And a crowded app store being crowded is bad how? I don't think a absolute wealth of software crowding a very, VERY successful format is particularly a bad thing.
EA Founder: App Stores Are Too Crowded
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Incorrect as he doesn't work for EA anymore.marioandsonic said:
He seems like one of those "motivational speakers" from late night TV who wants you to pay him to tell you how to become a millionaire. Since he left EA he pretty much failed with the 3DO and started his own app company, that "digital chocolate" thing.
Ultimatly he seems to be harping on his past success with EA, to sell himself as knowing what he's talking about, so people will come to him and his current company as a publisher.
The guy targeted by this isn't the user (us) but the vulnerable guy who THINKS he has a good app but can't sell it, who might be lured by this guy being able to sell it for him.
That's how I see it, even if he's not actually saying "let me publish you", he's being more subtle than that. He doesn't seem to be with EA any more, so you have to look at what his angle is. EA is really the only thing he can sell because of his track record since he left.
First Part: So what you're saying is, this man is a font of evil, and mayhaps ought be destroyed for safety's sake?
Second Part: the captcha is "hobby-horse". No real connection, but I thought this was great
On topic: Why is this news? he's just saying things that loads of people have already said many times over. If anything, the comment about platform houses aren't earning their cut of the profit from the content they support is the more interesting thing (although that;s been said too)
He lacks the amazing sideburns. Also, I'm sure he couldn't hit a barn with a cannon point-blank.rhizhim said:and he just happens to have the solution.
the EA app store.
--------------------------
cave johnson looks like the TF2 sniper
load of bollox
the cream rises to the top as usual
Steam solved the "discovery" problem with recommendations and social networking. The app stores just need to get their act together and copy that model.
I have an android phone and tablet and what the google and amazon app stores desperately need is the ability to filter. I want to click "ignore" on the fart and "joke" apps and have them never show up again. Right now I can't do that and that prevents me from seeing new stuff that is out there.
the cream rises to the top as usual
Steam solved the "discovery" problem with recommendations and social networking. The app stores just need to get their act together and copy that model.
I have an android phone and tablet and what the google and amazon app stores desperately need is the ability to filter. I want to click "ignore" on the fart and "joke" apps and have them never show up again. Right now I can't do that and that prevents me from seeing new stuff that is out there.
App stores are crowded....
Yet flooding the market with a new title for Fifa, Madden, NFL, Tiger Woods, NHL, NBA and MORE. Every. single. floggin. year!! THAT'S NOT CROWDED?!
Yet flooding the market with a new title for Fifa, Madden, NFL, Tiger Woods, NHL, NBA and MORE. Every. single. floggin. year!! THAT'S NOT CROWDED?!
Translation: EA can suck the soul out of your little indie project just as well as they do for the big titles.
I despise EA as much as the next guy, but come on, he hasn't worked for them for over two decades. (though fault lies in the choice of front page picture too)
And what he's saying is mostly true. There is such a problem, but the mentality of most publishers nowadays is "throw money at it until it becomes popular" and that lacks the massive effect of word of mouth, while putting developers in quite a vulnerable position. As a consumer I really wouldn't prefer it.
And what he's saying is mostly true. There is such a problem, but the mentality of most publishers nowadays is "throw money at it until it becomes popular" and that lacks the massive effect of word of mouth, while putting developers in quite a vulnerable position. As a consumer I really wouldn't prefer it.
"It's hard to compete in a market that....actually competes!"
Well no shit!
However, he makes a good point about advertising in a market full of scams and shit.
On one hand, the Publisher pushes games that they actually have interest in which allows the market to avoid the "nearly everything is shovelware" dilemma that caused the first market crash.
(even though this didn't stop publishers from shitting out gobs of shovelware for the last two decades, it gives them the power to elevate the games they actually need to sell through selective advertising)
On the other hand, the Publisher essentially takes total control of the game away from its developers (or takes control of the developers' careers!), because they implicitly cannot trust them. The backers are taking the brunt of the financial risk, so they're going to call the shots.
Which unfortunately opens the doors to mismanagement and rush jobs.
Neither system is ideal in a vacuum. With an openly competitive market, you will find that the lowest common denominator always wins, barring early entry and success (like Rovio. Who didn't really do anything new or original. They just got to the market early enough to get noticed).
The bar is set so low that anyone can enter, but anyone making a quality game is likely to get undercut and ignored anyway. So why bother putting forth the effort?
Conversely, with a publisher-established oligopoly (like we have right now), you end up with market consolidation, price hikes/gouging, and stagnation (all of which exist in the AAA market this very moment). They have less incentive to focus on all but the most superficial of qualities. "Polished turds."
And so, you eventually end up with a handful of polished megapopular games dominating the market, which in turn, drives down their need to compete. They own the market. Why should they take any further risks? Result: "Polished Turds."
Neither of which are likely to produce what the market actually wants: Pioneers in gaming.
Equal parts quality in design and original, fun ideas.
People who are willing to take risks within reason, but whose games can reach an audience without having to dominate the entire market to begin with.
Well no shit!
However, he makes a good point about advertising in a market full of scams and shit.
On one hand, the Publisher pushes games that they actually have interest in which allows the market to avoid the "nearly everything is shovelware" dilemma that caused the first market crash.
(even though this didn't stop publishers from shitting out gobs of shovelware for the last two decades, it gives them the power to elevate the games they actually need to sell through selective advertising)
On the other hand, the Publisher essentially takes total control of the game away from its developers (or takes control of the developers' careers!), because they implicitly cannot trust them. The backers are taking the brunt of the financial risk, so they're going to call the shots.
Which unfortunately opens the doors to mismanagement and rush jobs.
Neither system is ideal in a vacuum. With an openly competitive market, you will find that the lowest common denominator always wins, barring early entry and success (like Rovio. Who didn't really do anything new or original. They just got to the market early enough to get noticed).
The bar is set so low that anyone can enter, but anyone making a quality game is likely to get undercut and ignored anyway. So why bother putting forth the effort?
Conversely, with a publisher-established oligopoly (like we have right now), you end up with market consolidation, price hikes/gouging, and stagnation (all of which exist in the AAA market this very moment). They have less incentive to focus on all but the most superficial of qualities. "Polished turds."
And so, you eventually end up with a handful of polished megapopular games dominating the market, which in turn, drives down their need to compete. They own the market. Why should they take any further risks? Result: "Polished Turds."
Neither of which are likely to produce what the market actually wants: Pioneers in gaming.
Equal parts quality in design and original, fun ideas.
People who are willing to take risks within reason, but whose games can reach an audience without having to dominate the entire market to begin with.