EA Intervention
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Image is indeed a big thing. Its why I'm buying The Witcher 2 twice. The physical copy because thats how I'll play it, and the DRM free copy because it shows they actually care about their customers(and to support what may be the last, or one of the last, truly stat-based RPG's with a true branching story, to come out. Hopefully it does well). And treat them like actual people instead of thieving pirates with fat stacks of cash.
This isn't even mentioning GoG.com, which should qualify them for gaming sainthood or something.
This isn't even mentioning GoG.com, which should qualify them for gaming sainthood or something.
I wanted to say this on the Extra Credits thread, but it got too long. I didn't really have a problem with the fake Christian protesters at E3. I actually thought it was rather clever. They weren't mocking Christians. They were mocking the people who protest sight-unseen. Like the people who protested Last Temptation of Christ or Dogma. They were mocking "religious" bullies like Westboro Baptist. They were mocking the people who called for death to anyone that might draw a cartoon that features someone that might look like Mohamed. (btw, since we haven't officially seen any paintings or drawings of Mohamed in more than 1000 years, who knows what he actually looked like. Hell, he might have looked like the modern depiction of Jesus. And won't that be awkward...)
The other stuff EA did... pretty stupid.
Also, speaking of crass advertising - I wonder why no one complained about Bethesda's name your child after a character in SkyRim contest? Remember when Acclaim did the exact same thing years ago with Turok? A whole lot of people complained that.
The other stuff EA did... pretty stupid.
Also, speaking of crass advertising - I wonder why no one complained about Bethesda's name your child after a character in SkyRim contest? Remember when Acclaim did the exact same thing years ago with Turok? A whole lot of people complained that.
That's very well written and makes a ton of sense. It's just depressing how some companies don't listen and some do. It makes me wonder for those that don't why wouldn't they? So many fans of valve buy steam games even though steam is pretty known to have prices the same since launch(Black ops is still 60$ and I'm sure the price is lower in a lot of other places) what I'm saying is, stay being a dick and making bad mistakes will not help revenue but just cause you to be bought out by Apple. Then Apple takes over the world.
EA's marketing an business efforts might have misstepped badly in some areas, but i believe John Riccitello as CEO is a good thing for the industry as a whole. He was behind the initiative that spawned Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, two rather original and in many ways risky properties. Also, he was the engineer behind the quietly engenious EA Partners program which has been the publishing arm for excellent games like Bulletstorm, Deathspank and Left 4 Dead 1 and 2.
So what, its a stupid thing to have an advertising campaign that works?
EA's marketing team are controversial and it sells games, lots of games. It might annoy some people but its one company with the silly adverts. It'd be a problem if it was gaming as a whole that did it, but then it wouldn't be controversial then would it?
One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.
EA's marketing team are controversial and it sells games, lots of games. It might annoy some people but its one company with the silly adverts. It'd be a problem if it was gaming as a whole that did it, but then it wouldn't be controversial then would it?
One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.
Their marketing team may stink. But I like EA as a whole. They're trying a lot of new IPs, and buying/working with the right developers, like Bioware, Valve (EA published the console versions of Valve's games), and DICE. The biggest issue I have with them is their shit marketing, really.
The most sensible way to defeat a senseless ad-campaign: ignore it.
The most sensible way to protest a corporation you don't agree with: Don't do business with them.
The most sensible way to protest a corporation you don't agree with: Don't do business with them.
SHHHHHH!!!Shamus Young said:
We can only hope they haven't made that connection yet...
I imagine this would be a means of defense for those who would purchase a game, eat through the short campaign quickly in a few hours, then attempt to return the game.Shamus Young said:
As a means of combating piracy its useless...but as a means of combating a gamer trying to exploit the system, it makes sense.
I think everyone is dead wrong about the Dead Space 2 campaign. For one, did you see the age of the mothers? They were clearly intended to be the parent of a 20-40 year old man, given that they al looked at least 50+. I found the idea behind the commercial amusing myself (although some aspects of its execution, such as the voiceover, could have been better). It doesn't just play on the under 18's desire to play scary things they shouldn't but also the same feeling an adult male can retain.
Personally, my mother likes Dead Space. She found Extraction most amusing one wet Wednesday.
Personally, my mother likes Dead Space. She found Extraction most amusing one wet Wednesday.
I will agree that their marketing needs to be completely re-thought, especially as of late, but I do quite like them.
On the DRM front they have retreated to a rather laid-back approach (alright, it's still totally useless, but it doesn't interrupt people in anyway, not from what I've seen), instead of increasing it after what happened to Spore.
Their EA Partners program allows people to get published without interference (if you want proof: APB, a game which anyone could have said that it was crap, and it failed because of the devs, not publisher interference) and whilst they do churn out the sports stuff every year, they give free reign to the likes of BioWare and DICE.
They did get quite the image change around 2008. So, to conclude: bad marketing, quite like most of the other stuff.
On the DRM front they have retreated to a rather laid-back approach (alright, it's still totally useless, but it doesn't interrupt people in anyway, not from what I've seen), instead of increasing it after what happened to Spore.
Their EA Partners program allows people to get published without interference (if you want proof: APB, a game which anyone could have said that it was crap, and it failed because of the devs, not publisher interference) and whilst they do churn out the sports stuff every year, they give free reign to the likes of BioWare and DICE.
They did get quite the image change around 2008. So, to conclude: bad marketing, quite like most of the other stuff.
I had a big argument with a guy about this on another thread; the one which started with OP suggesting that people forward the EC movie to any EA exec they could get an e-mail address for.dogstile said:
He was of the opinion that EA's marketing is working by creating a lot of free press for their products, there's no such thing as bad publicity, EA's job is to make money, not win friends, and commercials don't have to be art. I admitted that he had a point, but I also told him that you can accomplish the goals of making money and getting free publicity without resorting to sensationalistic tactics that make your customers look bad (if you're smart, that is), and that there is definitely such a thing as bad publicity, especially if you're in the middle of some relevant litigation (just ask Richard Nixon).
I brought this up as an example of the dichotomy that's present on The Escapist right now.
A lot of people agree with EC, but many think EC is just being preachy and pretentious, and that they're overreacting because EA's shenanigans aren't really a problem (like dogstile here).
I don't know which side is really in the right here (you already know what I believe), but what I think we can all agree on is that EA could be doing better by their customers as far as the whole DRM and digital distribution thing goes, and that they absolutely do not NEED to make advertising that, if nothing else, embarrasses and offends their customers.
Those of us who are "freaking out and suggesting that the industry kowtow to that mentality" are NOT AT ALL doing that. We are NOT saying that the industry needs to back down content in order to appease those who would like to define artistic expression. What we are saying is that the industry needs to understand that what they do in marketing and altering these games does to our credibility as an art form. Let me explain the points brought up in both EC and EP (as they relate to artistic expression) since you appear to have missed them entirely.Sir John the Net Knight said:
1) Dante's Inferno - Sin to Win. The entirety of this campaign cast a very negative light on gaming as an art form, since this actually gives ammo to idiots like Carol Lieberman who are fine with saying "Games cause rape" even without facts. Imagine what they could do WITH facts, even very very minor ones!
2) Dante's Inferno - Protestors. Sure, this seemed harmless to our industry, as it was a parody. However, once it was discovered that EA had paid them to do this in order to get publicity, the media had a field day with it. Did it get EA publicity? Yep. Did it reduce the power of games as an artistic medium in the eyes of the public? Yep. The public had evidence that games were so shallow they had to lie in order to sell them.
3) Medal of Honor - Taliban Removal. Simply put, EA was able to say "This is art, we are allowed to do this, just as any movie could." Guess what, they didn't. The one time EA has had the chance to severely improve the idea that games are art in the eyes of the public it chose to validate the games are toys idea.
4) Dead Space - Your Mom Hates DS2. No one is saying DS2 should have been toned down, at least not in this thread. However, the way that EA marketed this was unacceptable. Why?
a) The court case mentioned in EP is going to validate or deny the games are art idea when it comes to free speech.
b) The case is based in the idea that violent games are being marketed and sold to children and this shouldn't happen.
c) The games industry said "No, violent games are not being marketed and sold to children."
So this case is pretty much wrapped up... oh wait, here comes EA marketing an M rated game utilizing a marketing technique which works best on adolescents and using statements such as "It's violent, it's bloody, it's everything you want in a game." This COMPLETELY undermines what our industry has said, both on the front of the marketing and on the front of artistic expression.
Notice, all 3 of the marketing campaigns (which are the things being railed on) could have not existed, and the artistic merit of the games been still involved. This would have been perfectly acceptable to pretty much everybody... Even the Medal of Honor thing, as EC states, would have had the gaming community rallying for EA in no time, but EA backed down, and let us down.
tl;dr version - No one is complaining that companies should restrict their artistic design. We are complaining that they are not being smart in their marketing, and hurting the industry as a whole in the eyes of the public through this stupidity.
Ahh that, I was wondering if you meant that or an actual game I hadn't heard of (referring to hot coffee).Fronzel said:
Of course they can cry and preach all they want about it. But those people are not the supreme court (which this article mentions, though indirectly). In my (admittedly rather brief) knowledge of the supreme court, they tend to not overreact. They actually look in detail, which is where all the anti gaming arguments fall apart.
So i'm not worried that one company, or even a few company's make games that are perceived as "bad" because when their complaints are looked it, it turns out they're talking out of their asses.
So i'll stick with my point. People should stop overreacting. It's not the end of the world nor the end of the industry.