EA falsely claims they developed Sims 3 on iPhone

Sure they could get sued for this:
http://venturebeat.com/2009/05/27/ea-pulls-out-the-stops-for-launch-of-sims-3-iphone-game/

The real truth:
http://www.tsumea.com/australasia/australia/news/040609/ironmonkey-studios-brings-sims-3-to-iphone

1. Apparently this Justin Taber "Producer" had sh*t all to do with the actual development of the iPhone SKU other than the occasional phone call.
2. "It’s a huge initiative with our best team inside EA Mobile" - Last time I checked Iron Monkey were an independent developer.

I really hate it when idiot publishers don't credit the developers that make the actual titles. Let's hope the Kharma Police come and run this guy down in a great big SWAT truck.

 

hmmm....some of that art looks familiar...but yeah, EA shenanigans, who'd ever have thought...it's not the first time this has happened now is it.

 

To suggest that EA is falsely claiming to have developed the game is taking it a bit far. I am sure the intention here was to put a good soundbite out, not exclude the developer from credit.

'EA had its team on this since 2007.' - doesn't really say anything about whether the team is owned by EA or not, because 'its team' could just as easily mean 'the team that it contracted' or even 'the production team here at the publisher'.

In the same way, stating 'Its a huge initiative for the best team inside EA mobile', does not imply he was speaking about the development team. I am sure this was huge initiative for the handling team at EA, just as it was for the developer.

Attacking him for not being part of the development team isn't relevant. He doesn't work on the development team and didn't play a role in the actual development...so what? He wasn't supposed to, it's neither here nor there. It's just as easy and just as irrelevant to say that the developer had nothing to do with the actual publishing of the game.

I concede it would have been nice for the producer to say 'all thanks to our friends at developer X', but who is to say he didn't do this. I doubt he had control over which of his comments were published and even if he did, such details were not really relevant to the message anyway. I can't really see that EA or even the producer has a hidden agenda here.

Does anyone know if the developer was not credited on the game? That's what's important.

For the record, I'm not the producer nor do I know him.

 

1. The team were not credited in the game. Please don't give me any nonsense about, "well the dev team shouldn't have allowed that clause in the contract then". This is EA we're talking about here.Credit should be given where credit's due.2. From what I've heard about the development of this game the Producer had minimal, if any, involvement. Letting someone believe that you did something that you did not do is tantamount to falsely saying that you did that thing yourself.3.

Are you serious!!? Do you have any idea what the actual role of the publishing Producer is? Whatever the generalised opinions of developers may be the publishing Producer is there to help and an absentee Producer is just as bad as a crappy Producer.I agree that it's highly unlikely there's any hidden agenda on the part of the EA Producer, I just get quite incensed when the people that have worked hard on a title, which then receives extremely positive reviews and top end scores, are not properly acknowledged.I realise I'm flogging a dead horse but if everyone just sits back and lets this status quo continue then nothing will ever change.

 

Your location is Melbourne, same as the developer. You are whining about credit issues and making what appears to be quite a personal attack on a producer that you can name.

Looks like you worked on this title then. I can't see you'd be bothered to even point the name of the producer if you had only 'heard of' his contribution. All of this 'I hear the producer is crap' stuff' - sorry I don't buy that as anything but a very personal attack...an independent party would have no motivation to say this.

I'm sorry if you (or your friends) were not credited on the game. This was wrong.

However, I really think the other issues you raise are a little paranoid and too personal. EA could really only get sued for this if they breached a clause along the lines of 'all PR must mention developer', which isn't common. Reading into the PR message as a claim to have developed the game is paranoid. To call out this producer for the reasons you are suggesting and to have expectations he might play the same role as on onsite producer is IMHO entirely unreasonable, especially given his likely location.

 

It is annoying though, but yeah, hardly the fault of the producer, more like EA taking the mick and the dev house munting about on the contract.

 

- I have no connection to the Dev team.
- Yes I'm in Melbourne. Cunningly spotted there Sherlock.
- This is not personally directed to EA. It is directed to the world in general. This particular instance clearly demonstrates my views.
- I said nothing about the publishing Producer needing to play the same role as the dev Producer. Only that the publishing Producer needs to do more than sit around with his or her thumb up his or her rectum.

 

EA Dont, (or very very rarely) credit the developer on a box.

And do you know why?

Because, normally, the public couldn't give a shit who made the game, and they think that the publisher did anyway. They wouldn't be buying an 'Iron Monkey' game, they will be buying an 'EA' game.

The brand loyalty is to the publisher. They do the advertising, support, and 'outward facing' stuff to the consumer. So that is who they know.

Occasionally, a team may be so big, or good, or have done enough PR for the public to know who they are. But this is generally a team who have been GREAT for years. And even then, they 'Might' get a box credit.

For Iron Monkey, as long as the industry types know who made the game should they want something as good doing on iPhone, and EA has paid on time, and makes sure the game hits targets, then they're happy.

What the producer said? They sound like good things about the project. 'Best Team inside EA' will sound better to the consumer than 'Developer you've never heard of' and inspire more confidence to buy the product.

So, even though he did nothing, the game looks good, looks like it was delivered on time, and on budget, and now he's helping the game sell with cheesy sound bites.

He's there to make sure the game dev runs smoothly, deals with any problems before they effect the team and game, and deliver on time and budget. And then sort out the marketing shit.

Haven't heard anything to say that didn't happen.

So yeah, get off his back.

 

Well if this is the case and you are not connected with the development team then how on earth are you in a position to judge what the producer at the publisher did?

 

[aside rant]
What you've just described is the failed business model of contractual developers being at the whim of a first-party publisher. After every game is done the studio is back to square one because it has no brand, no IP, no customer base. It's like doing a new startup every two years.

Besides I disagree. If you asked me to rank the world's game publisher by quality I'd be pretty vague and unsure because all publisher brands are rather diluted because they have stables of 10s or 100s of products that often display an extreme range of quality. There's no such thing in publishers as a brand that's the "Porsche" of games or the "Honda" of games, with clearly identifiable themes/demographics to relate the publisher to.

Rank the studios by quality and I'd probably come up with the Valves of the world because for studios a) the portfolio is small and focused b) generally consistent in quality and c) it's easier to relate to.

I'd say credits matter a lot for any studio that wants to grow into a functioniong stand-alone business instead of an "at arm's length" contractor.
[rant off]

 

You're in the industry, we're supposed to know who did what, and technically, how good it is, and more importantly, how well it sold. And if we don't, we have the means to find out.

It's fair from a failed business model. It's facts of life. Tomy might sell you your kids toys, but who made them? I might know a few bits in the PC I own, but I'm a geek, most people buy a 'DELL' etc and assume they make the parts. Customers don't need to know, they just want to make sure that the product that they buy is value for money.

Ask most punters who made the game they're playing. They're answers will generally be 'Publisher X' at best, but I wouldn't be suprised if somebody answer with 'PlayStation? Xbox? or Nintendo?' depending on the format. Most people think that you work for one of the big three when you say you make games.

It's kind of the same when it comes to movies, most of the time we'll know who the distribution company is (WB, Universal etc). If they make a movie and it's 'Average' then I wont think 'ah well, they where hanstrung my budget constraints etc' or 'Rookie studio, they'll learn' I'll probably think 'That was a bit poo' and remeber who was in it, and what the franchise was. Not who did the production, editing etc. For the most part, I couldn't tell you if a movie was independant and distributed, or a studio movie until I see it, or read up on it because I'm really really interested in it.

Other than that, we'll look for the franchises are owned by the distributor, or we'll look for thier stable of actors and pick something on what we like. If one of those things are there and we like it enough, then we'll pay for it. If two are there, fantastic. If we get a superstar director as well then thats win! Occasionally, a studio will release a series of movies we like (View Askew, Pixar etc for example) then we'll look for thier next movie, aside from the franchise we found them through. But for the most part, I'm going to see a franchise.

But I know I had no idea who Shia Laboof was before I went to see Indy and Transformers. I didn't know a lot of the Lord of the Rings cast. And who was Daniel Radcliffe before Potter?

How many people noticed when the F1 games stopped being made by Bizarre Creations? Compared to how many noticed when it was now being sold be EA rather than just Sony?

SI did a great job telling the main fans that Championship Manager wasn't being made by them anymore, and they where now making Football Manager for Sega. And I bet there are still a lot of fans who haven't reaslised.

Will people notice if SCE put Heavenly Sword out to a different team, or will they just buy HS2? That Destruction Derby has bounced around between dev teams for ages?
That even 'Big Team X' working on your favourite game may well have outsourced a format or two out to smaller teams?

It is not the publishers job to sell the developer, or thier abilities. That this the job of the dev team themselves. And there are enough ways and means know to announce to the world what you're working on, and garner enough reputation to eventually get a logo on a box.

No credits at all, and not allowed to tell people publicly what you're working on? I agree, that's bang out of order, but considering any promotion a dev does will have to go through the publisher for approval, and it's pretty much free advertising for the franchise, then I don't see why anybody would want to sign that in a contract.

 

Also, a mobile phone port of the Sims (which has been done a bunch of times by various developers inside and outside of EA) is hardly good grounds to cry 'rip off'. This is the very definition of 'do it the same way the other guys did it and get it out in time for a simultaneous ship'.

If anyone at Iron Monkey is implying they feel like they should be credited with evolving or develkoping the Sims, then they're crazy.

 

Bump old threads much?

 

"We see farther"; a company (like Activision) set up to promote the actual crediting of the Electronic Artists who created the game, complete with pictures

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/3860428163/sizes/l/in/set-72157604317583021/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/3872619822/sizes/l/in/set-72157606003277513/

 

People mostly notice the distribution company (Warners/universal/etc) when talking about movies? Really? I'd say most people notice the actors, and anybody with half a clue is also aware of the director. Everybody knows if a movie is by Spielberg or Ridley Scott or Christopher Nolan or M. Night Shymalan or whatever... I'm not sure I could correctly identify which respective companies all of those people are associated with.

But yeah, in this industry it's the publisher who mostly gets top billing, which suits the publisher just fine. Mind you, I suppose that's part and parcel of being a work-for-hire studio. Those studios that do highly distinctive work are more generally known (such as Rockstar, id, Team Ico, Double Fine etc).

 

this is not uncommon actually.
It happens quite a bit with small unknown studios, or studios that previously have fucked up to remain anonymous in order to protect the IP. is it fair? well. If the studio agreed then it simply is!

 

Bump old threads much?

heh, some folks apparently never check post dates.
2009. Suddenly.... 2011!


Rank the studios by quality and I'd probably come up with the Valves of the world because for studios a) the portfolio is small and focused b) generally consistent in quality and c) it's easier to relate to.

That one still kills me, even two years later; like Valve isn't a publisher.