EA does it again!

[GreasyDogMeat]

Atari and EA make games you like to play? Really?

 

Here I thought it was developers like Bioware and Obsidian that made games you liked to play. All Atari and EA seem to be doing is gumming up the works of happy customers getting happy games from happy developers.

[Dark_Raven]

Yep Atari and EA are only screwing the developers by pissing off the customers. Way to go!

[Gorth]

EA and Atari are investors. They finance projects and expects returns on their investments. Different publishers, different ways of achieving it. Some like to have control over the projects, some prefer a more hands off approach. They have to keep their share holders happy first and foremost. With a bit of luck, we get something that makes us, the gamers, happy in the process.

 

Edit: By extension, with a bit of bad luck, we get something we don't like.

[Volourn]

Uh. EA develops games. It's called EA Sports. Some of the best games ever created.

 

 

 

"Customers give publishers money which the publishers use to make games you like. Customers indirectly give you games that you want to play."

 

L0L With that logic, my parents give me games I want to play even thoguh they haven't bought a game for me since I was a kid because without them I wouldn't even be born hence I wouldn't be able to play games.

 

 

 

"Atari and EA make games you like to play? Really?

 

Here I thought it was developers like Bioware and Obsidian that made games you liked to play. All Atari and EA seem to be doing is gumming up the works of happy customers getting happy games from happy developers."

 

First off, EA is a developer and publisher. And, Atari does make games people want to play. Whetehr you like it or not, Atari had a hand in NWN2. As well as other games they publish. Developers don't create games in a funnel. Sorry. No Atari, no MOTB. Period.

 

 

 

"Yep Atari and EA are only screwing the developers by pissing off the customers. Way to go!"

 

Atari is struggling; but EA is most likely the most successful game company in the world. If 'pissing off customers' mean publishing/developing games those customers want than they're the kings. The Sims, Madden (and, to a lesser degree their other sports games) have been pleaisng games for over a decade now, and a bunch of other successful games.

 

EA knows want the gamers want, and deliver it time, and time again.

 

You shouldn't speak for other gamers. The millions of copies that EA games sell speak enough about how customers feel about EA - they make games people want to play.

 

R00fles!

[Killian Kalthorne]

Uh. EA develops games. It's called EA Sports. Some of the best games ever created.

Only if you like sport games.

[kirottu]

Captain Obvious to the rescue!

[Volourn]

"Only if you like sport games."

 

Yup. And, BG2 and FO are only some of the best games ever if you like RPGs.

 

R00fles!

[neckthrough]

Speculative post:

 

Found this interesting interview with John Riccitiello, the CEO of EA. I think it sheds some light on EA's mindset somewhat possibly explains why they are progressively moving towards stricter and stricter restrictions on the ways in which they want customers to experience their content. Here's the interesting bit from the interview:

 

There is a longer-term transition from a disk-based model for retail sales to an

[kirottu]

Monthly fee in mmorpgs are there for a reason. Keeping up servers with really high usage, offering constant online assistance and making patches(balancing or new content) isn

[Gorgon]

Atari published unreal tournament. Thats the single most time I've spent on a game, including MMORPhegers. Don't have a spare box for LAN battles now though.

 

Also, you don't need a disk in the drive to play UT, it will also install on 3 computers in LAN no problem. Just recently I bought the game again because I had scratched the disks to death, the serial that was supposed to be in the box was missing. I called the number in the manual and they gave me a new one. No fuss, no international calls.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Gorgon

[random n00b]

Monthly fee in mmorpgs are there for a reason. Keeping up servers with really high usage, offering constant online assistance and making patches(balancing or new content) isn

Edited September 24, 2008 by random n00b

[Gorgon]

Why introduce it by charging full price for something crippled. Doesn't seem like a smart marketing ploy.

[GreasyDogMeat]

You make it sound as if ONLY Atari would have been able to 'make' NwN 2 and it's expansions/premium modules and the developers play the minor role.

 

If you were to replace Ossian as the developer as MoW, you would end up with an entirely different adventure, for better or worse. Replace Atari and gamers would have likely been able to play MoW a year ago when it was finished by Ossian. Its a bit of an irony as from what I've read, Atari has a habit of rushing developers and setting deadlines that MUST be met. Yet when a developer finishes a product on time they don't seem to mind delaying it for their own DRM scheme and to hell with the wishes of the NwN 2 community & Ossian.

 

A publisher may be vital to the release of a game, but I frankly think certain publishers are doing a piss poor job lately. It seems to be getting worse and worse. The intrusive big brother schemes and DRM. I couldn't even play Resident Evil 4 on my computer until I uninstalled software that CAME with my computer. I just thought the damn game was glitchy and was refusing to start on my machine or I had some sort of hardware problem. Then the lazy bastards couldn't even implement proper key commands (press x on controller: I'M NOT USING A CONTROLLER!!), use low quality video and offer no mouse support.

 

Half-assed jobs with nasty protection that screws your computer, year long delay for new DRM software nobody wants, and now not allowing people to play a game if they complain about it on a forum. Whats next?

 

I certainly understand your stance that customers can be whiny ungrateful $&%^$ but that is no excuse for crummy publishers giving their ENTIRE fan-bases massive shafts. While an extreme analogy, its like letting a murderer off because he was abused as a child. Yeah... kind of a stupid analogy but I think folks will get my point.

[Gorgon]

The RE ports are all extremely crappy, you don't want to play those games on anything other than consoles. I dunno, it's just tradition with CAPCOM.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Wasn't it Ubisoft that handled the port?

[Azure79]

Speculative post:

 

Found this interesting interview with John Riccitiello, the CEO of EA. I think it sheds some light on EA's mindset somewhat possibly explains why they are progressively moving towards stricter and stricter restrictions on the ways in which they want customers to experience their content. Here's the interesting bit from the interview:

 

There is a longer-term transition from a disk-based model for retail sales to an

[Hurlshort]

That's an awesome idea. I'd easily pay $20 a month to have access to all the EA games every month. I really don't need to own a game. I play the game, and then I'm done with the game.

 

edit: I do agree that they need to keep the standard buying model active. I just personally like the idea of a flat monthly fee for a library of games. It's why I dig Gametap.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Hurlshot

[Killian Kalthorne]

That's an awesome idea. I'd easily pay $20 a month to have access to all the EA games every month. I really don't need to own a game. I play the game, and then I'm done with the game.

 

edit: I do agree that they need to keep the standard buying model active. I just personally like the idea of a flat monthly fee for a library of games. It's why I dig Gametap.

 

It would probably be $20 a month per game.

[random n00b]

That's an awesome idea. I'd easily pay $20 a month to have access to all the EA games every month.

You, and tons of people. But I doubt that's what they have in mind - just like a subscription to LotRO doesn't automatically allow you to play DDO and Asheron's Call. That'd sure be neat, though.

 

 

I really don't need to own a game. I play the game, and then I'm done with the game.

Well, some people like to revisit a game over and over and over... long after the publisher has ceased to exist. Fallout?

 

 

edit: I do agree that they need to keep the standard buying model active. I just personally like the idea of a flat monthly fee for a library of games. It's why I dig Gametap.

There's no reason to believe they wouldn't offer the chance to purchase a game... after they had milked the most cash they could out of it. Just like flicks are out on DVD months after the theatrical premiere.

 

WTF... I actually like the sound of that...

Edited September 24, 2008 by random n00b

[Humodour]

I'm waiting for them to make a zombie version of EA Sports.

[ramza]

Let them do whatever they want. There's no way I am giving them my money for that crap. Actually, it would be great if people slowly started giving up video games and started playing board games just like in the old times...

[Tigranes]

If the business model generally switched to such a scheme, the deal-makers/breakers for me would be:

 

1/ Easy modding, which not only includes big mods by dedicated teams I can download, but the possibility for myself to just go fiddle with some files and change some values - i.e. changing the walking speed in Morrowind. If I can't do that, they better have a lot, lot better post-release support.

 

2/ An attitude hwich does not abuse the model by gratuitously banning players (but hey, EA's already got a head start) from these 'rents', throwing invasive advertising or somesuch.

 

3/ The automatic release of all discontinued games into public domain.

 

On each of those, I harbour doubts.

[random n00b]

3/ The automatic release of all discontinued games into public domain.

That's a fairly rare occurence even with the traditional model...

[neckthrough]

3/ The automatic release of all discontinued games into public domain.

That's a fairly rare occurence even with the traditional model...

Funnily enough, EA actually has been doing this... Westwood's original Command & Conquer, and now Red Alert 1, can be downloaded for free from EA's website.

 

Anyways getting back to the issue at hand, I think EA (and other publishers) should make it clear what kind of a pricing model they are going for. As Hurlshot suggested, maybe it makes sense to keep both models alive. I think there's a significant customer base for both models. What's key here is that the model should be clear and prices should be set accordingly. For example, $20 a month for a catalogue of games is IMO a great deal, but $20 a month for a single non-MMO game is a ripoff. For the sales-class customers, just charge them a flat $50 or $60 once and then leave them alone. It's not the actual cost of the sale or rental that's important (market forces will determine that) but the clarity of the model. EA is currently trying to have their cake and eat it too -- they're charging the full $50 up front for a sale (which is the current market price for a full unrestricted game), while simulataneously trying to exert control on usage. This is unacceptable.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I really don't need to own a game. I play the game, and then I'm done with the game.

 

Well, that's great for you, but, personally, I like revisiting old games.