Cue the posts screaming "BUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DOESN'T EXIST!" Despite the fact that it is legally recognized around the world, and is valued and traded as property on the markets.Shamus Young said:
Electronic Arts: Greed Is Not the Problem
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
I agree with Shamus, although Greed might be the wrong word. Greed implies selfish excess. I'm not sure if it's something we should be encouraging, if only because of that implication. Meritocratic pursuit of success and profit? That might be more like it, if a little bit more difficult to summarise in one word.
But yes, the overwhelming point of Shamus' article is right. For a company that is clearly comfortable with focussing on their bottom line, they aren't very good at it. They haven't seemed to cotton on to the fact that systematically destroying their goodwill isn't actually going to make them any money. The amount of money that they'd make from Dungeon Keeper Mobile, for example, is probably going to be offset by the tremendous amount of bad press they got. Same with putting Simcity online, same with declaring that Steam Sales -much loved by the community, and generally profitable- are bad for the value of their IP.
Shamus is right: you'd be livid if you were a shareholder. Even if I only cared about EA's profit, and I don't, I just want to play their games, I'd still be annoyed by their general incompetence. I'd be annoyed by the fact that almost every news article about them or their management is negative, and even when it isn't the comments section is overwhelmingly negative anyway.
So yeah, it isn't just pursuit of profit. It's pursuit of short-term profit, with a rather outstanding lack of awareness or care towards the industry or their customers. Which is probably closer to the definition of greed* than just pure pursuit of profit, and yeah. It isn't good.
Anyway, good article regardless. Thanks Shamus.
*Edit: Depends on how you define greed, I suppose.
But yes, the overwhelming point of Shamus' article is right. For a company that is clearly comfortable with focussing on their bottom line, they aren't very good at it. They haven't seemed to cotton on to the fact that systematically destroying their goodwill isn't actually going to make them any money. The amount of money that they'd make from Dungeon Keeper Mobile, for example, is probably going to be offset by the tremendous amount of bad press they got. Same with putting Simcity online, same with declaring that Steam Sales -much loved by the community, and generally profitable- are bad for the value of their IP.
Shamus is right: you'd be livid if you were a shareholder. Even if I only cared about EA's profit, and I don't, I just want to play their games, I'd still be annoyed by their general incompetence. I'd be annoyed by the fact that almost every news article about them or their management is negative, and even when it isn't the comments section is overwhelmingly negative anyway.
So yeah, it isn't just pursuit of profit. It's pursuit of short-term profit, with a rather outstanding lack of awareness or care towards the industry or their customers. Which is probably closer to the definition of greed* than just pure pursuit of profit, and yeah. It isn't good.
Anyway, good article regardless. Thanks Shamus.
*Edit: Depends on how you define greed, I suppose.
There's something to be said for a company that dominates their market-space by being really good at what they do versus one that tries to dominate their market-space by clamping down control over everything they could conceivably be said to own- IPs new and old, data, customer base...
Valve will never be EA. This is not to say that the near-monopoly they enjoy couldn't turn from something seen as benevolent to something more sinister; some will no doubt say they're on their way already. But even the little steps show the difference in culture between the companies as they currently exist. Valve's AR people wanted to go another way; Valve released the technology they'd been working on to them and allowed it. A team wanted to re-create the original Half-Life in the current Source engine as a mod; unsolicited, Valve gave their blessing for a commercial release. Valve generates new IPs; EA buys the groups responsible for previously successful ones and manages to misplace the people responsible for those IPs' creation.
It would be beating the dead horse to write more articles about EA's failures if there were more signs that their management seemed to fully grasp why they're the target of so much hate. For every moment where they show signs of improvement or at least pay lip-service to being better people, there's a new Dungeon Keeper Mobile.
They can definitely still make good games, but there's so much baggage with every half-way promising offering that it becomes hard to stomach.
Valve will never be EA. This is not to say that the near-monopoly they enjoy couldn't turn from something seen as benevolent to something more sinister; some will no doubt say they're on their way already. But even the little steps show the difference in culture between the companies as they currently exist. Valve's AR people wanted to go another way; Valve released the technology they'd been working on to them and allowed it. A team wanted to re-create the original Half-Life in the current Source engine as a mod; unsolicited, Valve gave their blessing for a commercial release. Valve generates new IPs; EA buys the groups responsible for previously successful ones and manages to misplace the people responsible for those IPs' creation.
It would be beating the dead horse to write more articles about EA's failures if there were more signs that their management seemed to fully grasp why they're the target of so much hate. For every moment where they show signs of improvement or at least pay lip-service to being better people, there's a new Dungeon Keeper Mobile.
They can definitely still make good games, but there's so much baggage with every half-way promising offering that it becomes hard to stomach.
I'm not entirely sure I agree. I very much think Greed *IS* EA's problem and at the root of most things pointed out in this article. I do not see making a profit and striving to get rich as being the same thing as being "greedy", especially in a capitalist society. Look at how the two companies being used here have been making, or trying to make, money. Valve by and large releases stand alone games that are self contained and shine on their own merits, making people want to buy them. EA tries to do the same, but loads them up with tons of DLC right out of the gate, engages in elaborate lies about what their products are going to be (Mass Effect 3, and the reveals that came with it's behind the scenes app), and puts micro transactions into single player games like "Dead Space 3". Their service "Origin" has nothing to recommend it, I've told my tales about their customer service and why I won't use it many times, it's little more than a digital platform to sell their games for top dollar and load your system with DRM that they control and spies on your system. In comparison while Valve has put micro transactions/DLC into their games they have been very careful about how, where, and when they do it, as opposed to aiming to pull money out of their customers constantly. They did not for example launch "Portal 2" with the requirement that you need to gather X number of Macguffins to upgrade your portal gun to reach the next section, attaching it to a huge grind, and then offering to sell you Macguffins to see the whole game and be less annoying. Where EA charges a premium for their games and loads them with extra fees, Valve manages to win customers by offering a great value and slashing prices frequently, making it so people WANT to spend money and wind up being happy about it, and feel they are getting a reasonable deal, as opposed to EA which does nothing but gouge customers and make them feel resentful. One of the first things EA said was they had no real plans to do the same kinds of sales that STEAM does, yet at the end of the day it's those kinds of sales that have made Valve tons of money and generated good will.
Both EA and Valve are profit oriented businesses, with the same basic goal... to get you to part with your money. But the way they go about it is entirely different, and really Greed and wanting to get people to literally pay as much as possible for everything and everything is exactly how EA has gotten the reputation it is. With Valve you can buy a bunch of cheap games, and if they blow chips it doesn't matter as much because they were inexpensive. With EA they provide a premium product which acts as little more than a gateway to sell you other things, with entire features and key content missing or locked out behind annoying timers and boring busywork until you pay. Valve might say sell you a hat for "Team Fortress 2" which does pretty much nothing, ditto for a costume for your favorite DOTA2 champion, EA on the other hand will make you pay extra money for a crucial part of the Mass Effect Storyline (Prothean Squadmate) and things like that, or vend salvage to you in "Dead Space 3" specifically to get around mechanics they added to make upgrading all your gear annoying and encourage people to pay just to experience the entire product they bought.
I get what the article here is saying, but I think the reason for the incompetence is greed having gone too far with EA and saturated everything they do, to the point where it simply doesn't know how to act like a reasonable company. It's already said flat out that it's not going to go the same route as Valve, and at the end of the day that's because EA isn't that comparatively generous (as generous as someone who is still trying to sell you products can be that is). It's argument against sales was that they "devalued the products" which seems to be a fancy way of saying that EA feels entitled to gouge money and since people will so far pay it, there is no reason for them to act any other way... which on some levels is a valid point, but it does lead to everyone hating them.
Both EA and Valve are profit oriented businesses, with the same basic goal... to get you to part with your money. But the way they go about it is entirely different, and really Greed and wanting to get people to literally pay as much as possible for everything and everything is exactly how EA has gotten the reputation it is. With Valve you can buy a bunch of cheap games, and if they blow chips it doesn't matter as much because they were inexpensive. With EA they provide a premium product which acts as little more than a gateway to sell you other things, with entire features and key content missing or locked out behind annoying timers and boring busywork until you pay. Valve might say sell you a hat for "Team Fortress 2" which does pretty much nothing, ditto for a costume for your favorite DOTA2 champion, EA on the other hand will make you pay extra money for a crucial part of the Mass Effect Storyline (Prothean Squadmate) and things like that, or vend salvage to you in "Dead Space 3" specifically to get around mechanics they added to make upgrading all your gear annoying and encourage people to pay just to experience the entire product they bought.
I get what the article here is saying, but I think the reason for the incompetence is greed having gone too far with EA and saturated everything they do, to the point where it simply doesn't know how to act like a reasonable company. It's already said flat out that it's not going to go the same route as Valve, and at the end of the day that's because EA isn't that comparatively generous (as generous as someone who is still trying to sell you products can be that is). It's argument against sales was that they "devalued the products" which seems to be a fancy way of saying that EA feels entitled to gouge money and since people will so far pay it, there is no reason for them to act any other way... which on some levels is a valid point, but it does lead to everyone hating them.
Wow, that might be harshest take down I've seen of EA. It's not at all unfair either but you did glance over their few quality works. Titles like Mirrors Edge is a unique IP that despite failing on the front end of its release still has people talking about it in a good way. Dead Space 1 and 2 were fantastic new IP's that came and filled a perfectly shaped hole I was missing in my gaming experience. C&C Generals was taken from Westwood studios and turned into something unique and familiar, and then of course Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Though I suppose those had more to do with the developers then EA arguably, I mean I can't really think of really brilliant marketing strategy or a moment where EA came off as the good guys, unless they were fighting Zynga or wrestling over the rights to the word "Edge" but that was like Darth Vader vs Hitler you're only the good guy by comparison... their humble bundle last year?
A-fucking-men, Seamus, a-fucking-men. Some consultant needs to read this wholly to EA's Board of Directors stat. They'll probably get fired, because no one survives telling truth to power, but it seriously needs to be said. Most of EA's problems seem to stem from too much micromanagement ( or not enough in regards to their marketing).
I completely understand that there is a huge difference in running a company and being a creative and that, in general, creatives suck at business and business people are soul-less and uncreative, but can't EA separate their creative enterprises from the soul-deadened shallow portions of their business? Yes, a development team needs structure, a deadline and a strict budget, but they most certainly do NOT need focus groups and suggestions from the financial side of the company. Let talented people do what they do and let the suits decide where to invest their profits next, then get out of the way and stop interfering.
I completely understand that there is a huge difference in running a company and being a creative and that, in general, creatives suck at business and business people are soul-less and uncreative, but can't EA separate their creative enterprises from the soul-deadened shallow portions of their business? Yes, a development team needs structure, a deadline and a strict budget, but they most certainly do NOT need focus groups and suggestions from the financial side of the company. Let talented people do what they do and let the suits decide where to invest their profits next, then get out of the way and stop interfering.
Valve worse than EA? Are you being serious?KungFuJazzHands said:
They're not the Archangels some make them out to be for sure, but Gabe would have to dig 50 miles straight down before he could even freaking SEE EA trough a glass floor.
EA is consistently raping franchises and Developers. They have been doing that for years. They rip-off their customers at every corner, deliver subpar if not outright broken products en masse and then shift the blame for said Bullshit on everyone else. They actively lie to and belittle their customers.
Theres a ton of stuff Valve could improve, especially in steam. But EA is probably THE worst company currently calling shots in the gaming industry. And considering that they are competing against the likes of Capcom and Activision, that's saying a lot.
I know what you're saying but I would think CD Projekt would make an even worse comparison. There are basically two sides to them, the Polish publisher that translates and releases titles in Eastern Europe, and the guys who make The Witcher. I'm guessing you were talking about the latter but they only have a single IP they have to worry about, that makes it far easier to properly nurture and grow.Jasper van Heycop said:
EA is so massive that they're juggling dozens of IP's. It would be nice if they could do what CDP does for each game, but that many games in development requires massive amount of funds which requires investors who require corporate structure. Honestly that latter seems to be the biggest downfall at times, as EA often seems to rush games not because they're over budget but because they have a quarterly sales projection to meet.
I think that a popular consensus is that EA's games are generally rather good. Although Metacritic isn't a perfect indicator of game quality, it's usually at least close to the mark. And EA comes near the top rather often:Scorpid said:
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2013-releases
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2012-releases (where they won)
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2011-releases
Which makes it all the more baffling that everyone hates EA. Or, it's fairly obvious why people hate EA. It's baffling that EA still manages to piss everyone off.
Their humble bundle last year actually gave me some hope that they were trying to turn everything around. That and firing Riccitiello. They've goofed up again with Dungeon Keeper though, so that hope might have been a bit premature.
Greed (as in the simple desire for money) may not be a problem in an of itself, but sometimes the actions resulting from it can be bad, such as ruining a game by trying to force an unnecessary and occasionally faulty online multiplayer component to combat piracy, or littering a respectable franchise with pay-to-win mechanics. I like this article, but I feel that it tries to attribute off too much of EA's problems to incompetence when some of it's mistakes came from a sheer lack of care or decency.
Honestly, hasn't EA really only been managing to succeed as a company by assimilating devs that were already doing well on their own?
I mean, for one, there's BioWare and their Mass Effect and Dragon Age works. Since EA is the publisher, they get a pretty tidy percentage for all of the prophet that BioWare makes from their products.
Not that I'm really defending EA here - their inability to properly innovate combined with their need to outright disband developer groups that no longer meet a quota for them (see: Pandemic, Origin) helps keep them in the black, but it certainly doesn't paint a picture of longevity for any video game developers that begin to invest in Triple A development, and this practice in itself can be seen as self-destructive. As EA is the publisher and, thus, is not the one actually MAKING the games, it's only a matter of time before it stabs all the geese laying the metaphorical golden eggs.
I mean, for one, there's BioWare and their Mass Effect and Dragon Age works. Since EA is the publisher, they get a pretty tidy percentage for all of the prophet that BioWare makes from their products.
Not that I'm really defending EA here - their inability to properly innovate combined with their need to outright disband developer groups that no longer meet a quota for them (see: Pandemic, Origin) helps keep them in the black, but it certainly doesn't paint a picture of longevity for any video game developers that begin to invest in Triple A development, and this practice in itself can be seen as self-destructive. As EA is the publisher and, thus, is not the one actually MAKING the games, it's only a matter of time before it stabs all the geese laying the metaphorical golden eggs.
Fair is fair, making money isn't the problem. Its that they seem to care about nothing else, and there is seemingly nothing they won't do to make money.
Also they've been really getting ready for this year's Worst Company In America competition. They really seem to want to pull off a hat trick of golden poo.
Also they've been really getting ready for this year's Worst Company In America competition. They really seem to want to pull off a hat trick of golden poo.
I think the big difference here is corporate structure. EA is slow on the uptake of new ideas and technologies because it has a thousand small hoops to jump through. It has shareholders, division directors, the board of directors and the C.E.O it all has to get the go from, after each of these have lengthy meetings and approvals processes. Valve doesn't have half of that.
EA would have to streamline it's creative control, but that would mean giving up power. And no one wants to do that.
EA would have to streamline it's creative control, but that would mean giving up power. And no one wants to do that.
Hi there. I enjoyed this article but I do have a bone to pick with it. I agree that EA is an impenitent company but I would argue that it's incompetence comes from greed. As far I as I believe greed is bad and forever will be. Being competitive is fine, wanting to increase your stock and make money is fine too. However, greed is when you strive to make money and damn any morality and consequences in the result.
I know you only used Valve as an example but I'd hardly call them the gold standard. I'd like to point that that Steam wasn't started because Valve saw the future, but rather because it was a security measure that was put in place because Half-Life 2's source code was hacked.
Also steam had a turbulence starting and lot of people hated it. For the first time you need to connect your computer to the internet and many people had to miss out. Even then not everyone could get their game to work.
It's worth remembering that just because something took off and is now popular and and highly presided doesn't mean that it's good. Example Call of Duty; A game I despise not just because of it's popularity and influence but the game itself is horribly designed.
For me GOG will always be the gold standard. I'm not sure if I'd call Valve greedy but I certainly don't get any sense that they care about their customers with the lack of a refund policy, quality control and lack of customer support.
Valve started to get a monopoly on digitally distributed games and now it looks like that monopoly is starting to back fire. Honestly, I'm glade it is. Case and point, greed is and will get you in the end.
I know you only used Valve as an example but I'd hardly call them the gold standard. I'd like to point that that Steam wasn't started because Valve saw the future, but rather because it was a security measure that was put in place because Half-Life 2's source code was hacked.
Also steam had a turbulence starting and lot of people hated it. For the first time you need to connect your computer to the internet and many people had to miss out. Even then not everyone could get their game to work.
It's worth remembering that just because something took off and is now popular and and highly presided doesn't mean that it's good. Example Call of Duty; A game I despise not just because of it's popularity and influence but the game itself is horribly designed.
For me GOG will always be the gold standard. I'm not sure if I'd call Valve greedy but I certainly don't get any sense that they care about their customers with the lack of a refund policy, quality control and lack of customer support.
Valve started to get a monopoly on digitally distributed games and now it looks like that monopoly is starting to back fire. Honestly, I'm glade it is. Case and point, greed is and will get you in the end.
And this is the true difference between EA and Valve. EA are beholden to shareholders and everything they do is to add value for those shareholders. Executives flail about trying anything they can to satisfy the hoards baying for more and more profit. Valve however, are beholden to no one. Publicly listing a company is a good way to make some money in the short term for those that founded it, but it is hardly ever a good move for the actual company involved.Jumwa said:
I'm guessing you weren't around for the Spore debarkle then?Jasper van Heycop said:
Before EA used Steam and eventually Origin they loaded their games with a DRM system called SecuROM which limited the number of installs you could make and often mistook upgrades as a different PC, which would after a set number (usually 3 or 5) and kill your 'licence' of the game. It also remained even if you uninstalled the game, rather like a rootkit.