Slashdot Mirror
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?
"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?
Perhaps looking beyond yearly updates to established franchises might be a way to go too.
/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!
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
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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.
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.
Talk like this really gives me the "mini-game fest" jive.
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
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.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
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?