[Devil's Advocate] - Witch Hunt.
Find the original article here.
Kick 'em while they're down, the old adage goes. A good one, that. Take Nintendo for instance, now in a painful session of decline, despite their attempts to revolutionise the gaming world, who are now the butt of many a gaming joke. Once the revered creators of Mario and Samus, now forgotten in favour of mass market pandering. I laugh along with everyone - Nintendo seem crooked now, off-centre in a world of Halo, SingStar and Puyo Puyo Pop Fever. It is easy, as I said, to kick them while they're down. But what's even easier, it seems, is kicking them while everyone else is kicking them. Electronic Arts have fallen foul of what can only be described as the Microsoft Complex. It's a catch twenty-two situation of monstrous proportions.
Electronic Arts was founded many a decade ago - a small company with big aspirations (as all companies should have). My first experience of Electronic Arts was through, believe it or not, a paint program they had created rather than one of their flagship titles, such as Worms. it was innocent, genuinely living up to their goal of creating software that 'made it worth owning a personal computer'. They were audacious. Cunning. Eager to rise to the top. And that's exactly what they did.
The problem with being at the top is that it's quite easy for other people to throw rocks at you. Now, Electronic Arts are being called the Microsoft of the games industry, and with good cause - they're hated almost unanimously by gamers for their apparently feckless attitude to the gaming industry and sickening love for the $2.5billion they receive each year. And so, like some devil-like scapegoat, if something goes wrong in the games industry, it tends to be their fault. And am I going to join in with everyone else? That should really be rhetorical by now.
However, soulless this may sound, companies are out there to make money. They can chirp on all they like about how they value their customers - and they might be telling the truth - but at the heart of the matter, they are their for their shareholders, their paypackets and their growth. Electronic Art's first aim as a company was to gross $1billion in six years. It took them twelve, but they were the first games producer to do so. Its a feat that epitomises the can-do attitude of the industry around that time. When faced with the assertion that they are money-grabbing sons of guns, therefore, they're quite within their rights to nod and smile enthusiatically. And you'll sneer, no doubt, maybe mutter something about capitalist pigs. But you're wrong. You're just damn wrong.
Electronic Arts produce games. It's what they do. It's their job to pick out what they believe to be the most promising games projects and push them to completion - promote them, fund them, nurture them and reward them. EA Spouse might complain about the working standards, but that is an industry-wide problem. Electronic Arts are very, very good at what they do.
Case in point - The Sims 2. The Sims was one of the greatest creations in the history of PC Gaming. Creator Will Wright threw himself into the gaming industry yet again with plans for a game that none had ever thought really possible, but he pulled it off. EA backed him every step of the way, treating him like a rockstar and giving him what he needed to make a landmark game of the latter 1990s. Everyone loved the Sims. Even those who say they now hated it loved it at the time, I am sure of that. But then the add-on packs came out. People scorned as EA chruned out relentless upgrades for a game, and then the real sledgehammer in the coffin - The Sims Online. Regardless of what you might say of the add-on packs, however, EA redeemed themselves with The Sims 2. Completely and utterly. The Sims 2 shows how EA's influence in the modern gaming climate really can create lovable games that have a place in the history of gaming culture. An upgrade from the original in every way, The Sims 2 is an example of how hiring good designers and giving them money can actually work. Cynical? No. Something you don't want to hear? Quite possibly.
The fact of the matter is, EA knows what it is doing. If the bastardisation of every sport under the sun by EA Sports was not a lucrative idea, then it would have caved in by now. But EA do not produce update after update to their sports franchises because their doctor has recommended it. They do it because people are willing to part with their money for such an experience. If you are angered at EA's lack of updates to Zero Hour, then do not buy Red Alert 3. Vote with your wallets if you wish but I - and EA - know what the reality will be. They have what you want. And you have what they want.
And thus, to my final point. Electronic Arts are not some subsidiary of Hell. They are a victim of the mass market. They have not made the gaming industry a mess of Japanese popular culture and brash American shooters. They have merely done what any good business would - they have sat down and worked out how to capitalise upon it. EA is the barometer of the industry. The industry does not march to the tune of EA's trumpeting. Rather, EA is just reflecting what gaming has become. That is the reason you rebel against them. That is the reason you despise them. Because you are sickened that this has been allowed to happen. And I can't really blame you.
Who's the devil, Ctrl-Alt-Del? Electronic Arts, or the consumers who buy the NFL sequels every year just to get the new names?
Hmph. Maybe Challenge Everything means we should challenge ourselves first before blaming the biggest target?
ExActly.
Kick 'em while they're down, the old adage goes. A good one, that. Take Nintendo for instance, now in a painful session of decline, despite their attempts to revolutionise the gaming world, who are now the butt of many a gaming joke. Once the revered creators of Mario and Samus, now forgotten in favour of mass market pandering. I laugh along with everyone - Nintendo seem crooked now, off-centre in a world of Halo, SingStar and Puyo Puyo Pop Fever. It is easy, as I said, to kick them while they're down. But what's even easier, it seems, is kicking them while everyone else is kicking them. Electronic Arts have fallen foul of what can only be described as the Microsoft Complex. It's a catch twenty-two situation of monstrous proportions.
Electronic Arts was founded many a decade ago - a small company with big aspirations (as all companies should have). My first experience of Electronic Arts was through, believe it or not, a paint program they had created rather than one of their flagship titles, such as Worms. it was innocent, genuinely living up to their goal of creating software that 'made it worth owning a personal computer'. They were audacious. Cunning. Eager to rise to the top. And that's exactly what they did.
The problem with being at the top is that it's quite easy for other people to throw rocks at you. Now, Electronic Arts are being called the Microsoft of the games industry, and with good cause - they're hated almost unanimously by gamers for their apparently feckless attitude to the gaming industry and sickening love for the $2.5billion they receive each year. And so, like some devil-like scapegoat, if something goes wrong in the games industry, it tends to be their fault. And am I going to join in with everyone else? That should really be rhetorical by now.
However, soulless this may sound, companies are out there to make money. They can chirp on all they like about how they value their customers - and they might be telling the truth - but at the heart of the matter, they are their for their shareholders, their paypackets and their growth. Electronic Art's first aim as a company was to gross $1billion in six years. It took them twelve, but they were the first games producer to do so. Its a feat that epitomises the can-do attitude of the industry around that time. When faced with the assertion that they are money-grabbing sons of guns, therefore, they're quite within their rights to nod and smile enthusiatically. And you'll sneer, no doubt, maybe mutter something about capitalist pigs. But you're wrong. You're just damn wrong.
Electronic Arts produce games. It's what they do. It's their job to pick out what they believe to be the most promising games projects and push them to completion - promote them, fund them, nurture them and reward them. EA Spouse might complain about the working standards, but that is an industry-wide problem. Electronic Arts are very, very good at what they do.
Case in point - The Sims 2. The Sims was one of the greatest creations in the history of PC Gaming. Creator Will Wright threw himself into the gaming industry yet again with plans for a game that none had ever thought really possible, but he pulled it off. EA backed him every step of the way, treating him like a rockstar and giving him what he needed to make a landmark game of the latter 1990s. Everyone loved the Sims. Even those who say they now hated it loved it at the time, I am sure of that. But then the add-on packs came out. People scorned as EA chruned out relentless upgrades for a game, and then the real sledgehammer in the coffin - The Sims Online. Regardless of what you might say of the add-on packs, however, EA redeemed themselves with The Sims 2. Completely and utterly. The Sims 2 shows how EA's influence in the modern gaming climate really can create lovable games that have a place in the history of gaming culture. An upgrade from the original in every way, The Sims 2 is an example of how hiring good designers and giving them money can actually work. Cynical? No. Something you don't want to hear? Quite possibly.
The fact of the matter is, EA knows what it is doing. If the bastardisation of every sport under the sun by EA Sports was not a lucrative idea, then it would have caved in by now. But EA do not produce update after update to their sports franchises because their doctor has recommended it. They do it because people are willing to part with their money for such an experience. If you are angered at EA's lack of updates to Zero Hour, then do not buy Red Alert 3. Vote with your wallets if you wish but I - and EA - know what the reality will be. They have what you want. And you have what they want.
And thus, to my final point. Electronic Arts are not some subsidiary of Hell. They are a victim of the mass market. They have not made the gaming industry a mess of Japanese popular culture and brash American shooters. They have merely done what any good business would - they have sat down and worked out how to capitalise upon it. EA is the barometer of the industry. The industry does not march to the tune of EA's trumpeting. Rather, EA is just reflecting what gaming has become. That is the reason you rebel against them. That is the reason you despise them. Because you are sickened that this has been allowed to happen. And I can't really blame you.
Who's the devil, Ctrl-Alt-Del? Electronic Arts, or the consumers who buy the NFL sequels every year just to get the new names?
Hmph. Maybe Challenge Everything means we should challenge ourselves first before blaming the biggest target?
ExActly.
posted by FinalSin at 12:05 pm
2 Comments:
Interesting point of veiw, but while I think what you say here is valid, I still belive that EA still isnt going about its profit making in the best way.
You ask about the consumers who buy the NFL sequels every year just to get the new names but the fact is that the consumers who want the latest names dont have any choice about where to buy their NFL sequels from, because EA monopolises the licences. And many of them are disapointed by lack of work from EA.
OK, clearly EA's position is not impervious. They've done a lot of things wrong, and they often refuse to accept it. However, it's often useful to consider the situation from their point of view - things seem to make more sense if you're the one holding the chequebook!
Post a Comment
<< Home