EA Intervention

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Really? The second line of the original article is:
"If you only have nine minutes this week to spend on videogames, then stop reading my article and check out Extra Credits as Daniel Floyd, James Portnow, and Allison Theus take EA Games to task for their abominable and offensive marketing campaigns."

"its the direction and tactics used during the advertising itself" was the complete line, and puts the one you quoted in to correct context.

Which is why I said

It can be argued that I'm mincing words, but my point is that this should be treated as a broad and sweeping mechanical process, rather than one specific liberty taken on the publisher's part.

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.

What sort of research could EA or anyone come up with that would suggest that the current campaign would generate increased sales?

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)

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.

The morality is; People dont want to offend their customers. If you offend them you lose sales. The fake religious protestors for example, you would be offending those of the faith who do play the games, so you take the moral road and dont offend them. And yes, while I admit my assumptions are just that, you are inferring that the 2 million sold are directly attributed to current marketing.

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?

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.

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."

I feel this part is becoming somewhat circular. A targetted market is smaller than the market as a whole. Maximum sales means selling to as many people as possible. Now while some people may have found the ad amusing or ballsy they wouldn't be the majority, given the apparent number of people who didn't like it.

 

[Shycte]

Why are so many people bothered by what EA did?

:/ They did things different. Dont freak. Notice how through out gaming history, for shooter games, then enemys have almost always been real. Nobody freaked when Nazi's were evil. Or even the Russians. But they name a group the does exist today and people freak. Why? The taliban are generaly more evil then the russians ever where. They kill more innocents a year then gang violance.

And the Dead Space 2 add campaign? So what? Even if they were marketing to children, its not EA's job to moderate what parents buy. Theres a rating on the back that tells you who the game is for. If the parent doesnt care, or to stupid to read it ((when the rating is on BOTH the front and back)) its the parents fault.

Besides, juvenile violance has gone DOWN thanks to violance.
http://videogamevoters.org/pages/games_violence/

It doesnt matter how they market a game, because its not the child's decision to purchase it, its the parents. Sure, i hate EA just as much as the next escapist, but your making mountains out of mole hills.

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".

It's like if Marlboro said "Hey, 13-year olds should totally smoke".

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."

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.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to wait 30 years? Also, that you can't change people is a big fat lie. People change all the time. The get new ideas hamered into them by Media and propaganda.

What will happend it that people will realise that more and more people play games. One of my best friends plays WoW with his 40+ father. People will realise that games is a socially acceptable medium and that it is infact okay for people to play videogames. And that's very good. Because then your uncle might slam some of that precious booty.

But this shit does not help anyone. At this rate your uncle will be forced to stop playing games or get used to tissues

 

[Lorechaser]

Maybe Kevin Butler should take over EA?

 

[E-Penguin]

One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.

One company made Postal 2. One company made "hot coffee". One company made Bulletstorm. The anti-gaming crowd latches onto specific examples they like to trot out as evidence that games are horrible.

Whereas we can spout off dozens of games off the tops of our heads. We shouldn't be yelling out the big company's for being good at what they do.

Also, postal 2 can be completed without killing. Bad example.

Also, hot coffee was DISABLED, you had to download a mod to re-enable it. Another bad example.

 

[The3rdEye]

I feel this part is becoming somewhat circular. A targetted market is smaller than the market as a whole. Maximum sales means selling to as many people as possible.

Okay, I'll simplify things and ignore the issue of "market" and address this statement specifically:

Now while some people may have found the ad amusing or ballsy they wouldn't be the majority, given the apparent number of people who didn't like it.

How many people "apparently didn't like it"? Is there an actual number? And a majority of what, exactly?

Ask yourself these questions: Do you think that people found Gears of War 2's promotional material offensive? Given the large number of people who bought it do you consider GoW2's sales to be reflective of that?

While I don't wholly condone speculation, I will use it when supported by cold numerical fact: Contrary to what you have stated it was not "some" people who may have found the ad appealing, or had their "Buy it" decision influenced. It was nearly 2 million. Regardless of whether they liked the commercial and bought it, or they disliked the commercial but bought it anyway, regardless of how many people DIDN'T buy it. Something worked, because DS2 doubled the sales figures of the original and matched GoW2's. Regardless of majority/minority, millions of people bought it and made EA a tidy pile of cash in the process. What reason does EA have to not repeat this kind of advertising when they made a ton of money, regardless of negative public reaction to the ads based on "morals" and "image"? But at the root of the problem, even those vast numbers of who did/who didn't buy the game don't matter, it comes down to this:

Did you find the ad offensive? If so petition on the grounds of personal opinion, not fact.
Do you feel it's "damaging the image of the industry/those who support it"? Then show EA that you don't approve of their hi-jinks, don't buy it, and accept the fact that there are millions of people who would disagree with you and by their patronage will continue to fuel further hi-jinks. The issue at hand shouldn't revolve around EA, it should be squarely aimed at those who support EA's shenanigans, we the gaming public. It is an argument that should be made between gamers who see each other as equals within an industry, not by someone claiming "moral high ground" over another, with the understanding that different people are going to want different things from their games. Simple as that.

[/professionalism]

You still want to blame EA? Fine, but don't blame them for their occasional tasteless advertising, don't blame them for their glutenous acquisition of new IPs and companies, don't blame them for "losing sight of the ethics/image", no, blame them for letting we the game playing public dictate to them what they should create by what we will buy.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Now while some people may have found the ad amusing or ballsy they wouldn't be the majority, given the apparent number of people who didn't like it.

How many people "apparently didn't like it"? Is there an actual number? And a majority of what, exactly?

Ask yourself these questions: Do you think that people found Gears of War 2's promotional material offensive? Given the large number of people who bought it do you consider GoW2's sales to be reflective of that?

While I don't wholly condone speculation, I will use it when supported by cold numerical fact: Contrary to what you have stated it was not "some" people who may have found the ad appealing, or had their "Buy it" decision influenced. It was nearly 2 million. Regardless of whether they liked the commercial and bought it, or they disliked the commercial but bought it anyway, regardless of how many people DIDN'T buy it. Something worked, because DS2 doubled the sales figures of the original and matched GoW2's. Regardless of majority/minority, millions of people bought it and made EA a tidy pile of cash in the process. What reason does EA have to not repeat this kind of advertising when they made a ton of money, regardless of negative public reaction to the ads based on "morals" and "image"? But at the root of the problem, even those vast numbers of who did/who didn't buy the game don't matter, it comes down to this:

Did you find the ad offensive? If so petition on the grounds of personal opinion, not fact.
Do you feel it's "damaging the image of the industry/those who support it"? Then show EA that you don't approve of their hi-jinks, don't buy it, and accept the fact that there are millions of people who would disagree with you and by their patronage will continue to fuel further hi-jinks. The issue at hand shouldn't revolve around EA, it should be squarely aimed at those who support EA's shenanigans, we the gaming public. It is an argument that should be made between gamers who see each other as equals within an industry, not by someone claiming "moral high ground" over another, with the understanding that different people are going to want different things from their games. Simple as that.

The 2 million who bought it weren't new customers. Most would be people who bought DS1 and liked the premise of the game, thats the way game franchises work. You make a first game that people like and they will buy the second and third and so on.

As for the majority, alot of games and industry analysts as well as more than a few people on this topic alone have voiced their disapproval. I suspect that if a poll were to show up on this site then we would have, in part, a basis for how many people liked or disliked EA's tactics. Marketing a game towards kids clearly meant for mature adults is where people are having the problem.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Too be fair, before all this they were doing pretty well. Or perhaps they were just being kept out of the spotlight by Kotick opening his mouth every five minutes. Regardless, I thought the DS2 ad was funny just because of the ignorant reactions of those southern US mothers. I mean, that is the only demographic of mothers that would react that way. My mother and father fucking play Dead Space.

Hey, my mom is a Southern US Mother and while she doesn't play games older than the 16-bit era or Wii Bowling (she is rubbish with newer controllers), she actually likes to sit and watch my brother and I play games because as she says, "It's like watching a movie". She has done that with Uncharted, God of War, Mass Effect and even Kane and Freaking Lynch.

I'm not meaning anything by this except that there are moms like mine and yours that understand that games are just games and that they don't cause violent tendencies. Hell, she bought my brother Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 for the SNES when he was 10. (I missed the ratings being adopted, being born in 76, so they were never an issue)

 

[beddo]

Banned Quote

Wow, the Escapist really can't take you criticizing them or their authors. How deliciously ironic.

 

[mr_rubino]

Banned Quote

Wow, the Escapist really can't take you criticizing them or their authors. How deliciously ironic.

Indeed. He's only getting into trouble because people don't like his opinions, man.
Now then, we were talking about cynical use of adolescent rebellion fantasies to drown out logical thought, if I remember right?

 

[EPolleys]

To be honest I had completely forgotten about all those advertisements literally moments after I saw them, I had even forgotten what that last episode of EC was about till I saw this article and I'll most likely forget about this too. Honestly would anyone on this forum be talking about this right now if they hadn't brought it up? Seems like people are overreacting to something that's not really a big deal. Sure people could use this as ammunition in their crusade against videogames, but their arguments usually fall apart as if their ammunition/bullets had the same consistency as flour. Meaning anyone who tries to use these adverts against videogames in a court of law will inevitably fail because whatever they bring to the table from one company (No matter how prestigious) it's just not substantial enough to bring down an entire industry, or even thoroughly damage it. Even combined with other "evidence" that games are ruining our youth, it still just wouldn't be enough.

 

[geizr]

Well, Shamus, you may not like hearing someone say this, but the truth is that EA is a business just like any other business. Businesses are the equivalent of sociopaths with their only motivation being to make money, and they will do that however is necessary that they can get away with(there are exceptions). If these offensive ad campaigns and other actions improve their bottom profits, then that's exactly what they will do, ethics and morality be damned. It's hard to truthfully say that these things don't improve EA's bottom line without being in the accounting department staring at the numbers. There are only two things a business ever understands, the creak of the customer's wallet opening and the slap of the customer's wallet closing. The strongest message we can send to EA that we don't appreciate their actions is to stop buying their games(but don't pirate because that's just being an ass and a thief).

However, gamers have to have their fix. As long as EA is the one putting out the AAA blockbusters that everyone hovers up, gamers will continue to buy from them, and EA will continue as it always has(honestly, I think this whole trend and concept of the AAA game is part of what has gone wrong with the gaming industry, this includes the "hardcore" vs. "casual" religious war, which is really AAA main-streamers versus everyone else).

EDIT: Minor typo and clarification.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Too be fair, before all this they were doing pretty well. Or perhaps they were just being kept out of the spotlight by Kotick opening his mouth every five minutes. Regardless, I thought the DS2 ad was funny just because of the ignorant reactions of those southern US mothers. I mean, that is the only demographic of mothers that would react that way. My mother and father fucking play Dead Space.

Hey, my mom is a Southern US Mother and while she doesn't play games older than the 16-bit era or Wii Bowling (she is rubbish with newer controllers), she actually likes to sit and watch my brother and I play games because as she says, "It's like watching a movie". She has done that with Uncharted, God of War, Mass Effect and even Kane and Freaking Lynch.

I'm not meaning anything by this except that there are moms like mine and yours that understand that games are just games and that they don't cause violent tendencies. Hell, she bought my brother Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 for the SNES when he was 10. (I missed the ratings being adopted, being born in 76, so they were never an issue)

Sorry, I meant stereotypical southern US mother.

 

[m64]

I'm just wondering, putting this question to every staffer and contributor involved with this website. Do you prefer the term Borg or Hivemind?

Oh wait, you used the term Borg in your pointless supplication of an article, so I guess we'll go with Borg then. Seriously, after Extra Credits proves to the world that they don't have a bloody clue about how marketing works by giving EA the attention for it's ad campaings that they wanted along, which I might add was reinforced by a hate mail campaign and the usual 20+ pages of fanboy drooling, Young here chimes in and officially makes it a bandwagon.

Honestly, Escapist. What happened to you people, or were you always like this and I just didn't notice. This idiotic hivemind Borg mentality where one person says something and everyone is supposed to agree without question is ridiculous in it's own right. But when you have contributors pawing at each other trying to get some kind of Jihad going amongst the sheep then clearly this community has taken a wrong turn at 6th Avenue and David Koresh Boulevard.

Just don't expect me to be here when ya'll start passing out the special punch.

So, this guy has been suspended for THIS? I think you people will feel right at home with game censorship.

 

[beddo]

Banned Quote

Wow, the Escapist really can't take you criticizing them or their authors. How deliciously ironic.

Indeed. He's only getting into trouble because people don't like his opinions, man.
Now then, we were talking about cynical use of adolescent rebellion fantasies to drown out logical thought, if I remember right?

I see what you did there, you're saying that he was simply being argumentative for the sake of it and makes no legitimate point beyond adolescent-like rebellion... HOLD IT!

I present exhibit A, the original post of Sir John the Net Night. Clearly he did have a valid point to make.


I'm simply making the point that it's ironic that The Escapist withhold the right to suspend forum users for criticizing them while they openly attack the work of others, particularly those involved in the industry that The Escapist centres its work on.

 

[beddo]

I'm just wondering, putting this question to every staffer and contributor involved with this website. Do you prefer the term Borg or Hivemind?

Oh wait, you used the term Borg in your pointless supplication of an article, so I guess we'll go with Borg then. Seriously, after Extra Credits proves to the world that they don't have a bloody clue about how marketing works by giving EA the attention for it's ad campaings that they wanted along, which I might add was reinforced by a hate mail campaign and the usual 20+ pages of fanboy drooling, Young here chimes in and officially makes it a bandwagon.

Honestly, Escapist. What happened to you people, or were you always like this and I just didn't notice. This idiotic hivemind Borg mentality where one person says something and everyone is supposed to agree without question is ridiculous in it's own right. But when you have contributors pawing at each other trying to get some kind of Jihad going amongst the sheep then clearly this community has taken a wrong turn at 6th Avenue and David Koresh Boulevard.

Just don't expect me to be here when ya'll start passing out the special punch.

So, this guy has been suspended for THIS? I think you people will feel right at home with game censorship.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[beddo]

Well, Shamus, you may not like hearing someone say this, but the truth is that EA is a business just like any other business. Businesses are the equivalent of sociopaths with their only motivation being to make money, and they will do that however is necessary that they can get away with(there are exceptions). If these offensive ad campaigns and other actions improve their bottom profits, then that's exactly what they will do, ethics and morality be damned. It's hard to truthfully say that these things don't improve EA's bottom line without being in the accounting department staring at the numbers. There are only two things a business ever understands, the creak of the customer's wallet opening and the slap of the customer's wallet closing. The strongest message we can send to EA that we don't appreciate their actions is to stop buying their games(but don't pirate because that's just being an ass and a thief).

However, gamers have to have their fix. As long as EA is the one putting out the AAA blockbusters that everyone hovers up, gamers will continue to buy from them, and EA will continue as it always has(honestly, I think this whole trend and concept of the AAA game is part of what has gone wrong with the gaming industry, this includes the "hardcore" vs. "casual" religious war, which is really AAA main-streamers versus everyone else).

EDIT: Minor typo and clarification.

I love that you think this is the height of corporate evil, you ever heard of Niger Delta!?

[link]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell[/link]

 

[geizr]

Well, Shamus, you may not like hearing someone say this, but the truth is that EA is a business just like any other business. Businesses are the equivalent of sociopaths with their only motivation being to make money, and they will do that however is necessary that they can get away with(there are exceptions). If these offensive ad campaigns and other actions improve their bottom profits, then that's exactly what they will do, ethics and morality be damned. It's hard to truthfully say that these things don't improve EA's bottom line without being in the accounting department staring at the numbers. There are only two things a business ever understands, the creak of the customer's wallet opening and the slap of the customer's wallet closing. The strongest message we can send to EA that we don't appreciate their actions is to stop buying their games(but don't pirate because that's just being an ass and a thief).

However, gamers have to have their fix. As long as EA is the one putting out the AAA blockbusters that everyone hovers up, gamers will continue to buy from them, and EA will continue as it always has(honestly, I think this whole trend and concept of the AAA game is part of what has gone wrong with the gaming industry, this includes the "hardcore" vs. "casual" religious war, which is really AAA main-streamers versus everyone else).

EDIT: Minor typo and clarification.

I love that you think this is the height of corporate evil, you ever heard of Niger Delta!?

[link]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell[/link]

Unless I am misunderstanding your comment, allow me to direct your attention to the bolded statement. That is a general statement, applicable to ALL businesses, not just EA and its particular actions. It was not my intent to communicate EA's particular actions as being the height of business evil. It was meant only to indicate the reality of the psychology of businesses and that EA is simply typical of that characterization. Also, I was trying to point out the most significant response we as customers can make, the one to which businesses actually pay attention.

You don't waste time and energy getting mad at the snake that bites you; you simply cut off its head, suck the poison from the wound, and continue walking on your way.