Thoughts on EA; Mistakes, Missteps and Good Ideas

With the recent news of EA's now former CEO John Riccitiello stepping down I felt I would have my next blog be about EA over this console generation.

EA has really been a tale from two different sides this generation. It is no secret that when Riccitiello took over the original plan was to try to revamp the perception of EA by creating some new IP's and doing more to please the consumers. This was a noble idea but one that did not bear the financial fruit that I'm sure EA had hoped. From there EA has consistently had a repeated pattern of good game, bad game, good decision, bad decision, and wrapped it up with one of the biggest financial mistakes of the gaming industry all together in Star Wars: The Old Republic.

Some would maybe call all this karma, but I think for most there is some pity for EA. But keeping the consumer happy, creating quality games, and getting the sales number stakeholders require is a delicate balance. One that isn't easily achieved in this industry by many big publishers. One of the more interesting conversations I had regarding how EA who's reputation has been dragged in the mud specifically with the internet community over the generation is how they differ from other publishers/studios. Some of whom have made many of the same mistakes EA has.

Blizzard a company that is one of the more well respected made decisions a lot of the community despised for Diablo 3 as an example. Activision continues to beat sequels into the ground, as does Ubisoft. Day one DLC, DLC that should be in the main game, and even micro transactions in games all things EA has done are apparent all over the industry.

What I think is the difference setter though is that most of the studios who are generally forgiven for their mistakes are because of a standard. Say what you will about what has become of Call of Duty, but Call of Duty 4 is one of the most well reviewed, respected, and industry setting game you can get. Blizzard still knocks a game out of the park like Starcraft 2 and it's expansion Heart of the Swarm. To me that is the key difference between most who get a pass on these mistakes and EA.

When we look at EA's new IP's and all the good they did. With the exception of Mass Effect 2 which was almost universally accepted as brilliant, all of their game ideas and games in general are usually good...but never great. Mirrors Edge? Some loved it some hated it, most thought it was a neat idea that wasn't executed to perfection. Dead Space? Good survival horror game, fun concept. Skate? Good game. Again...but nothing industry setting.

Anyway I have rambled about that point long enough. I am curious to see what EA does next. We all know their sports games will come out every year despite the effects that has on the game. But I do wonder if the company as a whole may take a new shift towards how they make games as we enter a new era of consoles. We shall see.

What are you guys thoughts on EA and the situation ahead for them?

I still don't hate EA. I'm still gonna buy alot of their stuff. C&C G2, Mercs 3, Battlefield 4, Mirrors Edge 2, Dance Central 4, Dragon Age 3.

I think a fresh new marketing perspective can be just what the company needs. Unfortunately, marketing wise, there's not many companies they can look at for inspiration. Maybe just Sony, like Uncharted 3's F2p approach.

So. I'm game. There'll be new IP's anyway. Maybe they'll salvage something, from that Jack the Ripper game. Alice 3.

There's just too may good IP's, to actually hate them. Its all just fun and games anyway, right? :)

IMO EA still publish/develop some great games. More so in the past generations. What I would like them to do is reboot the Strike series. Have an xbla isometric version (like the Megadrive games) and a triple A third person Strike game (like the playstation games).

Mike Posehn...where is he now?

I find less reason, every year, to bother with EA. They're too subservient to share-holders (as public companies are wont to be, of course), which results in things like selling the endings of games, shorting number of release maps to sell as DLC later, making everything online, sticking micro-transactions in absolutely everything.

And for what? EA really doesn't put out that many games that I give a fuck about. I don't think people realize what a shitty selection of games EA puts out. Look at what they published in 2012. Other than a tiny handful of games, almost everything they published was an ioS/android/web/facebook game, a sports game, or The Sims.

While I agree, I think that EA also has tried and produced a lot of games that in general are not hated or loved. They play okay, they don't do anything revolutionary and they aren't really that bad. They just don't stand out as something amazing. Was curious though after your comment so I went through and looked around every release EA had in 2012.

Bejewled, Bejewled 3, Bejewled Blitz, C and C Tiberium Alliances, 5 Different Types of Fifa Games, Grand Slam Tennis 2, Jet Set Secrets, Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning, Madden 13, Mass Effect 3, Mass Effect Infiltrator, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Need for Speed Most Wanted, NFL Blitz, NHL 13, Outernauts, Plants vs Zombies, Real Racing 2, The Secret World, Shank 2, 4 Game Related to The Sims, Simpsons Game, SSX, Syndicate, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 13, UEFA Euro 2012, Warhammer Online Expansion, Warp, World Series of Poker, Zuma's Revenge

That is the catalog for EA in 2012. And damnit you are right, such a grim line up. The biggest problem is that so many of the actual game games in that line up have controversy around them. Medal of Honor? The campaign was chastised and the game felt like a Call of Duty clone. Mass Effect 3 while a good game on most accounts got the community in an uproar over the ending. Kingdoms of Amalur was a good game one that most were looking forward to seeing what could be done with a sequel. Then there were the issues with that studio and now that franchise is dead.

But there were for the most part three quality non sports/non facebook non Sims titles for EA last year. Syndicate, Need for Speed and SSX. To my knowledge Need for Speed is the only one of those that sold anything. Syndicate despite being a good game was just underrated and under promoted (maybe they should taken some of that marketing team that worked on Medal of Honor and used some of that power for Syndicate.) SSX had decent promotion but it was the type of game that only appeals to select audiences.

I think the issue is something you brought up. EA answers to it's shareholders first and it's consumers second. It is worried about what sells. You have seen EA "try" to get behind the gamers vision several times and even a few times each year but when they do they don't do it with the marketing power they should be and it feels like a half ass attempt at it. Mostly because the shareholders don't care about quality new ip's or good reboots of a series. Only money. It's a shame really because there are a ton of great franchises EA has made or games they could turn into a franchise that easily could be well loved and sell well if EA actually put their muscle behind them. Syndicate is a great example of that last year.

@devise22 said:

Mass Effect 2 reviewed well, but I would argue that it has just as many detractors as any of those other games.

People forget that ME2 went through the same "transformation" that Dragon Age 2 got hit with. The big difference is that ME1 was kind of broken while DAO worked very well. One was a case of "Maybe it is better" while the other is "Why the change?!"

My main problem with EA, besides the usual DRM, Origin, DLC gripes, is that they try to pass off niche games as blockbuster and in doing so ruin them and alienate fans of the series. Case in point, Dead Space and Mass Effect. These are great games in many respects but not 5+ million sellers. They are meant to be high quality games that people discover over the years and look back at with regard. By trying to broaden their appeal they stripped away the thing that made them special. Instead of focusing on varied outcomes and endings for ME3, they put in a money making multiplayer component. Instead of heightening the scares and atmosphere of Dead Space they made it into a Resident Evil action shooter. The examples are endless, MoH, Amalur, Crysis. These are mid-tier cult games. When a publisher begins shoving them in people's faces as something else they will get undue backlash when people are disappointed.

I admire that they throw resources/money at the devs to try to make their games appeal to a wider audience, but in doing so they seem to follow a checklist written by a focus group. Multiplayer, check. Coop, check. DLC, check. At the end of the day I wish they would promise less, focus less on optimistic projections to their shareholders, and a bit more on giving gamers quality. They have so much ill will in the public forum why would anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?

As someone who like Mass Effect 1 more than any of the subsequent games, and Dragon Age 1 miles head of its sequel, I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking.

All they've got left is Battlefield, and I'm too loyal to the brand to jump ship (or not be premium). Heaven help them if they fuck around with Battlefield.

I think one of the main mistake made by EA is giving up on trying to establish the next big thing and instead trying to copy the success of others usually 1-3 years too late. Like resurrecting Medal of Honor because of Call of Duty, not because they had something interesting to do with the franchise. They have an answer to just about everything that is successful for some other publisher but their answer comes a year or 3 later, isn't as good and in some cases arrives so late that the original success that motivated them to go forward with a project is already on the decline. See The Old Republic. That game exist purely has an answer to WoW but WoW was already on the decline by the time TOR launched.

SWTOR was also an example of EA hyping and over promising. There are still a bazillion interviews and Youtube videos promising how "We think the way other MMOs (read WoW) did X is boring/deficient/bad so we are going to do completely different" and what they delivered turned out to be exactly the way WoW did X....5 years ago!

To their credit, Bioware and EA where never going to snag a lot of MMO veterans who immediate saw through SWTOR as "An old version of WoW with laser swords" but this marketing did capture a lot of new players and players who used to play MMOs. But the flaw there, as @pr1mus notes, is that those players lapsed years ago because that game play got stale. What was stale then certainly isn't more fun now.

I think you came close with your point of standards. I don't think it because of games like mirrors edge and dead space not setting the world on fire. It has more to do with them not keeping the same standard when these type of games get a sequel. This on top of their very aggressive business model that does not bring good will, on top of gamers having a chance to be angry that the next game in the series feels streamlined or rushed.

Mass effect, dead space and dragon age are all great games and have made good sequels but you can see the business model effecting these games and making them subpar in some aspect. Mass effect 2 great game but less rpg in nature, Mass effect 3 with good but added-on multiplayer and having a rushed and unsatisfying ending, Dead space 2 unneeded multiplayer, dead space 3 micro transaction with an unsatisfying ending, and dragon age 2 with its reused environments and streamlined inventory system.

All these games feel like that are run into a EA business model standard and have made the game less deep in one way or the other. At the end you have to build some sort of good will by making a new IP and creating something that is fan service. EA seems to have given up on that as well.