EA Executive Cites Need For More Innovation

The Wall Street Journal has comments from John Riccitiello, EA's new CEO, who has an interesting observation: maybe we should make more original games. "In his first in-depth comments since taking the job in April, John Riccitiello says he worries that the Redwood City, Calif., company and others in the industry make too many games that lack innovation. He says EA and others need both to push more aggressively beyond traditional audiences to court 'casual' consumers and to experiment more with new sales approaches -- outside the norm of selling $50 to $60 discs with 40-hour games that he says few players ever finish. 'We're boring people to death and making games that are harder and harder to play,' Mr. Riccitiello said in an interview." Perhaps looking beyond yearly updates to established franchises might be a way to go too. We've seen EA form a casual studio, re-organize the flowchart, adopt the Wii wholeheartedly ... does anyone see EA actually reinventing itself, or is this too little too late?

Comments

WTF?

[jollyreaper]

It's not April 1st last I checked. Pull the other one!

noshitsherlock tag?

[splutty]

Can we have that added somehow? It would definitely apply to this article...

Here's a proposal: After releasing Generic Football Game 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, really do something inovative, surprise the public and release...... GFG2007.5!

Re:noshitsherlock tag?

[xtracto]

After releasing Generic Football Game 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, really do something inovative, surprise the public and release...... GFG2007.5!

I propose to make a Generic Football game where the player controls the crowd! yeah, the crowd AND even the narrator! he can make the crowd be very pissed off and throw things to the field, even punch and kick other people in the crowd while narrating the game.

Re:noshitsherlock tag?

[superbus1929]

Don't kid yourself. We've been on GFG4 for the past few years, they've just updated the version. So I'd say this year, we're going to see GFG4.4, as I figure every year since 2004 has been the same freaking game.

Re:noshitsherlock tag?

[AvitarX]

Actually with the Wii remote controller, and the correct dose of humor it could be a fun game.

It would have to be cartoony, and be the shorter cheaper game the summary implies, but certainly as a download add-on for free, it could be entertaining.

Re:noshitsherlock tag?

[xtracto]

And what about this, a player controls the team in the standard way (as with fifa 1990 through 2050 games), but you can use an extra Wiimote to control the crowd and other factors which might give more or less handicap to the playing player. This way, while my I am playing football my girlfriend can help me by doing whatnot with the crowd (like cheerleading) and she doesn't have to just keep watching the ball come and go.

Re:noshitsherlock tag?

[mypalmike]

EA would have to be complete idiots to not make Madden 2008, 2009, etc. It's a huge cash cow - they make several hundred million in revenue from that single title each year. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

That said, EA is a big company with a corporate culture that doesn't exactly promote creativity. Riccitello is trying to do what he can to push in the right direction. The CEO can't just clap his hands and make creativity happen. He recognizes the issue and is calling for the company, and the industry as a whole, to take more risks and make more creative games.

Re:noshitsherlock tag?

[KDR_11k]

There once was a game on the PC called Hooligans. It was an RTS and quite bloody IIRC (I seem to recall a screenshot showing bodyparts and blood everywhere).

Re:noshitsherlock tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

GFG '07 With revolutionary new X-treme game mode.

Re:noshitsherlock tag?

[Emetophobe]

I think this graphic says it best: http://www.overclock247.com/pyr0/EA.png

Too little too late

[BlueLightSpecial]

Very late at that. I've seen EA take many good game ideas and make complete garbage games (case in point, lord of the rings trilogy). They should've seen this coming years ago, gamers have been posting about the terrible quality of ea games for a long time

Re:Too little too late

[Anonymous Coward]

take many good game ideas and make complete garbage games (case in point, lord of the rings trilogy)

It's a game based on a movie. How good can that be?

Re:Too little too late

[MoonFog]

Arent also the games that makes EA the most amount of money the games that takes the least amount of time to develop? MaddenXX, NBA Live, NHLXX etc, basically roster upgrades with minor fixes every year that really should have been part of the previous years game.. Why spend resources on games that are hard to develop and requires a lot of work when you have cash cows like that..?

Re:Too little too late

[Broken scope]

BF 2142?

Re:Too little too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better is that it is a game based on a movie based on a book.

Re:Too little too late

[NickFortune]

Why spend resources on games that are hard to develop and requires a lot of work when you have cash cows like that..?

Because, after a time, people get bored with the same formula over and over again. When that happens a company loses market share, which can be hard to regain.

Of course, if the cash cows are supplying decent amounts of milk, then you can argue that the formula is just giving the customers what they want.

Although if that were the case, why the shake up at EA? Why this call for "innovation?"

Re:Too little too late

[lazyl]

The Return of the King is one of the best games I've ever played. I pull it out every couple of months and play through it from scratch. I've beaten it four or five times since I bought it and I'm sure I'll play it a lot more. There are *very* few games in my library that keep me that interested. It's basically perfect IMO.

Re:Too little too late

[KDR_11k]

Yes but there are good James Bond games AFAIK.

Re:Too little too late

[AdamWeeden]

GoldenEye isn't a good game. It's a GREAT game.

Re:Too little too late

[moderatorrater]

Riddick was an excellent game. Maybe it just can't be based on GOOD movies, hence Goldeneye also being on the list.

Re:Too little too late

[moderatorrater]

Because getting a bad reputation can kill all your chances with other franchises, and when their current cash cows inevitably dry up, they'll dry up with it. There's no reason they couldn't put 1/2 their development into familiar games, 1/3 into likely successes that haven't been tested, and the remaining 1/6 into the "WTF is Will Wright thinking?" types of games (not just will wright, just those types of ideas).

Re:Too little too late

[ultranova]

Of course, if the cash cows are supplying decent amounts of milk, then you can argue that the formula is just giving the customers what they want.

Although if that were the case, why the shake up at EA? Why this call for "innovation?"

Because the shareholders want the share price to grow. For it to grow, the profits must grow, which in turn requires either cutting the spending (read: employees and wages) or increasing the income. Wages can't go under zero, neither can the amount of employees; consequently, in the long run, the only way to increase profits is to increase income. That, in turn, is very very difficult for a company which already dominates the markets: there's simply no more disposable income to get.

It isn't enough to have a cash cow supplying a decent (or even humongous) amount of milk, it has to deliver more milk each year; the company must keep on surpassing the exceptions to drive the stock price up. That is an impossible task to achieve (because, no matter how skilled you are, people will eventually start taking those skills into account in their expectations), so the CEO needs to make it look like he's doing something to avoid being fired.

In short, it's dilberisque bullshit.

Re:Too little too late

[NickFortune]

In short, it's dilberisque bullshit.

I'm not saying you're wrong in the general case, but I did a little bit of searching in the case of EA. Have a look at this:

I don't know if I'm reading that right, but those figures seem to show negative sales growth (compared to a positive from the rest of the industry). There are some other interesting figures in there too, such as the return on assets.

It seems there may well have been problems at EA over the last 12 months, and the last quarter in particular. Of course, the extent to which their choice of material is a factor is still open to debate.

Still, it may well be more than just routine PHB verbiage.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[hal2814]

"many games that lack innovation. He says EA and others need both to push more aggressively beyond traditional audiences to court 'casual' consumers and to experiment more with new sales approaches -- outside the norm of selling $50 to $60 discs with 40-hour games that he says few players ever finish. 'We're boring people to death and making games that are harder and harder to play,'" (emphasis mine)

So EA's idea of being innovative is copying Nintendo's recent targeting of casual gamers?

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[earnest murderer]

"many games that lack innovation. He says EA and others need both to push more aggressively beyond traditional audiences to court 'casual' consumers and to experiment more with new sales approaches -- outside the norm of selling $50 to $60 discs with 40-hour games that he says few players ever finish. 'We're boring people to death and making games that are harder and harder to play,'" (emphasis mine)

So EA's idea of being innovative is copying Nintendo's recent targeting of casual gamers? Or maybe they're planning on making $40 short boring games that you can finish even if you are bored to death. If people only play 50% of the games they make, why bother spending the money to make the other 50%? Maybe customers won't get bored if there is just less game in there, and they'll make more money to boot. Why shake up the formula, just cut costs and see what happens.

They may intend on copying Nintendo but not in a good way. I think EA looked at the situation and thought that Wario Ware, Wii Sports, et. al. are short and simple, why bother with all this complexity when customers are clearly willing to spend $50 on somethihng that isn't much more than a tech demo. Personally I don't think that customers are really excited about spending $50 on WW because it was new and exciting. This time next year Nintendo will have games on the shelf that are longer, and more complex using what they learned from WW et. al. EA however will introduce a suite of party games for $60 that people will blow through in 5-10 hours.

If I was optimistic on EA's efforts I might hope that Nintendo executes before EA does, making it apparent to EA that the novelty of new/fun has worn off, and we now expect that there will be $60 dollars worth of content on that $60 disc. But I'm being overly optimistic. It was EA who also said they need to raise prices to foot the bill for HD content. Console game prices that is, the HD content being delivered on the PC platform apparently didn't need a price bump.

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[bflynn]

Why not just cut costs? Ummmm, because it doesn't work. If EA is like other companies, they don't know which 50% of the games will be liked. If you just cut half, you'll wind up cutting successful games too. Probably, about half of the games cut would have been successful. This is the very dilemma of innovation and product development...where, BTW, a 50% success rate is phenomenal.

Brian

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[Danse]

Why not just cut costs? Ummmm, because it doesn't work. If EA is like other companies, they don't know which 50% of the games will be liked. If you just cut half, you'll wind up cutting successful games too. I think he meant that people only play 50% of each game before getting bored with it. So they could just make shorter games and sell them for less, and possibly sell more games overall with roughly the same profit margin on them. That was my take anyway.

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[bflynn]

Could be - now that you put it that way, I can see that too.

the only way to make a decent 40 hour fun game

[PrescriptionWarning]

I always look to Oblivion. Even though its main story is only about 20 hours of gameplay, there's so much side content and explorative content that 40+ hours is practically guaranteed. It may not be a perfect game, but for dollar/hour spent it'll get you more than C&C 3, Need for Speed, and other such EA cantrips.

if they were more concerned with making decent games rather than putting out sequel after boring sequel, maybe they'd be on to something

Re:the only way to make a decent 40 hour fun game

[techiemikey]

if they were more concerned with making decent games rather than putting out sequel after boring sequel, maybe they'd be on to something

isn't that the definition of innovative? doing something new?

Re:the only way to make a decent 40 hour fun game

[imboboage0]

Oblivion is an amazing example of a good game.

For those of you who are unexperienced, I advise you to take a look at Oblivion if you have free time and gaming interests you. Like the parent stated, 40+ hours is guaranteed. There is no way around this. I barely even touched the storyline and did a ton of sidequests most of the time. I managed to clock in 74 hours before leaving it where it sits. I've been planning on picking it up again, but life has been throwing me curveballs and I don't have the time. The world is just so.... expansive. You'll never be able to cover it all. You really should experience it.

Oh yeah, and by the way, EA really does need some innovation. I like some of the games, but let's see some cool shit already.

Franchises can be exploited and still..

[xtracto]

Perhaps looking beyond yearly updates to established franchises might be a way to go too.

Franchises can be good. The fact that you have got a character, universe or general idea does not mean you can not innovate over it. Just look at the Mario franchise and all the games that have exploited it, from standard side scrolling games to puzzles and strategy (mario is missing, mario picross, mario & yoshi) to football (super mario strikers) etc. The devil is in the details, which are the ones that define the gameplay. Or what about exploiting the Final Fantasy VIII universe with another type of gameplay ?

After SimCity 2000 came out, I saw a lot of side games available which "interacted" with your worlds. The one I bought was one where you could drive /inside/ your city (or a representation of your city). I found it quite cool, as I could play one game (SimCity) and after I got bored of building my dream city I could just fire the other and destroy my city driving and launching missiles. That is the same franchise (SimCity) but exploiting different kinds of gameplay!

Re:Franchises can be exploited and still..

[xtracto]

BTW, it is funny to see the differences in timezones being reflected in the labels... now that the UK is mainly on the day you've got "NoShitSherlock" label, whereas if it was the USA time it would only be "noshit".

Re:Franchises can be exploited and still..

[Broken scope]

Simcopter streets of sim city.

Re:Franchises can be exploited and still..

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Americans use the phrase "No Shit Sherlock" quite a bit, don't you? In fact, I could have sworn that it originated here in the states...

Re:Franchises can be exploited and still..

[EggyToast]

Yeah, it's funny how many people forget that in most "Top 10" or "Best Games" lists, the best games are often sequels. Either it's #2, because it fixes all the problems of #1 and expands on the game, or some later version that comes out from obscurity and small releases to make a big splash.

The problem isn't sequels; it's cookie cutter updates that just milk a franchise. I'm sure fans of The Ocarina of Time don't bemoan the fact that it's a sequel, or that SMB3 is the 4th game in the Mario Bros franchise.

Then there's System Shock 2, Fallout 2, Descent 3, Quake 2, etc. Are these games bad because they're sequels?

Re:Franchises can be exploited and still..

[KDR_11k]

Wasn't SimCity interaction cut from SimCopter before release? I seem to recall hearing that.

Re:Franchises can be exploited and still..

[Broken scope]

Interaction maybe? I loaded up one of my massive metropolises into it though and fought a ton of fires.

Never too little, too late, but...

[The13thSin]

It's never too late for EA to reinvent themselves, question is: will they, or is this an empty gesture? As almost 50% of all the weekly top 10 PC titles come from EA, they have the money to make this work, so I really hope they mean it.

Problem with originality and innovation is that it brings inherent risk with it and all I've seen EA doing so far, is playing it safe with their zillions of franchises. They could try to bring innovation to those, but I would really rather see them making some new orginal content. But we'll see.

Re:Never too little, too late, but...

[Lockejaw]

Problem with originality and innovation is that it brings inherent risk with it and all I've seen EA doing so far, is playing it safe with their zillions of franchises.

Of course. The people who call for taking risks and trying new things always seem to be those who are themselves the most risk-averse.

Who cares if it's "copying Nintendo"

[techiemikey]

All i know is that i buy games based on what entertains me. Yes, EA is notorious for making generic sports games, and updating them every year, but they do that for a reason. People buy them. With the move towards "innovative" games and the "casual gamer" it means there will be more hit or miss titles from EA that will appeal to some people but not others. Step back and look at "The Sims", which has released expansion packs every few months. It's different. It's unique. And people bought it. Not only did people buy it, but it was the casual gamer who didn't want a regular game that was the person buying it. If EA follows through on making innovative games, i can guarentee i will not buy some of them, but there will also be some really good unique games(i hope) because they took the risk. Who knows if it's too little, too late. Only time and how EA acts can truely tell at this point.

Re:Who cares if it's "copying Nintendo"

[hal2814]

"All i know is that i buy games based on what entertains me."

I think you have me confused with someone else. I never took a stance one way or another on the merits of EA being innovative. I also buy what entertains me. And if you look at my previous postings regarding EA, I often defend the Madden series in particular for being updated enough that year X of Madden is almost always better than a mere roster update of year X-1. Being more innovative may or may not be a good idea for EA but judging from the quote in the article, I don't think EA even knows what it means to be innovative anymore. That's ok though because I'm not entirely sure I want them to be. To be honest, liking a previous game in a series makes me more apt to try out a sequel.

Thanks I spewed my coffee...

[grapeape]

While its nice for him to admit that EA is contributing to the glut of shovelware, his "solution" concerns me. I for one would rather have a game that is so long I give up and never finish than pay that same $50-$60 for a game that is too easy and lasts an hour and a half. Yes there is a huge market for casual gaming but thats a very fickle audience one that will just as easily abandon it as soon as the next thing hits. The actual gamer is a smaller niche but was able to carry consoles and PC's before the current casual gaming bubble and will be the market that carries them after the bubble bursts, so its best not to abandon them completely.

ironic tag?

[ToxikFetus]

EA... Innovation... Congratulations, Mr. Riccitiello. You've earned yourself the ironic tag.

40 hours..

[Joker1980]

Wait a minute when have EA made a game that last 40 hours

Re:40 hours..

[andrewd18]

Those 40 hours are game-world time, not real-world time.

Re:40 hours..

[trdrstv]

Wait a minute when have EA made a game that last 40 hours.

Ok, I know that wasn't the intent of the question, and admittedly there is no "Zelda, FF, or Elder Scrolls" equivalent, but I've sunk at least 40 hours each into Madden, Tiger Woods and Godfather for the Wii. It doesn't require 40+ hours to "Beat the game" but the playability does last for a long time and there is value to that.

Re:40 hours..

[Anonymous Coward]

They did publish Ultima Ascension and System Shock 2. But nothing is better than EA Canada's comments.

More Original

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, like a Madden 2008 AFC edition (with the Jets on the cover) and a Madden 2008 NFC edition (with the 49ers on the cover)? Brilliant!

Oh man...

[AbsoluteXyro]

Talk like this really gives me the "mini-game fest" jive.

Exactly

[bflynn]

Here, here. The last real innovation in gaming happened about ten years ago. JR is just stating what everyone in the industry should already know - gaming is dieing. Coming on the heels of recent stories that this may be the last E3, I think it ought to be sending up alarm bells.

Those who study business have discovered that there is a cycle to industry. Tech is born, flourishes, matures and begins to wane. Innovation is necessary to renew that cycle, to refresh the fading technology. Innovation is never a sure thing and will carry its share of failures. More and better ideas can help increase the odds of getting successes.

This is also true of gaming, except that the industry is too insular to bring in ideas from outside. The odds are very good that most gaming companies will continue to put out cruddy games and will lose money from now until they shut down. The only thing that will change the pattern is if someone invents a truly innovative game, whether by chance or by intent.

Brian

In other news...

[Quiet_Desperation]

President Bush says there's too much war in the world today.

Paris Hilton criticizes the cult of celebrity in American culture.

And so on...

Yeah, redundant, but it can't be helped on a story like this.

EA

[Jaaay]

has always been shipping out the same slightly updated sports junk every year and I guess they might finally be sick of it after looking at how WOW is taking a fortune *every* month, I'm sure big game companies are looking into making stuff like that where they can derive a passive income permanently.

Here's the problem with new IP....

[HerculesMO]

EA isn't willing to pay for it.

Their franchise games like Madden, NBA, NHL, etc.. they are the cash cows. They change slightly and the amount of development that goes into the games is slight compared to games like Spore -- games that rethink the way players should be playing.

I have had friends leave EA (one a DBA, another a C# engine developer) because of their work environment. It might be cool to work for a video game company, but if they insist on slavish hours in order to meet product timelines, release dates, etc... they take that out on the employees and value little after the title has shipped.

The point initially made is correct -- we need new types of games, new IP that is innovative and fun. But we won't get it from EA. We need to watch the independent studios get investment dollars from the likes of Microsoft, EA, etc... in order to create and produce those titles. It's why I've always been a fan of id Software, Valve Software, and Bungie Studios. And of course, Blizzard. They invented the motto of the game being "done when it's done". EA should take a line from them and stop promising deadlines and overworking their employees in order to meet a hypothetical goal that some idiot cooked up based on some strange logic. When the game is ready, then it's ready. Not before, not after.

It's why all the new IP that comes out of EA is inherently buggy and requires patch after patch to play. Blizzard games work 100%, right out of the box. Some EA games can't even be finished until they are patched.

Re:Here's the problem with new IP....

[mwvdlee]

The problem with that is that the employees working at id, Valve, Bungie and Blizzard titles probably enjoy working on those games.

You can't tell your employees to take all the time they need when they're working on a boring update of a generic sports title.

"Done when it's done" only works if "it" is worth "doing".

Re:Here's the problem with new IP....

[HerculesMO]

Taking that out of the equation, there ARE games that EA has that are great titles, new IP...

But they continue the same work environment and make it horrendous to work on a game that you may take great pride in. And after all is said and done, unlike id Software who rewards their programmers and staffers after a launch, EA just expects the team to get back to work on "part 2" of the game.

It's a shame EA is one of the biggest publishing houses.

Re:Here's the problem with new IP....

[nuzak]

> "Done when it's done" only works if "it" is worth "doing".

And only if it actually does get done at some point. 3DRealms, ya listening?

Re:Here's the problem with new IP....

[Psychochild]

EA isn't willing to pay for [new IP].

Not true. Even EA recognizes the value of new IP. They just don't want to pay any more than they have to for it.

EA generally relies on small developers who want publishing deals to create new IP. Almost every publishing agreement includes a clause allowing EA to acquire the developer for a bargain price at a later date. This is what happens with most of the developers EA acquired: they had a hit now EA got the IP at a bargain rate to exploit in the way they see fit.

The problem is that this isn't sustainable in the long-term. The people who worked long hours to make their game a success get peanuts and a total lack of creative control over their product once the publisher takes over. Not exactly inspiriting people to jump back into the grind and build the next money-making IP that will be completely owned by the publisher.

Most of the third-party studios mentioned in the parent post got their start a while ago. You don't see many studios founded after Valve rising up to this status. (In fact, Valve was a bit of a fluke for various reasons.) The reason is that it takes a lot more capital investment to make a top-level (AAA) game these days, and few small people have the funds to do so. And, if you want to get onto popular consoles or get good retail distribution for your game, you have to sell your soul to the publishers for that chance.

I hope that indie developers can come along and shake things up. But, most of us aren't as good at marketing as the big companies are.

Eh...

[morari]

Most games are already too short and too easy. While I'm not as "hardcore" as I once was, I still like to be able to play a game for at least forty hours before it ends. Sometimes first persons shooters (and such) can't make it the distance without becoming boring. So in such instances I would rather have it tightly packaged and wrapped up as opposed to crammed with filler. However, I also don't pay $60 for those games. So there you go. Start releasing short (but quality!) games at $20 a pop and I'm sure you'll do more business. Game prices are ridiculous enough as is. Thank Thor for piracy.

Re:Eh...

[nuzak]

All you have to do is live 2 years behind the upgrade curve and you can pick up your games on Steam for ten bucks a pop. It's not like games actually wear down when they're old.

Re:Eh...

[morari]

I often do wait, actually. My hardware can play the stuff at super high setting by then as well. Though Steam sucks when you don't have broadband.

Agreed

[RingDev]

His statements remind me of the Pot offering to paint the Kettle black.

-Rick

Hypocrites - total hypocrites

[WidescreenFreak]

This comes from EA?! This from the company that bought and subsequently destroyed Origin Systems, the company responsible for the awesome Ultima and Wing Commander series, two of the best game series ever created? This from the company that bought Bullfrog only to dissolve them into oblivion? (Bullfrog created the brilliant Magic Carpet, which contained true destructible terrain, Syndicate, Dungeon Keeper, among others.)

EA is the epitome of a company that abhors creativity by buying out companies that are known for creativity and then destroying them all so that they can put more funds to Yet The Same Sports Game Series 2008.

Maybe if EA delivers a mea culpa about how they've helped to destroy creativity in gaming will I give them any credibility with respect to this statement. A long-overdue apology for the total disaster known as Ultima: Ascension wouldn't hurt either.

Re:Hypocrites - total hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget:

• Bullfrog Productions
• Manley & Associates
• Maxis
• Westwood Studios
• Westwood Pacific
• Kesmai
• DICE Canada
• DICE

Re:Hypocrites - total hypocrites

[Lord of Hyphens]

... above post is mine, I have no clue why it ended up AC.

Re:Hypocrites - total hypocrites

[ToasterMonkey]

Wow, I wondered what happened to these companies.

My favorites were Bullfrog's Hi-Octane and Dungeon Keeper, Maxis's Sim Ant for the SNES, and Kesmai's sweet modem friendly internet games like MultiPlayer Battletech (fps), Aliens Online (fps), Starship Troopers, and Godzilla. Kesmai's were the only 'good' movie-games I'd ever played (probably still are). All the ones I mentioned were online with ranking systems, rewards, clans, integrated chatrooms etc, and played well over modems!

Man... how did gaming get so bad for so long? If any of those games were re-done with todays graphics standards and the exact same features, they'd all be seen as 'innovative' or this new trend of 'casual'. Oooooohhh.. that burns me too, everything outside of MMOGs are 'casual games'. I wish people would stop overusing it and instead refer to the other smaller set of games as 'timesinks'.

Varsity Football

[Anonymous Coward]

How about making a game called Varsity Football. You control the high school football team. In addition to playing a game of football you also get to fuck the cheerleaders at a keg party, beat up the nerds at school and even kidnap the rival team's mascot. I'm surprised Rockstar hasn't made this game yet.

WTF?-Pull tabs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Move your hand.

No one makes games I like

[ducomputergeek]

The last game I was interested in buying was Falcon 4.0: Allied force or whatever it was called. But I was on Mac and it's a PC game. I remember how cool Falcon 4.0 was with the bugs and how a version with a working campaign engine would be. I think that came out in 2005...

Ubi killed the Clancey games turing them into arcadish shooters instead of tactical games. Same with Ghost Recon.

Re:Hypocrites - Troll?

[WidescreenFreak]

Nice. Only on Slashdot could fact be modded as "troll".

Origin and Bullfrog were virtual pioneers in gaming. Anyone who's anyone knows about the Ultima series and how that series practically created the fantasy RPG genre. Bullfrog released some absolutely phenomenal games. Syndicate and Magic Carpet have yet to see their equals, and these games came out when the original Pentium line was relatively new. The Ultima series while it can be argued was nothing but sequels continued to build and build upon the world of Britannia. Each game was its own adventure with different challenges, tasks, difficulties, and storylines, so I would argue that each was an original in its own way. Magic Carpet was without a doubt one of the the most original games not only for being what could be argued as a strategy/action flight simulator, it included truly deformable terrain, a red/blue 3D mode, enhanced resolution for Pentium-class machines, and even a 3D "Magic Eye" mode. Then EA comes along and promptly ruins both companies.

Even with EA itself, what in blazes happened to them? Look back at EA's history for the Commodore 64 and you'll see unparalleled gaming with respect to originality. The opening sequence to Skate of Die was without a doubt the most intensive C64 intro (music-wise) of any game; games like Arctic Fox were incredible; Racing Destruction Set was one of the first to let you build your own race course, complete with jumps, and include decent physics. EA was in the top three, next to Epyx and Activition, of top gaming companies for the 1980s with new, exciting, and very original games being released what seemed like every few weeks.

Now, look at them. They buy developers and force them to release buggy code and even buggier patches (Battlefield 2, which I do enjoy even with the bugs, and Ultima Ascension) and they thrive on sequel after sequel after sequel (just about all of their sports titles with a year in the title). Yet they criticize the lack of originality in games? The phrase about "getting your own house in order" is very apropos.

But, look out! Point out these facts on Slashdot and get modded "troll". Yeah, that makes sense. But this is Slashdot. Since when did facts ever get in the way of some good moderation abuse? Fortunately, I have karma to compensate and it doesn't change the fact that EA is being completely hypocritical.

Why don't you PUBLISH innovative games?

[kornkid606]

So, yeah, I agree that the market could really use some good, innovative games, and I don't think it would be too hard to get these out of developers. I am sure that there are a BUNCH of developers who would like to work on an innovative game, the only problem being: PUBLISHERS DON'T FUCKING BUY INNOVATIVE GAMES!!! Publishers hate a fucking innovative game because there is no guarantee they will make back their investment. This is why we see "Lord of the Rings 5: Frodo Rides Again" consuming stores instead of more interesting, innovative games. If this EA asshole wants to impress me then he should go out, look for an indie dev working on interesting games, and say "Hey, EA wants publish your game!" instead of being a total fucktard and saying "I don't know why more developers don't make more innovative games?" As you can probably tell, this is a serious bone of contention for me =/

Re:Why don't you PUBLISH innovative games?

[MadHatter2005]

And the reason why publishers don't publish innovative games is that there aren't enough people willing to buy these games. EA would publish "Lord of the Rings 5: Frodo Rides Again" because they know that they're are enough consumers willing to buy that game.

Contrast that with Developer X and their "super cool game with super fun awesome gameplay but requires you to learn a new way of playing games" - the interest and patience of the gamers just isn't there to get them to buy the game.

The fault lies with the gamers, not the publishers.

EA

[Angelwrath]

What EA needs to do is focus on quality, at least with one game - BF2142. I play the game daily and the client is so buggy and unstable that it is not commercial-grade software right now. It used to be stable; several updates ago it was great, but now it is so buggy that it's just ridiculous.

And yes, EA does make scads of boring games. The best thing for EA to do is split itself up into several companies, one the game development section, and another to be effectively an investment bank to fund games from companies that otherwise couldn't afford to see them through to release. You could probably make a third company out of EA's distribution group. You'd get three smaller, more agile companies, each highly specialized, each able to continue to cooperate, but with separate leadership and less upper management. The conglomerate format just isn't working.

Master of the Obvious

[Avatar8]

Kudos to Riccitello for saying something like this. His peer CEO's at other companies are probably choking and gasping that he'd publicly admit such a thing whether it's true or not. Question is did he come up with this himself or did he simply listen to the hundreds of analysts and tens of thousands of consumers that have been saying this for the past 5-10 years?

I'm with others here that EA owes numerous development studios and their loyal customers a huge apology for stifling creativity in lieu of mass production according to a project manager's schedule. What's next? Will EA take the next obvious step and publicly acclaim that they will not ship a product until it is complete and as bug-free as possible? Yeah, I doubt that, too.

There are two ways to make money: quality or quantity. I think Wal-mart and McDonald's have the market cornered on quantity. EA is proving that a similar model does not continue to be profitable in the games industry. Eventually your audience grows up and expects more than the next version of the same game. It's time to look towards quality, EA. You have the talent; we've watched you consume them. Let them do their job.

Thanks for speaking up, Mr. Riccitello. Now can you walk the walk?

I've got one

[Intron]

Perhaps they could come up with a game where a well-armed combatant attempts to penetrate a heavily guarded enemy installation in search of a poorly defined objective. After surmounting incredible odds, there would be a final encounter with a superior enemy. Winning this fight would conclude the game.

Thank you, I will await my royalty check.

40 hour games from EA?

[Wilson_6500]

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble thinking of any 40 hour games that EA's published recently. Are they talking about the C&C games, which are primarily played as multiplayer games? Are they talking about the BF series, which are ALSO primarily multiplayer games? The NFS series, maybe, whose protracted length is the result of being able to generate "missions" by drawing lines on a map and recording some voiceovers? The Sims, which was once the poster child for "non-gamer" games?

Maybe there have been some console releases--I don't pay much attention to them nowadays. If someone knows of some long single-player games EA's published recently, please correct me. Or was this nothing but a cut at companies who still try to maintain some semblence of a single-player experience for us "hardcore" gamers?

Regardless, as others have pointed out this is a money-grab. EA wouldn't have lasted this long if they weren't able to follow the curves of the industry and appeal directly to whatever audience is willing to give them the most money.

Re:40 hour games from EA?

[wild_berry]

Single-player gaming is an aberration, a blip: http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/10/are-single-pl ayer-games-doomed/ Everything we do has a social/multiplayer context.

Show, don't tell.

[Song for the Deaf]

In the recording studio we have a saying that's apropos to any creative endeavor:

"Don't tell me you're gonna rock me. Just rock me."

Hey EA, quick lesson in Coolness 101: do the things you're dreaming of doing first. Secondly, let everyone else talk about how cool/important/innovative it is. Then get back to work. Any deviation from this generally makes you look like a tool.

It's so f-ing simple, you'd think they'd have it figured out by now.

So, when's Spore coming out?

[r_jensen11]

Since The Sims hasn't really been revolutionary lately, nor has Sim City, when can we expect to see Spore?

Re:So, when's Spore coming out?

[Dunbal]

when can we expect to see Spore?

You sir are the REASON that computer games suck.

Go on, keep buying that EA CRAP. Oh and be sure to buy Spore II and Spore III.

maybe there is nothing left for the imagination

[bl8n8r]

Ever since wing commander III, the game industry has been turning games into drama. I really enjoyed wing commander but the cut scenes (with no way to skip them) really pissed me off. Same thing with Yuris revenge all the way to Ghost Recon III. If I wanted drama, I'd be watching TV. I just want to go in, blow up some shit, and have some mindless fun (like Kitten Cannon[*]). The other thing is the game companies put way too much emphasis on the graphics. Most people have to turn it all off to make it playable on their crappy hardware anyway - not to mention everyone has to buy a new video card just to play new directx 10 games. Yeah right, I'll do that... just so I can turn it all off anyway. Maybe EA should start fresh with something like Oregon Trail that required some amount of imagination (on the apple II) to really enjoy the game - hey that'd be different.

[*] - http://www.addictinggames.com/kittencannon.html

EA Innovating - only if the beancounters allow it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the history of game companies - including EA.
They are normally started by a group of developers who are passionate about gaming, and they come up with a great idea and develop it well. These guys will normally have a loose structure, highly eccentric working hours, no dress code, unlimited caffiene beverages, and unhealthy qmmounts of pizza. They create games, and they innovate, and like an artist, they do so when their muse inspires them. And we all know, your muse does not keep strict hours.
Despite all of these unprofessional activities, the create a good game, and their game sells.

At this point the greedy accountants and lawyers wade in, they get investment capital (or even a complete buy-out) by somebody who reckons this is a good investment.
But, before long, they see developers taking a snooze during "working hours" or drinking too much soda, or keeping poor hours, and they start to tighten the control.
With tighter control, you strangle the muse, and, feeling stifled, the inspired innovative developers jump ship.
The bean-counters think, "He's just a developer, we can get another one."
But you can't.
The muse that inspired the creation left with him.

So, the reality of the fact is that while game companies are controlled by the bean-counters, who are an unimaginative lot completely lacking in gaming passion, we will continue to see more of the same crap.
Their thought process is something along the lines of "Generic Game Title X" made us money, so "Generic Game Title X+1" will probably make money. Let's do it.
No passion. No innovation.

I hear the man and agree with him, but talk is cheap. Let's see if he can get the walk past the beancounters.

[ot] canon

[wild_berry]

My friend Jack insists that Kitty Cannon is a training simulator and must be banned.