With EA, the opposite is true. If you've been a gamer for any length of time, you will have been negatively affected by EA. Whether it's the closing of a favoured studio, the poor quality of their games or the aggressive monetisation, you will definitely have been negatively affected.
Really? Where are the mobile game publishers and developers on the list then?
After all they blatantly exploit people psychologically to aggressively monetize their games, their games are low-effort they are many times just created surrounding the monetization model and for the monetization model, in ways to hook that addiction.
Tell me that what EA did is worse and more deserving than we see companies do on mobile gaming?
No wonder big publishers decide to push on mobile, there's a different standard on how things play out on those type of games.
The whole point of my post was that EA has affected most gamers in the US negatively, not that what they do is worse than others. I even specifically stated that what EA did wasn't as bad the other companies on the list, only that they affected a large number of people.
So, sure, mobile developers are terrible. Their monetisation is even more aggressive and predatory than EA's. They're fucking scum. BUT. Does it affect you? It has certainly never affected me. My favourite "mobile dev" studios haven't been gobbled up and destroyed by Zinga. My favourite mobile IPs haven't been run into the ground by Zinga. The mobile market hasn't stagnated as a result of Zinga.
Thats my point. Even though mobile developers are awful, they only affect the people playing them, they're almost all free to play so there is no upfront costs and most people avoid paying anything at all.
The situation with EA is different. Even if you boycott EA games like I do, you are still affected because EA destroy good studios and use their market influence to keep things stagnating. If you happen to play EA games then you're even worse off, because not only are you playing mediocre games but you're also getting screwed by their aggressive monetisation.
And yet, year after year, the insatiable implussive spending habbits of the worlds gamer population continues to fund them. Great job. Madden is still Madden, CoD is still CoD, as goes for all repeats they sell that get snatched up.
Because gamers need to learn that EA is not the devil.
EA is a major company but they just follow trends with or after other companies, this focus on EA doesn't mean things will change on a wider picture, just means everyone else tends to be able to do the same things (or worse) and get away with it without much backlash.
Ubisoft and others are like the good sheep right now, they will not learn a lesson from the backlash EA is getting, they must be just thankful that the backlash is focusing on EA so they can keep doing their own thing.
While I get that EA is a company and not the devil, they do have a socioeconomic and ethical responsibilty towards their consumers. This is something that they have not seemed to have give a crap less about. It seems all they care about is the amount of money they make off their games. Again I understand the primary purpose of a company is to make money, there is a fine line between wanting to be profitable and being insatiable with greed. They have a history of taking companies, cannibalizing their products and destroying the company. Normally I would consider this standard business but the problem is they reduce the quality significantly just to squeeze money out of people. UO is a perfect example with DAoC being another. Star wars franchise is just the latest. A company this big should know better and try to be industry leaders but instead just try to take people for as much money as they can.
Not shocked after EA Totally ruined Dargon Age series, first one was a blast, after that they completely gutted the game, and added DENUVO drm so I never purchase another one after the second.
Not shocked after EA Totally ruined Dargon Age series, first one was a blast, after that they completely gutted the game, and added DENUVO drm so I never purchase another one after the second.
Dragon Age, who? Barely even rates compared to the butt fucking they dealt to Mass Effect.
While I get that EA is a company and not the devil, they do have a socioeconomic and ethical responsibilty towards their consumers. This is something that they have not seemed to have give a crap less about. It seems all they care about is the amount of money they make off their games. Again I understand the primary purpose of a company is to make money, there is a fine line between wanting to be profitable and being insatiable with greed. They have a history of taking companies, cannibalizing their products and destroying the company. Normally I would consider this standard business but the problem is they reduce the quality significantly just to squeeze money out of people. UO is a perfect example with DAoC being another. Star wars franchise is just the latest. A company this big should know better and try to be industry leaders but instead just try to take people for as much money as they can.
They are public owned company, it is about making more and more and more money, that's what investors want, that what drives the company. It starts by gamers understanding that them selling you a game is the same business as you going to the store and buying a box of cookies.
Thing is, gamers feel entitled to determine the direction these companies take and have loud opinions about it, and not even in the movie industry that expectation you have a say on things happens.
The gamers have a great problem is simply with capitalism because that is what it is, get the biggest payouts as possible, unfortanly on gaming they view that as being able to profit as much or even more by spending less on the quality front, up to copy paste the same thing endlessly (AC series, FIFA, etc...).
EA is driven by its investors and their investors want money, not just money, as much money as possible, that will always speak louder, and unless they see that spending more money and more time increasing the quality of the products they sell provides them with more profits, I don't think that will ever change.
And if you were a big investor at EA, I think you would see it the same way.
Not shocked after EA Totally ruined Dargon Age series, first one was a blast, after that they completely gutted the game, and added DENUVO drm so I never purchase another one after the second.
I guess the original Bioware owners shouldn't have sold out to EA for tens of millions of dollars then. They're the ones that didn't give do sod all about their IPs. EA could go away tomorrow and the same thing would still be happening with different names.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't EA buy Bioware by purchasing their parent/holder company which also owned Pandemic (RIP, Pandemic).
And yet, year after year, the insatiable implussive spending habbits of the worlds gamer population continues to fund them. Great job. Madden is still Madden, CoD is still CoD, as goes for all repeats they sell that get snatched up.
Some gamer's are just clueless. I haven't bought a EA product since they bought Westwood studio's.
The first EA game i ever bought was way back in 93,almost 25 years ago,NHLPA93.I loved it played it a ton on my SEGA system and couldn't wait for the next foray.Well very soon i saw that EA was just crap,they would deliver basically the exact same game with just a new roster,so just some spreadsheet numbers and nothing more. yes i know there is not a lot you can with a hockey game but i have some creative ideas and EA simply went with very small increments from year to year.
Since around the 97 or so NHLPA i can't remember buying anymore EA games,i don't much like them anymore.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
While I get that EA is a company and not the devil, they do have a socioeconomic and ethical responsibilty towards their consumers. This is something that they have not seemed to have give a crap less about. It seems all they care about is the amount of money they make off their games. Again I understand the primary purpose of a company is to make money, there is a fine line between wanting to be profitable and being insatiable with greed. They have a history of taking companies, cannibalizing their products and destroying the company. Normally I would consider this standard business but the problem is they reduce the quality significantly just to squeeze money out of people. UO is a perfect example with DAoC being another. Star wars franchise is just the latest. A company this big should know better and try to be industry leaders but instead just try to take people for as much money as they can.
They are public owned company, it is about making more and more and more money, that's what investors want, that what drives the company. It starts by gamers understanding that them selling you a game is the same business as you going to the store and buying a box of cookies.
Thing is, gamers feel entitled to determine the direction these companies take and have loud opinions about it, and not even in the movie industry that expectation you have a say on things happens.
The gamers have a great problem is simply with capitalism because that is what it is, get the biggest payouts as possible, unfortanly on gaming they view that as being able to profit as much or even more by spending less on the quality front, up to copy paste the same thing endlessly (AC series, FIFA, etc...).
EA is driven by its investors and their investors want money, not just money, as much money as possible, that will always speak louder, and unless they see that spending more money and more time increasing the quality of the products they sell provides them with more profits, I don't think that will ever change.
And if you were a big investor at EA, I think you would see it the same way.
And if you want to be a more profitable company then you need to be willing to be more socially and ethically sustainable. I understand making money is key but if you business practices are socially and ethically corrupt then your public image will take a hit. Personally if I was a big investor I would not be comfortable putting my money out to a company like with this terrible a reputation. Although I have a soul and conscience so take that however you want.
Honestly, how much longer before this type of negative publicity will take them down a peg or two. If they were a small company with these types of practices then they would most likely be out of business. Only reason they sustain is because they have licensing to games other companies can't get. If they continue with the negative publicity though how much longer before certain companies are guilty by association and possibly pull their licensing. All it would take for EA to feel significant burn is if they lost a few big licenses (Madden, Star Wars). Anymore businesses are not like it was in the past and with being in the social and information age. All it takes is one really big mistake and they could be wiped off the map. It times like these having a positive reputation can make the difference between being saved and going out of business.
And if you want to be a more profitable company then you need to be willing to be more socially and ethically sustainable. I understand making money is key but if you business practices are socially and ethically corrupt then your public image will take a hit. Personally if I was a big investor I would not be comfortable putting my money out to a company like with this terrible a reputation. Although I have a soul and conscience so take that however you want.
Honestly, how much longer before this type of negative publicity will take them down a peg or two. If they were a small company with these types of practices then they would most likely be out of business. Only reason they sustain is because they have licensing to games other companies can't get. If they continue with the negative publicity though how much longer before certain companies are guilty by association and possibly pull their licensing. All it would take for EA to feel significant burn is if they lost a few big licenses (Madden, Star Wars). Anymore businesses are not like it was in the past and with being in the social and information age. All it takes is one really big mistake and they could be wiped off the map. It times like these having a positive reputation can make the difference between being saved and going out of business.
They are sustainable, waaay profitable, that's what speaks, for all that is business EA is doing it right and their numbers show it.
If all they need to do is release yet another FIFA game and sell it full price with a few changes every year and it is a success in sales, there's no way you are going to tell a company "shame on you! put more effort in your games!" when the numbers speak by themselves.
In a business perspective, they are successful, this is where the opinions of gamers over their games being bad games and all that do not translate, even the last Mass Effect and so.
The last Mass Effect game is seen by many as a failure and half-baked that didn't live to the quality standards it should have, yet on that quarter EA profits almost 700$ million, over 100$ million than the previous year, there is no way in hell anyone at EA is going to a business meeting with those numbers and say "yeah we should listen to criticism and change our ways".
It won't change because the gamers behavior is like, in one moment is "I hate you!!!" the other is "Shut up and take my money!".
And if you want to be a more profitable company then you need to be willing to be more socially and ethically sustainable. I understand making money is key but if you business practices are socially and ethically corrupt then your public image will take a hit. Personally if I was a big investor I would not be comfortable putting my money out to a company like with this terrible a reputation. Although I have a soul and conscience so take that however you want.
Honestly, how much longer before this type of negative publicity will take them down a peg or two. If they were a small company with these types of practices then they would most likely be out of business. Only reason they sustain is because they have licensing to games other companies can't get. If they continue with the negative publicity though how much longer before certain companies are guilty by association and possibly pull their licensing. All it would take for EA to feel significant burn is if they lost a few big licenses (Madden, Star Wars). Anymore businesses are not like it was in the past and with being in the social and information age. All it takes is one really big mistake and they could be wiped off the map. It times like these having a positive reputation can make the difference between being saved and going out of business.
They are sustainable, waaay profitable, that's what speaks, for all that is business EA is doing it right and their numbers show it.
If all they need to do is release yet another FIFA game and sell it full price with a few changes every year and it is a success in sales, there's no way you are going to tell a company "shame on you! put more effort in your games!" when the numbers speak by themselves.
In a business perspective, they are successful, this is where the opinions of gamers over their games being bad games and all that do not translate, even the last Mass Effect and so.
The last Mass Effect game is seen by many as a failure and half-baked that didn't live to the quality standards it should have, yet on that quarter EA profits almost 700$ million, over 100$ million than the previous year, there is no way in hell anyone at EA is going to a business meeting with those numbers and say "yeah we should listen to criticism and change our ways".
It won't change because the gamers behavior is like, in one moment is "I hate you!!!" the other is "Shut up and take my money!".
No, they can absolutely be criticized for being lazy with their monopoly on sports games. They don't have to listen, and it seems they don't... None of that means it's not worthy of criticism from consumers.
What's this weird idea that if businesses make a decision, consumers need to just put up and deal, being thankful the company even offers anything at all? Has this ever been a reality? They aren't providing products out of the goodness of their hearts, they shouldn't be treated as such.
It is presumptuous to think the same gamers criticizing EA are the ones supporting them. What is likely more accurate is that casual gamers care more about playing games relating to their favorite IPs and sports teams, and they're willing to put up with the microtransaction shenanigans because there's no other way to get that kind of entertainment within their favorite IPs. Those gamers are buying just the same, which isn't surprising. EA may try to spin this as microtransactions being the most popular thing among consumers since sliced bread, but the reality may be closer to "it doesn't buy us any goodwill, and most gamers dislike its effects on gameplay, but the margins of profit on microtransactions are so high due to the nature of software replication that it's still a net gain, even if only a small percentage of players purchase them."
It also doesn't mean that those who more closely follow the industry as a whole aren't justified when they criticize EA
No, they can absolutely be criticized for being lazy with their monopoly on sports games. They don't have to listen, and it seems they don't... None of that means it's not worthy of criticism from consumers.
What's this weird idea that if businesses make a decision, consumers need to just put up and deal, being thankful the company even offers anything at all? Has this ever been a reality? They aren't providing products out of the goodness of their hearts, they shouldn't be treated as such.
It is presumptuous to think the same gamers criticizing EA are the ones supporting them. What is likely more accurate is that casual gamers care more about playing games relating to their favorite IPs and sports teams, and they're will to put up with the microtransaction shenanigans because there's no other way to get that kind of entertainment within their favorite IPs. Those gamers are buying just the same, which isn't surprising.
It also doesn't mean that those who more closely follow the industry as a whole aren't justified when they criticize EA
I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't or that the backlash they face isn't justified, I'm saying that in their place, they don't have to hear it because their numbers speak by themselves.
When the criticism is synced with a drop in profits then yes they'll have to admit that they are doing something wrong, when the criticism comes profits, then no deal because and it's rather logical you will not sit in a business meeting with your company profits on the rise arguing "We're doing it wrong we should listen to the criticism floating around.".
It's just what it is, the backlash they face is not translating into their revenue in ways that would make them question if they should change the approach they have been taking.
And if you want to be a more profitable company then you need to be willing to be more socially and ethically sustainable. I understand making money is key but if you business practices are socially and ethically corrupt then your public image will take a hit. Personally if I was a big investor I would not be comfortable putting my money out to a company like with this terrible a reputation. Although I have a soul and conscience so take that however you want.
Honestly, how much longer before this type of negative publicity will take them down a peg or two. If they were a small company with these types of practices then they would most likely be out of business. Only reason they sustain is because they have licensing to games other companies can't get. If they continue with the negative publicity though how much longer before certain companies are guilty by association and possibly pull their licensing. All it would take for EA to feel significant burn is if they lost a few big licenses (Madden, Star Wars). Anymore businesses are not like it was in the past and with being in the social and information age. All it takes is one really big mistake and they could be wiped off the map. It times like these having a positive reputation can make the difference between being saved and going out of business.
They are sustainable, waaay profitable, that's what speaks, for all that is business EA is doing it right and their numbers show it.
If all they need to do is release yet another FIFA game and sell it full price with a few changes every year and it is a success in sales, there's no way you are going to tell a company "shame on you! put more effort in your games!" when the numbers speak by themselves.
In a business perspective, they are successful, this is where the opinions of gamers over their games being bad games and all that do not translate, even the last Mass Effect and so.
The last Mass Effect game is seen by many as a failure and half-baked that didn't live to the quality standards it should have, yet on that quarter EA profits almost 700$ million, over 100$ million than the previous year, there is no way in hell anyone at EA is going to a business meeting with those numbers and say "yeah we should listen to criticism and change our ways".
It won't change because the gamers behavior is like, in one moment is "I hate you!!!" the other is "Shut up and take my money!".
Economic is not the only type of sustainability. They are successful economically but in social and ethical they are doing poorly. If they release more models like Star Wars battlefront 2 then how long before that turns off enough people before they decide to not buy EA products. That would then affect them economically. Yes gamers are finicky but piss enough of them off and that can cut into profits.
Economic is not the only type of sustainability. They are successful economically but in social and ethical they are doing poorly. If they release more models like Star Wars battlefront 2 then how long before that turns off enough people before they decide to not buy EA products. That would then affect them economically. Yes gamers are finicky but piss enough of them off and that can cut into profits.
I don't think it works like that.
I think the vast majority of the consumer base couldn't care less about EA or Ubisoft or so and buys the games out of their interest for the title (or IP) and not because of the developer and publisher behind it.
I don't think any boycott would ever cause a relevant impact on the marketing colossus they stand on the AAA titles they continue to release.
The moment their profits are on decay, or they feel they are running into too much risk, we will likely see them reacting, until and if that happens, they only have reasons to continue pursuing the same already shown successful direction.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
And if you want to be a more profitable company then you need to be willing to be more socially and ethically sustainable. I understand making money is key but if you business practices are socially and ethically corrupt then your public image will take a hit. Personally if I was a big investor I would not be comfortable putting my money out to a company like with this terrible a reputation. Although I have a soul and conscience so take that however you want.
Honestly, how much longer before this type of negative publicity will take them down a peg or two. If they were a small company with these types of practices then they would most likely be out of business. Only reason they sustain is because they have licensing to games other companies can't get. If they continue with the negative publicity though how much longer before certain companies are guilty by association and possibly pull their licensing. All it would take for EA to feel significant burn is if they lost a few big licenses (Madden, Star Wars). Anymore businesses are not like it was in the past and with being in the social and information age. All it takes is one really big mistake and they could be wiped off the map. It times like these having a positive reputation can make the difference between being saved and going out of business.
They are sustainable, waaay profitable, that's what speaks, for all that is business EA is doing it right and their numbers show it.
If all they need to do is release yet another FIFA game and sell it full price with a few changes every year and it is a success in sales, there's no way you are going to tell a company "shame on you! put more effort in your games!" when the numbers speak by themselves.
In a business perspective, they are successful, this is where the opinions of gamers over their games being bad games and all that do not translate, even the last Mass Effect and so.
The last Mass Effect game is seen by many as a failure and half-baked that didn't live to the quality standards it should have, yet on that quarter EA profits almost 700$ million, over 100$ million than the previous year, there is no way in hell anyone at EA is going to a business meeting with those numbers and say "yeah we should listen to criticism and change our ways".
It won't change because the gamers behavior is like, in one moment is "I hate you!!!" the other is "Shut up and take my money!".
Economic is not the only type of sustainability. They are successful economically but in social and ethical they are doing poorly. If they release more models like Star Wars battlefront 2 then how long before that turns off enough people before they decide to not buy EA products. That would then affect them economically. Yes gamers are finicky but piss enough of them off and that can cut into profits.
I'm going to have to agree with M.Bacon here.
I think people who go to forums and who are "die hard gamers" or at least have a keen interest in games, have a somewhat skewed vision of how the hobby is seen.
Most people don't care at all. They don't go to forums, they don't go to conferences they just see a Star Wars game and buy it. dlc/lootboxes? They will either buy or not buy but that's the end of it. They're not going to be up in arms or boycott or join the pitchforked few who want to teach them a lesson.
Now, if they don't make a good game, one that entertains, that will hurt them more.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Economic is not the only type of sustainability. They are successful economically but in social and ethical they are doing poorly. If they release more models like Star Wars battlefront 2 then how long before that turns off enough people before they decide to not buy EA products. That would then affect them economically. Yes gamers are finicky but piss enough of them off and that can cut into profits.
I don't think it works like that.
I think the vast majority of the consumer base couldn't care less about EA or Ubisoft or so and buys the games out of their interest for the title (or IP) and not because of the developer and publisher behind it.
I don't think any boycott would ever cause a relevant impact on the marketing colossus they stand on the AAA titles they continue to release.
The moment their profits are on decay, or they feel they are running into too much risk, we will likely see them reacting, until and if that happens, they only have reasons to continue pursuing the same already shown successful direction.
That was my point. If they continue terrible business practices it could potentially impact their profits. How many people who are star wars fans bought the star wars game and got upset about the microtransactions. Must have been enough that EA felt a need to respond to the controversy
In there it says EA sold 9 million units. While 9 million is great it is 1 million less than their projected sales of 10 million for the sales period of October to December. Most of this was because of the loot crate and microtransaction issues which lead to the reduction in sales. While its only 10% away from their projected sales and does not seem like a big deficit, I would not be surprised if some heads rolled because they missed their projected mark. While they also have not lost the license, if Disney felt that EA's negative reputation could affect them by association then they would pull that license from them incredibly fast.
While you are correct that right now they are not being affected, a smart company would try to correct courses like this before it begins to affect profits. That's just smart business forecasting.
Wow even more hated than Comcast or Verizon? Impressive guys, keep it up!
Agreed, didn't see that coming. Shocked CNN didn't make list, so hard to really take list serious.
Which you shouldn't, take the list seriously I mean.
While a few of the companies on the list have seen their economic fortunes drastically decline over time, most of the firm's are still kicking arse and taking names in their respective markets, EA included.
Sure, there was a short term downtick, but gamer memories are especially short once the next big game launches.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
So, sure, mobile developers are terrible. Their monetisation is even more aggressive and predatory than EA's. They're fucking scum. BUT. Does it affect you? It has certainly never affected me. My favourite "mobile dev" studios haven't been gobbled up and destroyed by Zinga. My favourite mobile IPs haven't been run into the ground by Zinga. The mobile market hasn't stagnated as a result of Zinga.
Thats my point. Even though mobile developers are awful, they only affect the people playing them, they're almost all free to play so there is no upfront costs and most people avoid paying anything at all.
The situation with EA is different. Even if you boycott EA games like I do, you are still affected because EA destroy good studios and use their market influence to keep things stagnating. If you happen to play EA games then you're even worse off, because not only are you playing mediocre games but you're also getting screwed by their aggressive monetisation.
While I get that EA is a company and not the devil, they do have a socioeconomic and ethical responsibilty towards their consumers. This is something that they have not seemed to have give a crap less about. It seems all they care about is the amount of money they make off their games. Again I understand the primary purpose of a company is to make money, there is a fine line between wanting to be profitable and being insatiable with greed. They have a history of taking companies, cannibalizing their products and destroying the company. Normally I would consider this standard business but the problem is they reduce the quality significantly just to squeeze money out of people. UO is a perfect example with DAoC being another. Star wars franchise is just the latest. A company this big should know better and try to be industry leaders but instead just try to take people for as much money as they can.
Thing is, gamers feel entitled to determine the direction these companies take and have loud opinions about it, and not even in the movie industry that expectation you have a say on things happens.
The gamers have a great problem is simply with capitalism because that is what it is, get the biggest payouts as possible, unfortanly on gaming they view that as being able to profit as much or even more by spending less on the quality front, up to copy paste the same thing endlessly (AC series, FIFA, etc...).
EA is driven by its investors and their investors want money, not just money, as much money as possible, that will always speak louder, and unless they see that spending more money and more time increasing the quality of the products they sell provides them with more profits, I don't think that will ever change.
And if you were a big investor at EA, I think you would see it the same way.
EA has certain large IPs as well.
So it kind of makes sense its up there.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
yes i know there is not a lot you can with a hockey game but i have some creative ideas and EA simply went with very small increments from year to year.
Since around the 97 or so NHLPA i can't remember buying anymore EA games,i don't much like them anymore.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
And if you want to be a more profitable company then you need to be willing to be more socially and ethically sustainable. I understand making money is key but if you business practices are socially and ethically corrupt then your public image will take a hit. Personally if I was a big investor I would not be comfortable putting my money out to a company like with this terrible a reputation. Although I have a soul and conscience so take that however you want.
Honestly, how much longer before this type of negative publicity will take them down a peg or two. If they were a small company with these types of practices then they would most likely be out of business. Only reason they sustain is because they have licensing to games other companies can't get. If they continue with the negative publicity though how much longer before certain companies are guilty by association and possibly pull their licensing. All it would take for EA to feel significant burn is if they lost a few big licenses (Madden, Star Wars). Anymore businesses are not like it was in the past and with being in the social and information age. All it takes is one really big mistake and they could be wiped off the map. It times like these having a positive reputation can make the difference between being saved and going out of business.
If all they need to do is release yet another FIFA game and sell it full price with a few changes every year and it is a success in sales, there's no way you are going to tell a company "shame on you! put more effort in your games!" when the numbers speak by themselves.
In a business perspective, they are successful, this is where the opinions of gamers over their games being bad games and all that do not translate, even the last Mass Effect and so.
The last Mass Effect game is seen by many as a failure and half-baked that didn't live to the quality standards it should have, yet on that quarter EA profits almost 700$ million, over 100$ million than the previous year, there is no way in hell anyone at EA is going to a business meeting with those numbers and say "yeah we should listen to criticism and change our ways".
It won't change because the gamers behavior is like, in one moment is "I hate you!!!" the other is "Shut up and take my money!".
What's this weird idea that if businesses make a decision, consumers need to just put up and deal, being thankful the company even offers anything at all? Has this ever been a reality? They aren't providing products out of the goodness of their hearts, they shouldn't be treated as such.
It is presumptuous to think the same gamers criticizing EA are the ones supporting them. What is likely more accurate is that casual gamers care more about playing games relating to their favorite IPs and sports teams, and they're willing to put up with the microtransaction shenanigans because there's no other way to get that kind of entertainment within their favorite IPs. Those gamers are buying just the same, which isn't surprising. EA may try to spin this as microtransactions being the most popular thing among consumers since sliced bread, but the reality may be closer to "it doesn't buy us any goodwill, and most gamers dislike its effects on gameplay, but the margins of profit on microtransactions are so high due to the nature of software replication that it's still a net gain, even if only a small percentage of players purchase them."
It also doesn't mean that those who more closely follow the industry as a whole aren't justified when they criticize EA
When the criticism is synced with a drop in profits then yes they'll have to admit that they are doing something wrong, when the criticism comes profits, then no deal because and it's rather logical you will not sit in a business meeting with your company profits on the rise arguing "We're doing it wrong we should listen to the criticism floating around.".
It's just what it is, the backlash they face is not translating into their revenue in ways that would make them question if they should change the approach they have been taking.
Economic is not the only type of sustainability. They are successful economically but in social and ethical they are doing poorly. If they release more models like Star Wars battlefront 2 then how long before that turns off enough people before they decide to not buy EA products. That would then affect them economically. Yes gamers are finicky but piss enough of them off and that can cut into profits.
I think the vast majority of the consumer base couldn't care less about EA or Ubisoft or so and buys the games out of their interest for the title (or IP) and not because of the developer and publisher behind it.
I don't think any boycott would ever cause a relevant impact on the marketing colossus they stand on the AAA titles they continue to release.
The moment their profits are on decay, or they feel they are running into too much risk, we will likely see them reacting, until and if that happens, they only have reasons to continue pursuing the same already shown successful direction.
https://consumerist.com/2013/04/09/ea-makes-worst-company-in-america-history-wins-title-for-second-year-in-a-row/
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
― George Carlin
I think people who go to forums and who are "die hard gamers" or at least have a keen interest in games, have a somewhat skewed vision of how the hobby is seen.
Most people don't care at all. They don't go to forums, they don't go to conferences they just see a Star Wars game and buy it. dlc/lootboxes? They will either buy or not buy but that's the end of it. They're not going to be up in arms or boycott or join the pitchforked few who want to teach them a lesson.
Now, if they don't make a good game, one that entertains, that will hurt them more.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
That was my point. If they continue terrible business practices it could potentially impact their profits. How many people who are star wars fans bought the star wars game and got upset about the microtransactions. Must have been enough that EA felt a need to respond to the controversy
For instance:
https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/30/16952396/star-wars-battlefront-2-sales-loot-boxes-returning
In there it says EA sold 9 million units. While 9 million is great it is 1 million less than their projected sales of 10 million for the sales period of October to December. Most of this was because of the loot crate and microtransaction issues which lead to the reduction in sales. While its only 10% away from their projected sales and does not seem like a big deficit, I would not be surprised if some heads rolled because they missed their projected mark. While they also have not lost the license, if Disney felt that EA's negative reputation could affect them by association then they would pull that license from them incredibly fast.
While you are correct that right now they are not being affected, a smart company would try to correct courses like this before it begins to affect profits. That's just smart business forecasting.
Which you shouldn't, take the list seriously I mean.
While a few of the companies on the list have seen their economic fortunes drastically decline over time, most of the firm's are still kicking arse and taking names in their respective markets, EA included.
Sure, there was a short term downtick, but gamer memories are especially short once the next big game launches.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon