EA in a Nutshell

[Leonard McCoy]

So for any of you who think's your particular favourite pet video game company is immune, I'll just leave this right here:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=128252

Enjoy. I found it to be an exciting informative read.

[Deleted]

Utimatly I think thats the point. It's just like films. Avengers, etc make billions but require huge investment. Indie films don't need that money, but then won't get the sales on the same scale.

Horses for Courses and all that... nothing wrong or right about it as such, just personal taste. Me personally, I like a big dumb blockbuster now and then, but also sometimes on a small scale.

I didn't know Minecraft required a huge investment.
You are under the illusion that great art and fun needs to cost shitloads of money.

[obdigore]

I didn't know Minecraft required a huge investment.
You are under the illusion that great art and fun needs to cost shitloads of money.

Triple A games do cost a lot of money. That isn't to say that Mid Size (no backing) and Indy studios don't make fun, and engaging games, but I think it is foolish to say there isn't a market for COD or Battlefield or Madden or NHL or Soccer(football) games. It is also a foolish assumption to think that a corporations number one goal is to make you a game that you can spend the rest of your life playing and be happy. That might be some of the DEV's goal, but the people in charge want money, and a game is just a route to the money you have.

I don't agree with some of the stuff the larger companies do (Like EA and Activision), but if you take a step back and look at it from the point of an Executive in charge of the company, a lot of what they do makes sense if you realize their goal is to make as much money as possible.

[Deleted]

So for any of you who think's your particular favourite pet video game company is immune, I'll just leave this right here:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=128252

Enjoy. I found it to be an exciting informative read.

That link deserves it's own thread man. Holy shit! That was absolutely horrible to read about. Kotick is the fucking devil.

---------- Post added 2012-05-30 at 05:11 AM ----------

Triple A games do cost a lot of money. That isn't to say that Mid Size (no backing) and Indy studios don't make fun, and engaging games, but I think it is foolish to say there isn't a market for COD or Battlefield or Madden or NHL or Soccer(football) games. It is also a foolish assumption to think that a corporations number one goal is to make you a game that you can spend the rest of your life playing and be happy. That might be some of the DEV's goal, but the people in charge want money, and a game is just a route to the money you have.

I don't agree with some of the stuff the larger companies do (Like EA and Activision), but if you take a step back and look at it from the point of an Executive in charge of the company, a lot of what they do makes sense if you realize their goal is to make as much money as possible.

Every company wants to make money, big or small, but it seems only the small companies care about lasting entertainment and showing respect and trust to their customerbase.
It's like in any situation, when people become statistics, that's when things get ugly.

[obdigore]

Every company wants to make money, big or small, but it seems only the small companies care about lasting entertainment and showing respect and trust to their customerbase.
It's like in any situation, when people become statistics, that's when things get ugly.

Because the smaller companies need that. The bigger ones with the AAA franchises really don't. I know a ton of people love to hate on COD, but even so it still breaks records with every yearly release. Brand Recognition does matter. A small dev does not have it, so they have to engage in a more grassroots marketing campaign, and that generally only works if you do seem to care about your customers. COD sells 100million day one, which covers both creation expense and mass marketing expense, and then the further sales and DLC (map pack) are close to pure profit.

Tactics are different for different size companies. They have to be because the smaller ones don't have the money to saturate the market with their ads on every website, on tv, before movies, everywhere.

[poser765]

Because the smaller companies need that. The bigger ones with the AAA franchises really don't. I know a ton of people love to hate on COD, but even so it still breaks records with every yearly release. Brand Recognition does matter. A small dev does not have it, so they have to engage in a more grassroots marketing campaign, and that generally only works if you do seem to care about your customers. COD sells 100million day one, which covers both creation expense and mass marketing expense, and then the further sales and DLC (map pack) are close to pure profit.

Tactics are different for different size companies. They have to be because the smaller ones don't have the money to saturate the market with their ads on every website, on tv, before movies, everywhere.

this guy talks good. I think a lot of it still falls back to demographics. The serious gamer is not really who these guys are targeting. The serious gamer knows better, and understands that Madden 2034 is nothing new or innovative. Most people that play and enjoy the drivel that EA puts out simply doesn't care about who makes their games...they care that their newest Madden has updated rosters and 3 new end zone dances.

[obdigore]

this guy talks good. I think a lot of it still falls back to demographics. The serious gamer is not really who these guys are targeting. The serious gamer knows better, and understands that Madden 2034 is nothing new or innovative. Most people that play and enjoy the drivel that EA puts out simply doesn't care about who makes their games...they care that their newest Madden has updated rosters and 3 new end zone dances.

It is all about Demographics. Successful companies do not ignore them. Why do you think the Wii has sold something over 3x what the PS3 and 360 have, but the PS3 and 360 sell more total games? Because the Wii hardware was a hit among casuals, because it was cheap and novel. Then after a month of playing Ping Pong with grandma, they put it in their closet and never pull it back out.

Casuals are a much larger market than the 'Hardcore' gamers. Casuals buy less titles per year, but those titles are most likely going to be the AAA games, like Madden or Forza or Baseball. The Hardcore gamers are going to buy games in series they like, and buy a ton of indy games, and will probably end up getting the AAA games as well if it is in a genre they like.

EA and Activision are the big two, and they don't generally market to the Hardcore gamer because they already have the hardcore gamer, since those two companies pretty much have a stranglehold on the AAA titles. They market to the casuals.

Also, casuals are cheaper. They play their games less often after the first couple weeks, maybe not even play them at all unless you release DLC they want. They don't contribute to server load, and they are less likely to sell those games to a reselling company, which is a huge market that 'hurts' the publishers bottom line. Its two birds with one stone.

[MaximusRex]

http://kotaku.com/5359567/bobby-koti...ng-video-games

What I find interesting about Kotick quotes that show how evil he is, and if I was less lazy I'd find that page that exist somewhere of all his evil quotes, its never about how he wants to gouge customers. Its stuff like, I'd rather invest in good games then new carpet or gold toilets or valet parking. I've never had any of that crap at places I've worked. The quote linked also is from 2009 talking about 1999 when Activision was in major financial trouble and start up companies were still having the dotcom habit of spending all their start up money on stuff like 40in plasma monitors and high end $1000 chairs and who knows what other perks. He was referring to turning game development into a real business that makes money, and like it or not, that is kind of important, because if the gaming industry can't make money, we don't get games, crappy or otherwise.

That all said, I think the game business should look less toward consumer products and more toward other entertainment industries when looking how to make profitable and entertaining games. The movie industry might be a good start, where they actually pre-screen movies to get reactions to it and make changes before shipping it out, and micro transactions should feel more like getting food at the concession stand, you get the whole movie no matter what food you buy, but it adds to your enjoyment.

I think too that gaming review sites are too tied into the products they review and are obviously not doing a good job of being neutral critics.

[obdigore]

I think too that gaming review sites are too tied into the products they review and are obviously not doing a good job of being neutral critics.

I agree with this. The big problem with people who do reviews for games can be seen in literary and movie reviews. The reviewers experience a huge amount of media in their chosen discipline, and so either poo-poo everything that isn't perfect, or they give breaks where they shouldn't because they realize that they see a ton of the media and know they are semi-jaded.

[Leonard McCoy]

What I find interesting about Kotick quotes that show how evil he is, and if I was less lazy I'd find that page that exist somewhere of all his evil quotes, its never about how he wants to gouge customers.

Oh that's not true at all


http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=128252


If it was up to him you'd be paying alot more...

And Tony, you know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further.

nasty nasty shit. Naw bra he's cool. Don't worry about that.

---------- Post added 2012-05-30 at 07:40 AM ----------

That link deserves it's own thread man. Holy shit! That was absolutely horrible to read about. Kotick is the fucking devil.[COLOR="red"]

It's littered all over the d3 forums bro. People are mad as hell.