Notch Dumps on EA "Indie Bundle"

[Nikolaz72]

I don't see how major publishers like EA are doing anything more than bringing gaming to the masses.

So I guess all those terrible business practices don't count, then? Notch is right about one thing: EA is methodically destroying gaming.

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.

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?

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.

They are as informative as the Jimquisition. Maybe a bit more so. So I guess people have been listening to them since they started? More so when they came onto escapist.

 

[Callate]

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.

I don't think it's nonsense, though I agree it's an exaggeration. With the amount of competition and cross-pollenization that occurs between the big players at present, the AAA market seems viable, if still overly prone to the stagnation and the related franchise/"safe bet" trap. If THQ doesn't pull out of its nose-dive, Sega continues its present course, and EA self-destructs, I don't think we have a stable system any longer.

There will still be games. Independent games, cell phone games, tablet games. But I think it likely there will be another gap of 5+ years, much like after the era of Atari, when no one thinks consoles are fertile ground for cultivation.

And anyone who latches their hopes for market success onto EA's coat tails, "mainstream" or "independent", may have cause to regret it.

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.

They're certainly not the only ones, but they're regrettably big enough that they can make the case that anything they do is "industry standard" because they're doing it with a straight face. I joked once that I try not to make any statements about EA or Activision being the greater evil because the other always seems to take it as a challenge.

But EA didn't get to where they are, antagonism-wise, just because "cool" people say they're evil, or some Internet survey declared them the worst company in the world (which is certainly nonsense, I'll agree.) To a very real extent, they brought this on themselves.

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.

EA has put me in a position where buying any of their games amounts to a tacit agreement with a large number of decisions and positions that I find genuinely reprehensible. I wish I could simply buy one of their games because I appreciate the emphasis on story and character, or because the new user interface sounds like something more games should be doing. But if I do, I'm also saying, "Yes, I agree that I'm no longer "buying" a "game" but merely gratefully giving my money for access to something remote that can be withdrawn at any time without refund. That no matter how woefully you mismanage crucial aspects of that access, I will have no recourse, but humbly accept your decisions. That any attempts to foster a sense of 'community' around a game may be living on borrowed time, as it may be decided that said community is making improper use of IP assets or derivative code and violating terms of use."

...And yes, I'm aware that some of these kinds of terms have been in use for some time, but EA is the one that seems to be saying not "Sorry, guys, y'know, our lawyers made us put that in," but "Oh, look what we can do. Dance!" As stupid as, say, Ubisoft's "constant network check-in" DRM may have been, I at least believed they thought they were doing it to combat piracy. EA has said, "Oh, and while we've brought you in here under the pretext of fighting piracy, also don't sue us, don't talk about cheats, don't break a nebulous set of rules that may be interpreted differently by different forum admins..."

For games I like, well, there are still companies with less-bad ways of treating their customers, and Kickstarter is showing some progress. My decision regarding EA may seem silly or arbitrary to you. I'm aware that it's probably not going to push back the flood. But I assure you, it wasn't some knee-jerk reaction to a statement from Notch.

 

[Lugbzurg]

There is something I have to disagree with Notch on.

Your budget has nothing to do with weather or not you can call yourself "indie". It's the legal professionalism and probably the size, to some extent. Heck, even ID Software was considered "indie".

Just because you're making a grand profit, doesn't mean you aren't indie. Nothing has changed. Weather you have $1 to spend, or $1,000,000, that's only going to count for how far you'll be able to take something. It has nothing to do with what you are.

If a billionaire decided to make his own videogames by himself in his living room, would this make him non-indie? Of course not. Notch is totally indie. No amount of large budgeting can change that. There are entirely different aspects that will judge this, and cash flow isn't one of them.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Something which was also said by Notch:

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

Expressing your views via an online social media site that is intentionally designed to be as open and public as possible is something that shouldn't be quoted?

Notch apparently still has no clue about how the rest of the world works. If he doesn't want people quoting his twitter, he needs to stop putting things on there. You'd think he would have learned after that fiasco over the Yogscast and Minecon, but apparently he still thinks his twitter is off the record.

 

[Joccaren]

Hey, I'm fine with EA making games and selling them to appeal to a wider audience - so long as they keep their hands out of pre-established franchises, and don't "Streamline" them for a wider audience. Something they can't help themselves from doing as the IP name sells it to the fans, and the whole "Streamlining" thing sells it to the masses.
EA IS methodically destroying gaming, 1 IP and company at a time.

 

[Something Amyss]

wait, so because steam puts the indie bundle on its shop, its no longer indie?

Yes. Yes it is. That's exactly what I said. Well, I mean, aside from the part you seem to have pulled from your arse.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Publishers like EA are in fact, destroying the industry. Wildly inflated game budgets and overworked staff will eventually lead us to the point where we need to make a choice about where we want this industry. Do we want it creative, or do we want it formulaic?

Mark my words, if the next generation of game systems is not digital only, we will see an early 80's style collapse of the wider industry.

I'm starting to dread the same thing - we WILL have another game crash sooner or later if EA isn't sued out of business for their jurassic business model and stubborn persistence to buy out and ruin their competition.

 

[Roroshi14]

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.

Best metaphor, you win the internet today sir. Go make yourself a trophy, you deserve it.

 

[Awexsome]

Why are we giving this enormous dick so much coverage over everything he says or thinks? It's like how the the press stumbles over themselves to figure out what the latest big-headed celebrity just spoke up about.

Both EA and Notch are really big dicks. We knew this.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So I guess all those terrible business practices don't count, then? Notch is right about one thing: EA is methodically destroying gaming.

Notch's statement, as much as I'd like to agree with it, is still hyperbolic bullshit, by logic.

EA has destroyed quite a number of talented developers just to make a quick buck, but they wouldn't have been able to get away with it for so long if they didn't have any customers.

So in that, Andy is partly correct. EA has shown that they will abuse their developers and customers to get what they want, but you can't blame anyone but the customers for allowing this to continue.

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.

Why do they keep saying yes? Perhaps if the customers pulled their fucking pants up and walked away from EA, they wouldn't get raped at all.

What you describe is willful idiocy.

 

[Spearmaster]

It should be the EA "out latest victims" bundle, funny that its on steam which seems to be a helper of Indy games when EA is a destroyer of the free creativity of dev teams. No matter how you view it everybody is gonna loose on this one...except valve...