EA Exec: We Used to be Able to 'Slide a Clunker Out There'
Game Budgets Have Maxed Out
An executive of EA Partners, David DeMartini, has owned up to the fact that "you occasionally used to be able to slide a clunker out there and still do well," but those times have changed because people have wised up.
"Consumers are so much more informed," says Mr DeMartini, "Before you occasionally used to be able to slide a clunker out there and still do well, but now people are so informed by the various outlets that I don’t think anybody makes an uninformed purchase any more."
He's also has decided that everybody is spending exactly the right amount on game development budgets. By everybody, we mean EA. By 'exactly the right amount' we mean, any more would be daft.
Mr DeMartini commented on the matter, explaining that "I think budgets for games have actually peaked and are starting to move in the reverse direction again."
"Move in the reverse direction" is translatable as "Spend less." True fact.
Do you think a large production budget guarantees the quality of a title? Has EA put out any 'clunkers' that you can remember? Show us your views in the comments below.
Source: Games Industry Biz
"Consumers are so much more informed," says Mr DeMartini, "Before you occasionally used to be able to slide a clunker out there and still do well, but now people are so informed by the various outlets that I don’t think anybody makes an uninformed purchase any more."
He's also has decided that everybody is spending exactly the right amount on game development budgets. By everybody, we mean EA. By 'exactly the right amount' we mean, any more would be daft.
Mr DeMartini commented on the matter, explaining that "I think budgets for games have actually peaked and are starting to move in the reverse direction again."
"Move in the reverse direction" is translatable as "Spend less." True fact.
Do you think a large production budget guarantees the quality of a title? Has EA put out any 'clunkers' that you can remember? Show us your views in the comments below.
Source: Games Industry Biz
Companies:
Electronic Arts
Read More Like This
Comments
realvictory 24 Aug 2010 12:28
1/1
There is a difference, I think. You can have a highly polished game, which is extremely boring or derivative.
Okay, I do know people who disagree - does the presentation of the game as a whole affect your experience of the game as a whole, or is it better to only add polish where necessary, and sacrifice some polish for other aspects, e.g. gameplay/technical aspects?
Also, I would like to see a place where games are rated on only quantitative factors (the ones I think money can buy), i.e. graphics quality, length, visual detail, cutscene quality/length, number of players, etc. This way you'd have a quantitative rating system, where people who don't care so much about a certain aspect can simply ignore that portion of the review.
Ultimately, I think you can spend hardly anything on development, and as long as you have good ideas (not just about within the game, but about the development process), you can make something worthwhile.
Okay, I do know people who disagree - does the presentation of the game as a whole affect your experience of the game as a whole, or is it better to only add polish where necessary, and sacrifice some polish for other aspects, e.g. gameplay/technical aspects?
Also, I would like to see a place where games are rated on only quantitative factors (the ones I think money can buy), i.e. graphics quality, length, visual detail, cutscene quality/length, number of players, etc. This way you'd have a quantitative rating system, where people who don't care so much about a certain aspect can simply ignore that portion of the review.
Ultimately, I think you can spend hardly anything on development, and as long as you have good ideas (not just about within the game, but about the development process), you can make something worthwhile.