EA too innovative...

[42undead2]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136011-EA-Dungeon-Keeper-Failed-by-Innovating-Too-Much

This... I cannot put words on it.

Basically, the new ''Dungeon Keeper'' on mobile failed because a lot of reasons, one being the amount of microtransactions just to play the damn game. An EA exec. then says ''Dungeon Keeper suffered from a few things, I think we might have innovated too much or tried some different things that people just weren't ready for.'' And a lot of other stuff.

[Kerbart]

Supercell shows that making people wanting to pay instead of forcing them is a much better approach (apparently they're raking in a couple of million usd per day on Clash of Clans).

"Perhaps we innovated too much". *snicker*

[SciMan]

I take "Perhaps we innovated too much" to mean "Perhaps this was too obvious of a money grab".

That or "Perhaps people aren't as stupid as we thought they were".

At least that's how I translate it from "CEO speak" to something that actually has meaning.

Here's a thought, maybe if EA wasn't run by the accountants they would make games that were worth the purchase price.

Then again, "large studios making games worth the purchase price" might be an era that has passed.

Good thing there's companies like Squad that treat their customers as more than just a wallet with a few neurons attached.

Edited July 11, 2014 by SciMan

[Streetwind]

Their exact definition of "Perhaps we innovated too much" is:

"We thought our customers were already conditioned to blindly accept in-app purchases, but we thought wrong. It'll take another while of us constantly doing this until everyone just accepts it as normal."

In other words, they're disappointed that after all the effort they went through, people are still not completely acting like the lab animals they tested their marketing schemes on.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Streetwind

[Alshain]

Leave it to EA to pat themselves on the back for a failure. Sad to see Mythic go, DAOC was the best MMO ever made in my opinion.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Alshain

[Felsmak]

So basically, EA is the corporate equivalent of a Nice Guy, with capital letters?

"Customers only go for unoriginal companies that steal their ideas from others. Innovative corporations finish last!"

[Kerbart]

(...)

Here's a thought, maybe if EA wasn't run by the accountants they would make games that were worth the purchase price.

Then again, "large studios making games worth the purchase price" might be an era that has passed.

Good thing there's companies like Squad that treat their customers as more than just a wallet with a few neurons attached.

That is a challenge for any large company, but I don't think it's possible to not run a company "by the numbers" once you hit a certain size. Of course, the question remains what numbers. But sadly, going for the short-term dollar grab and eroding customer value for short term "shareholder value" gets rewarded by Wall Street.

Micropayments are a relatively new phenomenon and "the market" will have to learn how to cope with it. Personally I think they offer great opportunities for both publishers and players. Yes, I'd rather pay nothing but in the end developers want to make a living too and bills need to get paid. A system where you pay "up front" and hope for the best can, in general, not possibly deliver as much value as a system where I only pay when I like the game. We're now in a phase though were CEO's just get dollar signs in their eyes and think that "micropayment" means "boatloads of money" while ignoring the "you really have to earn it unlike the #### titles you've been selling for years" factor. They'll figure that out, eventually. A few things to note:

• Micropayments are... microscopic. You make money on volume. Huge volume
  
• As a result, micropayments only work when your game is really popular (as in "the people")
  
• Popularity will dwindle when people feel they're being nickled and dimed.
  
• Only a very small percentage of the players will sink serious dough into the game but they will spend it big time.
  

It seems that the more successful publishers of these games seem to grasp that. Forcing players to pay to advance limits the audience, and as a subsequence, limits the participation of "whales" where the money comes from. To me this seems good news: yes, to be at the top of a game you probably have to spend money, but the vendor will have to work really hard to make sure it's worth it for everyone, including those who do not pay for it.

It's fun to fantasize how KSP could have been implemented as a fremium game. Would you have to pay to unlock certain planets or components? Or maybe charge for time accelleration (up to 100x - free; 1 gold coin for one day at 1000x speed, 2 gold for 2000x speed, etc)? It would not necessarily be a bad thing--Squad would get a steady stream of money from a relative small group of players while having an incentive to keep the game interesting and fun to play for everyone.

[Alshain]

I learned to cope with micropayments right away... I simply just didn't buy or use anything that has them, and I still haven't, and I never will.

[Nothing But Rubus]

E.A can stand for many things, but not Innovative.

[42undead2]

I learned to cope with micropayments right away... I simply just didn't buy or use anything that has them, and I still haven't, and I never will.

Though I fear you won't be able to continue that. If everything continues like now, microtransactions will become the ONLY thing in games. And some of these ''microtransactions'' aren't even micro. In some games, you'll have to cash out $100+ in a single payment. THAT'S NOT MICRO ANYMORE.

[pxi]

EA's main failing with the last "Dungeon Keeper", is simple.

The very people they should most be targeting, the people who played and loved the original dungeon keeper, who remember a time when you could think Peter Molyneux was a game designer capable of no wrong, remember all too well that this was a time when you bought the game and were done.

Back then, the closest you came to DLC was expansion packs, which were expected to add substantially to the base game. Companies used to patch and update their games, often adding new content as a thank-you to the consumers who had bought the game, months and years after release. The idea of buying a digital hat for real money, was ludicrous.

And they wonder why people like me look at the new one and laugh. And then go reinstall the old copy, which is probably gathering dust on a shelf somewhere.

Actually, now that i think about it, probably the most innovative thing EA could do right now, is go back to the old way of doing things.

Edited July 11, 2014 by pxi

[cantab]

Actually, now that i think about it, probably the most innovative thing EA could do right now, is go back to the old way of doing things.

Indeed. Jumping on the bandwagon of "free to play" is the exact OPPOSITE of innovation.

[Lohan2008]

I learned to cope with micropayments right away... I simply just didn't buy or use anything that has them, and I still haven't, and I never will.

^ ditto ^ this

[Duxwing]

I learned to cope with micropayments right away... I simply just didn't buy or use anything that has them, and I still haven't, and I never will.

Here-here! *raises a mug of Kerba-Cola*

Buying games is an unfortunate necessity caused by game designers' unfortunately needing money like everyone else. I prefer not to be reminded of such necessities as it when trying to pretend--especially such post-scarcity worlds as that of KSP--and businesses based on continuous temptation so unsettle me that I prefer avoiding and not funding them. I instead give my money to such firms as SQUAD, who charge only once.

-Duxwing

[Alshain]

Here-here! *raises a mug of Kerba-Cola*

Buying games is an unfortunate necessity caused by game designers' unfortunately needing money like everyone else. I prefer not to be reminded of such necessities as it when trying to pretend--especially such post-scarcity worlds as that of KSP--and businesses based on continuous temptation so unsettle me that I prefer avoiding and not funding them. I instead give my money to such firms as SQUAD, who charge only once.

-Duxwing

My issue is not so much temptation as it is value. I spent $15 on KSP in the Steam sale and now that I've played it I can say I would have spent $50. Meanwhile you can spend that much in any of those micro transaction games and still not have any fun with it. I have a friend that did just that, she spent $100 on some farming game on Facebook and after a month or two was bored with it.

[Kurtvw]

DAOC was the best MMO ever made in my opinion.

If you honestly believe that, it is only because you were born too late for UO - which actually was. And I mean UO before EA bought it, you know... when it was good.

[Alshain]

If you honestly believe that, it is only because you were born too late for UO - which actually was. And I mean UO before EA bought it, you know... when it was good.

Oh no I wasn't. I played UO and Lineage. But I still think DAOC was better, not necessarily because of the game, but the community. On Guinevere everyone there knew everyone there and even years later in WoW or Warhammer we would see a name and say "I know that person from Guinevere!". You can't do something like that in post-WoW MMO's because, thanks to WoW, it's too crowded to really learn everyone. It's kind of the "small town" effect. I'm afraid those days are over.

[Kurtvw]

EA's main failing with the last "Dungeon Keeper", is simple.

The very people they should most be targeting, the people who played and loved the original dungeon keeper, who remember a time when you could think Peter Molyneux was a game designer capable of no wrong, remember all too well that this was a time when you bought the game and were done.

I still have Populous and Black & White around here somewhere.

[Kurtvw]

Oh no I wasn't. I played UO and Lineage. But I still think DAOC was better, not necessarily because of the game, but the community. On Guinevere everyone there knew everyone there and even years later in WoW or Warhammer we would see a name and say "I know that person from Guinevere!". You can't do something like that in post-WoW MMO's because, thanks to WoW, it's too crowded to really learn everyone. It's kind of the "small town" effect. I'm afraid those days are over.

No, they aren't over. Eve Online (space game (sci-fi physics, not Newtonian)) has that... And it was born out of the disgust of what happened to UO. Eve is a solid (if vicious) community, generally. But the game takes massive patience to master, so it throws off most of the 'level treadmill' kids. But its a lot like Pre-Trammel UO... When UO's community was tight, and twits were handled with swords, rather than with forum tears.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Kurtvw

[Alshain]

I still have Populous and Black & White around here somewhere.

I loved B&W, I was so sad when Lionhead was bought by the destroyer of PC game companies. Sadly, I tried playing B&W not too long ago but it was so incredibly buggy in Windows 7 and I couldn't find a fix. You couldn't get past the second island.

No, they aren't over. Eve Online (space game (sci-fi physics, not Newtonian)) has that... And it was born out of the disgust of what happened to UO. Eve is a solid (if vicious) community, generally. But the game takes massive patience to master, so it throws off most of the 'level treadmill' kids. But its a lot like Pre-Trammel UO... When UO's community was tight, and twits were handled with swords, rather than with forum tears.

I tried Eve's free trial period but I just couldn't get into it. To be honest I'm not as young as I used to be and I don't have the time for games these days. That's fine for sandbox games like KSP where you can leave and come back at any time, but MMO's require too much of a time sync.

Planetside... now if I were to pick back up an MMO, that would be it. By nature it was come and go as you please, no scheduled 3 hour raids, no excessive level grind. Just pure FPS fun.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Alshain

[Kurtvw]

I tried Eve's free trial period but I just couldn't get into it.

Eve is tough because the tutorial pushes you heavily to run missions solo, and never really tells you how to get into the community... They lose a lot of players that way. It really comes across as a single player game with others present, but if you crack that egg, then it becomes huge.

I haven't been playing for about a year because I'm trying to ready my house for sale, but after I'm settled I'm hoping to pick up again. A huge amount has changed since then, I hope I still know my way around.

Anyhow... If you can get past the tutorial that tries to make you hate it. The players are where its at.

[Special Agent Sigvan]

They think that in a few years in app purchases are going to be normal enough.

So they are innovating.

10/10 Good job EA.

[Overfloater]

I had no idea that they got their filthy hands on that wonderful game! They turned it into some freaking joke.

[pxi]

Sadly, I tried playing B&W not too long ago but it was so incredibly buggy in Windows 7 and I couldn't find a fix.

Thank you. You illustrate perfectly why I have held onto old copies of Windows, and even machines going back to the first Pentiums.

But yeah, keeping old games working over time is beginning to become a bit of an issue.

[Alshain]

Thank you. You illustrate perfectly why I have held onto old copies of Windows, and even machines going back to the first Pentiums.

But yeah, keeping old games working over time is beginning to become a bit of an issue.

You'd be better off using Linux than keeping old operating systems. I'd venture a guess that emulating those old games in Linux would work better than playing them in Windows 7.