Electronic Arts has been riding high over the last couple of years, absorbing development studios left and right and signing exclusive deals with major league sports franchises such as the NFL. However, one analyst is predicting that there may be trouble ahead for the video game giant.

Pacific Crest Securities analyst Evan Wilson told investors this morning that "poor reviews and quality are beginning to tarnish the EA brand." Wilson pointed to a survey his company had made that utilized the aggregate game ratings available at GameRankings.com. The study indicated that EA's overall game quality is continuing to fall.

"Reviews of all of EA's annualized titles, its primary source of profit, have declined over the past two years," Wilson said. "Although market share has not declined dramatically to date, in years such as 2007, which promises to have tremendous competition, it seems likely if quality does not improve. EA's aggregate review has also declined significantly in the past two years."

The games that Wilson identified as having significant quality declines over the last few years were the Need for Speed franchise and NBA Live. He also pointed to recent titles that have received very poor reviews, such as Superman Returns, Batman Begins, Marvel Nemesis, NFL Head Coach, and Arena Football.

While poor reviews do not necessarily translate into poor game sales, Wilson is concerned that over time, the perception that EA titles are declining in quality could impact on the company's fortunes. The analyst is still positive about EA in general, however, calling them "the marquee developer and publisher of video games."

What has caused EA's fall from grace? Having worked at the company a few years previously, I can say that the fault is not due to the programmers, artists, or testers, who were for the most part hard-working and competent employees. In fact, as people like ea_spouse found out, they often worked harder than their counterparts in other companies. Like the captain of a ship, it is the people at the top who should shoulder the responsibility for the decline of game quality. The reason for this is that management has been prioritizing marketing at the expense of everything else.

Let me give you a concrete example of this. When I was working on testing the user interface elements for EA games, I was handed an enormous, five-inch bound binder with the title "Circular Energy." The book was incredibly professional, a near work of art: full of glossy color diagrams and long sections of text that waxed poetic about the power of "circular energy" and how it would transform the EA brand with its near-magical power. Essentially, it was a guide for making sure every aspect of the user interface, documentation, and packaging was effused with the same swirling visual style. It must have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce.

The sheer amount of effort and time put into such a trivial design element (EA abandoned the whole "circular energy" nonsense a couple of years later anyway) was an indication of how the entire company was driven by marketing. All important decisions, such as how long a game was given for development, were subject to approval by the marketing people. A manager once told me that their studies showed that most people only bought an EA sports game once every two years on average, so there was little point in putting extra effort into improving the games in the "off-years." Movie tie-in games are scheduled to come out with the release of the movie, rather than when development is finished and the game is ready.

An EA representative responded to Mitchell's report with the following statement: "The EA brand is strong with great games from franchises that continue to break sales records. Across the portfolio, EA always strives to drive innovation and quality into its titles. EA continues to invest in next-generation development and technology which will translate into high quality gaming throughout the next console cycle."

Clearly the company refuses to even admit the possibility of having a problem. Much like the US car manufacturers in the 70s and 80s, the corporate heads are convinced that the power of the brand will always trump any questions about quality. History tells us that this is not always the case. Brand identity can carry a company far, but brands are not invulnerable.

Of course, there are some who will claim that game ratings don't matter, and they may have a point. However, video game analysts are not necessarily ignored by the industry either. Ultimately, it is up to the consumers to decide whether or not quality matters in their entertainment.