All of it can be interpreted this way: this PR piece isn't meant to address customer concerns -- it's meant to address shareholder concerns.
As someone who was an avid gamer, I felt like the statement was addressed to gamers. But, you may be more correct in saying it was for shareholders anyway.
I agree with the rest of your comment though.
Origin, on the other hand, is coming into the market as an underdog entry from a hated company with a history of decommissioning game's DRM and multiplayer servers within a couple years of the game's release. While they've only had 2 years in the market to Steam's near-decade, unless Origin manages to come up with significantly more value added to the client itself, their IP is going to be their sole draw.
I've bough^W licensed a DRM-encumbered game. Well, that happens. Just silently create me a nameless account behind the scenes without bothering me with forms and whatever. Tie it to PC and in case of reinstalls or multiple devices let me authenticate by entering CD key or whatever proof-of-purchase's available and then ask to create a password.
Meanwhile, just lure me to social hub or store with a menu option(s). If I'll find the service useful, I'll eventually fill out the details. If I won't - no reason to care about me anyway, as I won't use the service I don't like unless it's really enforced upon.
Nope. Got a game, but have to fill out forms. They want an email confirmation, secret question, obligatory CAPTCHA, cumbersome launcher software and whatever.
I can't think of one, which is telling. SimCity had the potential to be and, well, wasn't.
Source:
For the claim about Origin's license letting it scan your whole hard drive: http://www.nerdbuster.com/2011/09/eas-origin-wants-to-scan-y... http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-origin-eula-sparks-privacy-c...
For the second claim about the one way copyright lawsuit provision: Chapter 17, section A can be found here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&...
In it, they specifically say that the exemptions from this non-lawsuit clause are related to copyright (big claims) and small claims court. Since most users aren't likely to own copyright or patents, I call that stacking the deck of available actions.
This means that if I want to play a Steam game (I have a couple like Portal) I must first wait for Steam to open up, get internet, log in (oh so slowly) and finally it will think about opening my game. However undoubtedly there's been an update and so steam will decide to install this first. All in all I'm bored by the time the Valve logo pops up and the actual game can start loading. Or you know, I could just pirate the game and it would open straight away without the need for Steam.
So in short, Steam is also horrible and forced. But at least they make better games and have something like customer support.
Hell, Stalin had that many in 1948!
Whereas I have a steam account with a heap of paid for games. So in both cases I contribute to the total user count, dollars spent though is completely different.
Why do people buy EA games if they hate them so much?
Anyways, this is the first EA game I've bought for myself since SimCity 4, first time I actually installed their platform Origin. Actually that points to the interesting reality, the people who buy these games may be simply purchasing a gift.
People hate TicketMaster but they aren't willing to forego a concert to voice their opinion. People hate BofA but they don't know about the great alternatives they have in credit unions. People hate comcast, but sometimes it's the only ISP available. Similarly, EA touches on all of these fronts.
Further, EA's strategy of late has been to acquire IP to which gamers have already developed a sentimental attachment. So you may hate EA, but you really love Commander Shepard, so you do what you gotta do to keep hanging out with her.
1) They own a number of franchises that had lots of fanboys before EA got them. The fanboys cling to the hope that EA won't screw it up.
2) They own a lot of sports franchises and in some cases have the only games which are officially licensed by the sporting bodies.
3) There are lots of newer , younger and older casual gamers who have completely different expectations about what they want from a gaming experience.
4) They advertise their games a lot , all over the place.
Unfortunately, there's also an aspect that consumers don't get a whole lot of choices. Movies are a decent comparison to that. Why are there so many bad sequels that everyone hates? Cause they still buy tickets. Any movie > no movie.
Plus, EA used to make great games.
Personally I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with F2P games with micro transactions. I feel Riot has created a great F2P game with League of Legends. Micro transactions are only used for non-essential stuffs (for example skins for your heroes or to "buy" heroes quicker then possible by the normal "grind").
For the rest I agree with your opinion. And with regards to SimCity, I really feel they should change the game to make the always-online functionality not required. Sooner or later the services will go down and in the current state the game will be useless.
I actually really appreciated the honesty of this piece because I think it shows some integrity on EA's part to be willing to admit fault. How many companies have driven themselves into irrelevance and destruction by thinking they were right every time?
I don't think it's worth talking down their numbers either, consumers vote with their wallets. If you really though a product was crap, you'd find something else, otherwise there's clearly something of quality there that keeps you coming back.
I work in the newer side of the games industry and see in painful detail how far EA has to go to catch up with recent trends and regain their dominance in the marketplace, but as someone who's also had my fair share of memorable experiences from EA games, I'm pulling for them.
Just to clarify, he was referencing the free game offer to people who already bought SimCity. [1]
when you're misquoting people to make your point, maybe something is wrong with your argument. BTW I have no connection to EA and don't think I own any EA games.
Sure it's not 100% word-for-word, but the sentiment is spot-on. What's your problem with his quotation?
Also, if you are uncertain of who publishes the games you own, you can't outright deny connection with a publisher.
"45 million registered users are proving them wrong."
Such a goofy and useless statistic. When you require registration for your products, that doesn't mean people are satisfied users of your service, it means you got a lot of people to sign up. It's not an accurate metric for how many people actually enjoy and use the service.
Continuing...
"Some people think that free-to-play games and micro-transactions are a pox on gaming. Tens of millions more are playing and loving those games."
Again: just because you have a bunch of people willing to pay you money for your crap, doesn't mean it isn't crap and you couldn't be doing better.
This sort of defense mechanism doesn't even address the problems people are having. It's almost insulting to everyone who does, legitimately, have a gripe with EA as a company. Those folks angry with EA's principles, games, or for simply not getting the value of what they paid are being cast aside.
It's extremely obvious they're less concerned with addressing issues and more concerned with telling everyone about how many users they have or what their sales are:
"But here’s the truth: each year EA interacts with more than 350 million gamers; Origin is breaking records for revenue and users; The Simpsons: Tapped Out and Real Racing 3 are at the top of the mobile charts; Battlefield 3 and FIFA are stunning achievements with tens of millions of players; and SimCity is being enjoyed by millions of passionate fans all over the world."
It seems possible to paraphrase the entirety of this press release: "We recognize a lot of people hate us, but hey, we've got a lot of other people paying us who aren't you, so we can't be that wrong, can we?"