surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Our industry could really use more intelligent businessmen I've noticed. With the exception of maybe Nintendo it always seems like our conglomerates are managed by sub-par or just awful managers and suits. Maybe as it continues to mature. It's still in that awkward teenage phase.
Also, agreed on the EA thing. They've been doing write by the community and they still have been getting shit from the market.
Also, agreed on the EA thing. They've been doing write by the community and they still have been getting shit from the market.
Yes I noticed that the more EA tries to do right by gamers the more stuff like this happens, yet activision whom screws gamers over left and right get seemingly no flak whatsoever.
My country is on some kind of crack because that's not how its supposed to work.
My country is on some kind of crack because that's not how its supposed to work.
I've been thinking about this, and could it really be just because they tried to make new IP's? At the very least, some of the new IP's they were making would have sold well if they were good games, like Mirrors edge. When EA's new IP's come to mind, I think about Mirrors Edge and Dead Space, the former not good, and didn't sell that much and the latter being something that sold rather well I think. Theres also the partnership programs and things like that, which they have been losing money on, apparently.
I really hope this works out for EA, They'll probably have to strike a middle ground and bring back old IP's that resonate with the market more, and probably more gimmicky sports spin offs, ewh.
I've always seen Sony as a compulsive over-promiser, consistently trying to draw attention away from delays by announcing new games far too early, thus renewing the cycle.
As an analyst, I can tell you, David Gibbs is not an analyst. Any of you can sign on to Seeking Alpha and become a contributor.
Moreover, the beat and raise game (referring to a company's guidance on financial projections) is extremely common and is in no way unique to EA. It is also something that can become predictable and, thus, less effective over time, as seems to be the case with EA.
Moreover, the beat and raise game (referring to a company's guidance on financial projections) is extremely common and is in no way unique to EA. It is also something that can become predictable and, thus, less effective over time, as seems to be the case with EA.
The problem is, that what we want, as people who CARE about gaming and the industry and creativity, as people who read these sites and comment on these blogs, what WE want is not what THEY buy, they being the millions of so called "Gamers" out there who only bought Fifa and MW2 last year, and there are millions of them. Far more than there are of us.
It's such a shame, because if they all cared as much about quality games as we do a lot of great games which are overlooked due to the lack of a big sequel name would have seen far better sales.
Most people don't know when games release, they think, "I need a new game, it's been 6/7/8/9 months since I last bought one, I'll pop into (insert game store here) and see what they've got.... oooh, the new Call of Duty is out! / Oooh the new Fifa/Madden is out! i'll get that"
Where as we get excited about new IP's and interesting titles because we've read about them for months before release and understand more about them that what the back of the box says.
It's sad but it's true. Internet interest =/= Mainstream success.
Universal truth is not measured by mass appeal.
I personally come across to my friends as a bit of a zealot, always texting them about release dates, encouraging them to try out interesting new titles, I've got a few of them into reading about games on here.
But it's never going to be enough. We are all being held over the mainstream barrel.
It's such a shame, because if they all cared as much about quality games as we do a lot of great games which are overlooked due to the lack of a big sequel name would have seen far better sales.
Most people don't know when games release, they think, "I need a new game, it's been 6/7/8/9 months since I last bought one, I'll pop into (insert game store here) and see what they've got.... oooh, the new Call of Duty is out! / Oooh the new Fifa/Madden is out! i'll get that"
Where as we get excited about new IP's and interesting titles because we've read about them for months before release and understand more about them that what the back of the box says.
It's sad but it's true. Internet interest =/= Mainstream success.
Universal truth is not measured by mass appeal.
I personally come across to my friends as a bit of a zealot, always texting them about release dates, encouraging them to try out interesting new titles, I've got a few of them into reading about games on here.
But it's never going to be enough. We are all being held over the mainstream barrel.
Sexy I really wish you wouldn't refer to the mainstream as "them" and "so called gamers." If they play games they're gamers.
Which makes me wonder if that's EA's problem. Maybe by targeting those of us who are deep into the community they're just not raking the money they used to. Maybe they need to focus on that demographic and realize they're not going to be making mad cash anymore.
Which makes me wonder if that's EA's problem. Maybe by targeting those of us who are deep into the community they're just not raking the money they used to. Maybe they need to focus on that demographic and realize they're not going to be making mad cash anymore.
I think it's just the fact that EA built themselves up with shit and now its kind of just now starting to bite them in the ass.
Sorry Xyliac, I have to disagree.
My Dad plays Rapalla fishing on the wii, but is by no means a gamer.
My Mum plays WiiFit - not a gamer.
It's the capitalist ideology that makes companies stick to what rakes in the most cash, and that kind of thinking will leave us with nothing but Wii fitness games, itteration after itteration of CoD games and annual sports games.
That's a world i do not want to live in.
Personally, IMO, I don't think of someone that plays ONLY CoD or FIFA/Madden games is a gamer. In my opinion. Although I suppose they drop into the "casual gamer" class.
My Dad plays Rapalla fishing on the wii, but is by no means a gamer.
My Mum plays WiiFit - not a gamer.
It's the capitalist ideology that makes companies stick to what rakes in the most cash, and that kind of thinking will leave us with nothing but Wii fitness games, itteration after itteration of CoD games and annual sports games.
That's a world i do not want to live in.
Personally, IMO, I don't think of someone that plays ONLY CoD or FIFA/Madden games is a gamer. In my opinion. Although I suppose they drop into the "casual gamer" class.
I think ea just put out mass effect 2 and dantes inferno. Both wonderful games:) I support ea and what they are Trying to do for all gamers:)
So people who listen to top 40s music aren't music fans? People who read Twilight aren't readers? People who watch the latest blockbusters aren't filmgoears?
What makes our industry so special that we can exclude people for not having a varied pallete other than the fact it's populated with nerds?
I'm not tryin' to start an argument or get off-topic but this idea that gamers need to be "us" is ridiculous. If you wanna be a nerd call yourself a nerd. People who play video games are gamers. Just like people who are deep into film, books, or music are film nerds, book nerds, and film nerds.
What makes our industry so special that we can exclude people for not having a varied pallete other than the fact it's populated with nerds?
I'm not tryin' to start an argument or get off-topic but this idea that gamers need to be "us" is ridiculous. If you wanna be a nerd call yourself a nerd. People who play video games are gamers. Just like people who are deep into film, books, or music are film nerds, book nerds, and film nerds.
@ Sexualchocolate-
No, if you play games, you're a gamer. Sorry if that means including folks that you don't want to include. I can't say someone's not a driver because they don't drive as many miles as me per week, or because their car is not cool enough.
How would playing CoD and Madden/FIFA only make you a "casual" gamer. Many of those CoD freaks have played hundreds or even thousands of hours of that damn game. Might not be what I do with my time, but there's nothing "casual" about that. Same thing with the huge Madden and FIFA fans out there.
And I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your apocalyptic vision of "nothing but Wii fitness games...CoD games and annual sports games". Last I looked, there were PLENTY of other games to choose from. Why don't you live and let live and stop being an elitist? I mean, your definition of a gamer is someone who plays games you approve of specifically? Come on...that's funny, actually.
No, if you play games, you're a gamer. Sorry if that means including folks that you don't want to include. I can't say someone's not a driver because they don't drive as many miles as me per week, or because their car is not cool enough.
How would playing CoD and Madden/FIFA only make you a "casual" gamer. Many of those CoD freaks have played hundreds or even thousands of hours of that damn game. Might not be what I do with my time, but there's nothing "casual" about that. Same thing with the huge Madden and FIFA fans out there.
And I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your apocalyptic vision of "nothing but Wii fitness games...CoD games and annual sports games". Last I looked, there were PLENTY of other games to choose from. Why don't you live and let live and stop being an elitist? I mean, your definition of a gamer is someone who plays games you approve of specifically? Come on...that's funny, actually.
Thing is Xyliac, and i don't want to argue, I'm just enjoying the debate...
Everyone listens to music, reads books, watches films, and now most people play games of some sort. I read the odd book here and there, but i'd never call myself a "reader" (or as I call them "bookworm") I watch the odd film here and there, I don't call myself a Film buff, however I do listen to a lot of music and have quite a passion for it, I'd call myself a music lover.
It's not totally about going outside of the mainstream, although that is an indicator, to be defined as an _____er it's about having a passion for it.
Playing CoD or Fifa/Madden is not a passion for gaming, it's just dabbling in the media as we all do with all media's, like listening to the radio on the way to work doesn't make you a music lover, or going to the movies on dates doesn't make you a film buff.
We all enjoy all kinds of media, but it's the ones we have a true passion for that define us.
Everyone listens to music, reads books, watches films, and now most people play games of some sort. I read the odd book here and there, but i'd never call myself a "reader" (or as I call them "bookworm") I watch the odd film here and there, I don't call myself a Film buff, however I do listen to a lot of music and have quite a passion for it, I'd call myself a music lover.
It's not totally about going outside of the mainstream, although that is an indicator, to be defined as an _____er it's about having a passion for it.
Playing CoD or Fifa/Madden is not a passion for gaming, it's just dabbling in the media as we all do with all media's, like listening to the radio on the way to work doesn't make you a music lover, or going to the movies on dates doesn't make you a film buff.
We all enjoy all kinds of media, but it's the ones we have a true passion for that define us.
Also, it's interesting that you find CoD iterations, etc. to be something other than "quality games". Most of the games that you are so fired up over- take the latest Modern Warfare, Madden and FIFA, for instance- all got great reviews all across the board and are very good games. I get annoyed when a couple of my friends only want to play the same game all the time, too. But hey, what can you do? That's their choice, it's their free time and they can do what they want to do. It's a bit juvenile to want to thrust your own interests on others because you don't think that theirs are good enough. When you look at it like a mature person, games are supposed to be a good way to spend your free time, and if someone is enjoying playing CoD or Madden, more power to them.
It would be great if EA fell apart cause then all the studios that they bought might actually do somthing
Oh I could not miss this juicy bit from Sexualchocolate.
"It's the capitalist ideology that makes companies stick to what rakes in the most cash, and that kind of thinking will leave us with nothing but Wii fitness games, itteration [sic] after itteration [sic] of CoD games and annual sports games."
See the great thing about Capitalism is that things succeed more or less if they provide a good or service that people want. People like CoD and sports game. I don't, but others do.
You could, of course, blame the consumers that incentivize companies to make games like that, but then again that would sound arrogant (why don't you buy the games I like you fools) and possibly elitist (I am above all you rabble).
The reason why companies make sequels and sports games has less to do with the cash and more to do with risk. If you are spending, say, 50 to 200 million on a release, you have quite a bit riding on the outcome. A company will probably make decisions that will at least get their money back. For EA, sequels and the sports game are easy bets in that they will probably at least make their money back and then some.
You can not say that of a new possibly innovative or polished offering. Innovation in and of itself does not sell. It has to be innovation that will ring with the consumers and even then it is still a very uncertain proposition. Yet companies keep taking that risk, perhaps not in the numbers and at the rate you would like, but they do take it.
"It's the capitalist ideology that makes companies stick to what rakes in the most cash, and that kind of thinking will leave us with nothing but Wii fitness games, itteration [sic] after itteration [sic] of CoD games and annual sports games."
See the great thing about Capitalism is that things succeed more or less if they provide a good or service that people want. People like CoD and sports game. I don't, but others do.
You could, of course, blame the consumers that incentivize companies to make games like that, but then again that would sound arrogant (why don't you buy the games I like you fools) and possibly elitist (I am above all you rabble).
The reason why companies make sequels and sports games has less to do with the cash and more to do with risk. If you are spending, say, 50 to 200 million on a release, you have quite a bit riding on the outcome. A company will probably make decisions that will at least get their money back. For EA, sequels and the sports game are easy bets in that they will probably at least make their money back and then some.
You can not say that of a new possibly innovative or polished offering. Innovation in and of itself does not sell. It has to be innovation that will ring with the consumers and even then it is still a very uncertain proposition. Yet companies keep taking that risk, perhaps not in the numbers and at the rate you would like, but they do take it.
@Sexualchocolate
You don't need a passion for gaming to be a gamer. If you play video games you're a gamer. Just because you care more than others might doesn't give you the right to say who is and isn't a gamer. I really have no more to say on the matter because that's all I have to say. It's that simple. Play a video game, be a gamer. There's no elite rank or special initiation rite. The end.
You don't need a passion for gaming to be a gamer. If you play video games you're a gamer. Just because you care more than others might doesn't give you the right to say who is and isn't a gamer. I really have no more to say on the matter because that's all I have to say. It's that simple. Play a video game, be a gamer. There's no elite rank or special initiation rite. The end.
Meh, if they put out mirror's edge 2, it may not be avoiding that new IP that this article is about.
Too many elitist fucktards in the gaming community these days. Especially in online FPS games. :|
Also, I agree with Xzyliac. Jus' sayin.
Also, I agree with Xzyliac. Jus' sayin.
So by that logic practically everyone is a gamer, i mean the wii and the iphone made sure of that.
Everyone is also a music lover, everyone is a film buff and everyone is a bookworm.
I'm not belittling those who game casually i'm saying it's time gaming was recognised as highly as all other forms of media, in as far as everyone has access to it in some way or other, but some are passionate about it.
Perhaps we need a name for those passionate about gaming because i'm sure we are all more of a gamer than my occasional wii playing dad or my buddy that plays a little fieldrunners in his lunchbreak.
In my book a gamer is someone passionate about gaming, in yours it may be anyone that has ever touched a game, which is practically everyone.
Everyone is also a music lover, everyone is a film buff and everyone is a bookworm.
I'm not belittling those who game casually i'm saying it's time gaming was recognised as highly as all other forms of media, in as far as everyone has access to it in some way or other, but some are passionate about it.
Perhaps we need a name for those passionate about gaming because i'm sure we are all more of a gamer than my occasional wii playing dad or my buddy that plays a little fieldrunners in his lunchbreak.
In my book a gamer is someone passionate about gaming, in yours it may be anyone that has ever touched a game, which is practically everyone.
@Xzyliac and SexualChocolate,
You both have good points and I think if you I tried I could argue pretty effectively for either side.
Thing is, this is really just an argument of semantics more than anything.
I know DOZENS of people who play iPhone games and PopCap games all the time but wouldn't call themselves "Gamers" in a million years. But if I were to ask them, "Would you call yourself a CASUAL Gamer, then?" they would say yes.
It's all fine and dandy if you want to take the literal interpretation of the word Gamer (a person who plays video games) and apply it to 90% of the population but that honestly gets you nowhere because if anyone tried to cater to that literal "Gamer" market they would fail because it's too broad and too diverse. It would be like, advertising a film as "A film for people who go to see movies!"
I guess my point in all of this is that, taken literally, the term "Gamer" applies to damn near everyone. But the spirit of the word is CLEARLY not being served by labeling people as "Gamers" who don't even consider THEMSELVES to be so.
And this can ALL pretty much be avoided by using the terms "Hardcore" and "Casual" to distinguish between the two. But in reality, I think that if you call yourself a "Gamer" then you probably are one.
You both have good points and I think if you I tried I could argue pretty effectively for either side.
Thing is, this is really just an argument of semantics more than anything.
I know DOZENS of people who play iPhone games and PopCap games all the time but wouldn't call themselves "Gamers" in a million years. But if I were to ask them, "Would you call yourself a CASUAL Gamer, then?" they would say yes.
It's all fine and dandy if you want to take the literal interpretation of the word Gamer (a person who plays video games) and apply it to 90% of the population but that honestly gets you nowhere because if anyone tried to cater to that literal "Gamer" market they would fail because it's too broad and too diverse. It would be like, advertising a film as "A film for people who go to see movies!"
I guess my point in all of this is that, taken literally, the term "Gamer" applies to damn near everyone. But the spirit of the word is CLEARLY not being served by labeling people as "Gamers" who don't even consider THEMSELVES to be so.
And this can ALL pretty much be avoided by using the terms "Hardcore" and "Casual" to distinguish between the two. But in reality, I think that if you call yourself a "Gamer" then you probably are one.
The thing is, we need people who actually play video games making video games. Not these brainless CEOs who think FarmVille would sell great on the console. I can actually see that happening, too. D:
@Xzyliac
Ha!
The exact opposite will happen. Movies, music, television, publishing, all have shittier and shittier executives than they did in the past. A creative media industry's awkward teenage years tend to be the highlight.
Ha!
The exact opposite will happen. Movies, music, television, publishing, all have shittier and shittier executives than they did in the past. A creative media industry's awkward teenage years tend to be the highlight.
@ SC-
A lot of this discussion could be eliminated if you would stop insisting upon using non-equivalent terms. In Xzyliac's very good post earlier, he said "filmgoer", which is much closer to "gamer" than "film buff", which you have been using. The word "buff" always gives the impression of someone who has a lot of knowledge about a specific area, and is totally different than just someone who goes to see films on some kind of consistent basis. You do the same thing with "bookworm", which implies a greater-than-average tendency to read and enjoy books. Xzyliac's example was "reader", which yes, almost all of us are.
I would guess that you're doing this intentionally to conveniently avoid addressing his (and my) point. If you play games, you're a gamer. If you go to movies, you're a filmgoer. If you read books, you're a reader, and so on.
If you want to use terms like "film buff", compare them to terms like "hardcore gamer" (which I never liked, but whatever) or "casual gamer". You can modify what kind of gamer someone is if it makes you happy, but to say someone who plays games regularly is not a gamer even though they meet the only actual qualification to be called one is silly and elitist.
Why do people feel the need to disclude others from being labeled as a "gamer", when the definition of what a gamer is could not be simpler? You don't see that in other areas, yet within gaming there is this mentality to somehow protect what was once a far less mainstream activity from becoming "too" mainstream. Furthermore, how can you or DinnertimeNinja say that someone who is a "casual gamer" is not a gamer? How can you be any type of gamer if you're not a gamer in the first place? See? It's silly.
Again, my biggest beef with what you're saying has to do with the qualifier that those that play games you specifically don't approve of are somehow not gamers. You can play 1,000 hours of Call of Duty whatever (which are most assuredly video games) and yet not be a gamer because you didn't cut out a few dozen of those hours to play BioShock or Shadow of the Colossus or whatever the hell is a "real game". The few people I know that mainly play CoD or EA Sports games are certainly not "casual" gamers. There is nothing casual about playing games for hours a day, every day. I mean, are WoW players gamers, then? Is that game okay because it's an RPG, or is it not okay because they tend to focus just on that one game? And in that case, how many different games does someone need to play in order to "balance it out"?
See how ridiculous that is?
And Xzyliac wasn't saying that anyone who has "ever touched" a game is a gamer. The word itself denotes that gaming would have to be something that you actively do on a regular basis, not something that you tried once on your son's NES when you first got it twenty years ago. Again, you're exaggerating others' points to take the focus off of your own flawed thought process on this issue.
A lot of this discussion could be eliminated if you would stop insisting upon using non-equivalent terms. In Xzyliac's very good post earlier, he said "filmgoer", which is much closer to "gamer" than "film buff", which you have been using. The word "buff" always gives the impression of someone who has a lot of knowledge about a specific area, and is totally different than just someone who goes to see films on some kind of consistent basis. You do the same thing with "bookworm", which implies a greater-than-average tendency to read and enjoy books. Xzyliac's example was "reader", which yes, almost all of us are.
I would guess that you're doing this intentionally to conveniently avoid addressing his (and my) point. If you play games, you're a gamer. If you go to movies, you're a filmgoer. If you read books, you're a reader, and so on.
If you want to use terms like "film buff", compare them to terms like "hardcore gamer" (which I never liked, but whatever) or "casual gamer". You can modify what kind of gamer someone is if it makes you happy, but to say someone who plays games regularly is not a gamer even though they meet the only actual qualification to be called one is silly and elitist.
Why do people feel the need to disclude others from being labeled as a "gamer", when the definition of what a gamer is could not be simpler? You don't see that in other areas, yet within gaming there is this mentality to somehow protect what was once a far less mainstream activity from becoming "too" mainstream. Furthermore, how can you or DinnertimeNinja say that someone who is a "casual gamer" is not a gamer? How can you be any type of gamer if you're not a gamer in the first place? See? It's silly.
Again, my biggest beef with what you're saying has to do with the qualifier that those that play games you specifically don't approve of are somehow not gamers. You can play 1,000 hours of Call of Duty whatever (which are most assuredly video games) and yet not be a gamer because you didn't cut out a few dozen of those hours to play BioShock or Shadow of the Colossus or whatever the hell is a "real game". The few people I know that mainly play CoD or EA Sports games are certainly not "casual" gamers. There is nothing casual about playing games for hours a day, every day. I mean, are WoW players gamers, then? Is that game okay because it's an RPG, or is it not okay because they tend to focus just on that one game? And in that case, how many different games does someone need to play in order to "balance it out"?
See how ridiculous that is?
And Xzyliac wasn't saying that anyone who has "ever touched" a game is a gamer. The word itself denotes that gaming would have to be something that you actively do on a regular basis, not something that you tried once on your son's NES when you first got it twenty years ago. Again, you're exaggerating others' points to take the focus off of your own flawed thought process on this issue.
Exactly when did gamers start becoming "better served" by EA? If there has been a corporate policy change around service to gamers, I'm sure it it *because* they were doing worse financially, not the other way around. This downturn is a combination of market response to second-rate products, and over-extension of marketing capital to convince us they are really first-rate.
This isn't a Pachter story, but considering he said basically the same thing yesterday, I'm bringing it up now. The fact that Pachter can encourage EA to make shittier games while pretending to be a voice that players should respect and listen to when they log onto gametrailers is a goddamn joke.
@GiftofGab
BS
Mirror's Edge is 10 times the game Dead Space is.
Also, capitalism is just as responsible for making good games as it is for all the crap. Somehow sexualchocolate manages to miss this. There aren't many good games that get made on the dime of the developers themselves. The only exception I know of to this is Braid. Everything else is brought to you by big publishing houses.
BS
Mirror's Edge is 10 times the game Dead Space is.
Also, capitalism is just as responsible for making good games as it is for all the crap. Somehow sexualchocolate manages to miss this. There aren't many good games that get made on the dime of the developers themselves. The only exception I know of to this is Braid. Everything else is brought to you by big publishing houses.
follow
