Notch Dumps on EA "Indie Bundle"

[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.

 

[Baron_Rouge]

I don' see why exactly this matters, personally. Who really cares if the name isn't appropriate? No-one will see that bundle and buy it because they think they're supporting poor indie developers, they'll see that bundle and buy it because you get some great games on a serious discount.

A rose by any other name would still be a great deal at 70 percent off.

 

[Charli]

I'm not angered by the bundle, that's all a-okay. They're good games.

Calling it an indie bundle though? When clearly they have now been funded. Agreed, Notch is correct that's an inappopriate thing to call it.

A 'Package' of smaller games? Sure lets call it that. But they are now straight up: Games, funded, paid for, in the public mind, Being SOLD by EA, they were once indie, they are now as a package, no longer. I don't think Notch was quite saying what you think he meant, I understand a fair bit of Swedish what with a large portion of my family being from there, and they do sometimes over-push a harsh tone and wording, when speaking English.

EA has incorrectly 'spun' this product and is devaluing or at the very least misrepresenting the term 'indie'.

 

[uncanny474]

Goddammit, Notch, either stop saying things that are right or stop being a pretentious douche! Seriously, I'm getting sick of hating your public persona but being forced to agree with your ideas because you're honestly not that far off.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I don't really see exactly what the issue is here. EA is getting a bundle of games out there that they believe in and that, yes, they feel can make them some money. I'm sure the developers of said games aren't sitting there complaining about being part of an EA indie bundle as opposed to some other indie bundle. They just want people to buy and play their games.

Besides, I don't know that I really see all that many people buying something strictly because it is or isn't labelled as Indie. Not to mention the fact that in many cases, especially when other entertainment media is involved, the Indie designation has really just been a smoke screen for a long time anyway.

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

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

^tweet from Notch following the quote contained in the article

I can't wait to see the Escapist publish the article: "Notch declares his tweets not worthy of being article subjects."

Like seriously, I love Notch and follow his twitter and his game development, but seriously...whenever he so much as coughs the Escapist publishes an article. Funny that its Notch himself that called him out on it.

 

[DRes82]

Independent developers don't produce the AAA titles that are popular with the majority of gamers. Say what you want, but I'd be willing to wager that most of you would rather play Skyrim than Frozen Synapse. Until that's NOT true, articles and quotes on this subject are just self-righteous drivel.

 

[camazotz]

I don't really see exactly what the issue is here. EA is getting a bundle of games out there that they believe in and that, yes, they feel can make them some money. I'm sure the developers of said games aren't sitting there complaining about being part of an EA indie bundle as opposed to some other indie bundle. They just want people to buy and play their games.

Besides, I don't know that I really see all that many people buying something strictly because it is or isn't labelled as Indie. Not to mention the fact that in many cases, especially when other entertainment media is involved, the Indie designation has really just been a smoke screen for a long time anyway.

I'm with you on this, but the problem is that we don't have enough hipster cred to care about this issue.

I'd take Notch more seriously if even 10% of the indie games I've played were worth more than five minutes of my time, and likewise if I hadn't gotten so much enjoyment out of games published through EA. I play what I like, not what makes me look cool, sorry.

But I'll agree with Notch, his tweets aren't newsworthy. Good grief.

 

[draythefingerless]

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.

wait, so because steam puts the indie bundle on its shop, its no longer indie? so what is the difference between an indie game being sold on steam, and an indie game being on an indie bundle, made of other individual indie games, being sold on steam? other than 'it suits your argument'?

indie game sold on steam = indie game.
indie game bundled with other games and sold on steam = no longer indie game. explain the logic?

shank and deathspank were not indie games. never were considered so. these games were all funded projected controlled by EA. they didnt go thru creative independence, they didnt go thru personal funding. the things that make an indie game, were not there.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

This reminds me of the time someone tried to sell me that Bladerunner was indie, and I laughed and laughed.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

If EA paid the Indie developers to let them sell this little bundle, and the Indie developers are making money from each 'bundle' sold, can we really blame them?

Sure, I guess the 'Indie' title loses credit, but everyone gets money in the end and no one's losing their creative property. I don't really see the problem here, Notch. I honestly think people would like having some kind of publicity like this.

 

[fulano]

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.

Notch is kinda right, just not EA destroying gaming.

EA is just trying to jump on the "indie" bandwagon. Because recently anything with indie, according to them, is supposed to be "hip," now that that particular branch of the industry is starting to take off and approach the subject matter from different places than the norm.

They could've just bottled up the games in a set and call it something else, but some marketing dummy must've come up with it and now must be scratching his/her head at the response (or not at all? Maybe the bundle is selling like hotcakes).

But what is ridiculous, at least to me, is when you say that "EA doesn't have a gun to anybody's heads" and literally clearing them of all responsibility on their end when they are perpetrating the continual endless stream of mass-produced, absolutely meaningless games and pushing them into the buying public through humongously funded mass-media marketing campaigns. Which, coincidently equates to saying that marketing has no effect on the population and that everyone is free and clear to choose whatever one wants with complete independence and removed from obstruction of an outside source which, according to market studies, is blatantly untrue.

I can meet you halfway and agree that the buying public holds part of the blame, though.

Cheers.