Not Greedy, Just Clueless

[Canadamus Prime]

Oh so in other words EA isn't greedy, they're just incredibly incredibly stupid.

 

[TKretts3]

Oh so in other words EA isn't greedy, they're just incredibly incredibly stupid.

It's not that they aren't greedy, that was said in the article. The greed of the individuals in charge at EA isn't a problem, their stupidity/irrationality is.

 

[Pseudonym2]

It reminds me of a Hershel of Otropol story where he tricks someone into trapping their hand in a jar of pickles. He only would tell him how to release it if the other guy would leave him alone. It turns out all the guy had to do is let go of the pickle.

EA really is greedy. They could just make money but they feel like they have make massive amounts of money by nickle and diming. All they're doing is making themselves look foolish.

 

[zerragonoss]

Great article, it quite helped structure my own thoughts on the matter that were just about floating around to the point of "never attribute to malice that which could easily be attributed to stupidity".

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Oh so in other words EA isn't greedy, they're just incredibly incredibly stupid.

It's not that they aren't greedy, that was said in the article. The greed of the individuals in charge at EA isn't a problem, their stupidity/irrationality is.

Well no more greedy than any other company anyway.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

You hit the nail on the head Shamus. I understand the need for big companies to change strategies and target different market segments but when you do it do it well from the start. I sometimes think companies believe meeting launch windows is more important and that we'll blindly dismiss any issues for the fact that it will eventually be fixed which ticks me off. Unless the game is something I really want to have at launch I usually wait for the dust to settle before making a purchase.

We (the gaming culture) don't exactly help with the launch-window issue; We will heap scorn on anything that doesn't meet a deadline, even if such a deadline is laughably unrealistic. Peversely, we don't encourage long-term support either (The comment section for the news on the Scott Pilgrim DLC is just terrible). I think that they just expect the "fans" to get all upset either way, and they'd rather get the game out sooner rather than later.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I don't know if you're right about the nickle and diming, but this article certainly rings true to a consumer viewpoint. Hear hear!

 

[Dev Null]

"We (the gaming culture) don't exactly help with the launch-window issue; We will heap scorn on anything that doesn't meet a deadline, even if such a deadline is laughably unrealistic."

Wait; if only there were some way they could make deadlines that weren't laughably unrealistic...

 

[hentropy]

You don't get it. Businesses never do badly because of business practices, it's ALWAYS external factors. Like PIRACY and USED GAMES. This is the reason why EA is doing badly. PIRACY and USED GAMES. Until Congress kills torrents and Gamestop we're going to keep losing money. Steam does well because they came first and have trendy marketing. It just means we have to spend more money on marketers and time machines.

 

[zinho73]

This article is brilliant.

I've been saying for a long time that the way EA handles costumer relations is amateurish. They simply don't know how to do things.

 

[zinho73]

A huge difference is that Valve is a private company and EA is public.

Public companies only care about major shareholders, employees and customers are far down the list of concern. In an ideal world decisions that harm customers and employees would punish the shareholders by decreasing the stock price. In reality stock price is mostly coupled to quarterly earning reports so anything that increases the number on the reports is fair game regardless of the long term consequences.

With a private company usually the founder is in charge and it is "his baby". Until the dollar signs take over his brain he actually has some integrity about his decisions and cares about his reputation.

About the only "good" public company I can think of is Costco but that will probably change now that the founder retired from CEO. Hopefully he will keep tabs on his successor and has influence over policy decisions.

Also a very good point.

 

[Callate]

Very well said, Shamus.

So, what does it take for EA to get a clue?

Rembrandtqeinstein had a good point that Valve is a private company and EA is a publicly traded one, and my take is that perhaps that leads to an unfortunate cycle of decisions that may be foolish in the long run but are easy to justify to investors. Still, as I've pointed out, EA has lost over 2 billion dollars in the last three years, and as Shamus points out, EA appears to be downsizing (frame that as "reorganization" as you may like). Surely they'd rather be making smart decisions; what is it that obstructs their view of the fact that failing to make their customers feel that they're being treated with respect is killing their bottom line?

 

[zinho73]

A huge difference is that Valve is a private company and EA is public.

Public companies only care about major shareholders, employees and customers are far down the list of concern. In an ideal world decisions that harm customers and employees would punish the shareholders by decreasing the stock price. In reality stock price is mostly coupled to quarterly earning reports so anything that increases the number on the reports is fair game regardless of the long term consequences.

With a private company usually the founder is in charge and it is "his baby". Until the dollar signs take over his brain he actually has some integrity about his decisions and cares about his reputation.

About the only "good" public company I can think of is Costco but that will probably change now that the founder retired from CEO. Hopefully he will keep tabs on his successor and has influence over policy decisions.

Really, lets examine this closely. TF2 has microtransactions and did so before it went F2P. Even after TF2 went F2P valve does not provide servers, what do you think their margins are on those microtransactions? Valve is just as ruthless but less transparent.

His point has nothing to do with the drive to make money. The point is that Valve is much more interested in doing it without alienating their costumer base. I think it is a valid consideration.

 

[hellsop]

You don't get it. Businesses never do badly because of business practices, it's ALWAYS external factors. Like PIRACY and USED GAMES. This is the reason why EA is doing badly. PIRACY and USED GAMES. Until Congress kills torrents and Gamestop we're going to keep losing money. Steam does well because they came first and have trendy marketing. It just means we have to spend more money on marketers and time machines.

OTOH, Steam also kills PIRACY and USED GAMES... Or mostly, which is no worse than EA's services are likely to do.

 

[hellsop]

His point has nothing to do with the drive to make money. The point is that Valve is much more interested in doing it without alienating their costumer base. I think it is a valid consideration.

And, essentially, do it with part of that "non-alienation" factoring in what the microtransactions provide: Absolutely no competitive or play-affecting advantage.

 

[hentropy]

You don't get it. Businesses never do badly because of business practices, it's ALWAYS external factors. Like PIRACY and USED GAMES. This is the reason why EA is doing badly. PIRACY and USED GAMES. Until Congress kills torrents and Gamestop we're going to keep losing money. Steam does well because they came first and have trendy marketing. It just means we have to spend more money on marketers and time machines.

OTOH, Steam also kills PIRACY and USED GAMES... Or mostly, which is no worse than EA's services are likely to do.

There is no such thing as a used game on the modern PC market and Steam does nothing to combat piracy itself.

 

[Ec3437]

This article was extremely refreshing! Well-done, Shamus!
Certainly much better than hearing Jim lob ALL OF THE profanities at EA, which does get tiresome after the 3546135315546th time.

 

[Something Amyss]

There's nothing wrong with Electronic Arts wanting to make money, it's the way they're trying to do it that's the problem.

The way they're doing it is still kind of greedy. It even seems to border on malice at points. I'm not sure if I buy into the "clueless" argument.

I'm also not entirely sure the McDonalds analogy works. When it comes to food, we pay for conveniences all the time. Dead Space 3 was all about convenience, with upgrades being purchasable in game with no money. Paying for delivery of a meal is a pretty common practice. Paying to get something faster is pretty standard. It's hard not to see other microtransactions as analogous to the sort of thing that a chain might sell you at the end, combo meal or otherwise.

Valve is less a combo meal and more one of those discount warehouses. Valve's model is more that of Wal-Mart, actually.

Also, while I'm hesitant to pull the "haters gonna hate" defense, EA gets a lot of crap for doing things exactly like everyone else. Now, part of that may be because of beloved despots like Gabe Newell (pbuh), but the fact is people didn't even complain when EA did the same thing with Mass Effect 3's multiplayer. And there's a lot of microtransactions that date back quite a ways. I can't even remember the first time I saw a "time saver" pack, but it dates back to the beginning of the generation.

Is it an issue that Warner Brothers does this? Activision? Was it a problem that THQ did it? It's not just EA v Valve. It's basically Valve v EA as the figurehead for all the wrongs of the collective. Loathe as I am to say anything that comes off as defending EA (especially since this would more be "two wrongs make a right," something I also don't endorse), I don't think EA's problem has anything to do with their competence.

Except, perhaps, their competence at PR. Newell's monopoly comes with an almost cuddly dictator and the likely false appeal of customer consideration, and other companies seem happy to do what EA does as EA does it and let EA be the lightning rod.

I, for one, have no problem with companies making money. Even a lot. EA's practices, which are really the big publishers' practices as a whole, do come off as greedy and even borderline malicious. These are not haphazard approach, but the sort of thing gaming has been coldly calculating since before video games were even a thing.

 

[thiosk]

I do love me some shamus.

However, sir, you have made a grave mistake in your article.

People don't just love steam. People want to have sex with it. Its an apple-level of fanaticisim that is emerging.