Developers have found ways to create incredible worlds and systems that have resulted in exceptional games, something which will only get better.
The executive will depart next summer - chief studios officer Laura Miele will take over the COO role as search begins for new CFO.
I have a feeling this Laura Miele can bring about some positive changes in EA.
Less forced live service games, less mtx, more freedom to devs in engine choices and less intrusion during game's design & production.
If this will get us more remasters/remakes of their classic games, then great. If not, then don't care.
During Electronic Arts' financialsl Andrew Wilson and Blake Jorgensen talked about the partnership with Xbox Game Pass and more.
EA was on board with Microsoft for always online. They also hated used games sales because they didn't get a cut of the used profits. They tried and failed. So, they came up with EA Access. The only company on console with this service. Why is that?
And now, they are on board in pushing subscription services. Both things cut into used game sales, trading and lending. Which is why Gamestop is struggling. They make more money on used than new games. With a subscription, EA makes the money off of old games than used retail stores and selling your games. It's their right because it's their content. But call it what it is instead of "opportunities."
When I ran a game store, the most used game on the shelf were EA's games. Tons of them. So yes. In a way, their subscription cuts down on their shelf clutter. But the obvious effects are what I stated: Gamestop and other used game shops suffer. And trading and lending is toast.
EA is only going to tell you what they want you to hear. Not what you can clearly see with your eyes. Their subscription is to eat into used. End of.
Replies(1)Its ok I'll sell my old games myself and pocket all the money myself, thanks EA.
Always online was such a visionary and great feature that people raged against in ignorance and killed. How awesome would it have been to sell your digital rights to a game to someone else in a used digital games store? People heard always online, didn't realize that was an occasional check to see you have the rights to a game. Kinda similar to how games check-in to see if you're updated now anyways.
Yeah people didnt have the foresight to see that it would have been awesome to sell your games to others, and that online checks are already pretty much standard on most devices and especially on the oh so "masterful" pc.
Same as my above comment. No online, no playing. Even single player. No ownership.
Sheep. Guess you liked EA's "surprise mechanics" too. And Kinect watching you for advertising. Kids today. Lollipops. Born every minute.
Lol. The minority of whiners. The MAJORITY spoke and it destroyed Microsoft's plans with EA backing them on Xbox one. That's why Sony dominated in every way possible. Yes. Sony has 45 million subscribers that pay for online and those selection of games. But out of 115 million, 70 million aren't paying to play online. Another example of the MAJORITY. The reason Sony makes big AAA exclusives that are single player are because of the MAJORITY. Another example.
Just because you can connect to the internet doesn't mean you have to have your content locked to it. EA loves fools. When companies like them come up with their next scheme to screw gamers, guess you'll be in the front of the line.
Ridiculous. Games locked to online was dumb. If you're not online, your offline games didn't work. Including single player. If you go back and look, you could only sell your game once to a friend or at participating stores. Instead of anywhere you wanted to right now.
Ridiculous.
I have had times where I didn't get a chance to put My Steam account into offline mode when my ISP had issues and was locked out of every single game I owned. So Why was it so bad when Xbox tried to do something similar or do online check ins?
I havent bought games on disc since 2015.
I have ALWAYS had all my consoles connected to the internet (unless there was an ISP outage similar to what I mentioned with my PC, which has only happened maybe 10 times) since 2006.
I imagine this is the case with the Majority of gamers who play multiplayer games in any fashion.
The minority of whiners cried about something that was already a non-issue to MOST gamers at the time.
So yes you mentioned what could happen if some didnt have internet access, what was your actual point?
Most people did and definitely DO have internet.
It was basically just overblown drama to make MS look awful.
Even now as the PS5 will have day 1 patches to make it work as intended, you think requiring the internet is or ever was a bad thing... Most PC games you buy on disc have a steam or Origin or Battlenet activation code.
Most of the big 3rd party games on PC have required internet since like 2005. Bam! Internet required.
So again, why is it bad if Xbox did the same thing?
There was a small amount of people who would not like to have online check-ins, sure. But most of them turned around the next minute and Played Destiny, COD, Halo, or downloaded free games from PS+ or Games with gold, or played a game online with friends right after fussing about internet.
It was and always will be a Non issue for the modern gamer.
This wasn't 2004. This wasn't 2006. This wasn't 2009.
This was 2013 and 2014. And it was a non-issue.
So, when was the last time you disconnected your system from the internet to play? If you have limited or unstable internet, I'm assume those people would've purchased disc's... Which would've worked without the always online aspect, cause the disc verified ownership.
@great yazoo
It actually doesn't work like that.
Most games with discs do not allow you to play on steam without internet if your internet goes out.
So then why is there so much outrage over Godfall's always online aspect if its so "visionary"?
Because people are addicted to being offended and outraged about things. Rage against the headline before you even understand what it is or bother to read the article.
Ea play was a big pickup for gamepass, I'm never buying an EA game again. 0 reason to now.
I subbed to it when it first came out as ea access. Found a lot of good games I would've never tried and that 24 hour trial of full games 2 weeks before release was amazing
Today, during Electronic Arts’ conference call, CEO Andrew Wilson and CFO Blake Jorgensen talked about the pricing of their games.
Sounds like damage control for an upcoming bad game. Squadrons in trouble?
Damage control? They were asked a question. And literally everyone who tried the game is saying it's good. What a bad take.
I'm just reading into this.
''So it doesn’t have the breadth of some of our games, but it is still an incredible game.''
That sounds like a primer for something. EA just brings out my cautious side.
@LordoftheCritics
I think all they are saying is they could of made a $59.99 game and spent a ton of money making it into a full experience and then it not sell well because it is kind of a niche market in space fighters.
Instead they built the core game, and they want people to play it, and it may not have the content and longevity of a full price game so they are putting it out at a cheaper price to see how it does. And if it does well they can start building it out more and get ideas from the community on a direction to take it.
Certainly looks good fun. I'll be enjoying this on PSVR. I'm imagining Starblood Arena with better graphics and a tonne more people playing it - that can only be an awesome thing EA, so don't screw it up, please!!
you are not reading into this you are just ignoring what is said.
He clearly says that their game is not as big as to warrant a 60buck full price.
nothing more.
As for if the game is good, always wait for release, then you/we will see
I know YouTubers get paid and sponsored for stuff so it can come across a bit fake but Jackfrags was surprised how In depth this game is but called out the, what sounds like lack of content.
What is sounds like is that this was originally planned as an update for Battlefront II, and was then carved off and refreshed to make a 'new game'. That is the ONLY reason it is $39.95. It was originally going to be added for free, and is NOT as dense as stand alone game.
All ship models - already done for BF 2
All character models - already done BF2
All maps - looks like copy and paste from BF 2, maybe 1 or 2 new ones.
All music - ported over
Work done = a few new updates to the cockpits. Addition of trinkets for the cockpits. lock in FP view.
So they look at the LOE and ROI. To them charging $40 is a win.
Flying games don't reach the amount of people they would like, so they are making it cheaper. And Multi-Player flying games don't seem hold people for too long. Problem i have with these type of games , i arrange to get the game with a circle of other people, and they all lose interest after a few days. I`ll play it for a week, and then onward to Pod Racer or Chewbacca Chess or what ever comes next.
Seems like it's a great title it's got little depth Compared to full price games but it's cross play and fully VR compatible space combat game which is massively appealing to me. I'll be playing in psvr and my friends will be on a bunch of systems Xbox PC whatever and we can all play. I actually think I'll have the advantage in VR over PC players this time
My take: we have to be careful with SW franchise since Disney is looking at us given the MX fiasco in Battlefront II.
Should I be impressed by my consoles' technical capabilities?
Are you impressed?
--
lol, What anime is that from?
"EA calls PS4 & Xbox One power 'fantastic'"
If they are so fantastic (power wise), why is it that Star Wars Battlefront (EA game) only runs 900p on the PS4 and 720p on the X1?
One of two things... PS4/X1 power isn't that fantastic or EA developers aren't that good.
Fantastic? lol Hyperbole at its best but what do you expect? They want that money and good PR for Sony and Xbox is potentially more money for them.
Sarcasm detected.
"devs just now harnessing their power" but what type of power will they end up getting?