Probst on EA Innovation and Microtransactions
Where part one and part two of N'Gai Croal's interview of Electronic Arts CEo Larry Probst was lecture and brimstone, part three is much more Probst dancing around the harder questions.
It's interesting to see the head of EA trying to avoid talking about the microtransactions issue that has so many gamers ticked off.
There's been a good deal of controversy in the enthusiast press and on message boards about the microtransaction practices of EA and other publishers. There's even a blog called GamerFeast, that has an Xbox 360 Microtransaction Tracker. As of early November, EA's fully loaded games--calculated by taking the price of the game at retail and adding to it all of the various microtransaction costs--held 3 of the top 5 spots, with Need for Speed Carbon topping the list at $94.97. Isn't there a concern that EA may be strip-mining its most avid consumers with these strategies, even if it does extend the life of the game additional content?We're working our way through that. With some of the initial titles, we did hear complaints from consumers, but I think we learned. We did a better job on Need for Speed Carbon, and we're not hearing those same kinds of complaints or negative feedback about that product. It's generating a lot of money through microtransactions. So it's a learning process, it's iterative and we'll get better about it as we go. Need for Speed is the first example of getting smarter about it.
The other complaint that gamers have is that with the next-generation versions of some of your biggest franchises, like FIFA and Madden, they're paying more money for fewer features--fewer leagues and stadiums, no owner mode, etc.--yet those features can be found on the lower-priced current-generation versions. How do you justify the price difference, and how soon should gamers expect feature parity across both generations?
We heard that complaint more frequently on the first generation products. As we get into the second and third iterations, I think that's not so much of a problem. It's more expensive to develop on these [new] platforms. We've got to figure out some way to defer and recoup those costs. The real answer is, when you get these first iterations, it's a rush to the finish line to get these things ready for the launch windows. In year two and year three, we start to catch up and deliver more than what the consumers expect in terms of features.
Better still, though, is Probst's response to EA's dipping innovation. Croal points out that EA is often criticized for a lack of innovation despite coming out with some very innovative titles.
EA is often criticized by gamers and the enthusiast press for not being innovative, that your company only puts out sequels, licensed products and annual sports games. But you're also making games like Spore and Army of Two; there are the Steven Spielberg games which have yet to be shown; and a number of your executives have been talking about the importance of new IP. Why do you think EA doesn't get credit for its innovations?Because we don't have journalists like you writing articles about us. [Laughs.] Look, I think you're absolutely right. Last year, about 40 percent of our business was wholly owned intellectual property, and our goal is to move that up to 50 percent or better. We've got some great things in the pipeline. You mentioned Spore, there's Army of Two. We're resurrecting the Command & Conquer franchise.
What else have we announced that I'm allowed to talk about? Skate is a really cool-looking game. That should give Tony Hawk a run for his money. Tony's getting old.
I like how Probst mentions Command & Conquer as an example of innovation. Hello... that's an example of EA milking an IP, not being creative.
Larry Probst Interview, Part III [Newsweek]
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment