EA Clarifies Free-to-Play, Connected Gaming Comments

[Andy Chalk]

EA Clarifies Free-to-Play, Connected Gaming Comments

Peter Moore of Electronic Arts says the publisher will continue to develop offline, single-player games, and not all of them will be free-to-play.

Speaking at Gamescom over the past weekend, Electronic Arts COO Peter Moore made the rather bold statement [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/127171-EA-Plans-Free-To-Play-For-Every-Major-Franchise] that "We don't ship a game at EA that is offline," and furthermore, "The ability to be able to interact with [Battlefield and FIFA] on a free-to-play basis has got to be part and parcel of every major franchise we do now." Many gamers seemed to immediately envision a future in which EA charges full price for its games and then demands more money for separate but essential content, all while forcing players to maintain a connection to the hated Origin. It did not go over well.

But in a "quick clarification" posted yesterday, Moore explained that his words were widely misinterpreted, and that while most games today are online in some fashion, he did not mean that every game EA puts out will require a connection to the internet in order to work. "Many, if not most, of our games include single-player, offline modes that you can play entirely without an Internet connection, if you so choose," he wrote. "We know that's something many of our players want, and we will continue to deliver it."

The same holds true for EA's long-term plans for free-to-play. "Many of our most popular franchises for PCs and mobile - including Battlefield, Need for Speed, FIFA, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Plants vs. Zombies and now Madden NFL, to name a few - already offer free-to-play experiences," he continued. "However, NOT ALL of EA's games will offer a free-to-play mode. We will continue to explore new free-to-play experiences for our franchises when we believe there is gamer interest and a cool new game we can build."

It's a tricky message to deliver, complicated by loosely-defined terminology and the fact that very few gamers are willing to give EA the benefit of the doubt on anything. Its recent history hasn't helped, either; Origin has made great strides but remains unloved, the SimCity launch was an absolute debacle and an awful lot of Plants vs. Zombies fans aren't happy with the sequel's transition to a straight-up free-to-play game. The truth remains that while free-to-play and connectivity may not be inherently bad, it sure is awfully easy to do bad things with them.

Source: Electronic Arts [http://www.ea.com/news/a-quick-clarification-on-online-games]


Permalink

 

[Kargathia]

Regardless of their intentions; it's quite apparent that EA still does not understand that for gamers "always online" isn't a benefit, but a pretty massive drawback that has to be overcome by even greater benefits.

By now it should've been obvious to them that loaded terms like these shouldn't be used as thoughtless advertising. Every time they have to go back and clarify themselves, merely to head off yet another PR disaster, is a PR fuckup in and of itself - and they just don't learn.

 

[Frostbyte666]

I really don't trust his clarification especially since he has the gall to say that many people want single player offline but release Simcity as it is.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

OK, what is wrong with gaming executives that they are consistently making bumbling press releases full of half-baked thoughts regarding very important and worrying issues in gaming that seem to take everything we hate and turn it into company policy, then when the gaming audience understandably calls them out on their treatise of bollocks they shout "It's not what you think! We didn't mean that at all!" and completely contradict everything said in the first statement.

If I lived in America I would seriously consider launching a business based on giving public relations talks to idiot executives in high profile public positions about how not to be an ass on social media, and how to release public statements that don't make everything a million times worse, and Microsoft and EA's braindead statements alone would give me more than enough material for the entire thing.

Understand your audience. Don't insult them for not allowing you to take all their consumer rights away. Make games that the audience of that genre are interested in, not the audiences of a separate genre that aren't going to play your game anyway! Don't insult your audience. Don't speak until you know exactly what you want to say, and then say it as clearly as possible. DON'T INSULT YOUR AUDIENCE. It's not rocket science people. Sheesh.

 

[Erttheking]

Is it just me or has there been a lot of people in the gaming industry desperately pulling the foots out of their mouths as of late?

 

[Talvrae]

I'm still scarred for what it mean for Dragon Age: Inquisition....
will see what it will mean for it then i guess

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Yes that's right, blame your audience for misinterpreting your poorly chosen choice of phrase. They'll only be too happy to vote you Worst Company in America for another year.

 

[Doom972]

Putting whether or not people did misinterpret it aside, wouldn't it be better if he didn't make the original statement at all? What was it supposed to accomplish anyway?

 

[RJ 17]

"We don't ship a game at EA that is offline," and furthermore, "The ability to be able to interact with [Battlefield and FIFA] on a free-to-play basis has got to be part and parcel of every major franchise we do now."

Unless you were misquoted, it's kinda hard for that statement to be misinterpreted, Pete. "We don't ship a game at EA that is offline" can really only be translated as "Every game we ship requires online capabilities." while "a free-to-play basis has got to be part and parcel of every major franchise we do now" can really only be translated as "From now on, every major franchise we put out is going to be on a Free-to-Play model."

Now, if you misspoke then fair enough, but don't blame us for hearing the words that came out of your mouth.

Personally I think they did a turbo-Microsoft and released that statement, had a pile of "FUCK YOU!" thrown at them, then immediately decided "Ehhhhhh, maybe not....SO! To clarify...."

 

[lacktheknack]

Yes that's right, blame your audience for misinterpreting your poorly chosen choice of phrase. They'll only be too happy to vote you Worst Company in America for another year.

They'll be awful people, then.

OT: I figured. What everyone was wanting to believe just didn't gel with their actions past and present. (Except SimCity, but I doubt they'll want to repeat that again.)

 

[Ghonzor]

Plants Vs. Zombies 2 is an example of how to poorly do FTP, and it's exactly what I would expect from EA. $3 for a fucking basic plant from the first game? 5 plants total from the original are locked behind a pay wall. It's absolute bullshit.

 

[Infernai]

OK, what is wrong with gaming executives that they are consistently making bumbling press releases full of half-baked thoughts regarding very important and worrying issues in gaming that seem to take everything we hate and turn it into company policy, then when the gaming audience understandably calls them out on their treatise of bollocks they shout "It's not what you think! We didn't mean that at all!" and completely contradict everything said in the first statement.

If I lived in America I would seriously consider launching a business based on giving public relations talks to idiot executives in high profile public positions about how not to be an ass on social media, and how to release public statements that don't make everything a million times worse, and Microsoft and EA's braindead statements alone would give me more than enough material for the entire thing.

Understand your audience. Don't insult them for not allowing you to take all their consumer rights away. Make games that the audience of that genre are interested in, not the audiences of a separate genre that aren't going to play your game anyway! Don't insult your audience. Don't speak until you know exactly what you want to say, and then say it as clearly as possible. DON'T INSULT YOUR AUDIENCE. It's not rocket science people. Sheesh.

To be honest, Gaming has a big P.R Problem and i'm glad to know I'm not the only one that's seen it. Some companies are doing ok but others, well, they think insulting their audience is a good idea when it is arguably among one of the worst things you can do.

Honestly i think alot of this could be solved if Gaming companies went through a basic P.R course of some kind to at-least learn how to address and deal with customers.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Why don't EA like their customers? They can't do F2P right.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I haven't seen backpedaling like this since the last Microsoft PR release!

Seriously Publishers should learn that what sounds good in the boardroom and to investors doesn't nessceray translate to sounding good to their customers. And if the customers don't like it and don't buy said games/products that results in everyone being unhappy.

 

[Something Amyss]

I really don't trust his clarification especially since he has the gall to say that many people want single player offline but release Simcity as it is.

It's possible they actually learned from that, though. They've done a fair bit since SimShitty.

 

[CriticalMiss]

So when Peter Moore said:

We don't ship a game at EA that is offline

He actually meant:

We do ship a game at EA that is offline

How silly of us to misinterpret his statement as meaning the exact opposite of what he clearly meant.

 

[Dr.Awkward]

You know, if Moore has no idea how to run his mouth, how did he get his position as COO?

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Yes that's right, blame your audience for misinterpreting your poorly chosen choice of phrase. They'll only be too happy to vote you Worst Company in America for another year.

They'll be awful people, then.

OT: I figured. What everyone was wanting to believe just didn't gel with their actions past and present. (Except SimCity, but I doubt they'll want to repeat that again.)

Well, yeah. EA constantly winning this award when there are far more 'deserving' companies out there (like Haliburton, Bank of America etc) really only goes to show how many gamers lack a sense of proportion.

But then at the same time, you'd think EA might at least react to it by considering that they need to smooth over their PR techniques.

 

[unstabLized]

Just don't fuck with my Battlefront. That's all I ask. It might be the only time I buy an EA product since 2011.