Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

EA Aiming For 50% Innovation

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 19, 2006 01:51 PM
from the i-half-care dept.
Entertainment Games
Talking to 'The Street.com' EA Worldwide Studios president Paul Lee gets grilled on game delays and industry stagnation, and reaffirms EA's commitment to new IP. From the article: "There [have] been countless games in our industry that have looked great and didn't play particularly well. Going forward, there's going to be a lot of me-too products that look great -- because they all look great -- that aren't necessarily going to do great. But if you take a look at what we have -- you know, Spore is innovative game-play, and at the same time it's got great graphics. And I think that's what really knocks it out of the park. Innovative game-play helps drive [the cause] of gaming. And if you can do that, and you can have great graphics, I think that the market is bigger than just having one of the two."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

EA Aiming For 50% Innovation 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • You had me reading at Spore (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Friday May 19 2006, @01:56PM (#15367747) Homepage Journal
    but when I RTFA I found he mostly talked about how he was sinking a lot of resources into Sony and Microsoft, which means they may have missed the boat since all of my peeps are buying the Wii when it comes out.

    It's the games. Seriously, I don't care how the investors think about it. I was looking at investing in EA or Nintendo, but after reading this I just don't think they get it and will miss the wave that will dominate gaming for the next two years.

    I'll still buy Spore and other Will Wright projects, of course.
    • How can the game be even an evolution simulation while leaving out the possibility of fur. From what we've seen so far they seemed to have left out any possibility of creating MAMMALS of any kind. No live birth (only eggs), no hair, no mammary glands.

      If I can't evolve my creature to look like any REAL creature as well as imaginary, then what's the point of giving me constrained freedom. If I can't evolve a mouse into an ape into a human, then why play an evolving game.

      Seriously, the scale bump mapping looks
      • ...no mammary glands.

        So much for Spore:Dead or Alive!
      • Mammary glands will turn this game from a "T for teen" to an "M for mature". Not saying it's right; that's just what's going to happen.
      • Every design change tacks x amount of time onto the release. Its like hey, lets spend four months coding fur and birth into this game.

        The game is at this point a month late and then Will Wright has to explain himself after CNN plays a video of a hairy 10 legged creature giving birth out of a vagina some idiot placed on its forehead.
    • It's the games

      Yes, it is the games. Which is why I find it odd that you put so much of a focus on the console itself. ("all of my peeps are buying the Wii when it comes out")

      If it's the games, then the console doesn't matter, right? People will buy the console that has the most games they want (which is how it should be), and if EA is heavily supporting Sony and MS, and tons of people buy EA games...

      • In the end, games primarily provide entertainment . If it's not novel or new, it eventually gets relegated to second tier things- things you do to while the time away and have nothing better to do.

        For them to keep moving forward, they have to have people want to have their games and to schedule part of their time for them. I just don't see the bulk of the stuff EA's producing of late doing that for the most part. I mean, how many more NFL/NHL/NBA 200x games are people going to be willing to keep plunk
  • Right. Spore's a megahit. Oops, it's not out yet.

    And it has a very great danger of doing a whole bunch of stuff Not Very Well. Sort of reminds me of City of Heroes, in everything I've seen about it - great costume designer (creature creator) but the gameplay doesn't live up to it.

    Naturally, this speculation isn't that valid as I haven't played it either. But I'm not asserting it's "knocking it out of the park" or even that it will fail. I am simply skeptical that it's going to be the Only Game I Ever Play because of all the uniquely combined elements.

    • Remember though that Spore, be it good or bad, will most likely come to the Wii. Will Wright seems to really like the Wii and has mentioned he wants to take Spore to just about any platform he can shoehorn it onto. (I believe he even mentioned Cell phones... ack!)

      DS and Wii versions of spore seem to make more sense to me than PS3 and 360 versions anyway, since the controller can act more like just like a pointing device.

      Keeping that mindset, Will Wright could be one of EA's most valuable assets when it co
      • That was the first "oh shit" moment with Spore for me - when Will Wright was talking about the cell phone port as well.
        Hopefully that means just one phase or something. . . like the "spore" phase.

        But the idea that a Cell phone's limited interface will allow it to play the same game as a PC. . . just indicates it's not going to be that good.

        Or, alternately, that Will Wright has succumbed to Molynieuxism and is over-promising. Which seems likely. . . but what parts are being overpromised? THAT'S what co

        • And I'm mildly amused I was modded to oblivion for a "spore might suck" sort of comment.

          Well, Spore MIGHT suck. But it might also be the breath of fresh air that the gaming industry needs. It might also spark the pathway for a whole slew of Real Time Strategy Games on the Wii when people realize exactly how well suited the controller is for those sorts of games.

          I'm going to buy Spore for sure. I do this knowing good and well that it's a "Sandbox" sort of game in the same way Sim City is. This helps make
          • re: moderation and the like - the whole point of my post was it was an unknown and shouldn't be treated like a definite (as the article did) but because the subject matter was negativity towards Spore, poof goes the post. :) (oh and maybe the CoH jab bugged somebody)

            The first time I saw the Spore hype I was completely estatic. It looked AWESOME. I still think it looks AWESOME. There's a very high likelihood I'm going to get it, but I am beginning to feel skeptical. It feels too much like the Black and Whit

            • I just feel like RTS/FPS is really (pardon the marketroid term) thinking inside the box.

              I agree, but just because a game is classified as either an RTS or FPS doesn't mean it has to fit every traditional mold.

              There are plenty of ways to bring new ideas to old gameplay styles.

              And of course who said that old ideas can't be reimplimented with new gameplay styles?

              As a wannabe game designer, I always invision new ideas. For instance, why can't there be a Real Time Strategy Game where you play as a neutral third
            • Here is one you will like:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Keeper [wikipedia.org]

              I played the demo years ago - you play the guy who owns
              a dungeon, and heros try to come in and take your gold.
        • One possibility- you keep spore running on your computer (perhaps as a background process) and the phone version allows you to log into your computer and play certain aspects of the game. Might be doable that way.

        • Or, alternately, that Will Wright has succumbed to Molynieuxism and is over-promising. Which seems likely. . . but what parts are being overpromised?

          Well if, Simsville (the product combining elements of the Sims with those of SimCity that was supposedly well on its way -- before it was cancelled) is any indication, it could be that the overpromising is on the idea that the game will ever be delivered. I mean, I'm a huge fan of both the SimCity and The Sims lines, and Spore looks like it could be great,

      • Spore is going to suck (Score:5, Funny)

        by monopole (44023) on Friday May 19 2006, @03:11PM (#15368348)
        As will all future releases by him.

        It's very simple, he appeared on the cover of Wired.

        Push technology, SEGA, Smell-o-Vision over IP, the New Economy, Newt Gingritch, all cratered after appearing on the cover of Wired. It's sort of a Karmic slashdotting effect.
    • No Doubt... Spore sounds impressive, looks impressive, but the question is will it actually be fun? I'm foaming at the mouth over it, but who knows it could be released as a bug ridden piece of crap. Black & White anyone? That sounded pretty cool to me too... too bad it failed in what it's goal was (so sayeth me anyways :D) Nobody knows if it will sell well until... well.. it sells well.
  • One of the things that we're betting on is ... more and more of the [next-generation] games are going to need some form of open-world game-play. And the reality is that open-world game play is just a much more significant undertaking than we would have imagined. But to rush it out and not get that right doesn't get you the learning you need. And I think we made the right decision to do that with Godfather, and I think the reviews and the product sales show that. We are pushing the envelope.

    It sounds to me like the basic premise for their 'innovations' is that they plan on tacking GTA-style emergent gameplay onto ever title they can. Granted, it's a nice touch in certain titles but for God's sake, don't just shove it into games where it has no purpose. Going from one marketing gimmick (yearly sequels) to another (go wherever, do whatever) just because your original tactic is failing miserably doesn't make you save any face in my book.

    • Sure, you laugh at it now, but just wait until you see Tiger Woods 2008 -- Not only will you be able to play golf, you can head into the clubhouse for a few drinks after, pick up hookers, and then walk through the parking lot smashing the windows of your competitor's cars.

      That's not all though. If you beat the entire game on the hardest level you get to drive an M1A2 Abrams Tank as a golf cart.

      Now that's innovation!

      • Sure, you laugh at it now, but just wait until you see Tiger Woods 2008 -- Not only will you be able to play golf, you can head into the clubhouse for a few drinks after, pick up hookers, and then walk through the parking lot smashing the windows of your competitor's cars.

        That's not all though. If you beat the entire game on the hardest level you get to drive an M1A2 Abrams Tank as a golf cart.

        Now that's innovation!

        Sadly, you suggestions seem like a lot of fun.

  • Title is bizarre (Score:4, Informative)

    by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday May 19 2006, @02:03PM (#15367818)
    "50% Innovation"? Sure, the part you quote talks about wanting to have both innovative gameplay and great graphics (what do you expect he'd say? We want to have great gameplay and lame graphics, or great graphics and lame gameplay?), but 50% suggests a quantification that just isn't in the article. Or was the "50% innocation" based on the 50% owned-vs.-licensed IP in TFA, viz (from the second page [thestreet.com]):

    EA seems to be placing more and more emphasis on developing its own content, as opposed to licensing it from other content owners. Do you have any targets on what percentage of your business you want owned IP [intellectual property] to be?

    Our goal is to get over 50%.

  • An innovation quota! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rjung2k (576317) on Friday May 19 2006, @02:06PM (#15367837) Homepage
    What will they think of next!

    "Johnson, you're not innovating enough! You gotta get your innovation up another 8% by the end of the month, or I'm kicking you back down to playtesting!"

  • ea: please remake duck hunt (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    subject said it all. i loved that game and would love to pay $60 for the chance to pass the experience on to my own son. ea: don't let this 'innovation' stuff go to your heads.

  • Did anyone else... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Fred Or Alive (738779) on Friday May 19 2006, @02:06PM (#15367847)
    Burst into laughter when they read the headline? Thought not.

    It's not just seeing "EA" and "innovation" in the same sentence, it's the fact they seem to be aiming for a specific percentage of "innovation" in their games. It all seems very accountanty.

    Developer: I've got this great new idea for our game! It'll be revolutionary!
    Boss: Sorry, I'm not sure if we've got enough innovation left in our budget for revolutionary, can you scale it down to a neat twist on an existing idea?
    • Burst into laughter when they read the headline? Thought not.
      Well, yeah, and then I RTFA and found out, yeah, it was just a bad headline.
    • Actually it was a different part of the headline that got me. Someone at some stage of the chain has really made a cock of themselves with that 50% figure.

      Paul Lee himself probably only said it as a ballpark indication that he want to innovate, and it isn't the title of the article, so maybe Zonk is the culprit.

      Do you have any targets on what percentage of your business you want owned IP [intellectual property] to be?

      Our goal is to get over 50%

      Maybe it's the easiest way to express this for the headline, but

  • A lot of people are casual gamers or weren't raised on PS2/Xbox and have problems with the controls. Maybe they ought to consider things like autoaim that Quake had for FPS and action games so you don't have to work 2 thumbsticks to aim... Of course that would require them to compensate by making the AI more difficult.
    • More than that

      1)A lot of people get severe motion sickness in first person perspective. For example, myself. If a game is first person only, I won't buy it because I can't play it.

      2)Where are all the 2D games at? 3D works for some genres, but platformers I still prefer in 2D. RPGs as well- by going 3D instead of 2D you might get more details in, but the worlds seem to be 1 hell of a lot smaller- there were more towns and dungeons in FF1 than FFX.
        • 1)Well, three things. First, its not just me, its a sizable minority of people. Second, I never said 3rd person only, I said 3rd person as an option. Thirdly, it isn't crippling- even if I was capable of doing first person games I wouldn't play them often, 3rd person provides a more enjoyable experience. First person is the crippling option.

          2)Immersion is bullshit. It doesn't exist. I don't play games to be immersed, in fact I have never felt immersed in a game. I play them to have fun. Far more of
        • I have, and enjoy, my DS. I don't have an Xbox because I don't support illegal monopolies. I'm a big fan of Popcap. As for Yahoo games- some fun ones, but not too many to my taste. Its been a while since I've been there though.

          But that doesn't change the fact that there really aren't many. Most of those that do exist are puzzle and card type games. The DS is really the last stand for 2D platformers and RPGs.
  • But if you take a look at what we have -- you know, Spore is innovative game-play, and at the same time it's got great graphics.

    who wrote this crap? Maybe it's just this headache I have but this article seemed practically unreadable.
  • I can see it now, EA's new committment to innovation will result in a revolutionary new option in NHL 2007: the ability to skip the hockey and jump straight to the fights.
    • Sure there's a game going on that you want to win, but you don't have to spend all your time on the "main quest". In fact, some people may choose never to finish the game. Instead of scoring and defending, get mini-quests from fans and do them! Do karaoke at center ice! Wander out of the stadium and interact with real people online! Build a tree-house out of hockey sticks! End sentences with exclamation marks!
  • Look forward to the following titles this year!
    • American Mcgee's NHL 2007
    • Madden 007 2007: Goldenpunt
    • Lord Of the Sims: Hobbit Date
    • Harry Potter and the Milking of Franchise
    • Need for Medal of Honor: Third Reich Racing
    • The Burbz: Virtual Emo
    • Burnout Soviet Russia: Cars Blow Up You!
    • Lord of the Rings: Street
    • Command and Conquer: Dubya vs. Everybody
    And of course,
    • Unskippable EA Logo Challenge 2007

    • Re:EA's upcoming innovative titles (Score:5, Funny)

      by AuMatar (183847) on Friday May 19 2006, @02:37PM (#15368089)
      I would so buy Lord of the Rings:Street. I can see the bridge scene now.

      Original version
      Gandalf: I am the servant of the scret flame... (yeah, I don't know the whole quote, so sue me)
      Gandalf: Thou shalt not pass!

      Street Version
      Gandalf: Yo I am one nasty nigga. I'm OG foo'. You don wan nonna dis
      Gandalf: Now get to steppin biyatch.
      • Just for giggles, I played HP and the P of A on PC and it was actually quite good. I was a little surprised at how difficult the last few levels were considering the Mickey Mouse-itude of the rest of the game. Maybe I forget what a Nintendo whiz I was as a youngin, but I thought the end of the game would be quite frustrating for the lil ones.

  • 50% Innovation is really... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jferris (908786) on Friday May 19 2006, @02:32PM (#15368049) Homepage
    ...just a half-assed attempt at being completely innovative.
    Half empty, half full - ad naseum.

  • Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cyno01 (573917) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Friday May 19 2006, @04:22PM (#15368925) Homepage
    .50*0=?
  • ...when current innovation is 0.
  • Maybe they should readjust their numbers.

    Like, why 50%? We don't need that much. They could cut it down to, say, 38.3% Innovation, 90% profit whoring.

    Note: The discrepancy in the numbers is best explain by the same math that convinces EA they make a profit.
    • "EA aiming for 50% of the games they put their name on, but don't develop themselves, to be innovative."

      It's not internal versus external. It's licensed properties versus original properties. Licensed means paying a lot of money for the videogame rights to an existing media property, such as Lord of the Rings. They develop both licensed and original games internally.
    • I think sports games are, in a way, harder to innovate than other genres. That's because you're essentially boxed in to how the sport works and handles itself. You can't really change the rules, too much, without people complaining about how unrealistic it is. (Then again, some people LIKE that, which is why games like NBA Jam and NFL Blitz have a sizeable fanbase) That, and you HAVE to release a new version each year. I don't see any other franchise where this has to happen (imagine a new FF or MGS or Halo

      • I think sports games are, in a way, harder to innovate than other genres. That's because you're essentially boxed in to how the sport works and handles itself. You can't really change the rules, too much, without people complaining about how unrealistic it is. (Then again, some people LIKE that, which is why games like NBA Jam and NFL Blitz have a sizeable fanbase) That, and you HAVE to release a new version each year.

        You have to update data files (rosters, etc.) each year, or even more frequently. Excep

        • You have to update data files (rosters, etc.) each year, or even more frequently. Except for the limitations of console formats where you couldn't expect much in the way of being able to apply updaets, there is no reason why that has to mean a new game release -- it could just be a nominally priced, or even free, downloadable product.

          I believe the latest sports titles, at least the ones on Xbox, do allow you to update the rosters mid-season, to take advantage of all the free agency/trading action that happ

        • I agree that those non-simulation sports games (the Mario-line, NFL Blitz, NBA Live, Street games, etc.) can be a lot of fun. But they're almost a different genre itself. One reason why the Mario titles do pretty well is because they DON'T have to release a new one every year. We see one being developed once every few years, usually aligning with a console generation. I think that's perfect, since it allows time for true innovation to occur. What we see happening with the Wii Sports lineup is a great exampl

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.