The 'EA Image' Tarnished

Gamespot reports that Pacific Crest Securities analyst Evan Wilson has gone on record saying that EA is wrecking its good name, with questionable business decisions and dropping game quality. From the article: "'Reviews of all of EA's annualized titles, its primary source of profit, have declined over the past two years,' Wilson noted. 'Although market share has not declined dramatically to date, in years such as 2007, which promises to have tremendous competition, it seems likely if quality does not improve. EA's aggregate review has also declined significantly in the past two years.'" 1up has the word that, in support of this, EA is still very proud of their 'paying for cheat codes' policy with Need for Speed.

Wasn't it tarnished before?

[amuro98]

So...the huge employee-driven lawsuit against EA for its draconian work environment, unpaid overtime, etc. didn't tarnish their image?

Lackluster re-releases of (American) football games after EA secured exclusive right to all things "NFL" didn't tarnish their image?

Westwood.

[PFI_Optix]

'nuff said.

But because such a short post won't explain to the uninformed: The debacle that was C&C Generals should tell you just how bad EA's influence is on a proven game series. After all the great work that Westwood did defining the C&C series, EA released C&C Generals as a wannabe StarCraft with horrible netcode and next to no support.

Re:"wrecking it's good name"?

[Telvin_3d]

More accurately, I think almost a decade has passed since EA has had a good name with those who pay attention to the industry

The vast majority of gamers don't care. All they know is that on a lot of the games they play, they have to sit through the same 30 second logo at the beginning. Almost no one goes to the store to specifically buy (or not buy) a game from EA or any other developer. They go to buy a title or series.

Good idea, Bad idea

[MeanderingMind]

Good idea: Offer players new and exciting content to download through online services, allowing your video games to generate extra revenue without having to develop an entirely new game that will vanish off the $60 shelves and into the $30 bargains in three weeks.

Bad idea: Gut half of your $60 game and redistribute it claiming that your customers will want to pay extra for what they originally got for free.

When I interact with a company I want to feel as though we are mutually benefitting each other. I give them my hard earned money, and they give me a product born of their own sweat and toil. I don't want to feel like I'm some resource they're trying to find new and more fiendish ways to exploit.

Re:Errr...

[HappySqurriel]

I hate to be a dink (well, honestly I don't hate it) but when someone says that EA doesn't have a good name they're essentially sitting in their ivory tower of video-game elitism like food critics before them. EA is the Large Chain restaurant of the videogame industry and doesn't get the respect they deserve. Sticking with the food analogy, EA produces a meal that looks good, tastes good, has good portions, had good service, and you don't get the shits after eating it; it may not be the best meal in the world, and you may not want to eat it all the time, but they still have a good reputation.

Trouble ahead for international turd factory!

[PingSpike]

'Although market share has not declined dramatically to date, in years such as 2007, which promises to have tremendous competition, it seems likely if quality does not improve...
What competition? I thought they'd finished buying and gutting every company that had a semi successful title in the last 5 years. And when they couldn't buy them, they obtained exclusive franchise licensing so they could torpedo their ships before they even left port.
I have no idea what the future holds for EA. But I wouldn't be so sure that they won't continue to get away with releasing half finished products, humping and dumping young developers and double charging their customers. It seems like plenty of people have continued to buy their products.
I'm just bitter they swallowed some of my favorite little development houses in the late 90s.

Re:Errr...

[Perseid]

If I dine at a fine restaurant I expect fine food. If I go to McDonald's I expect a Big Mac. I consider this OK. You know why? McDonald's is cheaper than the $50 a plate restaurant. EA's mediocre games are still $50, now even $60. EA's games(and, to be fair, games in general) are deteriorating in quality while increasing in price. This is bad.

Re:Errr...

[rwven]

EA traditionally hasn't gained hate because of their game quality. A lot of people already hate EA, in the necessary evil sense, because of the absolutely putrid way they have been treating their employees over the past few years. The suffering quality of their games very probably has to do with that very fact.

EA has turned out some of the greater games that we've all been playing over the past few years, but part of me feels guilty doing so, knowing the ways they've treated their employees to get that job done.

That's what you get with a monopoly

[L-Train8]

The article says that reviews for EA games have been getting worse since two years ago. That's about when EA started signing exclusive licensing agreements with professional sports. Without an NFL 2K7, why does Madden 07 have to be any better? If you want to play as your favorite NFL team, you have to go wtih Madden.

The article also cites alot of movie and comic book license games as proof of declining quality. But again, EA has the inside track on a lot of that IP. They are one of the few companies big enough to lock up the pricey licenses. There is a reason that Rare never made another James Bond game after their biggest hit, GoldenEye. EA is a giant, multi-platform developer who could pay Universal Studios a lot of money for exclusive rights to James Bond.

And when a kid goes to the store, he doesn't say "That game is an EA game, so it must suck," he says, "That is a Superman game, so it must suck." EA's reputation doesn't get tarnished when Superman Returns sucks. What gets tarnished is the reputation of Superman games (already pretty bad).

Right now, EA has the money and clout to get a lot of exclusive licenses. They can sell a lot of mediocre games with a great license, especially if they are the only ones in town with a game of your favorite series.