1. Aquire something that a loads of people like
2. Milk it by producing sequels each more superficial to the one before.
3. Milk some more.
4. Milkmilkmilk!
5. ?????
6. MAXIMUM PROFIT!!! EA WINS! YOU LOSE!
7. People get tired of it.
8. Abandon franchise for 10 years, buy a new hot one
Source: Youtube comment
EA's Strategy
Rate Topic:
Page 1 of 1
#2
- Level 10: Game Breaker
-
- Group: Modders
- Posts: 2,436
Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:06 PM
Buy a company that makes something popular. Force them to make a sequel. Force them to release it early to please their investors. Game does bad since it's not complete. Fire company.
#3
- Level 8: Difficulty Breaker
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,025
Posted 30 April 2012 - 12:36 AM
Agreed with both of y'all ^
I worked for a game company and now a new one, and yeah its always deadlines that usually ruin games with awesome potential. If only companies had enough time, I'm sure we'd see many more games that are pure quality, like thinking back on the SNES era of games, all those games were so enjoyable and replayable, etc etc.
I worked for a game company and now a new one, and yeah its always deadlines that usually ruin games with awesome potential. If only companies had enough time, I'm sure we'd see many more games that are pure quality, like thinking back on the SNES era of games, all those games were so enjoyable and replayable, etc etc.
#4
- Level 7: Challenger
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 734
Posted 30 April 2012 - 12:42 AM
Jon, on 30 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:
Agreed with both of y'all ^
I worked for a game company and now a new one, and yeah its always deadlines that usually ruin games with awesome potential. If only companies had enough time, I'm sure we'd see many more games that are pure quality, like thinking back on the SNES era of games, all those games were so enjoyable and replayable, etc etc.
I worked for a game company and now a new one, and yeah its always deadlines that usually ruin games with awesome potential. If only companies had enough time, I'm sure we'd see many more games that are pure quality, like thinking back on the SNES era of games, all those games were so enjoyable and replayable, etc etc.
All those games?
No, not all. Not even the majority. A small amount of games are timeless classics, agreed, but there were so many shitty games back then as well. x]
#5
- Level 10: Game Breaker
-
- Group: Modders
- Posts: 2,436
Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:59 AM
Kaffe Myers, on 30 April 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:
All those games?
No, not all. Not even the majority. A small amount of games are timeless classics, agreed, but there were so many shitty games back then as well. x]
No, not all. Not even the majority. A small amount of games are timeless classics, agreed, but there were so many shitty games back then as well. x]
True that, man. True that.
The 80s and 90s were not immune to schedules and budgets any more than the 2000's are.
#6
- Level 3: Serious Gamer
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 240
Posted 30 April 2012 - 12:41 PM
I'm laughing so hard, but man don't bag on le' Shaq Fu.
It's got the worst controls of any fighting game, and that's the reason people liked it.
Made it hard to play no matter how good you thought you were at it.
Man, that EA comment has me dying though, both of them.
It's got the worst controls of any fighting game, and that's the reason people liked it.
Made it hard to play no matter how good you thought you were at it.
Man, that EA comment has me dying though, both of them.
[b]I'm Lynx. I am a kitty, and I go meow, meow.[/b]
#7
- Level 8: Difficulty Breaker
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,025
Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:31 AM
Okay, yeah rephrased to "SNES games like Donkey Kong Country(s), Super Mario World and the one with all the old ones on it, Super Metroid, etc etc". Also some of the PSX games were pretty epic, not all though of course.
#8
- Level 7: Challenger
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 734
Posted 02 May 2012 - 10:29 AM
I just have to stab the seemingly general consensus that "It used to be better" when, in fact, this is quite untrue. The game industry is ever evolving and we're seeing fast paced changes as the industry tries to follow the sharp turns made. What people usually mean when they defend an archaic era of gaming and religiously try to convince the world that games were better "back when", is that they are sentimental and likes to treasure-box the whole medium as theirs. As it becomes more accessible, it bothers people as it isn't "their thing" anymore - it's everyones thing. With that, we see games aimed for this broad audience, and those are the games that gets the most air time, most of the time. I do give the statement a little leeway as it has been harder and harder to make indie games as the larger AAA studios have devoured and controlled the market, but this has since a few years back seen a change as well. Also, with new ways to fund games, such as crowd funding (as a superb alternative to going to investors or publishers), the audience gets more and more control over what games that will see the light of day and which ones that wont (w00t, a true shadowrun sequel is being made, completely finansed via kickstarter!).
OK, I'm going off on tangents here. Several, in fact, in very few lines of text.
The knowledge about games and its effect on people is better than ever, the technology is better than ever, the variety of games you can do and on what platforms you can do it on and therefor how accessible you can make it is greater than ever (high fidelity graphic heavy PS3/Xbox360/Windows games, smartphone games, browser based games), the means to get your game out there if you're an indie developer is easier than ever (Steam and crowd funding, two things great for indie developers and the consumers)... Everything is better than it used to be. But we are older and the there is a lot of sentimentality about "the old way". I choose to label it as sentimental, and some specific games still great by modern standards, but I would be a fool to say that games and gaming as a whole used to be better. That would be trying to argue that I was born before my mother. Illogical.
OK, I'm going off on tangents here. Several, in fact, in very few lines of text.
The knowledge about games and its effect on people is better than ever, the technology is better than ever, the variety of games you can do and on what platforms you can do it on and therefor how accessible you can make it is greater than ever (high fidelity graphic heavy PS3/Xbox360/Windows games, smartphone games, browser based games), the means to get your game out there if you're an indie developer is easier than ever (Steam and crowd funding, two things great for indie developers and the consumers)... Everything is better than it used to be. But we are older and the there is a lot of sentimentality about "the old way". I choose to label it as sentimental, and some specific games still great by modern standards, but I would be a fool to say that games and gaming as a whole used to be better. That would be trying to argue that I was born before my mother. Illogical.
#9
- Level 7: Challenger
-
- Group: Bots
- Posts: 971
Posted 02 May 2012 - 10:51 AM
+1 kaffe
very well said, and I agree
very well said, and I agree
#10
- Level 10: Game Breaker
-
- Group: Modders
- Posts: 2,436
Posted 02 May 2012 - 10:57 AM
I was listening to the most recent PAX Retronauts podcast, in which audience members would come up, tell the panel members their favourite retro game, and the panel members would say why they thought it was a great game. After each person would name their game, the panel members would ask them why it was their favourite game. One of the audience members said something that made me laugh though.
Grimm Fandango is awesome because I played it when I was younger than I am now.
Pretty much says it all, right?
Grimm Fandango is awesome because I played it when I was younger than I am now.
Pretty much says it all, right?
#11
- Level 15: Game Code Seer
-
- Group: Final Bosses
- Posts: 6,890
Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:46 PM
Stann, on 02 May 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:
Grimm Fandango is awesome because I played it when I was younger than I am now.
Chrono Trigger is awesome because I played it when I was younger than I am now AND b/c it's quality!
#12
- Level 3: Serious Gamer
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 279
Posted 03 May 2012 - 12:21 AM
Jon, on 30 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:
yeah its always deadlines that usually ruin games with awesome potential
Deadlines are for the most part a necessary evil. Do the names Victor Ireland and Working Designs ring any bells?
#13
- Level 10: Game Breaker
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,056
Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:15 AM
ID Bot, on 29 April 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:
1. Aquire something that a loads of people like
2. Milk it by producing sequels each more superficial to the one before.
3. Milk some more.
4. Milkmilkmilk!
5. ?????
6. MAXIMUM PROFIT!!! EA WINS! YOU LOSE!
7. People get tired of it.
8. Abandon franchise for 10 years, buy a new hot one
2. Milk it by producing sequels each more superficial to the one before.
3. Milk some more.
4. Milkmilkmilk!
5. ?????
6. MAXIMUM PROFIT!!! EA WINS! YOU LOSE!
7. People get tired of it.
8. Abandon franchise for 10 years, buy a new hot one
I have the SNES cartridges of both Madden Football '94 and '95. 95 was cooler because the intro had this music.
Madden 13 is due out in August.
We're almost at the twenty year mark my friend! And while the incremental changes have been laughable, the differences between 94 and 12 I would assume are quite drastic.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1