Ok thats just mean EA, just mean

[kumquatq3]

LINKY

[Volourn]

Good. The more weak companies are taken out or subjugated the better off the gamning industry will be. LONG LIVE THE STRONG! DOWN WITH THE WEAK!!

[213374U]

Good. The more weak companies are taken out or subjugated the better off the gamning industry will be. LONG LIVE THE STRONG! DOWN WITH THE WEAK!!

I'm going to enjoy seeing you pay twice what those games cost today.

 

To each his own...

[Ellester]

I also heard from the guy working at my local ebGames that Microsoft is currently planning on buying out the Nintendo Game Cube. This is just from word of mouth, so I have no proof. But, that would put a lot of pressure on Sony, that

[Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz]

I also heard from the guy working at my local ebGames that Microsoft is currently planning on buying out the Nintendo Game Cube.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's been a rumor for some time that the next-gen consoles for Microsoft and Nintendo would be the same. If so, I'm cool with that - I can only afford one console at a time. More games = happier me!

[Judge Hades]

Yes, Volourn, Monopolies RULEZ!

 

[Volourn]

I'm going to enjoy seeing you pay twice what those games cost today."

 

I'm going to enjoy seeing you cry when I don't pay double the price. You see, unlike others, I don't need games. if they become to expensive; i don't buy 'em. Period. This is why I don't bother buying too many D&D 3E stuff like I used to. Way too expensive hence not worth it. If EA decides to double the price; well; they just lost my money.

 

Either way, I win.

 

 

"Yes, Volourn, Monopolies RULEZ! "

 

'Tis a good thing i never said that. However, weak companies or brands who can't compete but kept aloive just because don't rule either. If you cna't hang with the big boys than get out of their way or compete more intelligently.

 

I have no pity whatsoever for when a company is temrinate by its compettition. if you don't want competition go live in Dictator Land.

[kumquatq3]

THe Microsoft/Nintendo idea is garbage. Microsoft wants to buy Nintendo, but Nintendo ain't selling. Yet.

 

We'll see what happens if Revolution fails.

[kumquatq3]

P.S.

 

Vol, your crazy when it comes to EA. It's like that buddy who is dating a bitch, but he won't listen to his freinds about how big a bitch she is. He's just all "I love her man". You and EA, that is the relationship you have

[Volourn]

"You and EA, that is the relationship you have"

 

As long as they make solid sports games, don't charge me hundreds of doollars for them, and aren't in the business of mass murder; they have free reign as far as I'm concerned. And, no, terminating other companies is not murder; it's ound business practice. The onlyt hing negative about EA from what I've seen is the way they treat their employees; but hopefully the lawsuit against them will fix that and teach 'em some manners.

[Ivan the Terrible]

I'm going to enjoy seeing you cry when I don't pay double the price. You see, unlike others, I don't need games. if they become to expensive; i don't buy 'em. Period. This is why I don't bother buying too many D&D 3E stuff like I used to. Way too expensive hence not worth it. If EA decides to double the price; well; they just lost my money.

 

Either way, I win.

 

Well, no. If you genuinely don't care, then either way, you don't lose. There's a difference.

 

'Tis a good thing i never said that. However, weak companies or brands who can't compete but kept aloive just because don't rule either. If you cna't hang with the big boys than get out of their way or compete more intelligently.

 

I have no pity whatsoever for when a company is temrinate by its compettition. if you don't want competition go live in Dictator Land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't be absurd. The benefit of competition to the consumer is supposed to be that the opposing companies try to outsell each other, thus giving the consumer the best possible product as each company tries to give the best deal.

 

And it works for vacuum cleaners or shaving cream.

 

For art or other things involving creativity (including gaming), however, it doesn't work unless your dream is for everything to be homogenized and sold only to the mass market. Do you actually long for a world in which the CRPG (with it's long development time and small audience) is regarded as unprofitable and thus completely disappears in favor of another slew of First Person Shooters? Are you actually happy to see that EA, a company which thrives by releasing the same crappy sports game every year with a new tag on it, has the money and power to buy out developers that make, y'know, good games that take a long time to develop and lack a similiar money-harvesting gimmick?

[Volourn]

"Are you actually happy to see that EA, a company which thrives by releasing the same crappy sports game every year with a new tag on it,"

 

If you are gonna troll; don't waste your time.

[Ivan the Terrible]

"Are you actually happy to see that EA, a company which thrives by releasing the same crappy sports game every year with a new tag on it,"

 

If you are gonna troll; don't waste your time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What trolling?

 

Personally, I bet a lot of companies wish they could do that. KOTOR 2005, KOTOR 2006, KOTOR 2007....

 

The goal is simple; they release games which are neither good enough to require a ton of development time nor bad enough to be ripped to shreds by reviewers. In such a way, they stay in the black while other game companies fold around them.

 

It's good business, but it's a really BAD situation for Joe Gamer (including you and me.)

[Volourn]

"It's good business, but it's a really BAD situation for Joe Gamer (including you and me.)"

 

No. It's a GREAT situation for me. Only trolls would attempt to speak on my behalf. Please don't.

 

I LOVE the fact that they spam the so called 'medicore' sports games. Even though; they don't. I love it that they update their sports games.

 

To compare games like Madden to KOTOR is just plain silly. So silly it's beyond silly.

[NeverwinterKnight]

volourn, just an observation, but you dont have much of a business background or knowledge do you. its quite evident in the way you have this twisted view of how a monopoly is a good thing.

[taks]

actually, a monopoly is a good thing in the long run. and here's why...

 

the company ends up with all the market share due to lower prices and/or better products. in our example, EA has most of the sports game market share. however, a direct result of this monopoly is reduced efficiency since competition is what kept the company efficient in the first place. as a result, quality begins to suffer, prices rise and the market begins to shrink on its own. such a thing offers smaller, more efficient companies an opportunity to step up to the plate and offer a better quality product at a reduced price. with this comes competition, forcing said "monopoly" to revise their strategy in order to maintain profitability. an endless cycle actually.

 

the myth of "bad monopolies" is actual an anti-capitalist reaction. it is borne out of fear that monopolies somehow control the consumer, when in fact, the opposite is true. monopolies eventually self-destruct. realistically, the only monopolies that actually can exist in a capitalist society are those that the government creates, i.e. fascist companies. go figure.

 

the best example of a "monopoly" gone bad is standard oil... broken apart by the trust busters, yet the part of the story that nobody ever hears is their market share was only 60% at the time of breakup and declining rapidly. they were falling apart because they could not compete with the smaller, more efficient oil companies of the time (i believe texaco was one of the up-and-comers).

 

so in truth, volourn is wiser than it would seem regarding business!

 

taks

 

PS: keep in mind, if anybody offered a better sports game at a comparable price, it would sell, forcing EA to change their strategy.

[Volourn]

"volourn, just an observation, but you dont have much of a business background or knowledge do you. its quite evident in the way you have this twisted view of how a monopoly is a good thing. "

 

Just an observation; but I never said a monoply was a good thing.However, it's preferable than having fake competion. I want real competition. I want companies that can compete on their own two feet; not be allowed to compete just because.

[NeverwinterKnight]

"volourn, just an observation, but you dont have much of a business background or knowledge do you. its quite evident in the way you have this twisted view of how a monopoly is a good thing. "

 

Just an observation; but I never said a monoply was a good thing.However, it's preferable than having fake competion. I want real competition. I want companies that can compete on their own two feet; not be allowed to compete just because.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

keep thinking that in a couple of years when ea doesnt have competition and can get away with releasing half assed games for twice the price because the consumer has no other viable options available to them.

[taks]

again, you missed the point on that neverwinterknight... that's not how capitalism works, not in theory and not in reality. history has proven the latter time and time again.

 

as soon as the consumer has "no other viable options," some other joe game developer absolutely will step up and fill the void assuming there's a market (face it, some things just don't have a market).

 

taks

[Volourn]

"keep thinking that in a couple of years when ea doesnt have competition and can get away with releasing half assed games for twice the price because the consumer has no other viable options available to them."

 

Proof. All you have is whining, undocumented, unfactua, no basis in fact, mythical rumours that show that will happen.

 

I'll believe it when i see it.

 

I'd rather trust EA to bring the goods than trust random posters on the internet who have start of hate hard on for them.

 

If EA does what you suggets; they won't get my money. period. And, guess what? I'll move on and survive.

 

But, I doubt it'll be that way.

[Ellester]

But taks EA now owns exclusive rights to the NFL and to ESPN. So EA has the next 15 years for espn and I don

[NeverwinterKnight]

again, you missed the point on that neverwinterknight... that's not how capitalism works, not in theory and not in reality.  history has proven the latter time and time again.

 

as soon as the consumer has "no other viable options," some other joe game developer absolutely will step up and fill the void assuming there's a market (face it, some things just don't have a market).

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

in the long run, maybe. but then you just crushed your own theory that monopolies "work" in the long run. all youre stated is basically that eventually a fair market system will re-establish itself to break the monopoly. which means that again, the best possible system is a fair market system.

 

your basic argument is that a monopoly works because it eventually leads to competition when the business who has the monopoly's market share starts to falter due to no competition. that seems like a messed up theory when after all is said and done, you assume that a new fair market will rise in its place.

 

and even if that does, in fact, happen eventually, ea will have a run of about 10 or 20 years of monopolized profits and consumers will have to wait until "joe average" shows up a decade or so down the line.

 

im still not seeing how that is good for the CONSUMER.

[NeverwinterKnight]

"keep thinking that in a couple of years when ea doesnt have competition and can get away with releasing half assed games for twice the price because the consumer has no other viable options available to them."

 

Proof. All you have is whining, undocumented, unfactua, no basis in fact, mythical rumours that show that will happen.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

same can be said for your argument. where is your "proof" that ea owning the market place is a good thing?

 

if you want "proof" of how monopolies work, just look at the gas industry. or is the fact that gas prices have soared over the last 20 years not proof enough for you that monopolies are a bad thing for the consumer?

[taks]

But taks EA now owns exclusive rights to the NFL and to ESPN. So EA has the next 15 years for espn and I don

[Volourn]

"im still not seeing how that is good for the CONSUMER."

 

Ahh.. I get it. It's all about selfishness. It's about you. That's cool. At least it's good to know.

 

 

"where is your "proof" that ea owning the market place is a good thing?"

 

Simple. EA makes games I like. If they continue doing so; I have no need for other companies spamming NFL games on the market.

 

 

"just look at the gas industry"

 

I look. *shrug* Competition is there. It is NOT a monoply. And, the services they provide vary in rnage of price and service so your point makes little sense. Try again.

 

And, once again, this tlak about the consumer. Screw the consumer. I hate consuemr.s I hate 'em with a passion. They are selfish, arrogant, igmornat, dumb,r etarded, cruel, jerkish, and every other name I cna think off. They are pure evil and need to be CRUSHED.