EA Exec: Games Aren't "Mass Market" Yet

[Eicha]

Every single major jack-of-all-trades store (Target, Wal Mart, ect.) has massive game sections. These sections of the store dwarf the books, and mre recently, CD sections of the store. New, hot games are being advertised on TV. Almost everyone on the damn planet owns a console in some way shape or form. How are videogames NOT mass-market?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Really? I can walk into a Target and grab a (probably shitty) game right off the shelf on my way through checkout.

If games don't hold mainstream appeal right now they will very soon. It's inevitable as the generations who grew up with video games supplant the previous generations who didn't; with or without your shitty TV apps.

 

[Johnson McGee]

So while TV is hemorrhaging viewers to internet based streaming services and increasingly larger numbers of young adults don't even own one, EA looks at TV and says "Yes, I want that."

Not to mention that gaming releases are outstripping even movies in terms of revenue.

 

[Covarr]

Traditional Television (cable/satellite): Sixty bucks a month gets you your choice of hundreds of new episodes of shows. Even if you only watch an average of half an hour a night, and it's probably safe to say that most TV viewers watch considerably more, that's still fifteen hours of content (eleven hours if you factor in commercials).

Netflix + Hulu Plus: Sixteen bucks a month gets you a fuckton of content, far more than you could possibly go through. Damn good value.

Going to the movies: Sixty bucks a month gets you into six movies (ish; prices vary). At a typical 1:30 a movie (and that's lowballing), that's at least nine hours of content, probably more depending on what's in theaters.

Buying new games: Sixty bucks a month gets you one game, generally six to eight hours of content for a single player campaign, possibly far more if its got good multiplayer or serious replay value (which most games don't don't).

What am I getting at? For every Left 4 Dead or Call of Duty with a reason to keep playing it far beyond a single run through the campaign, there's dozens of Bioshocks and Uncharteds, which may be good, but just don't have as much potential time-spending to them as other media. A large part of the reason behind the success of recent indie bundles, free to play games, and even flash game sites like Kongregate and Newgrounds, is that people perceive it as much higher value than AAA games.

Another factor to consider is customer risk. If I spend eight bucks on a Netflix subscription and I don't like the first show or movie I put on, I can watch something else, without having to pay again. If I don't like a show on TV, I can change the channel. If I find a flash game online I don't like, I can always move onto another one. Hell, even a brand new movie in the theaters is a relatively small loss if I end up hating it. If I spend sixty bucks on Aliens: Colonial Marines, however, at best I can hope to make back a fraction of that (typically less than half) selling it back to Gamestop, or on eBay, etc... OR NOTHING AT ALL IF IT NEEDS ACTIVATED ON ORIGIN OR STEAM. This makes games a pretty high-risk investment that consumers are a lot less likely to be comfortable.

This is one area where Humble Bundles were really clever; they offer the chance to spend next to nothing, and increase your payment later. I can be a complete dick and buy five games for only a dollar, and then if I like them give the developers more money. Most people probably don't do this unless a really appealing beat-the-average game is added, but the ability is there. This makes the games very low risk, and puts consumers in a position where they don't have to worry about wasting a lot of money on something they might not like.

tl;dr - AAA games are high risk, low value purchases. Throwing money at graphics and presentation (especially when done at the expense of gameplay, such as with Medal of Honor Warfighter) and then raising the price to match exacerbates this problem. Fix this, or at the very least be willing to accept smaller profit margins so you can lower prices, if you want to reach a larger market.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Arrogancy]

It seems like EA is seeing big markets that DON'T play games ( probably for reasons...) and saying "hey! look at all these people not playing our games! We need to throw more games at them and they'll surely give us all their moneys!"

Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved on to saying something like "Hey! People like food, right? Let's shove a gameboy into all the meat, and embed apps onto the vegetables! People will love us for that, right?! RIGHT?!"

It's pretty sad, really.

EA, you guys have millions of people who ALREADY know you exist, and would buy your games if they weren't consistently moneygrubbing, rushed, low quality, anti-consumer, DRM using shit. Maybe you should, you know, solidify your existing consumer base who are growing wise to your bullshit instead of trying to herd in a new gang of lemmings to scam with your bullshit.

While this is sound advice, there's some credence to the idea that it won't work. I read an article on Forbes' website the other day discussing EA and their recent dishonor of winning the WCIA Golden Poo again. In it the author discussed that EA is really in a pretty impossible position at the moment. They've spent much of the last decade destroying their credibility and rapidly expending the goodwill of their customers, so much so that there's almost nothing left. For EA, right now, attempting to change their business model and become a consumer-friendly company that doesn't try to nickel-and-dime their consumers will quite possibly kill them. They need time to rebuild their customer goodwill, time to roll back their insane DRM schemes and remove their moronic microtransactions from full-priced games.

During this time they will sell fewer units because of ruined loyalty, and every time they let up the controls, they WILL lose money, money that won't be reproduced in a direct correlation with sales because everyone hates them. At this point, if they change their model they will hemorrhage money for at least a few years until people start liking them again. However, they're already losing market share rapidly with their current practices. Basically, this double bind will see that EA in the next few years will either be humbled and try to regain their footing, or else wither and die slowly (or quickly depending on how things go for them).

 

[Ambitiousmould]

I'm fairly sure that less people have smart TVs than play video games, especially seeing as though those smart TV owners probably don't use them for gaming. To be honest, if they moved away from games entirely and worked on this instead, I would be think "Well, they're somebody else's problem now" but I don't think they'll leave, as much as I want them to.

EA should really try to make amends with it's current customer base and maybe then sell more games, but instead they're giving up.

 

[VinLAURiA]

Ladies and gentlemen, the consequences of letting your video game company be run by suits and stockholders.

 

[Xarathox]

Like Red Sand through Illium customs, so to are the Relays of Our Lives.

As The Elcore Turns: The longest running extranet series in Citadel history.

This just made my day, so much. Thank you for that.

 

[Tien Shen]

As usual, EA shows how it does not understand the market it's supposed to be catering too. Their solution? Cater to a market that they never catered too in the first place! Yeah that will work out well.

 

[Sight Unseen]

It seems like EA is seeing big markets that DON'T play games ( probably for reasons...) and saying "hey! look at all these people not playing our games! We need to throw more games at them and they'll surely give us all their moneys!"

Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved on to saying something like "Hey! People like food, right? Let's shove a gameboy into all the meat, and embed apps onto the vegetables! People will love us for that, right?! RIGHT?!"

It's pretty sad, really.

EA, you guys have millions of people who ALREADY know you exist, and would buy your games if they weren't consistently moneygrubbing, rushed, low quality, anti-consumer, DRM using shit. Maybe you should, you know, solidify your existing consumer base who are growing wise to your bullshit instead of trying to herd in a new gang of lemmings to scam with your bullshit.

While this is sound advice, there's some credence to the idea that it won't work. I read an article on Forbes' website the other day discussing EA and their recent dishonor of winning the WCIA Golden Poo again. In it the author discussed that EA is really in a pretty impossible position at the moment. They've spent much of the last decade destroying their credibility and rapidly expending the goodwill of their customers, so much so that there's almost nothing left. For EA, right now, attempting to change their business model and become a consumer-friendly company that doesn't try to nickel-and-dime their consumers will quite possibly kill them. They need time to rebuild their customer goodwill, time to roll back their insane DRM schemes and remove their moronic microtransactions from full-priced games.

During this time they will sell fewer units because of ruined loyalty, and every time they let up the controls, they WILL lose money, money that won't be reproduced in a direct correlation with sales because everyone hates them. At this point, if they change their model they will hemorrhage money for at least a few years until people start liking them again. However, they're already losing market share rapidly with their current practices. Basically, this double bind will see that EA in the next few years will either be humbled and try to regain their footing, or else wither and die slowly (or quickly depending on how things go for them).

They could at least, you know, make some semblance of an effort to turn the corner though... They still seem to be going full steam ahead with their self-destruction. Every time they make a press release they make themselves look like even bigger assholes. At this point, I think it would serve them better to stop what they're doing, look at themselves and then make a release saying "we fucked up, we see what we did wrong, and we're going to try and fix it." Sure, a lot of people will be skeptical at first, but if they actually follow through with it, I can see them repairing the damage they've done relatively quickly, even if their transition is gradual.

All I really want from them is some acknowledgement and some indication that they're turning things around, and a bit more transparency and less blatant lies... Is that so much to ask? lol.

 

[Vigormortis]

I know what the guy is trying to say with his key-note speech to all those TV big-wigs. I know what his, and EAs, interpretation of his words are.

But frankly? All I'm hearing is, "We're EA and we're losing money. A LOT of money. So pay us some so we can stay afloat and continue to make games. After all, people need TVs to play games. Meaning the more games we make, the more reason people have to buy TVs."

How are they going to water down their games any further at this point?

My guess? Someone over there has been studying up on homeopathy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy] and thought it sounded like a great idea. A smart way to fix their "problems".

EA shouldn't allow their Execs to speak in public. It's never a good thing when they do.

Nonsense! I say let them ALL speak! Whenever they please.

Some days I need a good laugh. EA execs almost never fail to provide in that regard.

 

[onyx_sword]

EA, you guys have millions of people who ALREADY know you exist, and would buy your games if they weren't consistently moneygrubbing, rushed, low quality, anti-consumer, DRM using shit. Maybe you should, you know, solidify your existing consumer base who are growing wise to your bullshit instead of trying to herd in a new gang of lemmings to scam with your bullshit.

While this is sound advice, there's some credence to the idea that it won't work. I read an article on Forbes' website the other day discussing EA and their recent dishonor of winning the WCIA Golden Poo again. In it the author discussed that EA is really in a pretty impossible position at the moment. They've spent much of the last decade destroying their credibility and rapidly expending the goodwill of their customers, so much so that there's almost nothing left. For EA, right now, attempting to change their business model and become a consumer-friendly company that doesn't try to nickel-and-dime their consumers will quite possibly kill them. They need time to rebuild their customer goodwill, time to roll back their insane DRM schemes and remove their moronic microtransactions from full-priced games.

They could at least, you know, make some semblance of an effort to turn the corner though... They still seem to be going full steam ahead with their self-destruction. Every time they make a press release they make themselves look like even bigger assholes. At this point, I think it would serve them better to stop what they're doing, look at themselves and then make a release saying "we fucked up, we see what we did wrong, and we're going to try and fix it." Sure, a lot of people will be skeptical at first, but if they actually follow through with it, I can see them repairing the damage they've done relatively quickly, even if their transition is gradual.

All I really want from them is some acknowledgement and some indication that they're turning things around, and a bit more transparency and less blatant lies... Is that so much to ask? lol.

EA will never change because they never have. Anything popular they own is used until they no longer see value in it. They then shelve the brand, never to be used again. Look at the Road Rash series or the 'Strike' games. They could EASILY make another Road Rash, but they don't. Why? Every time EA tries to do Road Rash, they set the bar too high. They keep trying to make it mind-blowing, but it doesn't need to be! The formula is very simple. (Rail Racer + Motorcycle + Fighting = Road Rash) The game never needed realistic physics or full 3D environments.

To EA, the brand name is all that matters. They don't seem to understand that brand loyalty is not blind. They know that loyalty is hard to gain, but they don't seem to realize it is very easy to lose. EA appears to believe that a brand is only valuable while it is trendy.

 

[masticina]

What did I just read. I get that PR tends to make any messsage harder to understand but this is like written in secret code.

Lets see.. what kind of secret message could they have hid in here.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Man, I'm disappointed with a majority of the people in this thread.
He's exactly right and a strategy to expand into untapped markets/new mediums, making your product more convenient and accessible, is a very smart idea for a company to pursue, but naturally because it's EA people still leap straight into a 'herp derp EA bad and stupid hur hur' response, instead of adding any proper discussion value to the topic at hand. :/
((or even thinking through their responses, and making sure they don't outright contradict themself))

Seriously guys? Stuff like 'origin copied steam, EA are stupid for not innovating like steam did', and 'now they're looking to innovate by tapping into a new and upcoming market space, like valve did for digital distribution, and other developers did for the facebook and mobile spaces, what morons EA are' in a run on sentence?


As for all who are just saying they're dumb and that TV isn't a market for games: Think on this, mobile phones weren't a games market until very recently either, now they're become a multi-million dollar driving force for many studios/developers. Same with facebook before that. New markets develop based on accessibility to the masses. Television is already being tapped into through consoles, and no one here is foolish enough to state there is no market in consoles.

Consoles them self(with associated costs and 'hassles' as many current non-owners see them) are a huge barrier to entry for so many potential game customers, Why are you therefore scoffing at the notion of games coming directly from the tv itself?
That's not dumb, tv's are everywhere, if so many people play games using their tv already by jumping through all these hoops, then removing those obstacles and having the games right there can see huge benefits to customer numbers. As for monetisation, people already buy movies, tv series' etc. over cable/satellite tv services on a pay-per-view basis, and yet already pay a subscription fee for having the service in the first place. Are we denying the potential for games in that same space also?
((admittedly, i know little of the current scope or shape of games available via tv currently, but even if it's a big flop, i can't see much loss from EA's side of things, especially if they're doing things like ports))

 

[Ympulse]

saying TV is a dying market is like saying WoW is a dying MMO.

Of course it isn't what it used to be, but it's still the biggest gorilla in the cage.

Just dropped by to drop that bit of common sense in the thread. Have at it

 

[wulf3n]

snip

You've got a point. Bringing games to Televisions is a good idea. I'm looking forward to the day when every T.V. is basically a touch screen PC running Android.

The problem I have is more in what he said, "Games aren't a mass market". It seems to me he's mixing up software with hardware. Gaming specific hardware may not be a Mass Market, but Game software is.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I know what the guy is trying to say with his key-note speech to all those TV big-wigs. I know what his, and EAs, interpretation of his words are.

But frankly? All I'm hearing is, "We're EA and we're losing money. A LOT of money. So pay us some so we can stay afloat and continue to make games. After all, people need TVs to play games. Meaning the more games we make, the more reason people have to buy TVs."

Actually what I'm hearing is "Let's cut out the middle man and put the games directly on the TVs to the determent of console makers like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft."

EA shouldn't allow their Execs to speak in public. It's never a good thing when they do.

Nonsense! I say let them ALL speak! Whenever they please.

Some days I need a good laugh. EA execs almost never fail to provide in that regard.

Well if they want to stop getting named "Worst Company in America" a good first step would be to stop letting their execs speak in public. ...or use Twatter, or Facebook. Or better yet, just lock them in the basement and just toss them table scraps every now and then.

 

[barbzilla]

I entered this thread expecting to read all about EA's latest idiocy. I wasn't disappointed.

If I understand this correctly, they are:

- entering a demographically much wider market
- planning to compete with entrenched competitors with established brand loyalty
- under the impression tv audiences are easier to monetise than their gaming counterparts

Honestly, I don't exactly have a Business MBA, but somehow this simultaneously feels like they're about a decade behind the times, and hopelessly naive about expected revenue.

Well I don't have a MBA either, however I do have a B.S. in business. I am also an entrepreneur, I own 3 businesses that all work autonomously at this point (none however are publicly traded or horribly profitable). They provide over 41 jobs to my local community and give me my entertainment budget. While I'm not trying to brag or anything of that nature, nor do my credentials mean all that much because everyone seems to be a PHD on the internet, but I do have some input as to if EA is making a reasonable move.

As a business it is important to branch out in any way possible, as well as to innovate. None of my businesses would be anywhere near as successful as they are without innovation. I think EA is making a somewhat reasonable move in trying to branch out to a new medium. The problem still remains, however, that this is EA. EA is prone to making horrible decisions when it comes to their customer base, and when trying a new product (especially one that is intended to revolutionize an established product) it is of the utmost importance to treat your customers as they were the only thing that matters to you. This is something that EA is not well known for.

With the information given, if EA can manage to do a complete 180 with their customer base for this new product, they could be wildly successful with it. If EA does not have the fortitude to swallow their pride for the duration of establishing this product, they will fail horribly.

Just my two cents, and while it may not matter to you, I hopefully have helped shed some light on why they may be exploring this route.

As an afterthought, they could also just be trying to scrabble for some form of market dominance to prevent the fallout of their recent losses.