LogFAQs > #891261710

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	EA CFO says people don't like linear games as much these days (Visceral closure)
adjl 11/29/17 9:19:13 AM #14:	Zangulus posted... Id be curious as to find out how much of the huddle angry masses that hate EA spend money on their games... The last EA game that I bought was Kingdoms of Amalur, which I got in early 2014 for $6. I haven't necessarily been actively avoiding them, but I don't really want to install Origin and their stuff doesn't end up on Steam anymore, so I guess that's kept me from buying their stuff even without paying attention to publishers. Even if I were paying attention, though, and they were still releasing on Steam, I doubt I'd be getting too many of their games. I almost never buy non-Nintendo stuff at release (since it's not like Nintendo stuff's going to get cheaper if I wait), and by the time the games get discounted enough, there's enough unsavory information out there about their games that I don't think I'd buy them anyway. Shrug Unbridled9 posted... We've got a LOT of linear games that sell extremely well (just look at Pokemon) I wouldn't really call Pokemon linear. Its story is, yes, but a lot of the game's appeal comes from exploring and collecting Pokemon, which is much more in line with open-world gameplay and the kind of ongoing player engagement EA and other big publishers love. It's not linearity that's bad for them, it's players finishing their games and putting them down (since that's when they stop buying microtransactions). So long as there's enough postgame content to keep players playing for a while, it doesn't matter how linear the story is. Quite simply, Visceral's Star Wars game was canned because it wasn't going to make EA any additional money after the initial sale. They tried turning a linear single-player game into a cash cow with Dead Space 3, and they weren't able to do it without people getting uppity and disliking the game for introducing needless grinding and tedium. EA isn't interested in just having games sell well. They want those games to keep giving them money for years to come. Publishers have been saying that linear single-player experiences have been dead for years now, but that's less commenting on any actual observed trend, and more trying to convince consumers that they don't want something that's less profitable for them. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:891261710] in EA CFO say... [t:76042651]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zangulus posted...</cite> <quote>Id be curious as to find out how much of the huddle angry masses that hate EA spend money on their games...</quote> The last EA game that I bought was Kingdoms of Amalur, which I got in early 2014 for $6. I haven't necessarily been actively avoiding them, but I don't really want to install Origin and their stuff doesn't end up on Steam anymore, so I guess that's kept me from buying their stuff even without paying attention to publishers. Even if I were paying attention, though, and they were still releasing on Steam, I doubt I'd be getting too many of their games. I almost never buy non-Nintendo stuff at release (since it's not like Nintendo stuff's going to get cheaper if I wait), and by the time the games get discounted enough, there's enough unsavory information out there about their games that I don't think I'd buy them anyway. Shrug <cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>We've got a LOT of linear games that sell extremely well (just look at Pokemon)</quote> I wouldn't really call Pokemon linear. Its story is, yes, but a lot of the game's appeal comes from exploring and collecting Pokemon, which is much more in line with open-world gameplay and the kind of ongoing player engagement EA and other big publishers love. It's not linearity that's bad for them, it's players finishing their games and putting them down (since that's when they stop buying microtransactions). So long as there's enough postgame content to keep players playing for a while, it doesn't matter how linear the story is. Quite simply, Visceral's Star Wars game was canned because it wasn't going to make EA any additional money after the initial sale. They tried turning a linear single-player game into a cash cow with Dead Space 3, and they weren't able to do it without people getting uppity and disliking the game for introducing needless grinding and tedium. EA isn't interested in just having games sell well. They want those games to keep giving them money for years to come. Publishers have been saying that linear single-player experiences have been dead for years now, but that's less commenting on any actual observed trend, and more trying to convince consumers that they don't want something that's less profitable for them. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1