Okay, for the purposes of clarification before I respond, are you actually agreeing with me or are you sarcastically suggesting that I'm dismissing complainers out of hand? I can't tell.boag said:
Notch Dumps on EA "Indie Bundle"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That EA would do what?Beryl77 said:
Oh right, the indie bundle thing. In all the confusion, I completely forgot about that.
Nice to see you are still missing the point. More likely you are just looking past my argument and seeing whatever you wish to see. Its obvious from the way you are inventing your own arguments to argue against. I have no problem with people selling a product. You can fucking be mecha space Jesus and if you still chew up and spit out developers and monetize consumers with sleazy day-one DLC (among other things) I'm still going to call you out.Grey Day for Elcia said:
Also, I was just waiting for you to bring out the word entitled, the trademarked catchphrase of industry apologists. I knew it would come out eventually. At least now I have an excuse (not like I needed one) to write off everything you say from now on.
Sonic Doctor said:
""What Andy said wasn't in defense of EA. A person calling people out on something""
funny the "something" was talking shit about EA.
"Fire and brimstone stuff" was a bit of hyperbole, I'll grant that, but most people on this site talked in direct contempt for retake mass effect, Andy here included. Bob is just the most hilarious example. And I'm allowed to express my views too, and my view is that bobs views were hilariously misinformed.
and while he may have had a point about people still buying EA games, success is still not an accurate measure of who's right.
example (fictional scenario): if EA makes a game, calls in indie even though it was developed in house, and people call them out on calling the game "indie", an appropriate defence is not "well people still bought it". Great so people were either tricked or don;t care. Doesn;t make it right though.
Well, for starters, let's make sure we're on the same page. I'm NOT trying to say he's a nobody in gaming. Minecraft made a metric ton of cash. Dude has some serious clout.Varya said:
My problem isn't with his opinions (other than I usually disagree). He has every right to air them; I'm not trying to imply he needs to shut his mouth or that this being picked up by the media is his fault. (But yes, I certainly wish he would shut his trap.)
My problem is only that he's playing dumb to it and treating us like we're stupid. He's acting like he didn't KNOW this would happen. Malarky! Granted, I don't like Minecraft, and yes, I think "indies will save gaming" is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've heard this week. But at the end of the day, I still think he has a right to voice his thoughts, no matter how stupid it seems to me.
Like I said, my only legit complaint here is him playing stupid to the fact. If Notch wants to THINK he's smarter than us, fine, but I will NOT abide him treating us like we're stupid. THAT is the only bull around here.
... OR IS IT?!?!?!
Buretsu said:
No he didn't use it in direct response to me. He still used it as a perjorative toward the rest of the thread that doesn't agree with him. Again its the catchphrase of the industry apologists ("Hay guys it makes money so if you don't like it you are entitled. LOLZ."). Its starting to become the Godwin's Law of videogame discussion.Grey Day for Elcia said:
Now that you've learned how to read, come back when you have an actual argument.
Im not going to dredge up anything more, but I think all problems people are having with Bioware right now can be attributed to EA in some fashion.VonKlaw said:
Yet, Im gonna be honest. While I see EA as the curropting force, Im still not quite sure if its strictly EA's fault.
Key word in bold. I wasn't saying all people that complained. At this point we know they won't listen because some people while still complaining, are still buying there games. At that point the complaining means nothing to the company, because why change when the majority of people complaining are still buying.lapan said:
Lastly, I never said you had to do anything. You just happened to read what I said and thought I must be talking about you, though what puzzles me is that by what you said, you don't meet the criteria of the people I was talking about.
Swing and a miss.Darkmantle said:
The people Andy was calling out were the people that continuously buy from EA and keep complaining.
The point is, at this time it is their fault for keeping on buying from EA. It makes no sense for people to keep buying from a company that they know isn't going to meet their standards.
My philosophy is give a company one extra chance, then if the very next time I buy from them and I don't like the product, I move on. Basically, buy once, complain, buy the second time, move on if it is bad.
I bought Dragon Age: Origins because my friends really liked it, I found out I didn't because I thought it was a broken and outdated game. I gave them a second chance with Dragon Age 2, and I loved it, I think it is worlds better than DA:O because they fixed all the things I had problems with. I also love ME1 and ME2, and I like ME3(only mildly disappointed by the ending, far from enough to complain or give up on EA/BioWare.)
When it comes to gaming, I haven't gotten to a point were I move on from a company because of bad things done. The reason is that they have to really do something insanely abysmal for me to move on. Everything EA/BioWare has done since DA:O has been mild annoyances, not enough to warrant extreme complaint or not buying from them again.
Even if I felt the same way as the people continuing to complain about EA while still buying from them, I would have moved on and thought they were crazy for not moving on as well.
Lastly, I didn't say you couldn't express your views about Movie Bob, just don't lump him together with the journalists at the Escapist, because it isn't true or a correct comparison.
Despite my hostile tone, I don't actually feel persecuted. I get pissed when apathetic people with no argument use the word as a catch all for people who are angry at what gamer apathy has allowed this industry to become: A hulking behemoth that worships the almighty dollar and more than willing to pull the heart out of studios I love on a sacrificial altar to satisfy their lust for more money.Buretsu said:
Those that don't learn history are doomed to repeat it, the bigger they are, the harder they yadda, yadda, yadda, more metaphors.
They died for neither of those reasons. They died because publishers like EA squeeze every bit of life out of a studio that they can. Taking advantage of developers passion to make a quick buck, then leading them to the slaughterhouse to slit their throats. One need only read about Free Radical Design, to see what publisher are. How about how Maxis is now a zombie, reanimated solely for the purpose of cashing in on Sim City nostalgia, it'll be put down like a rabid dog as soon as the game is on shelves.Buretsu said:
I wish you'd stop trying to pretend I said things I didn't say. I said Godwin's Law because every gaming discussion on this forum, given enough time, defaults to the apathetics calling everyone else entitled. It got old a long time ago.
Wall-of-text follows.Andy Chalk said:
Honestly, I think there's two sets of issues. One, I as a consumer can do very little about; the other, as a consumer I can do almost nothing about. Neither is good for the industry, the medium, or the consumers. Both to some degree can be laid at EA's feet, though you'd be right to set some of the blame on the consumer as well, whether their response is one of ignorance or apathy.
EA's behavior of late doesn't so much smack of stockpiling money as of control. Origin. Origin's EULA. Project Ten Dollar. Online Passes. The consumption of smaller studios. The "re-envisioning" of older franchises, sometimes to the cries of distress of their original fanbases. And... the co-option of the "indie" descriptor.
All of this smacks of a desire for control: control of the brands, control of exactly how the audience uses their product, control of the distribution. Facebook? Got to have a tie-in game. Flash? Got to have a tie-in game. Independent scene? Got to have our brand out there. Keeping plates spinning, staying on the cutting edge, having a finger in every pie.
From a MBA standard, this makes sense. In many industries, it might well make sense. In this one, it's riding a wave and hoping it doesn't break over your head before you reach the shore. You're building an audience, but you're alienating the older one almost as quickly. And the momentum on which you're riding- and continuing to exist- is absolutely dependent on your not making a significant mis-step on your major properties. The "control" EA is exerting comes at a significant cost to its goodwill, and means that if, for example, a eight-figure-budget game like Modern Warfare fails, you're going to have to eat it. A resentful fanbase isn't going to offer second chances.
I am going to be very, very interested to see how Bioware's take on C&C:Generals comes out. Many Bioware loyalists seem angry with Bioware over Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 3, and I think almost no one was very happy with C&C 4. Bioware is going to be going in with two strikes already marked, and if they can't pull this off... Especially if Star Wars: The Old Republic subscriptions taper off... I'm thinking you might not see so much of the Bioware logo anymore.
Personally, I've stopped buying EA games, and told them why. For what it's worth. I don't hate EA; I would genuinely be pleased if they could get their head out of their ass and do the right thing by their customers. They've made some great games, and they still do. But what they're doing now is going to destroy them, and possibly cause collateral damage in the process, not to mention all the little producers they've eaten who will vanish.
But that brings us to the second set of problems, the ones that throwing my tiny "no!" vote won't do diddly about.
EA isn't dependent on Facebook games, or Flash games, or independent games. EA lives and dies on the big-ass AAA franchise games. And on that score, I think it's probably closer to being THQ than anyone realizes.
Along with giants like Activision, it has created a model where "tentpole games" are where it's at. MBA thinking again: you don't take risks where your bread and butter is concerned. You look for the sure bet, preferably one with a big payoff. If it can't become a franchise, don't bother.
This thinking is about to cause them to self-destruct.
If it's hard to see a big game fail now, despite the anti-piracy and anti-lawsuit provisions of Origin, despite all the DLC, despite the Online Passes to head off big bad Used Games, despite hedging every bet there was to stick a shrub on, it's going to be mortal to see a big game fail when the next console generation comes about.
Filling a Blu-Ray disk with 1080P, possibly 3D-enabled content created with a painfully new toolset that has to satisfy the people who have just clunked down several hundred dollars for their shiny new consoles is going to be an expensive process. It's probably going to require a price-hike at the store, a new wave of "Project Ten Dollar"-like initiatives, or both.
Sooner or later- probably sooner- a "tentpole game" is going to fail to meet the exaggeratedly high expectations that come with higher prices, "next gen" tech, and a "blockbuster" publisher. And that may well be crippling.
A smaller company that wasn't dependent on these tactics might weather the storm. Even a bigger company that allowed its subsidiaries more independence and wasn't trying to mine every new offering for franchise potential might have a chance. All evidence points to EA being neither of these things right now, nor becoming that in the future.
So, EA. Abusing its customers for control (quite possibly an illusion of control) at the cost of goodwill it will need to buffer itself from future failures. Cannibalizing smaller studios for their past good work, yet often failing to recognize the specifics of what made that work successful. Relying on franchises in a world where that model is threatening to become a dinosaur, even as "Angry Birds" and the like are increasingly begging the question of whether our enjoyment/cost model is skewed.
You can be very successful, and still sow the seeds of your annihilation even at the height of your success. If you limit your perceptions of what constitutes "success", you all but insure that you will do just that.
For every Batman, a Batman and Robin.
For every Model T, an Edsel.
$100 says every single one of these "EA is shit" wagon hoppers shops at a large grocery chain--the kind that buys out small business and tries its best to ensure they retain competitive edge on the market. $100 also says the clothes they wear and the shoes they walk in were made and then imported from China in workshop conditions.
Yes, please do complain and tell us how bad EA is. You're not a hypocrite lacking perspective at all.
Yes, please do complain and tell us how bad EA is. You're not a hypocrite lacking perspective at all.
My short response to your huge message: EA destroying itself, which I can accept as a valid and credible perspective, does not equal EA destroying gaming, which is nonsense.Callate said:
Your remark about "control" is interesting, but it's hardly exclusive to EA. Call of Duty Elite is probably the most obvious example of an even more egregious system of control and from the PC perspective, Ubi's always-on DRM is up there too. But EA is the whipping boy because it's cool to hate on EA. Notch does, after all.
I didn't like Dragon Age: Origins. Haven't bought another Dragon Age game. I loved (loved!) the Mass Effect series, not a huge fan of the ending, nor did I care for the shift from "Commander Shepard" to "Commander Whoever the hell you want to be because we have no actual commitment to the character" in the third game, and assuming there are future games in the franchise EA will really have to sell them to me. Waiting for Syndicate to come down in price before I make a move on that one.
Call me crazy but I find that basing my purchases on what I think of actual games, rather than some silly, arbitrary assessment of whether or not a company is "evil," is a very effective way to ensure that I end up with the games I like, and avoid the ones I don't.
So you want to see EA bankrupt because of a personal vendetta?Dylan Rushing said:
Fair enough.
Although it should be said that Westwood was the cause of Westwoods fall. Not EA. Westwood had made not only one but three monumental failures before EA pulled the plug on them. And C&C 4 (I didn't like it either) was made the way it was (no base-building and no resource collection) because fans and critics always complained that each C&C was too much like the previous (gameplay-wise there was little difference between the original C&C, the C&C Red Alert and C&C 3).
Also it should be said one of the most popular C&C games wasn't made by Westwood proper but by other EA subsidiaries (I'm talking about Red Alert 2 which was made by Westwood Pacific which was an entirely different studio, and then there was C&C Generals which was made by EA-LA).
Also I actually liked C&C 3 and Red Alert 3. Gameplay wise they were excellent and design-wise they were great. Sure the story of C&C 3 wasn't top notch but Red Alert had so much "Narm Charm" that you just had to love it.
So I guess all those terrible business practices don't count, then? Notch is right about one thing: EA is methodically destroying gaming.Andy Chalk said:
And your later post suggesting that it's customers who are ruining things is beyond insane. People aren't saying yes please, they're just trying to lube up their assholes as much as possible so that it hurts less when EA rapes them again.
EA dies, please. Plus, since when did people think that listening to anything Extra Credits says is a good idea? They can't even tell the difference between a first person and third person shooter. They don't know jack about gaming. Stop listening to them.Hornet0404 said: