The Battlefield 3 FPS launched more than 12 months ago, and its through its popularity as one of the leading military shooters on the market that it still generates more than 1 terabyte of data a day.
Publisher Electronic Arts tracks more than 50 different telemetry events associated with multiplayer combat for each player in a game pulling in some truly staggering data.
For example, the data reveals that every 15 minutes, Battlefield 3 players throw 3.9 million grenades, destroy 648,000 vehicles, and create 24 million explosions.
EA has 275 million registered users, it captures 50TBs of data per day, and it monitors 2 billion monthly game sessions. You sir, are being watched.
Showing posts with label Battlefield 3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Battlefield 3. Show all posts
Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Friday, 15 February 2013
Never Dilute Your Brand
Video-game behemoth Electronic Arts finally woke up and smelt the coffee recently when it announced that it is to mothball its Medal of Honor franchise. On a recent investor call EA's COO Peter Moore confirmed that the Medal of Honor series will not be returning in the near future.
In the call Moore said, "We struggled with two challenges: the slowdown that impacted the entire sector and poor critical and commercial reception for Medal of Honor Warfighter.
"Medal of Honor was an obvious miss. The game was solid, but the focus on combat authenticity did not resonate with consumers.
"Critics were polarized and gave the game scores which were, frankly, lower than it deserved. This one is behind us now. We are taking Medal of Honor out of the rotation, and have a plan to bring year-over-year continuity to our shooter offerings."
One of the biggest challenges EA faced with rebooting MOH was that it already had one of the best shooters on the market in the form of its Battlefield franchise. Rebooting a modern Afghansitan themed MOH and following that up with its lacklustre MOH Warfighter sequel last year did nothing but cannibalise its own brand and alienate MOH and BF3 fans.
Rather than focus its entire energy in strengthening its BF brand it decided instead to take on Activision's Call of Duty franchise with two different products, the problem was both products were fighting for exactly the same consumer dollar.
Why anyone in their right mind at EA thought that offering two modern day military shooters to exactly the same buyer in the same year from the same publisher was a sound idea I have absolutely no idea.
Medal of Honor made its gaming return in 2011 after a three-year hiatus with an agressively cool marketing campaign ("Experts in the Application of Violence) which based its dark and moody brand message on a Tier 1 Special Forces character called "Cowboy" who just so happens to be a real Tier 1 operator. The game, developed by both Danger Close and DICE, received a lukewarm critical reception but fared reasonably well commercially. Last year’s MOH: Warfighter, fared far worse and sold just over 300,000 units in its first week in the US, significantly below analyst expectations. By contrast MOH sold 2 million copies in its first two weeks on the market.
"Critics were polarized and gave the game scores which were, frankly, lower than it deserved," EA COO Peter Moore told investors. "This one is behind us now. We are taking Medal of Honor out of the rotation and have a plan to bring year-over-year continuity to our shooter offerings."
The question remains why EA even attempted to cannabalize its own brand by diluting it against a far superior and better performing product, Battlefield’s stock has never been higher, with EA revealing that the Premium subscription service for Battlefield 3 has attracted 2.9m subscribers and generated sales of over $108m.
The fact is EA wasted a ton of money and time by diverting attention into a lesser performing brand when it could have created a significant war chest to formulate a killer strategy to catch up to Activision. As a brand things have never looked so positive for Battlefield 3, the game has sold 10 million copies worldwide, across all platforms. What’s even more important to know, the sales numbers only include until December 31, 2011.
Coca Cola only have one Cola, there are different versions of it sure, Diet, Vanilla,Cherry but it focuses on delivering a strong brand message on that one brand. Coca Cola, Santa drinks it, Polar Bears drink it and those young trendy 20 somethings frolicking in the park on a summers day drink it. The fact is there isn't another similar Cola product closely similar to Coca Cola that Coca Cola promote, and why should it?, its not necessary, it doesn't need to deliver another closely matching product to dilute its own brand to the same consumer which is exactly what EA did when it launched two closely matching genre titles together.
If you have a strong brand but an equally more powerful competitor in the same market space you have to focus all your energy into reinforcing what you have, not weakening its brand message by adding another "me too" entity into the same space when the market doesn't require it.
Friday, 13 January 2012
EA invokes first amendment for Battlefield 3
Electronic Arts has filed a preemptive lawsuit against aircraft manufacturer Textron, hoping to invoke First Amendment laws and justify the use of real-life helicopters in Battlefield 3.
Three helicopters appear in the game -- the AH-1Z Viper, UH-1Y, and V-22 Osprey -- none of which were licensed by Textron's subsidiary Bell. EA was previously involved in talks with Textron to reach a resolution over the use of the US helicopters, but those talks broke down. EA feels it shouldn't have to seek a license to use the likenesses of the vehicles, citing fair use.
Electronic Arts hopes to exploit last year's official ruling that videogames were protected by free speech laws. It has succeeded in the past, getting away with using college football players likenesses without permission. EA asserts that the appearance of the vehicles do not constitute an endorsement by the maker, and that the helicopters are given no greater prominence than any other in-game vehicle, appearing simply for realism's sake.
I'd hate to see the loss of the Viper, especially since I've just unlocked the guided missile perk which took me an absolute age to get but I think other than some subtle design changes in a patch I don't think there's much panic that the choppers will be yanked from the game. I remember when JVC had started to develop the first of their PS2 catalogue with a follow up to Wingover, a military flight sim. The game featured aircraft such as the Boeing 747 and from countless other manufacturers including Lockheed Martin, two years of development down the line the Japanese publisher stopped all development because it hadn't acquired the licenses to use the aircraft and feared a lawsuit. That was back in 1999.
What's interesting is that not all game developers and publishers acquire licenses for things likes weapons and vehicles and in most cases try to find a workaround by changing the design enough that legally a patent lawsuit couldn't touch.Other industries have been affected such as the Airsoft and paintball industry which has felt the lawcourts breathing down their necks especially in the US where patents and trademarks are agressively protected. As late as June 2009 H&K (Heckler & Koch, German weapon manufacturer famous for the SAS Favourite the MP5 took B&T Paintball Designs and Tippmann Sports two of several Airsoft and Paintball distributors to court for copyright infringment on weapon designs.Magpul, another manufacturer also filed a lawsuit against an Airsoft company using its Masada assault rifle design.
In the videogame industry larger more established dev teams benefit from licensing and legal departments to iron out any possible infringment but it remains one of those problematic areas which could probably do with a lot more guidance and accessible information to help entertainment companies and creative professionals stay within the guidelines. How closely EA works with the military isn't known but these are issues that Activision has managed to avoid primarily because its covered all the neccessary issues with regards to depicting real world designs in its Call of Duty franchise.
Until someone can actively represent developers and entertainment companies and guide them through the licensing and legal processes of using military designs this won't be the last time we hear this sort of news.
Three helicopters appear in the game -- the AH-1Z Viper, UH-1Y, and V-22 Osprey -- none of which were licensed by Textron's subsidiary Bell. EA was previously involved in talks with Textron to reach a resolution over the use of the US helicopters, but those talks broke down. EA feels it shouldn't have to seek a license to use the likenesses of the vehicles, citing fair use.
Electronic Arts hopes to exploit last year's official ruling that videogames were protected by free speech laws. It has succeeded in the past, getting away with using college football players likenesses without permission. EA asserts that the appearance of the vehicles do not constitute an endorsement by the maker, and that the helicopters are given no greater prominence than any other in-game vehicle, appearing simply for realism's sake.
I'd hate to see the loss of the Viper, especially since I've just unlocked the guided missile perk which took me an absolute age to get but I think other than some subtle design changes in a patch I don't think there's much panic that the choppers will be yanked from the game. I remember when JVC had started to develop the first of their PS2 catalogue with a follow up to Wingover, a military flight sim. The game featured aircraft such as the Boeing 747 and from countless other manufacturers including Lockheed Martin, two years of development down the line the Japanese publisher stopped all development because it hadn't acquired the licenses to use the aircraft and feared a lawsuit. That was back in 1999.
What's interesting is that not all game developers and publishers acquire licenses for things likes weapons and vehicles and in most cases try to find a workaround by changing the design enough that legally a patent lawsuit couldn't touch.Other industries have been affected such as the Airsoft and paintball industry which has felt the lawcourts breathing down their necks especially in the US where patents and trademarks are agressively protected. As late as June 2009 H&K (Heckler & Koch, German weapon manufacturer famous for the SAS Favourite the MP5 took B&T Paintball Designs and Tippmann Sports two of several Airsoft and Paintball distributors to court for copyright infringment on weapon designs.Magpul, another manufacturer also filed a lawsuit against an Airsoft company using its Masada assault rifle design.
In the videogame industry larger more established dev teams benefit from licensing and legal departments to iron out any possible infringment but it remains one of those problematic areas which could probably do with a lot more guidance and accessible information to help entertainment companies and creative professionals stay within the guidelines. How closely EA works with the military isn't known but these are issues that Activision has managed to avoid primarily because its covered all the neccessary issues with regards to depicting real world designs in its Call of Duty franchise.
Until someone can actively represent developers and entertainment companies and guide them through the licensing and legal processes of using military designs this won't be the last time we hear this sort of news.
Thursday, 29 September 2011
Get the kettle on there's a war on
Hardly what I'd call the best kept secret in the world but EA's latest and greatest episode into the Battlefield series on PS3 and Xbox 360 gets its beta launch today. Yes indeed, access all areas and it'll mean more late nights, eating raw coffee from a jar or drinking copious amounts of Red Bull just to stay active in the kill zone.
In a matter of weeks EA's two biggest titles will be duking it out for the Christmas sales once again and capturing two segments of the playing market, namely footie fans for the next Fifa and FPS fans keen to get their gun on before Actvisions MW3 hits in November. The War of words between EA and Activison shows no sign of slowdown, on the one hand the sniping about who has the better product has been well documented across the specialist press sites but now that the May 7 court date for ex Infinity Ward members West and Zampella has been set they'll be a lot more mud being traded.
EA should rest assured though, from what I've seen Battlefield 3 is a much more tactical led gameplay style to the traditional run and gun of Activision's FPS series, Black Ops has always been a faster more rapid fire game, besides, other than its single player content Modern Warfare 2 was no different but larger maps and a different objective layout makes BF3 require more brain matter as to how you're playing each of the levels.
A slower more tactical process of identifying enemy targets and weaknesses within their position on a map rather than visually radar tracking your next takedown with an Uzi is a welcome difference when two of the largest FPS titles go head to head over a relatively short release timing from each other.
The Battlefield series is hugely rewarding, it's been well over 2 years since battlefield 1943 launched and I'm still playing it, diversity, map size and vehicle use help differentiate the product, obviously EA's Medal of Honor reboot was a slight hiccup despite strong sales but I just Know that Battlefield 3 will put the franchise firmly back on track with some stellar review scores and strong sales.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)