Search forums

Forums

Export thread

EA Needs to F*** off and die

Limit: 500

Jun 11, 2012#1

HowDroll

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/06/09/origins-demartini-steam-sales-cheapen-intellectual-property/

EA's Senior Vice President of Global Ecommerce David DeMartini said that deep-discounting of games on Valve's Steam service "cheapens intellectual property" in an interview with GamesIndustry.biz. As head of EA's Origin digital distribution service, DeMartini suggested an alternative to Steam's approach in dealing with "aging inventory."

"We don't believe in the drop-it-down, spring-it-up, 75 percent off approach, but we've got something else that we do believe in that we'll be rolling out," he said, without revealing the company's plans outright.

DeMartini also commented on the company's recent announcement to waive distribution fees for crowd-funded titles, saying it was "the first thing Origin did that no one could complain about." Fully-funded games that hit Origin's virtual shelves will not be subject to the service's fees for the first 90 days.

He added, "We figured this is something we could do that is going to please the hardcore; it's going to please the independent development community."

You know what cheapens intellectual property, EA? Releasing shitty, unfinished games and giving the finger to customers who have the gall to complain about it.

In other news, I recently wiped my computer and installed Windows 8, so I will be pirating all future EA titles so that I can avoid having to install their shitty Origin bloatware.

Jun 11, 2012#2

Jay

EA can suck my dick.

But it's hard.... when they keep buying the good companies and IP... then whore it out and taunt you with DLCs.

Jun 11, 2012#3

Ravenpoe

EA holds prisoner everything I love

Jun 11, 2012#4

Adam

The irony is that he's right. Discounting games does cheapen intellectual property - TO ITS PROPER FUCKING VALUE. He wisely left that part off.

Jun 11, 2012#5

Jay

I don't think Steam decides to do it on a whim without authorization with the game maker/publisher anyways. So his argument could eat shit, stop talking bad about Steam, you just want to create your own "Steam" and fleece your client while you scan their computers with their spyware.

Jun 11, 2012#6

Adam

As a more serious analysis, the issue is with how fucking lame a company they are. "Holy shit", the dudes in suits say, "only several million people are buying our second rate product at full MSRP. But six months later, several hundred thousand buy it at a heavily discounted rate. That's a potential loss of..." And they look over at the only functionally intelligent person in the room, the janitor, who answers in low, melodic, soothing tones, "several hundred thousand dollars."

Jun 11, 2012#7

HowDroll

Jay said:
I don't think Steam decides to do it on a whim without authorization with the game maker/publisher anyways. So his argument could eat shit, stop talking bad about Steam, you just want to create your own "Steam" and fleece your client while you scan their computers with their spyware.

Yeah, especially because sales tend to make publishers obscene amounts of money.

Jun 11, 2012#8

Jay

There was a video where I posted that the majority of suits in EA aren't even knowledgeable of the field... they are just rejects from major banks... and you know how well that shit is going in America.... so when they apply their talents, they really don't know what the fuck they are doing.

Here's the video... a worthy watch.

Sure it talks about ME3... but it really goes into detail how TERRIBLE EA is... and how they aren't even making money doing this in the industry.

Jun 11, 2012#9

CynicismKills

HowDroll said:
Yeah, especially because sales tend to make publishers obscene amounts of money.

Exactly this. Steam likely generates insane amounts of cash on sales, especially on things like the upcoming Summer sale.

I bet EA would love to shit all over the Humble Indie Bundles, too, even with all the money those generate for charity. I have never been happier to have cancelled SWtOR than I am after E3 and this latest article.

Jun 11, 2012#10

@Li3n

HowDroll said:
Yeah, especially because sales tend to make publishers obscene amounts of money.

If only there was a place where ppl explained to them about the relation between price and sales... oh right, it's called HIGH SCHOOL!!!!! (at least over here)

Jun 11, 2012#11

Adam

The relationship between price and sales is a little harder to nail down when you have what is essentially an unlimited supply with an incredibly low incremental production cost. If you give something away for nothing, people tend to value it at that.

Jun 11, 2012#12

LordRendar

Not a single of my Euros is ever gonna go to EA as long as I draw breath.Got robbed by them when I bought ME3 ( I bought all the ME games,btw) and now I am gonna steal back from them.
All other publishers that deserve it,will get my money,but EA? fuck em.

Jun 11, 2012#13

@Li3n

Adam said:
The relationship between price and sales is a little harder to nail down when you have what is essentially an unlimited supply with an incredibly low incremental production cost. If you give something away for nothing, people tend to value it at that.

Yeah, an unlimited supply is really a drawback for them because it means that after the initial investment is made back they can set almost any price they want and still make a profit...

The actual hard part is knowing when to drop the price...

And one day graphics won't be able to be improved in ways humans can perceive and then even the oldest game will still be playable to people that care about graphics... meaning that selling it for 5 bucks 10 years later = free money...

Jun 11, 2012#14

Ravenpoe

Be honest... were you excited when you realized the situation called for a graph?

Jun 11, 2012#15

Azurephoenix

EA has ruined every gaming company I've loved and most IP's that I have cherished over the years.

I hope they die in a fire.

Jun 11, 2012#16

Jay

Adam said:
View attachment 6725

Fuck suits.

Jun 11, 2012#17

PatrThom

Jay said:
Fuck suits.

--Patrick

Jun 11, 2012#18

Covar

LordRendar said:
Not a single of my Euros is ever gonna go to EA as long as I draw breath.Got robbed by them when I bought ME3 ( I bought all the ME games,btw) and now I am gonna steal back from them.
All other publishers that deserve it,will get my money,but EA? fuck em.

Really? Robbed?

Jun 11, 2012#19

Ravenpoe

Covar said:
Really? Robbed?

Hey man, you better step back. He's piratin' like robin hood all up in this shit, playin' free games and stickin' it to THE MAN! FUCK YEAH!

Jun 11, 2012#20

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
--Patrick

I now wholeheartedly agree with the idea of fucking these suits you speak of.

Jun 11, 2012#21

Jay

Nothing turns me on more than a woman in a power suit wearing heels. Yum.

But yeah... not those suits....

Jun 11, 2012#22

Eriol

Ravenpoe said:
Be honest... were you excited when you realized the situation called for a graph?

Then I feel the need to link this Informational Presentation

Jun 11, 2012#23

ElJuski

I wish there was a graph that noted my disgust with that chick's teeth over how long I sat and watched that video

Jun 11, 2012#24

Bubble181

As for actions, I think Ubisoft s still a good lot above EA; as well as Activision. As for words, yeah, EA does reign supreme.
And, of course, they've killed the highest amount of fun/good IPs over the years.

Jun 12, 2012#25

ThatNickGuy

As a long-time fan, I really want to buy the new Sim City game.

...but it's being released by EA.
Added at: 08:40
I'm not sure if we should encourage @Adam's charts. I've seen this happen before. It can only lead to bad things:

Jun 12, 2012#26

ElJuski

I buy about one game a year. Sometimes two, sometimes three, sometimes half. These developers, they don't mean much to me.

Jun 12, 2012#27

HowDroll

ThatNickGuy said:
As a long-time fan, I really want to buy the new Sim City game.

...but it's being released by EA.

Arrrr, I have me a simple solution for that, matey.

Jun 12, 2012#28

ElJuski

has it occurred to you guys that if you stop buying their games, AND stop pirating them, you'll show them that you don't want anything to do with them? I feel like doing neither is going to much more immensely improve your cause instead of being the kid sneaking the chocolate.

Jun 12, 2012#29

Bubble181

HowDroll said:
Arrrr, I have me a simple solution for that, matey.

Bit of a problem when it's SimCity MMO and they've already said you won't be able to play alone and ever get a prospering city. Yuck.

Jun 12, 2012#30

Covar

ThatNickGuy said:
As a long-time fan, I really want to buy the new Sim City game.

You could always play Micropolis

Jun 12, 2012#31

ThatNickGuy

I'd prefer a game with graphics that don't look like ass.

Jun 12, 2012#32

Covar

But they're vintage

Jun 12, 2012#33

Ravenpoe

ThatNickGuy said:
I'd prefer a game with graphics that don't look like ass.

But I thought you were playing Assland 2: The Assening

Jun 12, 2012#34

ThatNickGuy

I stopped. The character models were butt ugly.

Jun 12, 2012#35

bhamv3

ElJuski said:
has it occurred to you guys that if you stop buying their games, AND stop pirating them, you'll show them that you don't want anything to do with them? I feel like doing neither is going to much more immensely improve your cause instead of being the kid sneaking the chocolate.

That's what I've been doing with ME3.

Can't do it alone though! One lost sale isn't hurting them much!

Jun 12, 2012#36

ElJuski

Well, if people cared more about actually stopping the issue of companies screwing you over, versus caring insomuch as "now I'm just not gonna pay for it", you don't actually care how the company acts because you're in a win-win. The only people that are losing are the ones that take any moral significance on the matter.

EDIT: Which is to say, yes, in my mind B, you're doing what should be done, and more people should do it, too.

Unless I'm missing some big logic loophole, here.

Jun 12, 2012#37

bhamv3

ElJuski said:
Well, if people cared more about actually stopping the issue of companies screwing you over, versus caring insomuch as "now I'm just not gonna pay for it", you don't actually care how the company acts because you're in a win-win. The only people that are losing are the ones that take any moral significance on the matter.

EDIT: Which is to say, yes, in my mind B, you're doing what should be done, and more people should do it, too.

Unless I'm missing some big logic loophole, here.

No no, we're in agreement.

Which doesn't happen all that often, now that I think about it, so I'm gonna note the date and time and check if there's some sort of weird planetary alignment.

Jun 12, 2012#38

ElJuski

Really, we usually disagree? On what?

Jun 12, 2012#39

bhamv3

ElJuski said:
Really, we usually disagree? On what?

We don't disagree so much as we lack any interaction whatsoever.

Jun 12, 2012#40

Azurephoenix

I'm not buying any more EA products in the future. Even if they try and entice me with more Mass Effect I'm pretty sure at this stage of the game I can ignore it and play some other good stuff. I hate them so much and I don't want them to have any more of my money.

I'm also not stealing any of their shit either. They are fully dead to me now in every way.

Jun 12, 2012#41

ElJuski

bhamv3 said:
We don't disagree so much as we lack any interaction whatsoever.

Yeah. Even quoting each other feels weird.

*stands around awkwardly

Jun 12, 2012#42

HowDroll

Azurephoenix said:
I'm not buying any more EA products in the future. Even if they try and entice me with more Mass Effect I'm pretty sure at this stage of the game I can ignore it and play some other good stuff. I hate them so much and I don't want them to have any more of my money.

I'm also not stealing any of their shit either. They are fully dead to me now in every way.

I sincerely hope Dragon Age 3 sucks. DA:O is one of my favorite games of all time, and I'm going to have a really hard time not playing DA3 if it's supposed to be good. I very much doubt I'll ever pick up a new IP from EA or its subsidiaries, though.

Jun 12, 2012#43

SeraRelm

I think you all need to calm down and remember something very important...

DLC is good. :troll:

Jun 12, 2012#44

HowDroll

SeraRelm said:
I think you all need to calm down and remember something very important...

DLC is good.

Okay

Jun 12, 2012#45

SeraRelm

I'm sorry, that was a typo.

Paying more money for content that should have been released with the game originally yet was withheld to make you pay more for the finished product due to a mixture of greed and meeting unattainable release dates is good. :troll:

Jun 12, 2012#46

ScytheRexx

HowDroll said:
I sincerely hope Dragon Age 3 sucks. DA:O is one of my favorite games of all time, and I'm going to have a really hard time not playing DA3 if it's supposed to be good.

Don't worry, we went from a kingdom/dimension spanning epic journey with a blight-blooded Grey Warden... to Kirkwall's local janitor who works mostly in generic bad guy clean-up. Spent most of the game more excited by the cameos of characters I actually cared about then the ones that spent time around me (Though I did love Merril).

By the next one I imagine we will be a hobbo trying to escape the Kirkwall Civil War only to land in the small town of Blandhaven, in which you must wander around picking up random quests to take the neighbors dog for a walk, find a locals missing wedding ring, meeting with exciting new people like Generic Paladin #4 and Roguish Bisexual Man, only for the town to be attacked by Darkspawn, now looking like this...

Which you then beat away with a stick, becoming the "Baron of Blandhaven".

Jun 12, 2012#47

Piotyr

Dude, spoilers.

Jun 12, 2012#48

Covar

But on the plus side you have 5 classes to choose from with an additional class to be added later via DLC.

Jun 12, 2012#49

Jay

Jun 12, 2012#50

@Li3n

Adam said:
Or take a look at my fancy dancy chart I just did up! The bulk of sales (and costs) are going to occur when the game is first released.

Hence my mention of graphics hitting a ceiling, minimising moral wear and tear (yeah, i have no clue how you spell this in english)...

Adam said:
The more games printed and distributed, the higher the variable costs. Fixed costs are at their peak as the publisher/service provider ramps up its service to prepare for the oncoming assault. At an undetermined time in the future, the game goes digital only so there's little to no variable costs to speak of, but the fixed costs still take up a significant amount of that revenue potential. If the game publisher drops the price on the digital release too far, there's no profit to be made if it can't cover those fixed costs. Of course, it's a little bit different if the publisher isn't Steam as their fixed costs don't include the distribution side so much. In fact, depending on how their agreement works, it may be a charge per purchase download instead. Who knows.

I was assuming a 3rd party would be doing the selling because, well, Steam...

And that the d/l servers would also be used as something else and/or take advantage of p2p...

I mean if .99 is enough to make money on iOS the fixed costs of a d/l service can't be big enough to count (or more likely are offset by other uses).

ElJuski said:
has it occurred to you guys that if you stop buying their games, AND stop pirating them, you'll show them that you don't want anything to do with them? I feel like doing neither is going to much more immensely improve your cause instead of being the kid sneaking the chocolate.

Nah, then it's totally the IP's fault for being worn out...

Jun 12, 2012#51

Azurephoenix

HowDroll said:
I sincerely hope Dragon Age 3 sucks. DA:O is one of my favorite games of all time, and I'm going to have a really hard time not playing DA3 if it's supposed to be good. I very much doubt I'll ever pick up a new IP from EA or its subsidiaries, though.

I feel for you... I loved Dragon Age Origins... played it through 3 times from start to finish (plus the expansion).

Dragon Age 2 was such garbage that when I finished it I uninstalled it immediately and never looked back.

Don't worry... Dragon Age 3 WILL suck. There's no doubt about it.

Jun 12, 2012#52

Ravenpoe

Azurephoenix said:
I feel for you... I loved Dragon Age Origins... played it through 3 times from start to finish (plus the expansion).

Dragon Age 2 was such garbage that when I finished it I uninstalled it immediately and never looked back.

Don't worry... Dragon Age 3 WILL suck. There's no doubt about it.

I just got back from the future, where I got DA3. After installing the disc, all I got was a single room with an npc, asking me if I wanted to buy the chapter 1 dlc.

Jun 12, 2012#53

ThatNickGuy

The sad thing is, at the rate we're going, that's not going to be far from the truth.

Jun 12, 2012#54

HowDroll

Azurephoenix said:
I feel for you... I loved Dragon Age Origins... played it through 3 times from start to finish (plus the expansion).

Dragon Age 2 was such garbage that when I finished it I uninstalled it immediately and never looked back.

Don't worry... Dragon Age 3 WILL suck. There's no doubt about it.

You're probably right. I don't think I could deal with their doing to the DA universe what they did to the ME one -- I feel like my overall life satisfaction would be much higher if I had stopped with Mass Effect 2. The only good thing I can say about DA2 is that it didn't completely fuck up any of the DA:O characters' backstories (at least in my playthrough.)

I like my little fantasy world where my Warden and Alistair live happily ever after. I don't want any god-child fucking that up.

Jun 12, 2012#55

ScytheRexx

Ravenpoe said:
I just got back from the future, where I got DA3. After installing the disc, all I got was a single room with an npc, asking me if I wanted to buy the chapter 1 dlc.

What!? How come you got the room for free!? Was that the pre-order bonus? All I got was the title screen with big letters saying "Purchase the intro room DLC!"

Actually, I just got back from the future when they released Dragon Age 4. Here is the call I got about Dragon Age 4.

Rexx: Hey, so I purchased Dragon Age 4, but it's not letting me install. The disc just tells me to go buy the game on Origin.

EA: That is because you purchased the disc license, you need to purchase the digital license.

Rexx: You mean buying the disk won't give me the game?

EA: Nope, only that you are renting the disc with the data on it.

Rexx: Wow what the hell... okay but if I buy the game on Origin I get to play, right?

EA: Once you purchase the digital license you will be able to then go to the purchase page for the access license.

Rexx: Wait so I have to buy the digital, then pay to unlock the ability to play it?

EA: Unlock the ability to access it, not play it.

Rexx: Then how do I get to play it?

EA: The screen will inform you once you get there. Just make sure to get your Morlock Dollars ready when you get to the character screen.

Rexx: Don't tell me I have to pay to get the characters...

EA: The single-use character unlock license, yes.

Rexx: Then do I get to play?

EA: Then you need to purchase a class unlock license, followed by the chapter unlock license.

Rexx: Okay but after all that I get to play right?

EA: Almost! You then have to pay the NPC license to have the game populated with anything other then your character.

Rexx: THEN I can play!

EA: Well... no, you still don't have a weapon. That will require the weapon unlock...

Rexx: Oh you sons of bitches...

Jun 12, 2012#56

Jay

That's why you buy the Collector's Edition for $99.95 silly.

Jun 12, 2012#57

SeraRelm

I often feel guilty for working for a company that promotes the over-all rape of video games by pushing DLC as a "wanted" commodity.

Jun 12, 2012#58

Bubble181

Jay said:
That's why you buy the Collector's Edition for $99.95 silly.

Including a choice of one of three starting weapons, male OR female character (limited to one only), and access to all of the tutorial! It's a steal!

Jun 12, 2012#59

Necronic

Azurephoenix said:
I'm not buying any more EA products in the future. Even if they try and entice me with more Mass Effect I'm pretty sure at this stage of the game I can ignore it and play some other good stuff. I hate them so much and I don't want them to have any more of my money.

I'm also not stealing any of their shit either. They are fully dead to me now in every way.

M8. You and every other gamer who gets butthurt with a developer says this. And then a game comes out that they want. And they buy it.

The phrase "Bark worse than bite" may apply to gamers more than any other consumer group in the history of the world. And that includes crackheads.

Jun 12, 2012#60

ElJuski

^ I've seen it happen. On these boards. For the last like seven years.

Jun 12, 2012#61

Necronic

The only time I ever really got mad at a developer was with Valve for releasing L4D2 so soon after L4D1. I was furious about it because I had just bought L4D1, and everything I saw about L4D2 struck me as xPac, not a new game. I made 2 posts here about it and I think that was it. I knew I would end up buying it, and I did about 2 years later when it was on sale.

I wasn't the only one that was mad about it. There was a massive usergroup on Steam that was called "BOYCOT L4D2" or something like that. They were all furious, numerous, and SUPER COMMITTED to their cause, or at least they said so. 1 year later something like 80% of that group had bought the game.

Jun 12, 2012#62

ElJuski

Well, I wasn't saying you did anything specifically, just that I always see it on the boards,

but hey

EDIT: Oh wait I actually read through your post. I GET IT NOW!

Silly L4D kids.

Jun 12, 2012#63

Necronic

It's cool man I knew you weren't talking about me.

:brofist:

Jun 12, 2012#64

Azurephoenix

Necronic said:
M8. You and every other gamer who gets butthurt with a developer says this. And then a game comes out that they want. And they buy it.

The phrase "Bark worse than bite" may apply to gamers more than any other consumer group in the history of the world. And that includes crackheads.

Thanks for lumping me in with people who apparently have less willpower than crackheads.

Jun 12, 2012#65

CynicismKills

People have been buying DLC even under the guise of a whole new game for a long time. Look at current-market FPS war-shooters, or the yearly rehash of FIFA/Madden/etc that's been going on since forever. Capcom's fighting games, or the whole L4D thing. DLC is the next wave, the new big thing, and as long as people speak with their wallets it'll go one way or the other. The problem is people can't seem to give up that brand loyalty, no matter how low they decide to bend you over.

Hell, most of us here (and even those who whine about it on Blizzard's forums) still bought Diablo 3, always-online and all. You just have to decide if the cause is worth dropping IP's/companies over, or if you're just going to go with the flow.

Jun 12, 2012#66

Bubble181

Azurephoenix said:
Thanks for lumping me in with people who apparently have less willpower than crackheads.

He's a gamer himself too. He's using hyperbole and is, of course, speaking of a group in general, not each individual. "Bulls fans are gay!" doesn't mean each and every one of their fans prefers sex with someone of their own gender; just that, as a group, they're pretty happy in life. Ahem :-P

Jun 12, 2012#67

ElJuski

I think you just made matters worse.

Jun 12, 2012#68

Azurephoenix

Bubble181 said:
He's a gamer himself too. He's using hyperbole and is, of course, speaking of a group in general, not each individual. "Bulls fans are gay!" doesn't mean each and every one of their fans prefers sex with someone of their own gender; just that, as a group, they're pretty happy in life. Ahem :-P

I might believe that more if he hadn't directly pointed me out:

Necronic said:
M8. You and every other gamer who gets butthurt with a developer says this. And then a game comes out that they want. And they buy it.

Emphasis mine. I get the feeling he thinks I'm some spoiled whiny little kid who whines hard about games and developers and then goes out and buys their games as soon as new ones are released. In other words... a hypocrite.

Jun 12, 2012#69

ElJuski

I've got a reasonable solution: people who play videogames should get diabetes and go to hell. NOW EVERYONE CAN BE MAD AT ME INSTEAD

Jun 12, 2012#70

SeraRelm

With all that mountain dew and taking the lords name in vain, I think they're covered.

Jun 12, 2012#71

ElJuski

They bleed HFCS and curse and shave like sailors; mama would be so proud

Jun 12, 2012#72

Cajungal

She can tell them how proud she is when she brings more red bull and hot pockets to the basement!

(am I doing it right?...)

Jun 12, 2012#73

PatrThom

SeraRelm said:
I often feel guilty for working for a company that promotes the over-all rape of video games by pushing DLC as a "wanted" commodity.

Well, don't you worry. That won't be a problem after this whole your-game-code-is-only-good-one-time turns every game into 100% DLC with 0% resaleability.

--Patrick

Jun 12, 2012#74

CynicismKills

ElJuski said:
shave like sailors

What does this even mean

Jun 13, 2012#75

LordRendar

ElJuski said:
I've got a reasonable solution: people who play videogames should get diabetes and go to hell. NOW EVERYONE CAN BE MAD AT ME INSTEAD

At the rate I am drinking Red Bull,eating sweets and watching porn,getting diabetes and going to hell wont be far off.
I hate you,Juski.

Jun 13, 2012#76

ElJuski

CynicismKills said:
What does this even mean

Oof, somebody's never been to the South Pacific. awwwwkwarrrd

Jun 13, 2012#77

fade

Jay said:
Nothing turns me on more than a woman in a power suit wearing heels. Yum.

This is an historic day. I fully, 100% agree with you.

Jun 13, 2012#78

Necronic

Azurephoenix said:
Emphasis mine. I get the feeling he thinks I'm some spoiled whiny little kid who whines hard about games and developers and then goes out and buys their games as soon as new ones are released. In other words... a hypocrite.

Yeah, I mean, I thought my post was pretty clear. At least you understood it.

Jun 13, 2012#79

Azurephoenix

Necronic said:
Yeah, I mean, I thought my post was pretty clear. At least you understood it.

Well it's quite blunt so I'm not sure how people could interpert it differently... so kudos to you for clarity at the least.

Really though, you have no evidence either way as to my purchasing/gaming habits so for you to make such a sweeping generalization about me isn't very accurate (or nice).

Jun 13, 2012#80

SeraRelm

Stop taking it as a personal attack, unless you feel it does describe you. People do the shit he mentioned.

Jun 13, 2012#81

Necronic

It may not be nice but it's my assessment. Look EA is one of the biggest developers on the planet right now, and (according to average rankings of releases) one of the best. You may not like what they are doing with DAO2/ME3, and that's a fair reason to ignore those games in the future. I mean, hey, I disliked ME1 and never looked twice at one of the sequals (or any other of its kind, like DAO, although maybe I should play that one.)

But to say that you will never buy another EA game (or one that supports them financially), or another Bioware game, or another Maxis game, or another Mythic game (assuming they ever make one lol) or another Popcap game, or an EA partners game like Crysis 3 or DICE games......that's hard to believe.

It's harder to believe that than to believe that you are saying this for the effect and self-righteousness that pervades so much of gaming culture these days.

Edit: Sera, you should read my last post. It was a personal attack. At least, I was putting his person into the group I was attacking.

Jun 13, 2012#82

Azurephoenix

Fair enough Necronic... but I am going to do my best to support other publishers and keep my money away from EA... even if it means I have to miss out on some games. What other choice do I have to show displeasure with EA? It's not like they will listen to carefully worded letters. Not giving them money is the only thing that will make a difference... and I realize I'm only one person but so be it. Also I'm not saying this to be self-righteous but if that's the way it's coming across then I will stop mentioning it in the future (but I will still rag on ME3 and DA2).

Honestly missing some games isn't even a big deal anymore anyways... with two kids, plans for a third one plus all the other hobbies I have... gaming time has been dwindling fiercely.

Jun 13, 2012#83

SeraRelm

Yeah, I saw you do that after I posted. Stuff escalated it looks like. Moving on.

Jun 13, 2012#84

Necronic

Fair enough AP. Just to be fair let me explain why this bothers me and why I go after it, not just here or this, but whenever I see people attacking games/gaming companies in certain ways.

The gaming industry is finally being understood to be a serious thing. There was a report recently that showed that more people play games than watch network television. It's big money, and it's also a significant part of our 21st century culture.

Yet, even with these changes gaming itself is seen less as an active hobby requiring intellect and talent and more as an addiction or an escape mechanism used by a clade of immature, socially awkward, mother's basement dwelling, mouthbreathing, and generally valueless people.

As someone who loves gaming and sees it as a major part of their life to now, and a major part of the rest of their life, this bothers me. I shouldn't have to hide who I am because of this portrayal of my hobby, but I do. I can't talk about it at work, I can't talk about it to a new friend, and I my girlfriend and family barely tolerate it. And this is based on a false portrayal like I mentioned above. It is, at best, tolerated. Never celebrated.

But yet I understand the view, because its the view that gamers themselves often portray. One part of this, the part I was attacking here (perhaps unfairly), is the absolute hyperbole in rhetoric that often comes out of gamers, at a level reminiscent of the sophomoric sophomore espousing his views on politics. Right now I may be particularly jaded because I've been spending an unhealthy amount of time on the battlenet forums (any amount of time is unhealthy), and if that area is a good measure of gaming culture then I would suggest it be the first stop in any new eugenics program.

Beyond that it also actually effects the quality of the games we end up getting, in an ironically negative way. When the voices from a community are as unreasonable and childish as many of the ones I see are, pouting, screaming, unable to form a cogent argument in lieu of an emotional tantrum that even many children would be embarassed by, what hope to the designers have to distinguish the signal of good, constructive feedback, from the overwhelming, and overwhelmingly abbrassive, noise? Would you blame them if they just write off their consumers as "The New Scum" and treat them like children? How hard is it to notice the one kid who is saying something smart that would help you in a classroom full of screaming brats?

And its not like the majority of gamers ARE like this. Most are reasonable people. But they are never the ones that are seen or heard. No, our unelected representation is brought forward not through their reason and intellect, but through their lack of it.

So when I read someone screaming "WE DEMAND A REFUND" or "CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT" or "WE WILL BOYCOTT YOU", it goes beyond me just rolling my eyes. I see it as a fundamental attack on my way of life. I see it as a misrepresentation of my character and something that truly effects my life in a negative way. I feel like all the honest politicians, lawyers and businessmen out there who are unfairly despised for the actions of their dishonest counterparts.

And maybe I did falsely impugn you by lumping you into this category as well. It was definitely an inductive leap to do so. And if I'm wrong then I sincerely apologize, because I am mistaking a point of signal for a point of noise which is the exact symptom I hate so much. But if I am right, and you see yourself a year from now buying another EA game, another DAO, or ME, or one of the many hundreds of games they have and will produce, I want you to remember what I've said here. And I want you to consider what you're doing to our culture.

Jun 13, 2012#85

Jay

There was a point I loved the Final Fantasy series and would throw my money to every new game that came out. Now, I don't even look at the new games and hear the cries of woe from other people who try the new games. This is exactly how it'll be with Bioware and anything that comes from EA.

"Buyer Beware".

The game may sound great... but they no longer get the automatic "pre-order" label and will wait until reviews come in and I'll take it from there.

Sorry but one thing is for sure though, the Day 1 DLC makes me feel no remorse in torrenting their shit.

Jun 13, 2012#86

HowDroll

Necronic said:
<text>

So, out of curiosity, how would you suggest that we respond to the recent abuses of major publishers? Or do you not see a problem at all with Day 1 DLC/completely unreasonable DRM/unfinished games/etc.?

Also, you need to stop giving a shit about what people think about you because you happen to be a gamer. I can almost guarantee that they don't care about it nearly as much as you think they do.

Jun 13, 2012#87

Jay

Oh and

Jun 13, 2012#88

CynicismKills

The idea of hiding things I enjoy from others baffles me. Especially something like video gaming.

Jun 13, 2012#89

LordRendar

I miss Westwood Studios.

Jun 13, 2012#90

Necronic

HowDroll said:
So, out of curiosity, how would you suggest that we respond to the recent abuses of major publishers? Or do you not see a problem at all with Day 1 DLC/completely unreasonable DRM/unfinished games/etc.?

Honestly I've never understood any of those complaints:

1) Day 1 DLC: If the company needs to do this to justify their development costs then so be it. If they added the day 1 DLC in for free then the game would cost more. Now, if they are over-charging for what you are getting (or for the work they put in), then yeah that's a problem, and defining that value (or their cost in production) is difficult. But philosophically Day 1 DLC is not an issue to me. Basically it's like selling a car. You can get the basic car, or you can get it with addons. Day1 DLC allows some people to customize their purchase, while not forcing everyone to pay excessive costs.

2) Unreasonable DRM. Ok, how do you define it? If you're talking about a rootkit that could potentially damage your PC, you better believe I will be behind people crying foul at the company. If you're talking about "always online" DRM, I don't really care. Minimum requirements for a game have always been around. This is just another one of those. If you have a spotty internet connection (or no internet connection) I sincerely feel for you. But not because you can't play a game. More because you are living in the 21st century without a 30$/month internet connection.

3) Unfinished games. I'm assuming this is the same as the Day1 DLC, but I'm not certain. I will admit that I'm not the best judge of this, because I have never played a game for the story (if that's what you are talking about). Books and telivision are more focused, better and more entertaining/condensed than a game could be. That said. When a game is produced that is a story, and the story leaves a cliffhanger ending that has to be "purchased", I could see that as a major concern to people, and I can understand why they would be frustrated.

Jun 13, 2012#91

HowDroll

CynicismKills said:
The idea of hiding things I enjoy from others baffles me.

I definitely get it to an extent -- as a woman who games/programs/writes fantasy/fantasizes about zombie apocalypses, I find it really hard to relate to a lot of other women (although, thankfully, many of the lovely ladies of Halforums are an exception to this!) When my co-workers (pretty much all female) ask me what I did over the weekend, I usually don't divulge that I got drunk and played 12 hours of Skyrim -- but it's not because I'm ashamed of it. It's because they don't give a shit about how my mage took down, like, so many dragons -- although to be fair, I don't really want to hear about what happened on Dancing With the Stars last week either. Lots of people have hobbies that other folks find boring. I don't want to hear about someone's stamp collection either, even though ZOMG they just got a rare stamp from 1922 that's worth so much monies ahhhh!!!

But, yeah, there's zero shame there. If someone asks me what my hobbies are, I tell them -- including said co-workers when I interviewed for this job. If they don't like it, they can get bent.

Jun 13, 2012#92

Azurephoenix

Necronic said:
And maybe I did falsely impugn you by lumping you into this category as well. It was definitely an inductive leap to do so. And if I'm wrong then I sincerely apologize, because I am mistaking a point of signal for a point of noise which is the exact symptom I hate so much. But if I am right, and you see yourself a year from now buying another EA game, another DAO, or ME, or one of the many hundreds of games they have and will produce, I want you to remember what I've said here. And I want you to consider what you're doing to our culture.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "never" because absolutes are rarely ever applicable. More than likely I will only ever buy an EA product again if it looks amazing to me and gets rave reviews from sources I trust... and you can be sure I won't be buying any of their products at launch. I'll be waiting till the price drops.

To give you some more perspective though, I've already eliminated most EA from my diet. With the exception of the Dragon age and Mass Effect games I haven't bought any of their stuff for quite some time. I've missed out on some games I've really wanted to try (like Crysis) but I have to at least try to stick to my guns.

Also, don't take my criticism of EA as an attack against you. I'm just very upset with them running companies I have loved into the ground and Bioware was the straw that broke the camel's back if you will. The only thing I can do is not give them my money. However... if they actually manage to craft something worthy I may be enticed to purchase it... but they do not get a free pass from me anymore (this criticism is mostly aimed at Bioware... who have fallen under EA's shadow).

I will remember what you've said here and I will do my best not to become a hypocritical EA buying drone in the future.

And as for you EA... you suck!
Added at: 13:16

Necronic said:
3) Unfinished games. I'm assuming this is the same as the Day1 DLC, but I'm not certain. I will admit that I'm not the best judge of this, because I have never played a game for the story (if that's what you are talking about). Books and telivision are more focused, better and more entertaining/condensed than a game could be. That said. When a game is produced that is a story, and the story leaves a cliffhanger ending that has to be "purchased", I could see that as a major concern to people, and I can understand why they would be frustrated.

This is NOT an attack against you... but if you don't play games for story... you likely will never understand the feelings of betrayal with how ME3 and DA2 mishandled their stories with respect to the excellent ones that came before them. Kind of the same way I can't get into Diablo 3 as much as you can.

Jun 13, 2012#93

ElJuski

well I think you're all dorks and losers.

Jun 13, 2012#94

HowDroll

Necronic said:
Honestly I've never understood any of those complaints:

EA committed all three of these sins recently with Mass Effect 3, which is the reason they were the specific target of my vitriol in this thread. I'm going to assume, since you said you don't play games for the story and never posted in the 37-page ME3 thread, that you haven't played it and aren't necessarily in the target demographic -- so I'll give you a brief rundown of why I, and thousands upon thousands of other gamers, are STILL foaming at the mouth when it comes to EA:

1) The Mass Effect trilogy story basically involves a race of ancient, sentient machines called the Reapers destroying galactic civilization every 50,000 years. Most of earth -- and the other alien planets' -- major technological advancements came from a race called the Protheans, who were the last race wiped out by the Reapers 50,000 years ago. Needless to say, the Protheans are not a peripheral part of the overall plot. The Day 1 DLC debacle in Mass Effect 3 occurred because BiowarEA released a Prothean squadmember -- the first and only living member of the Prothean race that we'd seen in all three games -- as a $10 download. People were pissed about that, but they were mostly pissed because most/all of the DLC content was on the retail disc -- you had to pay to unlock it. Anyone who played the game can tell really easily that he was not an afterthought after the main development cycle -- there is squadmate dialogue with him throughout the game that answers a lot of questions about a huge mystery of the ME universe. Strike one.

2) EA games are no longer released on Steam, and even if you buy a physical copy of the game, you have to install their Origin client to validate it. People have dug around and found that it scans files on your entire machine and phones home with that information; it doesn't just make sure you don't have a pirated copy of the game. Again, this is now MANDATORY for all EA games you purchase (if you are a legit paying customer, that is. If you pirate them, you can bypass the whole thing.) Strike two.

3) There is a 37-page thread on the Mass Effect ending bullshit, so I'm not going to go into it much here. The vast majority of forumites who have played the game weren't merely dissatisfied with the ending -- we were almost unanimously OUTRAGED. It was that bad. (The lead developer is on video as saying he didn't want a boss fight because they are too "video-game-y.") We have quote after quote from the developers saying "you are NOT going to get an A, B, C ending where your choices don't matter," and that is literally EXACTLY what we got. I don't think I can explain how bad it was to you if you're not familiar with the Mass Effect universe and if you don't play games for the story, but yeah, give us an ounce of credit and take our word for it. It was a rushed, shitty, awful ending. It's the equivalent of a publisher saying "oh, yeah, we're releasing this game that is going to have 10 different classes with a dozen abilities each, and twenty different multiplayer levels, and thirty-five unique weapons," and then releasing three classes on one overcrowded server, and charging you for all the good weapons after the first five. Promises were made, then they were broken. Strike three.

Seriously, EA sucks. We are really, really justified in complaining about them. Buying their games vs. pirating vs. boycotting is a different argument, but yeah. We are not attacking your way of life -- we are complaining about being lied to and taken advantage of.

Jun 13, 2012#95

Jay

Necronic said:
1) Day 1 DLC: If the company needs to do this to justify their development costs then so be it. If they added the day 1 DLC in for free then the game would cost more. Now, if they are over-charging for what you are getting (or for the work they put in), then yeah that's a problem, and defining that value (or their cost in production) is difficult. But philosophically Day 1 DLC is not an issue to me. Basically it's like selling a car. You can get the basic car, or you can get it with addons. Day1 DLC allows some people to customize their purchase, while not forcing everyone to pay excessive costs.

Since you're talking about cars, this is the perfect example referring to what you just said when it comes to EA.

I'm buying a car and that particular model cost more than the average price for that particular model type range and looking into it, they advertise a "spare tire" feature for an additional fee which already comes in all other standard versions in that model type range.

Or perhaps since I'm a dirty Quebecois, going to the Bakery store... buying a delicious baguette for $60, only to realize the end of the baguette, a whole 15% of it has been cut off and then noticing it over the counter and is available at a great price of an additional 10$.

EA can suck it.

Jun 13, 2012#96

ElJuski

you're so hot when you talk videogames; I'm happy I've delved into your Day-1 DLC, if you know what I mean

Jun 13, 2012#97

HowDroll

ElJuski said:
you're so hot when you talk videogames; I'm happy I've delved into your Day-1 DLC, if you know what I mean

I do. I really do.

Jun 13, 2012#98

ElJuski

HowDroll said:
I do. I really do.

And to think that they don't know of the magic.

No, but seriously, I'm all down for making fun of gamers whining and not doing anything productive--but shit, the gaming industry fucks you guys over SO HARD. If I bought more than like, three games a year, tops, I'd be seriously pissed off about it. I think the gaming subculture just needs to organize and not show up to the fight like a bunch of fat, gurgling diabetic bastards.

Jun 13, 2012#99

Azurephoenix

ElJuski said:
well I think you're all dorks and losers.

We love you too Juicy!

Jun 13, 2012#100

HowDroll

ElJuski said:
And to think that they don't know of the magic.

No, but seriously, I'm all down for making fun of gamers whining and not doing anything productive--but shit, the gaming industry fucks you guys over SO HARD. If I bought more than like, three games a year, tops, I'd be seriously pissed off about it. I think the gaming subculture just needs to organize and not show up to the fight like a bunch of fat, gurgling diabetic bastards.

Magic of copious amounts of alcohol.

Also:

Jun 13, 2012#101

Necronic

Ok. I get why you guys didn't like ME3. And I have nothing against the criticism of ME3, or the criticism against EA that was in the OP, more or less. I personally despised ME1 and considered it to be poorly designed/balanced with the thinnest of a nod to "choice", and a very subpar FPS, which is why I never even watched a trailer for the following two (or any other bioware game for that matter), and to be honest I'm not surprised that it went downhill.

My post was more a general complaint about the form that complaints about games often seem to take. Sometimes, oftentimes, the way posting seems to happen just beats me down to a numb nub of a noob. The D3 thread is really where this post should have gone, and was more or less what was motivating it.

Anyways, on the "caring what other people think" comment: You're right, I shouldn't care what other people think. I think that's the highest goal for a person to have a self-sufficient ego. But hey, what can I say, I'm weak. I've done things in gaming culture that I am proud of, and wish I could brag about them to show people what I can accomplish when I am dedicated to something as much as I am dedicated to games. I ran a podcast for almost a year that had between 200-1k subscribers/listeners. I wrote a 30 page economics guide that used advanced financial and economic analyses. I got to a point where I was being invited to speak with developers on other podcasts. I am one of the faster Minesweeper players in the world (seriously), and I've held world rankings on certain puzzle games.

And no one I am close to understands how much those things meant to me, or how hard they were. I can't even try to explain it to them, not really, because "hey, it's just a silly game" (I don't even try to explain the minesweeper thing). It's not so much that I want other people to appreciate or value, or even respect my accomplishments (although it would be nice). But having them look down on me for them is hard. I'm not ashamed, and I shouldn't have to feel like I should be.
Added at: 20:48

Jay said:
I'm buying a car and that particular model cost more than the average price for that particular model type range and looking into it, they advertise a "spare tire" feature for an additional fee which already comes in all other standard versions in that model type range.

So the DLC isn't so much an addon, but a safety feature? Also seriously who in their right mind would buy that car?

Edit: Ok these last few posts are entirely too serious. To the Monty Python!

Jun 13, 2012#102

Jay

Example my point... a safety feature. An essential part of the game. The part which should be sold with the game but they gut it to make more money. There's no excuse to having DLC content on the original game disk. None.

And the ME series isn't an FPS. At least IMHO.

Jun 13, 2012#103

HowDroll

Necronic said:
And no one I am close to understands how much those things meant to me, or how hard they were. I can't even try to explain it to them, not really, because "hey, it's just a silly game" (I don't even try to explain the minesweeper thing). It's not so much that I want other people to appreciate or value, or even respect my accomplishments (although it would be nice). But having them look down on me for them is hard. I'm not ashamed, and I shouldn't have to feel like I should be.
Added at: 20:48

You know, though, you might be surprised. My brother is a nationally-ranked Super Smash Brothers player, and when I tell that to people -- even people that aren't gamers -- most think it's super cool. Don't be self-depreciating about what you're good at. Brag about how you kick ass at things, and how it's a HUGE deal in your circle, and lots of people will be impressed (unless you go on and on about it. Then they might get bored. Give them the reader's digest version). If you make it sound like it's not a big deal, then they definitely won't care, but seriously -- would you really rather people think you're mediocre?

Jun 13, 2012#104

ElJuski

Dorkiness only exists in high-school, and if you choose to, your undergrad. After a while what you do is what you do, and how you play it off. Me? I use what nerdiness I have in a cutesy-wutsy way to get action. But I have no problems talking to people about shit like Pokemon or Buffy. It is possible to be socially acceptable to the mainstream and not be an awkward hobbyist goon.

Jun 13, 2012#105

Dave

ElJuski said:
Dorkiness only exists in high-school, and if you choose to, your undergrad. After a while what you do is what you do, and how you play it off. Me? I use what nerdiness I have in a cutesy-wutsy way to get action. But I have no problems talking to people about shit like Pokemon or Buffy. It is possible to be socially acceptable to the mainstream and not be an awkward hobbyist goon.

Word. I'm known at work as "that guy who still plays D&D." Yet it's strange how many of them have come up to me and talked about 3.5, 4e, and the upcoming 5e. Nobody thinks lesser of me for playing D&D yet these folks don't want it known that they play or have played. It boggles my mind. Dude, it's an exercise in imagination, strategic thinking, and socialization. What's to be ashamed of?

Jun 13, 2012#106

ElJuski

They play DnD too; it's called Fantasy League. And in either case, who cares?

I am to be the center of the universe of hobbyists.

Jun 13, 2012#107

ScytheRexx

Necronic said:
1) Day 1 DLC: If the company needs to do this to justify their development costs then so be it. If they added the day 1 DLC in for free then the game would cost more. Now, if they are over-charging for what you are getting (or for the work they put in), then yeah that's a problem, and defining that value (or their cost in production) is difficult. But philosophically Day 1 DLC is not an issue to me. Basically it's like selling a car. You can get the basic car, or you can get it with addons. Day1 DLC allows some people to customize their purchase, while not forcing everyone to pay excessive costs.

The difference is that when I decide to buy a car without addons, the addons are not already sitting in the car. Imagine you went to a dealer, and bought a car with a radio in the dashboard, sitting right there, but you learn you can't use it until you pay another fee, even though the radio is already installed.

Really, I have nothing against Day 1 DLC as long as it's actually new content they developed and wanted to add on to the game. That is the problem with Day 1 DLC these days, it's stuff the developers made for the base game, but didn't even bother to delete it from the disk before shipping it out, making us pay money for a small resource download that also unlocks said character that was already there.

Also, while I was lucky and got From Ashes for free, other people were still paying the full game price and the DLC price. Adding Day 1 DLC does not drop the total price of the game, it never has. It always is the same retail average companies know they can get away with.

Edit: fixed an annoying error in the first paragraph.

Jun 13, 2012#108

PatrThom

HowDroll said:
Lots of people have hobbies that other folks find boring. [...] If they don't like it, they can get bent.

--Patrick

Jun 13, 2012#109

ElJuski

At least you fucks aren't bronys.

Jun 13, 2012#110

Hailey Knight

I'm glad my wife plays video games as much as I do and I don't have to feel shame or hide anything.

Since I only started buying Bioware games a year ago, it's easy for me to say I'll never buy another (even though I bought 6 of them in that time). I'm not sure whether that'll be the case or not though. We'll see what goes on with the ME3 DLC, if given the extra time they can actually repair any of the damage they've done. I doubt they can considering they're sticking to their BS, plus even if they fix the ending they still won't fix how they rushed and cut corners with the climax (which may have been EA's fault since they had so many pre-order tie-ins spread across the face of the Earth).

But I will wait and see before I swear them off. I just can't see how I can buy Dragon Age 3 in good faith at this point; i.e. how I can trust it won't be Dragon Age 2 again.

Jun 13, 2012#111

Ravenpoe

You know, if the original founders of bioware were to quit, give EA the finger, and decide they're going to do an indie game on kickstarter, I would give them all my monies.

Jun 13, 2012#112

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
You know, if the original founders of bioware were to quit, give EA the finger, and decide they're going to do an indie game on kickstarter, I would give them all my monies.

The same is true for Westwood or Bullfrog. Perhaps even Maxis, though they were sliding downhill before EA came by and helped them along.

Jun 13, 2012#113

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:
You know, if the original founders of bioware were to quit, give EA the finger, and decide they're going to do an indie game on kickstarter, I would give them all my monies.

Jun 13, 2012#114

Hailey Knight

On another note, I can get behind Jay's thing with Final Fantasy. There was a time when Square could claim every spare dollar of mine.

Now? Fuck 'em. I have Final Fantasy Tactics--I don't need anything else in that series, especially when the other Tactics games suck. As for the main franchise ... no. And they've even fucked up their other series because of that one dipshit in charge, a big fan of misogyny, vague plots, pathetic character development, and a big fucking wall between player and game.

Jun 13, 2012#115

Jay

mr_thehun said:
My first EA game was my last. Seriously, they didn't start sucking recently.

My first EA game was NHL 94... it rocked.

Jun 13, 2012#116

Jay

What if you can't play sports due to injury? Such as a bum knee?

Jun 14, 2012#117

bhamv3

I see sports games much like a lot of other games: fantasy fulfillment. I'm never going to fly a stealth ship through space while fighting off an invasion of Eldritch Abominations, I'm never going to really become the head of the Dark Brotherhood in the land of Tamriel, I'm never going to survive a zombie apocalypse alongside a Vietnam vet, a biker dude and a female college-age horror movie buff, and I'm never going to score the winning slam dunk in game seven of the NBA finals.

But through games, I can do all of those things.

Jun 14, 2012#118

SpecialKO

Most of the problem with Day 1 DLC (on consoles at least) is that there is a massive informational disconnect between a vocal (and high-spending) minority of gaming consumers and publishing companies.

Publisher definition of Day 1 DLC: "Extra content we've either worked on concurrently with a separate team or additional content we've created in between RC certification of the main game and RTM (it can literally be a few months, depending on how many shits are being given at MS and Sony) that we're including on the disk because there's a little space and it's not like we're adding source code, just textures and voices. It's a great free reward for pre-orderers and post-launch people at least won't need to spend their data cap to get it, because fuck Comcast!"

Consumers definition: "Why are you charging me for stuff that's already on the disk! That's bullshit! Fuck you guys!"

Publishers genuinely think (and when I say publishers, I mean folks that I have actually met from various pubs) that they are doing people a favor by including DLC on the disk. They genuinely see anything finished after the RC has been content-locked as being extra, regardless of whether the content itself should really have been "extra" in the first place (like the Prothean squaddie stuff in ME3).

In a software sense, they're quite correct, but they have an incredibly tough time understanding why consumers (understandably) don't like being told to buy extra actual-content on the first day a game comes out.

Jun 14, 2012#119

HowDroll

The sad thing is the incredible amount of customer goodwill they're squandering by charging for that stuff. They should (and have, in the past) use it as an incentive to get people to buy games new -- since the used console games market is, I imagine, almost as big of a problem for publishers as piracy is for PC gaming. Arguably more, in fact, since a lot of the time people who pirate PC games never would have bought them anyway, but used console gamers are still willing to spend the money -- but it's going to Gamestop instead of the publishers.

Include the unlock code for free in the boxes and make people who buy used pay extra if they want it. You're not going to hear a lot of complains about that. But yeah, after I spend $60 on a game, I expect the full game. I don't really care if they developed the content right after the rest of the game was done; I spent almost an entire day's wages to buy your game, and anything available on the disc I just bought should be available to me. Their development timeline isn't my problem, and anything else is ALWAYS going to feel like greed.

Jun 14, 2012#120

SpecialKO

HowDroll said:
Include the unlock code for free in the boxes and make people who buy used pay extra if they want it. You're not going to hear a lot of complains about that.

You'd be surprised. I agree, but some very vocal parts of the gaming community swear as much death on "Project $10" as this thread has on EA.

But yeah, after I spend $60 on a game, I expect the full game.

From their perspective, you have the full game. You feel like if it's on the disk you paid for it, but you actually haven't. You've paid for the license to the original content that was budgeted for and entered under the RC cert. Additional money spent to develop the DLC is covered by people buying the DLC.

Again, their business sense about this is all correct. 100%. It just has no relation whatsoever to the reality as consumers see it, and educating or approaching consumers is entirely the pubs' problem, not the consumers. If they're suffering (sufficiently high) consumer backlash of Day 1 DLC because of developer behavior that has come about as a method of dealing with overly long RC cert-times, then they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Added at: 13:22

Ravenpoe said:
You know, if the original founders of bioware were to quit, give EA the finger, and decide they're going to do an indie game on kickstarter, I would give them all my monies.

Unlikely, the Docs seem super happy to be part of EA. Stuff could totally be going on under the surface, but every public appearance or interview they give makes them seem practically jubilant.

Jun 14, 2012#121

Necronic

ScytheRexx said:
The difference is that when I decide to buy a car without addons, the addons are not already sitting in the car. Imagine you went to a dealer, and bought a car with a radio in the dashboard, sitting right there, but you learn you can't use it until you pay another fee, even though the radio is already installed.

This is where the metaphor falls apart, because in the car the cost of the radio is in the cost of the individual radio, and the cost of putting the individual radio into the car. In game development, the cost is far more ephemeral, and that is where (I think) so much of the anger comes from.

But it's no different from other software/computer things. I buy a copy of microsoft office and the disk may come with Access, but if I don't have the license for that I can't use it. I buy an Xbox 360, and even though the software to take advantage of Xbox gold features is already present (or could be easily), I have to buy the service. I buy a copy of Labview or any other professional programming software, the data is there on the disk, right in front of me. But I can't install it on my computer (or install it on another computer) without the additional license.

Hell even a lot of Freeware/shareware out there is like this. You like our software? Cool, you can have the basic package for free. But if you want to record more than x minutes/seconds (like FRAPS or Pamela) you have to pay. Or if you want to export, or whatever. All data needed to perform this is already there. All they are doing is tweaking one tiny little thing.

This is SOP for so much of the software industry. The price is not in the physical data. It's in the development of said data. And it goes even beyond software. Patents (not software patents, screw them) are similar in this. The knowledge required to do some task or build some item is already known, and widely known. But that doesn't mean its free. Or cable TV. The line is there. The data is already being transmitted. Why should I pay to recieve something that doesn't cost the cable company anything?

And while this is all more or less accepted in every one of the examples I have given that you should pay, when it comes to computer games people immediately assume that the cost of developing that extra material was free, because "hey it's already on the disk." Why is it that that line of reasoning considered remotely acceptable in this one realm when in every other realm it would get you laughed out of a room?

This doesn't mean that day1 DLC is worth the value proposition. That's an entirely different argument. But the argument that "It's already there" is absurd, and everyone knows it.

Jun 14, 2012#122

HowDroll

This isn't about licensing different levels of software, though. This is like a publisher cutting one of the middle chapters out of a book and charging extra for people to read it. For a company that has constantly cried "artistic integrity!" as an excuse for their missteps over the last few months, such practices seem hypocritical at best.

Jun 14, 2012#123

Necronic

No, it's exactly like a level of software. Except instead of just being software, it's (also) story. And I'll agree with you that it fails the value proposition to hand you an incomplete story. That's bad, and EA deserves to be spanked for it. But that's different from Day1DLC. If they had just left the story the way it was, with no DLC, or if they had given you the rest of the story in an x-pac, it would still be an issue. So I can remove the DLC from the equation and you still have the same issue.

Jun 14, 2012#124

SeraRelm

So when you bought the game, you didn't buy the content of the game? Bullshit. And don't use freeware as an example because you aren't buying ANYTHING with freeware. As for "buying Xbox Live Gold" you're paying for the servers. It is a service. That's like saying "It's ok for them to charge me extra to bring me the food I ordered at a restaurant, because I only paid for the food." By your example, it'd be fine to go to a movie where they completely censor our one character in the story unless you pay extra. It's in the movie, but you don't get to see it unless you shell out another $5. How about if you bought a music CD and they locked out the vocals on each song, unless you paid an extra $10?

What people are saying is that they made a game, a promise of entertainment, and they are withholding aspects of that entertainment to try and greedily boost the overall cost of the product promised. That isn't absurd, that's expecting your moneys worth.
Added at: 14:39
As a side note, if i go to see a movie, I'm not going to bitch if it isn't in 3D when I didn't pay to see it in 3D. But I would be annoyed if the regular version was still shot in 3D and they didn't hand out the glasses.

Jun 14, 2012#125

Necronic

They failed their value proposition. That I agree with. The product they sold was not worth what you paid for it. But what I do not agree with is this:

SeraRelm said:
So when you bought the game, you didn't buy the content of the game?

No. When you bought the content that was included in your purchase you didn't buy the content that was not included in the purchase.

What's complex about this?

Jun 14, 2012#126

HowDroll

There's a HUGE difference between "this is an integral part of the main story that we're going to carve out and re-package for more $$$" and "the main story has a complete beginning/middle/end, but let's develop an expansion pack/additional DLC to give the player more adventures." I don't have a problem with the latter; I don't think a lot of gamers do. But I don't believe for a second that, in the case of ME3, the Day 1 DLC was an afterthought once the game was sent for RC certification. The majority of the development might have been done after, but EA knew exactly what they were doing; they knew that most customers would shell out the extra $10 to get the squadmate, and I really believe that's why it was left off of the vanilla release.

Games -- or the sort of games I like to play, anyway -- aren't just software to me. I pay for Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite, but I don't expect them to have a soul; I expect them to be functional. I don't usually game to get the highest score or the best loot; I game to get immersed in a story -- to carve out my own, more often than not -- and my favorite developers are the ones who understand the unwritten contract between creator and gamer. Bioware used to be the sort of developer that would go an extra mile to tell its fans, "Yeah, I give a shit about you, and you're just as important to the process as we are." The video Jay posted on page 1 said it best -- Bioware was the sort of company that said "We need money to create good games," and they consistently created an EXCELLENT product. EA, on the other hand, is all about making games to make fistfuls of money, and guess what? Most of their RPGs that have come out in the last few years have sucked, especially when compared to others in their respective franchises. (But RPGs aren't FPS/sports games where you can make a few tweaks and re-package every year, either.) The soul is gone from these games, and it couldn't be more clear that EA is far more interested in wringing as much money as they can out of their customers instead of developing a good relationship with them. Gamers are a loud, often obnoxious group, but I like to think we're also fiercely loyal when we feel like we're being taken care of.

There's nothing wrong with running a business and trying to make money. As someone who is working on starting a small business herself, I'm quite pro-capitalism -- but one of the supposed core tenants of capitalism is that you don't have to bend over and take it from companies who are mistreating you. I have the right to choose to spend my dollars with developers that still value solid gameplay and good storytelling, and I think a lot of other gamers are getting fed up with the bullshit of the major publishers. EA's stock has been consistently shitty for awhile now, and good fucking riddance. I'll throw my money at Bethesda/Valve/CD Projekt Red/etc. instead.

Jun 14, 2012#127

SeraRelm

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Most of that "on disk" expansion shit is purposefully withheld as a means to get more money. Another example would be Capcom's shitty method of having fighters on disk but charging you extra to unlock them when they decide to allow it. Not to finish work on them, but to charge you more. There is no argument you could make to change my mind about that.

Jun 14, 2012#128

Necronic

Hey, I have no problem with that statement (How Drolls, Sera ninja'd me

). It's pretty much what I said: They failed the value proposition. The product they sold was bad.

All I've said, and repeated, is that that is a different argument from saying that Day1DLC is inherently bad. Day1 DLC may imply a failed value proposition, but it may not. CE's/preorder bonuses are often a good example of this, and maybe they are the predecessor to D1DLC. You pay extra in the beginning (or pay early) and you get something extra. This isn't usually a problem, because they ensure that the value proposition of the primary product is high. ME3 clearly failed that. But note that the problem is the value of the core game, not the existence of the DLC.

And, just so I'm clear, I GET that ME3 was a bad game. I GET that people don't like EA as a developer. I have no problem with either statement, they both make sense to me because the quality of their games has consistently dropped. But I don't think the DLC is the issue.

There's a number of cases where DLC with added story hasn't been an issue. Oblivion, for instance, had some amazing DLC with amazing stories. But they weren't integral to the story or the gameplay. Richard Berlew's choice to release a couple of OOTS books that aren't online is similar, but yet again they aren't integral to the story.

The mistake EA made with ME3 was that they carved out an integral chunk of the story and sold, as their core product, a crippled mess. I GET THAT.

All I'm saying is that DLC is not the problem. The problem was a terrible product.

Jun 14, 2012#129

Jay

No offense but if someone truly thinks that Day 1 DLC is not part of the original game, then you're either ignorant or stupid. Sorry, that's all I have to say about that.

We're talking principally of EA's history of Day 1 DLCs from Bioware.... so the Golem in DAO, Sebastian in DA2 and Javik ME3 that were Day 1 DLC "extra characters". All were voiced characters, with extra missions and fully interacted with other characters at every level possible. Some came with the standard game in some deals, some requires a collector's edition or enhanced editions. Generally, they required clients to pay extra cash for content that was fully created during the development cycle of the game.

Other additional characters such as Kasumi and the Merc guy who's name I can't bother to remember right now from ME3 felt like "extra characters" with fully voiced actors with their single extra mission and interaction with others was minimal. Their DLC weren't Day 1 and generally well received.

When a game goes gold, there is no more content added to the "official" build between the gold date and the release date thus the decision to put what on the build has been pre-established beforehand of going gold... so when the game already has the DAY 1 DLC character already stored on it, with all references and all that is missing is a tiny little patch, I'm sorry, I'm going to call bullshit on that.

Jun 14, 2012#130

Necronic

How are those extra characters different from, say, a Collectors Edition bonus?

Jun 14, 2012#131

Jay

One came out 2 days after the release for free and the other came out 3 months later for 10$ (free for PS3 users).

Jun 14, 2012#132

Necronic

Collectors editions come out BEFORE the game is even released. Same with preorder bonuses like participation in the open beta.

I want you guys to tell me why the early pay for play content is bad, WITHOUT saying that the game is bad without it. Those are two different arguments.

Same goes for the "They are just doing it to squeeze money out of you". First off that is speculation. It could be that the price point of the DLC was entirely justified in the added dev costs (if you think it cost them no money to develop more product....whelp). But even if it were true that they were overcharging, that's still a different argument from "D1DLC is inherently bad", that's saying that EA are crooks who sell bad products.

Jun 14, 2012#133

SpecialKO

Jay said:
When a game goes gold, there is no more content added to the "official" build between the gold date and the release date thus the decision to put what on the build has been pre-established beforehand of going gold... so when the game already has the DAY 1 DLC character already stored on it, with all references and all that is missing is a tiny little patch, I'm sorry, I'm going to call bullshit on that.

You're confusing going gold with release candidate certification.

RC cert = final source code is submitted to MS/Sony/Nintendo for approval to run on respective consoles. Process can take up to several months depending on how long the line is.

"Going gold" = The RC is certified, last minute changes are made to non-source code material (such as minor art changes, music, sound, things that don't require source code adjustments like some DLC), and the "gold master" disk image is sent to plant to print.

Jun 14, 2012#134

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Necronic said:
Collectors editions come out BEFORE the game is even released. Same with preorder bonuses like participation in the open beta.

I want you guys to tell me why the early pay for play content is bad, WITHOUT saying that the game is bad without it. Those are two different arguments.

Same goes for the "They are just doing it to squeeze money out of you". First off that is speculation. It could be that the price point of the DLC was entirely justified in the added dev costs (if you think it cost them no money to develop more product....whelp). But even if it were true that they were overcharging, that's still a different argument from "D1DLC is inherently bad", that's saying that EA are crooks who sell bad products.

You're like a hydra when it comes to debate/discussion - a point of contention is resolved and from it's demise you sprout two or more points to argue about.

Jun 14, 2012#135

Necronic

Ok, I just figure out a metaphor/comparison that fits this situation PERFECTLY:

Checked bag fees on an airline. People hate this. I hate this. This is because I consider a checked bag to be an integral part of the service I am buying. It's a "hidden fee".

However, this doesn't mean that I consider paying extra for first class or having to pay for beer on an airplane ridiculous. That makes sense to me.

The problem isn't the Pay to Play model. It was their application of it.
Added at: 20:15

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
You're like a hydra when it comes to debate/discussion - a point of contention is resolved and from it's demise you sprout two or more points to argue about.

Could you explain what you mean here? I've had this thrown at me before and it's true in some cases, but I think my message has been pretty consistent here. There is nothing inherently wrong with D1DLC. There is something wrong with the product EA put out/how they applied the DLC.

Jun 14, 2012#136

Jay

SpecialKO said:
You're confusing going gold with release candidate certification.

RC cert = final source code is submitted to MS/Sony/Nintendo for approval to run on respective consoles. Process can take up to several months depending on how long the line is.

"Going gold" = The RC is certified, last minute changes are made to non-source code material (such as minor art changes, music, sound, things that don't require source code adjustments like some DLC), and the "gold master" disk image is sent to plant to print.

What is this?

You didn't state anything I didn't know of already nor brought a valid point to argue about all the while being told that I'm confused.

I'm not confused.... well actually not entirely because the existence of this quoted post confuses me somewhat.

The content on the release disk "Gold" has been established before the game goes "Gold" so when a DAY 1 DLC has most of the DLC content stored in the release build it is clearly not a DLC... (DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT) it's a privileged pass that you need to pay extra extra to access but was clearly part of the original development cycle and any explanation or elaboration is false to say otherwise. I need to download the extra content for it to be considered a DLC.

FFS, I cannot state this clearer than this without using children blocks.

Jun 14, 2012#137

Necronic

How do you know its part of the original development cycle? Or, maybe a better statement than "original" is "main" development cycle. I mean, are you saying that in their business plans they have the entire game paid for with the normal sales and the DLC part of their ledger is only revenue, no cost?

Jun 14, 2012#138

Jay

Necronic said:
Ok, I just figure out a metaphor/comparison that fits this situation PERFECTLY:

Checked bag fees on an airline. People hate this. I hate this. This is because I consider a checked bag to be an integral part of the service I am buying. It's a "hidden fee".

However, this doesn't mean that I consider paying extra for first class or having to pay for beer on an airplane ridiculous. That makes sense to me.

The problem isn't the Pay to Play model. It was their application of it.

This is not a perfect metaphor.

When you check in your bags with an air plane carrier you take it upon yourself to use this service that is generally already included when you purchase your ticket. Some airplane companies remove this extra charge simply because for certain domestic flights, a lot of people do not bring baggage with them (I'm not talking about children). They only thing they have with them are their carry on and basically feel playing the standard$50 for a service they don't even use, a waste, especially when they use the service many times during the course of the year. The same works for the beer/refreshment model... simply because they don't use it regularly (but this was different back in the day). But you'll get almost anything else along with snacks.

As for first class, basically instead of having 2 seats, they have one, for those willing to pay more to have a more comfortable flight. Most of the time it costs the same where a first class seat will cost the price of about 2 economy class seats but they cater to a different group of people willing to pay the price. This is about the same model for those gamers who pay above and beyond what is needed to have a 12 inch tall dragon resin statue.
Added at: 15:44

Necronic said:
How do you know its part of the original development cycle? Or, maybe a better statement than "original" is "main" development cycle. I mean, are you saying that in their business plans they have the entire game paid for with the normal sales and the DLC part of their ledger is only revenue, no cost?

???

The sky is blue,
There's no oxygen is space,
And you're giving me a headache with your irrelevant questions.

Jun 14, 2012#139

PatrThom

HowDroll said:
Games -- or the sort of games I like to play, anyway -- aren't just software to me. I pay for Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite, but I don't expect them to have a soul; I expect them to be functional. I don't usually game to get the highest score or the best loot; I game to get immersed in a story -- to carve out my own, more often than not -- and my favorite developers are the ones who understand the unwritten contract between creator and gamer.

You read Aisha Tyler's rant, right? If not, you should.

--Patrick

Jun 14, 2012#140

SpecialKO

Jay said:
The content on the release disk "Gold" has been established before the game goes "Gold" so when a DAY 1 DLC has most of the DLC content stored in the release build it is clearly not a DLC... (DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT) it's a privileged pass that you need to pay extra extra to access but was clearly part of the original development cycle and any explanation or elaboration is false to say otherwise. I need to download the extra content for it to be considered a DLC.

That DLC is added to the gold master after cert doesn't have the slightest effect on whether it is worth having or not. There is absolutely no reason why they can't add DLC in between RC and Gold. Unless the delivery system actually costs you more, how it is delivered doesn't matter as long as the price remains the same. And I'm not sure how on-disk DLC costs you more.

You seem to be saying that companies can't plan to have DLC before the main game is done, which a little strange since most 200+ person companies are perfectly capable of hiring more people to make DLC.

Jun 14, 2012#141

Necronic

Jay said:
???

The sky is blue,
There's no oxygen is space,
And you're giving me a headache with your irrelevant questions.

I'm sorry, but how do you NOT see what's wrong with this statement. You are making an assumption as a core tennet of your argument: That DLC was never considered an "extra" in the development costs/cycle by the producers up until the point that they realized that they could price gouge you on something they already made. That until the day some executive steepled his fingers and realized he could overcharge you for a product.

The sky is blue may be a fair comparison since it assumes an arbitrary perspective to be objective and universal, which it is not.

And I am still waiting to hear why this is so different from Collectors Editions or Pre-order bonuses that come out before the game is released, other than the fact that in this situation the game was unplayable without it. Those are, imho, worse for the consumer because they transfer risk from the producer to the consumer.

I'm sorry if this is giving you a headache, but I feel my argument has been incredibly straightforward, unemotional, and consistent. D1DLC is not inherently bad. EA's use of it in this case was, because they produced a core product that did not meet it's value proposition.

You guys have said the following:

1) That the DLC cost the company nothing extra to make, and should have been included for free

2) That the core product was inherently flawed without the DLC

3) That D1DLC is inherently bad because of 1&2.

I agree with #2. I need to see evidence of #1, because (regardless of your highly effective "because I said so" argument) and even if I do:

#3 is a non-sequitor. #1 is a matter of the company being dishonest and releasing a low-value product and screwing it's customers. #2 is the same thing just replace dishonest with incompetent. Neither of these imply D1DLC is bad, just that the company is.

Jun 14, 2012#142

Necronic

And as for the checked baggage argument, I'm not sure I understood you. Were you saying that checked bag fees are diffierent because there are enough people that don't want the service that it makes sense to split it off? I can't say I agree with that, but the thing is that it doesn't matter.

The point is that a company saw part of the cost of their product to be something that not everyone wanted, therefore it could be removed from the main item amd added as an optional part.

For me (and many other passengers) a checked bag isn't optional. For you it is. The company has to decide whether or not the reduction in cost to the people like you out there is worth the loss of good will to people like me.

And in EAs case, with ME3, they screwed up that determination, royally. But in other cases, like a decades worth of preorder and CE bonuses, people got it right. Just because EA doesn't know how to not cross their streams doesn't mean we shouldn't have Ghostbusters.

Those ghosts need busting man.

Jun 14, 2012#143

PatrThom

I think what is upsetting most people can be explained through the magic of another 80's movie.

Some of you* may remember the movie Clue from 1985. It was a movie with a completely original twist. The studio filmed 3 different endings, and the gimmick was that you would go back to the theater to watch the movie all over again 3 times just so you could see all the endings. This did not go over well (at least, not well enough for anyone to try it again). When the home version was released, it had all three endings included. If, instead, they had released three separate tapes (Starcraft II) or forced you to pay to "unlock" the other two endings (ME3/Capcom), well, people would've had the chance to start this argument that much earlier.

When the Movie studios tried it, it died on the first try. How are the Game studios getting away with it?

--Patrick
*for varying degrees of "some"

Jun 14, 2012#144

SpecialKO

PatrThom said:
When the Movie studios tried it, ~~it died on the first try~~ they successfully re-sold the film across multiple formats for several times the original ticket price and are now talking about re-making it with Gore Verbinski.

FTFY.

How are the Game studios getting away with it?

Because we've proved over and over and over again that people are more than happy to pay for add-ons of all kinds of they think they are worth it?

The whole core of Necro's argument isn't that EA doesn't jack people over DLC, it's that the screwing-over-the-customer thing is entirely EA's thing, not the mechanism of DLC.

Jun 14, 2012#145

FnordBear

Here. Hate on EA some more. I bought Spore complete pack last week and am having some issues. Fail chat below is fail.

You are now ready to chat with Ravish.
Ravish:
Thank you for contacting Origin Help. My name is Ravish! How may I assist you today?
you:
Hello. I have recently purchased Spore Complete Pack on Steam. I am having an issue where spore.com does not recognize that I have Galactic Adventures. The game is installed and plays fine, however since spore.com does not recognize that I have galactic adventures I am not able to upload and share my creations using that content. I have researched this issue before contacting you and I have found other users that had this problem required Customer Service to manually activate thier CD key on the Spore website. Before we proceed please make note I do -not- have the origion client installed. Any fixes suggested involving that client will not work for me because this is purchased via Steam. Suggestions involving reinstalling the game will also not work as this is according to research a server side issue requiring manual intervention on Customer Service's part. This is my CD key for Galactic Adventures. (EDITING OUT CD KEY) Please assist.
you:
Further information. According to the offical Spore.com forum's help section a differnt user that had this issue resolved was givien incident number 101119-005703 this may have the information needed to assist you in assisting me.
Ravish:
Could you more specific with the issue, David?
you:
When you install the spore games they link to the Spore.com website and indicate which expansion you have. I have the base game, cute and creepy pack, and galactic adventures.
you:
It does not recognize that I have Galactic Adventures
you:
This prevents me from sharing my user created content with others.
Ravish:
As I understand you have in game issue?
you:
Let me try explainging this again
Ravish:
Okay
you:
Spore has a system in place to share things you create in game with others via the Spore.com website. The website detects which game expansions you have installed. It is not detecting that the Galactic Adventures expansion is installed.
you:
This prevents me from shareing creations I make using that content.
you:
I have researched this issue before contacting you and found other users have this same issue.
you:
Those users report that EA support had to register their game for them on the Spore website.
you:
That is what I am requesting. A manual update to my spore.com profile indicating I have purchased galactic adventures.
Ravish:
Okay.
Ravish:
How long you have been facing this issue, David?
you:
Since I purchased the game last week.
Ravish:
Okay.
Ravish:
I do understand that, let me see what best I can do for you.
Ravish:
I definitely accommodated your request but unfortunately we do not have any access to purchases made at third party retailers.
Ravish:
Please contact your retailer or our warranty department we are not authorized to provide any code regarding this.. I apologize for the disappointment.
Ravish:

you:
I already have a code
you:
The game works.
Ravish:
I have informed you of my limitations regarding this issue and unfortunately, I won't be able to provide code to you.
Ravish:
We are not supposed to provide codes for 3rd party purchases.
Ravish:

you:
I am not asking you to
you:
I have a code. I provided it in my first paragraph
you:
I am asking you to update my online spore.com profile to indicate the purchase.
you:
(CD KEY REMOVED) in case you need it again
Ravish:
Okay, For any such update please keep in touch with the official website.
you:
So you are not going to assist me?
Ravish:
For any such updated please keep in touch with the official website and forum.
you:
You are not helpful. I will pursue other avenues for assistance.
Your chat session has ended.

Jun 14, 2012#146

SeraRelm

I think I see the problem, you got Spore. :troll:

(This isn't me ripping on the game, this is me hating on EA some more)

Jun 14, 2012#147

FnordBear

Jun 14, 2012#148

Necronic

"I do understand that, let me see what best I can do for you."
Is it racist that I heard that in an indian voice, or is it just experience?
Man, spore was such an amazing pile of shit.

Jun 14, 2012#149

PatrThom

SpecialKO said:
FTFY.

Oh good. I hope they don't do something stupid this time. Also, I think the "resold over different formats" speaks more towards marketing and "cult" status than it does the success of the gimmick itself.

--Patrick

Jun 15, 2012#150

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
Some of you* may remember the movie Clue from 1985. It was a movie with a completely original twist. The studio filmed 3 different endings, and the gimmick was that you would go back to the theater to watch the movie all over again 3 times just so you could see all the endings. This did not go over well (at least, not well enough for anyone to try it again). When the home version was released, it had all three endings included. If, instead, they had released three separate tapes (Starcraft II) or forced you to pay to "unlock" the other two endings (ME3/Capcom), well, people would've had the chance to start this argument that much earlier.

Wait, i was under the impression that individual theatres only got one ending each, so you couldn't go back and there was no guarantee that you'd catch another ending at another theatre either...

Jun 15, 2012#151

Covar

PatrThom said:
I think what is upsetting most people can be explained through the magic of another 80's movie.

Some of you* may remember the movie Clue from 1985. It was a movie with a completely original twist. The studio filmed 3 different endings, and the gimmick was that you would go back to the theater to watch the movie all over again 3 times just so you could see all the endings. This did not go over well (at least, not well enough for anyone to try it again). When the home version was released, it had all three endings included. If, instead, they had released three separate tapes (Starcraft II) or forced you to pay to "unlock" the other two endings (ME3/Capcom), well, people would've had the chance to start this argument that much earlier.

When the Movie studios tried it, it died on the first try. How are the Game studios getting away with it?

--Patrick
*for varying degrees of "some"

Fun fact: The DVD allows you to either watch the movie with all three endings or have it select a random ending for you. :thumbsup:

Jun 15, 2012#152

ScytheRexx

If, instead, they had released three separate tapes (Starcraft II)

Click to expand...

Never really understood this, as that is kind of what LOTR did, and I don't see anyone screaming that they had to watch three movies to get the whole story. (Plus the Extended Edition, if you wanted the extras, cost a bit more.) SC2 is not doing anything all that odd, and actually I support the idea, since it gives me one more expansion then I was expecting. (Blizzard, outside WoW, is only known to release 1 expansion per game).

Jun 15, 2012#153

SpecialKO

ScytheRexx said:
Never really understood this, as that is kind of what LOTR did, and I don't see anyone screaming that they had to watch three movies to get the whole story. (Plus the Extended Edition, if you wanted the extras, cost a bit more.) SC2 is not doing anything all that odd, and actually I support the idea, since it gives me one more expansion then I was expecting. (Blizzard, outside WoW, is only known to release 1 expansion per game).

Exactly. Folks are placing far too much emphasis on the delivery mechanism and far too little on the actual value prop.

Throw in some pubs who don't understand their consumers, and you get our current mess.

Jun 15, 2012#154

ScytheRexx

I should make clear again that I don't have a problem with DLC, as long as it feels like it's actually a bonus. Sometimes they feel more like items left out of the game in order to charge more money (Most of From Ashes was already on the ME3 disk).

A DLC adding more new weapon packs to a game? I don't mind, as long as the weapons don't cause a large imbalance. A DLC adding a character a bit farther in a games life cycle? Don't mind it, gives me more reason to play it again. Again, my issue comes down to having something there that obviously was removed so that you could charge more for it later. The radio being in the car, only you have to pay more before you can use it. I don't care for that method of DLC because it's so obviously not a bonus, it was pre-made and taken out so they would get more cash off them.

Jun 15, 2012#155

CynicismKills

ScytheRexx said:
Never really understood this, as that is kind of what LOTR did, and I don't see anyone screaming that they had to watch three movies to get the whole story. (Plus the Extended Edition, if you wanted the extras, cost a bit more.) SC2 is not doing anything all that odd, and actually I support the idea, since it gives me one more expansion then I was expecting. (Blizzard, outside WoW, is only known to release 1 expansion per game).

The issue with SC2, I think, is not only people looking at SC1/WC1/2/3 in terms of progression (complete one story campaign, move to the next until the main story is complete, expansions adding a new storyline for each race) and being upset at having to buy a whole new expansion for each race plus the possibility of an expansion past those. Also LotR is not a great comparison, as all three movies were filmed simultaneously and released about a year apart, whereas SC2 itself is already about 2 years old (and there's no set release date on HotS yet, so I figure at least end of this year, if not next year). I understand Blizzard is likely considering HotS and the Protoss storylines to be expansions, but looking back at previous Blizz RTS games the fans were likely expecting the whole story in one $60 package, not three.
Added at: 13:19
Also I'll point out I bought LotR: Fellowship right when the first DVD hit, and was really pissed to find a coupon for the Extended Edition inside. If that's not rubbing salt in the "haha thanks for the money asshole" wound, I don't know what is.

Jun 15, 2012#156

Ravenpoe

CynicismKills said:
The issue with SC2, I think, is not only people looking at SC1/WC1/2/3 in terms of progression (complete one story campaign, move to the next until the main story is complete, expansions adding a new storyline for each race) and being upset at having to buy a whole new expansion for each race plus the possibility of an expansion past those. Also LotR is not a great comparison, as all three movies were filmed simultaneously and released about a year apart, whereas SC2 itself is already about 2 years old (and there's no set release date on HotS yet, so I figure at least end of this year, if not next year). I understand Blizzard is likely considering HotS and the Protoss storylines to be expansions, but looking back at previous Blizz RTS games the fans were likely expecting the whole story in one $60 package, not three.

I think that when the news came out that they were going to be standalone 'episodes,' fan expected them to be released a lot closer together, too.

When I finished Wings of Liberty, I couldn't wait for HotS to see where the story went, and I looked forward to what crazy new stuff would be added and how it would change multiplayer. Now? Eh, I've already stopped playing SC2 and really couldn't care less.

Jun 15, 2012#157

CynicismKills

Ravenpoe said:
I think that when the news came out that they were going to be standalone 'episodes,' fan expected them to be released a lot closer together, too.

When I finished Wings of Liberty, I couldn't wait for HotS to see where the story went, and I looked forward to what crazy new stuff would be added and how it would change multiplayer. Now? Eh, I've already stopped playing SC2 and really couldn't care less.

Yeah, like I mentioned it's already been 2 years since SC2, and on top of that there's not even a release date for HotS yet, which I figure means holiday 2012 or early 2013 at the earliest. I understand what they were going for in terms of a bigger, more robust story for the whole game, but that's a pretty big gap between chapters.

Jun 15, 2012#158

Covar

CynicismKills said:
Yeah, like I mentioned it's already been 2 years since SC2, and on top of that there's not even a release date for HotS yet, which I figure means holiday 2012 or early 2013 at the earliest. I understand what they were going for in terms of a bigger, more robust story for the whole game, but that's a pretty big gap between chapters.

It is?

Jun 15, 2012#159

CynicismKills

Half Life 3 is the new Duke Nukem: Forever.

Jun 15, 2012#160

SpecialKO

CynicismKills said:
Half Life 3 is the new Duke Nukem: Forever.

Jun 15, 2012#161

Necronic

ScytheRexx said:
I should make clear again that I don't have a problem with DLC, as long as it feels like it's actually a bonus. Sometimes they feel more like items left out of the game in order to charge more money (Most of From Ashes was already on the ME3 disk).

A DLC adding more new weapon packs to a game? I don't mind, as long as the weapons don't cause a large imbalance. A DLC adding a character a bit farther in a games life cycle? Don't mind it, gives me more reason to play it again. Again, my issue comes down to having something there that obviously was removed so that you could charge more for it later. The radio being in the car, only you have to pay more before you can use it. I don't care for that method of DLC because it's so obviously not a bonus, it was pre-made and taken out so they would get more cash off them.

I agree with most of what you've said except the wording of the last part, and maybe that's where all this contention comes from.

The problem you guys have is that you believe that the company excised something from it's final product and then deemed it to be an "extra" even though it never was "extra in their development cycle. The method for the to achieve this is through D1DLC.

I agree that this is a major problem and shouldn't happen, although I'm not sure how you can be sure that it was excised for profit after the fact and was never intended to be an "extra". But maybe what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what the intent or the plan was, what matters is that the core game is incomplete with this material removed. Well, I also agree with that.

And (maybe) you're saying that the core game couldn't have been butchered like this without the existence of D1DLC, and that D1DLC is responible for the mistake.

That I take issue with. There are MANY cases of a story being released in an incomplete, crappy manner. Pretty much every bad movie ever made is missing integral parts of the story, character development, etc, that without which the story suffers. This can be caused by many things. Unexpected cost over-runs. Sloppy producers. Evil producers that intentionally hatchet job a project. Simple incompetence.

Not DLC.

Jun 15, 2012#162

SeraRelm

They're not saying DLC is the problem, they're saying DLC is the tool that the problem uses to get more money.

Jun 15, 2012#163

ScytheRexx

CynicismKills said:
The issue with SC2, I think, is not only people looking at SC1/WC1/2/3 in terms of progression (complete one story campaign, move to the next until the main story is complete, expansions adding a new storyline for each race) and being upset at having to buy a whole new expansion for each race plus the possibility of an expansion past those.

I can understand an issue of perception, but when put versus other attempts to make "Trilogies" I just don't see the problem. Each game does have a set ending, that ending just forshadows the next expansion. If Zerg and Protoss were not in multiplayer, I would see a concern, as they left out pretty much 2/3rds of the main part of the game, but I don't think having the story focus on certain races and characters was a problem. Actually, I think it gave us a chance to get to know more characters. In SC1 the amount of important human character you got was 4 (Raynor, Kerrigan, Mengsk, Duke), while in SC2 we got to nearly a dozen, not counting the various old and new protoss characters we met in the bonus missions.

Also LotR is not a great comparison, as all three movies were filmed simultaneously and released about a year apart, whereas SC2 itself is already about 2 years old (and there's no set release date on HotS yet, so I figure at least end of this year, if not next year). I understand Blizzard is likely considering HotS and the Protoss storylines to be expansions, but looking back at previous Blizz RTS games the fans were likely expecting the whole story in one $60 package, not three.

Now I do agree the game is taking a lot longer to release then it should, that is a valid concern. It should have come out earlier this year, but I expect they are mostly holding off because they didn't want to compete with the Diablo 3 release (and likely when MoP comes out will be balanced around when HOTS comes out). Hopefully they will improve on that, but from what I see of the story so far, it looks pretty fun.

I just don't think having a story pulled out over multiple games is a concern. I like more story. As long as WOL was a self-contained narrative that lead into future stories, I was happy, and in the end, that was exactly what it was. It was a self-contained story. I think Angry Joe put it best in his review.

Jun 15, 2012#164

Necronic

SeraRelm said:
They're not saying DLC is the problem, they're saying DLC is the tool that the problem uses to get more money.

I completely agree with that.

DLC doesn't kill games. EA kills games.

Jun 15, 2012#165

SeraRelm

And people are bitching about the method because it is becoming the norm, or at least far more common to put that locked content on a disk then charge people above and beyond the already massive cost of buying a new console game to get everything that was made for the game before it was released.

TL;DR version.
"Back in my day, when you bought a game, you got the whole thing."

Jun 15, 2012#166

SpecialKO

Question for folks: what if it wasn't on disk? Still available day 1, but not on disk?

Jun 15, 2012#167

SeraRelm

If they didn't have it done to the best of their satisfaction, they shouldn't have released it yet. Different issue though.

Jun 15, 2012#168

ScytheRexx

SpecialKO said:
Question for folks: what if it wasn't on disk? Still available day 1, but not on disk?

Well then we wouldn't know about whether it was left out or an actual bonus. If I at least felt it was a bonus I wouldn't be so annoyed by it.

Jun 15, 2012#169

SpecialKO

I'm talking about Day 1 DLC, not the main game.

EDIT: That was to SeraRelm.

Jun 15, 2012#170

SeraRelm

Right, that's still extended development.

Jun 15, 2012#171

SpecialKO

ScytheRexx said:
Well then we wouldn't know about whether it was left out or an actual bonus.

How so? It would still have been developed in the exact same time period.

I'm just curious why "on disk" specifically makes people as mad as "EA is a bunch of pricks for piece-mealing ME3".
Added at: 14:55

SeraRelm said:
Right, that's still extended development.

We're back to the assumption that those resources would have gone to main game if they weren't being used to for DLC, which is just a guess in general. ME3 certainly seems to have been a case of it being true, but that's one game.

Jun 15, 2012#172

Necronic

SeraRelm said:
And people are bitching about the method because it is becoming the norm, or at least far more common to put that locked content on a disk then charge people above and beyond the already massive cost of buying a new console game to get everything that was made for the game before it was released.

TL;DR version.
"Back in my day, when you bought a game, you got the whole thing."

Eh, even with the DLC out these days the price per quality ratio of games has done nothing but increase over the last 20 years. 50-60$ has been the price point for a new game for a decade or more, ~40-50$ before that all the way to the 80s. When you consider inflation that means that the price of a game has actually gone down, and that's ignoring playtime.

Don't even get me started on the complete gamble that a computer game was in the 90s. If it didn't work due to bugs then you really had little option other than to just hope and pray that someone decided to make a patch. It took me 3 months to get Diablo 1 to work. 1 year to get my ping down below 999 on Quake TF (yes I played online like that). And Daggerfall, well....we don't talk about Daggerfall.

TL;DR version:
"Back in my day games were mostly terrible and overpriced and/or poorly supported, and most people today are either young whippersnappers that don't remember this or they can't get off those rose-tinted shades all these hipsters like to wear."

Followup (missed this):

SeraRelm said:
If they didn't have it done to the best of their satisfaction, they shouldn't have released it yet. Different issue though.

When did you actually start playing games? Because, well, see what I said above.

PSS: eh the above comment isn't fair and is unnecesarilly snippy. Sorry Sera.

Jun 15, 2012#173

HowDroll

SpecialKO said:
Question for folks: what if it wasn't on disk? Still available day 1, but not on disk?

Anything that significantly adds to the game, and that is available on day 1 of release, should be included in the cost of the game. Having different "tiers" of the game available for more money is bullshit. If DLC is developed after release and comes out months later, that's entirely different.

Jun 15, 2012#174

Necronic

HowDroll said:
Anything that significantly adds to the game, and that is available on day 1 of release, should be included in the cost of the game. Having different "tiers" of the game available for more money is bullshit. If DLC is developed after release and comes out months later, that's entirely different.

That logic disconnects production costs and price point.

According to normal thinking:

X (hours) * Y (cost/hour)/ Expected volume of sales * (1+ROI) = Price point

According to your thinking

X( hours) ??? Y(Cost/hour)???Expect Volume of Sales???ROI

?????

60$

Jun 15, 2012#175

ScytheRexx

SpecialKO said:
How so? It would still have been developed in the exact same time period.

It's less the DLC for me and more the fact the obviously were building it into the main game. If it was true DLC, it wouldn't have all those resources there, because all those resources would have to be downloaded.

This is how it looks in my mind, and hopefully helps explain the type of DLC I like, and the type of DLC I hate.

I hate:

Developer 1 "We almost got Jarrik done, just need to get some of the sounds done so we can finish him up."
Developer 2 "Don't worry about it, get them done, we will add him in a DLC so we can make some more cash."
Developer 1 "But... we already put him and most of his information in the game, he is already programmed to be there... Do you want me to remove his data?"
Developer 2 "Don't bother, like those players are going to notice."

I don't mind:

Developer 1: "Hey guys, we finished the game, but we have a bit more time to likely program another squadmate."
Developer 2: "I had this idea for a Protheon squad mate, it wouldn't be to hard to add him, but we would need more time to do the sound work."
Developer 1: "That's fine, we can develop him on the side and if we get him done in time, we can add him as DLC either at release or after release. We would just add him entirely through a patch."

Leaving the data on the disk makes me think the first option, leaving it off the disk and doing it fully through a patch makes me think the second. It's not even really about the time period it's developed, and more about the implied reasons behind why it was developed the way it was, and what may have been lost due to it. Again, going back to that whole car comparison, what options are going to make you feel "cheated"?

1) Opening the door and noticing the radio is gone, them saying they can install a nice one for a small fee.
2) Opening the door and noticing the radio is half-way ripped out with missing dials and knobs, them saying they will add those parts back for a fee to make it complete.
3) Opening the door and noticing the radio is already there.

1 and 3 I don't mind, because either I get more, or at the least, they are offering me more for a little extra.

2 makes me feel like they just starting pulling parts out, decided not to bother anymore because I would buy it anyways, then dropped the extra cost on me.

Jun 15, 2012#176

HowDroll

Necronic said:
That logic disconnects production costs and price point.

According to normal thinking:

X (hours) * Y (cost/hour)/ Expected volume of sales * (1+ROI) = Price point

According to your thinking

X( hours) ??? Y(Cost/hour)???Expect Volume of Sales???ROI

?????

60$

Games are never priced that variably. New AAA games are pretty much universally $60.

Jun 15, 2012#177

Necronic

I think the reality is more like this (since it's prevalent in the film and TV industry)

Manager: "Ok guys, looks like we're getting close to the finish line. Now, we cut a number of pieces out of the game during development due to cost over-runs, and I know you guys are sad and in some cases pissed (Jerry) that some of your work is being wasted like this, but I have some good news.

"Current estimates for sales are looking good and the board wants to double down on this game. They have authorized an additional million dollars for development of some DLC that will come out on launch. All those pieces that you guys got halfway through making but I made you stop? Now's your chance to get them in the game. There's going to be plenty of overtime opportunities in the next months. Grab your bootstraps, and get moving men, today is a good day to dev!

"Jerry I will need to see you in my office immediately"
Added at: 20:26

HowDroll said:
Games are never priced that variably. New AAA games are pretty much universally $60.

Yeah, after I wrote that I realized that the Price Point wasn't a variable in that first equation (at least not with AAA). But it doesn't change the argument (or the other variables). You guys are operatign in a system of logic where cost is not influenced by labor.

I'll be honest, I would like to live there as well.

Jun 15, 2012#178

SpecialKO

ScytheRexx said:
Leaving the data on the disk makes me think the first option, leaving it off the disk and doing it fully through a patch makes me think the second.

What you have there are good examples of good and bad DLC development, but either one could be on-disk.

This is what I'm getting at. This is why I was stressing the difference between RC and RTM/Gold Master before. Because of the length of time console release certification takes, it's perfectly reasonable for a company to complete DLC (especially DLC they planned on paper in the first place) before something streets. And since DLC is rarely new source code, it's easy to add to the Gold Master right before it goes out.

In other words, GB and others were right before: consoles are ruining the game industry. I fully retract any statement I may have made to the contrary. :cry:

Jun 15, 2012#179

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
Wait, i was under the impression that individual theatres only got one ending each, so you couldn't go back and there was no guarantee that you'd catch another ending at another theatre either...

In my area, the theater listings advertised which ending you would get.

SeraRelm said:
They're not saying DLC is the problem, they're saying DLC is the tool that the problem uses to get more money.

Hey, I expect my game not to suck right out of the box. I shouldn't have to pay extra to move that needle.

--Patrick

Jun 15, 2012#180

bhamv3

Necronic said:
"Jerry I will need to see you in my office immediately"

Ahem. Anyway.

Something occurred to me. Would you guys feel better if games were $70 but always included everything the devs wanted the game to include? No DLC, day 1 or otherwise, just one really complete game, but with a higher price point for everyone, to cover any extra development costs.

Jun 16, 2012#181

Krisken

bhamv3 said:
Ahem. Anyway.

Something occurred to me. Would you guys feel better if games were $70 but always included everything the devs wanted the game to include? No DLC, day 1 or otherwise, just one really complete game, but with a higher price point for everyone, to cover any extra development costs.

And what is the guarantee of content coming later?

Jun 16, 2012#182

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
And what is the guarantee of content coming later?

No later content, if I'm following correctly. Just one-and-done.

Jun 16, 2012#183

Ravenpoe

SpecialKO said:
No later content, if I'm following correctly. Just one-and-done.

Sounds like Nick's prom night!

Jun 16, 2012#184

bhamv3

SpecialKO said:
No later content, if I'm following correctly. Just one-and-done.

Yeah, this.

Jun 16, 2012#185

Hailey Knight

I liked Rockstar's approach for L.A. Noire--you could pay $10 for a ticket that would get you all future DLC, no matter when released. So it kind of was just paying a little extra to get more game.

Although I never felt that the absence of any of the cases from the DLC would have detracted from the game overall and a mission-based game like that is the kind that benefits from DLC as opposed to a more fluid one. In fact, this is a little too biased, because I would've happily bought more DLC for that game. Loved the hell out of it.

Jun 16, 2012#186

Bowielee

This is why I generally wait for the GOTY or Gold editions of games to come out. Usually you get it at a reduced price overall with all the DLC included.

As it stands right now, we usually pay for beta copies of games.

Jun 16, 2012#187

SeraRelm

I have my money ready to throw at secret world. the beta is up again and I am re-addicted to the storyline/atmosphere.

Jun 16, 2012#188

Bowielee

Fun.com needs to drop all this bullcrap and get to making a new installment of The Longest Journey. They last one definitely left me jonesing for a new one.

Jun 16, 2012#189

mikerc

SpecialKO said:
I'm just curious why "on disk" specifically makes people as mad as "EA is a bunch of pricks for piece-mealing ME3".

Because while the publishers might be thinking "All this stuff here is what the customer is buying when he buys the disk, but this other stuff on the disk is for DLC. He hasn't bought that yet." The customer on the other hand is thinking "I bought the game disk, so I bought all the content that's on the disk."

For years the customers view was what happened - you might not see all that content because you weren't good enough at the game, or you didn't play it enough, but it was there waiting for you because you'd paid for it.

And then suddenly some of that content wasn't waiting for you. If you wanted it, you had to pay for it. Again.

Maybe that's not fair, after all we never really got all the content that was on the disk - the GTA Hot Coffee debacle for example.

But that's the perception - this stuff is already on the disk that I bought, I've already paid for it, why are you asking me to pay for it again you greedy ripoff merchant?

Jun 16, 2012#190

Bowielee

I think for me, it lies in the scope of the DLC. For example, extra costumes and other micro transactions. Developers can charge for those to their heart's content. I don't need it to finish the game, it doesn't detract from my gaming experience to not have them.

Another example of DLC I'm OK with are story expansions, such as the Traitor's Keep expansion to Fable 3, or Project: Overlord (which is the best example I can think of of DLC done right), the new Harley Quinn's Revenge for Arkham City, etc...

Where it starts getting dicey is stuff that is part and parcel to the main game, for example the Prothean in Mass Effect 3, or the full roster of characters on Streetfighter X Tekken.

Jun 16, 2012#191

SpecialKO

mroosc1979 said:
And then suddenly some of that content wasn't waiting for you. If you wanted it, you had to pay for it. Again.

Except you never paid for it the first time. This is the source of the disconnect between pubs and consumers.

Which really just begs the question: is it as simple as not putting it on the disk? Still day 1, but now you have to download it entirely. My gut (at least from this thread) would seem to indicate not.
Added at: 00:43

Bowielee said:
I think for me, it lies in the scope of the DLC. For example, extra costumes and other micro transactions. Developers can charge for those to their heart's content. I don't need it to finish the game, it doesn't detract from my gaming experience to not have them.

Another example of DLC I'm OK with are story expansions, such as the Traitor's Keep expansion to Fable 3, or Project: Overlord (which is the best example I can think of of DLC done right), the new Harley Quinn's Revenge for Arkham City, etc...

Where it starts getting dicey is stuff that is part and parcel to the main game, for example the Prothean in Mass Effect 3, or the full roster of characters on Streetfighter X Tekken.

See, this makes sense. Your basis for what constitutes "good" and "bad" DLC is based entirely on how you value particular content and now has nothing to do with "Day 1" or "on disk".

Jun 16, 2012#192

PatrThom

Bowielee said:
As it stands right now, we usually pay for beta copies of games.

Ayep. I blame producers (ie, those people whose priority is to make their money back). I know it's not rational (without producers nothing gets funded), but that's what my idealist brain wants to think.

--Patrick

Jun 16, 2012#193

SpecialKO

It's a combo of a lot of different pressures.

Producers want to make the money back, but since the industry is so small, they also want their games to be successes (i.e. "I produced this!"). So they end up basically playing middleman between the developers and the actual folks holding the money pouch (operations directors, major shareholders, etc.), and the latter are not especially friendly to flexible deadlines and changing milestone goals.

There's also a big tendency in AAA titles towards feature creep; it's a hit-driven business at that level, which means that every time there is a new hit, related games in that space need to either have key features they have or make a credible argument for why they don't need them. It's like how everything has to have deep multiplayer now. Multiplayer is far from a bad thing, but it may not be the best fit for every game, and trying to shoehorn it (or any other "must-have" competitive feature) in absolutely takes dev time away from other things.

Add in the typical American corporate bloat, and it's not too surprising that we end up with games that really should have gone another month or three in the clean-up/polish phase.

Right now, Valve is the closest thing we have to a publisher/developer house that is relatively streamlined and focused enough to (mostly) overcome these problems, and large part of why a lot of this stuff doesn't happen is also because they have no public shares and Gabe Newell is much more insane game designer than money man (which says quite a lot, seeing as how he's possibly a billionaire).

Jun 17, 2012#194

PatrThom

SpecialKO said:
There's also a big tendency in AAA titles towards feature creep; it's a hit-driven business at that level, which means that every time there is a new hit, related games in that space need to either have key features they have or make a credible argument for why they don't need them.

WHOA whoa, now. This thread is about video games, not Anime.

--Patrick

Jun 17, 2012#195

SpecialKO

Huh?

Maybe it's just 1am for me, but you lost me entirely?

Jun 17, 2012#196

Hailey Knight

That kind of explains why the Assassin's Creed games keep having shit-headed padding and mini-games. Ubisoft feels the need to absorb whatever's "in" at the moment into the franchise.

Jun 17, 2012#197

SpecialKO

Yeah, much as I liked Revelations, the fact that they added a TD game smack in the middle of it....

Jun 17, 2012#198

SeraRelm

World of Whatcraft?

Jun 17, 2012#199

Necronic

So a lot of people are complaining about getting unfinished products (beta testing) the main game. That pisses me off too.

What I don't get is when was there a time where that wasn't the case?

Jun 17, 2012#200

Hailey Knight

Necronic said:
So a lot of people are complaining about getting unfinished products (beta testing) the main game. That pisses me off too.

What I don't get is when was there a time where that wasn't the case?

Pretty much all of console gaming up until consoles didn't have this, until consoles started becoming computers with access to internet, patches, and eventually DLC. So essentially this began with the original Xbox and continued with 360 and PS3. Games for Nintendo systems haven't had this shit so far, up until the DSi, 3DS, and I'm sure the WiiU will start the issues as well.

But NES to PS2 era? Good times.

Jun 17, 2012#201

SpecialKO

Necronic said:
So a lot of people are complaining about getting unfinished products (beta testing) the main game. That pisses me off too.

What I don't get is when was there a time where that wasn't the case?

I think folks are talking about the idea that companies now rely on being able to deliver that first patch on launch day that contains bug fixes. I dunno if that's a real thing (the company relying on it part; obviously there are day 1 bug fix patches), but it certainly looks bad when you pop the disk in the very first day, and then have to download 200 MB in patches, and then the very first thing that happens when you finally finish downloading is a pop-up informing you that you can buy DLC.

I honestly suspect this has more to do with the dev timeline than anything else (they code-lock for RC, but DLC development continues and as they complete the DLC they find more bugs), but it sure as hell looks bad.

Jun 17, 2012#202

Tiq

Just wanted to pop in and add a little fuel to this fire...
http://www.destructoid.com/ea-syndicate-failed-old-ip-still-to-be-resurrected-229512.phtml

"Syndicate was something that we took a risk on. It didn't pay off -- it didn't work," confessed Frank Gibeau, to CVG.

So EA's idea of a "risk" is gutting a beloved franchise and turning it into an FPS in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. That actually constitutes a "risk" for them...

What the actual fuck?

Jun 17, 2012#203

Bowielee

That is a risk. A poorly thought out and ill concieved risk.

Jun 17, 2012#204

Tiq

Bowielee said:
That is a risk. A poorly thought out and ill concieved risk.

....I see what you did there.

Jun 17, 2012#205

SpecialKO

It really does make you wonder what's going through their heads.

Project A gets gutted, turned into something completely different, and is then badly marketed so only the hardcore fans who already have rejected the concept know about it. Project A fails.

Project B gets refreshed instead of rebooted, stays close to its core concepts, makes a point about going back to the primary base for feedback, adds some new things to draw in new blood. Project B succeeds.

IT'S LIKE MAGIC! YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!

Jun 17, 2012#206

Tiq

SpecialKO said:
It really does make you wonder what's going through their heads.

Project A gets gutted, turned into something completely different, and is then badly marketed so only the hardcore fans who already have rejected the concept know about it. Project A fails.

Project B gets refreshed instead of rebooted, stays close to its core concepts, makes a point about going back to the primary base for feedback, adds some new things to draw in new blood. Project B succeeds.

IT'S LIKE MAGIC! YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!

Hey guyz.

guyz.

No seriously, guyz... it turns out people don't like having beloved franchises destroyed in front of their very eyes, and re-released as some sort of hellish frankensteins monster.

WHATS THAT ABOUT, EH!?!

Jun 17, 2012#207

bhamv3

Now now, gutting an IP and turning it into something unrecognizable isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, hardcore Fallout fans hate Fallout 3, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

No, gutting an IP and turning it into shit is a bad thing.

Jun 17, 2012#208

Bowielee

I wouldn't consider Fallout 3 a gutting of the series. It changed it from a turn based RPG to a modern RPG with the option to play it like a first person shooter. I personally use the VATS system all the way through.

Jun 17, 2012#209

SpecialKO

I really liked the VATS system. I understand that it's a bit weird from a pure shooter perspective, but it really opened up the combat of the game to something much better than what was really a mediocre shooter. Fallout 3 was a game that I could actually recommend to my friends who don't play shooters but do like RPGs.

Jun 17, 2012#210

bhamv3

Bowielee said:
I wouldn't consider Fallout 3 a gutting of the series. It changed it from a turn based RPG to a modern RPG with the option to play it like a first person shooter. I personally use the VATS system all the way through.

Your opinion isn't necessarily shared by the hardcore fans of Fallout 1 and 2 though, judging by the shitstorm of bitching that occurred.

(Disclaimer: I love Fallout 1 and 3, haven't played 2 yet)

Jun 17, 2012#211

Tiq

bhamv3 said:
Now now, gutting an IP and turning it into something unrecognizable isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, hardcore Fallout fans hate Fallout 3, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

No, gutting an IP and turning it into shit is a bad thing.

There's a difference between the evolution of a series and the bastardization of it.
Fair enough that line might be a very thin one, but it definitely exists and if anyone should be able to recognise it, it should be one of the biggest companies in the gaming world.

Jun 17, 2012#212

PatrThom

SpecialKO said:
Huh? Maybe it's just 1am for me, but you lost me entirely?

(contemporary) Anime tends to follow the same sort of trend. "Ooo, those guys have cards. We should have cards, too."..etc.

--Patrick

Jun 17, 2012#213

bhamv3

PatrThom said:
(contemporary) Anime tends to follow the same sort of trend. "Ooo, those guys have cards. We should have cards, too."..etc.

--Patrick

I need to figure out a way to make Slam Dunk popular again. "Oooh, those guys have basketball, we should totally have basketball too!"

Jun 18, 2012#214

jwhouk

From the way it sounds, Electronic Arts has essentially Microsofted itself. Which does not surprise me.

Disclaimer: the last EA Sports game I recall purchasing was NHL 99. The last EA game I actually enjoyed was Earl Weaver Baseball.

Jun 18, 2012#215

SpecialKO

I must admit, while they're not exactly innovative, EA Sports games are generally extremely well done. FIFA 12 is a fantastic soccer game. My dad actually liked watching me play it, and was disappointed that I hadn't bought the UEFA championship tournament pack so he could see me play as the Czech national team.

Jun 18, 2012#216

bhamv3

I find EA Sports games tend to be solid rather than spectacular.

Of course, if you're going to be spending money on a game, you could do worse than buying something that's certain to offer solid gameplay.

Jun 18, 2012#217

SpecialKO

bhamv3 said:
I find EA Sports games tend to be solid rather than spectacular.

Of course, if you're going to be spending money on a game, you could do worse than buying something that's certain to offer solid gameplay.

It does depend a little on the game. I would consider FIFA 12 spectacular just because of how deep it can get without actually getting complicated. It's not an easy game to jump into (it's major failing; the PES series does a much better job of this), but after a little control familiarization, anyone can play just like they were watching a decent MLS game, and really good players can pull off some truly intense Premiere League/UEFA championships-level games.

NHL is similar. The interface isn't as polished, and it's a little feature light, but it's quick and easy to get into and have a great time.

Madden definitely falls into the category of too complicated for me. They pretty much buried the actual gameplay in stats. I understand why folks like it, that's cool, but I feel like Madden has too much gameplanning and not enough actual game. But that's just me.

Jun 18, 2012#218

Covar

SpecialKO said:
Madden definitely falls into the category of too complicated for me. They pretty much buried the actual gameplay in stats. I understand why folks like it, that's cool, but I feel like Madden has too much gameplanning and not enough actual game. But that's just me.

In other words it's like an actual football game. Madden definitely has the bonus/downside of needing to know more than just the general jist of the sport. I like the NHL series, especially with some of the gameplay features they've been adding the past few years. Being able to push up against the boards happens so often in NHL games I'm honestly surprised it was only recently added a few years ago.

Jun 18, 2012#219

SpecialKO

Covar said:
In other words it's like an actual football game.

Heh, true.

Jun 18, 2012#220

SeraRelm

If they put it all in one game, why would you buy it again next year?

Jun 18, 2012#221

Covar

Roster updates, graphical improvements (animation in particular), commentary improvements (GAH!), physics improvements, New stadiums (less often), rule changes. There's plenty of stuff to work on from year to year, the idea of foul play is rather absurd.

Jun 18, 2012#222

SeraRelm

Roster updates? Commentary? Rules changes? Really? They could do that with a single patch. Graphical improvement is very slow, same with physics. I've yet to see 3 years in a row with an improvement worth $60 in those departments. When it comes down to it, it's almost the same god damned game each year and the stuff they're doling out is minor additions that could be put in one single year, but they do it yearly for the money.

Jun 18, 2012#223

Necronic

Well yeah, the "New Model" issue with sports games is pretty ridiculous.

Although maybe the whole thing is just done to pay for another year of licensing with the NFL and the players. Now, if you want to talk about a gaming company that will screw over fans for any penny they can get. Well, I would like to introduce you to the soul-less beast that is the NFL

Jun 18, 2012#224

SpecialKO

FIFA 12 actually completely re-did their physics, dribbling, and defending engines. There's considerably more fine control now than in previous years. Now, I suspect that 13 won't add much and I'll probably skip it, but I figure if people are happy buying yearly updates, then let them.

It's not the Madden fans crying out for change, that's for sure.

Jun 18, 2012#225

Jay

I buy NHL games every year. Pay 60$ then in April sell it for 25$. I don't mind it though the NHL 12 wasn't a whole lot improvement from NHL 11.

Jun 18, 2012#226

CynicismKills

The last sports game I truly enjoyed was NFL Blitz on the N64. YOU CAN'T TACKLE ME I'M ON MOTHERFUCKING FIRE

Jun 18, 2012#227

ElJuski

Don't forget Ken Griffey Jr's Slugfest 99. That game was the fucken tits

Jun 18, 2012#228

CynicismKills

ElJuski said:
Don't forget Ken Griffey Jr's Slugfest 99. That game was the fucken tits

Ah man, yeah, that was a slick one. Only baseball game that wasn't boring as shit.

Jun 18, 2012#229

Ravenpoe

NBA Jam on the sega genesis. Cheat codes on. Motherfucking slam dunk from half court while playing as the mascot for the Timberwolves.

Jun 18, 2012#230

Frank

CynicismKills said:
Ah man, yeah, that was a slick one. Only baseball game that wasn't boring as shit.

You've never played Basewars.

Jun 18, 2012#231

CynicismKills

Only other one I've played outside some generic MLB 2000-something is that old Robot baseball one in arcades way back when. Baseball 2020 or something.

Jun 18, 2012#232

SeraRelm

mutant... league... hockey.
*drops mic*

Jun 18, 2012#233

CynicismKills

SeraRelm said:
mutant... league... hockey.
*drops mic*

Hey wait, you dropped your microphone! That's got a really good chance of ruining it, you know, you should be more careful.

Jun 18, 2012#234

ElJuski

Baseball Simulator 1,000 kept me entertained for hours as a kid. But none of these games have the Ken Griffey voice-over, which is excellent.

Jun 18, 2012#235

Tiq

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5946-Why-Do-People-Hate-EA

Jun 18, 2012#236

Necronic

SeraRelm said:
mutant... league... hockey.
*drops mic*

Bill Lambeer's Combat Basketball

*picks up mic, swallows it, then craps it onto the floor*

Jun 18, 2012#237

Frank

Oh good, that hypogonadic fat idiot troll.

Jun 18, 2012#238

ElJuski

Frank said:
Oh good, that hypogonadic fat idiot troll.

google's not helping me here.

Jun 18, 2012#239

Necronic

Huh, I didn't even realize that was a real person. I just really enjoyed a basketball game where I could punch the other guy. Constantly.

Edit: Yeah I googled that as well.

Edit2: oh he's talking about the review guy.

Jun 18, 2012#240

Tiq

Frank said:
Oh good, that hypogonadic fat idiot troll.

To be fair to him, sterling is gradually learning to listen to the shit people tell him, which is more than I can say for 90% of the people who call themselves professional games journalists.

Jun 18, 2012#241

Frank

ElJuski said:
google's not helping me here.

I was replying to Tiq, but having watched the video, I can't believe I'd say this but I agree with Jim Sterling.....

Jun 18, 2012#242

SpecialKO

I think that's the most I've ever agreed with Jim Sterling.

Jun 18, 2012#243

Tiq

Frank said:
I was replying to Tiq, but having watched the video, I can't believe I'd say this but I agree with Jim Sterling.....

Trust me sir, I used to hate his guts, but he's genuinely starting to wise up.

It doesn't help though that most of the "writers" on destructoid are more than happy to follow in his path by trolling for page hits, at a point when jim is slowly learning the error of doing so.

Jun 18, 2012#244

SpecialKO

I used to avoid destructoid like the plague, but it's gotten significantly better in the last couple of years. Community is still pretty awful, but the articles have definitely gotten better (not just Jim's).

Jun 18, 2012#245

Tiq

SpecialKO said:
I used to avoid destructoid like the plague, but it's gotten significantly better in the last couple of years. Community is still pretty awful, but the articles have definitely gotten better (not just Jim's).

Some of the writers are getting great, but some of them honestly disgust me, at times.

Tony ponce is turning into a bigger troll than jim, and jonathan holmes is embarassing to watch, especially when he passive aggresively complains about anything, and then acts like a wounded puppy whenever anyone calls him on talking shit... the man has no balls whatsoever.

Jun 18, 2012#246

SpecialKO

Jonathan needs to write less and think more, Dale North needs to write more, post less, and Tara Long is a decent interview (for a game blog, anyways). I wish Sophie Prell would write more in general.

Jun 18, 2012#247

bhamv3

My favorite sports game is Championship Manager 01/02, which says something, I think...

Jun 18, 2012#248

jwhouk

The problem with "updates" for sports titles is that there are enough little things that change from year to year - whether it is the team logos, uniforms, arenas/stadiums, advertisements, rule changes, whatever - that fans notice it when they play the game. And it detracts from their gameplay.

And yes, a lot of it is money grab by the various leagues and PA's.

Jun 20, 2012#249

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
In my area, the theater listings advertised which ending you would get.

Giving away the ending seems like a dumb move...

PatrThom said:
Hey, I expect my game not to suck right out of the box.

Pffft, old people and their "standards"...

Jun 20, 2012#250

PatrThom

@Li3n said:
Giving away the ending seems like a dumb move.

They were just listed as "Clue (A)", with just that letter following.

--Patrick

Jun 20, 2012#251

@Li3n

PatrThom said:
They were just listed as "Clue (A)", with just that letter following.

--Patrick

got to catch em all...

Also, they really missed a good pre-internet viral marketing opportunity there... ppl talking about the film and realising they saw different endings instead of being told from the get-go had some real potential...

Jun 20, 2012#252

jwhouk

Okay, EA can REALLY go take a flying leap now.

(mumbles something about "the vote was RIGGED" and "Claude Giroux SUCKS")

Jun 21, 2012#253

Jay

Interesting read... OP may get her wish sometime next year.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...letter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=us-daily

Jun 21, 2012#254

Bowielee

I don't want to be THAT GUY, but I think video games in general were much better when they were produced by a bunch of smaller studios, rather than huge conglomerates.

Jun 21, 2012#255

SpecialKO

Bowielee said:
I don't want to be THAT GUY, but I think video games in general were much better when they were produced by a bunch of smaller studios, rather than huge conglomerates.

You mean back when Nintendo and Sega owned almost all the development studios either wholesale or through extensive non-compete licensing agreements?

Jun 21, 2012#256

Necronic

I think he's talking about that period in history that is refered to as "The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".

I also enjoyed it.

Jun 21, 2012#257

SpecialKO

Ah. Enjoy away then.

Jun 21, 2012#258

Bowielee

SpecialKO said:
You mean back when Nintendo and Sega owned almost all the development studios either wholesale or through extensive non-compete licensing agreements?

Yes, because console gaming is the ONLY type of video gaming there is.

I can name countless games that worked out of the box without any patches.

Anything by Blizzard prior to WoW, Any of the Sierra or LucasArts adventure games, Master of Orion, Wing Commander, Decent...

These are all just off the top of my head, so Necronic, You're the one who's deluding yourself if you think that all games have always needed patches.

Jun 21, 2012#259

Necronic

I never said all games always needed patches. And I don't think you guys are saying all games need them now (they don't btw.) What I'm saying is that there were a lot of games thjat needed patches back in the old days (for either bugs or balance issues) just as there are games that need them now.

The only difference is that you have a much better chance of actually getting a patch now. Daggerfall is a great example of this. That game never worked. As amazing as it was it was a bug filled mess that was never fixed. In todays market how well would that be recieved? Back then it was accepted.

And that's just bugs. When it came to balance there was pretty much zero chance of you ever getting a balance patch for a game pre-2000.

Jun 21, 2012#260

SpecialKO

Blizzard, which was owned by increasingly large multi-channel distributors since 1991, topping it off with Vivendi since 1998?

Sierra, exactly the same?

LucasArts, which was always part of Lucasfilm?

I get preferring indie games, but a time when video games as a rule weren't created by conglomerates/media companies hasn't existed for decades.

The problem isn't that conglomerates are making games, the problem is the audience has changed and the conglomerates aren't sure how to appeal to those audiences short of throwing money at development.

Jun 21, 2012#261

Necronic

And I mean...honestly you're going to use Lucas Arts as an example of "better times"? Like, the same Lucas Arts that completely abandoned the X-Wing/Tie-Fighter franchise and stopped making decent games more than a decade ago? I don't think there's a better example of a company who's quality fell entirely into the dumpster, and this happened ~2001. Nothing recent there.

Jun 21, 2012#262

Jay

Jedi Knight?
Battlefront?
The Force Unleashed Series?
Anything else Star Wars?

They aren't the most amazing thing anymore but they ain't shit.

Jun 21, 2012#263

Necronic

Jedi Knight was amazing. It was also a 97 game. That said Jedi Knight 2 wasn't bad, and I think most people would agree that KOTOR was amazing, both hitting around 04, so you have a point. I wouldn't agree with the other games you listed: Battlefront being pretty forgettable and Force Unleashed having major balance problems and generally being dissapointing.

And of course we aren't mentioning the horrendous movie license games they made for Episode I-III.

Jun 21, 2012#264

Jay

Cash cows are cash cows.

They aren't the best game dev but they aren't the worst.

They have made the occasional decent game. I can attest to it.

I expect when a cash cow license is available, they don't need to make it awesome. People will buy in droves decent, mediocre games.

At least they didn't turn out like Atari did when they raped the D&D license the last decade or so.

Jun 21, 2012#265

Soliloquy

EA's stock has apparently been steadily dropping since November.

Jun 21, 2012#266

SpecialKO

Yup.

We need to be careful what we wish for, though. Going by that article plus a few other things I have seen, what investors actually want it more Call of Duty (just with EA)/franchises that take little risk but bring in big bucks.

Jun 21, 2012#267

PatrThom

Maybe someone will buy them.

Who knows...if we started a Kickstarter, do you think it would work?

--Patrick

Jun 21, 2012#268

Bowielee

SpecialKO said:
Blizzard, which was owned by increasingly large multi-channel distributors since 1991, topping it off with Vivendi since 1998?

Sierra, exactly the same?

LucasArts, which was always part of Lucasfilm?

I get preferring indie games, but a time when video games as a rule weren't created by conglomerates/media companies hasn't existed for decades.

The problem isn't that conglomerates are making games, the problem is the audience has changed and the conglomerates aren't sure how to appeal to those audiences short of throwing money at development.

You're kind of proving my point. The bigger and more bloated the corporation behind the games got, the worse the games got. It's BECAUSE they're trying to follow the traditional hollywood studio model. Of course there are some times when a corporate backer will stand back and let the designers do their jobs and realize that unrealistic deadlines will only hamper the creative process, but they're few and far between.

Jun 21, 2012#269

Bubble181

Hey, Daggerfall rocked, it's the only game besides DII I spent over a thousand hours on. It was a buggy mess but it still WORKED. Somewhat. And it was a groovy game despite its flaws.

By which I honestly do'nt mean it wasn't a buggy crapfest. It most definitely was.

As for the whole "conglomerate" thing - Westwood, Bullfrog, 2K Studios, Looking Glass, Maxis, etc etc - none of them were indies, but they all produced awesome games, because they were small enough to not be a huge faceless corporation.
In theory the smaller houses bought out by EA could still work like that, but EA just assimilates them and tries to make their technological and cultural distinctiveness their own...Unfortunately, instead of a race with three boobs, a tail and a capacity forl ove, you end up with the Borg

Jun 21, 2012#270

SpecialKO

Bowielee said:
You're kind of proving my point. The bigger and more bloated the corporation behind the games got, the worse the games got.

EA certainly did kill Bullfrog and Westwood, to be sure. But that's because they're EA not because they're a conglomerate.

Most people would say that Warcraft II and Diablo 2 were better than their predecessors. WoW as a whole, whatever your thoughts on MMOs, was a gigantic success. StarCraft speaks for itself. And while WC3 has its detractors, it was also hugely successful.

LucasArts has never been anything but a subsidiary of LucasFilms, and while they've released lots of clunkers they've released lots of solid-to-fantastic games throughout their entire lifetime (as Jay and Necro have hashed out).

Sierra was already a multi-division conglomerate before the Gabriel Knight games came out (and King's Quest was made from money and direction from IBM).

Looking Glass didn't die because of "the conglomerate", they died because they had no money and the publisher who was paying for their current project went bankrupt because John Romero's side of Ion Storm spent all their money on Daikatana. Warren Spector basically founded a whole second division of Ion Storm to be separate from Romero's and made Deus Ex (thanks to money from Eidos).

The post-acquisition Maxis didn't manage to top Sim City 2000, true, but both 3000 and 4 were all-around solid, and the Sims was (of course) stupidly successful (and even a good game, if you liked that kind of thing). Spore issues were, again, EA's issues.

2K Games has had some stupendously successful (and critically-acclaimed) games since they were formed, all under the auspices of Take-Two (yet another large conglomerate).

The problem with the video game industry isn't "now there's conglomerates and it sucks", the problem is that EA and Activision specifically are those conglomerates, and they treat the smaller studios that work for them like crap.

Jun 21, 2012#271

Soliloquy

PatrThom said:
Maybe someone will buy them.

Who knows...if we started a Kickstarter, do you think it would work?

--Patrick

I guess that depends on how much it would take to buy them. I'm all for trying, though.

Jun 21, 2012#272

Necronic

Bubble181 said:
Hey, Daggerfall rocked, it's the only game besides DII I spent over a thousand hours on. It was a buggy mess but it still WORKED. Somewhat. And it was a groovy game despite its flaws.

By which I honestly do'nt mean it wasn't a buggy crapfest. It most definitely was.

Wasn't the game so completely broken that you couldn't actually BEAT it? Something with the worm king?

Also as for that EA article it sounds incredibly ominous up until I went and looked at their historical stock performance for more than the last 12 months. This author literally took the HIGHEST value the stock has had in the last 2 years (~25$), which it only had for like a month, and then uses that for a "OMG THEY LOST 50% OF THEIR VALUE!"

When you look back a farther, ALLLLLLL the way back in 2010, EA regularly closed at 15$/share, they've pretty much held that value since '08. Now they are closing at 12$. Yes, it's a decrease. And I would expect it to go further. But ffs this is some pretty god awful reporting to clamour about a 50% decrease that's actually more like a 20% drop, this is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts.

Now, if you want to see something strange, look at EA pre-2008. They closed above 40$ every single day. I dunno if there was a split or what, but that to me is significant. What this dude is barking about....meh.

Jun 21, 2012#273

SpecialKO

I'm hoping it bottoms out soon so I can get some. I could get some now, but I suspect you're right about it continuing to drop for the moment.

Also debating getting some Apple with my next bonus just because it seems unlikely that they'll stop growing any time soon.

Jun 21, 2012#274

Bubble181

Necronic said:
Wasn't the game so completely broken that you couldn't actually BEAT it? Something with the worm king?

Well, SOME of the different endings were impossible without using console commands, yes

Notably most of the good ones :confused:

As for the rest...Business reporting by non-business sources is always wrong. Always. No matter how good it looks. And unless you're in the business yourself, you'll probably misinterpret their errors anyway. EA isn't doing badly; quite the opposite. Major investors are still angry about and pushing for more profit to be made because it hasn't grown enough (staying about equal while the rest of the economy shrinks would be a good thing, right? Well, it is, but even so, you still have to squeeze out ever more money with ever less overhead and less wages, or they think you're not doing enough to maximise profits. Of course, if you do that, they'll say you do'nt have the long-term interests of the company at heart. Eh. Professional investors/investment holdings/etc have a very skewed idea of how a business should work.

Jun 21, 2012#275

Gared

Necronic said:
Wasn't the game so completely broken that you couldn't actually BEAT it? Something with the worm king?

Also as for that EA article it sounds incredibly ominous up until I went and looked at their historical stock performance for more than the last 12 months. This author literally took the HIGHEST value the stock has had in the last 2 years (~25$), which it only had for like a month, and then uses that for a "OMG THEY LOST 50% OF THEIR VALUE!"

When you look back a farther, ALLLLLLL the way back in 2010, EA regularly closed at 15$/share, they've pretty much held that value since '08. Now they are closing at 12$. Yes, it's a decrease. And I would expect it to go further. But ffs this is some pretty god awful reporting to clamour about a 50% decrease that's actually more like a 20% drop, this is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts.

Now, if you want to see something strange, look at EA pre-2008. They closed above 40$ every single day. I dunno if there was a split or what, but that to me is significant. What this dude is barking about....meh.

Looks like the real fall started September 3rd, 2008, along with the NASDAQ pretty much as a whole. It started as just the major economic slump that hit the markets as a whole, but continued lower as EA announced that they were going to lay off 6% of their staff (October 2008), and then later announced that they were disappointed with 2008 holiday sales and that 2009 would bring a leaner release list, building consolidations, and additional layoffs.

Jul 31, 2012#276

Frank

Apparently, the pre-orders for Dead Space 3 are 5 times higher than those for Dead Space 2. So, broing up Dead Space making it a more generic third person coop shooter was the right thing to do. I fucking hate gamers. We deserve every homogenized shitty fucking clone game we get.

Fuck you.

Jul 31, 2012#277

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
Apparently, the pre-orders for Dead Space 3 are 5 times higher than those for Dead Space 2. So, broing up Dead Space making it a more generic third person coop shooter was the right thing to do. I fucking hate gamers. We deserve every homogenized shitty fucking clone game we get.

Fuck you.

Jul 31, 2012#278

Necronic

Meh, most of you guys play crappy games anyways.

Jul 31, 2012#279

PatrThom

Frank said:
Fuck you.

Oh no, no, no. Fuck you. I insist.

--Patrick

Jul 31, 2012#280

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:

What happened to God Hand? It's on PSN now.

Jul 31, 2012#281

Azurephoenix

EA sucks so much balls...

Jul 31, 2012#282

Cajungal

So *many* balls.

Jul 31, 2012#283

Azurephoenix

Thank you for the correction... it's late and I'm tired...

Jul 31, 2012#284

Cajungal

Heehee, sorry, I couldn't resist. Rest well. ;D

Aug 1, 2012#285

LordRendar

Anyone remember when EA used to bring out good games? Yeah,me neither.

Aug 1, 2012#286

jwhouk

Oh, they were pretty good, back when they were known as Electronic Arts.

Now, however.

Aug 1, 2012#287

Azurephoenix

"EA games... pillage everything!"

Aug 1, 2012#288

Jay

NHL 94

Aug 2, 2012#289

Tress

LordRendar said:
Anyone remember when EA used to bring out good games? Yeah,me neither.

Skate or Die!, 1987. Good times.

Aug 2, 2012#290

Necronic

Battlefield bad company 2 & BF3, probably the best online FPS game ever made.

Aug 2, 2012#291

PatrThom

I found this quite entertaining during my childhood.

--Patrick

Aug 2, 2012#292

Necronic

I totally forgot about that game. It was pretty fun.

Aug 2, 2012#293

Jay

Necronic said:
Battlefield bad company 2 & BF3, probably the best online FPS game ever made.

RTCW IMO

Aug 2, 2012#294

GasBandit

Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, beeyotches.

Aug 2, 2012#295

Necronic

Jay said:
RTCW IMO

Never played that one, but I did hear good things.

Aug 2, 2012#296

Jay

Necronic said:
Never played that one, but I did hear good things.

I haven't looked at most shooters the same since.

Ask Adam, he loved him some ET/RTCW.

Aug 4, 2012#297

Bubble181

RTCW was a let-down for me. It was a good game in its own genre/circumstances - it achieved what it meant to do. But it wasn't a true successor to Wolfenstein 3D, to me. Single player game? guess again. Pfftt

Aug 4, 2012#298

AshburnerX

RTCW was closer than Wolfenstien (2009) got to it. Neither are bad games though.

Aug 4, 2012#299

Frank

I liked the recent Wolfenstein game. Very under the radar but the weapons were super fun.

Aug 4, 2012#300

Bubble181

AshburnerX said:
RTCW was closer than Wolfenstien (2009) got to it. Neither are bad games though.

I literally said "it was a good game". I didn't say it was a bad game - neither of them. Just that I, for on,e didn't really care for it, because it was too mcuh multiplayer and, for me, not the same....feel...as Wolfenstein 3D had. I admit I was about 7 or 8 when I played W3D and I had big binders with all of the maps and level designs (some were awesome). Nostalgia is a nice female dog

Aug 4, 2012#301

Frank

The single player in RTCW was fantastic.

Aug 4, 2012#302

AshburnerX

Bubble181 said:
I literally said "it was a good game". I didn't say it was a bad game - neither of them. Just that I, for on,e didn't really care for it, because it was too mcuh multiplayer and, for me, not the same....feel...as Wolfenstein 3D had. I admit I was about 7 or 8 when I played W3D and I had big binders with all of the maps and level designs (some were awesome). Nostalgia is a nice female dog

I was actually agreeing with you. I like all three games, but I'd admit that RTCW and Wolf (2009) aren't the same style of game.

Aug 4, 2012#303

Bubble181

AshburnerX said:
I was actually agreeing with you. I like all three games, but I'd admit that RTCW and Wolf (2009) aren't the same style of game.

Ah, okido. You "neither are bad games" came off as disagreement with me, especially combined with Jay's disagree rating

My bad!

Aug 5, 2012#304

Jay

RTCW's single player was good. The multiplayer was fantastic. Both versions were far superior than the original, ET was good and Wolfenstein in 2009 was a mediocre single player game with a horrible multiplayer part that was so bad, the entire dev team was canned the week it was released after some really bad reviews of the game.

Sep 24, 2012#305

Telephius

I am going to just leave this right here: http://www.dragonage.com/inquisition :devil:

Sep 24, 2012#306

Frank

Cool, won't play.

Sep 24, 2012#307

Azurephoenix

Frank said:
Cool, won't play.

We could joust in shopping carts... it would be way more fun.

Sep 24, 2012#308

Ravenpoe

Dragon Age: Origins was so good that I was willing to overlook every mediocre review and pre-order Dragon Age 2: Collector's Edition right away.

Dragon Age 2 was so bad that I'll never play Dragon Age 3

Sep 24, 2012#309

Jay

I'll be honest about how I feel. From what I heard DA: 3 will have NOTHING to do with DA : 2.. that is it's saving grace in my book.

I loved DA:O, so I'm willing to give it a chance. Will I pre-order? Absolutely not. Will I buy it the first day? Nope. Will I buy it once the reviews come in? Nope.

So when? When all reviews are said and done and I fully gauge my interest in the game.

Odd are though? Torrent. Then buy GOTY edition if it's as good as DA:O. Particularly on the DLC shenanigans Bioware has been doing.

Sorry Bioware Arts, I just don't trust you anymore.

Sep 24, 2012#310

CynicismKills

I'm cautiously optimistic about DA3, but I definitely won't be pre-ordering it. I'll wait for reviews and some gameplay footage first, and hopefully it'll be alright. The guy running the production sounds like he has his head on straight, but we'll see.

Sep 24, 2012#311

Telephius

I am going to wait till people get to the last 95% of the game before I consider purchase so I know what all the colours do.

Sep 24, 2012#312

Hailey Knight

It's going to take a lot of raving to get me to consider buying it. I don't mean professional reviews; I mean word of mouth. Even then, I'm not sure I can get past the disgust. I'm so tired of EA.

Sep 25, 2012#313

LordRendar

Not gonna buy it,not gonna Torrent.No EA on my pc,thank you very much.

Sep 25, 2012#314

bhamv3

LordRendar said:
Not gonna buy it,not gonna Torrent.No EA on my pc,thank you very much.

Ditto. Particularly if it tries to make Origin a requirement.

Sep 25, 2012#315

CynicismKills

bhamv3 said:
Ditto. Particularly if it tries to make Origin a requirement.

This is the only thing I truly worry about. Origin is such a failed concept and they really need to let it die.

Sep 25, 2012#316

Azurephoenix

EA needs to get with the program and release their substandard crap through steam. Then at least we don't have to deal with Origin anymore.

Sep 25, 2012#317

SpecialKO

CynicismKills said:
This is the only thing I truly worry about. Origin is such a failed concept and they really need to let it die.

Much as we all want it to die, Origin made EA $300M in their last quarterly report, so Origin is probably not going anywhere. :mad:

Sep 25, 2012#318

Frank

This won't matter to most folks but seriously EA? Fuck off.

Sep 25, 2012#319

HowDroll

Jay said:
I'll be honest about how I feel. From what I heard DA: 3 will have NOTHING to do with DA : 2.. that is it's saving grace in my book.

I loved DA:O, so I'm willing to give it a chance. Will I pre-order? Absolutely not. Will I buy it the first day? Nope. Will I buy it once the reviews come in? Nope.

So when? When all reviews are said and done and I fully gauge my interest in the game.

Odd are though? Torrent. Then buy GOTY edition if it's as good as DA:O. Particularly on the DLC shenanigans Bioware has been doing.

Sorry Bioware Arts, I just don't trust you anymore.

This is exactly my plan. Torrent the game, play through once -- if it's good, pick up the GOTY with DLC for subsequent playthroughs in another year or two.

Sep 25, 2012#320

jwhouk

Frank said:
This won't matter to most folks but seriously EA? Fuck off.

I could see Lemieux, but CROSBY?

x 11.

Sep 25, 2012#321

Yoshimickster

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! LET'S FUCKIN' KILL EA! I got explosives and plenty of KNIVES if anybody needs them!

Then maybe my cousin's will get my little cousins GOOD games to play.

Sep 26, 2012#322

GasBandit

They won't shut down origin so long as they can hold Battlefield sequels hostage with it.

Sep 26, 2012#323

Ravenpoe

Azurephoenix said:
EA needs to get with the program and release their substandard crap through steam. Then at least we don't have to deal with Origin anymore.

But according to EA, steam is hurting games by devaluing them. That's of course why EA made a steam clone, and why they've continually tried to buy valve.

Sep 26, 2012#324

Azurephoenix

Ravenpoe said:
But according to EA, steam is hurting games by devaluing them. That's of course why EA made a steam clone, and why they've continually tried to buy valve.

Yeah, it kind of hurts their argument when they go out and do the exact same thing (only it's inferior, sucky, intrusive and unwieldly).

I think Steam has actually been great for PC gaming. EA can suck it.

Sep 26, 2012#325

Bowielee

Steam has done exactly what video game companies should have done as soon as the whole "online piracy epidemic" started to rear it's ugly head (as did Apple with iTunes). Rather than fight the technology, they embraced it and did it in a way where they could still make a profit and provide a good consumer experience. (though, initially iTunes had a policy where you could only download a song once, that has since changed).

Sep 26, 2012#326

LordRendar

True.Thanks to Itunes my pirating days are as good as over.Also I buy the musik directly from the band or the bands website if possible.As for games...why the hell do virtual copies cost the same as a boxset?

Sep 26, 2012#327

GasBandit

LordRendar said:
True.Thanks to Itunes my pirating days are as good as over.Also I buy the musik directly from the band or the bands website if possible.As for games...why the hell do virtual copies cost the same as a boxset?

Games, schmames, the real outrage is that e-books cost more than hardcovers.

Sep 26, 2012#328

CynicismKills

LordRendar said:
True.Thanks to Itunes my pirating days are as good as over.Also I buy the musik directly from the band or the bands website if possible.As for games...why the hell do virtual copies cost the same as a boxset?

I get my mp3's through Amazon now. They've got better prices and even brand new albums will start at like 9 bucks instead of 13-15.

Sep 26, 2012#329

HowDroll

GasBandit said:
Games, schmames, the real outrage is that e-books cost more than hardcovers.

For now. I'm still holding out for a DoJ antitrust smackdown.

Sep 26, 2012#330

SpecialKO

HowDroll said:
For now. I'm still holding out for a DoJ antitrust smackdown.

The EU side of things got settled in consumers' favor (more or less), so there's a real chance that the US may follow.

Sep 26, 2012#331

HowDroll

SpecialKO said:
The EU side of things got settled in consumers' favor (more or less), so there's a real chance that the US may follow.

Hell yeah!

In other news: Penguin needs to fuck off and die.

Sep 26, 2012#332

Frank

SpecialKO said:
The EU side of things got settled in consumers' favor (more or less), so there's a real chance that the US may follow.

Ha ha ha ha. Consumer's favour.

Sep 28, 2012#333

Jay

http://www.nintendo-gamer.net/2012/09/27/fifa-13-wii-vs-fifa-12-wii-the-shocking-truth/2/

Sep 28, 2012#334

Azurephoenix

Jay said:
http://www.nintendo-gamer.net/2012/09/27/fifa-13-wii-vs-fifa-12-wii-the-shocking-truth/2/

Stay classy EA... stay classy...

(and die in a fire)

Sep 28, 2012#335

Ravenpoe

Jay said:
http://www.nintendo-gamer.net/2012/09/27/fifa-13-wii-vs-fifa-12-wii-the-shocking-truth/2/

Wow, that's even worse than madden

Sep 28, 2012#336

Jay

I always bought the NHL series... this year I didn't.... even though I like the NHL series.

EA needs to die.

Sep 28, 2012#337

bhamv3

It's like EA's gone into a realm of self-parody.

"You guys think every new version of an EA Sports title is just upgraded visuals and a roster update? Well now we're not even bothering with the visuals! Ha!"

Sep 29, 2012#338

ScytheRexx

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/EA-Viral-Marketing-Exposed-Big-Buyout-Horizon-40885.html

Sep 29, 2012#339

bhamv3

The real meat and potatoes of his post however falls in line with the mention of an upcoming business acquisition.

Please don't be Valve, please don't be Valve, please don't be Valve...

Sep 29, 2012#340

AshburnerX

bhamv3 said:
Please don't be Valve, please don't be Valve, please don't be Valve...

I seriously doubt it would be Valve. They aren't in the business to make shitloads of money... they are in it to make great games and influence the direction of the industry. They want ATTENTION, not money. From that perspective, they really don't stand to gain anything from a buy-out. Besides, with Steam they own the most successful and influential gaming service in existence. They can basically print money already.

I would, however, believe it was Capcom.

Sep 29, 2012#341

Frank

EA's constantly offering to buy Valve. Gabe's not interested.

Sep 29, 2012#342

Vrii

That was also published in March, so it may or may not still be accurate.

Sep 29, 2012#343

AshburnerX

Frank said:
EA's constantly offering to buy Valve. Gabe's not interested.

Basically this. Valve is employee owned and Gabe owns most of that. He is also not on good terms with EA ever since they formed Origin to basically get out of paying him for DLC. I don't think he'll ever consider selling Valve as long as he's able to work there and/or Steam is the dominate market for PC games.

Sep 29, 2012#344

Ravenpoe

AshburnerX said:
Basically this. Valve is employee owned and Gabe owns most of that. He is also not on good terms with EA ever since they formed Origin to basically get out of paying him for DLC. I don't think he'll ever consider selling Valve as long as he's able to work there and/or Steam is the dominate market for PC games.

I remember reading an interview with Gabe where he talked about EA and what he saw as the danger of superpublishers buying up game developers. He said that EA had continually offered to buy valve, and that the only reason they can continually say no is because they own the company completely and don't have to answer to shareholders. If it ever got so bad where the only choices were to close the doors or sell out to EA, he said he'd rather close the doors.

Sep 29, 2012#345

SpecialKO

Yeah, it's less about EA and more about the shareholders thing. Valve just doesn't run in a way public shareholders are going to like. That said, the success of Steam would probably be enough to get shareholders to leave the dev side of Valve to their own devices, but why take the risk when you already are successful on that scale?

Sep 29, 2012#346

Jay

Same could have been asked for what they did to Bioware.

Sep 30, 2012#347

SpecialKO

Jay said:
Same could have been asked for what they did to Bioware.

Yes and no.

BioWare certainly could have asked themselves the same question (and probably did), but BioWare was always a much more publisher-friendly/dependent developer than Valve ever was. Valve's relationship with Sierra turned contentious fairly early on, while BioWare regularly made more publisher relationships so they could make larger and larger games. You can make a really strong argument that BioWare always intended to be bought out.

(fun fact: Though John Riccitiello spent most of his career at EA, he was briefly CEO of the private holding company that owned BioWare and Pandemic before coming back to EA shortly before the acquisition)

Also, once Steam started making waves, Valve started reputedly making more money than BioWare ever did with less than half the employees (currently, enterprise value is guestimated somewhere North is 2.5Bn). Combine that with Valve essentially being a publisher in their own right, and it's a fairly different picture.

Sep 30, 2012#348

Yoshimickster

Why is it that the way you hit in EA baseball games sucks ass? It just feels awkward and clunky. Also-WHO THE FUCK DECIDES THE MUSIC TO THESE DAMN GAMES?!

Sep 30, 2012#349

SpecialKO

What baseball game has EA made recently?

Sep 30, 2012#350

Yoshimickster

SpecialKO said:
What baseball game has EA made recently?

No your right, I'm thinkin' Sony games. I forgot they were made by different companies because both Madden and MLB baseball have incredibly annoying announcers and awful music. Also the "make a player" in either game is far too lenient. I'd mock the gameplay, but what's more to mock?

Oct 1, 2012#351

Bowielee

I feel like at this point in time, EA's logo should be Snively Whiplash tying Nell to the train tracks whilst twirling his moustache and laughing maniacally.

Oct 1, 2012#352

SpecialKO

Yoshimickster said:
No your right, I'm thinkin' Sony games. I forgot they were made by different companies because both Madden and MLB baseball have incredibly annoying announcers and awful music.

In your defense, I actually really dislike most sport commentating, so that may be a bit "truth in television", so to speak.

Oct 1, 2012#353

Yoshimickster

SpecialKO said:
In your defense, I actually really dislike most sport commentating, so that may be a bit "truth in television", so to speak.

True that, most sports-caster bore the piss out of me. When the game comes on the sports casting is sometimes so bad my dad mutes the TV and puts on the radio. Oh Harry Kallis, 73 was too young for you!

Oct 1, 2012#354

SpecialKO

That said, I love hearing Martin Tyler commentate soccer matches, because he has a tendency to be a giant stuck-up prick when someone messes up a play.

Oct 8, 2012#355

Danne

Uggh! I would love nothing more than to rant right now, but, it's late and I will tomorrow.

Oct 8, 2012#356

Jay

Oct 8, 2012#357

Yoshimickster

We'll wait.

Oct 8, 2012#358

Danne

Ok. Ready to rant.

First things first, let me tell you that I am totally bias against EA.

Now that that's settled, here it is.

WHY I THINK EA SHOULD DIE!

First and foremost, their destruction of talent. EA doesn't understand that it requires time to make a game good. So, they force their companies and their workers to work unreasonable hours for long periods of time, setting unfair deadlines all the way. All they want is money, and they are willing to cut corners achieve that goal.

Second. They killed off one of my favorite studios and are killing off another. Yes, i'm talking about Pandemic and BioWare. Pandemic, creators of some of my all time favorite games, was a tragic loss. Creators some great games (Mercenaries 2, LotR Conquest, and the SW Battlefront series), they were stomped out by EA. It's either a conspiracy or an incredible coincidence that the two companies were linked in a partnership. BioWare, creators of the KotOR and Mass Effect series, was the best RPG makers. Then, the whole fiasco about ME3 started, then day 1 DLC, then KotOR releasing without much end game content, then the heads leaving. It is now on a downward slide, thanks to EA.

Third. Their goram customer support. Now, story time!

A few years back, I got a brand new XBLA game! Battlefield 1943. Ah, what a fun game! I greatly enjoyed playing the demo, and had a lot of fun playing with my team of soldiers. So, I used some precious cash to buy the full game. So, I go i to play, and i'm greeted with the EA login screen. "Oh?" Child me thinks. "Well. I guess i'll make an account and start playing!" 15 minutes later, i've created an account and signed in. After signing in, it takes me to the validating screen. It sits there for 2 hours before I cut the xbox off. Over the course of 3 or 4 days, I call Xbox, EA, and a local computer shops support. Xbox friendly greets me and tries their best to help me out. My local store tries their best. EA, on the other hand, greets me in a chat roome with a generic greeting. Then, procedes to list off 7 or 8 generic instructions. I try them, and none work. I try again. And again. And again. Then, I give up. A year later, I try again. The Support guy says to powercycle the router. And, it works! All that time, and 4 conversations to EA, and none worked.

Fourth. Their treatment of customers.

Ea. Oh you rascals! Make someone buy a 10 $ Season pass for a game that's a few years old, then say "Oh! BTW. We're about to shut down support for these games!" I mean, seriously. These games, which people still play, are being shut down. Why? Because you're making too many games and need the server space? Oh! I have a solution! SPEND SOME GORAM TIME ON YOUR GAMES!!! Then, you will be able to support those games and not clog up the servers with the crap! Halo 3 is still being played today! And people would still be playing Halo 2 if microsoft didn't discontinue support. Bear in mind, Halo 2 was released in 04, and it's online was disconnected in 2010!

Fifth. Treatment of loved franchises for more money

Lets take a look at Dead Space 3. "Hmm." Thinks EA. "People seem to really like this game, but we need to boost sales for some reason. Why don't we just say we'll cancel the series if we don't get enough money?" Ya. That kind of stuff.

I could go on, but my fingers hurt

EDIT: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/10/fifa-13-wii/

Oct 8, 2012#359

Jay

My honest to God reaction to the above post.

That was better than I expected.

Oct 8, 2012#360

Danne

Jay said:
My honest to God reaction to the above post.

View attachment 8412

That was better than I expected.

Thank you! I put much effort into my rage filled rants!

Oct 8, 2012#361

SpecialKO

Danne said:
It's either a conspiracy or an incredible coincidence that the two companies were linked in a partnership.

While I'm quite in agreement with most of your post, the industry nerd in me wants to point out that it's neither conspiracy or coincidence that BioWare and Pandemic were linked.

When John Riccitiello left EA in '04, he co-founded Elevation Partners, an equity holding and investing company, which invested around $300M dollars in BioWare and Pandemic in 2005 on the condition that they be owned and directed by Elevation. Among other things, that money funded the first Mass Effect and possibly (but unlikely) Mercenaries 2.

When EA re-hired Riccitiello in '07, this time as CEO, they asked him about ace developers they could bring on board, and he suggested BioWare and Pandemic after working with them for a couple years.

They then unfortunately did what EA does.

Oct 8, 2012#362

Danne

SpecialKO said:
Poast about the industry.

Thank you for pointing out my factual error.

Oct 8, 2012#363

Yoshimickster

Danne *Sniff* It's so beautiful! So intelligible, so wrathful, a superb rant! Truly you know the dance good sir!

Oct 9, 2012#364

Azurephoenix

Welcome to the club... you'll find a lot of EA haters here that have watched many talented studios dismantled over the years.

Oct 9, 2012#365

SpecialKO

It seems to me that the real damage was done in the mid 90s-early '00s when the EA Sports franchises really exploded. There was a good decade or so where everyone that wasn't EA Sports at EA was told that they need to be like EA Sports (repeatable, relatively low-cost, low-time-involvement cash cows), and I think that culture has mostly persisted despite the occasional stand-out non-sports title that gets subsequently milked.

That's not even an indictment of EA Sports. They're good at what they do, and if people feel like paying for that stuff every year despite it (especially this time) looking exactly the same that's on those people, but what works for Sports clearly doesn't work especially well outside of Sports if you're not CoD.

Oct 9, 2012#366

Azurephoenix

SpecialKO said:
That's not even an indictment of EA Sports. They're good at what they do, and if people feel like paying for that stuff every year despite it (especially this time) looking exactly the same that's on those people, but what works for Sports clearly doesn't work especially well outside of Sports if you're not CoD.

They can't seem to wrap their heads around this very important point.

(just wait till you see CoD: Mass Effect Edition)

Oct 9, 2012#367

SpecialKO

I get that they want what Activision has with CoD, but I'd much rather that Medal of Honor and Battlefield focus on what CoD is bad at (open-world, non-TDM multiplayer, their current tech advantage, etc.).

That doesn't mean they can't have a good single-player campaign or anything, but the last title in each series really half-assed the SP to the point of wondering why they bothered, especially considering BF3's multiplayer.

Oct 9, 2012#368

GasBandit

You guys hear they're making a Battlefield: Bad Company TV series?

Oct 9, 2012#369

Yoshimickster

GasBandit said:
You guys hear they're making a Battlefield: Bad Company TV series?

Ready your key-boards internet! This might be a doozy.

Oct 9, 2012#370

GasBandit

I have to admit, Bad Company has had some good dialog.

The dumb redneck one, having just spouted off some facts about an airplane, and everybody's staring at him like 'where the hell did that come from?': "What?... I can know stuff!"

Oct 9, 2012#371

Yoshimickster

As good as the game was though, keep in mind the show would be a TV adaptation of a video game. Video games + TV = Usually awful. But if its good I will be happy to eat crow. Seriously TV, don't make me put this in the Adaptation Anarchy thread!

Oct 9, 2012#372

GasBandit

I've already read the premise. It's going to be awful. They're not even going to be on a battlefield or in combat of any sort. It's supposed to be after they're out of the service, but kind of an undercover A-team type thing going on within US borders.

Oct 9, 2012#373

Yoshimickster

GasBandit said:
I've already read the premise. It's going to be awful. They're not even going to be on a battlefield or in combat of any sort. It's supposed to be after they're out of the service, but kind of an undercover A-team type thing going on within US borders.

....huh. I really hope someone picks up that phone.

Oct 9, 2012#374

GasBandit

Yoshimickster said:
....huh. I really hope someone picks up that phone.

But don't worry.. it's FOX, so it'll be cancelled after 7 episodes.[DOUBLEPOST=1349808975][/DOUBLEPOST]Link

Oct 9, 2012#375

Yoshimickster

....a guy from Happy Madison has a hand in this?

GasBandit said:
But don't worry.. it's FOX, so it'll be cancelled after 7 episodes.[DOUBLEPOST=1349808975][/DOUBLEPOST]Link

....a guy from Happy Madison has a hand in this? I'll keep my keyboard warm.

Oct 9, 2012#376

Frank

Probably the same guy at Happy Madison that thought that stupid movie about a game tester who gets high with his grandmother Betty White was a good idea.

Who am I to judge Happy Madison, it's only made Adam Sandler 133 million dollars in the last 3 years.

Oct 9, 2012#377

Yoshimickster

Frank said:
Probably the same guy at Happy Madison that thought that stupid movie about a game tester who gets high with his grandmother Betty White was a good idea.

UGH, the antagonist in that was probably one of the worst antagonists ever written. Why did he steal the guy's game? IT MADE NO SENSE!

Oct 10, 2012#378

Bubble181

I don't mind EA Sports games.
I don't mind their own IPs being unoriginal copies of other people's successes.
I don't even mind their DRM - while Origin is piss-poor crap, it's not really all that much worse than what Ubisoft has to offer, or whatever. Gamespy, G4WL,... No big publisher has decent DRM these days; I'm sort of half-ass boycotting all of them.
I DO mind their acquiring studios and turnign their good IPs into watered-down crappy versions of other people's junk. Whether it's turning KOTOR into a third-rate MMO, or C&C into some sort of fast-paced multiplayer monstrosity, or whatever...Instead of trying to make games better, they try to make them more profitable. And instead of understanding what it's about, they try to copy what worked for others. Football won't be any more popular by copying basketball rules; it'll just turn into a crappy half-way thing. A top-down action game won't become a good 3rd person roguelike just by tacking on some crap and removing some other. Gah!

Oct 10, 2012#379

Jay

Have to be honest, I owned every NHL game from EA until NHL 13. I didn't bother to buy it. Either due to the fact of me giving a finger back to the greedy bastards of the NHL and to EA's recent assholeness. I've tried Madden and Fifa... both are decent games and would see myself play them over the winter... but won't... cause fuck EA.

Oct 10, 2012#380

Bubble181

Their sports games are pretty good in their genre. They're still rip-offs some years. I don't know if I read it on here, I think so, if not you should go look it up - Fifa '12 vs '13 screenshot comparison for the Wii. It's just....Gah.

Oct 10, 2012#381

SpecialKO

The SSX franchise reboot was really good.

It didn't push the envelope, really, but it was extremely smooth and polished and reminded me of how massively fun the first bunch were. Just being able to zoom down an insane mountain and jump over crevices with the wing suit in HD was awesome.

Oct 10, 2012#382

Danne

Bubble181 said:
Their sports games are pretty good in their genre. They're still rip-offs some years. I don't know if I read it on here, I think so, if not you should go look it up - Fifa '12 vs '13 screenshot comparison for the Wii. It's just....Gah.

I posted it at the bottom of my rant

Nov 10, 2012#383

ThatNickGuy

So, with Gusto sending some Simmy HF'ers straight to Hell lately, I got a hankering to play some Sims. I already own it, but sadly, my new Notebook computer doesn't have a DVD-Rom. And playing it would require some kind of external disc player.

So, I checked Steam. $29.99. Hrm. Not bad, but a bit high for my tastes. But didn't EA have their own store for it, too? Let's see. $49.99?! And each add-on pack is $29.99 a piece? Are you fucking kidding me? If these are digital copies, they better come with a blowjob or at least some porn.

Nov 10, 2012#384

SpecialKO

ThatNickGuy said:
So, with Gusto sending some Simmy HF'ers straight to Hell lately, I got a hankering to play some Sims. I already own it, but sadly, my new Notebook computer doesn't have a DVD-Rom. And playing it would require some kind of external disc player.

So, I checked Steam. $29.99. Hrm. Not bad, but a bit high for my tastes. But didn't EA have their own store for it, too? Let's see. $49.99?! And each add-on pack is $29.99 a piece? Are you fucking kidding me? If these are digital copies, they better come with a blowjob or at least some porn.

Where are you looking? It's $29.99 on Origin when I checked. The combo packs are 49.99, but that's the same on Steam.

Nov 10, 2012#385

ThatNickGuy

Oops, yeah, you're right. But expansion packs for $30 or especially $40 (for Pets and Generations) a pop is still ridiculous, especially for a digital copy.

I'm also angry they've yet to do a Sims 3 version of University, which was my favourite Sims 2 expansion.

Nov 10, 2012#386

SpecialKO

ThatNickGuy said:
Oops, yeah, you're right. But expansion packs for $30 or especially $40 (for Pets and Generations) a pop is still ridiculous, especially for a digital copy.

I'm also angry they've yet to do a Sims 3 version of University, which was my favourite Sims 2 expansion.

The Sims is full-on downloadable hats territory, unfortunately. They know that the remaining user base will pay those prices, so they charge those prices.

Nov 10, 2012#387

HowDroll

Sims are pretty much the only games I pirate anymore (something I will be doing this week when the new x-pac comes out; like you, I have a hankering to play after following the HF House). I'm just not willing to pay $300+ for the game and all of its expansions. I did it for the first and second Sims games when I didn't know any better, but the value-to-convenience ratio when it comes to installing on Steam vs. pirating just isn't there.

Nov 10, 2012#388

Dirona

Oh good, I'm not the only one thinking or starting up anther Sims game; and I too need to acquire the expansion packs for 3. What to do, what to do...

Nov 11, 2012#389

Hailey Knight

I blame Gusto.

Nov 11, 2012#390

Gared

I haven't played Sims in... 7 years? Maybe more; and I hated it last time I played, and even I'm tempted to play Sims 3 after watching the goings on at Halforums House. Damn you, Gusto!

Nov 13, 2012#391

Necronic

I only played Sims once and I remember it fondly. It was a platonic male couple. One was working a chem bench and made amphetamines (some kind of potion that made them work harder/faster/longer/daftpunker) and the other would crank out gnomes on the work bench. Kind of broke the game (was making like 20-30k a week by the end), but it was awesome having my own meth-head sweatshop.

Nov 13, 2012#392

Jay

More EA goodness... A MUST WATCH

Nov 13, 2012#393

Frank

Activision (Treyarch) made CoDBlOps 2.

So, that's fucking odd as hell.

Nov 13, 2012#394

Jay

I didn't realize, either way, not a personal fan CoD, so don't care, they share the same BS business model.

Probably same mass disk distribution.

Nov 13, 2012#395

Ravenpoe

Jay said:
I didn't realize, either way, not a personal fan CoD, so don't care, they share the same BS business model.

Probably same mass disk distribution.

Or he was victim of buying a counterfeit product. I wonder if either company outsources the actual disc manufacturing.

Nov 13, 2012#396

Jay

Not an outstanding issue with one person, thousands of people have posted this issue since yesterday.

But nonetheless, it's not EA... I assumed as much since the Ghost CD image popped up.

Nov 13, 2012#397

Bowielee

So, if it's being activated on steam, even though it's a pain in the ass, you can still just download the game, rather than installing from the disk.

Nov 13, 2012#398

Ravenpoe

Jay said:
Not an outstanding issue with one person, thousands of people have posted this issue since yesterday.

But nonetheless, it's not EA... I assumed as much since the Ghost CD image popped up.

That is quite the cockup, then.

Nov 13, 2012#399

ScytheRexx

How did a EA game get on a Activision disk? I didn't even know they used the same print centers, but I guess they do, since it's the only way I can see it happening.

Nov 13, 2012#400

bhamv3

Huh... I'm mildly surprised they're apparently still making Mass Effect 2 disks.

Nov 13, 2012#401

AshburnerX

I wouldn't be surprised if this was some industrial sabotage or a joke on someone's part... hell it could even be someone using the disk press to make some copies of games to sell.

Nov 14, 2012#402

Ravenpoe

Why are people complaining? They got a better game.

Nov 14, 2012#403

SpecialKO

ScytheRexx said:
How did a EA game get on a Activision disk? I didn't even know they used the same print centers, but I guess they do, since it's the only way I can see it happening.

Generally-speaking, yes they do. It's not necessarily always the same vendor, but on the physical box side it's a short list and most of them work with everyone.

Nov 14, 2012#404

Bowielee

Ravenpoe said:
Why are people complaining? They got a better game.

Only one disk of it, though

This would have been awesome if they had gotten the ME 2 full game AND the key to unlock Black Ops 2 on steam.[DOUBLEPOST=1352934718][/DOUBLEPOST]I do love how the guy in the video is yelling about how stupid the developer is, though.

Misplaced anger, much?

Nov 14, 2012#405

Jay

No, it's clearly still their fault. Their name is ON the product, a product they didn't adequately perform enough Q/A before shipping out to thousands of customers.

Nov 14, 2012#406

Bowielee

So, you're not blaming EA, you're blaming Tetryarch, then?

Nov 14, 2012#407

Jay

It's been cleared a few posts back this has nothing to do with EA due to my personal non-interest in the CoD franchise and thinking they fucked up on the CD since consumers got a mass Effect Disc.

But yes, I do blame Tetrayarch even if they didn't perform the mistake directly, it's still their product and all products should be tested on appropriately before shipping out to the masses.

Nov 14, 2012#408

Bowielee

Wow, Jay, that is hands down the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. The developer has absolutely nothing to do with direct distribution when they're going through a publisher.

Nov 14, 2012#409

Frank

It would be the manufacturer's error or at the most Activision's fault.

Nov 14, 2012#410

Jay

Since you want to approach me that way, well then, I won't give a fuck what you think. It's still their fault regardless if are a publisher, the developer or your mum and that's that.

Nov 14, 2012#411

Bowielee

Tell me exactly how the developer could have avoided this.

Nov 14, 2012#412

Ravenpoe

Bowielee said:
Tell me exactly how the developer could have avoided this.

A QA tester sits at the distribution center with a laptop, and plays every copy start to finish to ensure that the full game works.

Good news is that it's CoD, so it won't take that long.[DOUBLEPOST=1352942361][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bowielee said:
Only one disk of it, though

Bioware released a little contest after they got the news. The first 50 people that sent them a picture of themselves with the mistaken CoD disc would get a steam code for the Mass Effect trilogy.

Nov 14, 2012#413

Frank

Wait, ME trilogy is on Steam? Those bags of shit.

Nov 14, 2012#414

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
Wait, ME trilogy is on Steam? Those bags of shit.

It might have been an origin code, I don't know.

Nov 14, 2012#415

Bowielee

ME1 and 2 are on the steam store, but not 3

Nov 14, 2012#416

SpecialKO

Bowielee said:
ME1 and 2 are on the steam store, but not 3

Damn, if EA gave out steam codes for the trilogy when only 1 and 2 or on steam, they really are giant fucking dicks.

Nov 14, 2012#417

SpecialKO

And no, it's not Treyarch's fault.

They have neither the expertise nor the staff to do wide-scale Q&A of the actual retail box releases. Unlike Q&A for games, which can be done on the cheap (if not necessarily the smart) by throwing warm bodies at the code with a lead holding the whip, Q&A for manufacturing is considerably more involved and usually requires intimate understanding of raw materials, inventory management, queue mechanics, and statistics (and Six Sigma, if you're a believer in it).

That is very specifically one of the reasons why developers choose to work with publishers. This one is on Activision and their vendor. Either someone cheaped out on batch testing or was asleep at the wheel.

Nov 15, 2012#418

@Li3n

Yeah, making the disks is publisher stuff, it's kinda weird to me that people here don't know that.

Mar 7, 2013#419

PatrThom

Oh hey, the new SimCity is out, and the reviews are starting to roll in.

--Patrick
EDIT: Fixed link.

Mar 7, 2013#420

Ravenpoe

PatrThom said:
Oh hey, the new SimCity is out, and the reviews are starting to roll in.

--Patrick

Access Denied? Damn... that's some meta review.

Mar 7, 2013#421

SpecialKO

I will probably get this eventually (I have a couple friends who have it already and really like it), but I refuse to spend money on an always-online game that's currently still having difficulty getting online (I didn't have any Diablo 3 issues after the first day).

Mar 7, 2013#422

Gilgamesh

I'll get it when it hits $20 in 2 months.

Mar 7, 2013#423

Frank

I won't, the game requires neighbors who give a shit about their cities in order for yours to thrive and is nearly unplayable without them. Fuck forced multiplayer.

Oh, and because of shit like this where EA put out a press release saying they will refund your money if you are unhappy with your purchase, and then do this:

http://www.gamechup.com/ea-refuses-to-refund-user-for-simcity-threatens-account-ban/

Thread title is still apt.

Mar 7, 2013#424

Azurephoenix

Yep, screw you EA. I was interested in this game but for the bullshit no local saves, always online and needing other people who care about their cities near you makes it a train wreck.

Good job EA. Keep destroying your franchises. The sooner you blow up the sooner some competent people can buy up your IP's. (a man can dream right?)

Mar 7, 2013#425

sixpackshaker

I too am a bit upset with Sim City being forced multi-player. I've bought every version so far. But I probably will not get this one.

I need to see if I can get, Sim City 2k, Sim Copter, and Streets of Sim City to work again... That was the best bit of marketing that they ever did with this game series. I'd like to see them do it again.

Mar 7, 2013#426

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
I too am a bit upset with Sim City being forced multi-player. I've bought every version so far. But I probably will not get this one.

I need to see if I can get, Sim City 2k, Sim Copter, and Streets of Sim City to work again... That was the best bit of marketing that they ever did with this game series. I'd like to see them do it again.

Isn't 2K on Steam?

Mar 7, 2013#427

Vrii

Frank said:
I won't, the game requires neighbors who give a shit about their cities in order for yours to thrive and is nearly unplayable without them. Fuck forced multiplayer.

Oh, and because of shit like this where EA put out a press release saying they will refund your money if you are unhappy with your purchase, and then do this:

http://www.gamechup.com/ea-refuses-to-refund-user-for-simcity-threatens-account-ban/

Thread title is still apt.

To be fair, the ban was threatened if the customer disputed the credit card purchase through his bank - effectively if he cancelled payment for the game with it still on his account. That much of it is justified.

As to refusing to honour a refund they specifically said they would give, well...that's just EA being EA.

Mar 7, 2013#428

PatrThom

Ravenpoe said:
Access Denied? Damn... that's some meta review.

My bad. My clipboard was still full from another paste. Here's the corrected link (and it is fixed in my previous post).

--Patrick

Mar 7, 2013#429

Jay

Mar 7, 2013#430

Azurephoenix

HAHAHAHAHA! Look at the metacritic ratings so far.

Mar 7, 2013#431

Jay

Mar 7, 2013#432

Azurephoenix

Has EA released anything lately that has gotten good ratings from both users and paid schills?

Mar 7, 2013#433

Dei

One thing I will say though, is that if you want to control every city in a region because you are a crazy bastard, you can do so and fuck off to having a social circle in the game. There are maps that only have 2 or 3 cities.

The server errors are total bullshit.

I really wish I could save my games locally for sure, because I'm sick of spending half the night trying to find a server that works and then have to start yet another new city/region. I like this version of SimCity, but GD it &!*)!&$*)!&*$)!&*)$&!$*)!.

Really I should just get my sewing done and forget I own this game for a few days.

Mar 7, 2013#434

Gared

I'm so, so very glad that I have no interest in this game. I really don't need yet another example of the great Error 37 debacle of 2012.

Mar 7, 2013#435

figmentPez

All EA games have been removed from my Steam wishlist. I won't be buying EA until they get better customer support.

Mar 7, 2013#436

GasBandit

Mar 7, 2013#437

SpecialKO

Azurephoenix said:
Has EA released anything lately that has gotten good ratings from both users and paid schills?

No, but I don't trust user reviews either. The Dead Space 3 user reviews are all over the place. It's literally a ton of people liking it and a ton of people hating it.

If it was actually a whole ton of people in the middle, I would feel comfortable thinking it's mostly a "meh" experience, but right now, it's either a bunch of people who rate 9/10 for everything mildly amusing, or people who rate a game 1/10 because of ACTIONNOTHORROROMGMICROTRANSACTIONS.

It's why I like RPS reviews. There's no fucking rating number, just long considered thought.

Mar 7, 2013#438

Bowielee

I trust the Giant Bomb crew because I listen to their podcast and they are really upfront about their tastes. Jeff Gerstman is kind of a curmudgeon for most genres, so he actually has people who are fans of a given genre do reviews for those types of games. He realizes that his tastes may not align with the general public. Knowing the personality of the reviewers, I can get a good idea of how their tastes will align with mine. For example, I tend to agree with Brad Shoemacher and Patrick Klepeck, so I'm able to judge their opinions on a game as close to mine.

I think that basic transparency is what makes them come off as way more genuine than reviewer x who you don't know anything about.

Mar 7, 2013#439

SpecialKO

Bowielee said:
I trust the Giant Bomb crew because I listen to their podcast and they are really upfront about their tastes. Jeff Gerstman is kind of a curmudgeon for most genres, so he actually has people who are fans of a given genre do reviews for those types of games. He realizes that his tastes may not align with the general public. Knowing the personality of the reviewers, I can get a good idea of how their tastes will align with mine. For example, I tend to agree with Brad Shoemacher and Patrick Klepeck, so I'm able to judge their opinions on a game as close to mine.

I think that basic transparency is what makes them come off as way more genuine than reviewer x who you don't know anything about.

Oh, the GiantBomb guys as a whole are great. Not only are they super in-depth, but they really went out of their way a while back to shepherd their community into not being a bunch of assholes.

Mar 7, 2013#440

Bowielee

Yeah, it took some serious balls for Patrick Klepeck to take a definite stand about the homophobia/misogyny in video games issues as he has.

Mar 7, 2013#441

Silent Bob

Azurephoenix said:
Yep, screw you EA. I was interested in this game but for the bullshit no local saves, always online and needing other people who care about their cities near you makes it a train wreck.

Good job EA. Keep destroying your franchises. The sooner you blow up the sooner some competent people can buy up your IP's. (a man can dream right?)

I loved Sim City, but after the disaster that was the game launch, I will not be buying until DRM and Multiplayer is removed.

Mar 8, 2013#442

figmentPez

Woah, did Joystiq just actually make a reasonable argument?
Editorial: SimCity, Diablo 3 and a review of customer service

Select quotes:

Should these games be reviewed separately from their service elements or should they be reviewed in combination?
...
Comparing this to the restaurant industry, the game is the food and the internet-required connection is the table service.
...
Any restaurant review would treat the meal and service as one singular expression of the experience.
....
I believe we treat developers (the chefs) and the service experience we receive from publishers as two different concepts. We'd never do that for a restaurant, but we do it for the games industry, an industry that will – make no mistake about this – become more and more about service.

I agree with this. Customer service is part of a product. How well the game is supported by the publisher, how well it's delivered to the gamer, is part of the gaming experience and it is completely fair to incorporate those elements into a games overall score.

Mar 8, 2013#443

Frank

Reviewers arguing the DRM and the always on nonsense and such is separate and shouldn't be counted when reviewing a game are fucking out of their minds. Straight up.

THIS GAME IS AMAZING, 10/10.

I can't log into it because the servers are down.

YEAH, BUT THE GAME IS AMAZING, 10/10.

But I can't play it.

IRRELEVANT! 10/10

Mar 8, 2013#444

Bubble181

SpecialKO said:
It's literally a ton of people liking it and a ton of people hating it.

Studies say up to 30% of "consumer" critics are paid for as well, and about 10% of critics will give bomb reviews to even great games 4theLULz or however they're writing it today, though both off those numbers can vary wildly by genre etc. Having extreme criticisms can be realistic - there are those "love it or hate it" types of games. I'm honestly not sure which one's at play here, but generally speaking, a game with 10 9/10 reviews and 10 1/10 reviews is probably more fun to try out than a game with 20 5/10 reviews. The latter's utterly meh, while the first one could be great, could be an awesome game with crippling bugs, could be beatiful but unintuitive,... I'm not tempted to pick up a meh game, even on sale, but a game with a huge difference in opinions? Mught be worth checking out in a sale.

Also, professional critics and game designers are still saying gthat multiplayer functionality and further integration of Facebook and Twitter and whatnot, all the socializing, blahblah blah is the new future of gaming. It's the wave of the future! Vocal minority or not, gamers on message boards all over the internet, and MetaCritic, strongly disagree. Perhaps a lot of gamers do like it, but I have the impression at least a decent-sized subset of gamers doesn't. I'm glad this is a stronger/bigger group than the "anti-DRM" group, since that apparently wasn't big enough to have much of an impact.[DOUBLEPOST=1362750923][/DOUBLEPOST]It's developers pushing for games to be considered a service instead of a commodity. If so, they need to accept that they'll be graded on service quality as well. You can have the fastest taxi business in tow,-n, if your drivers are illiterate jerks with Tourettes, the taxi cabs don't have passenger seat belts, they r andomly blow up, and smell of vomit, you won't be doing much business pretty soon. Either a game's a commodity - and I buy my car based on how good the car is, not on how symathpetic the salesman is - or it's a commodity and the service I get and customer delight do play a huge role in where I'm buying my hamburger. They can't have it both ways.

Mar 8, 2013#445

SpecialKO

We review food and service separately all the time. The largest, most used restaurant review guide in the country has done it for years. Yelp reviews everything together, but that's why you can't trust yelp reviews without reading dozens of them, because no one gives food/service/decor/etc. the same weight as anyone else.

Furthermore, the analogy wouldn't even work if everyone did it the same way. The game is not a restaurant, it's a meal. This is important because the chef's (the devs, to torture the analogy further) can have completely different styles working in the same restaurant (publisher).

While Joystiq is not as bad about their ratings process as a lot of them, I think we're better off just dropping ratings entirely (RPS-style) or just having a buy/rent/pass rating.[DOUBLEPOST=1362751396][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bubble181 said:
Also, professional critics and game designers are still saying gthat multiplayer functionality and further integration of Facebook and Twitter and whatnot, all the socializing, blahblah blah is the new future of gaming. It's the wave of the future! Vocal minority or not, gamers on message boards all over the internet, and MetaCritic, strongly disagree.

I'm actually of the opinion that pubs/devs should read and then ignore metacritic, internet boards, and most amazon reviews. Squeaky wheels should not necessarily be listened to, and people who post "10/10 AWESOME!" are even more useless.

You'd be better off with a random sampling of users using surveys, personal/group interviews, and actually trying to understand people in an engaged atmosphere.

Mar 8, 2013#446

AshburnerX

For this analogy...

Origin is the restaurant. It looks like shit and I'm pretty sure the waiters are listening in on our conversations, despite this being pretty illegal.

EA is the Chef and owner. EA CAN do some awesome stuff, but he's more concerned with pricing the plates than with providing a good deal to the guy at the table. He's also completely given up on advancing his skills in any fashion except for how the food looks.

EA's also responsible for the service, as he has his kids working the tables. Unfortunately, all the kids are assholes who don't know to do their jobs, but even if they DID know how to do them, they wouldn't be able to because EA won't spring for enough tables for everyone.

Sim City is the meal. By itself it's pretty amazing, even if you have to pay extra for stuff you can get for free from other guys. Unfortunately it costs WAY too much and for some reason you food seems to get worse if the other guys at your table didn't get the right stuff.

Also, for some reason you can only order strawberry, blueberry, or mint ice cream for desert. All of these flavors taste the same, despite the color differences. What's up with that?

Mar 8, 2013#447

Gilgamesh

Actually if you want a close analogy: EA/SimCity is a restaurant where you can order food, but you'll only get to eat it when you buy it if you get lucky. In this scenario, you ordered the food, were told you were going to get it as soon as it was finished being cooked. Then the waiter said it was finished, but you can't eat it. Now you've paid for the food, been told it's ready and cooked, but you can't eat it. If you ask for a refund, you're thrown out of the restaurant and told you can never come back.

That's what EA/SimCity is like at the moment if you want to use restaurant analogies and the REASON why you can bundle service with the game complaints.

Mar 8, 2013#448

figmentPez

SpecialKO said:
We review food and service separately all the time. The largest, most used restaurant review guide in the country has done it for years. Yelp reviews everything together, but that's why you can't trust yelp reviews without reading dozens of them, because no one gives food/service/decor/etc. the same weight as anyone else.

Fair point, but notice that the service is rated. The current trend in video games is for reviewers to, by and large, disregard any publisher doings as irrelevant to the gaming experience, which is completely not true.

Furthermore, the analogy wouldn't even work if everyone did it the same way. The game is not a restaurant, it's a meal. This is important because the chef's (the devs, to torture the analogy further) can have completely different styles working in the same restaurant (publisher).

News flash: No analogy is perfect. Analogies compare specific points of similarity, there will always be differences between one thing and another that are not analogous; if those differences didn't exist then the analogy wouldn't either, because you'd be comparing something to itself.

The analogy does work, because it is fair and reasonable to consider the delivery of a game when deciding if it is worth purchase. It is fair and reasonable to consider the service at a restaurant when considering purchasing a meal there. It doesn't matter if there are multiple chefs in the kitchen. It doesn't matter if the chef has little control over the wait staff. When it comes down to brass tacks, the best food in the world isn't worth ordering if it's delivered cold, has been spit-in by the wait staff and the silverware hasn't been washed. (For the record, that's just hyperbole, I'm not trying to suggest that any of those specific points are representative of specific flaws in a publisher's customer service... Though not being able to play a game on launch weekend does compare pretty well to getting cold food, now that I think of it.)

While it may not be fair to give a game a single rating that covers every aspect (some already argue that a game's art, single player, multi-player, story, etc. should already be ranked separately), it is most certainly reasonable to consider a publisher's customer service when deciding if a game is worth purchasing, (and that most definitely can be specific to a game.)

Mar 8, 2013#449

Frank

EA is Chewbacca and Simcity is Endor. Now, it makes no sense why EA would want to live on Endor, that's where the Ewoks live and EA is way to big to live with Ewoks. It doesn't make sense.

Mar 8, 2013#450

bhamv3

EA's the big restaurant chain that bought up your favorite diner and swapped its delicious menu out for mass-produced crappy food. Sure, the sign over the front door says it's still the same eatery, but things certainly do not taste the same.

Mar 8, 2013#451

Bubble181

As has been stated, it's just pretty much impossible to give a meaningful review boiled down to one number. I don't give a rat's ass about multiplayer - if Diablo III had had NO on line capability, NO LAN capability, NO cloud saving, and NO auciton house, it would have suited my personal preference much better, but I'm well aware that it a) wouldn't have sold and b) would have been hated by three quarters of the community. I don't expect all games to conform to my personal view of what a good game should be or what it should look like.
Publishers/developers seem to have the idea that they, with market read-outs at the ready, can and should make that decision for everybody else - and I can't even really fault them for that, i nthe sense that they have to make the decisions that make most sense, business-wise. I do disagree with their opinion of the market and I think some of the big ones are making huge mistakes, but that's another discussion.

Anyway, I do think people need to give more varied reviews. I think a reviewer should be able to give, say, Mass Effect 3 a score of 7/10 for multiplayer, 9/10 f or graphics, 3/10 for campaign/single player, and so on. Why not give SimCity a 8/10 for gameplay, but a 1/10 for playability and technical issues? Why not list that a game like the new SimCity will not appeal to many of the original fans, as it was typically a game played by people on their own? I don't see why it should be horrible or bad to give a game a 8/10 as a shooter but only a 2/10 as n RPG - warning potential buyers that if they want a shooter with some RPGy bits, it's ok, but if they expect an RPG with some shooter elements, they're better off looking at another game?

Complicated? Sure. So? We're not all idiots.

Mar 8, 2013#452

Shannow

I guess I am one of the few having a blast with the game? Playing with my friends from work, and we are loving it.

Mar 8, 2013#453

Gilgamesh

Shannow said:
I guess I am one of the few having a blast with the game? Playing with my friends from work, and we are loving it.

No, the point is that large vast majorities of people can't play. When they CAN, they've admitted it's a great game. They just don't like forced Multiplayer.
Maxis = Responsible for being a great game.
EA = Responsible for thousands of people being unable to play it.

Mar 8, 2013#454

Shannow

Eh, I actually like the multiplayer on this one, and I guess working nights and playing at off hours has made the not being able to play a non issue for me so far.

Mar 8, 2013#455

Gilgamesh

Shannow said:
Eh, I actually like the multiplayer on this one, and I guess working nights and playing at off hours has made the not being able to play a non issue for me so far.

Correct. There's nothing wrong with the multiplayer, but not giving people an option is going to rub alot of people the wrong way, which is what's happening here. As for the off hours benefit, that's a given. However, if there was an exploit discovered at some point, and the servers were rolled back, imagine losing a day, a week or more (see Sony's DC Online issues) of gameplay. There's just too much wrong with always online DRM. This is the outcry of the community against EA.

Mar 8, 2013#456

Bubble181

eh. I don't get why they insisted on making this one a multiplayer game. It not like regions in SC4 or neighbours in SC Societies were ever something people LIKED, were they?

Mar 8, 2013#457

Shannow

Same outcry I heard back in May with Diablo, and I thought it was over blown then. I got what I wanted out of the game for a good while, and moved on,. I am supposing I will do the same here as well.

Mar 8, 2013#458

Gilgamesh

Shannow said:
Same outcry I heard back in May with Diablo, and I thought it was over blown then. I got what I wanted out of the game for a good while, and moved on,. I am supposing I will do the same here as well.

Yes, you are in the minority of people that are not bothered by this or the Diablo 3 issue.

Mar 8, 2013#459

SpecialKO

figmentPez said:
While it may not be fair to give a game a single rating that covers every aspect (some already argue that a game's art, single player, multi-player, story, etc. should already be ranked separately), it is most certainly reasonable to consider a publisher's customer service when deciding if a game is worth purchasing, (and that most definitely can be specific to a game.)

Of course it is. My point is the restaurant analogy doesn't work. People don't really make choices about restaurants on the basis of service unless it's particularly bad or particularly good. They make choices based on the quality of the actual meal they get. Most people will happily go to a restaurant with lame service if they know the food is spectacular. This is not really true of video games anymore, because service is tied so tightly into the actual delivery of the game that the minimum level of acceptable service is actually supposed to be relatively seamless (which is very reasonable in this context).

If you're hellbent on using the restaurant analogy, then a modern service-oriented video game would have to be a fast-food restaurant. There's really only one thing on the menu, the additions are optional, and nothing actually matters about how the servers/cashiers talk to you, as long as you get you food exactly on time.

Mar 8, 2013#460

Gilgamesh

SpecialKO said:
Of course it is. My point is the restaurant analogy doesn't work. People don't really make choices about restaurants on the basis of service unless it's particularly bad or particularly good. They make choices based on the quality of the actual meal they get. Most people will happily go to a restaurant with lame service if they know the food is spectacular. This is not really true of video games anymore, because service is tied so tightly into the actual delivery of the game that the minimum level of acceptable service is actually supposed to be relatively seamless (which is very reasonable in this context).

If you're hellbent on using the restaurant analogy, then a modern service-oriented video game would have to be a fast-food restaurant. There's really only one thing on the menu, the additions are optional, and nothing actually matters about how the servers/cashiers talk to you, as long as you get you food exactly on time.

I already made a very accurate analogy using restaurants like 4 posts back.

Mar 8, 2013#461

Shannow

Gilgamesh said:
Yes, you are in the minority of people that are not bothered by this or the Diablo 3 issue.

Strange, right? For tall the bitching, I actually just played the damned things, and enjoyed them. its been nice.

Mar 8, 2013#462

Gilgamesh

Shannow said:
Strange, right? For tall the bitching, I actually just played the damned things, and enjoyed them. its been nice.

Because again, the game itself is not the issue. That's not why it's getting all the negative reviews.

Mar 8, 2013#463

Shannow

And I am saying the forced online has not been and issue for myself, and the multiplayer was one of the reasons I bought the game, and love that aspect of it.

Mar 8, 2013#464

Bubble181

Shannow said:
Strange, right? For tall the bitching, I actually just played the damned things, and enjoyed them. its been nice.

If you have a good quality, always-on internet connection; manage to play on "good" hours when other people can't, and perhaps you just like multiplayer options/possibilities, I'm sure you can enjoy it.

Tell me, would your game experience be the same if you had a dial-up, or perhaps a wonky sattelite connection or whatever, that crapped out once day, causing you to randomly lose progress? Would you have liked it equally if you had been ejected from the servers or unable to log on several times?

The point isn't "this is a bad game" - I'm sure a lot of people have enjoyed it, and will. The point is that your gameplay experience is also very heavily tinted by the quality of the service - to go back to the analogy, it can be the very best steak in the whole wide world, if I get it when it's stone cold and with a sauce over it I don't like, I won't be happy. The fact that you happen to like that sauce, and that your steak was still warm, doesn't excuse the restaurant for fucking up half the orders. Saying "I had no problems, so there is no problem" is selfish. Some of the problems you can discuss - I don't really like multiplayer, they made TOR an MMO, I didn't play it because it's not my game. Even though it can be a tellar game, it's their choice to make a game single player or multiplayer or whatever and mine not to buy. But even if it was a game I ought to love, and I didn't mind, other service related issues would still make it impossible to enjoy.

Mar 8, 2013#465

figmentPez

SpecialKO said:
People don't really make choices about restaurants on the basis of service unless it's particularly bad or particularly good. They make choices based on the quality of the actual meal they get. Most people will happily go to a restaurant with lame service if they know the food is spectacular.

You must hang out with very different people than I do. I know quite a few who focus on service at a restaurant above food quality. They search out restaurants with particularly good service, and go there because it makes for a better dining experience. I don't go back to restaurants that give bad service, because I really don't like being treated like crap by a waiter. I can put up with slow service from a smiling, but inexperienced, waiter, but I will not tolerate being served by someone who shows every indication of not wanting me for a customer.

nothing actually matters about how the servers/cashiers talk to you, as long as you get you food exactly on time.

And this is part of what's wrong with fast food culture. It really does matter how servers/cashiers talk to people, and I have gotten good service at fast food restaurants. The KFC not far from me has excellent staff, who were very helpful in suggesting that I could get the same food for cheaper by getting a different mix of combo and ala carte options than I had chosen. I will be going back there because I got good service. I also have a favored Smashburger, where the staff are fantastic and a real pleasure to order from. Service matters to me, and I'm glad that it's not as dead as you seem to think it is.

Mar 8, 2013#466

Shannow

Bubble181 said:
If you have a good quality, always-on internet connection; manage to play on "good" hours when other people can't, and perhaps you just like multiplayer options/possibilities, I'm sure you can enjoy it.

Tell me, would your game experience be the same if you had a dial-up, or perhaps a wonky sattelite connection or whatever, that crapped out once day, causing you to randomly lose progress? Would you have liked it equally if you had been ejected from the servers or unable to log on several times?

The point isn't "this is a bad game" - I'm sure a lot of people have enjoyed it, and will. The point is that your gameplay experience is also very heavily tinted by the quality of the service - to go back to the analogy, it can be the very best steak in the whole wide world, if I get it when it's stone cold and with a sauce over it I don't like, I won't be happy. The fact that you happen to like that sauce, and that your steak was still warm, doesn't excuse the restaurant for fucking up half the orders. Saying "I had no problems, so there is no problem" is selfish. Some of the problems you can discuss - I don't really like multiplayer, they made TOR an MMO, I didn't play it because it's not my game. Even though it can be a tellar game, it's their choice to make a game single player or multiplayer or whatever and mine not to buy. But even if it was a game I ought to love, and I didn't mind, other service related issues would still make it impossible to enjoy.

You are right, I would probably have issues with that. but then again, knowing what the game was, and my own capabilities, before I bought it, helped a great deal. Another thing is, as always, after the intial rush, server crushes do die down after launch.

Mar 8, 2013#467

Jay

Sim City is in no way shape or form the same game of old.

Fundamentally, SimCity has always been a 'sandbox'. That means that there's no real end state, no way to win. It's just a thing that you play and experiment with. You build, tinker and mess around. It's a toy, not a game; it's a sandbox, not baseball.

So, in this iteration of the game, you don't even get to buy your toy. Rather, you rent a toy from EA, who lets you play with it only in very limited, circumscribed ways, only on their servers. So you have to have a live Internet connection at all times and their servers have to be up and have to have space for you. The rules for play are draconian. If you want to, say, build a city, save it, blow it up with something terrible and then restore from save... you can't do that anymore.

That's an unauthorized usage of their toy. And if you figure out ways of using their toy that they don't like, they'll ban you forever.

All third-party modding is shut out. One of the best parts of SimCity 4 and The Sims is that users can create and share content among themselves for free. You will no longer be able to do this. You will be required to run only Official Authorized Content.

Further, you're not getting the whole game for your $60 or $80, depending on what version you're buying. EA's plan is to sell you Simcity 5 over and over and over. They've directly admitted that they already have it running with larger cities, but they're not releasing that now. They claim it's because it "won't run on Dad's PC", but the real reason is so they can sell it to you again later. Want subways? That's gonna be $15. Want railroads? Another $15. Bigger cities? Oh, that's in the $30 expansion. DLC madness.

Right now, if you look at The Sims 3, the game costs $30. But if also you buy all the DLC for it, it's *four hundred and seventy dollars*. This is what they are doing with SimCity 5; locking you into their server infrastructure, and then exploiting the heck out of your wallet.

This is a lousy deal, and you would be stupid to take it. Always-on DRM, and a deliberately crippled game, so that they can slowly uncripple it, charging you for every restored feature from prior versions.

It's vintage EA douch-baggery and something I thankfully didn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Mar 8, 2013#468

SpecialKO

figmentPez said:
I know quite a few who focus on service at a restaurant above food quality.

Hooters doesn't count. (just messin' with you

)

And this is part of what's wrong with fast food culture. It really does matter how servers/cashiers talk to people, and I have gotten good service at fast food restaurants. The KFC not far from me has excellent staff, who were very helpful in suggesting that I could get the same food for cheaper by getting a different mix of combo and ala carte options than I had chosen. I will be going back there because I got good service. I also have a favored Smashburger, where the staff are fantastic and a real pleasure to order from. Service matters to me, and I'm glad that it's not as dead as you seem to think it is.

That's fine. Personally, I don't care how friendly the server at a fast food place is as long as I get my food quickly and in good order. The only times I care even remotely more about the service than the food is when I'm on a date, and that's because it's a nice place, I'm trying to impress, and it's not about the food.

Back to the point, though. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to rate gameplay and service in the same score (but as you probably noticed, I'm kind of against score ratings in the first place), even for a service-oriented game, because then people have to dive into your review anyway to figure out why you scored the way you did, and if EA (or whomever) is supposed to draw conclusions about a game's performance from reviews, they also need to know.

More practically, we've already seen how publishers base their treatment of developers on how the game itself performed. Some pubs (EA, Activision *cough*) even base continued employment on that. If a game gets a low score because Origin sucks and how EA forced into the game sucks, but everyone thinks the gameplay itself is awesome, I'd prefer that devs take as little of the crap as possible.[DOUBLEPOST=1362760033][/DOUBLEPOST]

Jay said:
A whole load of stuff

That's actually worse than what I was expecting.

Yeesh.

Mar 8, 2013#469

figmentPez

Jay said:
The rules for play are draconian. If you want to, say, build a city, save it, blow it up with something terrible and then restore from save... you can't do that anymore.

This point alone proves that this game is not SimCity. If you're not free to try something completely off the wall, and then revert back to when things were normal, then it's not SimCity.

Mar 8, 2013#470

Dei

AshburnerX said:
Also, for some reason you can only order strawberry, blueberry, or mint ice cream for desert. All of these flavors taste the same, despite the color differences. What's up with that?

This joke will never die. And I like it better as ice cream. Mmmm ice Cream.

Also: relevant

http://www.gucomics.com/comic/?cdate=20130306

Mar 8, 2013#471

Ravenpoe

To use the restaurant analogy that everyone has already moved away from, I don't care how great the food is if the servers always spit in it.

Mar 8, 2013#472

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
This point alone proves that this game is not SimCity. If you're not free to try something completely off the wall, and then revert back to when things were normal, then it's not SimCity.

Correct. At that point it is just City*.

--Patrick
*and if you can't hear the joke, then I'm sorry.

Mar 8, 2013#473

GasBandit

Today's PA.

Mar 8, 2013#474

Frank

Jay said:
If you want to, say, build a city, save it, blow it up with something terrible and then restore from save... you can't do that anymore.

Mar 8, 2013#475

CynicismKills

Chris Kluwe of the Vikings loves SimCity as a franchise, and his article about the new game is pure gold.

Mar 8, 2013#476

Bowielee

Jay said:
If you want to, say, build a city, save it, blow it up with something terrible and then restore from save... you can't do that anymore.

Whelp, that was 98% of the reason I played the original game. No Sale!

Mar 8, 2013#477

SpecialKO

CynicismKills said:
Chris Kluwe of the Vikings loves SimCity as a franchise, and his article about the new game is pure gold.

That was great.

Mar 8, 2013#478

CynicismKills

Apparently Kluwe's a pretty avid gamer, too. He's big into Pokemon, SimCity, Path of Exile, and even MMOs when he has time. He said in a reddit post that he spent a big chunk of his "fun money" on the Shadowrun Kickstarter.

Mar 8, 2013#479

Gilgamesh

and STEAM'S response to the current situation:

Mar 8, 2013#480

jwhouk

CynicismKills said:
Chris Kluwe of the Vikings loves SimCity as a franchise, and his article about the new game is pure gold.

Welp, there goes his ratings in Madden '13.

Mar 8, 2013#481

bhamv3

Ooooo, is Tropico 4 good? I'm tempted.

Mar 8, 2013#482

GasBandit

bhamv3 said:
Ooooo, is Tropico 4 good? I'm tempted.

Well, that depends. Do you own Tropico 3? Because if you don't, yes, it's great. If you DO own tropico 3, don't bother... it's basically Tropico 3 with a tiny expansion pack. But here, read this, and then ignore the 3, because it's basically the same damn game.

Mar 8, 2013#483

Terrik

Yes, tell us please.

Mar 9, 2013#484

bhamv3

GasBandit said:
Well, that depends. Do you own Tropico 3? Because if you don't, yes, it's great. If you DO own tropico 3, don't bother... it's basically Tropico 3 with a tiny expansion pack. But here, read this, and then ignore the 3, because it's basically the same damn game.

I do not, in fact, own Tropico 3. I've heard that 4 is basically an EASports style re-release of 3, but since I've never played 3 I don't think that'd affect me much.

Hmm... tempting, tempting.

Mar 9, 2013#485

Terrik

DON'T THINK---DO

Mar 9, 2013#486

bhamv3

Terrik said:
DON'T THINK---DO

Oh, no no no, I'm not falling for that again. That's the attitude that led to me being labeled a subway groper.

Mar 9, 2013#487

GasBandit

Welp, sale's over now, Thinky McVacillate.

Mar 9, 2013#488

Bowielee

I never could get into the Tropico games.

Incidentally, GOG also had a sale on their city building games. I'm at work so I can't look them up right now, but I know Pharaoh was in there. I loved that game.

Mar 9, 2013#489

ThatNickGuy

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1584821767/civitas-plan-develop-and-manage-the-city-of-your-d

HA! In your face, EA!

Mar 9, 2013#490

Hailey Knight

ThatNickGuy said:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1584821767/civitas-plan-develop-and-manage-the-city-of-your-d

HA! In your face, EA!

At first I thought "Couldn't you just play one of the older SimCity games?"

Then I kept reading and saw the scope of it.

Mar 9, 2013#491

ThatNickGuy

I'm still waiting for a SimCity-esque game to have bicycle lanes.

Mar 9, 2013#492

AshburnerX

EA is apparently offering everyone who isn't getting a refund for SimCity a free game from their catalog soon. This is a good PR move, for once. It's not enough but it's certainly a start.

Mar 9, 2013#493

ThatNickGuy

AshburnerX said:
EA is apparently offering everyone who isn't getting a refund for SimCity a free game from their catalog soon. This is a good PR move, for once. It's not enough but it's certainly a start.

I'm not sure many people will want ANOTHER EA game at this point.

Mar 9, 2013#494

ScytheRexx

AshburnerX said:
EA is apparently offering everyone who isn't getting a refund for SimCity a free game from their catalog soon. This is a good PR move, for once. It's not enough but it's certainly a start.

Oh boy! I bet everyone can't wait to play an old copy of Spore! (you know that's likely what will happen)

Mar 9, 2013#495

AshburnerX

ScytheRexx said:
Oh boy! I bet everyone can't wait to play an old copy of Spore! (you know that's likely what will happen)

Probably, but your apparently going to be able to pick from a list... and honestly, they really don't have any reason to skimp on which games you can get. It's all digital... it'd be worth giving away a free $40-60 game if it meant keeping the Sim City people on Origin and it's not lost money since it's digital.

Mar 10, 2013#496

bhamv3

So... if you had to choose an EA game, which would you pick?

I'd probably go for Mass Effect 3.

Mar 10, 2013#497

PatrThom

Why wouldn't you go for Madden '13?

Oh. Riiiiiiight.

--Patrick

Mar 10, 2013#498

Dei

I want the University Expansion for Sims 3 (don't judge me!)

If I had to pick a full game, I have no idea.

Mar 10, 2013#499

Silent Bob

Silent Bob said:
I loved Sim City, but after the disaster that was the game launch, I will not be buying until DRM and Multiplayer is removed.

Well, I'm a big fucking hypocrite and bought the game (I got a nice bonus at work).

It works fine.

Mar 10, 2013#500

Frank

Can you save your game, go hog wild, try new things and then revert to an older save like every other Sim City ever made?

Forums