Notch Dumps on EA "Indie Bundle" Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
Millions of people agreeing to something does not make that thing right. Millions of people buying something doesn't make the model under which that something is created sustainable. EA has been around for a very long time; long enough that some of us still remember when they more resembled a company like Mojang. Not everyone knows that history; not everyone who knows it has made an effort to follow the change in goals, tactics, and corporate atmosphere which has marked EA over the last decade or so. A great many people have no awareness whatsoever of the content of the EULAs they sign, or the questionable tactics EA has used in advertising games like Dante's Inferno or Dead Space 2. Not everyone recognizes EA has helped create an environment in which it's incredibly difficult for groups smaller than itself to get publicity or brick-and-mortar shelf space, and made a habit of acquiring many companies that used to make excellent games in their own right and crushed them into powder. Not everyone who buys EA's products has any awareness that things might have once been, or could be, better than they are now. Would they care? Perhaps, perhaps not. But the inability or unwillingness of people to correct EA's behavior doesn't make that behavior right. Suggesting that the market effectiveness of behavior is a good meter for how that behavior effects the medium, or its customers, or the long-term health of the industry? What Notch said was hyperbolic. What you've said, that's disingenuous. | |
EA doesn't only do publishing. Independent developers are making new and creative things, and (to generalize, like we do here on the internet) EA decides to buy the developers a studio and prevent them from creating new and innovative things. If the only thing EA did was invest in developers and take a percentage of the earnings (instead of everything that's left over after they've given the pre-determined amount), then I'd agree. I think the problem is the inherent irony in EA distributing or even advertising for something they claim to be "indie". Indie means that there is no publisher involved, and EA is (amongst other things) one of the biggest publishers out there. It also seems like they're trying to occupy the same name as the Humble Indie Bundle, which is something you'd expect EA to file a lawsuit over if the parties were reversed. | |
Not quite. Valve did a bundle called "the potato sack" as an Augmented Reality Game promo for Portal 2. The bundle consisted of a number of indie games that at the time were steam release only and you could purchase the pack for a decent price. There are differences though. Though Valve was a distributor they did not publish the games. Those were all done in house by the devs. As well, while the games all qualified as "indie" (aka no major publisher) the bundle was never called anything but. And I'm trying to find the EA label on the article, because it seems at least Andy has been bought out by them. | |
Meh, EA is just doing what record companies are finding themselves doing, what book publishers are finding themselves doing, trying to push themselves back into the middle between developer and consumer. Notch demonstrated how the games industry could work without the need for middlemen like EA. Same thing can and is happening with music, books, I'm sure there's plenty of less obvious examples. The internet is capable of being the great level playing field, just put your stuff up... if you're good, they will come. These big monolothic publishing companies, EA... EMI... Penguin... whatever, are finding themselves in a brave new world where their immense power and influence over these industries is waning rapidly. My band puts their stuff on itunes themselves (I'm aware of the irony, cheers). Minecraft is only one example. So right now, we are in a struggle as these megacorps fight to retain their dominance by attempting to control the new medium, but it (the web) does not need them anymore... So we see ACTAs and SOPAs suddenly spewing out of lawmakers who themselves are utterly ignorant of the nature of the web, so who do you think lobbys for this legislation? Look at Apple and all those publishing house a couple of weeks ago, trying to fight Amazon (although Amazon is simply just another "big corp" trying to establish dominance of the new medium). But they won't win, trust me. Can't fight the future, EA... cya. | |
Wait Notch is still relevant? | |
The Irony of EA calling things related to them "Indie" aside, i don't really see the problem in terms that indie is now a "genre" more than anything. "Indie" has become detached from its meaning and is now used by almost all big corporartions to push their lower prices/smaller scale games on comsumers. It's as much the fualt of the indie community and their steadfast insistance on their 'indie cred' even when what they were making was simply a loose collection of titles published at totally different levels all under one slightly pretencious banner. BUT what i do take issue with is EA kind of implying by calling it an "Indie Bundle" it is somehow related to the charity work of the Humble Indie Bundle. I think the use of "Indie Bundle" was a deliberate and cynical move to cash in on the headlines and good will of Humble. It's not an indie budle. Its a DOWNLOADABLE bundle. But then again many 'indie' games are not indie games so its literally just semantics. | |
I guess my biggest issue with this "news" and this thread which it's seemed to have spawned is that people keep remarking that "they don't know why anyone still listens to One-Hit-Wonder-Notch" or "what makes Notch the authority on the gaming industry?". I apologize in advance for the harshness of this, but Notch said something on fucking TWITTER, people. Notch wasn't talking to a journalist. He wasn't on a television program, radio program, or speaking with a newspaper. He made an offhand remark on his Twitter feed, and the entire culture is acting like he went on CNN and started proselytizing against EA. Those of you who don't like Notch or what he's done? Stop paying attention to him or "news articles" that are about him or anything he's said. He is a single man who made a run-away hit game that counted as an Indie release when it launched, and made umpteen millions of dollars. That does, in fact, give him at least a bit of credit as far as the industry is concerned, but that doesn't mean you actually have to listen to it or act as if he's being all high and mighty or that he thinks what he says matters. His follow-up tweets even said that. "Journalists" (and I use the term lightly): Twitter isn't a source for news. Stop treating it like it is. | |
It isn't that EA is promoting indie games, they published those games, making them as far from "indie" as you can get | |
But are they merely helping distribute them as part of a publishing deal? Or did they buy the devs, make them in house studios and are going to any murder creative endeavors with fist fulls of money and blandness? All this article is really saying is that Indie has become a ruined term used to instantly brand something as wonderful and condemn larger publishers regardless of quality. | |
Thank you so much, people show support for indie studios by buying their products, if EA chooses to help out those studios by putting their games in the spotlight again (games I forget about), how is that a bad thing? Notch here comes off as somebody saying: "They want to help others? How dare they!" | |
Harsh! Project $10, always on internet, constant sub-standard games delivered with extra bugs, whining about having to fix the bugs, hating used game sales so lower income (or kids you ignorant EA turds) can afford to buy the over-priced new games that will be discounted $20 in two months everywhere ... except on Origin. Origin! Copy Steam and do it wrong! Not nearly harsh enough. EA and Activision are two blights from the same pod. | |
Based on previous articles it looks like they are in house devs, not sure about the soul crushing part though. Either way EA calling it an indie sale is ludicrous | |
Of course it doesn't make that thing right, it makes it profitable, if you ask people whether they want to make large amounts of money, or do something creative and their job rests on this, chances are they'll pick the profitable outcome 95% of the time.
You might want to rewrite this statement into something more readable, but yes, going by how much money something makes is a good indicator for how much people support it, is it good for the industry in the long term? I don't know, I'd say it makes no difference unless you went into game making to make money, and not make a fun game for others to enjoy.
How was it disingenuous? His statement wasn't insincere or false by how he views it. | |
Quote for Truth. Notch is just hatin' | |
I think the messed up part is that indie developers having stuck to their own themes and community have mutated the term as something small in scale and full of experimental mechanics and creativity. Then when something that technically isn't indie but has a bunch of the same themes as above that the indie scene freely associates itself with comes out the indie devs attack it for not being indie in the traditional sense. Basically EA isn't releasing any indie games and only using indie as a marketing ploy but the fact that indie can be used as an endorsement all on its own is sort of distressing. | |
I rarely agree with Notch, but I think he's right on this one. EA is being a cunt and polluting the indie "tag", or whatever is left of it. EA calls the bundle "indie", because they want to make money off of it. That is the only intent and that's disgusting. It's not alright. Captcha tag: Stand and deliver. | |
I don't mean this as an attack Mr. Chalk, but you kind of invite it when you reply in such a defensive manner to your commentors. First off, EA does not make the products I want, they distribute them. If I could get my games without going through EA I would. Sadly I can't. Secondly, even with your expertly placed disclaimer, it still comes off as you blaming your readers for killing the gaming industry, Though I know you aren't. EA is one of the biggest driving forces in the industry, the public has missed their chance to have any say in how they run their business. | |
I don' see why exactly this matters, personally. Who really cares if the name isn't appropriate? No-one will see that bundle and buy it because they think they're supporting poor indie developers, they'll see that bundle and buy it because you get some great games on a serious discount. A rose by any other name would still be a great deal at 70 percent off. | |
I'm not angered by the bundle, that's all a-okay. They're good games. Calling it an indie bundle though? When clearly they have now been funded. Agreed, Notch is correct that's an inappopriate thing to call it. A 'Package' of smaller games? Sure lets call it that. But they are now straight up: Games, funded, paid for, in the public mind, Being SOLD by EA, they were once indie, they are now as a package, no longer. I don't think Notch was quite saying what you think he meant, I understand a fair bit of Swedish what with a large portion of my family being from there, and they do sometimes over-push a harsh tone and wording, when speaking English. EA has incorrectly 'spun' this product and is devaluing or at the very least misrepresenting the term 'indie'. | |
The same way nobody put a gun to Bioware's head over the ME3 ending. | |
Goddammit, Notch, either stop saying things that are right or stop being a pretentious douche! Seriously, I'm getting sick of hating your public persona but being forced to agree with your ideas because you're honestly not that far off. | |
I don't really see exactly what the issue is here. EA is getting a bundle of games out there that they believe in and that, yes, they feel can make them some money. I'm sure the developers of said games aren't sitting there complaining about being part of an EA indie bundle as opposed to some other indie bundle. They just want people to buy and play their games. Besides, I don't know that I really see all that many people buying something strictly because it is or isn't labelled as Indie. Not to mention the fact that in many cases, especially when other entertainment media is involved, the Indie designation has really just been a smoke screen for a long time anyway. | |
^tweet from Notch following the quote contained in the article I can't wait to see the Escapist publish the article: "Notch declares his tweets not worthy of being article subjects." Like seriously, I love Notch and follow his twitter and his game development, but seriously...whenever he so much as coughs the Escapist publishes an article. Funny that its Notch himself that called him out on it. | |
Independent developers don't produce the AAA titles that are popular with the majority of gamers. Say what you want, but I'd be willing to wager that most of you would rather play Skyrim than Frozen Synapse. Until that's NOT true, articles and quotes on this subject are just self-righteous drivel. | |
I'm with you on this, but the problem is that we don't have enough hipster cred to care about this issue. I'd take Notch more seriously if even 10% of the indie games I've played were worth more than five minutes of my time, and likewise if I hadn't gotten so much enjoyment out of games published through EA. I play what I like, not what makes me look cool, sorry. But I'll agree with Notch, his tweets aren't newsworthy. Good grief. | |
wait, so because steam puts the indie bundle on its shop, its no longer indie? so what is the difference between an indie game being sold on steam, and an indie game being on an indie bundle, made of other individual indie games, being sold on steam? other than 'it suits your argument'? indie game sold on steam = indie game. shank and deathspank were not indie games. never were considered so. these games were all funded projected controlled by EA. they didnt go thru creative independence, they didnt go thru personal funding. the things that make an indie game, were not there. | |
This reminds me of the time someone tried to sell me that Bladerunner was indie, and I laughed and laughed. | |
If EA paid the Indie developers to let them sell this little bundle, and the Indie developers are making money from each 'bundle' sold, can we really blame them? Sure, I guess the 'Indie' title loses credit, but everyone gets money in the end and no one's losing their creative property. I don't really see the problem here, Notch. I honestly think people would like having some kind of publicity like this. | |
Notch is kinda right, just not EA destroying gaming. EA is just trying to jump on the "indie" bandwagon. Because recently anything with indie, according to them, is supposed to be "hip," now that that particular branch of the industry is starting to take off and approach the subject matter from different places than the norm. They could've just bottled up the games in a set and call it something else, but some marketing dummy must've come up with it and now must be scratching his/her head at the response (or not at all? Maybe the bundle is selling like hotcakes). But what is ridiculous, at least to me, is when you say that "EA doesn't have a gun to anybody's heads" and literally clearing them of all responsibility on their end when they are perpetrating the continual endless stream of mass-produced, absolutely meaningless games and pushing them into the buying public through humongously funded mass-media marketing campaigns. Which, coincidently equates to saying that marketing has no effect on the population and that everyone is free and clear to choose whatever one wants with complete independence and removed from obstruction of an outside source which, according to market studies, is blatantly untrue. I can meet you halfway and agree that the buying public holds part of the blame, though. Cheers. | |
indie games have to be released by the developer of the game once it is picked up by a publisher or the developer becomes a publisher it is no longer indie minecraft is no longer indie because its developer has become a publisher the industry and consumers of games have a responsibility to the health of the industry and at the moment it is in a downward spiral of greed by the industry and acceptance by the consumers | |
So what are you suggesting, that we somehow regulate major corporations not just to prevent malfeasance but also to protect the buying public from its own stupidity? Are we going to do that with the movie studios that keep letting Michael Bay make films? Or the television networks that air 2 Broke Girls? Or anyone else who produces intellectually and cultural bankrupt shit that the public for some reason eats up like candy? EA is a major corporation. Its loyalty is to its shareholders. That may not be great for the art of games, but it's perfectly okay for the business of games. And again, I maintain that there's nothing inherent wrong with focusing on easy-to-digest, mass market entertainment. I think the game industry is in fantastic shape right now, probably the best it's been since 1997-2000. If this is what "methodical destruction" looks like, I'll be happy to take more. | |
Come on, this is just silly ranting about the good old days. Trust me, I know the score, I still have more than a few boxes with the classic "we're an association of electronic artists who share a common goal" kicking around and I detest the annual iterations of EA Sports games as much as anyone. But if I walked into a room filled with average dudes playing Madden or CoD and said, "Hey guys, put down those shitty corporate games, because I have in my hands the secret Magic Carpet sequel that Peter Molyneux's been working on for the past four years!" I'd get looked at like I had three heads. You can try to tell the masses that gaming "could be better." But if the masses tell you to fuck off because they're having fun, who's right? | |
Of course it is, and it's silly to suggest otherwise. Notch isn't just some anonymous indie dev anymore, and he's not just talking to a few friends online when he says things on Twitter. His opinion, for good or ill, carries weight, and people pay attention. It's up to him whether or not he wants to take that into consideration when he speaks, but it's ridiculous to suggest that what he says only "counts" under certain circumstances. | |
But that's kind of my point. EA has a product. You want the product. The cycle of life continues. That's not destroying the industry, that's just doing business. Maybe EA didn't create the game you want. Maybe the game you want was only created because the studio signed a deal with EA to get the funding it needed to finish it. And maybe, when that game is out the door, EA closes the studio and fires everyone. Or maybe it doesn't. Who knows? The relevant point is this: I just finished a brilliant, gloriously old-school dungeon crawl RPG. I have money down on a Wasteland sequel and a brilliant-looking PC-exclusive hardcore action-RPG. I'm playing brilliant fairy tale games from Finland, and a massive space opera epic that puts Star Wars to shame. Deus Ex is back, and Thief is coming. BLOPS2 preorders are through the roof. MMOs are free. LEISURE SUIT LARRY IS BACK! This is an absolutely wonderful time to be a gamer, of any stripe. If this is what the destruction of gaming looks like, then all I have to say to EA is, please continue. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
Whilst it is hyperbole to a ridiculous degree to say they are methodically destroying gaming, they are creating an atmosphere where creativity is stifled and they have destroyed several studios. It's ridiculous to blame the public, rather than the company. EA are entirely aware of every step and misstep they make, and their actions can be tracked back to a small group of people, the vast vast vast majority of the people who purchase these mainstream games are people who don't play anything other than CoD, Fifa and Medal of Honour, and don't pay attention to or care about the greater effect on gaming. I boycott EA games, and I know plenty of other people who do, but that's no good when lots of people don't know about the atmosphere created.