The DeanBeat: EA prospers by thinking about gamers

Andrew Wilson’s reign as the chief executive of Electronic Arts has certainly been good for investors.

[johndoe11211]

I feel like i'm living in some sort of twilight zone, did I just read that heading right?

[rdgneoz3]

I think it's suppose to be a joke article. I needed a good laugh today.

[Patricko]

There should be "/s" at the end of the title :)

[3-4-5]

EA got it right with Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare.

They need to look at that game, and take some of the awesome stuff from that, and apply it to their other games.

Whatever they did with that game ^...they got it right, somebody in charge KNEW what they were doing.

* So yea EA can do great things, but a lot of the time they just kind of do mediocre things when they have the talent to do more.

* They had a NHL series going good...ruined that

* Fifa has always been solid so they do ok with that.

* They FAIL hard at basketball.

* Madden = well it's madden and it's football, and it's usually decent.

EA isn't terrible, but they, considering their funding, should be much better.

[Ashlen]

The thing that drives me crazy is people come to articles like this and complain while on there next web browser tab there pre-ordering every EA game and buying all the dlc for all the games they already have.

[Bigpappy]

Ea is definitely getting better. They have some of the best developers on the planet, and you can see that they are allowing them some creative freedom this gen. Everything seems improved.

[TheGreatGamer]

I think EA have turned around. I guess they got tired of being voted the worst company in America but you can't deny that they've been much more gamer-friendly in recent times

[ColManischewitz]

What's your best example of this new friendliness?

[TheGreatGamer]

Their new CEO did away with a lot of unpopular things EA was doing and now we've got things like EA Access as one example that provides undoubtable value for the consumer

[Testfire]

EA Access is your only example haha! A service only available for Xbox gamers, what about PS, PC and Nintendo gamers?

[caseh]

@Testfire

It isn't EAs fault that they are not on the PlayStation platform, that's Sony's decision.

[scark92]

Yeah, Online Only games are one of the best examples!

*Angriest face of all angry faces*

[TwoForce]

Yeah, i don't think so. EA only do one good things, but the rest is disgusting. Always online BS, that's gonna happen the new NFS game.

[ChronoJoe]

What I think is hilarious is how they can't transition their good practices from one franchise to another.

So Popcap announced that they recognized that fans and consumers want singleplayer content to play in their game, and to be able to play that content offline, or online. Thus, Garden Warfare 2 has plenty of things to do alone in their game, while offline.

However, at the very same conference EA showed off always online games like Need for Speed. So why didn't one studio learn from the mistakes of another? Very unclear and it's bad for their business, and consumers of their product.

I think they are gradually heading in the right direction, listening to and responding to the backlash from consumers, but only because it pays to do so.

[zsquaresoff]

Yea, dlc and microtransactions is the way to a gamers heart.

[RedTriangle53]

I think EA prospers by thinking about money and how to rip off gullible teenagers.
I'm sure I'd prosper too if I could pump out broken AAA games at 16 games per second and sell them for 60 dollars a copy.

[Chaosdreams]

Ya, EA thinks about me alright, they think about how to take me for all I'm worth...and then tell me I like it that way.

Gold star for EA, you know, if gold stars are derived of feces.

[lildudexst]

EA is doing much better then it was a few years ago. They some what listen to the fan better before it was like talking to a wall. Hopefully bf and other improve frome here on out. Just not feeling the EA access they need cut that or work some deal with other services because ea access is very poor. But all hope for the better.

[EinRobot]

"EA prospers by thinking about profits" fixed the headline

[johndoe11211]

Giving you a "well said" bubble.

[EinRobot]

What's your next article? "Konami prospers by taking care of its employees"?

[Chaosdreams]

I genuinely laughed out loud.

[ChronoJoe]

I don't actually understand the hate for EA. I think they are just the largest third party publisher, so it's easy to direct a lot of negativity towards them because they serve as the biggest representation of all of the problems associated with third parties.

Third parties need to sell software to make money so their games are often very driven by sales and microtransactions etc. That's unlike first parties which often deliver better than typical services so as to promote their platform, as well as their software (e.g. Crackdown 3 integrates 'the cloud' because it helps to advertise the XBOX ONE as a platform).

So, third party devs get a lot of negativity because the financial incentives that drive their games development don't afford extra or flashy features. Meanwhile first parties always get a lot of positivity because they're given the development time to push the boundaries of the console and technology.

EA themselves, are no worse than other third parties. Warner Brothers are currently selling the worst value for money season pass the industry has ever seen (Arkham Knight), Ubisofts games are usually broken rehashes of previous installments (Assassins Creed), Take Two's GTA online is grindy and slow to progress in order draw consumers towards microtransactions, within a game they've already paid a full retail price for and Activision's games are quick rehashes of a very similar experience, every year.

But they can't mediate the development costs of these triple A titles with hardware sales, like first parties can. So they spread their risk with these various strategies which cause them to come across as screwing consumers over. In a way it's true, they are, but at the same time we've seen a lot of big publishers go under or struggle financially (2K, Capcom, Sega) and these companies are only attempting to successfully play their market, and in some cases that involves all this crap that consumers complain about. Of course, it wouldn't exist if consumers didn't fuel it.

MT systems wouldn't be there if consumers didn't spend real money for cash on GTA. Always online wouldn't exist if thousands of consumers were content with needing an internet connection for their games, and quick rehashes of existing content wouldn't be pushed out year on year if people didn't buy it. At the end of the day it's the consumers and press that shape the market, and most journalists don't speak up against these bad practices, and most consumers don't speak with their wallets either.

[iceman06]

While I can see some seeds of EA wanting to turn the corner on the idea of being consistently voted "Worst Company In America" (which I would disagree with, video game company...maybe!?!), there are still the vestiges of EA past that make me wary about the idea of any real, HONEST change. The article quotes their revenues as being over 70% dominated by digital sales, DLC (dem micro's), and services. It gives me pause, thinking whether games are a priority OR are the services that are increasingly connected to them the actual priority?
On the face of things, hiring a former game developer is a good move towards the positive. Certainly, at least via the article, he has the right idea. But, IMO, EA "thinking about gamers" shouldn't be some revolutionary idea. In fact, it should be the bedrock and foundation of the company. It's been said that you can't fight your true nature. If that is true, then EA's true colors will come shining through...whether that be a greedy, parasitic entity willing to destroy anything for a dollar, a corporate model for how things can truly turn around when gamers are a priority, OR somewhere in between. Only time will tell.