.
I don't think they will do much longer though. People were getting serious Ezio fatigue by Revelations, and Assassins Creed 3 felt like an unpolished mess.IronMit said:
I know that metacritic isn't the most reliable source, but AC3 [http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/assassins-creed-iii] has many more negative and mixed user reviews than AC2 [http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/assassins-creed-ii].
I've personally had enough of the franchise by this point.
Ending an Experienced Points with a to be continued? How could you Shamus? I am kind of hoping, though, that this means you might add a little blurb on what you think Rikki-Tikki-Tello's resignation means for the future of EA.
I disagree with your disagreement. ME2 and 3 expanded and improved on most of the things in the games before them that were worth expanding and improving on. While discarding what wasn't.fix-the-spade said:
I am currently replaying ME1, and the "exploration" in the Mako is making me want to punch a kitten. I have no preoblem with exploration in games, but ME1 did it terribly. It wasn't worth saving. But i will admit, the planet scanning was fucking terrible. Goddamn bane of ME2.
You seem to think that the vehicle segments were a part of what set Mass Effect apart from the "homogenous mechanics" and i couldn't disagree more. The only thing about the mako that wasn't boring and generic was the mountain climbing, which was hilarious at first but got old fast. Almost every game with guns the past few years has vehicle segments where you can mow down or run over guys in a tank or APC or jeep. And almost all of them are better designed. There was nothing uniquely Mass Effecty about the Mako.
What sets the ME games apart, in terms of gameplay, are the powers and the gameplay variation and they certainly expanded on that. ME1 had 6 guns and a dozen or so powers. ME 2 had....what was it 13, 14? guns and roughly the same amount of powers (but they were redesigned to be much more interesting). ME3 has way too many guns and powers to for me to have an accurate count off the top of my hand, and the melee combat has been drastically improved. In ME3, i can perform fantastically as a gun toting soldier and play it as a pure TPS. Or i can ignore guns alltogehter, focus purely on powers and still absolutely kick ass. Or i can ignore them both, go with a melee build and beat the crap out of everything, even on the higher difficulties.
Judging by the pre-release comments of ME1, they wanted to make a shooter that could compete with any pure shooter on the market while still being an RPG where you could practically ignore gunplay in favour of using powers. They never delivered that so well as ME3.
Don't get me wrong, not every step was perfect. There are things ME1 did better then any other game in the series, and all three have unique and serious flaws. BUt i really think that they did "update and improve". IM sorry if it wasn't in the areas you wanted.
I also agree with everything Shamus said.IronMit said:
As for Assassins Creed, I'd argue their not really - so far they have, but the quality of the games is definitely going downhill, and I'm willing to bet some money that their sells of Assassins Creed are in decline or will be soon.
Though I do think they've keep the decline slow by having two dev teams - one works on AC n, the other AC n+1; this effectively gives each game two years development rather than just one... but yeah, still diminishing returns over the sequels.
Great article, I agree with the points and would love to see EA learn to pace itself properly. It's certainly a disturbing trend to see pacing go completely out the window. The cake analogy is brilliant and as someone who has worked in software testing I can tell you that actual time is necessary to properly make software.
I'd add to that list the incredibly bad understanding of PR. It's almost a moral imperative to not buy their games now. They simply don't understand their customers and that certainly falls under number 1 but it goes further than that. Stuff like lying to our faces and supporting SOPA are ways to make us hate them, let alone forcing DRM that actually cripples a game.
I'd add to that list the incredibly bad understanding of PR. It's almost a moral imperative to not buy their games now. They simply don't understand their customers and that certainly falls under number 1 but it goes further than that. Stuff like lying to our faces and supporting SOPA are ways to make us hate them, let alone forcing DRM that actually cripples a game.