EA: Some Gamers Just Don't Like Change

Recommended Videos

sunsetspawn

New member
Jul 25, 2009
210
0
0
animehermit said:
Josh12345 said:
Before the EC(which you needed online to download) the best Destroy ending needed 4000 EMS, but without multiplayer the highest you could reach was 3700 assuming you did every fetch quest and did everything right since the first game. Oh, and if you're on an xbox it does cost money, plus the whole ''1.49 for a new pack'' thing.
they announced before the EC that you only needed 2800 to get all the different endings.
And thus the point of this thread is made, ironically, by someone defending EA. They announced that you only needed 2800, and...


EA/BIOWARE FUCKING LIED ABOUT IT

Even after the EC you still need 3200 to get the best ending. Seriously, if you like EA and want to defend them please do so based on facts. Just tell me to shut the fuck up and open up my wallet, but DON'T tell me that I could've gotten the best ending without multiplayer or the app, because that makes you liar. Capital L, small i, small a, small r...

PERIOD

Leave lying to the political realm.

And the truth is they never specified a number, they just said that all endings were possible without multiplayer, which was a lie. The average shmoe probably believed this on the surface because the best ending is a derivative of the destroy ending, and not a whole other color to choose from, the only difference is that your EMS has to be at a certain level for it to trigger.

and Xbox live costing money is totally not something under EA's control, if you wanna complain about it costing money take it up with microsoft.
Oh, I see, you're trolling. I don't want to play multiplayer one way or the other. I have a PC and I never play multiplayer anything on that. EA pulled a complete dickbag move by requiring multiplayer (or the app) to get the best ending, especially considering that the most dedicated fanbase was on the 360 because the first game was a 360 exclusive and each sequel dug into the previous games' save files to continue "your unique story."

Plus, multiplayer has always cost money, and EA full well knew that, and they still required multiplayer to get the best ending. The proper thing to do in this situation would be at least to have the 360 version not require multiplayer, or have a single player horde mode that would increase your asset multiplier.

I dont "wanna complain about it costing money," I just DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO USE IT
And the packs could be earned by playing the game, and you didn't even need to buy them to play.
Yeah, got it. Don't know what the fuck you're talking about here because I refused to pay for multiplayer in the first place.


I feel like EA wants me to pirate all of their future games, because buying them legit on the 360 is nothing but a headache
 

sunsetspawn

New member
Jul 25, 2009
210
0
0
Bhaalspawn said:
rembrandtqeinstein said:
EA, Activision and corporate gaming can't crash and burn fast enough.
That's probably because if EA and Activision-Blizzard go out of business, the North American gaming industry will die. They own 70% of it.
You sound like the people that argued for the bank bailout. Do you know what happens when the large corporations that dominate an industry fail and die in a capitalist society?

That's right boys and girls, smaller ones with better talent take their place and the industry ultimately becomes stronger for it. In fact, those smaller companies will be lead by the talented developers that were stifled by the big money douchebags that were holding them back.

EA and Activision are on their way out, and it will be a good thing when it happens.

Why do you think the world economy hasn't recovered? We're propping up the banks that failed, and we will continue to do so because of corruption. That's an argument for another board, but lucky for us the government won't protect the gaming industry in the same way.
 

ReinWeisserRitter

New member
Nov 15, 2011
749
0
0
"If you've got a problem, you're just complaining about it because that's the hip thing to do these days."

Gee, thanks, EA, you've really opened my eyes to this. I'm sure dictatorships appreciate a similar mindset, but I wouldn't want to spoil your piles of money with my petty grievances such as withheld content and forcing me to have a game connected to the internet at all times, all while you're frankly quite an asshole about it. Now, did you want to shove this pole up our asses sideways today, or lengthways?

More seriously, this is not the kind of crap to be saying when people are becoming more and more likely to speak with their wallets, and if there's any hope for our species at all, you're going to learn that the hard way, Peter Moore.

Sadly, tons of people who aren't massive assholes are going to lose their jobs in the ensuing budget cuts, while you'll probably be untouched and blaming us the whole way, because that's just how corporations work. I'm still not giving you people a dime for anything, though. I've said it before, but none of your games are worth playing for the shit you put people through to play them anyway. No game is, and in your deluded mind you somehow think you're providing a necessity people will suffer any amount of annoyance to have. If withholding my sixty bucks - plus getting reamed in the ass for your obnoxious and inevitable downloadable content - can in any way return the favor, it'll be well worth spending it somewhere else.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
Largely, he is right. But before he gets too happy about that, his company ALSO acts like a bunch of assholes. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Yes, companies can do wonderful things with advancing technologies and treating games as a service instead of a discrete product. A good rule of thumb about when it is good and when it is ultimately regressive is that if it was EA's idea, it is probably regressive.

So 10 points for a point well made, and minus a million for everything else you have ever done.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,485
0
0
sunsetspawn said:
I know you're making points and all, but you shouldn't triple-post it. Not objecting to WHAT you're saying, just consolidate it.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Well, he's right. The ones who have already made up their mind that EA is some terrible force for evil won't be convinced out of writing paragraphs of self-justification for their hate.

Best to keep doing what they're doing and helping fund great games like ME3 and ignore those who will never listen anyway.
 

Xin Baixiang

New member
Feb 25, 2009
54
0
0
So, because I really, really, really don't like how they handle IPs, and feel that the changes that they do make change the game from the style I like (Dragon Age: Origins) to a style that isn't really something I enjoy (Dragon Age 2: Anders is a waste of carbon), I'm just being a "sheep" and trying to sit at the cool kids table?

Not so much.

It may come as a shock to people, but just because they think a game is good/bad, doesn't make the game good/bad for everyone. And sometimes, valid points are actually valid, not "trendy".
 

Groenteman

New member
Mar 30, 2011
120
0
0
@Amexsome: wow, seems like no matter how full of it someone is, somewhere, someone else will agree.

Ill just keep it at: Bioware made ME3, any good it was was despite EA, not because. Take a look at an IP EA had more influence over like say, CnC Generals?

@Xin: Crazier yet, sometime something is 'trendy' for an actual reason! Never realy helps the cause though, check every thread mentioning EA, and theres at least one person saying 'your point invalid cause it trendy!'. I hate trendy.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
People don't like negative change, or things they view as negative change.

People don't like it when you take a franchise they love and take everything they liked out of it, people don't like it when you include unnecessary DRM which only hurts non-pirates, people don't like it when you constantly release DLCs to milk money out of them instead of making a full fucking game, and releasing that way.

In short, shut the fuck up EA, you have it wrong again.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,908
0
0
I "love" this self justifying crap.

It's not that gamers "fear change" it's more a matter of not wanting to have power taken away from us and constantly being gouged for more and more money. These "ongoing services" are what they are purely so the companies can make money off of running them that way.

The success of the current models is not because "millions of people love and support this" it's because gamers in general don't have any choice, you either endure it, or you don't game. EA and other companies are basically pushing that sentiment to the breaking point and won't just lay off until they hit the point where people will just stop buying, as opposed to just contenting themselves with a fair profit and leaving it at that.

The thing is there isn't really any option for someone to pay one time for a complete, offline, AAA level game, self contained on the disc, thus you can't compare it. That kind of business model never existed alongside the current one, despite pretensions to the contrary. Rather what we saw was the industry transition, say "we're now doing it this way" and pretty much removing the other options instead of giving people a real choice.

To be entirely fair, I don't think anyone would care about the new technology if it wasn't for all the exploitation. EA following the money, or rather squeezing it out of gamers rather than following it, is the problem, not the tech. See if games had stayed as a simple "pay one fee, all included" product and the customers had guarantees about being able to access that content on their machine indefinatly even if a company/provider went under, there wouldn't be a problem.


Gamers don't fear change, we however really hate what was already an expensive hobby being made even more expensive.

I'll also say that they need to drop the BS by saying that these products are all inclusive right out of the box. The entire point to the DLC and the way that it's marketed is to make it more or less nessicary to the gaming experience, to make it so not having it actually holds you back for feeling that your product is incomplete... after all, if they can't do that, then few people would buy it. Rather than developing add ons, we see games being developed with DLC in mind right off the bat, with as much as possible being taken out of the games or not developed initially despite being part of the concept, so it can be sold later. Substantial parts of a plot, game lore, or events being sold seperatly is not an "add on" it's part of the game your charging more money for (such as the Prothean in ME3), an "add on" is something like a new character skin that does absolutly nothing but look pretty and doesn't influance the game or it's content at all. Despite pretensions of add ons being "nothing but trivial or cosmetic" that isn't the reality because not many people are going to dish out their hard earned cash for that.
 

Masterdebator

New member
Jul 13, 2010
36
0
0
"it's cool to rag on EA, it's cool to rag on Zynga, it's cool to rag on Bobby Kotick, it's cool to rag on Peter Moore"

EA public relations in action!

Best in the business. Great at saving me money.
 
Mar 25, 2010
130
0
0
Foolproof said:
Fr said:
anc[is]
Foolproof said:
Yeah, the difference was we never got the DLC in the first place.

Give me one good reason that having extra gameplay available for purchase is somehow worse than not being able to get that gameplay under any circumstances.

No, don't go into your fantasy about how if DLC wasn't a thing, developers would have totally included the content just for kicks, stick with reality.
Except we did, they were called expansion packs. It was a good time, when we got more than cheat codes or skin packs for our money. I even hear tales of when map packs were not called map packs, they were just new maps, and they were free.
I don 't recall GTA III, Fallout 2, Spider-Man or KOTOR ever offering expansion packs. Meanwhile the series that actually did offer DLC? Starcraft, The Sims, those gmaes? What a fucking coincidence, they have expansion packs that are still $40 a pop, same as they've always been.


Swing and a miss.

Got anything else?
Aw, but that's NEW EA, they charge asinine sums for Sims 3 expansion packs. Remember the Sims 2, the one that Maxis actually made? Remember how the expansions vastly improved the game more than Sims 3 expansions did, and they were only $20, just like the base game? Ah, those were the days...
 

Thoric485

New member
Aug 17, 2008
632
0
0
And here I thought the backlash against EA was all just a vocal minority, while the majority of gamers enjoyed what they did.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,834
0
0
No, its more like "Some gamers just don't like our change."

And it would appear more than just some gamers don't like EA. This one included.
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
Olrod said:
Grey Carter said:
"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You owned the game. You sat down. You owned the game. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. And you owned the game. It was all on the disc. That you owned."
There, I fixed that quote for you, Mr. Moore.

You're welcome.

It's not that gamers "fear change" it's that they fear donkey-helmets like you trying to rip them off, which you seem to be doing more and more often these days.
this.
I love dlc as a thing, I have only ever objected to dlc being content I paid for that was WITHHELD from me until I paid more for it

And it's not "cool" to rag on EA... it's LOGIC. EA has a terrible track record when it comes to customer service, perceived quality, and simple customer relations.
 

Lopende Paddo

New member
Aug 26, 2004
128
0
0
Foolproof said:
Fr said:
anc[is]
Foolproof said:
Yeah, the difference was we never got the DLC in the first place.

Give me one good reason that having extra gameplay available for purchase is somehow worse than not being able to get that gameplay under any circumstances.

No, don't go into your fantasy about how if DLC wasn't a thing, developers would have totally included the content just for kicks, stick with reality.
Except we did, they were called expansion packs. It was a good time, when we got more than cheat codes or skin packs for our money. I even hear tales of when map packs were not called map packs, they were just new maps, and they were free.
I don 't recall GTA III, Fallout 2, Spider-Man or KOTOR ever offering expansion packs. Meanwhile the series that actually did offer DLC? Starcraft, The Sims, those gmaes? What a fucking coincidence, they have expansion packs that are still $40 a pop, same as they've always been.


Swing and a miss.

Got anything else?
I preferred the old Expansion pack model, it felt more substantial and added content to a game that actually furthered the plot. some DLC still do that, but they are few and far between. most dlc are "horse armor"...
 

A-D.

New member
Jan 23, 2008
637
0
0
The weird thing of all of that is really that, for as much as EA, or well rather Peter Moore claims that we hate change, they havent actually changed all that much. I mean look at how the industry works nowadays, then look back at how it used to work, EA is pretty much doing the same thing, even those times when they finally adapt they kinda fuck it up.

Some examples, this is not a full list of all of them but a few anyways. Remember the first "F2P Browsergame" that EA shat out? The Tiberium Alliance thingy? Yeah, how come that, when compared to other games which essentially do the same stuff in a different coat of paint and without the C&C Name attached are either exactly the same, or better? I mean dont get me wrong, its not terrible, but their "F2P" turned quickly into P2W instead, like so many before, taking a good idea and running it backwards into the ground. Most of the ones already around pretty much do that already, to compete you have to cough up some cash eventually, rather than just buy stuff because its nice to have or only offers a minimal advantage i.e. less time-consuming.

Another example is SWTOR, now that its gone F2P. Why is it that, given the whole state of the industry to begin with, they even attempted to make a subscription MMO? I mean, look at all the recent games that have come out, vying for a big chunk of the MMO-pie that WoW essentially owned at the time, only a few were marginally successful at even getting a decent playerbase, most "failed", in the sense of not really making a dent in WoW's subs, and Players are a finite resource, there are only so many that are willing to shell out cash monthly and they usually dont go for multiple titles. So with that considered, how did they figure that SWTOR could compete? Especially in a genre which essentially is filled with games by now, most of which were F2P already, either for years or more recently. So instead of trying to come up with something really new to entice the playerbase to actually switch, besides the license attached, they copied WoW, or as they said, used it for inspiration. You dont succeed in "being the WoW-Killer" by doing what WoW does already, regardless of the paintjob you slap on it. Hell Tera boasted with its combat system, which mildly put was also copied off other games, Age of Conan did it first in concept, DCUO did it well in practice. SWTOR didnt have anything epic going for it except a storyline with fully voiced dialogue and choices which ultimately dont matter because MMOs are a consistent world, they dont change based on choices because not everyone makes the same choice. So, ultimately SWTOR failed to live up to its hype and marketing and didnt bring in the numbers, so it goes F2P. Which is funny because all other MMOs aside from WoW, EVE and Tera are F2P by now, well Rift too but lets see how long that lasts.

So to cut to the chase, why is it now that EA decided to use the worse F2P Model? Instead of doing it Turbines Way and essentially giving you a big chunk first and letting you earn it by playing the hell out of it, "Do feats for Points to spend for more content". Or Sony's Way, giving us the base game right from the bat and asking for 10 bucks every quarter year for another DLC with content? Instead of doing either, they restrict half the content, unless you pay up and add a cash shop on top of it. Its a "change" alright, i mean EA in the past would rather implode than give ANYTHING away for free, but its entirely in the wrong direction, in a direction which they should know its not going to be "the best option". They had years to look at the market, what works, what doesnt work, and then they throw it all out the window and do whatever makes the most cash fast, rather than trying to build a community and good-will from the retained players.

Its like Origin all over, they had a perfect example to work off of, to learn how to make the best thing ever and then they fuck it up. So no Mr. Moore, not all change is good change, especially from a company that is more interested in its bottom line than where the money comes from. Because if you push your customers away, the cashflow is eventually going to stop, and no more bottom-line for you. Basic Economics.

Im really just waiting for EA to make one decision thats based on logic and good business sense. So far, the best they came up with was "Meh".