E.A. is destroying the gaming business?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Strazdas:

Draech:

Oh not forced you say.

I am guessing you played portal 2 without it on PC. Or any of the other products that Valve developed. Mention a single one developed by Valve that you dont need steam to use. Ill wait.

But hey like I am saying. it says right there in the quote "keep complaining consistent". If you are not suing steam for the same reason you are not using origin, then you dont have a double standard.

Well i dont ahve a double standart, since im not using steam either.
I really dont see whats the big deal about valve products anyway ( i played HL, HL2 and Portal 2 at cousins house, didnt see them magical).

Also, Origin is not the same as steam really. Their EULA is messed up, their attempts to scan your computer (which failed only because we got a scandal), their inability to play games in offline mode, them baning you from ALL your purchased games for a post on forums they didnt like. theres more to it than just a DRM.

So let's ignore the ~70% and under reviews their past 4 games

70% reviews (which is good-to-great) puts companies out of business? sense where are thou?

2 things.

1: the Eula is of Steam is more or less the same as Origin. As well as netflix, GFWL ect.

Nothing here that isn't in the others.

Secondly Please point me to the the source that second quote is. I have no idea why you are bring it up. I am not even talking reviews.

Draech:

Secondly Please point me to the the source that second quote is. I have no idea why you are bring it up. I am not even talking reviews.

That wasnt your quote, i just copypasted for faster quoting without putting up a name.

Strazdas:
70% reviews (which is good-to-great) puts companies out of business? sense where are thou?

Thanks for missing the point and only paying attention to one aspect, when I made it clear it's not just one game, but a whole string of bad things.

Correction: Oops, make that less than 75% on average.

Games released since the VG/EA buyout:

Destroy All Humans 2: 76% metacritic, "The game sold over 340,000 copies and had a generated revenue of $13,000,000 in North America alone."

Merc 3: 72%, about 1m according to VGChartz

LOTR:Conquest: 55%, 0.8m

The Saboteur, 72%, 0.42m.

And then there's The Dark Knight video game, where it seems dev problems resulted in it missing the movie's launch, so there's bound to be penalties as part of the license agreement and tons of missed profit.

I can't comment on how up to date and accurate the sales numbers are though, but still, I'd imagine EA was expecting higher numbers. And like I said, put into perspective, if the incoming was lower than the outgoing funds, coupled with the original purchase, sometimes it's better to cut your losses and shut the studio down.

I'd say that I'm afraid of some of its business practices becoming more widespread. It's nothing that can't be fixed if they pull their heads out of their asses, or destroy themselves, whichever comes first. I still buy games because I like to support developers.

I've heard a lot of cries lately that EA is dragging us into another video game crash, but honestly... it's just one dopey studio. I don't really play their games, but if EA dies off, then it dies off. It's a shame about all the jobs, but we got a solid indie market and even some larger publishers that deserve some credits (2K anyone?). The only people who are harmed are those who are fans of the franchises they produce and since there is no real future for Spore, I don't count myself among those.

x EvilErmine x:
*snip*

Well, said. Unfortunately people don't look at it that way or just don't care. A good example is that of gold sellers in MMO's. The only reason there are gold sellers is because there are people who buy gold. If people would stop buying gold, the gold sellers would disappear also. So you can't really blame the gold sellers for trying. Instead blame the gold buyers.

Maeshone:
They don't owe their fans anything because they already provided something. They provided a product, the fans bought said product. That's the extent of the relationship. It really couldn't be simpler.

No, I disagree.

If a new studio would release their first game, they wouldn't have (m)any fans. Maybe by using the media the said studio could build up anticipation. Maybe one or more of the devs previously work on a well received game earning recognition. Then after the studio releases their first game can fans really be born.

A studio has to earn its fans. And after that respect their fans. Otherwise the studio is going to lose their fans.

It should be said that a fan is not the same thing as a consumer; a person who buys the game. There could be many people buying the game, but not everyone will become a fan.

Firstly Origin isn't broken.
It works fine.
Is it as shiny and user friendly as Steam? No, but it isn't 'broken'.

1. No. Gaming is too huge to say that ANY company has control over its future. EA sure has effect on things, but I don't think EA is doing damage to the industry as a whole.
Modern FPS and overall lack-luster games from ALL publishers are causing some damage, you can't blame EA for that.

2. Yes. I don't hate EA and I know that many of the developers are people who really want to do a good job.
Battlefield is only modern day FPS I can tolerate (I got sucked into Warfighter because I wanted to see other counties at play), Sim City looks amazing, Bioware games are still great (Dragon Age 2 was a step down, but not terrible and I care not for the QQ of the ME3 ending).
Dark Age of Camelot still deserves my sub, Firemonkey is doing amazing things on mobile, Mythic I think has a good future and I am very interested to see how this f2p C&C will work.

EA does some bad shit, I know this, I am not blind.
But I also see EA as being used as scapegoat to hide the choices of other developers people like.
EA does both good and bad things, they're not going to destroy games.

Un-realistic gamers might though.

ThriKreen:

Games released since the VG/EA buyout:

LOTR:Conquest: 55%, 0.8m

The Saboteur, 72%, 0.42m.

I don't think this detracts from your point much if at all, but to be fair those numbers were just the North America sales. Lord of the rings Conquest sold 1.34 million copies worldwide and Saboteur sold .88 million worldwide. Just a minor nitpick though, otherwise I quite agree with your point. =)

Activision lolwut?

On a serious note: The biggest problem here is that the large megacorporations don't know how to make games, let alone make them efficiently. You don't need a gizillion dollars to make a good game, you just need talent, a vision, and middleware if you're feeling fancy. Bioware was founded by three doctors and a hundred grand, and they kicked the CRPG genre into high gear with Baldur's Gate. Valve was founded by Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington, who both left Microsoft because they wanted to make games. Next thing you know, Half-Life is released, and you can still feel the effects of the game in FPSs released today.

To all major publishers:
1. Reduce production costs on your games
2. Diversify your portfolio
3. Hire the flood of college graduates who just got their degrees and give them lean budgets
4. Don't burn out your series through rapid releases
5. Respect the consumer
6. LOWER YOUR GODDAMN BUDGETS
7. Respect your IP's

Is Origin required? I haven't purchased an EA game since Crysis 2. Initially Origin was meh then the news got out that it was monitoring your activities and that put me off. It is nice however that all the games I installed via Origin still work despite the program itself being uninstalled.

Steam is fairly lightweight and has an offline mode. If Origin can subscribe to both of these functions then I'll let it slide.

Bioware has been doing somewhat badly (though ME3 scored pretty well), but that's more on Bioware I think.

I'm not fond of EA but I'm not at the point that I'll boycott them.

4RM3D:

No, I disagree.

If a new studio would release their first game, they wouldn't have (m)any fans. Maybe by using the media the said studio could build up anticipation. Maybe one or more of the devs previously work on a well received game earning recognition. Then after the studio releases their first game can fans really be born.

A studio has to earn its fans. And after that respect their fans. Otherwise the studio is going to lose their fans.

It should be said that a fan is not the same thing as a consumer; a person who buys the game. There could be many people buying the game, but not everyone will become a fan.

So in other words how good the game is.... irrelevant? It all about how much old school cred they can pull?

Bullshit.

They got product. Product speaks for it self. You liked the first one? good for you. Dont go thinking that makes you special.

deathbydeath:
Activision lolwut?

On a serious note: The biggest problem here is that the large megacorporations don't know how to make games, let alone make them efficiently. You don't need a gizillion dollars to make a good game, you just need talent, a vision, and middleware if you're feeling fancy. Bioware was founded by three doctors and a hundred grand, and they kicked the CRPG genre into high gear with Baldur's Gate. Valve was founded by Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington, who both left Microsoft because they wanted to make games. Next thing you know, Half-Life is released, and you can still feel the effects of the game in FPSs released today.

To all major publishers:
1. Reduce production costs on your games
2. Diversify your portfolio
3. Hire the flood of college graduates who just got their degrees and give them lean budgets
4. Don't burn out your series through rapid releases
5. Respect the consumer
6. LOWER YOUR GODDAMN BUDGETS
7. Respect your IP's

I would add an 8th of respect your own medium. You are not a lower class medium for merchandising some other successful franchise.

We are destroying the gaming industry.

Any opportunity for developers to try and be creative with their franchises... to do something different... is welcomed with backlash and uproar.

Now developers like EA, Activision, and Ubisoft have found the formula where the casual gamers are buying more than gamers themselves and have focused all their attention on that market.

We are all to blame for this... Business follow where the money is. Used games and video game reviews (if you don't get a 9 from Jim you don't get purchased) have basically created a market where gamers aren't really listened to. Unless you're on the PC and apart of the indie game market.

ThriKreen:

Destroy All Humans 2: 76% metacritic, "The game sold over 340,000 copies and had a generated revenue of $13,000,000 in North America alone."

Merc 3: 72%, about 1m according to VGChartz

LOTR:Conquest: 55%, 0.8m

The Saboteur, 72%, 0.42m.

Destroy All Humans 2 was out quite a bit before the EA acquisition. And why are you looking at just the North American sales? These are the global stats:

Mercenaries 2 - 2.20m
LOTR: Conquest - 1.34m
The Saboteur - 0.88m

4.4 million total, with a good amount of unaccounted for PC sales. That's really not a bad load. Riccitiello himself has said neither scores or sales were the issue, but the high upkeep for employees in California, which he should've been fully aware of at the time of the deal.

Looks to me Pandemic was simply the redheaded stepchild of the EP/EA deal, with BioWare being the real objective and Pandemic having no place in EA's company structure. Considering Riccitiello was a party on both sides of the agreement, it seems like an irresponsible way to handle 200 people's jobs.

Thoric485:
4.4 million total, with a good amount of unaccounted for PC sales. That's really not a bad load. Riccitiello himself has said neither scores or sales were the issue, but the high upkeep for employees in California, which he should've been fully aware of at the time of the deal.

Whoops, read the wrong column. Still, while it's not bad, it's not spectacular either given the prices paid. I already said:

ThriKreen:
...if the incoming was lower than the outgoing funds, coupled with the original purchase, sometimes it's better to cut your losses and shut the studio down.

Of course, one has to wonder if EA hadn't stepped in, would they have went under, sooner, regardless of their influence?

People always see a downward trend after an acquisition, but what if that was already happening, hence allowing themselves to be bought out? And of course, there's the classic cliche of the owners cashed out and leaving the juniors to pick up the pieces.

EA is a company without too much talent, and with sleazy business practices. That we should not at all criticize them or their business practices, or that it would be a great thing if the company crashed and burned are both false.

Draech:

Rawne1980:

Draech:

- The gaming companies EA has bought and pretty much wrecked
We going to get the sob story of how EA killed Westwood again? Forgetting to mention that the original founders of Westwood were the ones that sold out and about half the employees walked out the door the sec they did? No we keeping the revisionist history then? Ok then. Welcome to business. Wrecks happen. Did EA wreck THQ while they were at it?

Westwood?

Original HQ in San Mateo, California, moved to Redwood City in 1998.
Origin Systems in Austin, Texas founded in 1983, acquired in 1992, closed in 2004.
Bullfrog Productions in Surrey, England, founded in 1987, acquired in 1995, merged with EA UK and effectively closed in 2001.
EA Baltimore in Baltimore, Maryland, established in 1996 as part of Origin, closed in 2000
EA Seattle in Seattle, Washington, founded in 1982 as Manley & Associates, acquired January 29, 1996, closed in 2002
Maxis in Walnut Creek, California, founded in 1987, acquired in June 1997, folded into Redwood Shores (now Visceral Games) in 2004
Westwood Studios in Las Vegas, Nevada, founded in 1987, acquired from Virgin Interactive Entertainment in August 1998, merged into EA Los Angeles in 2003.
EA Pacific (known for a time as Westwood Pacific) in Irvine, California, formerly part of Virgin Interactive, acquired with Westwood in 1998, closed in 2003
Kesmai (known also as GameStorm), founded in 1981, acquired in 1999, closed in 2001.
DICE Canada in London, Ontario, started in 1998, acquired DICE fully October 2, 2006; closed DICE Canada studio hours later.
EA Japan in Tokyo, Japan, closed due to consolidation; moved under EA Partners model
EA UK in Chertsey, United Kingdom, moved to EA UK in Guildford
EA Chicago in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, founded in 1990 as NuFX, acquired in 2004, closed November 6, 2007.
Pandemic Studios in Los Angeles, California and Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, founded in 1998, acquired October 2007 from Elevation Partners, closed November 17, 2009.
Bright Light, in Guildford, Surrey, formerly EA UK, closed in 2011.

Bullfrog was the biggest loss for me.... No Dungeon Keeper 3.

On Topic....

Nope, EA are not bad for the gaming business.

EA only do what gamers allow them to.

Of course they are going to push to see where they can make money, they are a business. Believe it or not, business like to make money.

If gamers didn't swallow everything they did then they wouldn't do it but everything they do makes them money so they carry on.

Can't blame EA when people still throw money at them.

Why did you put Westwood on the list when I just put down the circumstances.

But since you are talking Bullfrog.

Did you know Moleneux (one of the 2 Bullfrog founders) was vice president and counselor at EA at the time of Bullfrogs purchase.

And the purchase was more less a reaction to the studio bleeding money?

But yeah bad bad EA for killing Bullfrog. If I had the time (and could be arsed) I would go through each of the entries on your list and debunk them individually. Hell I mean you put DICE on a list of companies "wrecked".

Check out "War for the overworld". It is the spiritual successor to Dungeon Keeper 2.

Draech:

- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
Unlike the forced use of Steam?
Origin is not without its merits, and while it doesn't suppass the current lvl steam has gotten to by being the first to really strike it big it by far surpasses what steam used to be. If you want to hold this against EA then keep your complaining consistent.

Wait, what? Unlike that of Origin, Steam staff actually treats people like human beings, the system functions extremely well, there's excellent support for all kinds of games of any size or department, software other than games is also allowed... I could go on. Valve is loved and EA is despised by a lot of people. This is a reflection of their online distribution systems. Steam has been refined over years, being polished to a shine, growing stronger and better. Origin on the other hand has been absolute rubbish. It's like you're saying that if we like a golden system, we must show equal support for its crappy rival. In fact, this actually sounds rather familiar.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2679-Fair-Game

All I know is that Bioware games were good, then EA took over. Now Bioware games are bad.

While I don't like some of EA's practices you cannot say they are destroying the industry. If the consensus is that they are destroying the industry then how are they the biggest name around? How do they control that massive portion of the dev market? Why do they sell so many games?

Businesses make money. EA is a business and they need to make as much money as possible so they can recycle it back into development and make more improvements. Don't think they are improving the market? Fine. Don't buy their stuff but they are successful for a reason and trying to deny that success means you live in denial.

Yes, to the first, no to the second. "Destroying" is putting it too harshly, but as the field of AAA developers continues to dwindle, they're certainly not helping. It goes without saying that the cost of making the "blockbusters" of the game world is only going to continue to rise, barring some revolution in the field that finally gives people a truly efficient and unified set of tools to work with (some claim that Epic is trying to more or less do that with the Unreal engine, but then, Epic itself is showing some cracks these days.) EA is trying to find ways to allay those costs, but the means it has come up to do that seem "penny wise, pound foolish".

Much like Microsoft and Blockbuster before them, EA seems to absorb or demolish smaller competitors who otherwise might have maintained the kind of nimbleness on the ground that could enable them to adapt to changing, hostile conditions in the medium and the industry. The resulting structure looks like a juggernaut, but behaves like a dinosaur. The attempts to push into new borders like social and mobile gaming feel obligatory and poorly managed. Customers don't see the new AAA games as shiny next-generation wonders; they see them as games much like the old ones, but now the $50-60 price tag comes with an expectation that the player will shell out more money up the road, with the games designed to encourage that behavior.

If platforms like the Steambox (in whatever form it finally manifests) and the various Android TV consoles "make it" in the next decade, it's probably going to have less to do with their ability to compete directly with the AAA market and more to do with the AAA market having ceased to exist in its present form.

Lugbzurg:

Draech:

- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
Unlike the forced use of Steam?
Origin is not without its merits, and while it doesn't suppass the current lvl steam has gotten to by being the first to really strike it big it by far surpasses what steam used to be. If you want to hold this against EA then keep your complaining consistent.

Wait, what? Unlike that of Origin, Steam staff actually treats people like human beings, the system functions extremely well, there's excellent support for all kinds of games of any size or department, software other than games is also allowed... I could go on. Valve is loved and EA is despised by a lot of people. This is a reflection of their online distribution systems. Steam has been refined over years, being polished to a shine, growing stronger and better. Origin on the other hand has been absolute rubbish. It's like you're saying that if we like a golden system, we must show equal support for its crappy rival. In fact, this actually sounds rather familiar.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2679-Fair-Game

^I agree with this^.
STEAM admitted when it made mistakes and then changed to refine itself. Origin sucked right off the bat and the customer support, in my humble opinion, has gotten worse. I bought several games via origin and other than being an overbearing piece of shit it's also good at crashing. No comparison, STEAM is far superior. That isn't rabid fanboyism. Run the numbers, compare sales, compare customer satisfaction and contact their customer support.

Draech:

4RM3D:
There is a general consensus that EA is doing more bad than good to the gaming business.

Quite a few arguments have been made against EA (in no specific order):
- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
- The gaming companies EA has bought and pretty much wrecked
- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
- EA looking for easy cash grabs (which has been brought up again since Dead Space 3 announcement)
- Whenever sometimes goes wrong at EA, instead of admitting they screwed up, they are blaming it on other things (like they did with Warfighter)

...And the list probably goes on.

My question is two-fold:
- Do you believe EA is harming the gaming business?
- Do you still buy games from EA?

I ask because I still see a lot of people pre-ordering / buying games from EA and at the same time see a lot of people complaining about EA. So, why don't just stop buying their games altogether?

On a side note, I should mention that the shit storm that was the ending of Mass Effect 3, did show the incredible influence Bioware holds over people and in turn that gamers can rise and stand up.

- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
Unlike the forced use of Steam?
Origin is not without its merits, and while it doesn't suppass the current lvl steam has gotten to by being the first to really strike it big it by far surpasses what steam used to be. If you want to hold this against EA then keep your complaining consistent.

- The gaming companies EA has bought and pretty much wrecked
We going to get the sob story of how EA killed Westwood again? Forgetting to mention that the original founders of Westwood were the ones that sold out and about half the employees walked out the door the sec they did? No we keeping the revisionist history then? Ok then. Welcome to business. Wrecks happen. Did EA wreck THQ while they were at it?

- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
By a relatively small demographic in an echo chamber yes (relative to the number of customers). Yeah thats the problem with the internet. You can easily find yourself in a bubble.

- EA looking for easy cash grabs (which has been brought up again since Dead Space 3 announcement)
I am sorry I am going to break this to you, but none of the game developers love you. They dont even know you. They are looking for the best way to get as much money from their work as possible. Just like you are trying to get as much product as possible from your money. Greedy greedy both of you. You dont like the deal, then walk away and take your money else were. This is business. Not a Democracy. Only voice that matters is the one you do with your wallet.

- Whenever sometimes goes wrong at EA, instead of admitting they screwed up, they are blaming it on other things (like they did with Warfighter)
Yes we have never seen anything about EA admitting fault. I mean its not like a thread jumped out about how a beta tester got banned from Simcity for posting in a thread turned out to be nothing but jumping the gun, and as soon as it was cleared up then it is like it never happened. Like as if people were actively looking for fuck ups to rage about, but wont even admit fault when they jump the gun....

so much for general consensus huh?

Interesting sets of points. Though you know what other industries in the past have done similar and been called out on? Just about everything. We have consumer rights and actual information on the food we eat and the drugs we take BECAUSE people called out businesses on practices.
Steam got away with their demanded acceptance of their online store by making up for it in all other areas. Some things are a must but good practice levels this off by considering the pay customers and by aiming to improve things (bear in mind it took me years to accept Steam because of this but they have proven themselves, Origins HAS to do the same and WILL get the flack that Steam got at the start). Most other businesses do not buy ailing businesses and just let them die. If they did this too often their INVESTORS will start saying that they are cursed. The Games industry aren't any different except that the prime investors here do not understand the significance of a failed studio (they see a short profit and don't understand the gravity of the closing on future profits).

The general point is that the Games industry, unlike nearly all other industries, is extremely new. Even successful businessmen from other areas who have investments in it don't understand what failures are good failure (safe and don't reflect long term issues) and what failures are bad. Similar issues arose in the Railway industry (see all the unused lines in England) and with the Movie Industry.

While I personally don;t agree with every point against EA (or any other developer) I do believe they are a sign that those developers are missing vital signs of an impending failure on their part, instead trying to ignore it and carry on as always. The fact that so many studios are failing as a result of 1 or 2 projects is likely a bad failure and suggests an issue with the general makeup of the system. So people are right to complain and to point out that these are real issues. If the railways had the same feed back maybe more of it would be still functioning and less track would have been laid.
So carry on voicing your feelings regarding this but remember, discourse is the only way problems are pointed out. If everyone pretended all was well then no one would see the flaws. If you feel things are one sided (EA gets all the flak) then see what positives you can bring to the table about them and negatives you can for the other side.

Disclaimer: I act only as a devils Advocate to encourage discussion, I do not intend to shoot down anyone's argument. I only seek to see it better informed and hopefully bring both sides to a better understanding of each other (you know before they start opening fire once again XD)

OT: My personal view is that EA is making collectively very bad choices. Individually they are acceptable, or just show bad luck or a mistake or two. However, I see very little sign of the company learning form mistakes or truly taking the safe route customer interaction wise. Where they take chances appears to be in areas detrimental to customer relations. Compare that with other companies and you at least see attempts being made to 'make up' for mistakes or undesirable chances (Steam locks you into it's service but does a good job of making that seem an ok thing to do). I think both sides have valid arguments to make on the topic of EA and that the discourse is good in at least letting people make their own choices about how they feel about the practices involved. The biggest issue is that at the moment they only choices are buy or do not buy, due to the business model not properly allowing for a reflection of interest in certain aspects. As a result doing 2 things right and 1 wrong with results in no sales and they take the 2 right being wrong, or they get sales and the 1 wrong is considered right (yep, tis confusing isn't it).

Well that is my wall of text. Agree, disagree, but ultimately, try and understand both sides a little better, regardless what you decent to stand for.

Lugbzurg:

Draech:

- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
Unlike the forced use of Steam?
Origin is not without its merits, and while it doesn't suppass the current lvl steam has gotten to by being the first to really strike it big it by far surpasses what steam used to be. If you want to hold this against EA then keep your complaining consistent.

Wait, what? Unlike that of Origin, Steam staff actually treats people like human beings, the system functions extremely well, there's excellent support for all kinds of games of any size or department, software other than games is also allowed... I could go on. Valve is loved and EA is despised by a lot of people. This is a reflection of their online distribution systems. Steam has been refined over years, being polished to a shine, growing stronger and better. Origin on the other hand has been absolute rubbish. It's like you're saying that if we like a golden system, we must show equal support for its crappy rival. In fact, this actually sounds rather familiar.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2679-Fair-Game

Wait so my experiences with origin staff doesn't exist? Oh nvm you are probably referring when a ton of people got their accounts banned for stuff they did on the forums and couldn't play their games.... was that steam or origin again? Oh yeah it was both. Both of them had the same screw up yet you decide to define one of the platforms on it and the other... not so much.

You say yourself that steam has been refined, just like I did. And unlike what you appear to be aware off, steam was utter crap and a lot worse than origin when it did first pop up. Origin will need a bit of time to get the stuff right. Even with Steam there as a model. And at least it isn't starting as far back as steam originally did. The same errors deserve the same complaints mister double standards.

But yeah mean moviebob making a video will rewrite history for you.

Oh no they are very good for business and extremely bad for gaming as a medium, and no it has nothing to do with evil it is just pure business.
They do not give a shit about games or the community, to them it is only a question of earnings, if they figured out holding IPs without producing anything is the more lucrative way, then every dev under their heel would be out on the street because that is just better business.

Draech:
*snip*

Draech, are you always this aggressive when voicing your opinions? You bash everyone down with no regards whatsoever. Or is it just this topic (for whatever reason)?

The only thing I have to bring u on E.A. is:
The ME3 fiasco was disgusting. I haven't played it, but it says something about gamer culture that if we don't like how someone chooses to end THEIR story, we cry, whine, and complain until they fix it to shut us up.

ALRIGHT. WE GET IT

EA has shitty business practices just like every game company ever created in the history of everything. No game company is run by saints. In fact, here's an interesting little chart for you.

The reflexive hatred toward EA has far surpassed the point of being reasonable. While I'm all for calling out a company on their bullshit, all EA has done is franchises and sequels, and fail to keep dying companies alive. They haven't done anything truly evil. So the whining dipshits need to get over themselves.

You don't have to buy their games, or their DLC. So there's no point in crying about them.

V1rax:
We are destroying the gaming industry.

Any opportunity for developers to try and be creative with their franchises... to do something different... is welcomed with backlash and uproar.

Now developers like EA, Activision, and Ubisoft have found the formula where the casual gamers are buying more than gamers themselves and have focused all their attention on that market.

We are all to blame for this... Business follow where the money is. Used games and video game reviews (if you don't get a 9 from Jim you don't get purchased) have basically created a market where gamers aren't really listened to. Unless you're on the PC and apart of the indie game market.

couldn't agree more. I actally wanted to write something similar :)

Yet there is something else. Large Publishers and Developers have lost control over their costs not least to plunge into the exact market. They lost sight of the middle market for games like Baldurs Gate or Fallout which just needs some millions instead of tens of millions. At the moment we have basically the big blockbusters and the homebrew and very little in between. Games like Dead Space or Mirrors Edge where never meant for a bloody mainstream market, yet they were produced in this premise.

4RM3D:

Draech:
*snip*

Draech, are you always this aggressive when voicing your opinions? You bash everyone down with no regards whatsoever. Or is it just this topic (for whatever reason)?

Its the topic more than anything.

The way to many gamers (pointless title I know) seem to live in their very own self sustained bubble with the understanding of how their actual medium equal to a 5 year olds understanding of where the food comes from. Almost every issue is limited to a perspective around themselves solely. "Developers should listen to the fans!" says the fan, is what I am getting.

It is the "The customer is always right" taken to its logical conclusion. And it infuriates me because I want to see this from from multiple angles yet there is always a que of 50 people going on about how developer X cheated them by selling 30 mins worth of content as an extra when they were sold 40 hours for 50$. The endless stream of argumentation based around "I could have had more!" and then the complete and utter denial of their own greed. And trust me I got plenty complaints about EA. I could talk about their medieval methods of making budget and green lighting project costing studios again and again. How the complete and utter disconnect the low level management and high lvl cost millions worth of dmg, and in the end employee pay with their jobs. Yet it pales compared to the torrent of bullshit people will make up in order to justify their self entitled rights over games.

If people get into their skulls that they dont exist in a void, and that the industry isn't designed based on their desires I would be a much calmer man.

Eh. I don't think they are destroying the industry, sure they do some stupid business practices but hey I like their developers. Also I still buy EA games, I am really looking forward to Battlefield 4 and whatever the next Burnout game is going to be.

Considering I don't like C&C any more ever since C&C 4 and having stopped playing BF3 3 months after it came out I'd probably say I "dislike" EA since I can't use the word hate as some people would rather slam me first than try to understand my disdain for that company.

Sure they are fine in the industry does not excuse them from executing bad business practices like they have done in the past, it also begs the question "is there really anything bad in the industry" because if there isn't where can I grab those happy conformity pills?.

To be honest I think it's the consumer who is more likely to "destroy" gaming.

EA does what we as consumers encourage them to do with our money. They're a corporation.

well, they aren't any worse than actvision / valve / ubi..

on the other hand, they most certainly don't help.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked