EA vs. Activision: the PR War

[Rii]

Anyone have any thoughts on the ongoing PR spat between the two re: BF3/MW3?

I have to say that I find EA's continued trash-talking offputting. Not merely in that I think it's undignified and unnecessary, but also because it's so obviously crafted to appeal to, well, the market they're aiming at. It's not a genuine expression of anything, merely part of the marketing plan. It's all well and good to criticise Activision for attempting to take the high ground here in light of their passive-agressive statements in the past, but nonetheless it is the high ground and to my eyes Activision comes out of this affair looking rather better than EA does.

[Nalano]

I wasn't aware EA or Activision had a positive public image.

[Rii]

I wasn't aware EA or Activision had a positive public image.

Well EA at least has a broad portfolio which results in their producing interesting titles on a semi-regular basis whereas I don't even know what Activision does anymore outside of WoW and Call of Duty.

[Nalano]

Well EA at least has a broad portfolio of bought-out developers which results in their producing sequels on an annual basis

I fixed your post for you.

[Lukasz]

Well EA at least has a broad portfolio which results in their producing interesting titles on a semi-regular basis whereas I don't even know what Activision does anymore outside of WoW and Call of Duty.

from wiki

2011
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (PS3, Xbox 360, PC)
Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, 3DS, PC)
X-Men: Destiny (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, DS)
Spider-Man: Edge of Time (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, 3DS, DS)
Goldeneye 007: Reloaded (PS3, Xbox 360)
Generator Rex: Agent of Providence (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, 3DS)
Cabela's Big Game Hunter 2012 (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii)

2012
Prototype 2 (PS3, Xbox 360, PC)

so this year the only big hitter is MW3 and maybe Golden Eye...

If MW3 flomps (doubtfull but if BC3 is good... very possible it will not be another MW2) i have no idea what activision will do. They can suck off Blizzard which will of course make money but one would have to ask why would they allow it... they should go independent.

[laneford]

Anyone have any thoughts on the ongoing PR spat between the two re: BF3/MW3?

Yes.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Nalano]

from wiki

2011
Console port
Console port
Console game
Console game
Console game
Console game
Console game

That's how I read that.

[Rii]

I fixed your post for you.

Of this generation you've got at least Mirror's Edge, Dead Space and Mass Effect as new, non-generic IPs from EA. Could be others, I dunno. For my part I'm also looking forward to return of SSX.

[Nalano]

Of this generation you've got at least Mirror's Edge, Dead Space and Mass Effect as new, non-generic IPs from EA. Could be others, I dunno. For my part I'm also looking forward to return of SSX.

Mass Effect was released in Nov 2007. BioWare was bought by EA in Oct 2007.

DICE was bought by EA in 2004, and aside from Mirror's Edge, has made basically nothing except sequels for the BF series which it originally developed in 2003.

Funny enough, all three of those games you mentioned were made for consoles first and were subsequently ported to the PC.

[Althea]

Of this generation you've got at least Mirror's Edge, Dead Space and Mass Effect as new, non-generic IPs from EA. Could be others, I dunno. For my part I'm also looking forward to return of SSX.

Mass Effect was published by Microsoft on the 360, and the port was released by EA. They had no hand in the development of the game.

DICE was bought by EA in 2004, and aside from Mirror's Edge, has made basically nothing except sequels for the BF series which it originally developed in 2003.

1942 was released in 2002, actually. And if you look into DICE's history, the purchase by EA wasn't completed until 2006. Plus there's some co-development going on, specifically with the later Need for Speed games and surprisingly Mass Effect 3. DICE's strength is the Battlefield series, why should EA change that?

EA are a 'better' publisher than Activision. If you look at their catalogue from the past few years, you'll see more unique and interesting (Not necessarily great) games than you would from Actisuck or Ubisuck.

[R-F]

You guys do realise they've probably made a deal to do this on purpose, right? It generates publicity for BOTH of the games, pushes people in each camp to extremes (they're probably not going to buy the competing game anyway, so you might as well make sure you have as many pre-orders as possible) and allows them both to show off and go "We're not like other companies".

[Drake Sigar]

If they’re smart, they’ll work together to nurture this insane us vs. them mentality and ride it all the way to the bank. Who else but gamers would claim “my monolithic corporation is better than yours!”

[Grizzly]

DICE's strength is the Battlefield series, why should EA change that?

And sound design. Don't forget their sound design.

[Rii]

You guys do realise they've probably made a deal to do this on purpose, right? It generates publicity for BOTH of the games, pushes people in each camp to extremes (they're probably not going to buy the competing game anyway, so you might as well make sure you have as many pre-orders as possible) and allows them both to show off and go "We're not like other companies".

Except that Activision's behaviour doesn't fit that narrative.

[R-F]

Except that Activision's behaviour doesn't fit that narrative.

They'll probably come into it later, or know that EA is doing all the work and they don't have to do anything.

[Revisor]

Have you ever noticed that fast food chains are drawn together and enjoy being near to each other? That's because this increases the number of customers. More chains in one area gives the customer choice (between fast food joints) and she is more likely to forget alternatives (home cooking, restaurants).

I'm with R-F in thinking that the same principle is at play here. An artificial dispute between EA and Activision draws our attention to those two shooters, away from other good games and genres, we create forum threads, we talk about it...

[Althea]

Except that Activision's behaviour doesn't fit that narrative.

But does it need to? They have that CoD event now, they have millions of sales, perhaps even the best selling non-Sims/MMO franchise in recent years.

CoD stands on its own. They don't need to release footage, they don't need to release screenshots every week. Actikissmyarse can just say "We're making a new Call of Duty. It's out on this date. Buy it for an inflated price." and you'll have millions lining up outside of shops everywhere just to get their greasy mitts on the game. If you don't believe me, just look at when they announced it. Roughly six months before release date. Most games get a year or two of buzz-building, don't they? CoD gets six months.

What are EA doing? Proving that BF3 is a looker, that it can be funny, that it is bigger than CoD, at least in player size. We PC gamers are generally immune to that as we have different requirements and 'tastes' when it comes to online shooters. CoD has been successful on PC, yes, but nothing like it has with consoles. Looking at Steam, Modern Warfare 2 currently has more players than Black Ops (25k vs 18k). I would wager it's the opposite on the 360/PS3 with BO having the most players. BC2 has something like 9k at the moment, but TF2 has a staggering 70k players online. That's more than the Call of Duty series combined.

[Rii]

But does it need to?

If the suggestion is that they're colluding with each other, yes.

EA's trash-talking is clearly a PR exercise. And maybe it's a good one and will succeed in attracting some of CoD's vast hordes of aggressive male teenagers. But for my part, speaking as someone who is uncommitted but inclined to preference EA over Activision and Battlefield over CoD, I find it all rather offputting. EA are making Activision look good here. And that takes some doing.

[Lukasz]

DICE's strength is the Battlefield series, why should EA change that?

Mirror's edge 2 is in production according to the wiki...

[Althea]

EA's trash-talking is clearly a PR exercise. And maybe it's a good one and will succeed in attracting some of CoD's vast hordes of aggressive male teenagers. But for my part, speaking as someone who is uncommitted but inclined to preference EA over Activision and Battlefield over CoD, I find it all rather offputting. EA are making Activision look good here. And that takes some doing.

As I said, Activision don't need to do anything. They've got millions of sales already guaranteed, perhaps more than BF3 will achieve. They benefit little from 'fighting' with EA.

Mirror's edge 2 is in production according to the wiki...

Which is completely irrelevant as it doesn't change DICE's stength being the Battlefield series. And ME2 is thought to be in development, and there have been signs or allusions to that, but nothing is confirmed, so until we get more details it can be thought of as a hope rather than a proven event.