Gamers Uncomfortable with Change, Says EA's Peter Moore

[Lightknight]

Saying that people have a problem with change isn't a positive or negative statement. If you like what you've got then change can oftentimes be pretty bad.

But in this scenario, it's a specific kind of change we're lashing out against. The games as a service model bastardizes our games and makes sure that we never feel like we've finished playing them. While that's fine for games that are multiplayer games at their core, it really cheapens single player experiences. That's not saying that games with shoehorned in multiplayer experiences are exempt, that's oftentimes another way to cheapen what should just be a great game that doesn't need multiplayer.

Basically, EA has turned the game into something less clear. The change is in no way positive to gamers because they actively hold back content they would have otherwise released so that they can release it later under this guise. Saying that people who are getting significantly less for their money just don't like change is one of the most ridiculous things a person can say. Maybe they just want to get what they paid for and don't want to get nickle and dimed for the content being held hostage. It's unfortunate that the game medium makes it possible to do this. If people tried doing this with things like Movies then people wouldn't go see them because the original movie isn't that good and the withheld content isn't worth getting.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

It's pretty true that a lot of the core gaming audience doesn't like change. The casual market can handle change because their video games aren't a tentpole of their lives; the hardcore type people just don't want things to change when they are already comfortable with the way things are. This is not a good or bad thing, despite how EA wants to frame it; it's human nature to be wary of changes, since chances are roughly 50/50 that a change is not going to improve things.

That said, EA and their CEOs and COOs and marketing team and everyone there who ever opens their dirty mouths can stuff my dick in it. What they want isn't a changing landscape of gaming. They want to continue to exploit as many gullible people as they can reach, and they want their customers to bend over and take it, and when EA has finished shaking them upside down and grabbing every penny that falls out they want us to thank them.

This statement is meant as an excuse to go ahead and do whatever they want to tear our wallets a new one, damn the ethics and anyone who doesn't like it is a whiny, entitled, neophobic little shit.

 

[conanthegamer]

That must be why we line up in to buy new consoles.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

We like good change, not bad changes. An as the future seems to be buggy games, a dependency on patching, micro transactions and day one dlc then yes we hate change.

 

[lacktheknack]

Eh, he isn't wrong.

Like any competent politician, he's entirely dodging the main problems that gamers have with EA, but he's not wrong.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

My my...that's a lovely jacket you're wearing there, Mr Moore. Oh! Those trousers...just splendid! Is that a rather chunky, possibly rolex, man-watch too? You sure know how to treat a man, Mr Moore!
Now if us gamers could have some fraction of that respect...we would really appreciate it. Really...we would!

Have to admire the photographer for capturing the smuggest (is that a word?) moment from him though.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

No wonder I tend to buy Steam games, and have recently got back into collecting old NES games. None of the claptrap that has been mentioned already.

Though I still have a weakness for Blizzard products

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Of course they are. Take a look at any new vs. old thread around The Escapist. 20 pages of passive-aggressive dissent.

 

[marioandsonic]

Well...I'd be lying if I said this wasn't true at all. I still enjoy playing my old SNES and Gamecube games, and I've downloaded some of my past favorite PC titles from Steam. (Oh, Age of Empires 2, how I've missed you!)

Of course, that doesn't mean I want the kind of change that EA wants, as in paying $60 for a game, and then have that game riddled with mircotransactions and/or server issues that prevent me from playing the game in single player.

 

[faefrost]

"Gamers fear change"? Ummm? Sorry no. Gamers embrace change, if and only if, the change offers what they perceive is of value to them. What they fear, or rather despise is the loss of ownership of products they pay up front for. What they dislike is change that treats them as the product being sold between third parties, rather than as the customer. What they truly loathe is change for corporate sake that in fact reduces the fun of gaming.

Gamers will pile on change when done well and done right. Steam is the best example of this. Mobile gaming is a great example. It strike me more that EA is the one having change issues in their bloated corporate culture. They toss out badly derived half assed ideas that look vaguely like new cutting edge change, but service some internal EA need and not the paying customer, and cannot understand why they are not embraced. So they get twits like this to blame the customer. It's a simple rule EA. CHANGE MUST SERVICE THE CUSTOMERS NEEDS TO SUCCEED,

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

The problem EA is i want to buy complete fully functional GAMES, Not a piss poor broken fucking service masquerading as a game.

 

[kaizen2468]

That would really depend on the change. New games? Perfect. Better combat systems? Awesome. Killer graphics? You bet. Holding back content that used to be free to sell to us later? Bullshit.

 

[Something Amyss]

Better combat systems? Awesome.

Of course, a better combat system runs the risk of being accused of being "dumbed down" "for the casuals" because shitty controls/mechanics weed out the undesirables and leave only us true godly hardcore elite.

"Gamers fear change"? Ummm? Sorry no. Gamers embrace change, if and only if, the change offers what they perceive is of value to them.

While technically true, the qualifier of perception is such to basically weed out almost any change. Which is kind of the problem. Gamers don't readily embrace change. Moore's trying to spin this a different way, that people hate EA because they fear change, but gamers as a whole aren't big on change. That's why the best-selling games are rehashed franchises. Your Calls of Duties. Your Legends of Zeldas. Your Marios. Your Maddens. Even the indie scene is lousy with games which are basically retro/throwbacks for nostalgia's sake.

And that's fine. But actual new ideas don't usually do that well. You will get bust-out, surprise hits, but you usually don't. And even if you do, it doesn't encourage new games so much as encourage clones. Look at Minecraft.

Now, if EA was churning out new games with new ideas and they weren't selling, I'd be on Moore's side. Because the gaming community really hates actual new ideas. But when it's something about how gamers don't like your games because you're a lying sack of crap who sells partial games that re frequently broken and locks the full experience behind a paywall, yeah. crew him. But not because gamers embrace change.

Eh, he isn't wrong.

Like any competent politician, he's entirely dodging the main problems that gamers have with EA, but he's not wrong.

Exactly.

 

[AwesomeDave]

Hey Moore, I'm a gamer and I have no problem with change. I do however, have a problem with your company trying to milk me for all my change. THEMS MY NICKLES!!!!!!

 

[Pinky's Brain]

also fail to accept or understand when necessary change comes in forms that they aren't in 100% agreement.

I WIN at not accepting it, saves me money and aggravation ... I don't need new games really.

If they want my money they have to make a game aimed at the cantankarous 30+ year old PC gaming demographic (I don't give a crap about day one DLC though ... it's the console gamer generation which is hung up on selling or trading in their games). Or make it cheap

 

[geizr]

I remember Peter Moore from back in the day when he was in charge of SEGA of America (I forget the name of the guy who was before him); didn't like him too much back then, either. However, since he's been with EA, Peter has just turned bat-shit crazy, in my opinion. It takes deliberate, concerted effort to develop this level of schizophrenia with reality and to convince yourself of something that is so obviously logically erroneous. As many have stated, while gamers DO demonstrate a considerable inertia to change, especially with favored series and franchises, they have been clearly more vocal of negative or exploitive changes as implemented in EA's business models of late. Gamers can be pulled forward to accept changes, but only if those changes demonstrably provide value and edification to the gaming experience. However, if those changes are deleterious to the gaming experience (broken DRM, broken and unnecessary always-online requirements, unnecessary access codes and logins, incomplete content, exceptionally buggy content), shamefully self-serving (i.e. having no merit other than existing for its own sake as a mere check-off, such as multi-player modes in an inherently single-player game), or serve no purpose other than purely to SWINDLE (and I mean it just like that, because that's how the gamer often feels after the purchase) more money from the gamer (micro-transactions, season passes, exploitive free-to-play implemented as pay-to-win models, content unnecessarily withheld to be sold as DLC later), then it can only be expected that gamers will eventually rebel.

I think most gamers do look forward to changes in how games are marketed, packaged, and sold such to make the games more freely available and accessible to gamers. However, they're not for changes that are implemented with such clearly, deliberately, and remorsely villainous intent as EA (and Ubisoft) has demonstrated. Try making changes that ACTUALLY BENEFIT the customer and see what happens. I think you'll find that gamers will be much more amenable to those kinds of changes.

 

[Twintix]

Is he seriously suggesting that micro-transactions are the way of the future, again? That gamers hate it because it's new, and will embrace it with time? Sure, that'll happen, EA, when you stop trying to screw consumers over by offering them half the deal for twice the prize.

But, like others said, he's not that off the mark. Some gamers tend to react very negatively at the prospect of change. What I'm wondering is how we can be so sure that it's the majority. Maybe it's just a vocal minority that is so opposed to change? Rehashes may sell well, but that doesn't have to mean that the people who buy them don't want anything new ever. I like my Mario and Zelda, but I'm not opposed to new game ideas. Hell, my dream is to become a game designer and offer new experiences. That's my stand point, at least, and I hope that I'm not alone in thinking that.
(Not to mention, just because it's new doesn't mean it's good, or executed well. A game can have the most original idea, like a goat man shooting old ladies with a keytar, but if the game is shitty, nobody is going to want to buy it.)

So, it's a correct statement. It's just not said by the correct person.

 

[sageoftruth]

A textbook example of the phrase, "Some of the best lies are concealed within truth."

 

[orangegasm]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the "Asshole of the Year" award goes to...... Mr. Peter Moore!!!