EA lives in a different reality

[Cultist]

Good riddance
 

EA CEO John Riccitiello will step down as Chief Executive Officer and from the Board of Directors, effective March 30, it has been announced.

Perhaps the biggest and boldest move of Riccietello’s early time in the CEO chair was the February 2008 bid to take over Take-Two Interactive in a $2 billion merger. Looking back, many would say that Take-Two and its studios dodged a bullet when the bid was abandoned later that year, but the strategic intention was clear – to build a portfolio of games which would break EA out of its perception as “the games company for non-gamers”, driven by EA Sports and Maxis‘ Sims franchise, and give it a dominant portfolio across every gaming vertical...

...The argument about to what extent EA is responsible for these changes to games, and how much the invisible hand of the market is to blame, will be fought over for a long time to come. Regardless, many sequels – Mass Effect and Dragon Age, but also Dead Space and others – were met with sustained and vocal criticism, and the EA brand was suffering. Meanwhile, EA stock remained significantly below its pre-recession high of just over $60 – since late 2007, it has not troubled $30...

[Gfted1]

Meanwhile, EA stock remained significantly below its pre-recession high of just over $60 – since late 2007, it has not troubled $30...

Yikes, its currently trading at $17.09. How does that work, does that mean they have lost over 2/3 of the value of the company?

[Tsuga C]

John Riccitiello shall not be missed.  He was the agent of BioWare's downfall and as far as I'm concerned he deserves a swift kick to his groin for what he did to that formerly worthwhile company.

[NOK222]

John Riccitiello shall not be missed.  He was the agent of BioWare's downfall and as far as I'm concerned he deserves a swift kick to his groin for what he did to that formerly worthwhile company.

He could theoretically be blamed for the DA2 short dev cycle. But Mass Effect 3 was purely internal. 

 

Maybe now they won't have this boner for multiplayer and always online crap. 

[Tsuga C]

Yikes, its currently trading at $17.09. How does that work, does that mean they have lost over 2/3 of the value of the company?

Yes, it does. Profits are not enough to guarantee value in a publicly traded company. Those trading in their stock must perceive that the company has a solid future, elsewise the value of its stock and its ability to borrow money and secure investors will fall precipitously.

[TSBasilisk]

EA's actually on the rebound from last year. Around summer, their stock dropped to the tweens for a while; it was $18 around this time last year, too.

 

The combination of the SimCity launch and the CEO admitting the company wasn't meeting its targets hurt, hence the $1 drop on Monday. They probably waited until after trading stopped on Friday to avoid an even bigger drop.

[alanschu]

 

Meanwhile, EA stock remained significantly below its pre-recession high of just over $60 – since late 2007, it has not troubled $30...

Yikes, its currently trading at $17.09. How does that work, does that mean they have lost over 2/3 of the value of the company?

 

 

Stocks are an interesting thing.  It means that the valuation of the company is down 2/3 (note, EAs stock performance is not alone in this).

 

Though people overstate its impact.  Low stock price is more just an issue that executives will come under heat from the board of directors, as well as an increased likelihood that outside investment coming in and purchasing the company (venture capital groups often do this actually if they feel a company is undervalued).  I have seen companies post profits and see their stocks go down, and post losses and see their stocks go up.  The value of the stock is about as pure capitalism as you can get:  the price is simply determined by what value people have placed on the stock.

 

What effects it has on a company is a much more involved process.

[Calax]

Riccitello was good and bad IMO. Good in that he decided to keep games producing content (BF3's premium pack for example), Bad in that he took things way to far in terms of piracy and "your entertainment is a service".

When he struck that sweet spot of good game that keeps giving you reasons to spend money on it, (which he seemed to be doing as his tenure ended) he was fantastic. But he also had a way of doing things that made him into this crazy jerk. The Respawn Entertainment fiasco in 2011 was deliberately called out on stage (where he says something akin to "We have two new partners, West and Zampnella, in the audience" while pointing at the crowd). It didn't help that he was trying to design a system backwards for delivering content, and seemingly openly hostile to ANY competitor (Steam, Acti, Ubi etc.)

[Tale]

He was good for turning EA around from a shovelware producer. He's supposed to be the reason they stopped doing movie licenses. Remember those Lord of the Ring and Harry Potter games? It's taken Activision until recently to see the problem there. There are quality licensed titles, granted, EA had a few good LOTR games and Activision has the Transformer titles. I'm not intimate with all the problems, but like I said, Activision is coming to the same conclusion EA had several years ago.

 

He pushed for fewer games, higher quality. But then we started getting more, low quality DLC, and the recent moves to microtransactions in AAA titles. Which is sort of like dating your abusive ex because she changed her hair color and calls herself Star. Yeah, they're not paying licensing fees anymore, but they're saturating their brands and devaluing them.

 

I also suspect some level of undermanagement in his tenure. But I'm not in a position to say that with any credibility.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Which is sort of like dating your abusive ex because she changed her hair color and calls herself Star.

You did that too?

 

Anyways, I couldn't care less about EA, because I am not interested in any of their products. I will stick to kickstarter to get my fix, and major publishers can continue to make the cinematic swill they think is irresistible to young males.

[alanschu]

I mostly have concerns because things could shift in either direction from JR.

 

Best case: It's an eye opening thing and someone comes in and suggests some pretty radical changes to things like DRM, and to push "games as a service" as a genuine service that customers want.  (Read: I'm not against the idea of microtransactions nor DLCs.  Sorry.  I think that they can be done in a way that supplements a product in a way fans enjoy.  Note that I don't feel "games as a service" doesn't has to mean DRM, always online, or things like that)  And that whatever is done, is more honest.

 

Worst case: Short term becomes a greater focus, and the shift continues to go away from trying something different and the push to something even safer.  And yes, something like this could affect my employment which is what I find unsettling.  Either because someone new feels the types of games BioWare makes aren't worth the effort and I outright am just let go, or because I end up being assigned to work on games I don't really care for.

 

 

I love the Kickstarter model for the types of games it makes, and would love a much greater degree of honest transparency with the fanbase.  I've been burned enough in my personal life by people lying to me that I have pretty much learned that when I realize I've been lied to, I get pissed.

Which means if a game company decides that they want their game to do something, just say so.  Preferably, state why you want to do it that way.  Then fans can at least make an informed decision.  Ideally I'd prefer fans to not get super pissy in response to this honesty (i.e. if SimCity wants to be an online game and they come out and say it and say why, conclude "Isn't a game I'm interested in" move on, and not be petulant about it).  Although regardless of how consumers respond (I felt many were quite absurd towards Obsidian's first concept art...), I'd still love it if there was more open discourse from publishers and developers towards consumers.

 

 

Hopefully things work out :\

Edited March 20, 2013 by alanschu

[Volourn]

"He could theoretically be blamed for the DA2 short dev cycle. But Mass Effect 3 was purely internal."

 

Nah.  Unless you mean internally EA. BIo is a aprt of EA. therefore, EA has say in all aspects of BIO.

 

I agree with the guy who ssays the BIO of today exist because of Ricearoni. The docs got their money but that's all BIO got out of it.

 

BIO may continue to exist or it may not. That's life. All that matter sis if they release games I want to play.

 

KOTOR MMO = NO

 

DA3 = YES

 

GAME OVER, MAN, GAME OVER.

[Tale]

(Read: I'm not against the idea of microtransactions nor DLCs. Sorry.

I'm against microtransactions. I absolutely love DLC done right. Quality DLC is good! DLC that only exists because they needed to push out DLC, so they put the B-team on it is bad.

 

I think there needs to be more brand consciousness. Microtransactions don't strengthen the brand. DLCs that use recycled maps, or that are simply guns and armor don't strengthen the brand. They don't promote confidence from the audience, they won't bring in new audience members. And confidence from the audience is a very big issue, especially for EA at the moment. If enough crap gets put out there, people will start avoiding the quality as well. That was the crash of 83 in a nutshell. What they do is shift the conversation from what is being done right to what is being done wrong. And that conversation seems to be why Lucas left Star Wars.

 

There's an audience for low quality, admittedly. That's how Seltzer and Freidburg make their living. That's why the Resident Evil movies refuse to die. But I don't think EA wants to be them. Though their Direct-To-DVD tie-in movies give me cause to doubt.

 

Aside from quality, there's also the saturation issue. Why are so many franchises being rebooted? Because the developers/publisher doubt they'll be able to grow the audience with all the old baggage behind them. Lots of DLC is just adding to that baggage that hurts growth. This is a problem for comic books at the moment. And games are seeing it too. The audience is not growing, it's becoming very isolated, because it's only the people who have all this knowledge of backstory that have been following or are willing to follow. The biggest part of this for DLC is story critical DLC (and tie-in books). It's adding on a whole other layer of backstory that people could be missing, and even some of them the regular recurring fans. And the resulting reboots are retcons are doing nothing for confidence either. How many people do you think Marvel and DC has lost to their "never stay dead" problem? Probably a little less than if they kept those characters dead. They've trapped themselves in a no-win situation where they struggle to grow because what they need to grow will alienate their core. And that's poisonous. Because they're adding all this baggage that their core feels needs to be honored, and those are the very people they rely on to aid growth.

[alanschu]

I'm not convinced microtransactions must be bad.  I think there's a potential to iterate and make something that can still help supplement revenues and not be vilified.  Kind of like TF2's hats (although we might be running into semantics over whether that's a microtransaction, or some form of lightweight cosmetic DLC).

 

I'll likely never buy clothing packs for a game, but if there's a customer base that wants them and is willing to pay for them, I don't think that's inherently a bad thing.

 

 

 

Aside from quality, there's also the saturation issue. Why are so many franchises being rebooted? Because the developers/publisher doubt they'll be able to grow the audience with all the old baggage behind them. Lots of DLC is just adding to that baggage that hurts growth. This is a problem for comic books at the moment. And games are seeing it too.

 

You can include movies in the mix as well.  I think people in general like a reboot the same way they like a sequel: it has familiar expectations.  I actually dislike the big push for sequels, but everywhere I look it's what people seem to want (whether it be another Call of Duty, another Longest Journey, another Torment, another Fallout, another Alpha Protocol).

 

 

 

The audience is not growing, it's becoming very isolated, because it's only the people who have all this knowledge of backstory that have been following or are willing to follow. The biggest part of this for DLC is story critical DLC (and tie-in books). It's adding on a whole other layer of backstory that people could be missing, and even some of them the regular recurring fans.

 

Does this actually apply to games?  I think a good game is a good game, for the most part.  I'm typically of the mind that Story DLC is analogous to Expansion Pack (in that you're expanding the content within the game).  Heck, even to the point that Tales of the Sword Coast is pretty much entirely comprised of content originally intended for the original release of Baldur's Gate, but was cut in order to ship.  Furthermore, units shipped for Awakening is far, far less than Origins, for example.  But a lot of people still want that type of content.  Should it not be created because not everyone wants them?  Or is it more just an issue that making sequels when this exists becomes problematic?  I don't know if we have enough data points necessarily to state something like definitively, but I can understand that perspective.

 

The problem with not doing sequels, however, is that it really, really seems like even hardcore gamers really want sequels.  They just want sequels of the games they had that provide the same experiences.  I'm sure Gorth and Morgoth would love an XCOM sequel that is very similar to the 1993 classic (both were disappointed in the remake).  Unless this is a case of consumers not necessarily knowing specifically what they want until they have it.

[Tigranes]

Microtransactions can be good, though the basic economic principle of breaking content down into small modular packs is much more likely to disrupt development/design processes than larger sales units. It may not be philosophically inherent, but that's like saying sharpened axes aren't inherently violent. So what? It was pretty clear that in the current climate and given all other external factors, microtransactions were going to do a lot of bad things for consumers, and so they have done.

 

If there are ideas for retrieving the model from where it is now and reforming it, I'm all ears, but usually we don't hear them (probably because it's pretty hard to do it). Instead, we hear about how it's not so bad. Well, that's not really going to convince.

 

Sequels is a bit different - I'm actually pretty supportive of sequels, because (1) really ambitious titles need one or two sequels to really fully develop, which we've seen in many different series; (2) they allow devs to focus on content and improving on existing structures rather than building from scratch every time. I think the problem is the unwillingness to fund and support original IPs rather than sequels themselves. 

[alanschu]

Microtransactions can be good, though the basic economic principle of breaking content down into small modular packs is much more likely to disrupt development/design processes than larger sales units.

 

I think it's easy to come to that logical conclusion, but that something is logically consistent doesn't actually mean reality reflects it.  For instance, I have seen people state that microtransactions will encourage developers to put in some level of grind, in order to make the microtransactions viable.  Logically, it makes sense.

 

However, game length is typically regarded as one of the most commonly used metrics for game value.  Consumers dislike short games, and have often been very vocal about it.  A consequence of this is that game length is often padded by introducing a grind to help extend the length of the game.  This is very common (and was overly applied in a game like Dragon Age 2).

 

So the mere presence of microtransactions in a game that has a grind will predispose a gamer that dislikes the idea of microtransactions to figure that the microtransaction is to blame, when it could very well be the developer was concerned about length of the game.

 

Now yes, ideally game length is extended by NOT introducing a grind (or making sure it's damn fun if it exists), though for a variety of reasons that is certainly easier said than done.  That that alternative exists for game length leads me to wonder if there's an better way to do microtransactions.

 

 

 

really ambitious titles need one or two sequels to really fully develop

 

I disagree.  Planescape: Torment is an ambitious title IMO, and I consider it to be an exceptionally well done, self-contained story.  Even Torment 2 has to go from the angle of exploring the themes, which honestly could exist in any manner IMO.  The thing about making it a sequel, though, is that it'll illicit memories and an easier association of what the game will deliver.  Torment 2 is called Torment 2 not because it needs to be to fully develop, but to help with exposure and to set a level of expectation.

 

 

they allow devs to focus on content and improving on existing structures rather than building from scratch every time. I think the problem is the unwillingness to fund and support original IPs rather than sequels themselves.

 

I think this becomes a bit of a Chicken-Egg issue.  Sequels are more successful because they can focus on the content, while there's an unwillingness to fund and support original properties than sequels.  Seems kind of self-fulfilling.

 

Sequels are considered less risky for a variety of reasons.  They can certainly be cheaper to produce (although DA3, for example, requires an awful lot of building from scratch from a technical perspective, though not necessarily from a narrative perspective), but they also have a legacy of being good sellers.  The big dog, Modern Warfare, is in many ways the same game over and over, and that name has drawing power.  Change the name but keep the game the same, and it won't do as well.

 

Also, new IPs can still utilize existing structures (particularly from a tech point of view).  Black Isle was familiar with the Infinity Engine due to time spent with Baldur's Gate, and was able to leverage that for two unique non-sequel games.

Edited March 20, 2013 by alanschu

[Calax]

IMO the difference between Microtrasnactions and DLC needs to be content. Microtransactions could be small stuff like clothes etc. DLC's are actual storylines, characters, and other substantive things. You can't build a game around microtransactions (see: The Old Republic), and shouldn't take a completed product and try to snap out a few pieces for some extra cash right off (ME3).

 

Taken to the extreme, you could see Madden disks become tough to find because the yearly madden titles are instead sold at 2/3rds price off XBL or PSN as more roster updates than anything. Similarly, the BF3 model is actually a pretty good one to follow, and people are happy with it.

 

EA, however, has had a strange relationship where they do fantastic things for the industry, and take steps foreward... while also screwing the industry and making their customers dislike them. Overall they're probably on the right track with pushing things like "project $10" and DLC support, but the way they go about it makes people hate them. Supposedly a good game designer plays the worst games because they want to see what concepts the terrible game tried to pull off in their to ambitious projects, and figure out how that might be done better. That's the feeling I get from the industry watching EA. They see EA trying to push the envelope commercially, but mess it up with the customers. So the competitors try the same stuff and find better ways to do it (or in UBI's case, completely miss the point entirely... Uplay... good god Uplay).

 

As to sequels? You need to strike a balance. If all you're making is sequels, you end up with stale brands that have nothing new to them year after year (MW, Madden, wrestling games...). Meanwhile taking a chance on a new IP is also dangerous because it might not catch on. Currently it seems like if you're going to try a new IP you either have to crowd source that sucker, or have a proper fanbase to support your endeavour. Be it a lead designers name (Chris Taylor, Ken Lavine, Tim Schafer) or a dev house name (Bioware, Eidos Montreal, Criterion, Infinity Ward), it has to be recognized among the customers for the suits to take a chance. 

 

The problem is when you get sequels that are really IP's of their own masquerading as sequels. Command and Conquer Generals is probably the best example of this. Then you start losing your brand loyal customers because "It'd be a good game if it didn't have THAT NAME attached". Look at the tumble Final Fantasy has taken. 13 was greeted terribly because people didn't think it was a Final Fantasy game, and (IMO) that fact caused them to judge the game all the more harshly.

[Mamoulian War]

Project $10 is definitely not the right track... Many people refuse to buy this kind of stuff because many companies do not care about providing this service in all countries where they ship their products... PSN or XBL passes comes to mind as first... This means that some countries get inferior product for the same price as others sometimes even higher prices...

 

And customers are very sensitive to this kind of treatment...

Edited March 20, 2013 by Mamoulian War

[Cultist]

DLC is not a bad thing. It's bad when you act like EA and cut chunks from complete game and present it as DLC, like they did with prothean in  Mass Effect 3.

[Tale]

I'll likely never buy clothing packs for a game, but if there's a customer base that wants them and is willing to pay for them, I don't think that's inherently a bad thing.

There's also a customer base that looks at them and thinks that the products with them are shoddy and exploitative. Brand is about public image, after all. There's a market for fast food burgers, but you shouldn't offer them at your restaurant if you want to be seen as high class. I think microtransactions are losing lots of that low class stigma, but that's only because of a push from people like Valve and the MOBA front with the free-to-play model. The "$60 with microtransaction" model doesn't seem like something EA has the popular backing to make people reassess.

 

 

You can include movies in the mix as well.  I think people in general like a reboot the same way they like a sequel: it has familiar expectations.  I actually dislike the big push for sequels, but everywhere I look it's what people seem to want (whether it be another Call of Duty, another Longest Journey, another Torment, another Fallout, another Alpha Protocol).

It's all about the brand, still. Reboots feed off the popularity of the old titles. It's going to be harder to maintain that brand the more often you put it out there. Exceptions occur, but for every Call of Duty there's two Guitar Heroes. And even Call of Duty is reportedly on the decline. There wouldn't be nearly as big a push for the next Longest Journey game if it was TLJ 8, instead of simply TLJ 3.

 

 

Does this actually apply to games?  I think a good game is a good game, for the most part.  I'm typically of the mind that Story DLC is analogous to Expansion Pack (in that you're expanding the content within the game).  Heck, even to the point that Tales of the Sword Coast is pretty much entirely comprised of content originally intended for the original release of Baldur's Gate, but was cut in order to ship.  Furthermore, units shipped for Awakening is far, far less than Origins, for example.  But a lot of people still want that type of content.  Should it not be created because not everyone wants them?  Or is it more just an issue that making sequels when this exists becomes problematic?  I don't know if we have enough data points necessarily to state something like definitively, but I can understand that perspective.

But of course it applies to games. If it didn't, Lara Croft and Thief wouldn't have been rebooted, just given sequels.

 

Tales of the Sword Coast and Awakening aren't the kind of story baggage creating DLC I'm talking about. Dragon Age 2 and Baldur's Gate 2 have zero reason to care about those expansions. I'm talking Lair of the Shadow Broker, Arrival, and that Dead Space 3 DLC. In fairness, Ubisoft Montreal has been absolutely terrible about this going back to Prince of Persia 2008, far worse than any EA studio. It doesn't kill franchises, but it's intimidating to newcomers. Have you never seen someone ask "do I need to play the older games first to understand it?" When the answer is "yeah, but you also need to play the DLC" that's going to be offputting to some people. That's going to limit people coming in and also negatively effect the older fans who already are in but missed it. There's lots of complaints about not knowing what was going on with ME3's opening because that was split into a DLC and a comic book. And Kai Leng because he's from books, as well.

[alanschu]

 

There's also a customer base that looks at them and thinks that the products with them are shoddy and exploitative.

 

Hmmm.  I agree there's a group that's very vocal about it.  I have mixed feelings about this.  I also see people that openly state that they have no issues with MTX under certain conditions.

 

I think there's a big risk if we only take the loudest feedback (since there's always a group that's very loud about every BioWare game.  I stopped going to BioWare's forums when Obsidian came online because it was frustrating me back then).

 

 

But of course it applies to games. If it didn't, Lara Croft and Thief wouldn't have been rebooted, just given sequels.

 

This is a fair point.

 

 

 

Tales of the Sword Coast and Awakening aren't the kind of story baggage creating DLC I'm talking about. Dragon Age 2 and Baldur's Gate 2 have zero reason to care about those expansions. I'm talking Lair of the Shadow Broker, Arrival, and that Dead Space 3 DLC.

 

Bold emphasis mine.  I find this interesting because it really seems like the general feedback is that stuff like Lair of the Shadow Broker is exactly the type of DLC EA/BioWare should be making.

 

There could be ways that we can do that sort of stuff better in terms of references and the like.  I have less issue with the video game tie ins (I actually never played any of ME2's DLC except Zaeed), though I do agree that doing extreme things with comics and Kai Leng and the like is probably not the best idea.

 

 

Dragon Age seems to go with the idea of "Think of whatever happens in the books as being someone else's story" and to not really look to draw too much in which may be a better solution.  I know there are plans to bring in characters that are referenced and even exist in some of the books, but I think as long as any character that doesn't exist in prior games is treated as though they are brand new shouldn't be a huge issue.

[Raithe]

I think in the case of some sequels it comes down to the fact that if you enjoy so much about a specific game, you'd love to see another game done like that. Sure, with a new story, and some slight evolution but still something that lets you have fun in that same way again. Throw in the potential of the way you can be fascinated by a game's world / universe / characters, and the possibility of various plot hooks being left unanswered or hanging around and all you can think is "When are they going to tell THAT story?".

 

It adds to the possibility of a developer taking a much loved game, and trying to fix what might have been considered flaws, or at least not the successful aspects of it.

From a developer's point of view, I imagine a chunk of it is the "now we have a fanbase for this type of game and those characters in it, let's do it again, but try some new twists!"

 

Edit:

 

With the dlc question, I think that's a lot more problematic.

 

On one level if the dlc adds major plot elements to the game, you want there to be shoutouts to that later. The game has to reference it in some way. If the dlc doesn't really get mentioned afterwards, it turns into a "what was the point of that?"

 

But to actually have a game set up to reference it later, you must have it built for that. Which then brings out the questions of whether the dlc was cut content and should have been in the game from the start....

 

If you set it up so the dlc comes purely at the end of one game and then gets referenced in any sequels... 

Edited March 20, 2013 by Raithe

[JFSOCC]

 

Edit: I don;t know what the **** I'm talking about.

Edited March 20, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Tale]

Bold emphasis mine.  I find this interesting because it really seems like the general feedback is that stuff like Lair of the Shadow Broker is exactly the type of DLC EA/BioWare should be making.

It is, but there's more to that than it simply being story content that explains things between 2 and 3. It had new boss fights, new abilities, new enemies to fight, a temporary companion and new banters, choices, this little hub with funny stories creatively told. It had a whole mess of content. It was all around quality.

 

Compared to Arrival, which similarly was a bridge DLC, but did nothing new, had no choices, no companions at all. Yet was even more important to the start of Mass Effect 3.

[alanschu]

I agree that Arrival wasn't as well received (and potentially too significant to the main story).  Somewhat interestingly, though, ME3's start still "worked" for me because I was under the impression he was grounded due to his affiliation with Cerberus in ME2.  (I knew nothing about Arrival until after ME3)

 

Still, with LOTSB, I think you might be understating the content aspect.  Story (and the perception of impact) where big things for Mass Effect IMO, and having all the things you list with a blank, meaningless story would have a greater effect on its overall quality than removing some of the other elements.

 

 

Citadel is considered by many to be the LOTSB of ME3, and it doesn't really do much new (there were some aspects with a party), but it's the content itself that resonates most strongly (just to preemptively comment, I understand it's probably less well received than LOTSB and there are people that aren't happy with what it delivered).

Edited March 20, 2013 by alanschu