When EA falls, Ubisoft will rise.

[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.

 

[Nurb]

Ubisoft and Activision are as much a part of the problem as EA is.

Gaming cannot be fixed until the monopoly is broken up with the crumbling of the big publishers. Another video game crash needs to happen.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

That's because I agreed with most of your points for the most part but had to give my reason for disliking EA.You're right other publishers do shut down dev studios because they don't make a profit but EA in particular runs the studios they have into the ground.They often kill golden gooses simply because they were'nt laying golden eggs fast enough,then blame the goose for it's death.Hell they meddle with their studios so much then when they do fail they blame the goddamn studio instead of their meddling,and when you have other developers refuse to sign with EA then you have to wonder why they don't want to sign up with them.

You act as if EA's meddling is exclusive to EA. Most major publishers meddle in the business of developers. And to be fair, a lot of the studios that EA closed down were either a lost cause or not worth losing money continually over.

People like to bring up Bullfrog for example. Great Studio, but when Peter Molyneux left in 1997 that was it. The company coasted until 2004.

You already know about Pandemic.

There's also Origin Studios of Ultima fame. Ultima Online was a failure and EA didn't meddle with that. That and the sloppy Ultima IX release killed that company (along with Lord British leaving due to EA's involvement with Ultima IX).

I'm not a fan of EA, but I'm also not a fan of people using the "they kill studios" excuse to dislike them entirely. Studios are capable of bringing their own demise and people seem to gloss over that.

Now I will say that a good amount of studios got fucked by EA. But people have to accept that other companies use the exact same tactics when meddling into affairs and closing down studios with good talent. EA also has the shittiest PR team in the gaming industry next to Sony and Ubisoft current.

 

[Auron]

Out of the three big publishers (Activision, EA and Ubisoft), EA seems to me like the lesser evil. They have the worst reputation because of how they draw negative attention to themselves due of their incompetent PR and executives who don't know when to shut up.

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.

Don't even get me started on Activision (grrr).

As for EA dying - doesn't seem very likely. As much as we might hate them, their games are popular and will continue to sell. They make huge amounts of money just from their yearly sports games, most of which are basically roster updates that don't require much work.

Perfectly agreed. Activision is much much worse than both,Kotick's responsible for 60 dollar games and it would be MUCH more expensive if he was the sole decider on the matter never forget that. Ubisoft did some terrible stuff but they actually learned how to treat customers I think. EA is in-between on my book but while they're all out of touch idiots no one comes close to Activision's management.


EA will not die by the way it's a long ways off, they might get smarter or have to significantly reduce their operation however.

Ultima Online was a failure

Are you serious? The first actually popular MMO was a failure? One of the most acclaimed games of it's generation, a failure? It's the first MMORPG to Reach 100,000 Players which back then was very significant.

 

[vasiD]

And then they too will grow just as disgustingly corrupt.

 

[Smeggs]

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,

Woah, woah, woah, woah, when the hell did this happen? I'm pretty sure I played through AC2 completely without internet, unless you're speaking purely PC users.

 

[Something Amyss]

Woah, woah, woah, woah, when the hell did this happen? I'm pretty sure I played through AC2 completely without internet, unless you're speaking purely PC users.

That's really where "always-on DRM" happens.

You don't really need it on consoles, per se. They're a closed system. Cracking the system is more extensive and ostensibly less prevalent.

 

[xefaros]

Did I say...

I didn't say you said it's okay to pirate. I'm just simply asking the question. Since you're the one bring up the idea that pirates are more likely to buy the product they pirate. Which I really don't think that's the case. However, you're the one with the "case studies" and I'm just talking out of my arse and based it on my own experience.

You bring up bunch of examples, but none of them are really in the field of gaming. In my opinion, piracy is benefitial in music, arguably prejudicial to movies and definitly prejudicial to games.

Hotline Miami after offering support to pirates got a bloom in sales.
An indie tittle(Anodyne) advertised in Pirate Bay showed profit.
Another indie tittle(McPixel) opted for distribution through torrents claimed buying the game jumped the scale.

Coining some examples

 

[Tom Waits' hat]

Hotline Miami after offering support to pirates got a bloom in sales.
An indie tittle(Anodyne) advertised in Pirate Bay showed profit.
Another indie tittle(McPixel) opted for distribution through torrents claimed buying the game jumped the scale.

Coining some examples

For every Anodyne and Hotline Miami you also get World of Goo, Machinarium and Project Zomboid.

 

[xefaros]

Hotline Miami after offering support to pirates got a bloom in sales.
An indie tittle(Anodyne) advertised in Pirate Bay showed profit.
Another indie tittle(McPixel) opted for distribution through torrents claimed buying the game jumped the scale.

Coining some examples

For every Anodyne and Hotline Miami you also get World of Goo, Machinarium and Project Zomboid.

Im not saying its a well ironed method but its obvious there is a wider market for cheaper un-restringing products.Also there is a huge transition to a free to play model.There are popular success stories about that.EA might come there first since its already trying to incorporate microtransactions to single player tittles.Also with failures like Alien:CM everyone should no get tricked into giving their money to bad products.
Notice that some countries doesnt allow return of questionable digital products

It works no doubt

 

[Doom972]

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,

Woah, woah, woah, woah, when the hell did this happen? I'm pretty sure I played through AC2 completely without internet, unless you're speaking purely PC users.

Of course I'm talking about the PC version only. As far as I know there aren't any console games that use always-online DRM.