It's been pointed out by other writers before, but I must agree it's ironic that Electronic Arts is losing money the moment it stops churning out sequential garbage and at least tries to generate original IPs. I might not personally enjoy what EA's put out lately, but a lot of people have and you'd think this apparent surge of quality would generate hits. This is something EA itself has noticed, as CEO John Riccitiello has stated that originality is just part of the equation.
"While we saw significant improvement in the overall quality of our key products this year, that quality has not yet translated into enough sales," he explains. "So far in calendar 08 we have shipped 17 titles with Metacritic scores of 80 or above versus seven this time last year. Quality is a prerequisite for a great selling game - but it is not the entire equation.
"We did manage to put quality and innovation on the board, and we're very proud of that. Many times, what happens with a new intellectual property is the first edition doesn't generate the units that subsequent editions can generate, and I would argue that in this particular year the consumer might have more reticent to take risk than they might otherwise be, in a very crowded Holiday."
We complain about there being too many sequels and not enough originality in this industry, but it really is the market's fault. Just look at how Call of Duty: World at War, a game which essentially copied Modern Warfare but dragged the game back to WWII, is outselling its more original predecessor. Just look at how Madden continues to be one of EA's greatest hits, despite it having higher rated, less derivative titles on the shelves. Just look at what happened to Killer 7 or Okami.
We attack companies for retreating the same old ground, but after this, I wouldn't blame EA if it stuck to whoring out its franchises.
Contest:
7:59 AM on 12.10.2008
| 
Besides, just because a company makes something new and different doesn't mean they automatically get my money. I don't believe game companies should be "rewarded" that way.
Maybe games will follow a similar consumer progression with time?
The sad part is EA can say: Look, we tried, but you clearly don't want it, so we're going to focus on our bread and butter titles. As Jim said, you can't really blame them.
idk, when you churn out sports titles, you have a gauranteed installed base. original ip's require crafty marketing coupled with good gameplay. i saw a few ads for dead space on tv, but it doesn't have the presence madden has. its prob gonna do big numbers used unfortunately. its like that movie you missed in theaters, but everyone picks up on dvd.
Another problem for me was Dead Space's length. I thought nthe game was superb, but I was never, ever, going to buy it when I knew it wouldn't last me very long. So it got rented. Had it had extra modes, it may well have been bought.
My tears are red... and smell like pennies.
Those titles have done well. Tiger Woods has sold really well on the Wii as well as Boom Blox.
Their Madden, FiFA and especially NBA games have been some of the worst games ever.
oh yeah, they're a business with investor obligations. There's nothing wrong with that.
If people REALLY enjoy innovation, they should show their enthusiasm for it with their pocketbooks. Otherwise, it will disappear as the profits do.
Mirror's Edge looked interesting but fuck me a 5 hour game? Give it some multiplayer at least.
Of course it's not all EA. Gamers are idiots to begin with for buying each yearly installment of Madden. Most people probably haven't heard of Okami, Killer 7, God Hand, etc despite being awesome games.
I love my Wii, which stands proudly next to my PS3, but that's just not the target market for hard-core sports titles. For whatever reason, people associate those games with other consoles. (Although ... are there any numbers out for the Tiger Woods line? The Wii is uniquely qualified for that game because of having to swing the Wiimote.)
@carpwrist:
Agreed. I try to push Okami wherever I can. My God! That game is so fscking awesome!
I played the demo of World of Goo through Steam. I really like the idea behind it, and it's definitely a well-done game. But I just can't see myself playing it very often. Uniqueness and creativity don't mean a lot if the game isn't intriguing enough, even though the price point of $20 is a welcome change.
The day they say: "here's Assassin's Creed, it's a beautiful tech demo, but we didn't have money, time or intention to infuse gameplay in it; it's $20, if you buy it you can get AC2, which will feature actual gameplay, for another 20$." will be the day when I consider talking about iterations
activison:
HAY GIES! COD72 OUT THIS YEAR! GIES YOU SHOULD BUY IT! IT HAS 2 NEW LEVELS, GIES!
I bought Okami....twice.
I would have bought Dead Space on PC.
I would have bought Red Alert 3 on PC.
I would have bought Spore on PC.
I wont buy any EA games on PC because of DRM. I don't believe in $50 rentals. Sometimes I uninstall games when I am done playing and I like to upgrade frequently.
I like my video games without trojans in them.
On Steam too? What's wrong with you EA?
I keep hearing how Mirror's Edge is set up to be a trilogy and because of that, game doesn't feel like a full title.
Then they release titles like Mirror's Edge or Dead Space with the plan to nickel and dime you with DLC right after release, clearly demonstrating that the content could have been included on the disc to begin with.
Not too mention these games have no form of multiplayer.
I look for more value in games that I buy, especially in this generation when they cost $60 a pop. So while EA can release games that bring interesting ideas to the table, the content just isn't there to warrant a purchase.
Here's some Wii sales for you:
http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?&results=50&name=&console=Wii&keyword=&publisher=105&genre=&order=Sales&boxart=Both&showdeleted=®ion=All&alphasort=
Oh, and by the way, 3rd party sales account for 57% of all software sales on Wii, so none of that "3rd party games don't sell on Wii!!!" crap:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13936545&postcount=77
Also games like Resident Evil 4, Umbrella Chronicles, Red Steel, Lego Star Wars have sold over a million copies while Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock has sold 3.53 million on the Wii alone.
So yeah, Wii is killing the competition 1st party and 3rd party sales wise. Now imagine how much higher those numbers would be if 3rd parties actually put their 1st tier teams and games on the Wii.
Gaming is like every other industry, "You get out what you put in."
Toyota sells better than GM for a reason.
Only stupid people say everything from Bioshock to Oblivion should support multiplayer. Some games don't need it and are all the better for that decision. I don't want anyone else in my Dead Space and I would have preferred Resident Evil 5 to not have a co-op mode.
Yeah, when the economy has taken a nose dive and you have 50,000 high profile games released within a month of each other there are going to be some losers, and as he pointed out subsequent games will likely sell better due to positive reactions to the first title in a series.
And the new Call of Duty is shit, some people have no taste and I question the integrity of reviewers that rated this shitfest highly.
I'm not saying every game needs multiplayer. I'm just saying that if you have a game that is a stunted single-player experience to begin with, not having any kind of multiplayer or co-op does not help increase a game's value in my eyes.
I haven't played Oblivion but I know it is a game that gives you tons quality content to justify it's price. Bioshock is one of my favorite games of all time and it more than justified my $60 as well. In both of those games, any kind of multiplayer would not make sense.
And I think a game like Mirror's Edge could benefit from the addition of some multiplayer like a race against other runners. They already have time trials in which you can see the ghost of the person who's time you want to beat. That just seems like a logical step to take. But of course since they want it to be a trilogy, a feature like that won't come until a sequel so that they can have a new bullet-point for the back of the box.
Steady. Chill out. I share your desire to defend the Wii against the pathetic PS3/360 fanboys on Dtoid.
However, I never gave any "3rd party games don't sell on Wii!!!" crap. If anything, Nintendo is showing that it's going to be the 3rd party games that will keep the Wii afloat. Case in point -- that pathetic piece called Wii Music. If that's what Nintendo plans on doing now, the Wii is f*cked without 3rd party titles.
Right now, the Wii has an image problem based almost solely on its horsepower and its expected market, no thanks in part to the jackass PS3/360 fanboys who spout their baseless FUD all over the place. Unless there is some collaborative effort by Nintendo and the game companies to shove into people's faces that the Wii can do more than just mother f**king, waggle-loaded, mini-games (at least RB and GH have helped in that effort), the Wii will be condemned to shovelware and cutesy titles as far as I'm concerned.
It also doesn't help that I see major titles advertised all over the place for the 360 and PS3, but I see almost no advertising for non-party/non-waggle games on the Wii. How do these people expect harder-core titles to break expectations on the Wii when they never advertise the damned things?
The Wii's problem right now is its reputation and hardware limitations. Those are not going to be easy hurdles to overcome. (Where's the damned hard drive that's accessible in-game, Nintendo? We need one with Guitar Hero: World Tour! Enough of this stupid need to move files between the SD card and system RAM!)
Toyota sells better than GM for a reason.
Non sequitur. That has nothing to do with this. There are a ton of reasons why GM is having problems. (Hello? Unions!!) But that's irrelevant to this discussion and a major tangent potential, so I'm not going any farther on that one. You can't compare sales of cars that cost thousands of dollars to sales of $60 video games.
I happened to like Dead Space. Hopefully they keep going with that because by their logic the sequels should do better.
Nintendo gave 3rd parties a window for the whole second half of 2008. They only released mediocre games like Wii Fit and Animal Crossing. How do yo u not outperform that?
While EA games like Dead Space, Need for Speed, and Mirror's Edge had to compete with Fable 2, Fallout 3, Call of Duty et cetera in the last 3 months on the PS3/360, all they had compete against was Wii Music, Animal Crossing and a mediocre World at War on the Wii.
This is truly EA's fault, no one else's.
Also,
Why all the hate on W@W? I'm not a huge fan either but its gameplay/method works thanks to Modern Warfare. Could you imagine the outrage if we had another Treyarch CoD3 on our hands?
Still, I think this is indicative of a greater problem in all forms of media. Sequels trump originality, always. For instance, one can look at the list of top ranking films since 2000 and see that every film is a sequel, often based on a book, TV series, comic series or even a fairground ride.
I wouldn't be surprised if EA cut back on original titles that try something new and different, or even just some new IP. Why would they, when the rewards aren't there?
But it does sound like they realize that original IP is "requisite" to "whoring" I hope that going forward they continue this approach rather than activision's "buy IP" strategy
I will leave the commersial games to the "sheeple" just as I have the movie industry.
I have to pay off my debt, and who has the time to play all these games?