Notch Dumps on EA "Indie Bundle"

[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.

 

[Warachia]

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.

Thank you so much, people show support for indie studios by buying their products, if EA chooses to help out those studios by putting their games in the spotlight again (games I forget about), how is that a bad thing? Notch here comes off as somebody saying: "They want to help others? How dare they!"
If only people realized you can respect something a company does, and still dislike them, it's not like you're forced to be on one side of the fence or the other.

 

[Darkness665]

Harsh! Project $10, always on internet, constant sub-standard games delivered with extra bugs, whining about having to fix the bugs, hating used game sales so lower income (or kids you ignorant EA turds) can afford to buy the over-priced new games that will be discounted $20 in two months everywhere ... except on Origin. Origin! Copy Steam and do it wrong!

Not nearly harsh enough. EA and Activision are two blights from the same pod.

 

[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

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.

Based on previous articles it looks like they are in house devs, not sure about the soul crushing part though. Either way EA calling it an indie sale is ludicrous

 

[Warachia]

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.

Of course it doesn't make that thing right, it makes it profitable, if you ask people whether they want to make large amounts of money, or do something creative and their job rests on this, chances are they'll pick the profitable outcome 95% of the time.

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?

You might want to rewrite this statement into something more readable, but yes, going by how much money something makes is a good indicator for how much people support it, is it good for the industry in the long term? I don't know, I'd say it makes no difference unless you went into game making to make money, and not make a fun game for others to enjoy.

What Notch said was hyperbolic. What you've said, that's disingenuous.

How was it disingenuous? His statement wasn't insincere or false by how he views it.
Even the captcha is with me, it seems to think you lead a: charmed life.

 

[pearcinator]

Oh q fucking q. It's so dumb to say something like that about a company. They're out to make money. If this "indie" bundle sells and makes money, and it's because they called it indie, they don't care. They'd call it dogshit bundle if it would sell. Notch needs to calm his nipples. No need to get twisted over this.

Quote for Truth.

Notch is just hatin'

 

[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.

Based on previous articles it looks like they are in house devs, not sure about the soul crushing part though. Either way EA calling it an indie sale is ludicrous

I think the messed up part is that indie developers having stuck to their own themes and community have mutated the term as something small in scale and full of experimental mechanics and creativity. Then when something that technically isn't indie but has a bunch of the same themes as above that the indie scene freely associates itself with comes out the indie devs attack it for not being indie in the traditional sense. Basically EA isn't releasing any indie games and only using indie as a marketing ploy but the fact that indie can be used as an endorsement all on its own is sort of distressing.

 

[Orange Lazarus]

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.

I don't mean this as an attack Mr. Chalk, but you kind of invite it when you reply in such a defensive manner to your commentors. First off, EA does not make the products I want, they distribute them. If I could get my games without going through EA I would. Sadly I can't. Secondly, even with your expertly placed disclaimer, it still comes off as you blaming your readers for killing the gaming industry, Though I know you aren't. EA is one of the biggest driving forces in the industry, the public has missed their chance to have any say in how they run their business.
Lastly, I suppose I should give my thought on the actual story. The games are indie, EA is not. They're using the 'indie bundle' tag to drum up business, nothing more nothing less. Take from that what you will. Notch is just saying what he thinks of their practices, just like all of you above me are doing.