Slashdot Mirror
The Horrible Things That Could Happen To EA
A recent Gamasutra story noted something interesting in Electronic Arts' financials filing. The company is extremely reliant on brick and mortar retailers like Wal-mart (which made up 12% of its net revenue) and Gamestop (about 15%). Simon Carless, writing at the GameSetWatch blog, takes that analysis one step further and postulates some of the horrible things that could happen to the software giant if the conditions were right. It's all meant tongue-in-cheek, of course, but it's an interesting discussion of how even large companies can be vulnerable to simple issues: "5. Wrong System, Wrong Time! 'Our business is highly dependent on the success and availability of video game hardware systems manufactured by third parties, as well as our ability to develop commercially successful products for these systems.' More specifically, as EA explains, this is the Wii/DS effect in action: 'A platform for which we are developing products may not succeed or may have a shorter life cycle than anticipated.'"
If B&M are so in control of EA's sales, why do they constantly bitch about how little they make on new games? The truth is that Brick & Mortar is just the prefered route for many customers... If they couldn't drive to the store and get it, most of those customers would just order online somehow.
But even if GameSpot and Walmart suddenly stopped carrying ALL EA games, someone else would just pick them up and make a ton of money instead. Because even that little bit they complain about is still profit, and there's someone that will make sure they get that money. Best Buy and Circuit City would love it, for example. CC constantly runs amazing specials on new games (10-20% below retail AT LAUNCH) and Best Buy matches those specials. I can't believe they do that out of the goodness of their hearts, so I'm thinking they must be trying to attract game-buyers.
Nothing in this list is even remotely likely to happen to EA, or any other major game company. -yawn-
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Horrible for EA
Good For gamers
PoTAYto
PoTAHto
Like only shipping games for WinVista when most consumers are switching to Mac or Linux or BSD.
Or shipping games only for PS3 when most consumers are buying only PS2 versions or Wii or xBox360 and won't go near PS3.
I wouldn't worry about the retail outlets - there are a number to choose from and turnover is fairly fast.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Frankly, a "rush" is generally how things work out in most RTS multiplayer these days, at least on the high end. Not that games will necessarily be really short, some are quite long, but the Day of the Turtle is long past. Early harassment is the way things work in just about every RTS you'd care to mention. The best defense is a good offence, attack your enemy's resource generators and they can't hit you as hard. Turtle games are fun, but the only way you're ever likely to get one is to play with friends and agree to wait a certain period of time before a base invasion, or play the computer, which tends to cheat rush.
You are putting words into my mouth. I have made no statement of expectations regarding Spore.
I am pointing out that it as a new brand it has significant risk associated with it, and that is obviously expensive to develop (given how long it has gone).
The guaranteed sellers like Madden and other sports titles bring in guaranteed profits. It makes taking risks with other games - which EA has been doing more of lately - easier to justify, and keeps the risks from folding the company. I've known a few development companies who took a single risk and it cost them everything, because they did not have anything to fall back on.
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
The current state of 3 competitors isn't stable- there's only room for 2, and once microsoft pulls out (though I think it's more likely that Sony will drop out) there's not going to be a power vacuum.
Absolutely. Remember that the EA way would be for spore critters to wear T-shirts with ads for Pepsi and Burger King.
I just participated in a survey (paid for by guess who) about in-game advertising. One of the questions was how much cheaper a $40 game would have to be for in-game advertising to be acceptable. My answer: $80. Yes, if I am to watch ads, I want to get paid. With twenty hours play time, $40 is only $2 per hour, and they surely get more than that from the advertisers.
In my opinion, EA no longer serves a useful purpose, and should go beer-belly up. Redoing the same game every year, with a darker and darker environment (so there will be less visible textures, and the crappier code won't be too slow on a graphics card that's merely twice as fast as last year's) isn't innovative. Especially not when it fetches ads over MY internet connection in the background, and sends personal and marketing information back to them, at my cost.
Regards,
--
*Art