• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

EA brand "tarnished" according to analyst

I don't know. That article isn't very convincing. EA has the top game in the Amazon Top 100 right now. 2 in the top 5. 3 in the top 10. 7 in the top 20. 15 in the top 50. 21 in the top 100.

Yeah, that sucks 😉.

I don't think anyone else even comes close. They're big, and they sell a lot of games, and some are better than others. Having a lot of customers means whatever percent of them are unhappy represents more people bitching. If you're just a little bit worse than your competition, and the percentage goes up a little, that's a lot more people bitching.

The guy who wrote that piece used to work there, and doesn't like the fact that EA is marketing driven. So go work at a big film studio... er wait, no, go work at a big record label... nah, um, go work for a publishing house.... crap, how about a big consumer software company... not getting anywhere with this.

Everything is marketing driven. Bring out the game at the same time as the movie? No way! That's out of line. I mean, every single other product that the studio does a licensing deal with has to be ready when the movie comes out, but games are different.

The problem isn't with the expectations of the business people. The problem is with the art of programming and software construction. And it's not just endemic to big projects in general, because those guys will take on some pretty complex tasks for a big movie launch, and you can bet they will be done and ready to roll when premier day comes.

If you want that "indie" feel then you need to go to work for an "indie" developer, and deal with everything that comes along with it. If it's a big business and a lot of people depend on it, then it has to deliver on time and on budget. That's not "marketing driven," that's reality.

EA could certainly improve quality. So could Microsoft (maybe the best in the business on quality), and Bethesda, and just about everyone else you want to name. They're a powerhouse in the games business, and it will stay that way for a long time.
 
I look at it like voting. Every vote counts and being aware of the issues is integral. Much as in politics, young people tend to think their vote doesn't count, or worse, be apathetic toward and unaware of the issues - and young people make up the majority of video game purchases. Thus they "vote for" (purchase) EA games and reinforce their shady business practices by financially supporting them. Same thing with Sony. Opposing their rootkit spyware gets you nowhere if you go out and buy a PS3 the minute you get done b!tching. People need to be more principled, but I don't think it's going to happen.
 
As long as EA has the exclusive license to the NFL and can pump a new Madden game every year, they'll make truckloads of cash, no matter how 'tarnished' their brand name might be.
 
Originally posted by: djmihow
They ruined the Command and Conquer series for me.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

I just wonder why Petroglyph, which employs a large part of the former Westwood Studios aren't just buying the Command & Conquer rights back from EA. It's a new company though, and the only games they have under their belt is Empire at War and Forces of Corruption (which was kinda disappointing in my book, but I still own it, and I'm gonna keep it, it's still decent).

The "Westwood Studios" that is now part of EA isn't WS in my eyes. If they really were committed to the series as the real WS was before being bought by EA then Generals and Zero Hour wouldn't have been that poor (that's probably subjective, but I know a lot of old C&C fans that still play the original game, the original Red Alert and the Tiberian Sun series to this day and completely ignore Generals, Zero Hour and even Renegade). Personally my three favorites have always been and are still Firestorm (Tberian Sun expansion pack), Red Alert 2 (original sans Yuri's Revenge) and the very first C&C where it all started.
 
Marknbj: did you even read the article?
"The reason for this is that management has been prioritizing marketing at the expense of everything else." (emphasis added)

Of course marketing is important, no one is denying that. But the product or service being marketed needs to be as important as (really moreso than) the marketing involved.

Movie tie-ins, FI, should be well-planned and executed, using already-made engines and other components, and except for bureaucracy, there is little reason for them not to come out on time. Of course you can, just like with Vista features, read all about that, where they basically have folks working overtime being less productive than they could be by an order of magnitude or more.

A company producing creative works should be market driven, not marketing department driven.

EA's downfall has been slower than Sierra's, but no less apparent.
 
totally true, they just spam out games like a greedy faceless corporation these days.
i've felt my previous experiences with them have been bad enough that EA label makes me think twice before i buy. actually i haven't bought EA for over 2 years now.

and with gaming age bracket widening, there will be more and more customers with bad memories of that company.
 
Marknbj: did you even read the article?
"The reason for this is that management has been prioritizing marketing at the expense of everything else." (emphasis added)
Click to expand...

Of course I did, and what employee doesn't think marketing comes at the expense of everything else? He even said that one of his specific complaints was that games were timed to release with the movie "rather than when they are done."

Did you even read the article?
 
Originally posted by: Markbnj
Marknbj: did you even read the article?
"The reason for this is that management has been prioritizing marketing at the expense of everything else." (emphasis added)
Click to expand...

Of course I did, and what employee doesn't think marketing comes at the expense of everything else? He even said that one of his specific complaints was that games were timed to release with the movie "rather than when they are done."

Did you even read the article?
Click to expand...
Yes, and I addressed that point, but you decided to cut it out of your quote.
 
"Tarnished"?

Understatement of the fscking century. I wouldn't wipe my ass with the manual of an EA product, as it'd probably introduce a bug to my anus.
 
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: Markbnj
Marknbj: did you even read the article?
"The reason for this is that management has been prioritizing marketing at the expense of everything else." (emphasis added)
Click to expand...

Of course I did, and what employee doesn't think marketing comes at the expense of everything else? He even said that one of his specific complaints was that games were timed to release with the movie "rather than when they are done."

Did you even read the article?
Click to expand...
Yes, and I addressed that point, but you decided to cut it out of your quote.
Click to expand...

I didn't see it as relevant. Do you think EA doesn't have componentry or well-developed processes? As far as I saw the writer didn't complain about the lack of any of that. What he complained about was the fact that marketing decided when the game was to come out, rather than engineering. In any event, we're well wide of the point. One brief article from an ex-employee doesn't exactly constitute a tarnished brand image for a company with nearly a quarter of the 100 top selling games. Everyone in this forum likes to bash EA, but how many developers can you name that do a consistently better job?
 
Originally posted by: Markbnj
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: Markbnj
Marknbj: did you even read the article?
"The reason for this is that management has been prioritizing marketing at the expense of everything else." (emphasis added)
Click to expand...

Of course I did, and what employee doesn't think marketing comes at the expense of everything else? He even said that one of his specific complaints was that games were timed to release with the movie "rather than when they are done."

Did you even read the article?
Click to expand...
Yes, and I addressed that point, but you decided to cut it out of your quote.
Click to expand...

I didn't see it as relevant. Do you think EA doesn't have componentry or well-developed processes? As far as I saw the writer didn't complain about the lack of any of that. What he complained about was the fact that marketing decided when the game was to come out, rather than engineering. In any event, we're well wide of the point. One brief article from an ex-employee doesn't exactly constitute a tarnished brand image for a company with nearly a quarter of the 100 top selling games. Everyone in this forum likes to bash EA, but how many developers can you name that do a consistently better job?
Click to expand...

EA accomplishes this by sheer numbers and by gulping up smaller studios. EA's bashing isn't just confined to this forum either. If you think it is, I suggest visiting places other than AT.

EA DOES have a tarnished image, and you'd have to be living under a rock to miss it.
 
Originally posted by: Markbnj
Originally posted by: Cerb
Originally posted by: Markbnj
Marknbj: did you even read the article?
"The reason for this is that management has been prioritizing marketing at the expense of everything else." (emphasis added)
Click to expand...

Of course I did, and what employee doesn't think marketing comes at the expense of everything else? He even said that one of his specific complaints was that games were timed to release with the movie "rather than when they are done."

Did you even read the article?
Click to expand...
Yes, and I addressed that point, but you decided to cut it out of your quote.
Click to expand...

I didn't see it as relevant. Do you think EA doesn't have componentry or well-developed processes? As far as I saw the writer didn't complain about the lack of any of that. What he complained about was the fact that marketing decided when the game was to come out, rather than engineering. In any event, we're well wide of the point. One brief article from an ex-employee doesn't exactly constitute a tarnished brand image for a company with nearly a quarter of the 100 top selling games. Everyone in this forum likes to bash EA, but how many developers can you name that do a consistently better job?
Click to expand...
Epic, Id, Firaxis, Blizzard, Croteam, Crytek, PopTop, and Raven off the top of my head. The only quality EA game that comes to mind, and the only one I have now (maybe I had previous ones way back, but no boxes or CDs left) is Alice.
 
I wouldn't put Firaxis on that list, and I wouldn't say most of those developers do a consistently better job than EA. Epic and Id, definitely. They're working on far fewer games, and that's one of the trade-offs in being larger. But then I don't think we're dealing with facts here; more like qualitative impressions. What's the measure of quality? You have to leave design considerations out, and talk about actual errors and the ability of the company to fix them. I don't think there are substantive differences between EA and most other companies in this regard. Microsoft Games are probably the best studio in terms of turning out bullet-proof code.
 
Originally posted by: Markbnj
I wouldn't put Firaxis on that list, and I wouldn't say most of those developers do a consistently better job than EA. Epic and Id, definitely. They're working on far fewer games, and that's one of the trade-offs in being larger. But then I don't think we're dealing with facts here; more like qualitative impressions. What's the measure of quality? You have to leave design considerations out, and talk about actual errors and the ability of the company to fix them. I don't think there are substantive differences between EA and most other companies in this regard. Microsoft Games are probably the best studio in terms of turning out bullet-proof code.
Click to expand...

On an entirely unscientific note, the only two EA games I've tried in the last few years were both horribly buggy, in the case of that LOTR RTS, borderline unplayable in multiplayer.
My impression of EA is kinda like Win98.
Sure, it sorta works and all, but overall, it pretty much sucks, and if someone I know wants help with it, I tell them to get Win2K/XP/Linux/BSD, basically anything decent.

Firaxis has a less than stellar history of quality, but they tend to patch fairly quickly, so if you just give it a month or two, their games tend to work fine, unlike EA games that just continue to suck month after month.
Blizzard, Crytek, and Croteam are in a completely different league, not to mention Epic and id.

EA is pretty much the only company that I've long since stopped expecting anything but horribly broken software from.
Then again, maybe they've gotten better, I haven't bought anything with the EA logo on in quite a while.
 
Originally posted by: Cerb
Epic, Id, Firaxis, Blizzard, Croteam, Crytek, PopTop, and Raven off the top of my head. The only quality EA game that comes to mind, and the only one I have now (maybe I had previous ones way back, but no boxes or CDs left) is Alice.
Click to expand...

Does EA actually develop games? I thought the vast majority of them were simply published by EA and developed by some random little game company. Alice, for example, was developed by Rouge Entertainment, not EA. If that counts as an EA game then they've released plenty of good ones. Alpha Centauri, Crusader: No Remorse, Lands of Lore: Guardians of Destiny, and System Shock II.
 
Originally posted by: Markbnj
I wouldn't put Firaxis on that list, and I wouldn't say most of those developers do a consistently better job than EA. Epic and Id, definitely. They're working on far fewer games, and that's one of the trade-offs in being larger. But then I don't think we're dealing with facts here; more like qualitative impressions. What's the measure of quality? You have to leave design considerations out, and talk about actual errors and the ability of the company to fix them. I don't think there are substantive differences between EA and most other companies in this regard. Microsoft Games are probably the best studio in terms of turning out bullet-proof code.
Click to expand...

Blizzard is a perfect counter-point to EA. To defend EA we have to believe that marketing must rule everything, and that if things aren't done when marketing deems them done, then a company is failing. So in steps Blizzard, a company that has canceled several projects that they felt were of poor quality. A company that has pushed back the release on nearly every product. And a company that now has 6 million subscribers in the biggest online world ever created and a backing of nearly triple A titles across the board. Yea ok, there goes that marketing hub bub.

And apparently, they aren't doing too bad, considering their latest commercial for WoW is directly from Office Space. (With WoW edited in of course)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top