Medal of Honor reviews "a black eye for EA management", cause share dip
But publisher and some analysts remain optimistic about longer-term recovery
EA's share price fell by 6 per cent last night, apparently following the release of and critical reception to rebooted shooter Medal of Honour.
The game currently holds a 74 (PS3) and 76 (360) per cent review average on Metacritic - likely to be considered disappointing for a high-profile modern combat title intended to compete with Call of Duty.
Failing to achieve 85-90 per cent is "a black eye for EA management given the amount of focus and hype they have placed on the game," reasoned Cowen and Company analysts Doug Cruetz and Adam Noily, in a post-release assement titled "Early Medal of Honour reviews look decidedly Tier 2."
"We believe the mixed reviews could impact the title's legs as it will likely be competitively disadvantaged once Activision releases Call of Duty: Black Ops. We continue to believe MoH can achieve roughly 4MM units in first year worldwide sales but believe that the likelihood of upside to that figure is now significantly diminished."
Cowen felt EA's planned revenue recovery over the next year was endangered as a result of Medal of Honor's predicted performance, and rated the publisher's stock neutral.
In a statement to the LA Times, EA attempted to shrug off the lower-end reviews, drawing attention to a number of higher-scoring ones.
"Critics' scores are highly subjective," it said. "The game had the highest pre-orders in the 11-year history of the Medal of Honor franchise; this is an essentially big achievement considering Medal of Honor has been dormant for several years.
"This is the first year in rebooting the franchise. Medal of Honor is part of a larger EA strategy to take share in the shooter category. This is a marathon not a sprint -– today's Medal of Honor launch represents a step forward in that race."
Other analysts felt the share price drop might be due to artificial levels of inflation in the game's much-hyped run up to release.
Said Eric Handler of MKM Partners to The Wall Street Journal, "This is a high-profile game where EA owns the [intellectual property], which can result in above-average margins as no license fee or royalty has to be paid to another entity."
"As such, I think it's a situation where some of the air is being let out of the balloon following a nice run in the shares and high expectations."
Lazard's Colin Sebastian agreed, noting that EA's stock risen some 15 per cent over the last six weeks, but noted that the mid-level reviews were "certainly bugging people."
EA's initial share price drop of $1.05 had recovered by $0.09 at the time of writing.
The fact that the single player campaign was so short might dampen the ratings somewhat, but I would hope that once players really start getting into the multiplayer side of things, they'll see the light.
Who plays single player campaigns of a mostly multiplayer FPS anyway? It's more of an added bonus than an expectation - in my opinion anyway.
But then again look at the Bioshock series so far, Bioshock 1 was amazingly well done, without MP as all the focus was on SP. Now with Bioshock 2, alot of people pretty much agree that it isn't nearly as good as the first game, and its got Laggy/buggy (but fun) multiplayer to boot.
Although I don't much like the idea of not having a SP Campaign, i suppose if your going to focus on creating a great Multiplayer game then yes i do see your point at the same time.
However, I'm not generally interested in games' multiplayer modes, so I look for a good campaign (co-op is always a bonus too), and if it has multiplayer then maybe I'll check it out.
Taking everything that has worked out of other games/previous iterations and then packing it into your game is something that pretty much happens in EVERY game. Wherever you go, you'll see the "canons" of the genre resonate within the game.
If you are going to release something even close to an AAA game, you need vast sales to compensate the effort. That means, esentially, giving people what they want and expect. Try making and FPS without, say, vehicle sequences. Or mounted MG sequences. Or sniper sequences. Major chances are you can kiss your profit margins (and Metascores) goodbye, because those things, borrowed or not, have become staples.
Multi-platform games should be punished? Me, I'd prefer that I could chose which platform to play purely on technical and polish reasons, not just because someone things only Console X should have that game.
Multi-studios games should be punished? So you'd rather have each studio stick to their formulas and idiosyncracy and do their stuff, instead of promoting exchange of ideas and methodologies? I find that VERY sad coming from a future games professional.
It looks to me you're just citing cliches appliable to most major titles, rather than offering a solid argumentation.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Mario Rodriguez Gonzalez on 13th October 2010 3:14pm
Well said!
Proof is still in the puddin'
Umar didn't make those comments, it was the post before from Thomas.
However, in general I agree with your points, although I am not sure about the solid argumentation (?) of sacrificing either a Single-player aspect to focus on Multi-player or Multi-player to focus on a Single-player.
While games do need the staples and expected brand and design pillars to succeed, they also need to innovate and add value to the game promise with each new offering.
Metacritic scores are not the be all and end all of a games measure, like it or not a high scoring game that has low sales will not go anyway to ensuring it's success. Critical acclaim while encouraging is no substitute for a positive ROI.
EA's main focus with MoH was quite clearly the multiplayer aspect so that they could compete with the Call of Duty titan, thats obvious by the amount of multiplayer assets released compared to single player assets, Same happend with Bad Company 2, that had a short campaign as that also focused mainly on Multiplayer, which for gamers who's main interest is SP isn't good value for money..
Shame as I was quite excited when I first heard from EA press that a new MoH was in the making as the previous Medal of Honor games were fantastic..
Maybe DICE should have done the multiplayer as a digital download similar to Battlefield 1943 and Danger Close develop the single player as a retail with more content to satisfy those who prefer campaigns, Include a redeem code or sell 2 versions for those that want MP ;-)
> runs off to submit patent for that idea <
:-)
Also, Why couldn't EA release MoH worldwide on the same day?? Makes a lot of gamers in PAL regions feel less important as customers while gamers in non PAL regions are enjoying the game and getting a head start in the leaderboards..
Edited 4 times. Last edit by Pete Thompson on 13th October 2010 3:32pm
Fixed. Thanks for the heads up, mate.
I totally agree with your points. Those staples, as I said in other article, are there because at some point someone decided to take a canon existing before and do something crazy with it (what? vehicle sequences on my FPS?), and it's vital to the protruded survival of genres that this stuff happens and gets new ideas in.
I wasn't critizising the idea behind it as much as the fact that it was delivered in the same way we've been hearing for a long time, making AAA titles the big satans that are killing originality and innovation and quickly condemning them before even playing them. Things aren't so black and white.
The mention about Metacritic was just trying to point a well-kown and acknowledge metric for review scores. Of course, every reviewer is a world and every player is another, sometimes wildly different and thriving on different stuff, but at least from my point of view and experience, expectations still have a big sway over game perception, and hence, scores.
If the model is just "plan for the ROI", as a form of simplistic recipe, rather than "plan for the fun AND THEN for the ROI" of a game product, the risk is to be "punished" by the people, who ultimately pay for it.
It's not the first time EA is asked for "quality". The last time I remember of, CEO Riccitiello had to promise more (quality) in EA franchises a couple of years ago. And this might simply be another request for "more" among reviewers. People might simply think: "You are EA, you're supposed - and expected - to deliver "the best fun", rather than "anything you can produce - anyhow - and profit from"".
And this is something I can easily agree with, given EA is one of the (if not THE) top publishers/developers in the whole world.
And this of course with all due respect to the many talented people that worked on the game.
That would be horrific, if in the future FPSs are simply multiplayers with single player campaigns tacked on as a bonus. As pathetic as it sounds, I (and I'm sure many others) appreciate the story, cutscenes and set pieces that introduce unpredictability and tension. They may be shallow, have several plotholes or whatever, but it's far more varied than the "learn map-follow best strategy-kill opponents" mechanism of multiplayer.
Also, MW2 (and several FPSs before and after) have covered what MoH multiplayer does, several times over.
It what way does this cause EA management to suffer?
Not every game can be a FIFA10 or FIFA11... and it isn't a really 'poor' score.... The fact is, its selling well, so I predict smiles for the board members as its is their IP, so no payments to anyone...
The problem EA may have, and its development partners, is finding something unique selling point on which to develop their FPSs and make people want to buy them. MoH, Battlefield, Crysis, BulletStorm.. etc., what are their unique selling points and how do they grab people for continued online use? There is no extra DLC/monthly fee in single player campaigns...
The problem with single player/story modes is that they have to be worth £30 if the person has no intention of playing multi-player but still wants to buy the game. Good SP development is expensive and doesn't generate monthly income.
If the buyer is buying it for multi-player, they may never play singleplayer unless they have an incentive to do so (upgrades, unlocks, information on how better to use multi-player maps etc)
I agree with Pete; "Maybe DICE should have done the multiplayer as a digital download similar to Battlefield 1943 and Danger Close develop the single player as a retail with more content to satisfy those who prefer campaigns, Include a redeem code or sell 2 versions for those that want MP ;-)"
I don't want every FPS to be purely online for the same reason as with MMORPGs.... I can't commit every evening or weekend to levelling up. However I may be able to play SP for 30mins to the next checkpoint...
Don't write off this game just yet. Wait until the sales figures come in. Oh and buy EA stock now, the price will go up once people find out that this game has actually done well.
"That would be horrific, if in the future FPSs are simply multiplayers with single player campaigns tacked on as a bonus." - Howard
I think you've misinterpreted what Lawrence was suggesting when he said the following:
"Who plays single player campaigns of a mostly multiplayer FPS anyway? It's more of an added bonus than an expectation - in my opinion anyway. " - Lawrence
On my reading, Lawrence was not suggesting multiplayer FPS games of the future will be multiplayer games with singleplayer components tacked on.
What Lawrence was suggesting is that for multiplayer FPS games - that is, FPS games focussed on multiplayer - single player campaigns are an added bonus.
I think Lawrence is right on this count - if there's a big multiplayer title I'm interested in, I won't be buying it for the singleplayer component the devs have added because they felt obliged.
Of course, this isn't to suggest that all FPS games should or will be focussed on multiplayer!
As for the game itself I cannot really comment too much on it, since I'm strung for cash I won't be buying the game but a rent is possible. Still a reason for the reviews might be because of the done and dead concept the game is itself, I hear the game's singleplayer is quite good (Albeit short) but the multiplayer (At least during the beta phase on steam) seemed far too average and I don't believe it brought anything new with it. (COD at least managed to bring in the perks system which was considered different at the time, add to that it was one of the first modern warfare combat games on the consoles after the flood of WW2 games we had to suffer on the xbox and PS2)
Hell looking at the game head on reminds you of COD:MW2 and you can plain as day see concepts of BFBC2 coming through from time to time which can bring to mind that it was a cheap modification of BFBC2 itself. Still as I said I haven't played the singleplayer so I'll reserve my full judgment until after I've played that.
Either way I'll leave it to the professionals to land the final blow. ;)
It's my belief that the controversy about playing as the Taliban is a factor (if sales are so poor it warrants a factor). The great irony is that you could play as insurgents in Battlefield 2 and nobody complained. I understand that EAs hand was forced by retail but doing things like removing playable Taliban may placate the mainstream press but it can also alienate the hardcore. The sad thing is the mass media folks who were so up in arms about the controversy probably won't be buying MOH anyway.
I for one would like to see more single-player FPS without multi-player included. Unfortunately, it now seems that the mass market demand some kind of online with every iteration of the genre. It would be interesting to see how a game with nothing but a strong narrative, like the original Bioshock, would perform in both sales and review scores.
On a side note, with the onset of superfast connections, are FPS LAN parties going the way of the dodo?
Gamers and critics with no time for appreciating subtleties will miss out on how the campaign flows continuously (it may be "short" to you expert gamers, but not every player wants to blow through a game in one sitting) and how tough the multiplayer can be if you run in thinking it's a MW2 kill-fest. As for the story, the "back at the base" sections are a nice jab at generals and others who want a war to go their way, while the main game shows the actuality (well, in terms of the reality the game presents) of how things often go to hell on the battlefield, best intentions of the armchair types at home aside.
Anyway, back to finish up the last sections of the campaign. I stopped about 3/4 of the way through (I think, based on how the story is going). For those on the fence, RENT IT at least. You may be surprised that it's not the "dog" some seem to think it is.
but hey,its there first try,they can always come back with a better one right?
Also the option of playing the missions in Tier1 mode after completing SP is cool.
Multiplayer section of the game is great and so is the lag management in game. I think we should appreciate the game for what it is and hope we get a longer SP mission next time.
As for the whole single player thing being an added bonus, the only time I ever play these games in multiplayer is if they have a co-op mode. So I hope the single player's decent.
You didn't say anything about the Mutli-engine. Because that's why the game was multi-studio. The DICE team doing the multi on frostbite. How do you think that is looking for us gamers? And in what time, 6 months? How can that work out? Doing the multiplayer of a AAA-title in 6-12 months? And you guy's wanna compete with the InfinityWard 4-year cycle CoDs? Joke?
P.S. All rewiever is too kindly for Moh i think. On my opinion game deserved 50-60 per cent.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Alexander Khristian on 14th October 2010 12:56pm
But then this is not my only reason - I'm sick and tired of FPS's in general - most games that I own are of this genre, so I'm not even really keen on Black Ops. I was keen on MOH just because I haven't played it in a long time. It appears that this bear should've stayed in hibernation a little bit longer.
For a company of EA's stability a noticable drop in share price could be just an aberrant stat and the stock will bounce back or a wider trend.
Equities go up and down, it's the nature of the beast, so I'd be more interested in the numbers for the last 6 months or year to see how the shares are trending.
If we want to look at negatives on EA...
MCV ran an article earlier in the year about how EA had declined under present management, EA's big step into MMORPGs with Mythic and WAR was less than a marked success, Battlefield Heroes being bugged at release, Mirrors Edge being interesting but not earth shattering, EA and ActiBlizz going toe to toe after the fall-out from Infinity Ward, capped by MoH spending the last year courting controversy to go head2head with CoD MW and Black Ops and by the looks of it coming 2nd.
But they are a solid brand and the EA Sports titles are pretty much a guaranteed winner each year giving EA a buffer to experiment and take the odd hit.
Lets see how christmas goes, come back in 6 months and lets look at the shares again.
I don`t think the reviews are so bad 2/3 are still good reviews with 1/3 of the reviews somewhere in the middle. Reviews don`t say much about a game as example Halo 3 has a meta score of 94 and Alpha Protocol with a 65 or Mirrors Edge a 79 I enjoyed a lot more. I think there are plenty of reviewers that will ignore or not make a big deal about faults or not so good parts in specific games while they would make a big deal out of the same issues in other games, probably out of fear what big site would really want to give GTA 4 a 80-85 and have to deal then with Take Two. Still going to ignore the reviews like I did for Alpha Protocol and many other games and pick the game up.
I, for one, will never try out Alpha Protocol because just watching a video of it makes me dislike the game already ( and I'm a HUGE fan of single-player games, especially the adventure types).
Kotick vs EA and ranting in public
Manhunt Review blogs getting messages from Dev Staff in their comments
etc etc.
It's all very geeky, very juvenile and honestly hurts an industry which struggles to be taken seriously by the mainstream. Fewer jokes, and more professionalism would do the industry a world of good.
they'd take a shooter set in modern day and take it back to the 70's in multiplayer only..
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Pete Thompson on 15th October 2010 7:33pm