PDA

View Full Version : EA Trying Not to Be a Greedy "Beast," CEO Says


The Deadman
01-21-2016, 11:44 AM
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-trying-not-to-be-a-greedy-beast-ceo-says/1100-6434011/


Speaking at the B.C. Tech Summit in Canada, Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson acknowledged that the Battlefield and Mass Effect studio is sometimes seen as a monolithic corporation that only wants your money. But the Australian executive explained that EA is hoping to change that perception.

"If you understand the video game business, EA--the branding is this corporate beast that just wants to take money from them while people play our games," Wilson said, as reported by local news site Vancouver 24 Hours.

"That's not actually what we're trying to do."

EA was named the "Worst Company in America" by a consumer affairs blog multiple times. Some voters raised concerns about the company being "greedy" as it relates to microtransactions, among other things.

Since then, Wilson has spoken a great deal about making EA into a "player-first" company. Executives have also discussed its responsibility to be progressive.

Also during his talk this week, Wilson pointed to EA Access as an example of a value-oriented service that the company offers.

"For the longest time in civilization, we would spend money as human beings, then we would spend time where we spent our money. That's reversed now," he said. "You come in, and play a bunch of games, and ultimately you invest after that."

EA/Origin Access is a PC and Xbox One service where people get access to free games (and other benefits, including early access to upcoming games) for $5/month. With more than a dozen games in the EA Access catalog right now, some would say it represents a compelling value.

That's not what they're trying to do meanwhile they're forcing you to pay an arm and a leg for online access to their multiplayer. It's a joke.

Peanut
01-21-2016, 01:37 PM
How are they charging you an arm and a leg to play online multiplayer? What are you talking about?

CyberCubed
01-21-2016, 03:37 PM
Maybe they should do away with their $50 Battlefront season pass.

Should be $20 at most.

chrisdude
01-21-2016, 06:59 PM
EA sells a lot of DLC, but they are pretty good about using DLC that's nonessential, and easy to ignore. I play FIFA, Battlefront and UFC, and I've been perfectly content to not buy anything extra. Nothing as bad as Mortal Kombat.

Peanut
01-21-2016, 09:53 PM
I'm glad I really didn't care much about MKX. Between that and Batman, it really seems like WB is gunning for that title EA has been trying to get rid of for years.

Krutch
01-22-2016, 08:59 AM
The price of Battlefront is pretty gross, to be honest. I've begrudgingly accepted that this is the new norm; that almost every major release will be flooded with more and more DLC, and the main game is coming out more and more bare bones than ever. But with Battlefront it just seems so obvious its insulting. I mean compare this to Battlefront 2 which came out ten years ago...

Battlefront 2 (2005) (before any DLC)
Heroes and Villains: Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Mace Windu, Ki-Adi-Mundi, Aayla Secura, Anakin, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Princess Leia, Count Dooku, General Grievous, Jango Fett, Darth Maul, Darth Sidious, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Boba Fett, Sith Anakin Skywalker
Total: 19
Maps: 27

SW Battlefront (2015) (before any DLC)
Heroes and VIllains: Luke, Han, Leia, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Boba Fett
Total: 6
Maps: 12 (based on 4 locations.)

Not to mention obvious things like Battlefront 2 had a real story campaign, space battles, being able to fly from the planet into outer space... You just can't tell me with a straight face that they didn't deliberately strip the game down to the absolute minimum content. And then to get the "rest" of the game, you need to pay for the game all over again at the price point they're asking.

Do you need to buy it? No, of course not. But then you've still paid 70 bucks for an incomplete game.

EA's not the problem to be honest. It's just the way things are. DLC is the main attraction of games now. This is, sadly, the most logical way game companies are capitalizing on it.

chrisdude
01-22-2016, 04:12 PM
And really, it's kind of weird that game prices didn't go up, this generation. I'd rather they man up and cross the $60 line than to sell all this DLC. (I don't know where you got $70 from.) The number of maps in Battlefront was disappointing. Not enough to make me buy more. It's still a fun game.

Peanut
01-23-2016, 06:27 PM
I'm not going to defend Battlefront's price, especially where the awful DLC is concerned, but comparing a late-gen sequel with multiple reused assests made in 2005 to something like the new Battlefront reeks of ignorance on multiple levels.

And really, it's kind of weird that game prices didn't go up, this generation. I'd rather they man up and cross the $60 line than to sell all this DLC.

No thanks! It already costs $90 to buy a f*cking game here. I'd prefer developers to shoot for something more interesting and cost effective than "Ultra realistic" when it comes to their art styles.

chrisdude
01-24-2016, 09:10 PM
No thanks! It already costs $90 to buy a f*cking game here. I'd prefer developers to shoot for something more interesting and cost effective than "Ultra realistic" when it comes to their art styles.That's fine. There are tons and tons of brand new games for $10, $15, $20. There has never been more cheap games on the market, and a lot of the time, they're the interesting, creative ones. I'm just saying that these "ultra realistic," "AAA" titles are super expensive to make. The development costs and times are going up, but the price has a locked max, for some reason. Those are usually the games with the most paid DLC.

Krutch
01-25-2016, 12:47 PM
I'm not going to defend Battlefront's price, especially where the awful DLC is concerned, but comparing a late-gen sequel with multiple reused assests made in 2005 to something like the new Battlefront reeks of ignorance on multiple levels.

Yeah, ok, that's fair. But I think it's safe to say it still feels like 1/3 of a finished game.

I'd also argue with an IP like Star Wars, it has the budget to merit a larger, more full release. It's not like this is a new unknown FPS game that they're hoping sells well.