Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Why I bought an EA game...



So I bought an EA game again. Normally not a big deal. I wasn't exactly buying it because it was an EA game, or not buying games because they were an EA game. Rather its important because for a long while EA has been hated and synonymous with greedy and messed up AAA practices, and simultaneously also just a company I found myself not buying from for a long time. I've had my eye on a few games, but most of it comes out of curiosity or "buy it later" mentality. However many passed over my radar because they were Battlefront, TitanFall, or another Battlefield game. I'm done with generic military shooters, and I'm also not buying into this forced online crap for subpar efforts. Naturally they lost me when their most acclaimed offline accessible title was an open world RPG from an overrated company. The last games I can remember buying from them were Kingdoms of Amalur, Bulletstorm, and a late Crysis 2 (which I got used for $5... and gamestop even generously stuffed my game box full of passes with wishes that one of them worked, so suck it EA's old idea of console DRM). So its been a while. Again it wasn't an intention to avoid EA, just the way they decided to take their business. Just like how one minute I was liking quite a bit of Ubisoft games, and the next Crew was some online only racing game, and Rainbow 6 doesn't have bots so I'm waiting on a sale and went a year not touching their stuff despite them making my last GOTY. If they stop putting effort and quality that appeals to me, or they do bad practices, I stop having an interest in buying their stuff. So instead of using EA as an example of everything wrong, lets be fair and give them a good highlight when they got things right.

What was the game that changed my mind? One that actually did enough to get my attention through common-damn-sense marketing. You make a good product (or at least try to make it seem like one), and people will buy it. That good product was Garden Warfare 2. First to understand that though, you must understand the issue with Garden Warfare 1, as well as its greatness. I talked about it at great length here, noting how it looked like an amazing game full of fun and charm, and yet I was nervous about playing it. I ended up passing on it completely, and never bought it. EA gave it away for free on PS4 later that very same year it launched on the platform. That included free DLC from its xbox exclusive days. So I definitely set aside my dispassion for bare-bone online games, and gave it a try with a smile on my face since EA gave me a game I really wanted to have (but didn't find it worth it). It was awesome. Online only, but awesome. If only they fixed that, I would buy it again. Oh hi Garden Warfare 2.

Oh, yeah!

GW2 came up and I didn't even glance at it for a while. I loved the original, and EA made me with their free give-away, but I knew what was coming. They never had any regard for my kind of play, and would make yet another amazing game without the structure to back its high price and awesome mechanics up. oops, how did this word of bots get in there? As soon as I heard that from reviews, I immediately changed my entire perspective. I turned overnight from paying absolutely no attention to this game aside from a review glance, to digging up precise details and putting it on my wishlist against Primal, Dying Light, and various warrior games. More news came out, and more trustworthy thumbs up were had. All around me, even skeptical and bitter anti-EA people were praising this game to the high heavens. Loads of content, split-screen support across a broader range, bots, no season pass or immediate microtransactions (wait for it, it might change), actual effort put into a solo experience, and everything a traditional sequel should have in terms of basic additional content. Oh, and you introduced potentially hundreds if not thousands of players through a free given game that was already well loved by its fanbase by making it free and handing out what now looks like a demo of what later came. I followed through on my wishes, and on the 1st of march I made a decision to buy Garden Warfare 2 for $60. That is how you sell a product. That is how you give a game, your name, and things around it a good reputation. That is how you get my money, and thus anybody of a similar mindset or demographic as me. Its not hard science to figure out: Games are fun. Put effort into fun. If we want games, we will buy fun. Help us see that your game is fun. Does this, or this look more fun to you, or this? Yup, shockingly seeing the game simply advertise itself is more appealing than seeing money-begging over a product that isn't even out yet.

Of course, I suppose you're also wondering if its any good in the end? Well... yes. However the truth is, that doesn't actually matter a whole lot for the point of this article. The fact is they put away their surface greed, took down some barriers to entry, and made a game that looked good enough to buy based on its quality. The only problem left, and it is indeed one worth being upset about, is that its still online only in the sense of a connection. Its admittedly written on the box so I was warned, but still there's absolutely no reason for it. I don't want to hear about the account sync nonsense either, I'm about certain the game has a save data on your HDD, and that same data can hold your info and sync with the server. Its not an alien concept. You should be able to play in the hub, quests, and bots without worrying about whether or not the game is connected. To add insult to injury, there's an implied idea from the mailbox system that the game will stop working on 2017 via server support, which I really hope is more of a minimal time than an actual determined date, even EA doesn't shut off servers that fast. I'll also note it didn't fix anything regarding my request that an online focused game gives your proper server lists. That all is still just stupid. Still I was willing to risk that because its a fun sequel I can mostly play my way now, and it was a fantastic game sequel to another great game I enjoyed from EA's rare spark of generosity. In the end, this was a huge step in the right direction.



I don't just fuss at publishers for stupid decisions because they're "greedy", but its rather because they're just that: stupid business decisions. Games like battlefront, and Destiny are still going to sell as long as you market them hard enough, but there's legit grief behind vocal consumer's complaints. They aren't the only ones feeling that way, and seeding other gamer's thoughts with doubts on your games. They also speak very real concerns that in some way or another, others may end up feeling and letting go of the game, or simply passing on the next, or finding themselves just not wanting to play anymore. Others may never be able to even touch your game in the first place, including even Garden Warfare 2 because of your one glaring stupid unnecessary barrier. I can handle some "bad practices" and deal with them, but at some point it just becomes stupid for the consumer to buy something because your care is more on money than quality. It doesn't actually effect me that the tuxedo was locked as DLC in MGSV, even if that's just awful. However when you rush out a game like battlefront, giving me in fact less than even half of what its predecessors had, forcing it online, and begging for map pack money... why the hell would I buy that!? That's a terrible decision on every single note. When a company like 2K forces a convoluted DLC method on Evolve, begs for you to buy multiple season passes before you even know if its any good, and then has a history of releasing a more complete game later and I have to ask again: why would anyone buy that first copy? Heck the game did so poorly I'm not even buying its complete bundle like I originally planned. These things get very stupid, and go against the basic idea of advertising an entertaining video game to your audience.

Now on the other hand you heard nearly endless praise for Witcher 3, Splatoon, and GTAV even when they all are still guilty of something. Why is that? Because they didn't blatantly advertise that they were milking the consumer like everyone else has been doing. They sold well in their respective ways, got great PR, and provided services people were rushing to buy more of because of their efforts. ...and that's exactly what I'm thinking about doing with Garden Warfare 2. As long as the online connection piece doesn't end up biting me, I'm kind of feeling like I'd like some more maps, or maybe a new fighter, or if they even add in a new hub world that would be amazing. The core game has me invested, is fun, and was bought because I knew it would be fun. Now that I'm invested and happy, maybe I'd buy even more for such a fun game. That's how business should be. Its strange that this is such a distant concept for publishers. I'm not against them making money or selling DLC, but they aren't even trying to be smart about it. If you surprise attacked us with a season pass AFTER a game launched, that simple move would make all the difference and I wouldn't blame anybody for it. However we live in a market where they strangely think we'll buy a game up-front when you're essentially telling us that its not all there yet. Its strange how they've some how felt comfortable, and accepted this common idea that you can demand pre-orders for DLC that doesn't exist for a game that isn't yet in our hands. Its astounding they think we'll buy a game for doing less, and somehow reward that with hard earned cash when you've clearly shackled or drained it in some way. Go back to basic facts and marketing: You are selling us a product. Is that product good, or are you already telling us that we should be buying it in pieces? Are you selling us something that's fun, or just extra tickets with an expensive tag? Are you selling us a game, or a "service" that vaguely looks like one underneath a bunch of fees? This should all be easy to answer, yet publishers so often choose the wrong one. Finally, with Garden Warfare 2, EA selected the right answers and have convinced me to spend $60. So far I can't say I regret it. Of course, a big thanks to Popcaps for doing the actual fun stuff in developing the main game, but this is mostly surprising from the EA side of it, and there's no doubt they make some of these calls. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go practice some more in a bot match on this wonderfully fun game.

A happy little garden indeed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Too good for fun

Before I even start, I know in some capacity this article is either silly, or ironically getting worked up in semantics as a resp...