Notch Dumps on EA "Indie Bundle"

[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.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I just find it kindof odd that much of the escapist staff was getting all bent out of shape over ME3 Fans wanting a new ending to the game, and how game journalists in general seemed content to write them off as entitled brats for having the sheer audacity to disagree vocally with a product they were given, but when people start buying into things like this "indie bundle" and setting possibly harmful trends, I have yet to see anyone even bat an eye, say a single word in regards to things like, say, the dlc for final fantasy, where they purposely and knowingly left it at a cliff hanger so that they could sell you the ending later in DLC.

They sold you a knowingly incomplete product that you'd have to pay even more for complete access without ever even mentioning "hey, you'll need to pay more to see the rest at some point." Never mind how this is taking advantage of a consumers trust in you to provide a proper product, in fact, the only responses we get to things like this are responses similar to the ME3 fiasco. "Yeah well you bought it so deal with it! Stop being so entitled you crybaby!"

Look, this rant got away from me just a tad, but what I am trying to get across is that excusing and enabling bad business practices isn't cool. Yes, we could definitely stand to be more responsible as consumers, but at the same time, publishers and developers could also stand to not try and screw us just because they can.

As long as all that matters is the money, you won't see any change to this industry. At all. The same goes for every other industry. Publishers won't change willingly; they'll stick to the formula that gets them the most money and to hell with all other issues. As one George Carlin said, "People need to question things."

 

[Andy Chalk]

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.

It was an inflammatory remark, a very direct and pointed accusation leveled at EA by one of the most popular figures in the industry. By your measure, nothing said by anyone in the industry counts as news, because hey, it's just some guy saying some stuff.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I just find it kindof odd that much of the escapist staff was getting all bent out of shape over ME3 Fans wanting a new ending to the game, and how game journalists in general seemed content to write them off as entitled brats for having the sheer audacity to disagree vocally with a product they were given, but when people start buying into things like this "indie bundle" and setting possibly harmful trends, I have yet to see anyone even bat an eye, say a single word in regards to things like, say, the dlc for final fantasy, where they purposely and knowingly left it at a cliff hanger so that they could sell you the ending later in DLC.

They sold you a knowingly incomplete product that you'd have to pay even more for complete access without ever even mentioning "hey, you'll need to pay more to see the rest at some point." Never mind how this is taking advantage of a consumers trust in you to provide a proper product, in fact, the only responses we get to things like this are responses similar to the ME3 fiasco. "Yeah well you bought it so deal with it! Stop being so entitled you crybaby!"

Look, this rant got away from me just a tad, but what I am trying to get across is that excusing and enabling bad business practices isn't cool. Yes, we could definitely stand to be more responsible as consumers, but at the same time, publishers and developers could also stand to not try and screw us just because they can.

As long as all that matters is the money, you won't see any change to this industry. At all. The same goes for every other industry. Publishers won't change willingly; they'll stick to the formula that gets them the most money and to hell with all other issues. As one George Carlin said, "People need to question things."

And I am in no way arguing against this, I agree. But saying something is somehow okay because nothing is being done about it is just a wrong to me. It smells of making excuses and enabling shoddy behavior.

It's not OK. It's been said elsewhere, I'm sure, but the one thing I remember in regards to this is Alucard from Castlevania: Symphony of the Night saying, "You must always remember, that the only way for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." This holds true for all aspects of life, gaming industry included. However, in order to combat this kind of power, people of all walks in the gaming community need the wisdom to know what is wrong and how to correct it...and the courage to actually go and do it; and while I see some possessing the wisdom, I don't see many having the courage to go and do it.

 

[Andy Chalk]

And I am in no way arguing against this, I agree. But saying something is somehow okay because nothing is being done about it is just a wrong to me. It smells of making excuses and enabling shoddy behavior.

But you (and I'm using the royal "you" here) don't want to do anything about it. You want someone else to do something about it for you.

And I still don't understand how you're trying to tie this into ME3, or anything else. I think the call for a new ending to ME3 is silly. I think the accusation that EA is destroying gaming is silly. I don't think EA has anything to do with Final Fantasy but as far as that goes, if you feel like you got bent over by the game, express your displeasure to the company (email, official forum post, whatever, be firm but civil and respectful) and then never by another FF game until you're sure that it's "complete" and satisfactory and all that.

I get that you're not a fan of EA, but there's a big gap between "I don't like EA" and "OMG EA IS RUINING EVERYTHING"

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I think the accusation that EA is destroying gaming is silly. I don't think EA has anything to do with Final Fantasy but as far as that goes, if you feel like you got bent over by the game, express your displeasure to the company (email, official forum post, whatever, be firm but civil and respectful) and then never by another FF game until you're sure that it's "complete" and satisfactory and all that.

I get that you're not a fan of EA, but there's a big gap between "I don't like EA" and "OMG EA IS RUINING EVERYTHING"

As far as the email/forum/whatever goes - it's meaningless. Corporations that obtain enough money from their products will, at best, notice trends about certain issues in and about the gaming industry, but only to the extent of where it will direct the next best "marketing decision" for profit earning. Expressing displeasure via these means has about enough relevance as voting does in the US - virtually none. Unless you hit them where the money lies, THEN something might happen; however, I've paid enough attention to the social critics of my time (Bill Hicks and George Carlin, to name two) to know that even change brought about in this manner will still likely mean that power will do what it wants in order to stay in power.

And to your point, no - EA is not ruining everything. But something is...and I can betcha that money is a very close tie-in to it. Ever notice that once greed settles in...disaster follows? History can be a powerful tool in learning trends. Or one helluva brick wall to run into when its lessons are ignored.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Because, quite frankly, it all sounds pretty damn stupid. "Oh, they're all about the money." Well, gee, it's a business, and business are about making money. The only reason why video games still exist is because they make money.

I honestly don't know what people expect from the gaming industry... I understand the need for reforms, but what sort of a revolution are people hoping to see? Game companies to be willing to lose money on games that only reach niche audiences?

It's like everybody's a hipster, lamenting the days of gaming when it was still underground, and the public perception of video gamers were fat losers, living in their parents' basements, subsiding on a steady diet of Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Because apparently it's better than making a mediocre game that makes a ton of money which is then used to finance other, smaller, niche-appeal games.

I don't mind people making money - that's the way the system that we've created works. When games were made back in the day, creativity was more prevalent than the business aspect - and the games reflected that (see my first post to this effect). Now the balance is shifted in the other direction...and the games made reflect that, too. What I'd like to see is games, in general, have more depth, creativity and innovation in their content rather than carbon copying the latest cookie-cutter brown FPS. Games could explore topics and ideas that other mediums can't even hope to touch, and I'd like to see that rather than "Hey, kill this, then go here" droning. Basically, there's more potential to gaming than just competition or a bland, generic story - games before this generation proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Greed, however, will not let that happen; thus, a change in the way things are done is required.

 

[shrekfan246]

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.

Come now, Andy, don't you know by now that if you don't conform to the viciously vocal minority then you're just one of those "mindless sheep" who are "helping EA destroy the industry" and subsequently that's "why we can't have nice things!"

OT: I don't care for EA's business practices any more than most of the other people on this website, but seriously getting angry because they're giving small, low-budget indie games more promotion? That's just pathetic. And holding that opinion simply because Notch said so first is even worse. What reason is there to be angry at EA for this? Because the proceeds aren't going to a charity? Oh no, whatever shall we do! Because it "devalues" the term "indie"? Get off your high horse, that's just a genre now, it has no literal meaning anymore. Braid shouldn't be considered an "indie" game by any rights, what with how much money Mr. Blow sunk into its development.

And I always thought that people wanted more indie developers to be supported by publishers throwing their money at them to make more games. Oh, wait, I guess that only applies if it's not Activision or EA, right?