EA CEO: "Games Content is Boring Consumers"

Found this via GamesIndustry. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, EA CEO, John Riccitiello, stated that "We're boring people to death and making games that are harder and harder to play."

A few choice cuts:

In his first in-depth comments since taking the job in April, John Riccitiello says he worries that the Redwood City, Calif., company and others in the industry make too many games that lack innovation. He says EA and others need both to push more aggressively beyond traditional audiences to court "casual" consumers and to experiment more with new sales approaches, outside the norm of selling $50 to $60 discs with 40-hour games that he says few players ever finish.

"For the most part, the industry has been rinse-and-repeat," he says. "There's been lots of product that looked like last year's product, that looked a lot like the year before."

Mr. Riccitiello worries that competition puts the games business "at risk of being a little less interesting than Facebook and iPods and the next cool cellphone."

EA might have more luck with sequels if it actually made quality games instead of garbage like SSX Blur (which recycled tracks from the old games and lacked the voice acting of some of the older games), Def Jam (EA booted out the external developer who made the series great and handed it to an internal developer who simplified the combat and forced one to play a half-hearted business sim in order to unlock fighting styles) and Madden (the current genversions lacked features the last gen versions had and big bugs were slow to be squashed once uncovered). Needless to say, given the declining quality of EA's hardcore games (there are a few exceptions, but overall the picture is grim), I welcome their intention to focus on making games for non-gamers.

Yeah, it's pretty laughable to hear this coming from EA. Especially this line:"For the most part, the industry has been rinse-and-repeat," Just because that has been EA's approach to games for the past 10 years, doesn't really mean that's the case for everyone else.

Also, last time I checked competition was supposed to be a good thing. Something that provides motivation to out do others, not an excuse to rehash the same garbage over and over.

Maybe he's just looking into EA's back catalogue and realising.... oh oh noes. gaminggeek

EA's content has been boring me for years now, that is true. They do publish a great game or two though, now and then.

BTW, 40 hour games? What 40 hour games have EA made? Every time some mouthpiece at one of these companys feels the need to speak, they always bring up the 'games are too long' thing. If you ask me, there seems to be fewer games of epic length now, than there was 5 years ago. So how much shorter do they want to make $60 games? Will a game suddenly be appealing to every person on Earth because its content was chopped in half to offer less game? Or would this just be saving money for companys like EA, who could chop budgets down on every projectand make 2 short games to double theirprofit instead of one big, meaty project?

I foresee EA taking a leader position in the industry sooner rather than later because they are starting to understand their market more than other companies comparable to them. Also I think they are liking the Wii kool-aid they have been drinking and are starting to realize that gaming comes down to amount of options over shear realism. I have personally notice in their games more attention to detail, more attention to options, and more attention to control and how interesting is more about micro gaming than it is about the aesthetic to reality. I wouldn't say that they build arcade like style games, but they do pay attention to how those types of games control.

I don't yet see them at the quality of Nintendo style games yet, because they still have to understand the management of micro gaming with in the context of the larger goal in the overall game. In their case with dealing with Nintendo I see them doing a lot of things right in understanding that market. Things such as introducing a Mii system in their core games, simplifying controls for the newbie, and offering services of online outside of the FC network. I say by next year well really see what they can achieve in the gaming space.

Maybe he's just looking into EA's back catalogue and realising.... oh oh noes. gaminggeek

On the one hand, its great if this guy wants to get EA making innovative, original games. That's awesome. On the other hand, if by innovative and original, he means ultra-simple and 6 hours long, I'm all set.

I'm fine with simplifying controls. Imo that usually makes a game better, and more immersive. Its when companies think they need to go beyond simplifying controls, to actually simplifying the core content of games ( especially if the style of game in question begs for a deep experience) that I take offense.

I'm glad that he included his own company in his criticism, because EA is one of the most flagrant offenders of one of the saddest trends in gaming.

The problem is that videogame characters become huge stars. People don't identify with videogame designers who continue to pump out varied and interesting projects, they identify with characters and franchise names, expecting to see them in new games over and over. If this is to change, the reasons people choose to play the games they do need to change. Instead of anticipating the next Rayman, people should be salivating at what Ancel will do next. Instead of wondering what the next Mario game will be, there should be rampant speculation on what crazy project Miyamoto is up to next.Oilers99

I'm glad that he included his own company in his criticism, because EA is one of the most flagrant offenders of one of the saddest trends in gaming.

The problem is that videogame characters become huge stars. People don't identify with videogame designers who continue to pump out varied and interesting projects, they identify with characters and franchise names, expecting to see them in new games over and over. If this is to change, the reasons people choose to play the games they do need to change. Instead of anticipating the next Rayman, people should be salivating at what Ancel will do next. Instead of wondering what the next Mario game will be, there should be rampant speculation on what crazy project Miyamoto is up to next.Oilers99

That's a great point.

Well you know what I think on this highly controversial topic?

I think we all need to just settle down and eat pie.

[QUOTE="Oilers99"]I'm glad that he included his own company in his criticism, because EA is one of the most flagrant offenders of one of the saddest trends in gaming.

The problem is that videogame characters become huge stars. People don't identify with videogame designers who continue to pump out varied and interesting projects, they identify with characters and franchise names, expecting to see them in new games over and over. If this is to change, the reasons people choose to play the games they do need to change. Instead of anticipating the next Rayman, people should be salivating at what Ancel will do next. Instead of wondering what the next Mario game will be, there should be rampant speculation on what crazy project Miyamoto is up to next.H3LLRaiseR

That won't happen until videogames are taken seriously by the US media, which probably won't ever happen. Honestly, I don't even think it has that much impact on film or television industry. I doubt the average movie goer has any clue about who is directing any of the big blockbuster films they're seeing this summer.

They are being taken increasingly seriously as the business grows in stature and demographic. Furthermore, the people who play videogames are primarily the younger half of the population, which means that as the older generations retire and die, and the younger generation takes their place, they'll put more emphasis on the medium. Furthermore, there needs to be actual people to put the spotlight on. Most developers either seem to avoid the spotlight, or at the very least, ignore it. Collectively, they aren't self-promoting enough. How many developers are there realistically to put in front of the camera for a small segment on the news, or for an interview in Time magazine? Will Wright, maybe Miyamoto, possibly one or two others.

I'm afraid of this push towards more casual games.  If western game developers find out that they can make more money off of casuals and minigame collections we will turn into Japan.rragnaar

The pseudo-intellectiuals that think they have figured out the "market"are going to be spinning the same line over and over the coming years. THey are the elitist that deny a new genre in its birth. They will struggle against the passage of time and call it "false innovation" or the easier term a gimmick. The will think that they are the driving force in a market but they are just a section.

Of course it has become boring.(which is a word I don't agree with but I see where he is coming from. The same plan has been going on since ps1 and n64. Pump up the graphics and processing power. But the suspension of disbelieve was already questioned before this generation. How many generations of the same steady line of improvement can a market take?(I know alot of what I say is educated guess work but I think reason rings with this arguement.)

The same old same old been going around for a long time.

[QUOTE="Oilers99"]I'm glad that he included his own company in his criticism, because EA is one of the most flagrant offenders of one of the saddest trends in gaming.

The problem is that videogame characters become huge stars. People don't identify with videogame designers who continue to pump out varied and interesting projects, they identify with characters and franchise names, expecting to see them in new games over and over. If this is to change, the reasons people choose to play the games they do need to change. Instead of anticipating the next Rayman, people should be salivating at what Ancel will do next. Instead of wondering what the next Mario game will be, there should be rampant speculation on what crazy project Miyamoto is up to next.H3LLRaiseR

That won't happen until videogames are taken seriously by the US media, which probably won't ever happen. Honestly, I don't even think it has that much impact on film or television industry. I doubt the average movie goer has any clue about who is directing any of the big blockbuster films they're seeing this summer.

I don't think the media is to blame. People who want to follow a team's work can do so pretty easily in the age of the internet but as Oilers pointed out, most simply don't care. Some people follow some teams/designers (most people who purchased Shadow of the Colossus were probably aware of Team Ico's past game and I'm willing to bet many fans of Okami are aware that Clover has been reborn as Seed) but a go-kart racer made by Team Garbage starring Cloud and friends will impress more Final Fantasy fans than a game directed by Hirnobu Sakaguchi.

The pseudo-intellectiuals that think they have figured out the "market"are going to be spinning the same line over and over the coming years. THey are the elitist that deny a new genre in its birth. They will struggle against the passage of time and call it "false innovation" or the easier term a gimmick. The will think that they are the driving force in a market but they are just a section.

Of course it has become boring.(which is a word I don't agree with but I see where he is coming from. The same plan has been going on since ps1 and n64. Pump up the graphics and processing power. But the suspension of disbelieve was already questioned before this generation. How many generations of the same steady line of improvement can a market take?(I know alot of what I say is educated guess work but I think reason rings with this arguement.)

The same old same old been going around for a long time.

Moridin18

You use a lot of big words, but your argument isn't entirely coherent and the parts of your argument that are often based on false assumptions. What does 'But the suspension of disbelieve was already questioned before this generation' mean exactly? Also, I wouldn't necessarily characterize your guess work as educated since you seem to labor under the delusion casual games are something new, when in fact they have existed for longer than most genres of hardcore games.

Last but not least, not caring about casual games doesn't doesn't translate into believing thattheir market is insignificant. I doubt thatmusic loverswho aren't fans of bubblegum pop really care much about Britney Spear's next album though they realize that such an album will sell quite well.

Don't question the logic but play on the words. And then you talk about false assumptions? You claim it is false because you name it so. Talk about false assumptions.

You make the claim that I state something about casual. You said that not me. I make no pretenses about labels and the such but you want to play that game. And go on claiming my argument is incoherent, just because you disagree.

Anyone that can process info can tell what I am talking about.(it might be wrong but lets pretend that it is not all in the open)

And if you know so well what is going on tell me what is casual and what is not sense I made no mention of it and yet you seem to run the labels into the ground when one puts out a question?

Talk about assumptions when I not once said one thing about casual and the like. But you did and then talk about assumptions. And then try to down talk me. Do you believe the own garbage that comes out your mouth? (when I see someone say something that I disagree with I make up lies and that makes me cool)

Also, I wouldn't necessarily characterize your words as nothing but the rantings of a fanchild who should have been on system wars-esque message board years ago. Big long statements that try to analysis the words of others in a narrow fanchild perspective. Then we can pick at the Semantics and pretend that they mean something.

Don't question the logic but play on the words. And then you talk about false assumptions? You claim it is false because you name it so. Talk about false assumptions.

You make the claim that I state something about casual. You said that not me. I make no pretenses about labels and the such but you want to play that game. And go on claiming my argument is incoherent, just because you disagree.

Anyone that can process info can tell what I am talking about.(it might be wrong but lets pretend that it is not all in the open)

And if you know so well what is going on tell me what is casual and what is not sense I made no mention of it and yet you seem to run the labels into the ground when one puts out a question?

Talk about assumptions when I not once said one thing about casual and the like. But you did and then talk about assumptions. And then try to down talk me. Do you believe the own garbage that comes out your mouth? (when I see someone say something that I disagree with I make up lies and that makes me cool)

Also, I wouldn't necessarily characterize your words as nothing but the rantings of a fanchild who should have been on system wars-esque message board years ago. Big long statements that try to analysis the words of others in a narrow fanchild perspective. Then we can pick at the Semantics and pretend that they mean something.

Maybe we can make the assumptions together then. Moridin18

You didn't explain the meaning of 'But the suspension of disbelieve was already questioned before this generation'.

Out of idle curiousity, why did you use a big S for the word Semantics? Is that a class you are currently taking?

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I'm afraid of this push towards more casual games. If western game developers find out that they can make more money off of casuals and minigame collections we will turn into Japan.GodModeEnabled

The bloody cheek. What about us, who wouldn't mind some innovation and good-old fashioned quality? It's all about the non-gamers nowadays. Good luck selling to them more than 3 titles a year /rantnopalversion

You make the claim that I state something about casual. You said that not me. I make no pretenses about labels and the such but you want to play that game. And go on claiming my argument is incoherent, just because you disagree.

Moridin18

No, he's questioning your coherency because you don't communicate well. It's difficult to tell what you're saying, with the line "But the suspension of disbelieve was already questioned before this generation" simply being the most confusing statement.

Furthermore, you accuse him of talking down to you, and then in the very next sentence suggest that nothing but garbage comes out of his mouth. You then procede to refer to him as a "fanchild", before accusing him of being a system-wars type poster. Meanwhile, you're the only poster in this thread who has insulted a person (see the two previous examples).

Your accusations are hollow, and speak more about your own character than Carnage's.

Maybe he's just looking into EA's back catalogue and realising.... oh oh noes. gaminggeek

Hahaha!

I was watching a little bit of G4's E3 coverage today and they interviewed the guy. He made it clear that he wasn't talking about the EA games and seemed a little offended when the interviewer said that EA was the worst at rinse and repeat sequels. According to him, EA sequels are "fundamentally innovative".H3LLRaiseR

:lol: So he's not going to make a push to improve the quality of EA's franchises which (with exceptions) have been in sharp decline. Good to know.

EA's shareholders better hope EA is better at making casual games than they hace been at making hardcore games of late.

I can't think of anything more boring than an EA Sports sequel. I'm not saying they're trash, they're just so uninteresting.

EA's content has been boring me for years now, that is true. They do publish a great game or two though, now and then.

BTW, 40 hour games? What 40 hour games have EA made? Every time some mouthpiece at one of these companys feels the need to speak, they always bring up the 'games are too long' thing. If you ask me, there seems to be fewer games of epic length now, than there was 5 years ago. So how much shorter do they want to make $60 games? Will a game suddenly be appealing to every person on Earth because its content was chopped in half to offer less game? Or would this just be saving money for companys like EA, who could chop budgets down on every projectand make 2 short games to double theirprofit instead of one big, meaty project?

EdgecrusherAza

Now presenting Madden Adventures. You play as John Madden a senior citizen, he announces that he's coming out of retirment and back into the game. However during his first game a giant demon loard named Okasawa comes and takes all the fans prisoner. It's up to you John Madden to save the world from destruction. The game has real-time combat, it's in 3D, and you control your main character with an analog stick. True innovation for the soul. And you can only play this game this Holiday Season.