yes i remember, fuse had a sense of humor in its original build. I had high hopes for Overstrike. :/Ed130 said:
EA Launching 11 "Major Titles" in the Next 11 Months
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
I'm at least happy to see BF4 and DA3. It's predecessor were good games and if they don't totaly bork it, they'll be fine.
I usualy avoid EA like the plague and definitly -never- buy stuff at realse anymore (not only from EA), but those 2 game series were always fun sofar.
I prefer BF over CoD by far, first because tanks are more awesome than guns and because i've never had a game with such amazing soundeffects - it may sound strange, but that was the big selling point for me in BF3.
When i first played it, i really felt like being on a battlefield. The guns sound real, the explosions sound real, the vehicles sound real.
What i don't get is the "greedy asshole" comments. It's not EA's fault, its the consumers. When you constantly buy their stuff, you're signalising that their product is fine and they keep on doing what they do.
And at least in the sports sector people always seem to be happy with the new iterations of Fifa etc.
Sometimes i really ask myself, if people think these companies just make games for shits&giggles and not for business only.
Also i think gamers are the only consumers that still haven't understood that consumers direct ill-guided companies with their wallet.
And if they keep losing money like in recent times, they either change or crash, eitherway it'll change to the better.
I usualy avoid EA like the plague and definitly -never- buy stuff at realse anymore (not only from EA), but those 2 game series were always fun sofar.
I prefer BF over CoD by far, first because tanks are more awesome than guns and because i've never had a game with such amazing soundeffects - it may sound strange, but that was the big selling point for me in BF3.
When i first played it, i really felt like being on a battlefield. The guns sound real, the explosions sound real, the vehicles sound real.
What i don't get is the "greedy asshole" comments. It's not EA's fault, its the consumers. When you constantly buy their stuff, you're signalising that their product is fine and they keep on doing what they do.
And at least in the sports sector people always seem to be happy with the new iterations of Fifa etc.
Sometimes i really ask myself, if people think these companies just make games for shits&giggles and not for business only.
Also i think gamers are the only consumers that still haven't understood that consumers direct ill-guided companies with their wallet.
And if they keep losing money like in recent times, they either change or crash, eitherway it'll change to the better.
your fix as well as a man without legs run. i hope you do not take a profession of a handyman. EA is the perfect example of failure of capitalism. EA has suceeeded in capitalism very well. It managed to abuse its consumers, create cheap labour, produce the lowest quality products they can get away with and get the most money out of it. EA has worked capitalism great.FalloutJack said:
Sorry, but the failing is in the people, not the system. Your finger's on backwards and you're pointing at the wrong culprit while looking in a hall of mirrors. In short, it's the completely wrong direction you're looking. In all things, we cannot blame the inanimate for our own problems. For instance, you're annoyed not because of who's right or wrong, but because you have an axe to grind for some reason involving capitalism, not entirely an irrelevent one, but enough to make your statement inaccurate.Strazdas said:
If the system is flawed the people will fail regardless. I am not blaming inanimate, i am blaming the people who make such, innimate or not, systems the norm. How does being annoyed by people using a unfavourable system makes any statements inacurate? I am annoyed at the people, the ones that run EA, that they abuse the current system, and do not strive to be better than that. This article is about EA doing that, therefore relevant.FalloutJack said:
Well, your original statement had you bad-mouthing capitalism, the system, a thing. The system is not wrong. Economics and the correct application of it in business is an elegant machine dating back quite a few years. It's hardly the fault of it or anyone who invented it that people are dishonest. You're calling it a failure because of what people do, as though the gun made us shoot or the voices are to blame. I'm sure you don't like the nit-picking, but you decided to make EA the 'shining example' of world commerce, of which that's a pessimistic and inaccurate argument. I refuse to let that stand when the offending company is a load of retarded monkeys trying to be Dr. Evil. It doesn't pass.Strazdas said:
the problem with EA is that, as much as I hate them, they own a lot of IP that I really like. I mean, could we kickstarter enough to buy the Mirror's Edge IP from EA and give it, as the gaming community, to a developer who'd do it justice?
That being said, I'll probably buy DA3 whenever it comes out, and maaaaybe the new NFS.
That being said, I'll probably buy DA3 whenever it comes out, and maaaaybe the new NFS.
The system cannot be "right" or "wrong". The system is faulty however. Because it was made by people who made faulty assumptions about economics and humans. Slavery has even more years on the count, but that does not make such system desirable. Guns did not made us shoot people. Guns enabled us to shoot people. Without them we would not be able to do so, and if we, the people, will go randomly shooting others, then we may be better off without having access to guns, dont you agree? But alas this enters a diferent debate.FalloutJack said:
It would be quite ironic if i hated you for nitpicking as i nitpick a lot myself. EA is a good example if capitalism. EA is not evil or stupid as much as we would claim it to be. In fact they are very smart, after all they managed to play the system we created to their benefit in such a way that they are universaly hated and still remain one of the most profitable companies in the industry. Correct me if im wrong but i also think it is the largest company in the industry. EA is a good example to show what pure capitalism is like - profiteering above all even if that means hatred from the audience or abuse of their workers, as long as you make the bottom line larger all fair in capitalism.
Hoo boy... I don't think you'll get very far with that argument. I could invite anybody and everybody to debunk that for ya, but I'll settle for one of my own. Ahem... No, EA is not a good example of pure capitalism. The best, the most pure, the pride of the companies...does not get spat upon so regularly. You're thinking the way they do, about quantity. This thread isn't simply bashing that to be funny. (Some are, but not all.)Strazdas said:
The proper capitalist makes a good profit and receives good returns to keep distributing what it has. It does not get rampant complaints and a huge shit thrown at it every time it makes a move. That's what doing it wrong looks like. You want a company involved in gaming that seems like a successful capitalist in money, appearance, and performance? How often do you hear a complaint raised at Atlus Software? I've heard BSing on Activision, Capcom, EA, Ubisoft, and more...at a pretty regular degree on this forum. Not so much on my favorite company.
Do complaints about them exist? Possibly, but not to my personal knowledge. Okay, people often say the games are too fucking hard, and they DO get hard. What they don't do is regularly screw with the customer. That's not how you're actually suppose to use capitalism. Oh, and your blame about the faults? Doesn't hold water. I mean, really... do you want a system that hopelessly tries to predict human behavior in business (GOOD LUCK!) or do you want one that works, like...with math backing it up?
People being unpredictable is something you have to live with. If you blame every single thing that couldn't predict when someone was a thief or that time the oil spilled or whatever, you've got nothing left. It all leads back to the human, not the system, at fault. To whit, you should be shouting at people, not smearing a system that obviously operates every second of every day of your life that DOES work because welcome to civilization not collapsing.
but EA DOES make goof profit and recieve good returns, and it DOES keep distributing what it has. People are still buying their stuff. And as much as you'd like the escapist community to be so, it is far from being the majority of gamers. the complaints and "shit thrown" have aboslutely zero effect on the bottom line, so they ignore it, just like capitalism should.FalloutJack said:
Atlus is sucesful in money appearance and performance? had it not be for the podcast i wouldnt even know what the hell that company is to begin with, they are a small stuggling company that while trying to be nice to thier costumers even when that does not mean increased sales and thus not going 100% capitalist. All the "hated" companies like Activision, Capcom, Ea and Ubisoft are doing MUCH BETTER thank Atlus.
The way capitalism is suppsoed to work and the way it really works are different things. This is because the idea of capitalism does not reflect the realities of humans.
Human behaviuor is not that hard to predict. Psychiatrists do that every day. Advertisers do that every day. even you do that every day altrough on a much smaller scale.
What i want is a system that encourages companies like Atlus and not EA. Capitalism encourages EA.
Whoa, hold it! Cease! Halt!Strazdas said:
Once you start making provisos that involve words like 'despite' and then list the several many things people hate about them, you're missing the point. To be good at the capitalism game, you have to NOT be the lightning rod of hate. I'm sorry, but the argument ends right there. If this is how they are when they are shit people, then they can do better by NOT BEING SHIT. The real pure capitalist is both rich and well-loved by its customers, not muscling through a long list of despites.
T be good at capitalism game you have to be able to make the most profit possible. and if that measn being te lighning rod of hate then fair enough. bad publicity is still publicity. Capitalism does not care about hate. your argument would stand true for socialism, but it does not for capitalism. all capitalism cares about is maximizing profits, regardless of all other factors. because thats the goal of capitalism - profits. Would EA be able to earn more money by not being moneygrubbing bastards? we may never know. but it is clear that by being so they do earn a lot of money, so it clearly works for them.FalloutJack said:
Pure capitalism is profits. everything else is external interference. And if ifnoring your costumers still bring you profits, then capitalism will take that route. The system that cares about costumers is socialism. In fact, what you suggesting is socialistic capitalism - you know the thing that has been proven to work in Scandinavia. I am all for that and i think this is the best we can do right now. But that is not pure capitalism. EA is pure capitalism. well, almost, they still have to pay taxes and such.
No, I don't agree with that line of reasoning. Pure capitalism is GOOD business, to be able to not only make big profit, but to be able to hold an image and practice that will guarantee a good future in business. In that, you must maintain an image because a badd image takes away money. You must also make the best decisions not only for your firm, but for the economic structure of your area, so that you are not sacrificing your futures, your meal ticket, for profit now.Strazdas said:
EA is not just burning bridges, it very really burnt the city down. It's surrounded in flames and flames is what it gets from people. Its future is in doubt. It will be a long and protracted thing, in which it might step over still yet more companies just to go on living, but since they make alot of boneheaded decisions, they won't make any great recoveries. The ship is taking on water and they are bailing furiously, but for some reason they refuse to plug up the leaks. They will sink.
They could do alot better, tons better. Consider all of the praise for Valve on this board. I've heard it that they might have some similar practices to EA, but they make more money and have a better corporate image. Don't you go telling me that EA is so great with its tricks and traps when other people are just better. Really, I understand what you're trying to say, but money literally isn't everything, not the only thing about capitalism.
Money is the BOTTOM line, but getting there is part of the machine too, and all the parts are relevent. The system of business and economics - that thing they teach in college with the checks and balances of the market and so on - is there BECAUSE of capitalism, because of the varying things that made UP this thing that I would need James Burke to explain in detail over. It's not simple, it's an interconnected Rube Goldberg Machine that spits out money when you've one a good job, and you get more if the job done on it is most efficient.
EA is not efficient. They are one big number that has another big number being subtracted from it from its various problems. Other companies that don't have quite so big a subtracting number on their headers wonder what the fuck they're doing. Their doings don't make the system wrong when others are doing it right. The glass is half-filled too.
Fair enough. i guess we have different ideas of what capitalism is and we will just have to leave it at that. I can understand what you are saying, and i dont disagree that popularity does often increase profitability, but that is only if profitability increases more than you spend on popularity. EA thinks it doesnt. and whether that is true or not, it manages to be the biggest "number". So from a profit perspective its clearly doing something right.FalloutJack said:
P.S. capcha telsl me to decribe a brand, brand being american red cross. hehehehe. capcha always know what to say.