He lacks the amazing sideburns. Also, I'm sure he couldn't hit a barn with a cannon point-blank.rhizhim said:and he just happens to have the solution.
the EA app store.
--------------------------
cave johnson looks like the TF2 sniper
EA Founder: App Stores Are Too Crowded
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
load of bollox
the cream rises to the top as usual
Steam solved the "discovery" problem with recommendations and social networking. The app stores just need to get their act together and copy that model.
I have an android phone and tablet and what the google and amazon app stores desperately need is the ability to filter. I want to click "ignore" on the fart and "joke" apps and have them never show up again. Right now I can't do that and that prevents me from seeing new stuff that is out there.
the cream rises to the top as usual
Steam solved the "discovery" problem with recommendations and social networking. The app stores just need to get their act together and copy that model.
I have an android phone and tablet and what the google and amazon app stores desperately need is the ability to filter. I want to click "ignore" on the fart and "joke" apps and have them never show up again. Right now I can't do that and that prevents me from seeing new stuff that is out there.
App stores are crowded....
Yet flooding the market with a new title for Fifa, Madden, NFL, Tiger Woods, NHL, NBA and MORE. Every. single. floggin. year!! THAT'S NOT CROWDED?!
Yet flooding the market with a new title for Fifa, Madden, NFL, Tiger Woods, NHL, NBA and MORE. Every. single. floggin. year!! THAT'S NOT CROWDED?!
Translation: EA can suck the soul out of your little indie project just as well as they do for the big titles.
I despise EA as much as the next guy, but come on, he hasn't worked for them for over two decades. (though fault lies in the choice of front page picture too)
And what he's saying is mostly true. There is such a problem, but the mentality of most publishers nowadays is "throw money at it until it becomes popular" and that lacks the massive effect of word of mouth, while putting developers in quite a vulnerable position. As a consumer I really wouldn't prefer it.
And what he's saying is mostly true. There is such a problem, but the mentality of most publishers nowadays is "throw money at it until it becomes popular" and that lacks the massive effect of word of mouth, while putting developers in quite a vulnerable position. As a consumer I really wouldn't prefer it.
"It's hard to compete in a market that....actually competes!"
Well no shit!
However, he makes a good point about advertising in a market full of scams and shit.
On one hand, the Publisher pushes games that they actually have interest in which allows the market to avoid the "nearly everything is shovelware" dilemma that caused the first market crash.
(even though this didn't stop publishers from shitting out gobs of shovelware for the last two decades, it gives them the power to elevate the games they actually need to sell through selective advertising)
On the other hand, the Publisher essentially takes total control of the game away from its developers (or takes control of the developers' careers!), because they implicitly cannot trust them. The backers are taking the brunt of the financial risk, so they're going to call the shots.
Which unfortunately opens the doors to mismanagement and rush jobs.
Neither system is ideal in a vacuum. With an openly competitive market, you will find that the lowest common denominator always wins, barring early entry and success (like Rovio. Who didn't really do anything new or original. They just got to the market early enough to get noticed).
The bar is set so low that anyone can enter, but anyone making a quality game is likely to get undercut and ignored anyway. So why bother putting forth the effort?
Conversely, with a publisher-established oligopoly (like we have right now), you end up with market consolidation, price hikes/gouging, and stagnation (all of which exist in the AAA market this very moment). They have less incentive to focus on all but the most superficial of qualities. "Polished turds."
And so, you eventually end up with a handful of polished megapopular games dominating the market, which in turn, drives down their need to compete. They own the market. Why should they take any further risks? Result: "Polished Turds."
Neither of which are likely to produce what the market actually wants: Pioneers in gaming.
Equal parts quality in design and original, fun ideas.
People who are willing to take risks within reason, but whose games can reach an audience without having to dominate the entire market to begin with.
Well no shit!
However, he makes a good point about advertising in a market full of scams and shit.
On one hand, the Publisher pushes games that they actually have interest in which allows the market to avoid the "nearly everything is shovelware" dilemma that caused the first market crash.
(even though this didn't stop publishers from shitting out gobs of shovelware for the last two decades, it gives them the power to elevate the games they actually need to sell through selective advertising)
On the other hand, the Publisher essentially takes total control of the game away from its developers (or takes control of the developers' careers!), because they implicitly cannot trust them. The backers are taking the brunt of the financial risk, so they're going to call the shots.
Which unfortunately opens the doors to mismanagement and rush jobs.
Neither system is ideal in a vacuum. With an openly competitive market, you will find that the lowest common denominator always wins, barring early entry and success (like Rovio. Who didn't really do anything new or original. They just got to the market early enough to get noticed).
The bar is set so low that anyone can enter, but anyone making a quality game is likely to get undercut and ignored anyway. So why bother putting forth the effort?
Conversely, with a publisher-established oligopoly (like we have right now), you end up with market consolidation, price hikes/gouging, and stagnation (all of which exist in the AAA market this very moment). They have less incentive to focus on all but the most superficial of qualities. "Polished turds."
And so, you eventually end up with a handful of polished megapopular games dominating the market, which in turn, drives down their need to compete. They own the market. Why should they take any further risks? Result: "Polished Turds."
Neither of which are likely to produce what the market actually wants: Pioneers in gaming.
Equal parts quality in design and original, fun ideas.
People who are willing to take risks within reason, but whose games can reach an audience without having to dominate the entire market to begin with.