Gameranx - "A moderator of EA's forums has written an open letter expressing his disappointment at the publisher."
EA doesn't care about quality they just wanna compete with Call of Duty every year
And that's exactly why EA will never ever make a franchise that pulls in CoD/WoW figures. They haven't got a clue on how to create something that big or how to properly nurture their communities and build a reputation around their brand. The only thing EA are good at is number scrunching and monopolizing sports licenses as it's the only way they'll ever dominate a genre. The article is funny though, he really lays into EA.
lol.....the looks like the heavy gunner in "Team Forrest"
What about their pathetic attempt to compete with Valve's Steam service. Someone at EA ran out of imagination, saw the success of Steam and jumped right on the bandwagon.
and if ea would work with steam they would easily sell double the amount of games they do now, but greed says no.
This is also why big publishers are pushing digital. Things go digital, they open their own stores, so ALL the money circulates through them and not some third party. Let alone cutting costs on discs, retail, and so on. Just remember to look through the PR for all these things. Free to play, DLC, digital, all of it. They will say "oh its great for you" but why do THEY want it to happen? It's always money. DLC lets them raise the price to 100 dollars without you knowing. Free to play will let you spend more than 60 dollars on a game. Digital will take out the middle man. PR's are hired to hide this, and people fall for it.
He'll be fired. Anyone wanna take bets?
Sadly they may remove his mod privileges.
EA will plant kiddie porn on his computer :) On a serious note, EA should value his opinion and take it on board. I doubt they will though.
He's just a mod, unless he's the community manager or developer it's unlikely he is actually employed by EA. Many dev's ask for help from their community to patrol their forum, and people do out of respect and passion for their games. He has no contract or other obligations. At this point he is in a higher position than other users and somewhat represents EA and badmouthing them in public will only lead to him losing his moderator privileges.
But i bet that's what he wants , since he's fed up with them anyway
that's a big damn head
I was thinking the same damn thing lol. I knew the intelligent internet community would firstly point that out lol. It would be funny if that picture was taken without the Zoom option on and from a few metres away. It's like an oversized mutated melon.
i take that by melon you mean "moai" right?
Is this actually an EA community rep or just a moderator? EA forum moderators are just gaming fans picked by community reps to moderate the forums. I've played fifa a few times with a former mod over on the official fifa forums, they have no affiliation with EA what so ever.
It's really disappointing that MoH became so mediocre. The old games were a blast...
Danger close are capable of so much more EA needs to give them 3 years to do a MOH game with no pressure
It will never happen. Danger Close is only there to play around COD.... If EA were serious. They'd let Danger Close work with DICE to make ONE game, but that'll never happen. Honestly surprised whatever the studio is called (Ex Infinity Ward guys) are allowed to be silent for so long. Wonder if they will destroy that game too by taking the color out?
Medal of honor was one of the greatest fps shooters around. I know that danger close are much more capable of producing a better game i do feel as if ea has rushed them due to COD If ea wanna dethrone cod then they need to do it over time giving developers to make games alot better then cod getting better reviews then word of mouth will spread that this game is better then cod but noooooo they rushed danger close which is a shame cause that team is full of talent
EA only cares about taking Call of Duty down, but they will never get there because they don't understand what makes Call of Duty so great in the first place. The gameplay itself is very smooth/fluid, with tight and responsive controls. It feels and plays better than another other shooter. The 60fps standard definitely helps quite a bit here. This smooth gameplay is consistent, it's in every Call of Duty, it's a standard that the series is known for. BF and MoH keep changing their feel every game, they're very inconsistent and it somewhat puts gamers off. The campaigns aren't just boring firefights and boring set piece after boring set piece. There's a well-crafted narrative there, with memorable characters, memorable set pieces, interesting levels, and the campaign isn't just linear, it's focused. The overall tone is consistent between games. Just like with gameplay, EA's shooters are very inconsistent here, in all aspects, and no individual aspect ever comes close to the high quality standard of Call of Duty. EA's big plan to dethrone Call of Duty is simple: Pour all resources into graphics and marketing. Graphics are great, and they do help to improve enjoyment of a product. However, those great graphics don't amount to much if the game itself isn't top notch. After all, gamers buy games to play, not just to look at. As for marketing, a good marketing campaign is essential, but no amount of marketing will turn an average game into a great game. The basic rule of thumb is this: If your product can't stand on its own and sell itself then it isn't worth marketing. If you have to throw piles of money behind a big marketing campaign just to get consumers to consider your product then it probably isn't a product that they'd want anyway. A good product with modest marketing will almost always fair better than a bad product with big marketing.
I was a fan of MOH Warfighter and have been defending it for the past couple of weeks but even the MP is really starting to grate now due to the wonky hit detection and animations, there's next to no lag in this game and there are really no balance issues but there are constant WTF!!!! deaths which becomes draining after a while, people seemingly shooting around corners and through walls, it's infuriating. And it's not like you can exploit these anomalies either, sometimes you'll pop out of cover and your bullets will smack into the wall you're hiding behind while the enemy headshots you yet at other times you mow people down like bowling pins with the same move, there's just something off about the way this game plays and the more you play the more noticeable it becomes
Quote from the guy in the article "There are hundreds upon thousands of us fans willing to give you advice if only you were willing to listen instead of trying to only make a profit." Game developers should not listen to the advice of the community like this when developing a game. Hundreds of thousands? And you'll get hundreds of thousands of opinions on how to make it the best game EVA. Seriously there is a place for seeing what the fans like, what works and what doesn't. But developers should do what they do, and that's develop games. Do you seriously think these developers who devote their life to, and are probably just as hardcore as you, don't know what makes a game good? Those hundreds of thousands of people probably don't have the first clue on how to create a game that can sell, or even how to make a good game regardless of sales. If anything my time on N4G has shown me that most people are completely clueless on all the aspects of game design and development. That being said it's perfectly fine to express your disappointment with a game, or offer suggestions. Tell them what works and what doesn't. Developers do listen most of the time (although sometimes their hands are tied). Unfortunately there is a difference between a few hundred thousand fans, and the millions of new people that buy each iteration of the game because of the real market research that goes into producing these multi-million unit sellers. I'm not saying this guy is wrong in the least, but he should be a little more clued in to realize that this game, and others like it, are bigger than just his few hundred thousand.
" Do you seriously think these developers who devote their life to, and are probably just as hardcore as you, don't know what makes a game good?" Yes, I've played many horrible games. While I do see you point about community suggestions, whose advice would you prefer, the folks who play the games or the folks trying to make money off them? In a perfect world a developer might have complete freedom to do what they want, but this isn't a perfect world and developers aren't always right. You'll notice that the letter is directed mainly at EA and not the actual developer. EA holds the purse strings. If you have a problem with know-nothings having an influence on development, look at the folks with the money. EA has a serious problem. For the last couple of years they have all but completely stopped innovating in favor of trying to replicate the success of others and calling it competition. New ideas are risky, so they went with the ideas that are already successful. They are basically trying to manufacture success and not having much...success. EA does what it does not only out of greed but to stay a float. More money spent needs more sales and to get the most sales you target the largest audience. This mentality is what kills franchises. When franchises die so do communities. Now look how fans are treated in this business. Even hinting at fan input brings scoffs and eyerolls galore. Fans are only treated with any respect when it comes to PR, its the only time fan input is ever praised. After that its back to calling fans a bunch of idiots, or worse. In short, making a game based on fan suggestions alone, bad. Making a game 'your own way' and ignoring fan input, potentially bad. Finding a middle ground will improve your odds, but success is never a given.
I don't disagree with you. I only really took issue with that one quote from the guy. Overall I think fans should have a voice when it comes to the franchises they love, but it isn't necessarily in the development stage. As to which I would prefer who they listen to, I'd say I'd like the publisher and developer work together to bring out something creative. It shouldn't be one sided, and the developer should have more say than the publisher. That won't happen though, and despite what you think about a certain publisher, the truth is they have tons of market research on what will sell better. Sales =/= quality, but sales are important to make the next game. I will even agree with you on your synopsis of EA. But take a look at the state of the industry. New and innovative IP's rarely get any recognition outside of a few sites that praise on them, and then are quickly forgotten by all but the minority of people who might bring them up from time to time. Those of us on here, and likely those hundreds of thousands, want new and innovative things. That can't be denied, but how often do we go out of our way to actually support those games and help sell them by word of mouth like when there was no such thing as a casual gamer. How many games have huge marketing budgets just to get them recognized, when half that money could be used to make another game. It's just the way things have become. It wasn't even gradual, it just kind of exploded this generation. What does annoy me though is that fans think they know how to make games better than the developers themselves. For the most part these developers are not hacks. Sometimes they come out with crap games, and many of those times because of publisher pressure. As far as how fans are treated, well that's kind of the way it is in everything. Some industries or companies are better at hiding it. Truth be told though, most fans just don't have a clue. This isn't speaking just to this case either, but it's true among all communities. People know what they liked about the earlier installments, and when the new one changes they say they should be listened to, but ignore the fact that millions of people still enjoy the game(new and old alike). It's fine to express their reasons for not liking it, but if a franchise goes in a different direction then it's time to support a game that goes in the direction you like. Tell the dev/pubs why, and then leave it at that. If that number is significant enough then that franchise will either come back or just go away or simply find a new audience. This kind of stuff comes along with every big franchise release (DMC, COD, RE). Why so many people by now haven't learned to just move on to something new that is what they like is beyond me.
Your third paragraph very well why: 1. Spending ever increasing sums of money to achieve the absolute most amount of sales hurts creativity. Not to mention the deadlines. 2. That good games don't have to make vast amounts of money to be successful. I do think people go out of their way to support lesser known titles. Valve does it all of the time on Steam. Lesser known titles are right next to CoD. In fact, aside from release day banners CoD stands out no more than farming sim 2013. Then there is kickstarter. I think there is a trend toward lower budget titles that don't use a publisher. At least on the PC. 100% agree with you on marketing.
I'll agree with you on the PC front, as it does operate differently than the console market. Steam is great for allowing self-promotion within the community, and they will help promote games as well. Speaking from a console perspective though, outside of us in the gaming community we don't really seem to push the new and innovative stuff. More time is spent telling developers and publishers what they are doing wrong. I think that's why I took a particular interest in that quote, as it doesn't achieve anything, and placing that information in the conceptual part of a game is counter-productive to innovation. I won't deny that a lot of publishers today though care more about sales numbers, and while I don't care for this practice overall, I do understand them. It is making gaming go down a slippery slope towards mediocrity, and I don't see fan input as the way to level the playing field. As I said there is a time and place for that.
Not sure why everyone says EA wants to just have a Call of Duty like title all the time. Battlefield came out before Call of Duty and it still did more. The most recent, Battlefield 3 is an overall more polished game than any Call of Duty title. Call of Duty might be better than Medal of Honor, but Battlefield is overall better than Call of Duty. Unreal Tournament is better than all of them though.
When it comes to sales they aren't. When it comes to AAA titles, 'units sold' is the name of the game. Put a ton of money into something, you expect a ton in return.
Are you insinuating EA didn't make a ton of $$$ from BF3?
No, I'm saying CoD made more.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.