Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #41
    Brewmaster Csunforgiven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Spirestone
    Posts
    1,356
    Quote Originally Posted by dokilar View Post
    we agree mostly on the same thing it seems. i wasnt trying to come off as an ea sympathizer nor supporter. i was merely stating that while they may be the biggest offenders theyre certainly not the only offender.

    proceed with the chlorophyll!!!

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-28 at 09:58 PM ----------



    ive never heard of A Separation, but the avengers was pretty amazing...
    The avengers was kickass, I hear Men in Black III took it over at the box office however

    OT: EA is evil. Very, very evil.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ofoz View Post
    Had to share this.

    would of been a million times better if the overhyped,poorly made game said star wars the old republic on it

    i would of laughed so hard

  3. #43
    EA is just the big bad right now. Easy for people to jump on the hate bandwagon. In a few years time it will shift again when it becomes popular to hate someone else

  4. #44
    Mechagnome Kitti Pryde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    East Coast - US
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by DremWow View Post
    EA is just the big bad right now. Easy for people to jump on the hate bandwagon. In a few years time it will shift again when it becomes popular to hate someone else
    Eh, yes and no. EA's been full of shitheads for awhile now, even though it seems like just now that people are suddenly upset by it. I guess it's mostly because of their recent interference with solid, fast-growing companies, not just sports games and The Sims.

    Unfortunately, Bioware was one of my favorite companies. I've played almost every single one of their games, from Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect 3. I loved all of them it seems until EA became involved (not including Mass Effect 2). I can only help but point my finger at them. I personally don't hate them because it's cool to hate them, I hate them because I feel like they limited the creativity of Bioware. I feel like such a hipster, but I hate "blockbuster games" as much as most blockbuster movies. I just don't like the concept of it.
    A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.-George Bernard Shaw

  5. #45
    I am Murloc! Thallidomaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    People cry and cry, but video games wouldn't be where they are today without EA.

    They pretty much invented the modern MMO as we know it (Ultima), pioneered the sports genre, and pushed the RTS (C&C) scene forward.
    Sadly, I have to agree with that to an extent. They bailed out Maxis in the late 90s and allowed them to survive on. If EA didn't bail them out, Maxis probably would have gone out of business and Will Wright's vision of The Sims would not have come to fruition.

    However, I have some feeling that they were involved somewhat in butchering Spore to the lacking form it was on release. They've also butchered The Sims 3 to the point of it seemingly like a pay-to-play MMO (the box cost of the game) and tact on micro-transactions just for the purpose of the $$$.

    Oh and I also remembered this quote someone said about EA:

    EA Games: Charge for everything! This was back when EA had the "Challenge everything" slogan.
    Last edited by Thallidomaniac; 2012-05-29 at 03:16 AM.

    Enstraynomic - League of Legends
    TheEnst - Starcraft II

  6. #46
    Titan Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    13,842
    Quote Originally Posted by McNeil View Post
    The Blizzard store is basicaly a DLC shop. 20 bucks for a mount and 10 bucks for a pet seem extremely overpriced trough
    So? Blizzard's "DLC" has no impact on the core of WoW's gameplay. DLC should always be something extra. Like in ME2, you can buy Arrival and have a better understanding of how the Reapers invaded the galaxy, a set up for ME3, but Arrival is not a necessity to understanding the main story. That sort of DLC I have no problem with. If you do not do Arrival, then ME3's storyline behaves as if Shepard is not involved in the Alpha Relay destruction, it has no real bearing on the storyline. Point is, as long as it is tangential but not key to the main storyline, I do not mind the DLC model.

    If however, a game is released and a key part of the game is being sold as DLC on top of the price of the base game, that I do take issue with.

    Besides, selling a few aesthetic mounts is nothing. They add no advantage to the people who buy them nor do they progress the game for those players. A player can give Blizzard nothing more than the monthly sub and get all the main content and have no disadvantage next to someone who buys things from the blizz store.
    Last edited by Adam Jensen; 2012-05-29 at 03:26 AM.

    If a video game developer removed tumors from players, they'd whine about nerfing their loss in weight and access to radiation powers. -Cracked.com

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    People cry and cry, but video games wouldn't be where they are today without EA.

    They pretty much invented the modern MMO as we know it (Ultima), pioneered the sports genre, and pushed the RTS (C&C) scene forward.
    Ultima Online was made by Origin, who was then bought by EA.

    UO most certainly did not invent the modern MMO, they simply were the first to make it a commercial venture. The MMO concept had been around for years before we finally got game companies to take it seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by xxAkirhaxx View Post
    Blizzard is a conglomerate that through lower sub numbers has raised revenue. They're not stupid, they're just not catering to you.
    Yes yes, I know, the sky just bonked you on the head, casuals are taking over the government, and some baddie just got a raid drop... I think you'll live.

    http://darisdroppings.wordpress.com

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Karosene View Post
    10/10

    It baffles me how anyone can defend EA.
    only thing i can defend about them is their NHL Series, I LOVE IT.

  9. #49
    Thing is, as soon as we talk big publishers and a game is bad, it's the publisher's fault and the developer has been pushed too hard etc. When a game is good it is good despite the publisher and the developer must be a god to be able to thrive under such circumstances.

    I'm not saying that the above is wrong, it certainly fits some cases better than others, but just an observation. If publishers were all bad developers wouldn't want them backing them after all.

  10. #50
    EA sports, It's in the game.................for $10,- extra that is

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    People cry and cry, but video games wouldn't be where they are today without EA.

    They pretty much invented the modern MMO as we know it (Ultima), pioneered the sports genre, and pushed the RTS (C&C) scene forward.
    And to this the reply should be a resounding: lolsowhat?!

    Seriously, just because something may have been good in the past, does not give it a saving grace for it being a huge pile of steaming crap later. All its past achievements mean nothing when purely evaluating their current situation.

  12. #52
    companies like EA and Activision are needed unfortunately, they have the money, they can spend a couple million dollars on a project which a developing studio doesn't have.
    they got access to distribution networks, they can provide advertising , they can make sure your ambitious game project even gets completed.
    without those publishing companies games would have been much smaller and less advanced.

    on the other side, I am also not a fan of DLC and microtransactions. I don't want to pay for items or extra content (especially if it turns out the DLC was printed on the Dvd and shipped with the game)
    unfortunately because publishers have the money they also have the power, they can kill projects and studios as they seem fit, they can force a developer to do certain things.
    And they take most of the money you pay for your game because they need their investment back.
    Small studios are in the publishers grasp and won't be able to escape it.

  13. #53
    It's true..EA have become more and more greedy over the years, sacrificing integrity for profit...but tbh they've brought us some lovely games over the years so I can't hate them completely.

  14. #54
    I never liked EA in general. Their sports games alone have stinked of greed for decades. They update the rosters and rarely anything else.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Magruun View Post
    companies like EA and Activision are needed unfortunately, they have the money, they can spend a couple million dollars on a project which a developing studio doesn't have.
    they got access to distribution networks, they can provide advertising , they can make sure your ambitious game project even gets completed.
    without those publishing companies games would have been much smaller and less advanced.

    on the other side, I am also not a fan of DLC and microtransactions. I don't want to pay for items or extra content (especially if it turns out the DLC was printed on the Dvd and shipped with the game)
    unfortunately because publishers have the money they also have the power, they can kill projects and studios as they seem fit, they can force a developer to do certain things.
    And they take most of the money you pay for your game because they need their investment back.
    Small studios are in the publishers grasp and won't be able to escape it.
    You seem confused, we don't need companies like EA all those games they make and developers they gobble up? Those were all companies who did their own work made great games and got the attention of the destroyer. We don't need companies like EA or Activision unless you are happy with the stagnation of the industry that gives you a few great games a year, dozens of generic shooters, and 95% shovelware.

    Companies like EA and Activision do little more than stifle creativity while pushing for increasing production values. Apparently it's all good if it looks great, even if it's a buggy broken mess. I recently read a maganzine article (PC Gamer I believe) where a developer sent in a peice they wrote where they described the industry as a contest of "who could spend more" not who could make the better game.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Magruun View Post
    companies like EA and Activision are needed unfortunately, they have the money, they can spend a couple million dollars on a project which a developing studio doesn't have.
    they got access to distribution networks, they can provide advertising , they can make sure your ambitious game project even gets completed.
    without those publishing companies games would have been much smaller and less advanced.

    on the other side, I am also not a fan of DLC and microtransactions. I don't want to pay for items or extra content (especially if it turns out the DLC was printed on the Dvd and shipped with the game)
    unfortunately because publishers have the money they also have the power, they can kill projects and studios as they seem fit, they can force a developer to do certain things.
    And they take most of the money you pay for your game because they need their investment back.
    Small studios are in the publishers grasp and won't be able to escape it.
    Thats the crux of it sadly. If you want millions and millions of dollars spent on developing games, then you need big business to back that up. And big businesses are in the business of making money.

    DLC I can go either way with. Expansions to games down the road can give extra gameplay cheaply, but then it's a balance of wether it should be there in the game in the first place.

    I think you have to take DLCs on a case by case basis. Some seem worthwhile (like the old expansions to games like NWN, Diablo etc)... others,,,maybe not so much (especially if packaged with the orginial game like ME3 for example).

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-29 at 01:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    You seem confused, we don't need companies like EA all those games they make and developers they gobble up? Those were all companies who did their own work made great games and got the attention of the destroyer. We don't need companies like EA or Activision unless you are happy with the stagnation of the industry that gives you a few great games a year, dozens of generic shooters, and 95% shovelware.

    Companies like EA and Activision do little more than stifle creativity while pushing for increasing production values. Apparently it's all good if it looks great, even if it's a buggy broken mess. I recently read a maganzine article (PC Gamer I believe) where a developer sent in a peice they wrote where they described the industry as a contest of "who could spend more" not who could make the better game.
    Really? You explain how a smallish development company can get $25m to make a fairly standard game... GTA IV apparently cost $100m.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    People cry and cry, but video games wouldn't be where they are today without EA.

    They pretty much invented the modern MMO as we know it (Ultima), pioneered the sports genre, and pushed the RTS (C&C) scene forward.
    Ummmm, no.

    They have gobbled up the studios that have pushed and innovated their respective genres. But rest assured, that once EA has purchased them, the quality of those franchises slow go down hill until they are an empty husk of their former self and the studios themselves are shut down.

    EA is a publisher who's main goal is to make as much return on their initial investment as they possible can.

    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    With the exception of the very first game, it's been all EA. If you don't like the games, that's all good, but every single one has gotten critical acclaim (red alert series too), with the exception of Tiberian Twilight.
    Critical acclaim by who? The same reviewing industry that is bought and paid for by the same publishers? When's the last time you've seen a bad (I'm talking 60% or lower) review of a major studios game?
    Last edited by Jarlathe; 2012-05-29 at 12:56 PM.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    You seem confused, we don't need companies like EA all those games they make and developers they gobble up? Those were all companies who did their own work made great games and got the attention of the destroyer. We don't need companies like EA or Activision unless you are happy with the stagnation of the industry that gives you a few great games a year, dozens of generic shooters, and 95% shovelware.

    Companies like EA and Activision do little more than stifle creativity while pushing for increasing production values. Apparently it's all good if it looks great, even if it's a buggy broken mess. I recently read a maganzine article (PC Gamer I believe) where a developer sent in a peice they wrote where they described the industry as a contest of "who could spend more" not who could make the better game.
    You can definitely make a good game as just a studio but if you cutting edge graphics and animations, a large amount of content, maybe use some intellectual property, release on multiple platforms and be visible to the consumer you need a massive amount of money which is something most developers simply don't have, and if your title won't sell enough you are dead. Publishers are some sort of an insurance towards that, they can suffer some titles that don't sell enough because they also have titles that do well and they sale games year round, a solo studio can't lose a couple million on a project and having no money for a next game which would take at the very least 2-3 years to make.
    Don't be mistaken, making a game these days requires a lot more people, money and work than 10-15 years ago.

    and I can't blame publishers for preferring 'safe' titles, they are after all investing maybe over 10 million dollars in your project including developing, advertising and distribution, something new may not sell while a new Call of Duty with little innovation will absolutely sell.

    Those companies they 'gobble up' are simply looking for financial security. by becoming part of EA they make sure they got their income secured. And if they were still independent but just publishing with EA they'd still have to get their project approved, not only at the start but also during development so EA knows they won't lose money on funding the project.
    it's not like the big fat car comes rolling up your parking lot and you suddenly are enslaved by the devil, the publisher see a way to make money and the developer see a way to ensure survival and work, they both benefit from the deal from a business point of view.
    the restrictions that come with it are something I doubt many developers are happy with but they prefer it over going bankrupt.
    Last edited by Magruun; 2012-05-29 at 01:09 PM.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Solitare-sp View Post
    Thats the crux of it sadly. If you want millions and millions of dollars spent on developing games, then you need big business to back that up. And big businesses are in the business of making money.
    Personally I don't want companies to spend millions on arts and top notch graphics. I'd rather have them make good games instead of barely playable HD videos these games become. But that's just me, I guess most of the playerbase prefers casusal and shallow, but pretty games. Indie games is what's left for me
    I have enough of EA ruining great franchises and studios, forcing DRM and Origin on their games, releasing incomplete games only to sell day-1 DLCs or spill dozens of DLCs, and then saying it, and microtransactions, is what players want, stopping players from giving EA games poor reviews, as well as deflecting complaints with cheap PR tricks.

    I'm not going to buy any game by EA as long as they continue those practices.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by procne View Post
    Personally I don't want companies to spend millions on arts and top notch graphics. I'd rather have them make good games instead of barely playable HD videos these games become. But that's just me, I guess most of the playerbase prefers casusal and shallow, but pretty games. Indie games is what's left for me
    Utimatly I think thats the point. It's just like films. Avengers, etc make billions but require huge investment. Indie films don't need that money, but then won't get the sales on the same scale.

    Horses for Courses and all that... nothing wrong or right about it as such, just personal taste. Me personally, I like a big dumb blockbuster now and then, but also sometimes on a small scale.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •