EA Intervention
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
But here's the thing: it's not working. Medal of Honor sold disappointingly. Dante's Inferno did little better.They're using these idiotic ad campaigns, and it's not even paying off.dogstile said:
The DRM on Bulletstorm is none too pleasant either. Glad to see we're making process. At least the inclusion of PhysX didn't crash the game on startup (as Mirrors Edge did), though some people appear to still be having this problem.
Anyway, the talks about games being high art are a little early in my book, and it's apparent EA agrees wholeheartedly.
Anyway, the talks about games being high art are a little early in my book, and it's apparent EA agrees wholeheartedly.
"its the direction and tactics used during the advertising itself" was the complete line, and puts the one you quoted in to correct context.The3rdEye said:
I agree that it should be a broader processThe3rdEye said:
There is an inherrant morailty in marketing, the morality being dictated by the client. Success of a product is often attributed to repeat customers, it may be reasonable to assume that (atleast) 1 million of those units were people who were already fans of the franchise. Of the remainder; 33% looking to try something new, 33% encouraged by their friends to get it and the remaining 34% as a result of advertising. (without exact numbers all you can rely on is the law of averages)The3rdEye said:
Theres no guarantee that the current DS2 ads would encourage first timers to go out and buy it. At most it would be appealing to the rebelious kid looking to "stick it" to the central authority figure in their life. That isnt a very large market to be catering towards. Wouldn't it, as you suggested with your bakery analogy, have made greater sense to make an ad campaign that appealed to a broader range of people?The3rdEye said:
My family lives next to EA HQ and let me tell you, the place is fairly creepy. They have their own lake, gym, vollyball courts, basketball courts, park, etc... The place was designed to make ever leaving the complex completely unneccessary. They try to keep employees on their complex for as long as possible. I think they are being brainwashed.
Anyway, if you guys want me to send a message to EA I can do it in person when I return home from uni during spring break.
Anyway, if you guys want me to send a message to EA I can do it in person when I return home from uni during spring break.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I don't like how EA wants to pander to the lowest of the lowest common denominator, to the point that they're either trying to break the industry's own ethics rules by marketing their M-rated work to kids, or insult and degrade gamers as a whole. I really think it's the latter of the two that they are doing, and that just pisses me off, in the sense that I don't like being pandered or talked down to by mouthbreathers who only have their job because they have a "BA in Marketing" or some other shitty diploma that required nothing more than a pulse to obtain. If EA wants to continue churning out mediocre games using marketing that's the equivalent of watching five chimps fling feces on each other before going off to masturbate, that's their perogative, but it's also mine to think that they suck for trying to treat me, and anyone else, like an extra from Ideocracy, and to want to boycott them for doing so.SilentHunter7 said:
At least with stuff like the We Dare trailer, the material is likely trash, but you don't see them plastering "It's all the boobies you love in a video game, and YOUR MOM IS GONNA HATE IT!" all over their ads (though, if they did that at this point, it'd likely be as a parody of EA's nonsense).
I live in Austalia and i had to put up with that, having no blood in that game completly ruins it. I bought L4D2, and after 3 mins I threw it out the window in disgust. It's like cutting an orange in half to find it completely empty, it just sucked the point out it of it...Mouse One said:
The problem is the Dead Space campaign is that the Game industry today is fighting really hard to change the image that games is just for children. You and I know that to be a lie but so many don't. Now, EA basicly comes in and says "Hey, M rated games are for childs".kouriichi said:
It's like if Marlboro said "Hey, 13-year olds should totally smoke".
The oral arguments have come and gone, yes, but the actually decision has not been reached yet. Also even the most optimistic of the pro-games side basically looked at what the Supreme Court said during the opening arguments and came to the conclusion that if the anti-game side does fail this time, the things pointed out to them during the case will simply be usable as tools for them to tinker with their proposed law and try again.SilentHunter7 said:
Not quite as drastic as this, but I only buy pre-owned copies of games that have anything to do with EA.MikhailGH said:
The problem arises from people who saw the fake protesting and went "Huh? Protesting a video game you say? Wow, Christians are stupid!" as I am sure a lot of people would do (it gets said for real protests after all).HappyDD said:
That raises another question. Why does everyone think every major publisher is out to get them? I mean every time someone puts something out that gamers don't agree with, it just *has* to be because the company hates their customers, and the CEOs masturbate to the sound of misery. Because, you know, money would have nothing to do with it.SamElliot said:
EA's not trying to insult anyone. Well any potential customers, anyway. That would be counter-intuitive. If it happened anyway, it was a mistake, because lost sales don't help. If you're going to ***** at them, ***** at them for not knowing their audience. Not because they somehow hate you.
And even so, the idea that the Dead Space ads are insulting to anyone outside of actual dead space customers is ludicrous. EA is not the game industry. Dead Space is not the game industry. That ad is calling anyone who would buy Dead Space, children. Not gamers as a whole. The ads imply imply all gamers are children in the same way RapeLay existing implies all gamers are rapists: It doesn't. And anyone who says as much needs a smack to the face to bring them back to reality.
Have you SEEN Google head office? These are multimillion dollar companies, of course they're going to make outrageous expenditures for their staff. Here, check it out and tell me you wouldn't willingly spend a ludicrous amount of time there (They have indoor slides instead of stairs for crying out loud, that's 100% awesome!)Xenetethrae said:
http://www.reasonpad.com/2009/06/a-visit-to-google-headquarters/
Which is why I said008Zulu said:
It's already a broad process, my point is that people like you are acting like it's just one big goof-off. Big companies don't sneeze unless it makes them money, and when you're playing with millions of dollars you don't want to take risks. In comes market research, designers, whatever, and they spit out the ad campaigns.The3rdEye said:
Well if we're just going to be making assumptions this becomes a different animal altogether doesn't it. What exactly in the above has anything to do with "inherent morality" in marketing? As far as any moral bearing being made by the customer, there's the option to NOT BUY the product if you don't agree with the "morality" of the company selling it. My point, which you seem to be intentionally avoiding or ignoring, is that almost 2 million people didn't have a problem with it and bought the game and that's enough reason for them to keep doing it. EA's conscious is clear, they made their money, on to the next order of business.008Zulu said:
You're right, there's no guarantee to tell as to which unit sales were made by people trying the game for the first time, which I said in almost those exact words. But again you're expressing the entire "My opinion is indicative of the vast, vast majority of the public" with "At most it would be appealing...". How do you factor in the people that found the ad amusing? Or those who were intrigued by a company making such a ballsy move? Again, sticky business at best, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore those groups because they're not part of your argument.008Zulu said:
And the entire bread argument was under the basis of
"Bread is something that many, many people buy, and buy the same item/brand repeatedly on a weekly basis if not more. That allows for you to make broadly targeted advertising so it appeals to the many, many types of people."
Whereas the videogame parallel would be
"VG's are something that a size-able number of people buy, but only buy it once per item/brand before potentially moving on to the next item/brand, and even then they might only buy one a month. You need to make sure that those with the highest predisposition to buy the item are given sufficient reason to do so, so you have targeted marketing instead."
You big ol' rebel. Rather than just not buy it at all, you're going to pirate it on the grounds of "righteous indignation", get 100% of your entertainment out of the product and meanwhile the junior artists/writers/support staff who actually do honest work all get 0% of the profit from a unit "sold". I'm sorry, but "Sticking it to EA" by making sure -no one- gets paid for their hard work, whether you think they deserve it or not, and getting enjoyment out of their product anyway... well that just makes youMikhailGH said:
I'll keep this relatively short. I personally thought EA was going to stop fueling the fire of anti freedom of speech organizations, but then they told me that my mom hates dead space 2, that kinda crap is where people get their antigame fuel, and I can list A lot of people who avoided dead space 2 because the ad campaign sucked.
That may be obvious to you but it might not be to people who aren't as knowledgeable about videogaming.SilentHunter7 said:
That may be, but I go back to my previous point: Why do we care what they think all of a sudden?GiantRaven said:
If a person can claim that one company cannot damage the video game industry then it's not far-fetched to claim that one 'artist' cannot damage the music industry. I'm not saying that EA is to the video game industry as Brittany Spears is to the pop music industry, but damnit, they're trying.
Videogames grew and thrived back when marketing for video games was The Super Mario Bros. 3 Super Show and The Ledgend Of Zelda cerial (which was basically a Zelda themed Lucky Charms, if you were wondering). What does this mean? Well, it might mean that marketing isn't actually an important part of selling a video game compared to the contents of said video game. This in turn means that E.A.'s marketing blunders doesn't actually effect the sales of the video games one way or another as significantly as people think. Although it does draw the attention of the masses, the video game playing section of said masses will then rent or review said games and buy (or not) based on these or whatever other personal dipsticks they may use. Very few people make day one purchases just because of a television commercial.
The obvious exception, of course, being the twelve year olds, the ones who watched the DS2 commercial, turned o their older sibling(s) and said 'I must own this game!'.
This M rated game.
P.S.
There are people who thought Dead Space 1 was a risky venture? It's only slightly less safe than Resident Evil because of the dead babies, and Resident Evil (the games... ok the movies too considering that the second one had a loli in danger) could have been a Spielberg production.
Videogames grew and thrived back when marketing for video games was The Super Mario Bros. 3 Super Show and The Ledgend Of Zelda cerial (which was basically a Zelda themed Lucky Charms, if you were wondering). What does this mean? Well, it might mean that marketing isn't actually an important part of selling a video game compared to the contents of said video game. This in turn means that E.A.'s marketing blunders doesn't actually effect the sales of the video games one way or another as significantly as people think. Although it does draw the attention of the masses, the video game playing section of said masses will then rent or review said games and buy (or not) based on these or whatever other personal dipsticks they may use. Very few people make day one purchases just because of a television commercial.
The obvious exception, of course, being the twelve year olds, the ones who watched the DS2 commercial, turned o their older sibling(s) and said 'I must own this game!'.
This M rated game.
P.S.
There are people who thought Dead Space 1 was a risky venture? It's only slightly less safe than Resident Evil because of the dead babies, and Resident Evil (the games... ok the movies too considering that the second one had a loli in danger) could have been a Spielberg production.
Yes, i understand that much, but why do we want to change our image so much? No matter how hard we try, someone is going to be against videogames. My uncle was out trying to date a while back, and he had met possibly one of the nicest girls ever. But she refused to even go on a second date with him, because he, "Occasionally plays Need For Speed."Shycte said:
People are stupid. Humans in general are horrible creatures. To be honest, with how early in its life videogaming is, we shouldent even be thinking about this. Notice how long it took people to get off D&D's back.
You cant change people. People have to change themselfs. The last generation was raised on the idea that hardwork and being outside dozens of hours is what makes us human. Honestly, this entire "public image" thing will die out on its own.
Ugh, they've come a long way since publishing "Jungle Strike" on the Megadrive (still one of my favorite games of all-time). I'm old and cynical enough to remember when EA did actually still buy into the "mission statement" that was quoted on "Extra Credits". It's a depressing memory.