facebook rss twitter

EA to cut back on packaged games as online and mobile gain ground

by Scott Bicheno on 2 December 2009, 13:48

Tags: Electronic Arts (NASDAQ:EA)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qau53

Add to My Vault: x

Moving with the times

At a recent media summit, CEO of games publisher EA - John Riccitello - revealed that EA will be cutting back on the number of packaged - as opposed to downloaded or web-accessed - games, reports Reuters.

Currently EA churns out over fifty titles per year, but plans to cut that to 40, supposedly in order to be able to focus on quality. "Thirty wouldn't shock me at some point in the future," said Riccitello at the conference.

One factor in this decision is the rise in popularity of downloaded, web-based and mobile-device games. "It's our goal for that business to be as important as, and over time maybe more important than, our packaged goods business," said Ricitello. "We're the world's leader in packaged goods games, we make more of them than anybody. We're not suggesting that business is going away ...  there's this other thing that's growing."

Another consideration will be the trend prevailing across all media, of a polarisation towards blockbusters and niche products, with the rest suffering. Books, TV and film are all still doing relatively well with their biggest sellers and with ‘the long tail', i.e. specialist offerings. But the popularity of media that fall into neither of these caterories - the also-rans - is in decline.

Recent EA acquisitions, like that of Facebook game-maker Playfish last month, point to a diversifying of both the types of games EA will focus on, and their routes to market, as it confronts new digital realities. It stands to reason, therefore, that is would scale back on more traditional offerings.

 



HEXUS Forums :: 12 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Yay!.. They're finally getting it. Now they just need to work an economic channel of funds other than credit cards. Maybe steam should start making Xbox Live-like credit points card for the poor peons who neither want nor need credit cards.
Each to his own, I guess. Personally, like with music, I want physical product and am not interested in downloading games. But then, given what EA's stance is on DRM, I'm not likely to be buying their games in either form so I suppose it deoesn't matter to me one way or the other.
Saracen
Each to his own, I guess. Personally, like with music, I want physical product and am not interested in downloading games. But then, given what EA's stance is on DRM, I'm not likely to be buying their games in either form so I suppose it deoesn't matter to me one way or the other.
Agreed, but anything to reduce the amount of packaging and transport costs (and the accompanied environmental effects), plus lessen the need for aggressive disc-protection DRM is very much welcomed in my books.
Saracen
Each to his own, I guess. Personally, like with music, I want physical product and am not interested in downloading games. But then, given what EA's stance is on DRM, I'm not likely to be buying their games in either form so I suppose it deoesn't matter to me one way or the other.

EA's stance is to have a non-obstrusive disk check for disc based media, and authentication upon installation only for digital download.

Will you really only buy physical copies of game that don't even have a disc check?
kalniel
EA's stance is to have a non-obstrusive disk check for disc based media, and authentication upon installation only for digital download.

Will you really only buy physical copies of game that don't even have a disc check?
I don't want to turn this into another yet DRM debate, but no, that wasn't quite what I meant.

On the subject of DRM, I've said before I won't accept “overly-intrusive” DRM. So briefly, It all depends what we each regard as “overly-intrusive”, and what I regard as overly intrusive might well not be the same as you, or others.

I don't much like a disk check on a physical disk, but I'll live with it. After all, I've bought many games that have that, and it wouldn't stop me buying one now.

What I, personally, will not put up with is either having to have it authenticated by an online check every time I play it, or even that there has to be an internet connection. I'm not prepared to put up with only being able to play a game if a server operated by the games company says I can. What if the games company goes out of business, for example? I've bought a game I may then not be able to play. And yes, I know some of then say they'd release a de-DRM patch. But if the company had died, will they? I can't see it being a priority somehow. So I'd be risking buying a game that I then can't play at some point because the company has gone bust. Well, that ain't happening,because I won't buy games like that.

Nor will I buy games that require me to install a Steam (or anything else) client, that then does a verification with Steam. Why? Partly because I don't want “client” software (let alone SecuRom, etc) that is or even might be talking out onto the web on my PCs without a damn good reason and a game isn't a damn good reason for me. Also, partly because my games machines aren't on the net, They are on a standalone private network that doesn't have a net connection, and I'm not connecting that network to the internet just to satisfy a games company's DRM requirements.

See, I'm not an online gamer. I'm just not interested. Tried it years ago, and don't care to do so again. I either play standalone, or with a small group of friends, on an offline network. And I use those machines for some other things that I'm not willing to put on the net. Consider client confidentiality reasons for a start. A hacker can't hack or a virus can't infect what he/it can't connect to or infect because a connection doesn't exist.

I haven't even bothered to connect games consoles like Xbox 360 to the net.


Those games that I've checked recently have at the very least appeared to require more than a disk check for authentication. I've more or less given up even looking at PC games, from EA and everybody else, because it's too much of a problem working out what uses what method. All I've checked have referred to either requiring Steam, or “an internet connection”, without specifying what it's required for. It could be for online gaming, which doesn't interest me, or for patch downloads, which I'd do on other machines, or it could be for DRM. I'm not prepared to spend ages researching a game before buying it to work out precisely what it does or doesn't require for DRM. One of my complaints is that there's a considerable lack of transparency on game packaging about just what it does require for DRM. I want to wander into a shop, spot something that appeals to me, and be confident I can buy it, install it and play it without worrying about whether I can authenticate it or not, because I rather doubt a shop is going to want to take it back if it turns out to require “intrusive DRM” and I'm not risking £30-£40 to find out. A disc check on physical media allows that. It's a pain, but a small one. Authentication by EA (or whomever) serves, or Steam, or a net connection, isn't a mall pain, it's a whopper for me.

The upshot …. having bought hundreds of games, since the days of Tigers in the Snow on an Apple II in the late 70's, the only PC games I've bought recently are old titles on budget release, like one of the Myst series I missed when it came out. Hassles and/or lack of clarity over DRM prevented me buying some number of games over the last few years, not least of which was Halflife 2, or more likely, the Orange Box, but there's a lot on the list.

So I miss out on games I would have bought and played. Oh well. I'm not going to lose sleep over it …. any more than EA are going to cry over losing my custom, I'm sure. And if the state of overly-intrusive DRM, online authentication etc means my PC game-buying days are over for good ….. shame, but so be it.