Electronic Arts says the old way of releasing games doesn't work anymore

[Berkut]

About a decade ago EA released Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It had a nice initial burst but quickly faded but me and a hard core of about 250,000 subscribers soldiered on, figuring that EA would correct the problem eventually. Well of course as soon as the game was not bigger than WoW, EA just left it to die. Yeah never again am I going to fall for the "games as a service" crap again. If the game is not popular you will get no service. But at least that game released with a significant amount of content, now you usually get very little.

Anyway unless the game is the next Fortnite don't waste your time buying those scams. It is almost like backing a kickstarter now, you are buying promises of a company doing something in the future.

I am curious what you think companies ought to do with games that haven't caught on and become profitable. Should they just spend resources on them out of the goodness of their hearts - what games should NOT get resources, so that hard core followers of that one game you like gets them?

[Valmy]

About a decade ago EA released Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It had a nice initial burst but quickly faded but me and a hard core of about 250,000 subscribers soldiered on, figuring that EA would correct the problem eventually. Well of course as soon as the game was not bigger than WoW, EA just left it to die. Yeah never again am I going to fall for the "games as a service" crap again. If the game is not popular you will get no service. But at least that game released with a significant amount of content, now you usually get very little.

Anyway unless the game is the next Fortnite don't waste your time buying those scams. It is almost like backing a kickstarter now, you are buying promises of a company doing something in the future.

I am curious what you think companies ought to do with games that haven't caught on and become profitable. Should they just spend resources on them out of the goodness of their hearts - what games should NOT get resources, so that hard core followers of that one game you like gets them?

No. I am saying nothing of the sort.

I am not telling companies what they ought to do, I am telling gamers what they ought to do: not buy these things until you know they are big. Because otherwise you just wasted your money on promises instead of an actual video game. They are bad for consumers.

[Valmy]

So I guess if I had advice for game companies it would be: stop making this shit. But hey only the market will tell them that. If people keep buying this garbage they will keep making it. I just will not be one of those people, and neither should you!

But anyway that is what I think gaming companies should do...if they want my advice.

[Iormlund]

The problem is that there's just so much profit in making mediocre games (ie. FIFA, NBA) loaded with gambling mechanics that there is little incentive to spend resources on content.

All current industry woes stem from companies trying to "engage" players, so they spend more on microtransactions. Killing lootboxes won't be enough, but it would be a good start. These guys have really deep pockets though, so I'm not holding my breath.

[Valmy]

The problem is that there's just so much profit in making mediocre games (ie. FIFA, NBA) loaded with gambling mechanics that there is little incentive to spend resources on content.

All current industry woes stem from companies trying to "engage" players, so they spend more on microtransactions. Killing lootboxes won't be enough, but it would be a good start. These guys have really deep pockets though, so I'm not holding my breath.

I knew I was in trouble when that guy from Bethesda seemed downright anguished that people were still playing and enjoying Skyrim and the other ES games and Bethesda had no way to make money off of them. What a disaster people loved those pre-microtransaction games so much! How could we have been so foolish as to make great games people want to play for years?

I get it on some level but wow that does not bode well.

Again if Bethesda wants my advice it would be to make another Elder Scrolls game and cash in on all the people who love that series. But I guess that is olde timey thinking.

[Berkut]

About a decade ago EA released Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. It had a nice initial burst but quickly faded but me and a hard core of about 250,000 subscribers soldiered on, figuring that EA would correct the problem eventually. Well of course as soon as the game was not bigger than WoW, EA just left it to die. Yeah never again am I going to fall for the "games as a service" crap again. If the game is not popular you will get no service. But at least that game released with a significant amount of content, now you usually get very little.

Anyway unless the game is the next Fortnite don't waste your time buying those scams. It is almost like backing a kickstarter now, you are buying promises of a company doing something in the future.

I am curious what you think companies ought to do with games that haven't caught on and become profitable. Should they just spend resources on them out of the goodness of their hearts - what games should NOT get resources, so that hard core followers of that one game you like gets them?

No. I am saying nothing of the sort.

I am not telling companies what they ought to do, I am telling gamers what they ought to do: not buy these things until you know they are big. Because otherwise you just wasted your money on promises instead of an actual video game. They are bad for consumers.

I don't think that is correct either.

I played Warhammer online and enjoyed it a lot. Had some great PvP.

I was bummed it didn't survive, but I certainly do not wish I had never played it, which is what you are suggesting.

I think consumers should be informed and price into their decision the relevant factors - and that includes the possibility that the game they love may not be loved enough by others to catch on. That does not mean they should not play though, it just means they should factor that into their buying decision.

[Berkut]

So I guess if I had advice for game companies it would be: stop making this shit. But hey only the market will tell them that. If people keep buying this garbage they will keep making it. I just will not be one of those people, and neither should you!

But anyway that is what I think gaming companies should do...if they want my advice.

You thought Warhammer Online was shit? Huh.

Why did you play it if it was such shit?

[Valmy]

I played Warhammer online and enjoyed it a lot. Had some great PvP.

I was bummed it didn't survive, but I certainly do not wish I had never played it, which is what you are suggesting.

I think consumers should be informed and price into their decision the relevant factors - and that includes the possibility that the game they love may not be loved enough by others to catch on. That does not mean they should not play though, it just means they should factor that into their buying decision.

As I said that game had lots of content so it did survive for awhile. It could have been a big success though, and granted in my poors way of thinking 250,000 subs is pretty good especially sustained over several years as it was with Warhammer Online. What is the probability that any game of that type will sustain success greater than that over a long period of time without a slam dunk launch? Very small.

So all I am saying is wait until you see that the game is going to be a WoW or Fortnite because unless it is a huge success on that kind of scale the companies are not going to invest the resources they are promising to invest. What you are saying is only slightly different it seems to me.

[Valmy]

So I guess if I had advice for game companies it would be: stop making this shit. But hey only the market will tell them that. If people keep buying this garbage they will keep making it. I just will not be one of those people, and neither should you!

But anyway that is what I think gaming companies should do...if they want my advice.

You thought Warhammer Online was shit? Huh.

Why did you play it if it was such shit?

I did not think it was shit. I was just bringing up an example of a game where it got dumped as soon as it was not a mega-success, as an example of why these kinds of products should be avoided. At least when a normal game is not a huge success you at least still have a game to play. These games as a service will just vanish and you have nothing.

[Berkut]

So I guess if I had advice for game companies it would be: stop making this shit. But hey only the market will tell them that. If people keep buying this garbage they will keep making it. I just will not be one of those people, and neither should you!

But anyway that is what I think gaming companies should do...if they want my advice.

You thought Warhammer Online was shit? Huh.

Why did you play it if it was such shit?

I did not think it was shit. I was just bringing up an example of a game where it got dumped as soon as it was not a mega-success, as an example of why these kinds of products should be avoided. At least when a normal game is not a huge success you at least still have a game to play. These games as a service will just vanish and you have nothing.

You have hours and hours and hours of enjoyment.

Its an online game. 99.9% of them have a shelf life. You know that going in.

I just don't see the complaint here.

I guess maybe its a matter of perspective. I play games because I enjoy them RIGHT NOW. I don't play them in the hope that someday I will enjoy them.

If an online game I love goes away, then so be it. I had fun while it lasted, and I paid for it while it lasted.

[Valmy]

Its an online game. 99.9% of them have a shelf life. You know that going in.

I just don't see the complaint here.

Well I think these two sentences reflect our differences here. You fully expect the possibility that the product you buy might be immediately declared a failure and it being put on life support. That was not so obvious to me back in 2008. After all the three previous online games I had played EQ, DAOC, and WoW had not had that problem at all.

So now I do know that going in and that is why I don't buy them anymore.

And perhaps Warhammer was a bad example as yeah I did get enjoyment out of that game. But I did learn that lesson with that game, which was why I brought it up.

I guess maybe its a matter of perspective. I play games because I enjoy them RIGHT NOW. I don't play them in the hope that someday I will enjoy them.

If an online game I love goes away, then so be it. I had fun while it lasted, and I paid for it while it lasted.

An online game or a "game as a service" carries certain expectations of, well, service. So while I get that it is all good so long as you are having fun, wouldn't it be better if the game was going to live up to its promise? And doesn't it kind of suck that it depends entirely on factors outside of your control?

But even that aside I am skeptical that the current AAA gaming companies are going to make too many of these "Games as a Service" type games all that enjoyable right at release. It seems like the strategy is get us to invest in the concept and they will flesh it out later, but there is no guarantee they will flesh it out. In fact it seems highly unlikely unless it just happens to really take off.

[Iormlund]

But even that aside I am skeptical that the current AAA gaming companies are going to make too many of these "Games as a Service" type games all that enjoyable right at release. It seems like the strategy is get us to invest in the concept and they will flesh it out later, but there is no guarantee they will flesh it out. In fact it seems highly unlikely unless it just happens to really take off.

This is what they call Minimum Viable Product. The problem is it doesn't work. People see barebones games with no content, then stop playing and the game is doomed. See the aforementioned Anthem or FO76.

[Barrister]

But even that aside I am skeptical that the current AAA gaming companies are going to make too many of these "Games as a Service" type games all that enjoyable right at release. It seems like the strategy is get us to invest in the concept and they will flesh it out later, but there is no guarantee they will flesh it out. In fact it seems highly unlikely unless it just happens to really take off.

This is what they call Minimum Viable Product. The problem is it doesn't work. People see barebones games with no content, then stop playing and the game is doomed. See the aforementioned Anthem or FO76.

Well it does seem to work in various kickstarter-like environments, where people pay for a game knowing it's incomplete and being developed.

But yes for AAA games at full price people tend to want to see a complete game.

[Solmyr]

Again if Bethesda wants my advice it would be to make another Elder Scrolls game and cash in on all the people who love that series. But I guess that is olde timey thinking.

They are making ES6. It will probably be live service.

Ironically, EA is still maintaining SWTOR, which is getting a new expansion next month. But I guess they at least recoup its running costs via the cartel market and subscriptions.

[viper37]

Again if Bethesda wants my advice it would be to make another Elder Scrolls game and cash in on all the people who love that series. But I guess that is olde timey thinking.

well, they released a Special Edition for the game (free for owners of Skyrim), they released a Elder Scrolls online and are working on TES VI (Skyrim was V), as well as publishing/creating other games.

I'd say they are on the rigth track, bug issues aside.