When EA falls, Ubisoft will rise.

[Lilani]

Ubisoft are very good in the eyes of the public( when compared to EA)

Not really. If EA is the milk that's three weeks spoiled, then Ubisoft is the milk that's two weeks spoiled. Maybe not quite as spoiled, but still passed due and regarded by most as a great risk to consume.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

EA will die.

Seeing as the OP hasn't responded to people calling out their less than logical attempt at predicting the downfall of EA, I assume they didn't want to further the discussion for fear of looking the part of a fool. I've called people who needlessly hate on EA morons for quite a while now, this OP only proves that point.

If you have to make a thread to bash EA, you're already fighting a losing battle.

Let me ask the OP something. What did EA do to you PERSONALLY to have them make your list for faceless companies to hate?

It's 'he', thank you very much. What has EA done to personally wrong me, you may ask? A trick question. If I had been of half a mind to purchase SimCity 5 or Medal of Honor: Warfighter, or if I was ever gullible enough to download Origin, then I could tell you reams. But a vampire cannot enter your house unless you invite it, and I have managed to steer clear of their malign influence. Mind you, I'm still bitter about Bullfrog.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Games are the worst, as it doesn't really provide any benefits. While you might say that games get more known because of that, an indie studio that doesn't have deep pocket will get into some serious financial troubles before they get to release their next game.

Disagreed. Anodyne was advertised on the Pirate Bay after it was being pirated on the site. The attention helped the game become a success.

Hotline Miami was massively pirated online. So much so that it became a news story and generated more word of mouth about an already critically acclaimed and anticipated indie release. The developer is currently making a sequel.

You assume that all indie game studios are capable of good PR and marketing, crucial aspects of getting an indie title known. You have to admit, a lot of indie titles don't even make it to the "getting pirated" stage. Also, not every indie game is something special anymore. There are so many reputable indie titles that have come out nowadays. The attitude towards indie games is to treat them as you would a regular AAA game. People are more likely to buy it if they like it, and very few websites review a good portion of indie games even today. And word of mouth on the internet is dodgy sometimes. People treat pirating games as renting it from Blockbuster now. If they don't like it, it's deleted. If they do like it, they buy it. Games with online aspects are also not worth pirating because pirated copies can't be used to play online in the majority of cases.

A good chunk of indie games are also sold as alpha tests anyways, and no one puts those up on TPB. No point.

It's human nature, why would anyone pay for something if they can get it for free and get away with it.

That strawman logic doesn't explain how massive companies can consistently have their games pirated beyond belief and still sell millions of copies. If everyone is as greedy as you make them out to be, no video game company that makes games for the PC would survive.

Here's a list of the most pirated games of all time:[link] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-pirated-games-time/[\link]

Now let's take a look at COD Black Ops. Downloaded 4.27 million times. But it also was the biggest entertainment launch in US history at the time of its release. Sold 5.6 million dollars. Do you mean to tell me that 4.27 million PC players just didn't wind up buying Black Ops after downloading it? Because that seems to be what you're suggesting. It also would be illogical as you can't play COD online with a pirated version.

Everygame on that list has been massively pirated in the millions, but also sold millions in their own right for being games people enjoyed playing/had to pay to get the full game.

So we now have it that piracy isn't hurting indie games as much as you're making it seem. We also have it showing that people buy what they pirate of they like it or if they want to access all of it(meaning they liked it enough to pay for the access).

You want to know why people pay for things they can get for free?

A) The product you pay for is usually in better quality and has all parts accessible.

B) People have enough respect for each other to pay someone for the work they did on a game they enjoyed.

C) Not everyone is a dick. Seriously I know you're not pro DRM, but you have to realize that throwing all piracy as the major problem for any financial troubles in the PC gaming industry is a flawed outlook to have.

What's been the major reason for the poor sales/poor reception for Diablo 3, Sim City 3, Miner Wars 2081, any Ubisoft game released in 2011? Draconian DRM. That's LOST money across the board due to idiotic business decisions. On the flipside as I mentioned piracy is seeming like one of the best ways to advertise indie games as of late.

It may be human nature to take something if its free and you can get away with it. It's also human nature to reward people for their hard work in a fair way. That's why most people who pirate games wind up buying them if they like them, and not just having a stack of pirated games. What you're talking about is 13 year olds behaving in a way you'd expect 13 year olds to act. The average gamer is in their 30s now, I'd like to think we're a little more mature than that, and the numbers seem to have my side on that.

 

[Terramax]

Ubisoft is very popular with the public (like EA once was),

Oh yeah, them accusing about 95% of PC users of being pirates [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119200-Ubisoft-Puts-PC-Piracy-Rate-at-93-95]; using Beyond Good and Evil 2 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114158-Want-Beyond-Good-and-Evil-2-Buy-Rayman-Origins] to coerce people into buying other Ubisoft games; stupidly putting their own games up against each other, and other big hitters and delaying a game on one console for months that is ready just so they can have a multi-platform release [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121977-Rayman-Legends-Goes-Multiplatform], a move that even caued the creator of the game itself to protest [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122077-Rayman-Creator-Joins-Legends-Protest] is really winning over hearts and minds of gamers

Yeah, but besides that, what has anyone got against them?

Anyways, whilst their business practices aren't exactly water tight, I still think Activision is likely to take their place.

That being said, are EA even considered the top dogs anymore?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

EA will die.

Seeing as the OP hasn't responded to people calling out their less than logical attempt at predicting the downfall of EA, I assume they didn't want to further the discussion for fear of looking the part of a fool. I've called people who needlessly hate on EA morons for quite a while now, this OP only proves that point.

If you have to make a thread to bash EA, you're already fighting a losing battle.

Let me ask the OP something. What did EA do to you PERSONALLY to have them make your list for faceless companies to hate?

It's 'he', thank you very much. What has EA done to personally wrong me, you may ask? A trick question. If I had been of half a mind to purchase SimCity 5 or Medal of Honor: Warfighter, or if I was ever gullible enough to download Origin, then I could tell you reams. But a vampire cannot enter your house unless you invite it, and I have managed to steer clear of their malign influence. Mind you, I'm still bitter about Bullfrog.

So you think that EA will die out of some sick, illogical want to see them die? Just...because?

That's even worse than having a personal reason for hating EA. And the fact that you champion Ubisoft without giving much reason other than "people like them better than EA" is laughable. People like me better than EA, ergo, people should buy AzrealMaximillion's RPG Maker made RPG by the millions due to your logic.

Seriously, what with the recent 95% sales beating they took from PC gamers after the 2011 "Ubisoft year of DRM", the fact that Nintendo fans are pissed at Rayman Legends not coming out as a launch WiiU title, AND it also no longer being exclusive, the fact that ZombiU will be looked back upon as a passable but not needed title on the WiiU with mot much strength in the sales department, the fact that fans of Assassin's Creed are sick of annual Assassin's Creed...

I could go on but Ubisoft is not be any means replacing EA. The next Splinter Cell game isn't generating much buzz either and had a crappy first trailer.

 

[Inferus Eques]

Well actually Valve was.

I take it you are talking about Steam? It has an offline mode, which I find very useful when playing on my laptop in places where an internet connection isn't available. Also, if you lose your connection while playing on Steam's online mode, you can keep on playing all of your games as long as you don't exit Steam. In always-online games, even a temporary connection failure will cause the game to quit, and no offline play is available.

The Steam of today and the Steam that existed ten years ago are two very different services. In its early years it was always online drm with an offline mode that if you were lucky worked ten percent of the time. If you lost connection you normally ended up getting logged out and couldnt play your games.

Regardless of what they are now they made massive breakthroughs in getting people to accept some really shitty drm. They helped prove that people are willing to take it up the ass to be able to play the games they want.[/quote]

Normally, I would disagree... But in this case I think back to the first Steam game I bought, Half-Life 2 on disk, and I couldn't play until I had a stable internet connection. Which, back then, I didn't have. It was the first time ever I bought a game on a disk I couldn't play without the internet. So guess what, upgraded my internet and was able to play it, whooo. Oh the poor me that lived in the dark ages without the internet until I had to in order to play a game I liked that I could only play at lan centers at the time. Don't mistake me, I love Valve now, but I can see the fact they kinda forced the online thing first. (plus if valve went under and couldn't support steam I'd be out a lot of money) So long live Valve! Looking at it positively thanks for getting me on the internet?

 

[Get_A_Grip_]

Since when are Unisoft popular!?
They are as bad as Activison when it comes to running franchises into the ground and their history with DRM has been terrible.

Out of all the major publishers I'd say 2K come out on top.

 

[Tom Waits' hat]

Disagreed. Anodyne was advertised on the Pirate Bay after it was being pirated on the site. The attention helped the game become a success... A good chunk of indie games are also sold as alpha tests anyways, and no one puts those up on TPB.

For every Anodyne and Hotline Miami you also get World of Goo, Machinarium and Project Zomboid. It's really a rare scenario that piracy actually help video game.

Take a look here store.steampowered.com/genre/Early Access
And do a quick search on TPB, a good chuck of those indie games that are in alpha stage are on TPB.

Doesn't explain how massive companies can consistently have their games pirated beyond belief and still sell millions of copies..

Larger sample size. You're thinking it as if the amount of people who would buy Hotline Miami is same as people who would purchase Call of Duty.

Now let's take a look at COD Black Ops. Downloaded 4.27 million times. But it also was the biggest entertainment launch in US history at the time of its release. Sold 5.6 million dollars. Do you mean to tell me that 4.27 million PC players just didn't wind up buying Black Ops after downloading it? Because that seems to be what you're suggesting. It also would be illogical as you can't play COD online with a pirated version.

Guess what they all have in common? Online multiplayers. I'm telling you without a need to purchase a legit copies, majority of the pirates are not going to purchase it. For what purpose? They already have a working copy of the game, why would they want to spend $50 for it?

Diablo 3 and SimCity 3 both haven't been cracked yet, and both turns out to have strong sales figures. How many of the would be pirates ended up purchasing those two games because they simply can not find a working copy on TPB? Diablo 3, despite the harsh DRM went on and sold another 6 millions copies in that year.

If Diablo 3 and SimCity 3 are DRM free with offline function added, do you think most pirates would still buy it?

It may be human nature to take something if its free and you can get away with it. It's also human nature to reward people for their hard work in a fair way. That's why most people who pirate games wind up buying them if they like them, and not just having a stack of pirated games. What you're talking about is 13 year olds behaving in a way you'd expect 13 year olds to act. The average gamer is in their 30s now, I'd like to think we're a little more mature than that, and the numbers seem to have my side on that.

You have way too much faith in humanity my friend.

If it's human nature to reward people for their hard work in a fair way, sites like Pirate Bay wouldn't exist in the first place. From what I saw in the past 15 years, pirates who actually purchase the game are extremely rare. Oh, they all say the do, but those people who actually do it are really in the minority. Most pirates simply don't purchase the game after they're done with it.

 

[Ickorus]

I'd like to remind you that Ubisoft were the first to use the always-online DRM for a single player game in Assassin's Creed 2, and have used it in several single player games since, and have made some idiotic statements too.

Well actually Valve was.

I don't think there's a single too big to fail company in the game industry. That said EA, Ubisoft and Blizzard-Activision would have to try pretty damn hard to fail at this point. I am also Jacks complete and utter lack of surprise that some of the absolute shadiest and shittiest business practices in this industry originate (HA!) with one of those companies. The only company that I'm regularly exposed to that even comes close to any of those three companies is probably Capcom, a company that does in fact seem to be trying to actively antagonize their customers to the point that I could see them serving as a cautionary tale in 5-10 years.

The proper use of to big to fail as in when other companies and the government use it means that a company is to big to fail without destroying the industry/economy. If EA went bankrupt it would cause a chain reaction that would cause a video game crash. They are simply to big and have to many other companies relying on them. Sony and Microsoft would take a huge hit without the games they constantly produce.

I wouldn't be so sure, Sony and Nintendo at the least have both been making efforts to entice the indie scene to their consoles, it may well be that they're preparing for the worst so if EA (or the AAA scene as a whole) fall they won't be hit so hard as they otherwise would.

Not sure how Microsoft is dealing with the indie scene since last I heard they were still charging them crazy amounts of money to release patches and such making it difficult for a small or indie developer to thrive on their platform.

And to those people saying EA are OK, they've been steadily losing money for the last few years, they may not be in the worst shape yet and it's a bit early to be saying they're on their deathbed but they definitely aren't doing well.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

EA will die.

Seeing as the OP hasn't responded to people calling out their less than logical attempt at predicting the downfall of EA, I assume they didn't want to further the discussion for fear of looking the part of a fool. I've called people who needlessly hate on EA morons for quite a while now, this OP only proves that point.

If you have to make a thread to bash EA, you're already fighting a losing battle.

Let me ask the OP something. What did EA do to you PERSONALLY to have them make your list for faceless companies to hate?

It's 'he', thank you very much. What has EA done to personally wrong me, you may ask? A trick question. If I had been of half a mind to purchase SimCity 5 or Medal of Honor: Warfighter, or if I was ever gullible enough to download Origin, then I could tell you reams. But a vampire cannot enter your house unless you invite it, and I have managed to steer clear of their malign influence. Mind you, I'm still bitter about Bullfrog.

So you think that EA will die out of some sick, illogical want to see them die? Just...because?

That's even worse than having a personal reason for hating EA. And the fact that you champion Ubisoft without giving much reason other than "people like them better than EA" is laughable. People like me better than EA, ergo, people should buy AzrealMaximillion's RPG Maker made RPG by the millions due to your logic.

Seriously, what with the recent 95% sales beating they took from PC gamers after the 2011 "Ubisoft year of DRM", the fact that Nintendo fans are pissed at Rayman Legends not coming out as a launch WiiU title, AND it also no longer being exclusive, the fact that ZombiU will be looked back upon as a passable but not needed title on the WiiU with mot much strength in the sales department, the fact that fans of Assassin's Creed are sick of annual Assassin's Creed...

I could go on but Ubisoft is not be any means replacing EA. The next Splinter Cell game isn't generating much buzz either and had a crappy first trailer.

I assure you, I have no reason to champion Ubisoft. Believe me, they'd probably be almost as bad as EA is. I'm simply saying that EA operates under terrifically inept practices (see: Dead Space 3), which tends to lead to decline one way or another. Ubisoft, on the other hand, is a little bit smarter than that. They actually listen to their customers and sometimes change one of their policies if it isn't working right. The fact is, they are a smarter company. Maybe not better, but smarter.

 

[Latinidiot]

We'll just wait and see.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I assure you, I have no reason to champion Ubisoft. Believe me, they'd probably be almost as bad as EA is. I'm simply saying that EA operates under terrifically inept practices (see: Dead Space 3), which tends to lead to decline one way or another. Ubisoft, on the other hand, is a little bit smarter than that. They actually listen to their customers and sometimes change one of their policies if it isn't working right. The fact is, they are a smarter company. Maybe not better, but smarter.

I wouldn't even go so far as to call Ubisoft smarter. People are getting tired of the Annual Assassin's Creed entries. A smart company would put time into making quality games rather than make quick and sloppy games(AC3) every year. A smart company also wouldn't let their PC sales drop by 95% before they undo the one reason that caused the disdain(DRM). If Ubisoft were also a company that listened to its customers well, it wouldn't have needlessly pushed back Rayman Legends' release just to develop a ports for a simultaneous multi-platform release. Rayman Legends should be out right now. They could release it for other consoles later.

If they listened to their customers Beyond Good and Evil 2 would have been out by now.

Besides WatchDogs Ubisoft is just as stagnant as EA in a lot of ways and piss off their customers in ways that EA doesn't.

EA at the moment it's anywhere close to closing its doors. EA can afford to piss people off as long as, and let's face it, it maintains its nigh monopoly on sports simulator games. Hell, I'm surprised that EA hasn't snatched up the rights for a UFC game now that THQ is dead.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

For me they did just that when they killed off Pandemic and the Mercenaries series, but keep giving them money because they will do something that will piss you off too.[/quote]

Ok, Mecenaries 2 sucked and was an unfinished mess. The Mercanaries series had a cult following at best. And while Pandemic did make some great games, they did make some crappy ones in equal amounts. Very few of their games sold well too.

This is another of those nitpicky reasons to hate EA. They closed down a studio that was losing money. You're mad because you liked them. Apparently not enough for them to stay in business. Its sad because Take Two and THQ each closed down more studios than EA on their own and no one seems to ***** at them for that.

It always seems to be "I hate EA because they closed down MY favourite developers". Its a crap reason. There are tons of reasons to be pissed at EA, but closing down studios that don't profit isn't one of them. That's how corporations work, and many other publishers have done the same thing.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well actually Valve was.

I take it you are talking about Steam? It has an offline mode, which I find very useful when playing on my laptop in places where an internet connection isn't available. Also, if you lose your connection while playing on Steam's online mode, you can keep on playing all of your games as long as you don't exit Steam. In always-online games, even a temporary connection failure will cause the game to quit, and no offline play is available.

The Steam of today and the Steam that existed ten years ago are two very different services. In its early years it was always online drm with an offline mode that if you were lucky worked ten percent of the time. If you lost connection you normally ended up getting logged out and couldnt play your games.

Regardless of what they are now they made massive breakthroughs in getting people to accept some really shitty drm. They helped prove that people are willing to take it up the ass to be able to play the games they want.

10 years ago? Dude, they just fixed that last year. Steam had an almost completely broken offline mode (it only worked if you either had internet when you initially went into offline mode, or you had a current backup of a file that nobody knew to backup until someone did some digging with a hex editor last year. My personal theory is the only reason it works now is someone at Valve realized that one of their customers had identified the source of the problem for them) from launch until late 2012.

Edit: Forgot, the reason the behavior was erratic, instead of being 100% "only works if you have internet to start with" was because the file in question got corrupted any time Steam wasn't properly shut down, which happened any time you shut down your computer without exiting Steam first, but didn't generally happen if you manually exited steam before shutting down the computer. Apparently Steam didn't play nice with the way Windows closes programs on shutdown.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Did I say I hate EA? I dislike them because they ruin so many studios and as a result have earned a reputation of being a dev killer.But hey if you believe those are nitpicks then I can't convince you otherwise, just know that there are legit reasons for why people hate EA.

I could dislike Take Two Interactive for the studios they shut down. Which, by the way, is more studios than EA. Same with THQ.

And I believe that I stated that there are better reasons to hate EA than "they killed my favourite company".

In fact, here's my exact quote"It always seems to be "I hate EA because they closed down MY favourite developers". Its a crap reason. There are tons of reasons to be pissed at EA, but closing down studios that don't profit isn't one of them."

So thanks for parroting my point...

Look, I don't disagree that EA has done some shitty things in their history, but to dislike them for shutting down Pandemic isn't really the most valid point in my opinion. Like I said, Pandemic made some pretty mediocre games for the most part.

You didn't really argue my point. You reiterated that you dislike EA and then repeated part of my argument to me.