Gamers Uncomfortable with Change, Says EA's Peter Moore

[Extragorey]

Sounds like the typical "change is inevitable; microtransactions and such are change, so get used to them" argument.
Sure, change is inevitable, but that doesn't mean some changes aren't just plain dumb.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

No, he's right. We don't like change generally. PEOPLE don't like change generally. Doesn't excuse you living in your own little fantasy world where you can do whatever the fuck you like because people just don't know they want it yet.

I swear EA has so many stupid reasons for the anti-consumer bullshit they pull that I actually think they themselves believe it.

 

[Dragonbums]

If you make a black, female, or LGBTQ character for the sole reason to "represent" them, then you are not helping anyone.

I'm just going to say what someone else said on this matter.

As someone who has a total of maybe 5 characters in the entirety of video game history representing me as a whole, I'd rather take one mediocre shoehorned character that represents me than nothing.

So you would be totally okay with a Character in a game who's sole defining trait and feature was that they were gay? Or black? Or if a character was a stereotypical portrayal of a gay person or a black person while not being downright offensive?

After all, you were "represented" but thats hardly what you'd want i imagine. So my point stands, first a character has to be a character, a person cant be reduced to skincolor, gender or sexuality, there is more to it than that and we shouldnt expect less of fictional characters in games.

Yes I would. Because at this point this argument ONLY comes up in relation to women, people of different sexuality, and those of different colors. But nobody gives two shits about being swarmed by characters that are white because the checklist says so and back it up with demographic statistics.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

The only ones afraid of change are companies, the public will easily buy whatever crap they are selling, so there is no reason for the industry not to improve gameplay, diversity, depth, writing,ect,ect...

 

[Lightknight]

EA : "Our consumers don't like X because Y". Does it really matter what Y is?

 

[stroopwafel]

I also wonder what 'change', objectively, EA themselves brought to videogames as of late. They only rehash their annual Battlefield, NFS and sports games. Like their latest game Battlefield Hardline; that looks like a fucking watershed moment of 'change' in the history of the medium!

The only original IP EA had recently was Dead Space which they let go to waste b/c it didn't confirm to their preposterous sales projections of 5 million copies minimum(!)

EAs modern games are the epitomy of stagnant and conservative game design aimed largely at the lowest common denominator so any 'change' they bring to the table is not in their games but in their pricing schemes. That of all people a representative of EA than calls gamers 'uncomfortable with change' when he screws them over is just...well not only hypocritical but unbelievably arrogant as well.

 

[Bashfluff]

I would imagine that EA would want to court the community after winning Worst Company of the Year award twice. EA doesn't seem to be riding high at the start of a new generation. They're failing to meet sales projections due to their absurd budgets and sales expectations, and their increasingly disturbing anti-consumerist practices lost them a CEO and more than a little consumer confidence. If he's talking about how DLC and micro-transactions aren't being accepted by the gaming community, it must be because they DLC and the micro-transactions are not working out for them any better.

What is the point of making a reactionary statement and telling us, the gaming community, that we'll warm up to it all and that there's no real legitimate reason we haven't already? That strikes me as a similar practice to sticking your fingers in your ears as a kid and yelling insults to your parents to try to block them out. It's clear that it isn't working. It's clear that it has worked for other companies. A smarter EA might try to look at those and see why. This EA seems to exist solely to lose money and piss everyone off in the process.

You don't want to alienate your consumers anymore, EA, if that's even fuckin' possible at this point.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Spoiler: Journey

[sub]Widely considered to be one of the most artistic and visually brilliant games ever to come out. Completely different from any other[/sub]
[sup] game on the PS3, or any home console for that matter.[/sup]

Spoiler: Oh, look, that game.

[sup]The same thing as 3, but without babies and pools. The reaction to this announcement was obvious. Outrage.[/sup]

His logic is absoloutely flawless. I mean, EA is changing so much recently. I mean, in Inquisition, there are how many new party members? The Inquisitor, Iron Bull, and Sera? Out of an 8 person party? I know it's not our fault, Bioware, but it could not be.

He does almost have a point, especially with the kind of audiences The Sims and other casual games draw in, but how is this going to sound to EA's fans? "You're a stupid, uncreative and unadventurous dickhead, come get din-dins."

 

[Bashfluff]

Spoiler: Journey

[sub]Widely considered to be one of the most artistic and visually brilliant games ever to come out. Completely different from any other[/sub]
[sup] game on the PS3, or any home console for that matter.[/sup]

Spoiler: Oh, look, that game.

[sup]The same thing as 3, but without babies and pools. The reaction to this announcement was obvious. Outrage.[/sup]

His logic is absoloutely flawless. I mean, EA is changing so much recently. I mean, in Inquisition, there are how many new party members? The Inquisitor, Iron Bull, and Sera? Out of an 8 person party? I know it's not our fault, Bioware, but it could not be.

He does almost have a point, especially with the kind of audiences The Sims and other casual games draw in, but how is this going to sound to EA's fans? "You're a stupid, uncreative and unadventurous dickhead, come get din-dins."

That is what baffles me. It would have been much more acceptable to say something along the lines of, "In this tough economy, we've already seen gamers are more hesitant to take chances on new IP coming out from AAA studios. Independent games have risen to prominence by taking advantage of this by costing less. However, many of them can be far shorter than gamers want. We here at EA want to push forward utilizing two strategies: making the AAA games you buy last longer through the use of DLC, and putting out more games with the F2P model. This allows us to satisfy as many of our customers as possible.

Unfortunately, both of these ideas are recent and subject to scrutiny as developers and consumers alike try to decide how these should be used in their games. We hope that in time players we come to accept these ideas and blah blah blah blah give us money"

Instead they throw out this caustic remark that appears to attempt to shame gamers as a whole for rebelling against EA's terrible business practices. If you shroud what you say in corporate doublespeak and vague half-truths, you don't get as much backlash as you would if you straight up lied to people. Not only did he lie, but he insulted us with that lie intentionally and seemingly assumes that we'll be ashamed of not lapping up whatever it is EA wants to sell us and then drop any and all complaints.

It's...I legitimately don't understand this. Not even as a smart business decision. It seems like an awful thing to say no matter who aims to benefit.

 

[sniddy_v1legacy]

Am I the only one smelling a jimquisition

 

[Dragonbums]

The fact of the matter is that all the whiny assed behanchods requesting those characters would then whine even more if they were written to the standard of the average male protagonist. They would accuse the game maker of spreading harmful stereotypes.

If you are literally incapapble of writing a character that doesn't rely on shitatastic stereotypes then you are a shit writer.

The reason being your average male protagonist is ripped from the pages of any Tom Clancy novel written after 1990.

And that aspect is just as much heavily mocked and criticized by the gaming community.

There are a few exceptions but we are talking maybe 1 game every 3 years that has a protagonist with any real depth. Note the above only applies to games from the major studios, but then those are the ones being whined about.

Well of course the AAA market will be under more scutiny than indie game number 500. They are the most public and the ones that are the face of the gaming community.

 

[Aitamen]

Hey, here's an idea about your "games as a service" concept, Moore. Free of charge, even!

How about you put work into games *before* you expect people to pay for them, listen to your fucking testers instead of insulting them, and realize that the bulk of your games are designed as products and not art?

Fuck you, Peter.

 

[thehorror2]

While he's right, to an extent, a lot of gamers WOULDN'T be so opposed to change if every "change" EA subjected its customer base to wasn't a nakedly-obvious cash grab. We hate change because AAA gaming conditioned us to expect every change to be negative!