Ok thats just mean EA, just mean

[Zoq-Fot-Pik]

Zoq: Cheese and Sprite, Voly. What are you arguing for?

 

Fot: It's a battle ye can't win, mate.

 

Pik: ...

 

Zoq: Not to say that you're wrong, mind you, but in most of the cases here, it appears you're just arguing to be stubborn.

 

Fot: You're TROLLING! Need examples?

 

Pik: ...

 

Zoq: We've seen numerous occasions where people prefer ESPN NFL and NBA(for argument's sake) over EA's lineup due to their inherent superior quality.

 

Fot: even though we've never played an ESPN game.

 

Pik: ...

 

Zoq: That's beside the point. ESPN games created GOOD competition for EA sports. Now, that is gone. Companies that can't competes should fold due to their own incompetence and lack of quality, not due to the fact that they don't have as much money to pay for a license for X number of years.

[Azarkon]

Statement: A monopoly in the gaming industry means no niche genres such as CRPGs.

 

Makes no sense. A monopoly of the gaming industry that produces only FPS games cannot exist. Even if the demand for CRPGs is small, there is still a demand. A company that produces only FPS's will not satisfy that segment of the demand and as such makes it easy for plenty of other companies to rise and make a living out of supplying CRPGs. That would in turn defeat the definition of said corporation as a monopoly.

 

In other words, for a company to be a monopoly in the gaming industry, it must satisfy all genre demands. It must produce CRPGs, or else make it so that CRPGs cannot be developed by anyone else - which, unless government regulations totally change, will simply not happen.

 

In fact, a so-called "monopoly" here would actually be a relatively GOOD thing, as the assumption behind a monopoly is that it'd be impossible to compete with said monopolizing super-corporation. If such is the case, then smaller/independent companies would not need to concentrate on making mass-market FPS's and console games, as they'd not be able to out-compete the super-corp anyhow. In other words, since it's economic competition that drives the current shift away from CRPGs and into mass market games, if a single corporation ends up single-handedly dominating that market to such a degree that other companies cannot compete with it, those smaller companies will be forced to abandon that road and go back to what they're best at in the niche genres, which means producing more CRPGs.

 

I don't completely agree with taks' definition of monopolies, but he makes a very good case for why leisure monopolies under the current system doesn't really hurt the economy. The fear of the megacorporation is more a fear of integrated corporations that control everyday life - for instance, a corporation that controls food products / water / medical care. Such a corporation, using suppression tactics, could theoretically never be displaced under taks' scenario since the market for food products / water / medical care will not decrease. Fortunately, there are government regulations in place to prevent such monopolistic practices.

 

As far as leisure monopolies go, I really don't see how a corporation can ever fully dominate a market without suffering from inefficiencies or having political/military power outside of mere market forces. For a company to completely dominate the gaming industry, it'd first need to out-compete all other companies. Let's say it does that, and then raises its prices to hurt the consumer. But in that case, consumers may simply decide to not buy such a product, and move onto other leisure activities. This would weaken the monopolizing corporation, and make it easier for smaller companies to come in and fill the gap, which eventually leads back to fair competition. The only alternative to taks' cycle would be if the corporation controlled all supplies - if it denied game development access to everyone else. But such a corporation would need government power in order to do this, and as such can't be considered merely a monopoly under current definitions.

[mkreku]

I just wish EA would start selling updated rosters for their NHL games every year, instead of making everyone pay full price for a new game that's exactly the same game as last year.. but with updated rosters (and a few new, cool names for the irrelevant new moves you're supposed to learn).

 

A roster update in the form of an expansion kit for.. 10$? That would be neat.

[Volourn]

I see a lot of crying, I see a lot of opinions; but I see no proof.

 

 

Mkreku: That would be cool. :cool:

[random evil guy]

"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,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

well, they DO make crap sports games and they DO charge hundreds of dollars for them. i.e. fifa99, fifa00, fifa01, fifa02,fifa03 etc etc sucked big time.

 

the worst part is, ea used to make good games. fifa98 is one the best footy games ever; but i guess they got too gready and big for their own good. nowadays, konami's pro evolution soccer is miles ahead of the fifa-series. the only thing ea got going for them, are liscenses. real names and players; but the gameplay is horrible.

[Zoq-Fot-Pik]

I see a lot of crying, I see a lot of opinions; but I see no proof.

 

 

Mkreku: That would be cool. :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Zoq: All I see is someone trolling.

 

Fot: HOW DARE Y--....Oh, you're not referring to me.

 

Pik: ...

 

Zoq: <_<

[Aponez]

Well Volourn, you can find a perfect example in Spain, the only futbol game (soccer in USA) you could buy with the real teams and players (names) of the spanish league since 2001 was FIFA, since FIFA 2002 until now all the FIFA where the same game with new names, but the game cost is now 10

[Volourn]

"well, they DO make crap sports games and they DO charge hundreds of dollars for them. i.e. fifa99, fifa00, fifa01, fifa02,fifa03 etc etc sucked big time.

 

the worst part is, ea used to make good games. fifa98 is one the best footy games ever; but i guess they got too gready and big for their own good. nowadays, konami's pro evolution soccer is miles ahead of the fifa-series. the only thing ea got going for them, are liscenses. real names and players; but the gameplay is horrible."

 

 

I ahve never paid $100 for a EA sports game. Or for that matter any game.

 

And, they don't make crap games and your opinion about whether they suck or not means very little to me.

 

 

"Zoq: All I see is someone trolling."

 

That would be you. It's not trolling just because most people on this silly baord disagree with me.

 

Of course, supporting the Big Bad Evil EA tm. is considering trolling by crybabies like yourself even though all you've done in this thread is troll me.

 

Keep up the good work.

[Dante-X]

Hrm... the quality of games is ensure by competition existing. With no competition there is no reason for a gaming company (or most companies for that matter) to put in there all to win consumer favour.

 

~DX

[Drakron]

Yes but you know damn well that EA is not the only that makes football (soccer for the americans) games, several games come with editors that allow to change teams and players names, also FIFA does not have all european champisonships.

[213374U]

I see a lot of crying, I see a lot of opinions; but I see no proof.

You should get your eyes taken a look at.

[taks]

really?  wow, i should gas up where you live then.  because where i live not even ten years ago i could gas up my pos car for about $15 to $20.  now its well over $30 and closing in on $40 for a fill up.

again, gas does NOT follow the standard inflation curve. if you were old enough to buy it in the late 70s you'd know that it was $1.30 a gallon then (there were actually mile-long lines to buy gas). the same price as it was 10 years ago, the same price as it was 3 years ago. oil is a commodity that's traded on the open market, and as such, its price varies accordingly.

 

also, btw, if you actually did the math, gas is cheaper now than it has ever been. that's because it doesn't track standard inflation.

 

this concept is pretty well known by most of us... it's pretty obvious you don't follow history nor understand how commodities markets work.

 

dozens SELLING (ie. distributors).  where do you think they get their gas sources from?  there arent a dozen of sources that control the oil and gas.  dont mistake seeing shell and esso and whatever as the "monopoly" im referring to.

there are dozens of sources, too. do you not follow what's going on in the world? the US only gets 13% of its oil from the middle east. russia has oil, the US has its own oil, we also get it from venezuela and several other latin-american countries. have you been sleeping?

 

btw, where did i insult volour?  i stated that his view of monopolies is messed up at best and that indicates he doesnt have a clue about the topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bingo! you said he "doesn't have a clue about the topic." first of all, that is an insult. second of all, your arguments indicate he knows more about the subject than you do. hardly a position for you to be making clueless claims.

 

taks

[taks]

yes, i did.

no you didn't. that much is obvious. and if you did, you'd have to go back more than just 10 years.

 

and even permitting that my EXAMPLE was not a good one, that doesnt mean that what volour says about monopolies is correct, since the gas industry is probably closer to an oligopoly as it is.  so if a company with relatively few competitors can do such damage with the price of gas, how much more if there is an absolute monopoly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you just don't get it. look up the term commodity and study how it works. the gas companies themselves don't damage anything.

 

taks

[taks]

MS is a perfect example of a monopoly. You can't deny that.

yes i can. MS only owns 85% of the OS market and that number is shrinking. if we get into the workstation browser market, SUN actually has the majority (Solaris) with about a half dozen other players in the market.

 

Now, once a company has swept all competition, they can ask almost what they want for their product, without worrying too much about its quality, because there's nobody out there to dispute their market share.

study up on capitalism before making such erroneous claims. once a company begins to approach "monopoly" status, they become lethargic and inefficient. as soon as they begin "charging what they want," they draw competition into the market and oila! monopoly is gone. this happened with MS, which allowed Apple back into the fray as well as all the Linux offerings. MS is struggling to keep up and their share is dwindling along with their profit margin (this is easy to check).

 

I have provided an example and a reasoning to back my claims. Now it's your turn to do the same. The ball is in your court. If you can't, you will 'auto lose'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

done...

 

taks

[random evil guy]

"well, they DO make crap sports games and they DO charge hundreds of dollars for them. i.e. fifa99, fifa00, fifa01, fifa02,fifa03 etc etc sucked big time.

 

the worst part is, ea used to make good games. fifa98 is one the best footy games ever; but i guess they got too gready and big for their own good. nowadays, konami's pro evolution soccer is miles ahead of the fifa-series. the only thing ea got going for them, are liscenses. real names and players; but the gameplay is horrible."

 

 

I ahve never paid $100 for a EA sports game. Or for that matter any game.

 

And, they don't make crap games and your opinion about whether they suck or not means very little to me.

 

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ea makes crap footy games; it's a fact. if you knew anything about football and tried one of the fifa games, you'd know that. if you don't believe me, go read a few reviews of the games or even better; try the game for yourself. then compare it to pro evolution soccer. the difference in realism and gameplay is huge. fifa might have better graphics and real name rosters; but who the f*ck gives a sh*t about that.

 

btw, anyone who thinks fifa is a quality footy series, have obviously no idead what they're talking about. it may be fun, but it's not a realistic football game. it's an arcade game for kids...

[Volourn]

"ea makes crap footy games; it's a fact. if you knew anything about football and tried one of the fifa games, you'd know that."

 

I know enough about SOCCOR to know that EA's Fifa series is damn good. In fact, they're so damn good they actually got me to wtahc a couple of SOCCOR games on tv though I got bored. SOCCOR is fun to play; boring to play.

 

FIFA CRUSHES its competition.

 

Anyone who knew ANYTHINg about SOCCOR would know thi to be fact. You must be trolling to post such an asanine opinion like it was fact. You obviously know nothing about what you are talking about.

 

Game over. For now.

[NeverwinterKnight]

again, gas does NOT follow the standard inflation curve.  if you were old enough to buy it in the late 70s you'd know that it was $1.30 a gallon then (there were actually mile-long lines to buy gas).  the same price as it was 10 years ago, the same price as it was 3 years ago.  oil is a commodity that's traded on the open market, and as such, its price varies accordingly.

 

also, btw, if you actually did the math, gas is cheaper now than it has ever been.  that's because it doesn't track standard inflation.

 

this concept is pretty well known by most of us...  it's pretty obvious you don't follow history nor understand how commodities markets work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no offense, but wtf are you talking about? where the hell do you get your gas prices from? today's gas is selling for the SAME price as it was in the late 70's? like i said, id LOVE to gas my car up where you live if thats the case, because it sure as HELL has increased since the late 70's by a large margin. it might be skewed by inflation, but im talking actual dollar amounts. unless you can show me actual proof that salaries have risen at the same rate of gas prices including inflation, thats a flawed comment. because even if inflation has brought the "adjusted" gas prices down, it has also brought the income down too, in regards to how much disposable income a family has after all its expenses.

 

its funny how i "dont know my stuff" just because i disagree with your point of view, yet all youve done is discount what ive said without proof. lets see some actual figures where prices have remained stagnant in terms of gas prices to the consumer.

 

bingo!  you said he "doesn't have a clue about the topic."  first of all, that is an insult.  second of all, your arguments indicate he knows more about the subject than you do.  hardly a position for you to be making clueless claims.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

btw, just because YOU know your stuff, does not mean volourn does. dont confuse the arguments youve brought forward as his arguments, since hes been arguing different things than you. so dont automatically assume that hes got a better handle on things than i do just because he happens to agree with your stance.

 

that would be like saying that a chimp that nods his head when a brilliant scientist is talking is also a genius because he happens to agree with the scientist, even if he has no clue what the scientist is actually saying.

[Sargallath Abraxium]

SOCCOR is fun to play; boring to play.

 

Anyone who knew ANYTHINg about SOCCOR would know thi to be fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

...ye jus' ne'er gits tired o' placin' both o' yer smelly feet in yer yap, does ya, dwarf...so fun ta watch, yet so hard ta sit through...take a backseat Corky; the next great Idiot Savant is here and his name will flow through the Annals of Time like a bad case of Smoker's Cough...Volourn...Volourn...VOLOURN!!!...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[draakh_kimera]

About gas: here's a table of gas prices in California from the 70's to 01. Can't say anything about its accuracy.

 

Taken from Califrona Energy Commision

 

So if this is to be trusted, first off taks, it seems that gas prices vary from state to state, and, secondly, well, gas isn't cheaper now. At least not in the state of California.

[random evil guy]

"ea makes crap footy games; it's a fact. if you knew anything about football and tried one of the fifa games, you'd know that."

 

I know enough about SOCCOR to know that EA's Fifa series is damn good. In fact, they're so damn good they actually got me to wtahc a couple of SOCCOR games on tv though I got bored. SOCCOR is fun to play; boring to play.

 

FIFA  CRUSHES its competition.

 

Anyone who knew ANYTHINg about SOCCOR would know thi to be fact. You must be trolling to post such an asanine opinion like it was fact. You obviously know nothing about what you are talking about.

 

Game over. For now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

haha, have you even tried some of fifa's competitors?

 

1.what is soccor?

 

2.i've played football for nearly 15 years now and i've played footy games for about 10 years. so i'd think i know what i'm talking about...

 

3."In fact, they're so damn good they actually got me to wtahc a couple of SOCCOR games on tv though I got bored. SOCCOR is fun to play; boring to play. "

-you're basically admitting you have no clue about what you are discussing. ergo, learn a bit about football or shut up. footy games are a simulation of the real thing; therefor they should be as realistic as possible. fifa are way off; everyone who knows what they are talking about(and i do mean everyone!) considers pes(pro evolution soccer) to be vastly superior to fifa...

[Phosphor]

This thread is a disaster.