I can't understand why people keep trying to play the space stage. I spent two days in it just because there were some positive reviews about it, as well as positive comments. And let's face it, the rest of Spore is pretty shallow and quick. Obviously those positive reviewers have absolutely no clue what they were talking about and just assumed that the scope and depth of Spore is mainly in the Space age.

That is probably true. But it is also an awful game. Creations and editors have little point in the space game, as graphics are just icons to click. Just representations. The other part is that it's the most painfully tedious, boring, pointless and outright annoying 4X game ever. Do you know what a 4X game is? It's a genre, and there are some brilliant games available in that genre. Spore space age is the absolutely worst ever. By a HUGE margin.

4X games are natuarals for a PC and the computer mouse, keyboard, lists, menues -interface. And I believe that is Spore's main problem, what has destroyed Spore from the game it could have been: The consolish interface has been allowed to dictate the design of gameplay and game content. Maybe we are even supposed to 'enjoy' the interface, as gameplay element? Going up/down and moving space ship between suns and planets is maybe supposed to be fun? As instead of just conveniently move mouse pointer over menus, or conveniently read information from neat tables? Who is it supposed to be fun for? Nintendo Wii players?
Looking below the awfully bothersome, inconvenient and tedious interface we do find an absolutely horribly bad game. My huge impression is that it hasn't been game tested much. Maybe the awful interface stopped them from being able to play test it effectively? Yep, that sounds very credible to me.

Only in EA does incompetent marketing suits have the clout to push a so flawed game out through the doors. Only in EA does incompetent marketing suits have the clout to so completely ruin a game with all their marketing schemes and business ideas. Marketing saw a Pokemon, super Sims, business opportunity for Nintendo Wii in Spore. And forced their ideas onto Spore. "We want sales, not good reviews". - That is my take on the whole disappointing situation.

Well, as things stand now it's not going to be a great business for EA. I can promise you that. It needs action taken immediately to save the Spore franchise! And that action has to be focused on game development. You still need marketing to reach out, of course, but if you don't save the gameplay you're done for, whatever ads you put up everywhere.

My advice:
1: Forget all about console versions for now, forget all about console interface for now. Let the developer have full reigns to make a slick, powerful PC interface for full freedom of gameplay content.
2: Concentrate first on the strong points of Spore. And that is NOT the space stage. Most development may have gone into the space stage and it is maybe the big game in Spore, but it's a screwup.
The strength of Spore is the creations, sharing, and in particular the creatures. All that have little purpose or presence in space stage.
I find myself playing the Cell stage and Creature stage over and over again. They're shallow and simple, and I guess I will soon tire. But the entire 'create your creature' concept works in the creature stage. Take hold of that. Expand that into a real game. Build the Spore franchise on that.

I have this to say to EA. Your street reputation is absolutely awful. Since many years. And it gets so much worse by the minute. The DRM scandal is bad. The disappointment in Spore and totally crippled, cut down and underwhelming game it has turned out to be, is also very bad.
I had hopes that EA might change their ways. There's been much noise about that in resent years. But nope! That seem to have just been the same we always get from EA: Just marketing!

It is certainly true that marketing is more important than quality in terms of sales figures for a game. I know that EA has really taken that to their heart and made it their religion and company culture. But here's telling you:

-Your popular reputation stinks and it is falling like a landslide. And there will come a day when you absolutely cannot sell a game for your life, no matter what your marketing budget! Because all people will know is that it's from EA! And EA will be for everyone the stamp of rubbish!
-It is not enough that you let devoured developers retain their organization, you must also stop your marketing people from interfering with game design and development!
There is much work to be done on EA organization and company culture, so get moving. Don't just make pretty speeches.

vermil wrote:
-Your popular reputation stinks and it is falling like a landslide. And there will come a day when you absolutely cannot sell a game for your life, no matter what your marketing budget! Because all people will know is that it's from EA! And EA will be for everyone the stamp of rubbish!

It already is, it'll never affect their sales to a noticeable degree because they're approaching a monopoly.

I'll use an analogy from my girlfriend here for comparison:
You don't see sales by, say, tampon companies going down, even though silicone cups are a better, cheaper, cleaner, healthier alternative. Because few people are aware of them, because the monopolies on the industry saturate the market, and while some people don't like them they're not aware of the choice.

It's just like Windows. Few people like MS, but just about everyone uses their operating system if they want to run most games.

I think you're too cynical. I also think your analogies might not be quite suitable.

Microsoft produces a worldwide standard with a very huge base. I think they're (ultimately) vulnurable, but it's a lot different from EA who only produce consumer goods that, frankly, anybody can do. EA doesn't have monopoly and will never have it either.

Also, people don't dislike Microsoft they way you maybe think they do. You maybe do so, and maybe your friends too. But people in general don't. I hear rumours about unethical business practices, and (sigh) they might be true, and I'll never understand why they did a 32-bit version of Vista (sigh again), but MS and their products have been very good to me. I like Microsoft. They have done something no other, repeat no other, OS or tool supplier have ever done: They have never let me down! They have never abandoned me! Never! I'm a very happy customer to MS. I have no problems with them at all.
My point is not to discuss MS here, but rather bring out the fact that MS have a lot of satisfied customers. You and your friends may not respect those customers much, but they're legion. And I'm one of them.

EA isn't quite yet the stamp for rubbish. It's beginning to be though. But people are still prepared to buy EA games. I bought Spore and I suppose you did too. My guess is that things that have held EA's position in recent years are their EA sport monopolies, and their success in connecting to DICE, Bioware (purchased) and deals with Valve, Crytek, ID soft. They have been able to pull those things off by offering a lot of promises and assurances of mending their ways, in addition to very large sums of money. My feel is that people had started to not want to have anything to do with EA.

EA is a wheel of money going round. If the circle is broken they die. They generate income by spending on marketing. They buy into having something to offer to the market by always buying new quality, buzz and star franchises at the same pace as they destroy their old. But what if people don't want to have anything to do with EA? At the end of the day people don't like to see their life work go down the drain, no matter how much money they receive. And also, EA can't offer unlimited amounts. I don't know, but I suspect EA has to pay much more for their deals than their competitors.

And marketing? That was my point really. Marketing is not worth dirt if you have a dead brand name. And in this case, marketing can't change the perception of a brand name either. And unlike MS, EA really does have unsatisfied customers, legions. And unlike MS analogy, those customers don't need EA.

vermil wrote: you must also stop your marketing people from interfering with game design and development!

I never would have thought I would have seen so many incredible game franchise DYNASTIES killed so quickly by marketing department decisions.

To go from "game of the year!" "best selling game of all time!" to DEAD in one year is an absurd but it has happened over and over now and some companies have come right out and admitted it was the marketing department that demanded the changes that killed a franchise.

Sorry to be negative but what was initially so wrong with the simple concept of establishing a franchise and then slowly continue to upgrade the game over time with better graphics and new features.

Look at MADDEN. It has really only ever upgraded the graphics and a bit of the gameplay since the mid-90's and NOW Madden is so beefy they can add SIM gameplay to the games now.

Look at how many sports games now add SIM gameplay to their games.

So what happened to SIM EARTH, SIM TOWER, SIM FARM, SIM ANT, SIM COPTER and now SIM CITY!
What happened to the real "STREETS OF SIM CITY"( NOT that RUSH HOUR FARCE!)!?

Why in the world did you not just continue to make newer versions each year!? We did not WANT anything more than to be able to play new versions of our FAVORITE games on new, more powerful computers each year.

Who in the world talked you into believing that you could not continue evolving the games that made you famous? Probably someone from marketing.

You were on the right track and everyone emulated YOUR trends all the way to the bank and now you can not even do it with your own games and have been sucked up by EA.

How about bringing back some real, honest to goodness SIM titles and KEEP making them.

Where was SIM CITY 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008!? Will there be one for 2009 or have you finally lost your mind completely and want to let TITLED MILL create SIM CITY titles!

Where was the real interoperability between SIM CITY and the SIMS you PROMISED since you first came up with the idea of the SIMS!? Your problem goes back as far as that initial decision to make them stand alone games.

vermil wrote:I think you're too cynical. I also think your analogies might not be quite suitable.

Microsoft produces a worldwide standard with a very huge base. I think they're (ultimately) vulnurable, but it's a lot different from EA who only produce consumer goods that, frankly, anybody can do. EA doesn't have monopoly and will never have it either.

Also, people don't dislike Microsoft they way you maybe think they do. You maybe do so, and maybe your friends too. But people in general don't. I hear rumours about unethical business practices, and (sigh) they might be true, and I'll never understand why they did a 32-bit version of Vista (sigh again), but MS and their products have been very good to me. I like Microsoft. They have done something no other, repeat no other, OS or tool supplier have ever done: They have never let me down! They have never abandoned me! Never! I'm a very happy customer to MS. I have no problems with them at all.
My point is not to discuss MS here, but rather bring out the fact that MS have a lot of satisfied customers. You and your friends may not respect those customers much, but they're legion. And I'm one of them.

EA isn't quite yet the stamp for rubbish. It's beginning to be though. But people are still prepared to buy EA games. I bought Spore and I suppose you did too. My guess is that things that have held EA's position in recent years are their EA sport monopolies, and their success in connecting to DICE, Bioware (purchased) and deals with Valve, Crytek, ID soft. They have been able to pull those things off by offering a lot of promises and assurances of mending their ways, in addition to very large sums of money. My feel is that people had started to not want to have anything to do with EA.

EA is a wheel of money going round. If the circle is broken they die. They generate income by spending on marketing. They buy into having something to offer to the market by always buying new quality, buzz and star franchises at the same pace as they destroy their old. But what if people don't want to have anything to do with EA? At the end of the day people don't like to see their life work go down the drain, no matter how much money they receive. And also, EA can't offer unlimited amounts. I don't know, but I suspect EA has to pay much more for their deals than their competitors.

And marketing? That was my point really. Marketing is not worth dirt if you have a dead brand name. And in this case, marketing can't change the perception of a brand name either. And unlike MS, EA really does have unsatisfied customers, legions. And unlike MS analogy, those customers don't need EA.

I have to agree.

Microsoft might suck at doing their stuff properly but they suck less than their competitors most of the time .

EA on the other hand is doing what the music industry was doing, thought they had all the power and then people just bypassed them.

Nothing that company does is too complicated for the even average game company to accomplish. They just have size on their side for the moment.