Notch Dumps on EA "Indie Bundle"

[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.

 

[iblis666]

indie games have to be released by the developer of the game

once it is picked up by a publisher or the developer becomes a publisher it is no longer indie

minecraft is no longer indie because its developer has become a publisher

the industry and consumers of games have a responsibility to the health of the industry and at the moment it is in a downward spiral of greed by the industry and acceptance by the consumers

 

[Andy Chalk]

I think it's unrealistic, in this huge and global economy with massive markets, to expect the consumers to do that, especially not when they're actively being conditioned into spending as much as possible, all the time.

So what are you suggesting, that we somehow regulate major corporations not just to prevent malfeasance but also to protect the buying public from its own stupidity?

Are we going to do that with the movie studios that keep letting Michael Bay make films? Or the television networks that air 2 Broke Girls? Or anyone else who produces intellectually and cultural bankrupt shit that the public for some reason eats up like candy?

EA is a major corporation. Its loyalty is to its shareholders. That may not be great for the art of games, but it's perfectly okay for the business of games. And again, I maintain that there's nothing inherent wrong with focusing on easy-to-digest, mass market entertainment. I think the game industry is in fantastic shape right now, probably the best it's been since 1997-2000. If this is what "methodical destruction" looks like, I'll be happy to take more.

 

[Andy Chalk]

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.

Come on, this is just silly ranting about the good old days. Trust me, I know the score, I still have more than a few boxes with the classic "we're an association of electronic artists who share a common goal" kicking around and I detest the annual iterations of EA Sports games as much as anyone. But if I walked into a room filled with average dudes playing Madden or CoD and said, "Hey guys, put down those shitty corporate games, because I have in my hands the secret Magic Carpet sequel that Peter Molyneux's been working on for the past four years!" I'd get looked at like I had three heads.

You can try to tell the masses that gaming "could be better." But if the masses tell you to fuck off because they're having fun, who's right?

 

[Andy Chalk]

"Journalists" (and I use the term lightly): Twitter isn't a source for news. Stop treating it like it is.

Of course it is, and it's silly to suggest otherwise. Notch isn't just some anonymous indie dev anymore, and he's not just talking to a few friends online when he says things on Twitter. His opinion, for good or ill, carries weight, and people pay attention. It's up to him whether or not he wants to take that into consideration when he speaks, but it's ridiculous to suggest that what he says only "counts" under certain circumstances.

 

[Andy Chalk]

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.

But that's kind of my point. EA has a product. You want the product. The cycle of life continues. That's not destroying the industry, that's just doing business.

Maybe EA didn't create the game you want. Maybe the game you want was only created because the studio signed a deal with EA to get the funding it needed to finish it. And maybe, when that game is out the door, EA closes the studio and fires everyone. Or maybe it doesn't. Who knows?

The relevant point is this: I just finished a brilliant, gloriously old-school dungeon crawl RPG. I have money down on a Wasteland sequel and a brilliant-looking PC-exclusive hardcore action-RPG. I'm playing brilliant fairy tale games from Finland, and a massive space opera epic that puts Star Wars to shame. Deus Ex is back, and Thief is coming. BLOPS2 preorders are through the roof. MMOs are free. LEISURE SUIT LARRY IS BACK!

This is an absolutely wonderful time to be a gamer, of any stripe. If this is what the destruction of gaming looks like, then all I have to say to EA is, please continue.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Here's an equation I've found over the years related to gaming and its quality:

The more creative, innovative and legendary games are those that didn't have much of a budget OR graphics - Grandia, Secret of Mana, Wild ARMs, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Earthbound. Notice these are all RPGs - these are the ones I've played countless times and are the ones that have more depth, more soul and more meaning to me as a gamer. Your list will most definitely vary from mine.

Now, look at what we have today. The graphics are sharper; things look more life-like and detailed than ever before; but the cost to produce games now has skyrocketted from before. And there's not as much depth and soul to games anymore than compared to when games first started out. There's infinitely more focus on the money end than there is the creativity and innovation.

Doesn't anyone else find it mildly ironic that the closer most games get to being life-like, the shittier they've turned out to be?

Neither EA nor Notch is what's wrong - the main issue is the fact that business aspect has taken more relevance and become overwhelmingly more dominant than the creative, or artistic, aspect of gaming. Greed has consumed this industry and has left it stagnating.

Case in point - in Earthbound, the final boss is a fetus inside a uterus. I'd like to see ANY developer try that in this day and age - there'd be an unending PR shitstorm, especially here in the states. If something like this was to be attempted today, publishers and vocal minorities would have forced it to be cancelled. Yet, the game was one of the best I have ever played, hands down, and I'd recommend it to other people.

 

[Andy Chalk]

The same way nobody put a gun to Bioware's head over the ME3 ending.

What is that even supposed to mean?

 

[Andy Chalk]

indie games have to be released by the developer of the game

once it is picked up by a publisher or the developer becomes a publisher it is no longer indie

See, this very precisely illustrates one of the fundamental flaws in this whole conversation: the definition of "indie." I like yours, but I see a flaw. Notch specifically singled out Vlambeer as indie. Vlambeer, as you may know, made Serious Sam: The Random Encounter, which was published by Devolver Digital.

Unless you want to argue that Vlambeer is indie but its games are not - and boy, I don't want to go down that road - I think you can see the problem.

 

[WyndWalker02]

"Journalists" (and I use the term lightly): Twitter isn't a source for news. Stop treating it like it is.

Of course it is, and it's silly to suggest otherwise. Notch isn't just some anonymous indie dev anymore, and he's not just talking to a few friends online when he says things on Twitter. His opinion, for good or ill, carries weight, and people pay attention. It's up to him whether or not he wants to take that into consideration when he speaks, but it's ridiculous to suggest that what he says only "counts" under certain circumstances.

What Notch says doesn't really count under ANY circumstances. If you happen to like Notch, OK, go ahead and listen to him, I choose to, in point of fact, but just because someone gets heard by a lot of people doesn't make what they say important or newsworthy. Compare him to a Kardashian: the only reason what they say is news or they're even treated as a celebrity is because the media chooses to treat them as such, not because the person actually has a reason for being given so much attention.

Notch's statement only had the impact it did, and this thread and ones like it only exist, because journalists chose to take what he said and turn it into news articles. That doesn't actually make it news. If people didn't report on what Notch tweets as if he were a state head saying something of import, then a huge percentage of the people who currently know about the tweet would never have heard of it in the first place. And no one on this planet would be any worse off for the difference.

If Obama was having intercourse on the White House lawn and screaming racial epithets at a state dinner, that would be news. If North Korea suddenly invaded Japan and started announcing planned nuclear strikes on Finland and Botswana, that would be news. "Reporting" on a tongue-in-cheek remark made on twitter, is a slow news day, and the result of trying to make an inflammatory story out of drivel.