Notch Dumps on EA "Indie Bundle"

[M.C.Dillinger]

Personally, I don't care much what Notch has to say. Every time he makes a statement he's only reaffirming opinions held by the masses. It sounds almost cowardly coming from him. either he's affirming people so we think he's a nice person regardless of how much money he has only doesn't have anything interesting to say. It's pathetic either way.

He may have built up Mojang into a successful independent developer but to me it seems that he's still a another naïve and self-important indie developer.

 

[Silva]

Nobody's forcing anyone to buy EA's products, or to pay for their "nickel and dime" DLC, or use Origin, or anything else. EA makes a product and offers that product under certain conditions; consumers then choose whether or not they want to lay out their money for it. And millions upon millions of people say "Yes, please."

The problem with this argument is that it implies that everyone who consumes games even gives a moment's thought to the effect of their purchase in the industry. There are many who do, but I'd hardly call them the majority, would you? Good thing you get to this below. I don't think however that we should labour under the delusion that just because a consumer purchases something, they consciously support everything that product does inside their minds if they give the issue thought. "Yes please" may be the message sent to the company, but that's how they'd like to interpret a purchase for their own convenience. It's not necessarily what the consumer individually thinks at all.

If anyone in that equation is "destroying" the industry - which, for the record, is absolute nonsense - it's not EA, it's the purchasing public. It's you.

That's true, but if we blame the purchasing public, then those of us who do try to consume meaningfully and with a mind for what to support in the industry will not be able to win any victories or change in the short term. It's a dubious idea that we'd ever get better control in the longer term, so it's short term or nothing. Call me pessimistic.

EA doesn't have a gun to anybody's head, and it's the height of ridiculousness to suggest otherwise.

As for Notch's comments, they're beyond disingenuous. "EA is methodically destroying gaming" is not a statement that needs clarification.

I don't believe that anyone suggested that there's a gun to anybody's head. "Ruining games" and "destroying" may be hyperbole, but I think we all get the idea that what Notch really means is that EA is acting a bit like Microsoft - it's trying to touch every single part of the market until there's nowhere left without its influence.

While Microsoft's own dominance of certain parts of the world economy has its benefits, like amazing operating systems, it's also probably stopped a great majority of people from experiencing variety and creative or innovative solutions produced by other companies. EA could have the same effect over time as this to gaming and the gaming industry, and I think that in a very short hand and headline attracting fashion, Notch means to warn us that this may happen.

It worked on The Escapist, after all. It got the word out.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I have to kind of disagree with Notch with how harsh Notch is being to a small degree but EA isn't really being better. They went through a nice phase awhile ago and while I would be glad to see them keep stuff like this up I doubt it will last unless it makes them money. If it does make them money I'm afraid they'll spit it out like a conveyor belt.

I do disagree that it should be called an indie bundle though. Not being a fan of EA expansionism.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think that's a bit harsh.

Isn't that more or less what Notch does? Launch into borderline histrionics on touchy subjects?

He strikes me as Yahtzee without the sweet hat or the understanding that what he's saying is somewhat tongue in cheek.

Andy, you really can't see what's wrong with EA? REEEEEAAAAALLLYY?
I bet you think Newt Gingrich is just a guy with an unfortunately sized head who likes being married so much he did it three times.

And wants to bar other people from experiencing it even once, because marriage is sacred and should only be shared between one man, one woman, and that man's mistresses.

Something which was also said by Notch:

"Twitter quotes are NOT NEWS. You're better than that, and you make me feel dirty."

Unfortunately, that hasn't been true for a while.

when has valve released an indie bundle? unless you mean steam bundles, but that is not the same thing.

It is, because Valve/Steam are acting as the distributor and in some cases publisher. Just like EA.

Nobody's forcing anyone to buy EA's products, or to pay for their "nickel and dime" DLC, or use Origin, or anything else. EA makes a product and offers that product under certain conditions; consumers then choose whether or not they want to lay out their money for it. And millions upon millions of people say "Yes, please."

You know, I don't want to come off as an EA hater, but that's dangerously close to "but children like working in coal mines for 5 dollars a day. And it builds character!"

Hang on a minute.

Wasn't this exactly what Extra Credits said EA should do? Make an Indie arm to take care of "innovative" and "new" games while EA proper makes AAA games?

And in that case what would you rather have?

That EA dies or EA may begin to make interesting games?

Shank and Deathspank aren't really new or innovative, though. Nor is Gatling Gears. The only one I haven't played is Warp. These games are sorta paint-by-numbers. And in all cases I can talk about but Gatling Gears, they're good paint by numbers. But they're still not really bringing anything new to gaming.

And yes, I'd rather have EA make interesting games. But I don't think that's the issue here.

 

[lacktheknack]

Ahh, lovely, another case of double standards.

Indie Bundle from Valve? Perfectly good!
Indie Bundle from EA? ABSOLUTELY EVIL!!

Valve did an indie bundle? Wat?

(Keep in mind that the "BUY ALL OUR THINGS" bundles are not "indie bundles".)

 

[Risingblade]

OMG WHO CARES WHAT NOTCH HAS TO SAY!!!


ok now that I got that out of my system...I don't really see the problem behind this

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

"I got into trouble on the interwebs again!" he wrote.

Alright, who gave back Notch's megaphone and soapbox?

Also, I just... I don't see how EA backing a bunch of indie games is causing harm. I know EA is run by Satan and all that jazz, but like, seriously, someone explain to me how this move is adding to the damage of EA's trail of destruction and murder?

 

[Nurb]

Companies kill off dedicated servers, then EA shuts down their own to make people buy the sequels, and now EA is trying to make people pay full price to rent a game people won't have access to in 5-10 years (sim city 5). You're damn right they're killing gaming. They don't want game ownership, they want payment for temporary access until they decide you need to make a new purchase.

And in that case what would you rather have?

That EA dies or EA may begin to make interesting games?

I'm personally hoping for another video game collapse and the bankrupcy of the big publishers so there's no longer a monopoly on games and indepentent developers can rise and compete again as in the 90's instead of having little more option than to make small titles or flash-like throwbacks for mobile devices.

CAP: Patience, child

 

[paketep]

I think that's a bit harsh

I think he fell quite short of the target. EA deserves every single word notch said, and more.

 

[Rheinmetall]

....I thought we all agreed that EA is the "Evil Empire". There isn't much point in debating about things that are obvious.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Nobody's forcing anyone to buy EA's products, or to pay for their "nickel and dime" DLC, or use Origin, or anything else. EA makes a product and offers that product under certain conditions; consumers then choose whether or not they want to lay out their money for it. And millions upon millions of people say "Yes, please."

If anyone in that equation is "destroying" the industry - which, for the record, is absolute nonsense - it's not EA, it's the purchasing public. It's you.

EA doesn't have a gun to anybody's head, and it's the height of ridiculousness to suggest otherwise.

As for Notch's comments, they're beyond disingenuous. "EA is methodically destroying gaming" is not a statement that needs clarification.

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.

 

[Callate]

Nobody's forcing anyone to buy EA's products, or to pay for their "nickel and dime" DLC, or use Origin, or anything else. EA makes a product and offers that product under certain conditions; consumers then choose whether or not they want to lay out their money for it. And millions upon millions of people say "Yes, please."

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.

 

[klasbo]

[...]Yes, indies are doing wonderful things, but I don't see how major publishers like EA are doing anything more than bringing gaming to the masses. And while there's a small but deeply-rooted part of me that thinks that's precisely the problem, my more rational side has to admit that it's not.

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.

 

[LordLundar]

Valve did an indie bundle? Wat?

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.

 

[Preacher zer0]

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.
He made a game, it was good, people bought it, enough to make him rich... that's all the market requires.

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.
With todays technology, artists across many mediums no longer require a publisher.
Or at least the publishers role is greatly diminished.

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).
I published my novel online as a pdf.
My new game... can just be downloaded of my site.

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.
They might extend their lifespans for a while, maybe even a long time with all this foolishness.
But in the end the nature of our expectations for sharing information will overwhelm them.
The sheer pace of the progression of information exchange technology will trample them into the dust.
They'll never keep up in the end.

Can't fight the future, EA... cya.

 

[Depulcator]

Wait Notch is still relevant?

 

[WyndWalker02]

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.

 

[Furioso]

I'm confused. Why do so many people hate this? They're promoting indie games. IS there something wrong with that, or specifically something wrong with EA doing it?

It isn't that EA is promoting indie games, they published those games, making them as far from "indie" as you can get

 

[him over there]

I'm confused. Why do so many people hate this? They're promoting indie games. IS there something wrong with that, or specifically something wrong with EA doing it?

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.