With the trend in video games moving toward online play, can Electronic Arts be effectively competitive in the future while refusing to design games with this capability for the Oxbow 360? Being the biggest selling online gaming console system on the market, is it wise to challenge Microsoft’s policy of no royalties or subscription fees paid to developers? Electronic Arts may need to look past this challenge in upcoming years or face the very real possibility Of losing massive market share.
As more and more gamers look to play their console games online, it may be wise to fold to Microsoft’s demands and cash in on the profit Of the additional units they would be able to sell to the large customer base that is now skipping over EAI games because of their inability to play online. This may also allow them to develop a better relationship with Microsoft, which may prove to be a valuable commodity if they do end up forcing one or two other major competitors out of the market as console producers have many times in the past.
On the same note, as Electronic Arts focused their efforts on the upcoming systems in the early part of the decade, should they now focus more on developing more strictly online play r downloaded games that will be just as player friendly as the disc and cartridge games they are producing? With a market turn already beginning in this direction, the company may consider putting more money into research and development of strictly online games, downloads, and add ions as opposed to cartridge games.
A company that already has established itself as a reliable online developer may have a significant competitive advantage when the transition is finally completely made. They should still focus on their market dominating sports line as it is a huge none maker, and assisting smaller studios with development and production as it does not cost them as much money as making their own, but it might be advantageous to take some of the money used to produce games in more saturated categories and shift it into online play research and development.
Electronic Arts may be a dominant developer in the united States and Europe, but not in Japan, Asia, and the Pacific Rim. This latter market is becoming more affluent and increasingly valuable to the electronics industry. The company may want to make a marketing and distribution shift with a much argue focus on these developing markets.
EAI already has teams focused on creating games attractive to different cultures, but may want to pump more money into marketing to get a bigger share in younger Asia/ Pacific market, and try to get a bit more of the much more mature Japanese market They may also consider direct distribution to save by cutting out the middle man once they have a better reputation in these regions. With a larger percentage of gamers being 18 to 44 years of age, maybe a hit more focus should be given to what they want, even it it means straying a bit trot the company’s overall commitment to main family friendly.
EAI may have an admirable policy regarding keeping its games less risqué than some other developers, but a slight shift may make their games more desirable to a more mature demographic. I would not suggest completely abandoning their moral guidelines but simply loosening them a bit. Many gamers in their late teens and twenties seem to gravitate toward games that may be a bit more bloody or Off-color. While they may be able to compete well in the sports market without this jump, it work well to compete in genres that are more geared toward adventure and fantasy.
