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.  




 

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.

Theme Park Greed doesn't add up

Many many moons ago, probably more than I'd like to admit Electronic Arts released Theme Park on PC. A fantastic blue box that screamed fun just from the packaging alone. Sure enough it was a good game too allowing you to build and manage your very own theme park, it was micromanagement personified right down to the smallest of details, for example; adding more salt to the fast food made visitors more thirsty so you could push the price up on soft drinks to fleece the suckers waiting in line and increase revenue.
Graphically the game was cartoon cute, bright colours, some great detail and visually the title really popped once you'd got a pretty good park set up. At the time I think it retailed for around £24.99, I shifted an incredible amount at £19.99. Fast forward a good few years, again, probably more than I'd like to admit and EA have revived the title for iOS as a freemium title.

But unfortunately according to a couple of other blogs I've read that's where the fun stops. You see apparently EA has provided the title free to play with in-game monetization and many of the game's attractions are locked based on your level, leveling up is a fairly slow process achieved by tapping on existing attractions to earn a few experience points.You can also complete missions to earn extra experience points, this helps you to level up faster, but is nothing more than a long drawn out chore which ultimately gives you a set of rides which unless you build duplicates to just to fill things out your park is going to look very dull, unless of course you're willing to shell out Tickets to upgrade. As you progress you unlock other large areas in your theme park and each area can be themed according to your choice with a selection including Knights vs. Cowboys and Pirates. However, the process of filling each area in your park is ultimately a painfully slow one, primarily due to the frustrating level-locked items and the fact that the rest of the must have items cost Tickets, or premium currency, to purchase. For instance, a Skull-Train roller coaster costs the equivalent of more than $60 to purchase.

$60!!!???, hang on a minute, so let me get this straight, EA have decided in its wisdom to charge $60 for one 'cool' ride as an in-game purchase when I may as well click on over to Amazon and buy the full original PC version for less than $5 packed with all the rides and cool stuff for a much more rewarding experience. Its these kind of decisions by the suits that tarnish brands.
Everyone knows that games cost money to develop but have EA seriously sat down at the board room table and worked it out that to generate a break even they have to set the in-game pricing  for one item at 12 times the price of the original game? Games should be fun to play, they are after all a form of entertainment, they should also reward the player for the skill and time they invest. Monetization of products with in-app purchases should be transparent so that the end user knows what they are getting in to. Everyone loves free to play but players know when they are being taken for a ride, even a Theme Park one.

You're going to need a bigger boat

If you're going to catch the big fish you're going to need to be on equal terms, if you can't get a bigger boat stay the fuck out of the water.
If only Electronic Arts had heeded that advice when they launched the damp squib that was Need for Speed The Run. A game that failed to chart in the top ten despite the bucket loads of marketing push with TV and online media buy and as for that TV trailer - in all honesty did a Michael Bay directed  trailer really add value to consumers perceptions that the product would be good? The reviews haven't been kind either,critics have slated the title as too heavy on the story with not enough for gamers to get their teeth into.Official Xbox Magazine who scored it a big fat 5 out of 10 summed it up with the following summary -  "As it stands, we've rarely been so bored when travelling at 150 miles per hour, less inspired by a police chase or less interested in the plot of a videogame." Full review here.
I absolutely loved Hot Pursuit when it launched last year and the trailers, viral and social aspects of the marketing really propelled the title despite the fact it halved in retail price only 6 weeks after launch to devalue all that hard work somewhat.

But herein lies the problem at this time of year, EA glossed up and shoved NFSTR out to capitalize on the seasonal trade, problem is diluting a brand and trying to move what is essentiually car lovers porn into a totally new story driven direction (and one that only really had a lukewarm reception at E3 earlier in the year) was a warning sign for EA to hold the title back until Feb when retail would have been far more receptive to it. Instead it went up against the man eaters that was Skyrim, MW3, Battlefield 3 and FIFA, two of those products were from its own stable but yet all vying for market share from the same consumer. The investors would have pushed for the Christmas launch as essential, the producer probably would have liked more time for some much needed polish and no doubt the PR guys were scratching their heads trying to gain pagination in a market dominated by truly deserving games with tons more quality at even half the price.
EA need to realise that trying to combine a Mirrors Edge inspired chase story /design /bunch of bollocks to a pure driving experience that has been the mainstay of Need For Speed is only going to tarnish the brand not innovate it.

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.