Scott Steinberg: EA's Mud-Slinging is a 'Smart Move'

August 23, 2011 -

EA's trash-talking to Activision about its Call of Duty franchise may be frowned upon in some circles, but Scott Steinberg of TechSavvy Global sees it as a clever ploy on the company's part to draw attention to its Battlefield series.

"It reflects just how seriously Electronic Arts and Activision take the coming clash of the titans - and how much each side has invested in the conflict's outcome," Steinberg tells Industry Gamers. "Modern Warfare 3 enjoys tremendous brand recognition and a massive fan following, giving it a marked advantage over Battlefield 3 at the cash register… but Battlefield 3 may very well be the more ambitious, polished and critically-acclaimed of the two titles. Moreover, each side plans to spend well into the eight or nine figures promoting the titles, reinforcing just how high the stakes are they're playing for."

Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter noted that EA may look bad, but the sassy talk is certainly garnering some interesting publicity. Marketers will tell you there's no such thing as bad publicity..

"Smart move, AND petty and unprofessional," Pachter noted, adding that Activision isn't an innocent bystander in the war of words. "That's the nature of competition. Bobby was loudly trashing BF3 at E3 (not ready on consoles, 30 frames/sec), so it's arguable that ATVI 'started it' and it's easier to take the high road when you're in first place, so they are doing so now."

Steinberg says that mud-slinging in the industry is not a new phenomenon (I can remember members of Ion Storm and id Software going at it in .plan files in the late 90's - ED.). "From a broader perspective, tasteful or no, the mudslinging means little from the perspective of semantics - subtelty's never been an industry strong suit, as gaming rivals have been hurling insults since the days of 'Genesis does what Nintendon't.' But what such smack-talk does do is galvanize attention around the coming showdown: A win-win for both sides from the perspective of pure publicity."

"Whether or not that's by design, or simply a natural outpouring of the enthusiasm and emotional investment each publisher has invested in the projects is largely irrelevant," he added. "Regardless of your appetite for name-calling, there's no denying the clear upsides gained via such scuffles, as these heated exchanges help keep both games in the headlines, and top of mind."

Source: Industry Gamers

 


Comments

Re: Scott Steinberg: EA's Mud-Slinging is a 'Smart Move'

It just depends on your preference. Battlefield is more about the environment and is slower-paced. Modern Warfare is faster-paced and is more about the combat.

Re: Scott Steinberg: EA's Mud-Slinging is a 'Smart Move'

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I respect that but I'm not entirely sure that a game session where 64 people are in combat with 64 different people (something that can't be done in Modern Warfare) could be considered "slower-paced" by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved IW's Modern Warfare and play it still but this time around I fear DICE/EA's product will trump the product from IW/Activision. Without West and Zampella, IW/Activision's product is starting at a deficiency.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightIn case anyone is interested, there is a clause written into Section 10 of Windows 10's EULA that provides for a Class Action Waiver, and restricts the user to Binding Arbitration.07/29/2015 - 11:15am
TechnogeekNo, that folder is what gets used for the upgrade process. I already had the upgrade go through on my notebook.07/29/2015 - 10:35am
Andrew EisenMatt - And AGAIN, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published? How is it not accountable to its readership (which, AGAIN, is primarily game industry folk, not gamers)?07/29/2015 - 10:10am
james_fudgeThat's the clean install, for anyone asking07/29/2015 - 9:23am
TechnogeekAlso, it's the upgrade that's available for installation now. You might need to forcibly initiate the Windows Update process before it'll start downloading, though. (If there's a C:\$Windows.~BT folder on your computer, then you're in luck.)07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekAdmittedly there's more room to push for an advertiser boycott when you get into opinion content versus pure news, but keep in mind that reviews are opinion content as well.07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekMatts: There's a difference between "this person regularly says extremely terrible stuff" and "I don't like the phrasing used in this one specific editorial".07/29/2015 - 8:45am
MattsworknameWait, is that for the upgrade or the clean install only? cause I was gonna do the upgrade07/29/2015 - 8:32am
james_fudgehttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows1007/29/2015 - 8:30am
PHX Corp@Wilson, I'm still waiting for My upgrade notice aswell07/29/2015 - 7:57am
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician