EA devs need to understand Franchise Mode......

[Black Bruce Wayne]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

But you said the shareholders are the ones who make decisions?

Yes I believe they do. Shareholders have alot of power and say in most of the things we enjoy and consumer. They out up big money and want a return. For example if they see that MUT is a big money earner, which it is at more than $100 million I believe, then that's definitely something they want Madden to continue doing. People usually fail to acknowledge the power of these people in these situations. They have say in alot of things like management, direction of the company, etc.

I know it's common place to go to the Devs, but ultimately the Devs don't have the final say. If they did, I think these games would be alot better.

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Black Bruce Wayne

Yes I believe they do. Shareholders have alot of power and say in most of the things we enjoy and consumer. They out up big money and want a return. For example if they see that MUT is a big money earner, which it is at more than $100 million I believe, then that's definitely something they want Madden to continue doing. People usually fail to acknowledge the power of these people in these situations. They have say in alot of things like management, direction of the company, etc. I know it's common place to go to the Devs, but ultimately the Devs don't have the final say. If they did, I think these games would be alot better. Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk

I agree with you about the dev part but I don't think you really understand what a stakeholder is.

I'm a stakeholder for companies like Amazon, Pepsi, and Google.

I don't recall ever having any real say in what goes on with those companies.

[coach422001]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

I agree with you about the dev part but I don't think you really understand what a stakeholder is. I'm a stakeholder for companies like Amazon, Pepsi, and Google. I don't recall ever having any real say in what goes on with those companies.

Agreed. I'm a shareholder in many companies and at best I've been asked annually to vote on board of directors and yes/no on some of their voting items. These are rarely transformational items like dictating the direction of the company. Occasionally there are investors like Carl Icahn who are more activists who do try to push through agenda on a company's board as an influential stakeholder.

in terms of bean counters: I think of them as the ones who supply the information for risk benefit decisions as we're describing here. If we gain 20% more sales, we could fund this project. Last year with the introduction of X, we saw 40% increases in Latin America. It would be less costly to fix the problem and settle lawsuits than it would be to initiate a recall. From there management can determine a proper business plan.

Marketers need a product or service to market. If you are a marketer with a for sale sign, you may be a snake oil salesman. Marketers can report back on their successes and failures which also help inform decision making. Marketing people will execute the strategies (and contribute to those strategies given their experience) of management, positioning the product against the competition to distinguish it over the others. Sometimes even over themselves ('now 50% less pain*' ….*compared to our original formula)

All for-profit businesses are out to make money. The mom and pop grocery store down the street looks to increase profits where they can and within their vision. While we're all not getting the game we want (and exactly what is that: if this were a focus group, and I know later in the year another top 10 things we want in 2021 will appear, generally this community is a bit all over in terms of what the game 'needs' to be better at), there is an adage of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' in terms of how well this game generates the bottom line for a company.

Having said that: there really isn't an excuse for the number of bugs, crashes, outright errors in rules of football, outright errors in game strategy like letting the clock expire instead of tying the game, numbers of fumbles in the 'sim' setting, and I'm sure others will think of their favorite concerns. Quality, to me, was asleep at the wheel on this. However, and sadly, in a world of 'patches', such incompletely QC'd releases have been commonplace since the days of Sierra's frontpage sports 98 and that era, and it seems to have become the norm in this industry.

Sorry for the long post.

[Black Bruce Wayne]

Quote: Originally Posted by coach422001

Agreed. I'm a shareholder in many companies and at best I've been asked annually to vote on board of directors and yes/no on some of their voting items. These are rarely transformational items like dictating the direction of the company. Occasionally there are investors like Carl Icahn who are more activists who do try to push through agenda on a company's board as an influential stakeholder. in terms of bean counters: I think of them as the ones who supply the information for risk benefit decisions as we're describing here. If we gain 20% more sales, we could fund this project. Last year with the introduction of X, we saw 40% increases in Latin America. It would be less costly to fix the problem and settle lawsuits than it would be to initiate a recall. From there management can determine a proper business plan. Marketers need a product or service to market. If you are a marketer with a for sale sign, you may be a snake oil salesman. Marketers can report back on their successes and failures which also help inform decision making. Marketing people will execute the strategies (and contribute to those strategies given their experience) of management, positioning the product against the competition to distinguish it over the others. Sometimes even over themselves ('now 50% less pain*' ….*compared to our original formula) All for-profit businesses are out to make money. The mom and pop grocery store down the street looks to increase profits where they can and within their vision. While we're all not getting the game we want (and exactly what is that: if this were a focus group, and I know later in the year another top 10 things we want in 2021 will appear, generally this community is a bit all over in terms of what the game 'needs' to be better at), there is an adage of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' in terms of how well this game generates the bottom line for a company. Having said that: there really isn't an excuse for the number of bugs, crashes, outright errors in rules of football, outright errors in game strategy like letting the clock expire instead of tying the game, numbers of fumbles in the 'sim' setting, and I'm sure others will think of their favorite concerns. Quality, to me, was asleep at the wheel on this. However, and sadly, in a world of 'patches', such incompletely QC'd releases have been commonplace since the days of Sierra's frontpage sports 98 and that era, and it seems to have become the norm in this industry. Sorry for the long post.

This is why I wish the Devs had more power. I think Rex complained about higher ups getting in his way, which is probably one of the reasons why he left

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk

[Black Bruce Wayne]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

I agree with you about the dev part but I don't think you really understand what a stakeholder is. I'm a stakeholder for companies like Amazon, Pepsi, and Google. I don't recall ever having any real say in what goes on with those companies.

I'm talking more about whoever has the big money invested in this games/companies. There people who get to go to the meetings. There are too many hands in the pot

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk

[MelR2000]

EA-Madden reminds me of a first person shooter, real popular with the kids, some strategy, fast paced.
I was thinking or maybe wishing, But...it is obvious EA-Madden doesn't value franchise/ CFM. They don't invest any noticeable resources making it fresh, or at minimum fun. So, sell the franchise portion of Madden to another game designer. NEVER, never, ever, but, what could happen, it wouldn't be any real competition to EA...right?
I mean, EVERYBODY loves shooters not boring old strategy games. NOBODY, except us few Oper. Sports folks care for NFL football based on a career strategy, with boring old history, hall of fame stuff, and records...who needs any stupid records, we dont need no stinkin RECORDS! It would be such a nitch game, right?...come on EA executives with all your spreadsheets of knowledge, let someone else make a franchise based NFL game and you will find out who really buys your game. NFL fans or first person shooter kids. end of rant, just for fun.

[Grey_Osprey]

Seeing what the NHL team has done with that game the past couple of years has me curious as to what happened with the "sharing" of technology or features that they mentioned a couple years back?

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Operation Sports mobile app

[Ueauvan]

a stakeholder isnt necessarily a shareholder. the people who rely on the outcome of the business because they have invested their money or rely on the money from the outcome realised from their investment in the end the decision makers.
simply marketing want to sell a product that has everything that their customers want. if they dont they arent in marketing. they are in the business of satisfying the demands of the customer (to paraphrase Kotler). they never get what they want to sell/market in total. finance/engineering/design/production have restrictions/contrary objectives that restrict the ability or desire to give marketing what it wants to sell
i do not believe/trust madden devs and havent for years, its an easy out to blame others and marketing are the quickest targets. it isnt marketing its management/directors, regardless of dept. in essence if marketing dont want to give customers what they want to buy (according to devs) then they are denying their reason for their existence. marketing want to sell what will sell, not what will sell less. finance restrict what is sold because of profit margin and balance sheet/cash flow affect. thats one example why i dont trust what devs say. higher ups makes more sense and logic.