EA: Some Gamers Just Don't Like Change

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

EA: Some Gamers Just Don't Like Change

image

"It's cool to rag on EA," says EA's Peter Moore.

The industry's surprisingly quick transition from viewing games as discrete products to seeing them as ongoing services has left an army of dissatisfied gamers in its wake. Talking to Eurogamer, EA's chief operating officer, Peter Moore, argued that, rather than having rational grievances, some gamers just fear change.

"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You sat down. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. It was all on the disc."

"Games are turning into 365 days a year live operation experiences," he continued. "And rightly or wrongly we think it's our job to provide reasons every day to go play that game and enjoy that game. Technology is enabling that. Hardware is enabling that. Different game experiences like open world experiences are enabling that, and we're trying to react to what we believe is what gamers want."

Moore may have a point. As numerous and insistent as DLC/online-requirements detractors may be in our tiny little corner of the gaming world, the money generated by those development practices proves there's a sizable market. And like most companies, EA is going to go where the money is.

"I can filter out hate, vitriol, rants, it's cool to rag on EA, it's cool to rag on Zynga, it's cool to rag on Bobby Kotick, it's cool to rag on Peter Moore," he added.

Moore's comments were general, but it's easy to see how they apply to EA titles like Mass Effect 3 or Dead Space 2, both of which introduced multiplayer modes to their respective franchises.

"There are still plenty of great games, we're making them, everyone else is making them, where you buy it for 40 day one, you can play hundreds of hours and you don't have to go online and play," Moore continued. "But the vast majority of people do, and are certainly connected. And then if you go multiplayer, I like to think most games that enhances the experience. But there are some guys who just want things never to change."

Source: Eurogamer

Permalink

INB4 the irony parade.

Mr. Pot, Mr. Pot, come in please! This is Mr. Kettle! I'm not black! Over!

Grey Carter:

"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You owned the game. You sat down. You owned the game. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. And you owned the game. It was all on the disc. That you owned."

There, I fixed that quote for you, Mr. Moore.

You're welcome.

It's not that gamers "fear change" it's that they fear donkey-helmets like you trying to rip them off, which you seem to be doing more and more often these days.

There are many games that are great that arn't services. They are trying to make them services to rake in more cash. People hate it for a reason.

He needs to consider taking a look at the concepts and people he is defending before blindly pretending the only reason people hate EA is peer pressure.
Consider owning up to your mistakes instead of making excuses.

This comes off more like:

There are no valid grievances.
There are no issues with our games.
There is no objective opinions except ours.
There are no superior business practices to ours.

Everything is alright. You are just wrong and that is alright, we will make things better.

I don't dislike change, EA, I dislike endless roster updates masquerading as new games and property monopolizing.

it's cool to rag on EA, it's cool to rag on Zynga, it's cool to rag on Bobby Kotick, it's cool to rag on Peter Moore

Don't forget Todd Akin and Hitler. Man, I never get tired of Der Untergang resubs.

Watch as people spit in his face and fling more acid anyways. It is cool to hate on EA, anyone who's been here for more then a week can tell that. Gamers do fear anything new and different. it's why they complain about a stagnate market, because they keep buying the same shit rather then buying different things. It's why they keep their nostalgia goggles on at all times and talk about how good games were 'back in the day' and how much everything sucks now and how gaming is dieing. I don't care if anyone here is willing to admit it or not, the gaming community isn't perfect and is full of stupidity, the kind of stupidity he pointed out. EA isn't perfect, there full of people saying dumb things and making dumb decisions, but that doesn't mean his points about the problems we have are any less valid. Commenters may go into a rage at the mention of a story that features EA, but as far as I'm concerned in this story its all hot noise to throw attention elsewhere and avoid admitting that gamers can be stupid too.

Saulkar:
This comes off more like:

There are no valid grievances.
There are no issues with out games.
There is no objective opinions except ours.
There are no superior business practices to ours.

Everything is alright. You are just wrong and that is alright, we will make things better.

Oh dear lord, this. People hate crappy games and crappy service, the complaining is just a by-product. Stop trying to treat the symptoms, and treat the disease, the heart of the problem.

Never buy any new game published by a public corporation. Borrow it, rent it, get it used. Remember for every EA game you buy new the vast majority of the money you spend is going toward financing this guy, and the other executives and board members' lavish lifestyles. And another large part is going toward major stockholders many of which are hedge funds which are also mostly owned by other super rich dudes.

Then a tiny insignificant portion of that money goes toward actually paying the creative people who worked on the game, and the reality is the SOP for most publishers is to gut non "celebrity" studios after a game is released and also try to weasel out of contractually obligated bonuses and residuals.

Better spend your money on independent games, contribute to kickstarters, or add an extra couple of dollars to the humble bundle, or buy some friend's kid a copy of minecraft.

EA, Activision and corporate gaming can't crash and burn fast enough.

Grey Carter:

"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You sat down. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. It was all on the disc."

This is not a bad thing. I doubt he meant it as a bad thing, but I really want to just state that in the old days when you bought your game and owned everything on the disk is not a bad thing. There were plenty of bad things about games of old, but this was definitely not one of them. I miss the days where we weren't charged money for DLC that's on the damn disk. Though to be fair, it doesn't happen in much games. Still, it's a dick move.

We don't fear change. We despise the regressive, money-grubbing, nickel-and-diming, we-know-better-than-you, you-gave-us-money-but-you-own-nothing business practices of EA and similar, which are about 10% good, 10% inevitable, and 80% terrible.

Again, EA lives in a world apart from reality.

Gamers don't fear change, they HATE bs; the exact same thing you've been serving them for quite a while. The gimmicks, the full-fledged-always-online-crippling DRMs in a SINGLE PLAYER (although that's mostly UbiShit). That's what gamers do NOT want. How many years of us hammering the same song will it need for your monolithic asshat company to understand?

The day you will start properly listening to your customers is the day you will start getting some real respect back. I fear this day will not come. Too bad for you. Some other entity will take you over and, if we're lucky, change things for the best. If not, well, we can always hope indie game companies (self-published) will take the lead. I will gladly throw my money at them.

I do like change.
I don't like paying 80 dollars (60 + dlc prices) for what I would have expected to be in a 60 dollar game 5 years ago.
Saints Row 3, I'm looking at you in particular. And you too ME3.
I don't mind paying for extras, but when you take out the core or weaken the core for the purpose of selling it later you are doing me a disservice.

And this is why nothing will ever change at EA, or Activision, or any major publisher; they hear us bitch but the profits say otherwise. Even if we vote with our wallets the only people we may end up hurting are the developers under them who will be gutted and cannibalized when their games don't perform well. For lack of a better phrase they've got us by the balls, and there's not a god damned thing we can do about it. Especially when they have attitudes like this Moore fellow.

image

EA having shitty PR and the public telling them they are evil while neither side gets anywhere

Olrod:

Grey Carter:

"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You owned the game. You sat down. You owned the game. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. And you owned the game. It was all on the disc. That you owned."

There, I fixed that quote for you, Mr. Moore.

You're welcome.

It's not that gamers "fear change" it's that they fear donkey-helmets like you trying to rip them off, which you seem to be doing more and more often these days.

Seems like you should be railing harder against Steam than anything EA does on this front.

Oh look more comments made at conventions being reported as news.

What's next? EA is actually secretly run by a group of aliens controlled by Elvis.

Frostbite3789:

Olrod:

Grey Carter:

"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You owned the game. You sat down. You owned the game. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. And you owned the game. It was all on the disc. That you owned."

There, I fixed that quote for you, Mr. Moore.

You're welcome.

It's not that gamers "fear change" it's that they fear donkey-helmets like you trying to rip them off, which you seem to be doing more and more often these days.

Seems like you should be railing harder against Steam than anything EA does on this front.

Don't forget Origin. They seem to be trying to out-Steam Steam.

*eye twitch*

Excuse me, I have to go add Peter Moore and John Riccitello's faces to my avatar.

I'm not very huge on the gaming journalism lately. Just don't really follow it anymore, only visit this site so that might be why but, is it me or EA just talks entirely too fucking much lately? Just shut up for a month will you.

I guess EA being the best worst company at the moment means lots of coverage. Maybe that's why.

I think I answered my question. I'll just post this and be on my way.

So essentially they just want more money. The initial sale of a game isn't enough for them, so they (not us) decided to make it an on going experience.

I'm sure he's got a point, most gamers probably don't like change. In fact, most people don't really like change when it comes to anything, games or otherwise.

That explains a certain amount of criticism that EA and other companies may have received. I really don't think they can use that excuse to write off all criticism of what they do though.

For example, the biggest uproar about Mass Effect 3 *kicks self for mentioning the war* was over the ending and that's wasn't a change issue.

I swear to god EA is the worst company in the world and when people tell them that they just respond, "Nah man you're just delusional. it's you that has the problem! PSSSH you're such a wannabe" or to put it another way.

We're only "online and connected" because douche-bag companies force us to. I want the offline gaming experience back.

Irridium:

Grey Carter:

"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You sat down. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. It was all on the disc."

This is not a bad thing. I doubt he meant it as a bad thing, but I really want to just state that in the old days when you bought your game and owned everything on the disk is not a bad thing. There were plenty of bad things about games of old, but this was definitely not one of them. I miss the days where we weren't charged money for DLC that's on the damn disk. Though to be fair, it doesn't happen in much games. Still, it's a dick move.

Yeah, the difference was we never got the DLC in the first place.

Give me one good reason that having extra gameplay available for purchase is somehow worse than not being able to get that gameplay under any circumstances.

No, don't go into your fantasy about how if DLC wasn't a thing, developers would have totally included the content just for kicks, stick with reality.

Foolproof:

Irridium:

Grey Carter:

"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You sat down. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. It was all on the disc."

This is not a bad thing. I doubt he meant it as a bad thing, but I really want to just state that in the old days when you bought your game and owned everything on the disk is not a bad thing. There were plenty of bad things about games of old, but this was definitely not one of them. I miss the days where we weren't charged money for DLC that's on the damn disk. Though to be fair, it doesn't happen in much games. Still, it's a dick move.

Yeah, the difference was we never got the DLC in the first place.

Give me one good reason that having extra gameplay available for purchase is somehow worse than not being able to get that gameplay under any circumstances.

No, don't go into your fantasy about how if DLC wasn't a thing, developers would have totally included the content just for kicks, stick with reality.

In the old days, game companies made EXPANSIONS. What essentially is a couple years' worth of today's DLCs.

CAPTCHA: rain go away
Would've been better with EA, but oh well, small victory.

Foolproof:
Yeah, the difference was we never got the DLC in the first place.

Give me one good reason that having extra gameplay available for purchase is somehow worse than not being able to get that gameplay under any circumstances.

No, don't go into your fantasy about how if DLC wasn't a thing, developers would have totally included the content just for kicks, stick with reality.

Except we did, they were called expansion packs. It was a good time, when we got more than cheat codes or skin packs for our money. I even hear tales of when map packs were not called map packs, they were just new maps, and they were free.

Ha.

I cant wait to see TOR, DA3, and ME3's DLC tank.
People dont like being ripped off, insulted, and treated like second class citizens.

If I wanted to be treated like that I would get married.

Okay, who the flying fuck is letting the EA PR team to spout such controversial topics? Or are EA just a bunch of twatty hipster wannabe attention whores?!

EA: "ya we suck but what are you going to do about it"
we start to talk but get cut off by EA
EA: "we're not listening, we're not listening, la la la la la"

Fr]anc[is:

Foolproof:
Yeah, the difference was we never got the DLC in the first place.

Give me one good reason that having extra gameplay available for purchase is somehow worse than not being able to get that gameplay under any circumstances.

No, don't go into your fantasy about how if DLC wasn't a thing, developers would have totally included the content just for kicks, stick with reality.

Except we did, they were called expansion packs. It was a good time, when we got more than cheat codes or skin packs for our money. I even hear tales of when map packs were not called map packs, they were just new maps, and they were free.

I don 't recall GTA III, Fallout 2, Spider-Man or KOTOR ever offering expansion packs. Meanwhile the series that actually did offer DLC? Starcraft, The Sims, those gmaes? What a fucking coincidence, they have expansion packs that are still $40 a pop, same as they've always been.

Swing and a miss.

Got anything else?

heck, why don't we come up with more excuses for EA? the longer they spend not dealing with the actual issue, the more likely they are to screw up and go away

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here