Update 2: EA Dismisses Dungeon Keeper Mobile Criticism

[DoctorImpossible]

Update: As confirmed by Gamasutra, EA has a rather sneaky way of getting all those 5-star reviews that Skalski values so much. When the game asks you to rate it on Android and you choose to give it less than 5 stars, it doesn't allow you to do so, and instead asks you to message the company with your feedback. Of course, if you pick 5-stars you can still alter your rating later, but nonetheless, it's a pretty underhanded tactic.

Are you fucking kidding me? Why do people tolerate stuff like this?

That is insane!

 

[Saika Renegade]

Pretty bloody crooked, EA...but that's what I've come to expect from them by now. This is just the latest in a long and foul-smelling string of PR failures and anti-consumer-protections revelations.

 

[Glaice]

Google should look into these fraudulent/fake reviews on this.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Just as an aside? for anyone who hasn't played the game, it would be like releasing Warcraft on smartphone, only making it so that each time you send a peasant to mine gold it takes them 24 hours to bring back a single bag. And the game offers to speed it up if you pay five dollars.

Also, my brief experience with the game is that it's always-online for no good reason. Everything wrong with contemporary gaming has made it into this one title.

 

[Amaror]

What baffles me is why they thought this game was FOR. Surely anyone unfamiliar or disinterested in the DKeeper franchise wouldn't want to spent increments of time and wads of money there, while anyone who WAS into the kooky Strategy / Management PC titles... well, their complaints echoed before the game even was available.

They pulled the same stupid shit with Syndicate back in the day and it seemed they didn't learn a single thing from that travesty.
How did Yathzee put it:
People who could be interested in your game, won't be fans of the original franchise and people that are fans of the original franchise, will want to burn your office down.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Raging at a company is one thing, but directing personal responsibility is another. Jeff Skalski is not just a faceless name on the internet. He is a real person, in senior management, partly responsible for this mess. Ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

What baffles me is why they thought this game was FOR. Surely anyone unfamiliar or disinterested in the DKeeper franchise wouldn't want to spent increments of time and wads of money there, while anyone who WAS into the kooky Strategy / Management PC titles... well, their complaints echoed before the game even was available.

They pulled the same stupid shit with Syndicate back in the day and it seemed they didn't learn a single thing from that travesty.
How did Yathzee put it:
People who could be interested in your game, won't be fans of the original franchise and people that are fans of the original franchise, will want to burn your office down.

The full quote:

"What is the point of slapping a 90's tactical shooters name recognition on a generic modern shooter if most people who like generic modern shooters won't remember the name and people that do remember will want to set your office on fire. You won't endear yourself for offering to rape my mum for 50 bucks."

 

[Atmos Duality]

Do not rage at the brick wall of corporate obscurification. Job security is a far more powerful motivator.

Considering that "brick wall" signs his paychecks, raging at him is a futile gesture at best.

Folks, a few years back, another stinker came out based on a nostalgic piece of video game fun. It was called Duke Nukem Forever and it stunned everyone as to its putridity.

Speak for yourself; DNF turned out exactly as I thought it would. For the many years that game was in Development Hell, I said it would be mediocre at best, or a jumbled mess at worst just because games that get stuck in Dev Hell for so long NEVER do well.

So don't expect these arrogant nimrods to be apologetic or sympathetic to you or the people they screw over. They're going to keep doing it and justifying it with their profits (any guesses on how much this train wreck cost to produce? I know the numbers will never be published but if it was more than a million, EA got robbed and thank gods they did) until everyone smartens up and stops buying what they're selling.

This however, this is dead on the money.
EA has found a way to twist user feedback to their benefit, and apparently, it's working. Otherwise, the reaction we see here would be closer to that of the disastrous Sim City launch last year. (or those who hold out hope can try "If you have to publicly claim that there is no problem, there's obviously a problem.")

We COULD be rid of these awful business practices (obvious "Freemium" price-gouging, and rape of great IP/Game Concepts), but we won't because the gullible sheep keep giving the assholes money.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

In the meantime, Loadout offers a tight Free to Play experience that pays for itself with cosmetic upgrades. The game itself is free, but I enjoyed the weapon-crafting system so much that I figured I might throw the devs a bone. Twenty bucks later, I have a customized character and paid exactly what I WOULD have paid for something like this. I don't need to give the devs one extra cent to get the full package.

This, EA, is Free to Play done right!

 

[Madmonk12345]

We COULD be rid of these awful business practices (obvious "Freemium" price-gouging, and rape of great IP/Game Concepts), but we won't because the gullible sheep keep giving the assholes money.

Actually, there might be a solution. There are places where the apathetic and the uncaring don't matter. If this issue were made legislative, people who play the games but don't sufficiently care either way wouldn't vote, or would vote at random and be uninfluential towards the outcome. On the other hand, people who are actually informed about these issues, who are passionate about these actions, would vote and support such a bill. Given that these practices are indefensible to the informed, such a bill would pass easily in absence of lobbying. Such lobbying costs money, and while EA would be able to do so, it would hurt them the only place they care about: their wallets, in a way that a boycott wouldn't come close given the large number of uninformed people in the market.

Even if EA attempts to fight such a bill in court, court battles cost major amounts of money. If such a bill were to be voted on, no matter what EA does, EA loses, whether small or large.

If only that were easily accomplished...

 

[Flammablezeus]

I still don't understand why people are upset. War for the Overworld is just around the corner and Dungeon Keeper 2 is available on GoG. Hell, I only got DK2 last year and I think it's a great game. Holds up with modern games just fine.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

When Peter Molyneux is calling you out for your BS use of in-app microtransactions, you really need to take a hard look in the mirror

 

[samaugsch]

I'm convinced at this point that EA is run entirely by trolls.

 

[Living Contradiction]

Games like this should be covered by consumer protection like every other product on the planet is. We should be able to sue EA into the next century for bringing out a game that is DESIGNED to trick people in the worst, most disgusting ways possible. This game has committed fraud in my eyes; covering a underhanded cash-grab by lying to consumers and hijacking the ratings system, filtering out all dissenting voices.

Sadly, I don't see any major strides coming regarding content fraud in the future. Oh sure, laws have been passed that make usury, mail fraud, and predatory collection illegal but there are still quickie loan shops, heavy-handed collection agencies, and "as-seen-on-TV" con artists floating about the world, some with brick and mortar shops that make cheerful profit on the backs of those who don't know any better. Hell, one of the most blatant and joked about tactics involves Nigerian princes and offers that make even the most cynical netizens go "Oh come on! That old thing?", but they wouldn't still be talked about in the present tense if people weren't still going, "Why yes! I'd love to have a slice of twenty-seven million dollars. Here's my bank account number!"

If such a law existed, it could be gotten around or argued against and that's if anyone managed to get enough people to register a complaint. And if such a law existed, it could be abused to the point of parody. Remember the rage that rippled through the Internet over the Mass Effect ending? Imagine if a content fraud law existed. In the face of a lawsuit of that size, EA would've dropped Bioware like a hot rock and we most certainly would not be receiving another installation of Dragon Age.

How about news sites? Can you imagine how badly governments or corporations could abuse such a law, stating that a news provider was committing content fraud and distributing clearly erroneous information about its practices? We already have libel laws that get worn to the point of paper-thinness and we've seen the childish "You said bad things about me so I'm gonna make you pay" attitude that publishers and developers have used against critics in the past. They could take more substantial and damaging action with a content fraud law, grinding dissenters into the dirt and leaving only sycophants to trumpet the beauty of the crappy practices that the law was created to fight against.

Raising consumer awareness and educating people so they know enough not to buy into these shams is what is needed. Point out the lazy/corrupt journalism of sites that <link=http://www.maclife.com/article/reviews/dungeon_keeper_review>give tripe like Dungeon Keeper Mobile comments of "Great mix of building, resource management, and combat." Hammer away at the corporate shills and "praise for cash" monkeys in our midst. Don't just not buy into the ripoffs that these companies sell; quit supporting them entirely. And whenever you can, if you see people buying into these scams, take them aside (even if you don't know them), put an actual game in their hands and give them a small talk about consumer responsibility and good gaming.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Ea dismisses criticism, saying, "We don't give a shit about what you think, and never have, now give us your money."

Given how much effort they put into advertising, it's more like they pretend to care until you pay them, and then pretty much ignore you.

Ad-agencies in a nutshell.

I'm probably pushing it, but couldn't this be worth some pressure at the Better Business Bureau?

Considering that it's user-feedback that's being manipulated, and that said feedback directly gives the game more exposure on the android market for reasons OTHER than its actual merits, I'd say this is legitimately worth forwarding to the BBB.

Actually, there might be a solution. There are places where the apathetic and the uncaring don't matter. If this issue were made legislative, people who play the games but don't sufficiently care either way wouldn't vote, or would vote at random and be uninfluential towards the outcome. On the other hand, people who are actually informed about these issues, who are passionate about these actions, would vote and support such a bill. Given that these practices are indefensible to the informed, such a bill would pass easily in absence of lobbying. Such lobbying costs money, and while EA would be able to do so, it would hurt them the only place they care about: their wallets, in a way that a boycott wouldn't come close given the large number of uninformed people in the market.

Even if EA attempts to fight such a bill in court, court battles cost major amounts of money. If such a bill were to be voted on, no matter what EA does, EA loses, whether small or large.

If only that were easily accomplished...

Hmmm. Reverse-lobbying. Of course, it's pretty expensive to lobby to begin with, AND Big Media is already in good with the US lobby system already. It'd need a concerted effort, but without serious public support it'd be easily dismissed.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

Wow. And here I was thinking that EA had, maybe, started to do some sensible (or at least approaching sensible) things. 'Haha, nope', says they, as they proceed to take a three foot long shit on the collective faces of the consumers. 'Wow EA, you really are working to fix that whole worst company business aren't you', says one internet denizen, his voice brimming with sarcasm thick enough to cut with a knife.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I think we need Hanlon's Razor here. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Do I think EA thought "You know what? I think I'll screw over my consumers, the people my company needs to survive?" No, I don't. I'm not defending the game, mind you, if only because I've not played it. As for the user feedback, perhaps EA was thinking "If my customers aren't giving 5-star ratings, they must have a problem with it. I'll set up a system for them to let us know what the reasons are for not giving us the highest ratings." But, because it was EA doing it, it blew up in their faces.

In short, I'm calling this a bad move that got blown way out of proportion by being attached to EA's name.

 

[Doug]

Interesting question - does this 'game' warrant taking away the Zero Punctuation worst game ever award from 'Ride to Hell: Retribution' and giving it to this in-app purchasing system.... if it qualifies as enough of a game to allow it to get the award.