EA Intervention
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
My my my... aren't the columnists at the escapist slamming EA recently, still I hope they get the message : the points made here are valid ones (as well as the plea made by extra credits).
The Ea marketing department needs to understand that yes, the only bad publicity is no publicity but also good publicity is better publicity than bad publicity.
I think I've said publicity too many times.
The Ea marketing department needs to understand that yes, the only bad publicity is no publicity but also good publicity is better publicity than bad publicity.
I think I've said publicity too many times.
If these kinds of articles gain momentum and more sites write up things like this, the EA will have no choice but to see just how badly they are treating everyone.
I don't know... are EA really that bad?
Some of their adverts, only three to date, leave bad tastes in the mouth, but other than that their adverts are perfectly standard, are they not?
I must admit to not appreciating the "shock and awe" technique of advertising used in the three of note, plus it doesn't seem very effective so far, as people seem to spend more time insulting EA for making the adverts than they do looking at an "edgy" game that has such an advert.
Might be better if they just went: "We spent 5 million dollars on this game, we used the best in the industry to craft it, the graphics are amazing, the story was written by professionals, the gameplay is fluid and intuitive... WHY ARE YOU NOT PLAYING THIS GAME RIGHT NOW?!"
Some of their adverts, only three to date, leave bad tastes in the mouth, but other than that their adverts are perfectly standard, are they not?
I must admit to not appreciating the "shock and awe" technique of advertising used in the three of note, plus it doesn't seem very effective so far, as people seem to spend more time insulting EA for making the adverts than they do looking at an "edgy" game that has such an advert.
Might be better if they just went: "We spent 5 million dollars on this game, we used the best in the industry to craft it, the graphics are amazing, the story was written by professionals, the gameplay is fluid and intuitive... WHY ARE YOU NOT PLAYING THIS GAME RIGHT NOW?!"
Any publicity is good publicity? This is the biggest bullshit "Law" of marketing that I keep hearing EVERYWHERE. What about BP oil after the spill? Their stock crashed amazingly hard, and It hasn't recovered fully yet. There is a way to spin "Negative" publicity, but saying that anyone talking about you is a good thing is crap.
The marketing campaigns are obviously a problem. It's not just the attempts of the industry to be taken seriously as an artistic medium, but there are far greater problems. What about the current supreme court case, which will decide whether the industry can continue to self-regulate (via ESRB)? EA is essentially adding napalm to the flames kept alive by media frenzy and idiotic "won't somebody please think of the children" groups.
That said, if the marketing campaigns appealed to you, or worse yet persuaded you to buy any of the the games in question, remove yourself from the internet. You are obviously not mature enough to play games of greater depth than solitaire, and I'd even question that much.
PS: Say Shamus, what about Stolen Pixels? Hm, been missing that...
That said, if the marketing campaigns appealed to you, or worse yet persuaded you to buy any of the the games in question, remove yourself from the internet. You are obviously not mature enough to play games of greater depth than solitaire, and I'd even question that much.
PS: Say Shamus, what about Stolen Pixels? Hm, been missing that...
I agree with all three points mentioned on Extra Credits, and here. Yeah, Dante's Inferno was basically a game about hell and sin and all that, but was the lust angle really necessary? And on the DS2, yeah, EA really should have tried something less juvenile. But what really pissed me off was the whole Taliban affair, in which they pussied out. For EA trying to push the envelope in marketing, they don't seem to push that hard when met with opposition.Raeil said:
I hope EA may take notice, and consider the ramifications of what and how they advertise a game. They have had a lot of great games, so they do fine there, but seriously, their public image is beginning to overpower Activision for biggest asshole to gamers.
*Edit*
BTW, how is that court case going? I havent heard anything for quite some time...
I was going to write a big response to the EP thread, but no one would read it there. Well probably no one will read it here either, but I like Shamus better anyway.
I actually feel the need to defend EA on this one. I still remember when EA was like Activision, the big behemoth sucking life out of the medium. I honestly don't look at EA like that, and Kotick'slovely shenanigans had little to do with it. A few years ago EA essentially said they would clean up their game, and compared to what they were before, they did. To use the old brand perception study, I would now buy a used car from them.
I'd like to look at these dreaded marketing actions item by item.
The 'sin to win' thing. Well look. There was a marketing campaign for Dante's Inferno in which each capital sin got its thing. Greed got them send an evil-looking check to publishers (while explaining that wastefulness is also a kind of greed, so cash it or not you're sinning). Anger had them sending rickrolls to Yahtzee. And so on. Of course there was going to be a Lust thing. And it happened - it was the smallest action, restricted to a single event, communicated mostly through flyers, and unlike the other things it was not forced, it was an invitation. Was it misogynist? I would say that it's a misogynist as Duke Nukem, that is, it's misogynist as a satire of itself, even if I agree that's not the only conclusion. I mean, why do the put booth babes there if they're not to have 'acts of lust' performed upon them, if you considering oogling to be one such act?
The Taliban thing. I called it when it happened, and I'm amazed I seem to be the only one who caught it, so here comes the truth, please leave now if you think you can't handle it. They didn't back down, it was deliberate. They named the enemy faction 'Taliban' to try and create controversy. It worked. So when people complained, they pulled it out. What were they thinking? Well, they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted gamers to think 'Wow, look at how EDGY[footnote]No longer ? Tim Langdell[/footnote] they are! They are using a REAL WORLD TERRORIST GROUP in their COMPLETELY REALISTIC MODERN MILITARY SHOOTER!' And they wanted nongamers to think, 'Well, that group certainly knows how to admit they screwed up. I respect them for it.' Of course, it failed on all fronts, as this kind of marketing conspiracy is wont to do, but it's not an unmitigated disaster.
The main problem with this is that... well, as that guy that was so brilliant a marketer that he made America love Hitler's car [http://adage.com/century/graphics/campaign_vw.jpg], nothing hurts a bad product more than good marketing. Even if you don't agree that these marketing actions were good, or at least not bad, we wouldn't be talking about them if Dante's Inferno and Medal of Honor had been memorable games. They'd just be the silly little premise to them. In fact, I find the main issue here is that the games just pretend to touch serious issues without actually doing so - oh god here comes a TV tropes link I can't help it I'm so sorry [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DebateAndSwitch] - and in fact I can picture in my mind clear as day when EA execs were thinking on how to make something as 'edgy' as possible yet not objectively reprehensible by straddling the line on Christianity's mythology, and then someone mentioned that most of the idea of the Christian hell was actually made up by Dante on his Commedia and isn't actually part of any major religion's canon[footnote]Not trying to be funny, this is the original meaning of the word 'canon'. The opposite, I gather, is apocrypha. I heartily recommend using it in your next fan fiction critique.[/footnote] and would be up for the taking, and the rest is a bad game. And Medal of Honor suffers from the same problem of most modern military shooters in which they deep down want to be as serious as Team Fortress 2 but can't because of their theme, so they end up with the fake dire tone of a preschool Nativity play.
As for the Dead Space 2 ads - yeah, they're indefensable. Especially so because Dead Space is a game that revels on its seriousness. Sure, as Yahtzee mentioned in their review, they have the twisted concept of horror that a seven-year-old has after stumbling on his older brother watching Friday the 13th and wouldn't know subtle if it drove a tank through their living room and slapped them with a concrete bar, at which point they might think it was trying to subtly get their attention, but if you accept the game's viewpoint it takes itself very seriously. So there is no point that can be made by the ad other than 'Hey kid, this game sure LOOKS serious and dark, but there's plenty of mindless gore for you to enjoy as well!' Which is the admission both games somehow succesfully avoid making, that the gore and dismemberment are just for shock value and don't actually add to the horror. In sum, it wasn't an ad, it was an anti-ad. Still, to throw this fuckup in the same bin as the other slip-ups is to revel in hindisght and throw away all sense of measure.
I considered sending EA an email informing them that I didn't buy Dead Space 2 because of its horrible ad, but that would be a lie because I wasn't going to buy it anyway. Maybe you guys should do it. If you're already boycotting Activision, it shouldn't be that hard.
I actually feel the need to defend EA on this one. I still remember when EA was like Activision, the big behemoth sucking life out of the medium. I honestly don't look at EA like that, and Kotick's
I'd like to look at these dreaded marketing actions item by item.
The 'sin to win' thing. Well look. There was a marketing campaign for Dante's Inferno in which each capital sin got its thing. Greed got them send an evil-looking check to publishers (while explaining that wastefulness is also a kind of greed, so cash it or not you're sinning). Anger had them sending rickrolls to Yahtzee. And so on. Of course there was going to be a Lust thing. And it happened - it was the smallest action, restricted to a single event, communicated mostly through flyers, and unlike the other things it was not forced, it was an invitation. Was it misogynist? I would say that it's a misogynist as Duke Nukem, that is, it's misogynist as a satire of itself, even if I agree that's not the only conclusion. I mean, why do the put booth babes there if they're not to have 'acts of lust' performed upon them, if you considering oogling to be one such act?
The Taliban thing. I called it when it happened, and I'm amazed I seem to be the only one who caught it, so here comes the truth, please leave now if you think you can't handle it. They didn't back down, it was deliberate. They named the enemy faction 'Taliban' to try and create controversy. It worked. So when people complained, they pulled it out. What were they thinking? Well, they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted gamers to think 'Wow, look at how EDGY[footnote]No longer ? Tim Langdell[/footnote] they are! They are using a REAL WORLD TERRORIST GROUP in their COMPLETELY REALISTIC MODERN MILITARY SHOOTER!' And they wanted nongamers to think, 'Well, that group certainly knows how to admit they screwed up. I respect them for it.' Of course, it failed on all fronts, as this kind of marketing conspiracy is wont to do, but it's not an unmitigated disaster.
The main problem with this is that... well, as that guy that was so brilliant a marketer that he made America love Hitler's car [http://adage.com/century/graphics/campaign_vw.jpg], nothing hurts a bad product more than good marketing. Even if you don't agree that these marketing actions were good, or at least not bad, we wouldn't be talking about them if Dante's Inferno and Medal of Honor had been memorable games. They'd just be the silly little premise to them. In fact, I find the main issue here is that the games just pretend to touch serious issues without actually doing so - oh god here comes a TV tropes link I can't help it I'm so sorry [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DebateAndSwitch] - and in fact I can picture in my mind clear as day when EA execs were thinking on how to make something as 'edgy' as possible yet not objectively reprehensible by straddling the line on Christianity's mythology, and then someone mentioned that most of the idea of the Christian hell was actually made up by Dante on his Commedia and isn't actually part of any major religion's canon[footnote]Not trying to be funny, this is the original meaning of the word 'canon'. The opposite, I gather, is apocrypha. I heartily recommend using it in your next fan fiction critique.[/footnote] and would be up for the taking, and the rest is a bad game. And Medal of Honor suffers from the same problem of most modern military shooters in which they deep down want to be as serious as Team Fortress 2 but can't because of their theme, so they end up with the fake dire tone of a preschool Nativity play.
As for the Dead Space 2 ads - yeah, they're indefensable. Especially so because Dead Space is a game that revels on its seriousness. Sure, as Yahtzee mentioned in their review, they have the twisted concept of horror that a seven-year-old has after stumbling on his older brother watching Friday the 13th and wouldn't know subtle if it drove a tank through their living room and slapped them with a concrete bar, at which point they might think it was trying to subtly get their attention, but if you accept the game's viewpoint it takes itself very seriously. So there is no point that can be made by the ad other than 'Hey kid, this game sure LOOKS serious and dark, but there's plenty of mindless gore for you to enjoy as well!' Which is the admission both games somehow succesfully avoid making, that the gore and dismemberment are just for shock value and don't actually add to the horror. In sum, it wasn't an ad, it was an anti-ad. Still, to throw this fuckup in the same bin as the other slip-ups is to revel in hindisght and throw away all sense of measure.
I considered sending EA an email informing them that I didn't buy Dead Space 2 because of its horrible ad, but that would be a lie because I wasn't going to buy it anyway. Maybe you guys should do it. If you're already boycotting Activision, it shouldn't be that hard.
Well, I'd just like to say I'm glad that Shamus is back on the Escapist. I had noticed a disturbing lack of him these past few weeks.
I'm glad someone else brought up the Supreme Court case in relation to DS2. Seriously, EA's timing on that one was downright damning for the whole industry, whether you like that add or not. How can they possibly legitimize that? It's about time EA starts holding themselves accountable for what they say and stop artificially churning out controversy. It helps nobody, and it may end up dooming the whole industry.
I was considering this after the EC video, but maybe it would be appropriate if we all decided to boycott EA for pulling stunts like these? I think i can hold off buying AssCreed BroHo, and Bulletstorm (i heard the PC port was sloppy anyway) indefinitely until these guys grow up 
.
Hell, imagine if their sails got a major boost when we all bought the games we were all holding off on? EA seems big on the whole instant gratification thing.
The only problem is that EA doesn't seem to see the PC as a major platform (or maybe i'm thinking of microsoft). So we'd have to rely on console gamers to do the majority of the grunt work... which i'm not.
.Hell, imagine if their sails got a major boost when we all bought the games we were all holding off on? EA seems big on the whole instant gratification thing.
The only problem is that EA doesn't seem to see the PC as a major platform (or maybe i'm thinking of microsoft). So we'd have to rely on console gamers to do the majority of the grunt work... which i'm not.
I can't speak for all their campaigns, but i have to agree that the adds for Dead Space 2 are, to put it simply, BAD. Like was said on EC, the tagline "your mother will hate it" is at best only going to appeal to, what 18 and 19 year olds? People barely old enough to play the game. EVERYONE ELSE that that tagline would appeal to is way too young to play it. This ad for an M rated game is aimed squarely at an age demographic who is too young to play it. Look, i'll admit the possibility that i'm actually part of a minority that doesn't care either way what their mothers think about the games they play. I never felt particularly rebellious anyway. But the fact that "my mother will hate it" doesn't do anything for me. In-fact i take some offence to the add. I feel like it's assuming that I am an ignorant teen that gets the giggles from pissing off his parents, I like to think that i'm a bit more mature than that. I agree entirely with EC, if i buy the game it will be in spite of the ad and not because of it. (btw i'm not getting it but for completely different and unrelated reasons.)dogstile said:
Not to be a downer but I've seen this story before. I haven't seen it in this particular rapper but I've seen it before. You summed up another video, reiterated a previous position on DRM type stuff and pointed out a dumb decision of EA before calling their management and saying "there bad k?" I know its important to continue to stand by your position and talk about the issues but this is starting to sound like a broken record. There has got to be something more to do on this business then just writing more stories on why EA sucks and whey this marketing is bad and so on.
Everyone I personally know who saw it thought it was a funny ad campaign meant to raise a few smiles and spread virally. Hell, its how I found out about it, then I forwarded the reaction videos on.timeadept said:
Again, overreacting.
But what does it matter, you're just going to reply saying the equivalent of
"your opinion is wrong!"
And then i'm going to go
"no, your opinion is wrong!"
(yes people, in case you haven't noticed, i'm tired of being quoted, do us a favour and stop, I don't care anymore, its late and I won't respond once I go to sleep, which is soon)
You left out the best part! EA caved indeed, and then the military banned it from sale on their bases anyway. So not only did EA cave, but they didn't get anything out of it.
But good point mentioning the Supreme Court case. I had forgotten about that, and didn't even think to make that connection that it could hurt us in that case when Extra Credits pointed out that EA just marketed the game to kids.
I think it's time for EA to be the main "bad guy" of the industry again. Sorry Kotick, you just aren't evil enough anymore. EA was just playing you these past few years; they're still Satan, and you're just a punk.
Never understood why people get this way over EC. They usually mention that they have no problem with non-artistic games; they would just rather see more art injected into the medium.Red Right Hand said: