EA CEO: We`re not trying to be greedy.

Gamezone

Gold Member
I found this article a bit funny.

“If you understand the videogame business, EA — the branding is this corporate beast that just wants to take money from them while people play our games,” said Wilson, an Australian man who took over as CEO in 2013.

“That’s not actually what we’re trying to do.”


The traditional model for how consumers get their hands on videogames has been to go to the store, buy a game cartridge, go home — and that’s the end of the gamer’s connection to the company.

The introduction of the smartphone and the Internet has changed this model. Now, gamers are constantly connected — companies like EA have access to potentially millions of customers by way of free or low-priced apps.

The company still makes money in these mobile titles through a number of in-app purchases that gives the consumer the choice of whether they want to invest further into a game. And given the connected nature of games nowadays, the relationship with the gamer no longer ends at the store — games can be updated to be brighter, bigger, better, reflecting the growth of their audiences.

And even for the traditional console and computer categories, the steep price associated with purchasing a game — which can often be $60 or more — is being eroded.

Wilson pointed to the company’s new Netflix-like initiative, EA Access, available for computers and Xbox One, where users pay a fixed monthly price ($5 in this case) to enjoy a catalogue of games.

“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.”


Source: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2016/01/19/ea-trying-not-to-be-greedy-beast-ceo-says



Obviously we were wrong all along. EA isn`t greedy, and we don`t understand the videogame business.
 
“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.

I honestly don't understand what he's trying to say here.
 
With Origin Access coming out, there's actually some good value there.

EA still greedy as fuck tho

The company still makes money in these mobile titles through a number of in-app purchases that gives the consumer the choice of whether they want to invest further into a game.

It's not a choice when you rip out content that should have been part of the main game.

I honestly don't understand what he's trying to say here.

What he means is, that you'd spend money on a thing, and then spend time on that thing you bought (playing the game).

Now, you get to spend time playing (free to play, 48-hour access), and then "choose" which game to "invest" in. (ie which game you want to unlock this powerup for via microtransaction).
 
Sounds like the usual business-speak.

"Don't you understand YOU wanted us to nickle and dime you, therefore we aren't nickle and dimeing you, just giving you what you asked for".

I honestly don't understand what he's trying to say here.

It is a little confusing but he is saying we supposedly used to spend money first and then (in this case) play. Whereas now we play and then spend money.
 
"We're not trying to be greedy, but we are".

Seriously look at Halo 5 free updates. The way they should be selling FPS's, even R6:S is doing it right.
 
Sounds like the usual business-speak.

"Don't you understand YOU wanted us to nickle and dime you, therefore we aren't nickle and dimeing you, just giving you what you asked for".

Yep. I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard PR people go "You just don't understand".
 
giphy.gif
 
got a banner ad for Bejeweled Skies on this thread. heh.

"we can't help it if we've applied gambling style behavioral psychology to usage patterns on mobile phone games in order to maximize profits. we're just PEOPLE"
 
I don't get this EA hate they are clearly not greedy. I mean they sure as hell are pushing microtransactions and Ultimate Team into almost anything but I see that as natural evolution of the market when the MSRP of a traditional game hasn't increased in almost 10 years.
 
I honestly don't understand what he's trying to say here.

I think he's saying you invest your time (in some F2P game) and then as a result invest your money (via microtransactions) instead of spending your money on a game then spending your time playing it.

I don't agree with him and the latter is still how I consume games.
 
Interesting that he even knows about that. I thought EA would be completly ignorant about this image they have on message boards/inet in general.
 
What he means is, that you'd spend money on a thing, and then spend time on that thing you bought (playing the game).

Now, you get to spend time playing (free to play, 48-hour access), and then "choose" which game to "invest" in. (ie which game you want to unlock this powerup for via microtransaction).

Ok, not sure i agree with his perspective then.

Trying something before buying it isn't a new concept. And F2P games are more platform/services than traditional products anyway.

And it being a common business model doesn't make your implementation of it not greedy.
 
I found this article a bit funny.



The traditional model for how consumers get their hands on videogames has been to go to the store, buy a game cartridge, go home — and that’s the end of the gamer’s connection to the company.

The introduction of the smartphone and the Internet has changed this model. Now, gamers are constantly connected — companies like EA have access to potentially millions of customers by way of free or low-priced apps.

The company still makes money in these mobile titles through a number of in-app purchases that gives the consumer the choice of whether they want to invest further into a game. And given the connected nature of games nowadays, the relationship with the gamer no longer ends at the store — games can be updated to be brighter, bigger, better, reflecting the growth of their audiences.

And even for the traditional console and computer categories, the steep price associated with purchasing a game — which can often be $60 or more — is being eroded.

Wilson pointed to the company’s new Netflix-like initiative, EA Access, available for computers and Xbox One, where users pay a fixed monthly price ($5 in this case) to enjoy a catalogue of games.

“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.”


Source: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2016/01/19/ea-trying-not-to-be-greedy-beast-ceo-says

Hmm reading the subtext here, these quotes are particularly interesting given Jim Sterling's latest jimquisition about how the big video games publishers are looking more into the episodic model of making games.
 
I mean, businesses are in it for the profit, plain and simple, I guess $875 million profit being "greed" is subjective.

Greed is a relative term of course, that requires context to be meaningful. If we look at how devs implement microtransactions ect. EA is certainly not among the more consumer friendly guys.
 
I don't get this EA hate they are clearly not greedy. I mean they sure as hell are pushing microtransactions and Ultimate Team into almost anything but I see that as natural evolution of the market when the MSRP of a traditional game hasn't increased in almost 10 years.

On Black Friday madden ran an exclusive promo for people who only buy Packs. The cost of one good card, I shit you not was $60-80. The best card cost $150. Not only that, but by the community standards this was a bargain.

This was strictly a pay to win promo, and if you didn't pay you would get nothing.

The fans were even complaining that they were breaking TOS with this promotion. It was as greedy as can be.
 
You are right, we don't understand the video game business. That is why EA are one of the biggest, wealthiest publishers in the industry and you and I are simply two people who buy video games because we enjoy the hobby.



EA and DICE are still supporting Battlefield 4 with updates. If anything, EA are doing something right with a FPS game.

I still find it baffling EA were rated worse than the likes of Comcast and any bank in America.
Fuck I remember when support was a GIVEN because you know you bought the game.

Now its a bonus, a feature, something to be happy about.

EA are not doing much right when it comes to Battlefield, premium still segregates the community. R6 and Halo 5 is the right way to do it. Battlefield and Battlefront are leading examples of the WRONG way to do it.
 
More than their greed is the issue that over the years they have sucked up many, many great development houses, bled them dry, and then cast them out and disbanded them.
 
On Black Friday madden ran an exclusive promo for people who only buy Packs. The cost of one good card, I shit you not was $60-80. The best card cost $150. Not only that, but by the community standards this was a bargain.

This was strictly a pay to win promo, and if you didn't pay you would get nothing.

The fans were even complaining that they were breaking TOS with this promotion. It was as greedy as can be.

I could agree but then Ultimate Team (FIFA and Madden) is its own community. For example the hats community or Dota community pay a shit ton of money for cosmetics that I would never buy not even for 1 cent. The Ultimate Team community buy packs that I have never bought if it isn't with coins I earn through the game itself.

I don't see EA taking advantage of the market as something wrong specially when a significant portion of the market WILL spend that money on packs anyway and for them buying pack at those prices is actually a good deal.
 
Until I see map packs that segments player bases, premium services and season passes that are incredibly vague what they will give (in the case of Titanfall, gave jack shit), microtransaction packs that make you pay for things but adding absolutely nothing of worth that couldn't be solved with better design, all go away. I am gonna say:

ieJb0rO.gif
 
Ok, not sure i agree with his perspective then.

Trying something before buying it isn't a new concept. And F2P games are more platform/services than traditional products anyway.

And it being a common business model doesn't make your implementation of it not greedy.
It's not really an agree/disagree point. The largest market is mobile, and F2P by far.
 
Ha, EA are transparent in their greed. Just look at Battlefront, that game is daylight robbery cashing in on brand at a trendy time.
 
Well on one hand, we're getting a new Mirrors Edge and EA Access is a thing that exists.

On the other hand, they're still trying to make as much money as possible by nickel and dime-ing us with DLC and microtranactions in their $60 games, so yeah...
 
Top Bottom