EA lives in a different reality

[Tale]

This a completely consumer driven concept, so I don't get all the EA flaming.  It makes sense to flame them when they grind up a developer, or they use draconian DRM.  But this is very basic business, they are offering a service and people are buying it.  

 

Also EA is a much healthier company than people are making it out to be.  Financially it brings in a ton of revenue.  It has had some bad quarters where expenses were too high, but it really isn't close to ruin.

I'm with Sterling, I don't see how point out that people buy it or that it's consumerism is a defense. That's not a good thing, it is, at best, neutral. And given that what they want and what I want are in disagreement in this context, I can slide that neutral into negative without any qualms.

 

When a company does something people disagree with, they are right to express their opinions.

[Hurlshort]

I just think it would be more productive to convince people to not spend money on it, rather than going after the company for offering it.  Because when you phrase it as OMG EA is teh EVIL EMPIRE it just sounds silly.  They are selling video games, not withholding the cure for some disease.  You can convince people that DLC and microtransactions are bad for the consumers without sounding ridiculous.

[alanschu]

@Tale

 

It's one thing to disagree with the direction.  If you disagree, feel free to vocalize your disagreement and I absolutely encourage you to not play it (otherwise you just send mixed signals).

 

It's another thing to literally state something like how BioWare or EA need to die.  Especially as the industry starts to appreciate the advantages that digital distribution can provide (i.e. projects like Project Eternity, Wasteland 2, Torment 2, etc.).  It makes me raise an eyebrow when someone says they're proud to not buy BioWare games anymore.

 

 

I don't really care for Call of Duty games.  The last one that I played was Modern Warfare, which was fun enough but those games are ones that I`d only buy at a very low price point.  I don't want Activision to die or disappear, and I'd argue that the large amount of sales those games get are reflective of their customers, in general, actually being satisfied with the products they receive.  In this sense, if "people buying it" is not a defense, does this mean that you feel people buy it despite liking it?  Is this why someone can feel "proud" of no longer buying games from a particular company?  Is this why someone would want to see a company that doesn't make games that a particular person wants should die and go out of business?

 

My best assumption is that these gamers obviously see it as a slippery slope, and feel fans are some what slaves to their desires to game.  As such, feelings such as pride for stopping buying can occur.  I guess I am victim of using myself as an anecdote to hold others too.  I consider myself an exceptionally avid gamer, but I never consider myself a slave to my hobby.  Even the most "must have" games are games that, at its core, are things I'd still be able to live without.  If I can't afford a game, I don't buy it.  Or the host of other reasons for not purchasing.

 

I try my best to make informed decisions, and even though I stopped purchasing Ubisoft games with their level of Always On DRM (since I didn't feel the games were worth that), I didn't want Ubisoft destroyed nor did I feel any pride in no longer buying Ubisoft games.  I just didn't buy Ubisoft games.

Edited March 1, 2013 by alanschu

[rjshae]

Bean Counters: Origins

[Nonek]

The old Evil Ascendant certainly seem to have a knack for alienating potential customers, then again they're not alone in that, seems most publishers want their customers to abide by their rules rather than pleasing them. Strange business practise.

[alanschu]

The trouble comes when people are "pleased" by different things.

 

I love Steam, and probably wouldn't mind if Steam became more prevalent and certainly don't care when a game is Steam exclusive.  I like their services and Valve certainly pleases me with their product.

 

Someone that hates Steam (which is perfectly valid), is decidedly less pleased with the proliferation of Steam.  So is Valve just doing things to spite what "pleases" their customers?

Edited March 1, 2013 by alanschu

[Malcador]

@Tale

 

It's one thing to disagree with the direction.  If you disagree, feel free to vocalize your disagreement and I absolutely encourage you to not play it (otherwise you just send mixed signals).

 

It's another thing to literally state something like how BioWare or EA need to die.  Especially as the industry starts to appreciate the advantages that digital distribution can provide (i.e. projects like Project Eternity, Wasteland 2, Torment 2, etc.).  It makes me raise an eyebrow when someone says they're proud to not buy BioWare games anymore.

 

 

I don't really care for Call of Duty games.  The last one that I played was Modern Warfare, which was fun enough but those games are ones that I`d only buy at a very low price point.  I don't want Activision to die or disappear, and I'd argue that the large amount of sales those games get are reflective of their customers, in general, actually being satisfied with the products they receive.  In this sense, if "people buying it" is not a defense, does this mean that you feel people buy it despite liking it?  Is this why someone can feel "proud" of no longer buying games from a particular company?  Is this why someone would want to see a company that doesn't make games that a particular person wants should die and go out of business?

 

My best assumption is that these gamers obviously see it as a slippery slope, and feel fans are some what slaves to their desires to game.  As such, feelings such as pride for stopping buying can occur.  I guess I am victim of using myself as an anecdote to hold others too.  I consider myself an exceptionally avid gamer, but I never consider myself a slave to my hobby.  Even the most "must have" games are games that, at its core, are things I'd still be able to live without.  If I can't afford a game, I don't buy it.  Or the host of other reasons for not purchasing.

 

I try my best to make informed decisions, and even though I stopped purchasing Ubisoft games with their level of Always On DRM (since I didn't feel the games were worth that), I didn't want Ubisoft destroyed nor did I feel any pride in no longer buying Ubisoft games.  I just didn't buy Ubisoft games.

Not seeing any issue with people being 'proud' with not buying any games from a company - they've made their decision to not bother, after all which is generally in line with your thinking. Minor distinction anyway between convincing people to not buy Ubisoft games which affects their income and stating that you'd like to see the company crumble, if you think about it.

 

People verbally bashing on the company is fine as well, people expressing their dislike in a way, I always just read that as the person stating they'd not care a whit about the company blowing up. It's not as if they're planning to murder key company men or something really worth distressing over.

[Calax]

The old Evil Ascendant certainly seem to have a knack for alienating potential customers, then again they're not alone in that, seems most publishers want their customers to abide by their rules rather than pleasing them. Strange business practise.

Well, due to the nature of the industry, they're the ones allowed to set those rules. They're pouring more money into games than movies now, but games aren't generating as much revenue due to the fact that players are getting 2-3-10 times as much distraction from the leisure activity. So the companies have to find some way to keep that particular product pumping out revenue.

 

Could they go about it in a more friendly fashion? Sure, but the industry feels like it's hitting the point where the controlling execs are arrogant jerks who feel like they can do what they want because they control what's put on the market. Valves Project Greenlight and Kickstarter in general are starting to chip away at it, but I doubt you'll see many games published due to those publishing platforms that are anything but niche.

 

EA and Activision have spent a few years like children fighting over a toy. I don't know why, but the keynote speech at the E3 EA press conference 2 years ago really bugged me when John Ricitello(?) deliberately called attention to the legal mess that was the IW/Respawn entertainment battle. Basically it felt like he was telling Bobby Kotick "Nyah nyah nyah! I stole your employees!" which is a REAL no-no in any industry. But they can get away with it because they're the two biggest publishers and nobody's really been able to crack their profits.

 

Their closest competitors are Ubisoft, who stab themselves anytime they start picking up the pace, and have NO IDEA what "Public Image" means (their E3 disasters, PC DRM stuff). THQ who just went under for about 6 years of REALLY stupid contracts. Take Two who have Rockstar, 2k, and three other franchises that are big deals but that's about it. When you get down to it, the Games industry is a very homogeneous bunch, but don't seem to have the business experience that an industry like auto makers would have.

 

IF Project Eternity ends up commercially viable, you'll see quite a few changes in how business is done. The Publishers will end up with a lot of power being lost because a developer can stake their reputation on their dream game and go to the customers straight instead of having to make a deal with the publisher. If P:E fails (as much as you may not like it, this is a possibility) then it's back to business as usual with OE needing to go back to a publisher for their projects.

[Hurlshort]

Oddly enough, Penny Arcade just did a comic and an article on this stuff today.

[Nonek]

I guess i'm just old fashioned that in a time of diminishing returns and sales I can't see any reason to be restricting players access to products, trying to intrude on their passtimes or dictating the times when they can access it. In my mind if sales are slumping, then pile it high and sell it cheap on the players terms, not on your own. They're the ones with the wallet, and should be respected and catered to not blamed. Seems only GOG does this.

[Tale]

I just think it would be more productive to convince people to not spend money on it, rather than going after the company for offering it.  Because when you phrase it as OMG EA is teh EVIL EMPIRE it just sounds silly.  They are selling video games, not withholding the cure for some disease.  You can convince people that DLC and microtransactions are bad for the consumers without sounding ridiculous.

 

I just did CTRL+F for "evil" on all three pages of this thread.

Page 1: Not found.

Page 2: 1 instance. Someone mentioning that EA is singled out because everyone else thinks EA is evil.

Page 3: You.

 

So here we have a three page discussion that includes people disliking what EA is doing and not one of them is calling EA an evil empire for it. What seems silly to me is that you're either misrepresenting those who disagree with it, or you're cherry picking parts of the audience that aren't even present in order to dismiss the discussion.

 

 

@Tale

 

It's one thing to disagree with the direction.  If you disagree, feel free to vocalize your disagreement and I absolutely encourage you to not play it (otherwise you just send mixed signals).

 

It's another thing to literally state something like how BioWare or EA need to die.

Who are you arguing with here? Similar to "evil," nobody in this thread has said that EA needs to die. What point are you making by pointing at people that aren't even involved in our discussion?

 

That's not far removed from bringing up the developers that fell under EA's management. It strikes me as simply trying to win over sympathies with off-topic commentary.

[Malekith]

I guess i'm just old fashioned that in a time of diminishing returns and sales I can't see any reason to be restricting players access to products, trying to intrude on their passtimes or dictating the times when they can access it. In my mind if sales are slumping, then pile it high and sell it cheap on the players terms, not on your own. They're the ones with the wallet, and should be respected and catered to not blamed. Seems only GOG does this.

There are people out there who have absolutely no problem with the publisers.If the majority of gamers refuse to buy the products, they have the power to do what they want.until that happens(and it's not going to happen) whatever power they have is dormant

[Orogun01]

 

I guess i'm just old fashioned that in a time of diminishing returns and sales I can't see any reason to be restricting players access to products, trying to intrude on their passtimes or dictating the times when they can access it. In my mind if sales are slumping, then pile it high and sell it cheap on the players terms, not on your own. They're the ones with the wallet, and should be respected and catered to not blamed. Seems only GOG does this.

There are people out there who have absolutely no problem with the publisers.If the majority of gamers refuse to buy the products, they have the power to do what they want.until that happens(and it's not going to happen) whatever power they have is dormant

Meanwhile they bury some beloved franchises under a sea of banality.

If a single game is bad because it tries too hard to be another; more successful, game then it is reasonable to believe that the fault lies with the developer.

If every game released by a single publishing company is like this, then it's reasonable to believe that this is the publisher's direction that's affecting the games.

 

Yes there are people with no problem with the publishers and without any real emotional investment on games as an industry or any desire for something more. Publishers are not doing any favors to the industry by trying to make it more like the bad habits of Hollywoood.

[Nonek]

I used the term Evil Ascendant for EA Tale, but I can't claim that's mine, I stumbled upon it on the Witcher forums a while back.

[Mamoulian War]

This is the mentioned image

 

[Hurlshort]

Tale, the thread title itself is a dig at EA, even though it doesn't use the word evil.  It isn't an uncommon sentiment around here, so I'm not sure where you are going with this. I've also said that I fully support criticizing EA for legitimate reasons like DRM or handling developers badly.  But they are a business, and I think criticizing them for making money off their products is silly.    

Edited March 1, 2013 by Hurlshot

[Malekith]

Tale, the thread title itself is a dig at EA, even though it doesn't use the word evil.  It isn't an uncommon sentiment around here, so I'm not sure where you are going with this. I've also said that I fully support criticizing EA for legitimate reasons like DRM or handling developers badly.  But they are a business, and I think criticizing them for making money off their products is silly.    

EA, and others but EA is the most blatant at it, represents what is wrong with the industry.Paying ever increasing amounts of money for ever decreasing returns,don't own your own games,games as a servise etc. This whole direction that many gamers find abhorrent. So it's natural for these people to wish this practise makes them crush and burn, because if they are succesfull and make money this way, the others will follow EA. Its not about the "evil" EA but a hope that the direction of the intustry will lead it to a dead end,forsing it to change.

I don't care about the EA games, so i don't give a rat's ass what EA does to their customers.  But if that leads to others copying EA practices to making business, then it becomes my problem. So i would prefer if every attempt to milk their customers backfire spectacularly.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Malekith

[alanschu]

 

Not seeing any issue with people being 'proud' with not buying any games from a company - they've made their decision to not bother, after all which is generally in line with your thinking.

 

I just find it an unusual thing to be proud of.  I'm proud of getting a University degree, proud of myself for exceeding my fundraising goals, becoming financially independent from my family, buying my own home, and so forth.

 

But fair enough, it's not my place to pass such judgments.

 

 

 

Minor distinction anyway between convincing people to not buy Ubisoft games which affects their income and stating that you'd like to see the company crumble, if you think about it.

 

I'm not convincing people to not buy Ubisoft products though.  In fact, I hated that groups DDoS'd other people to prove a point.

[BBMorti]

Well, as I've gotten older I definitely find myself having a lot less time for gaming (especially compared to my teens).  I actually dislike the notion that games are "dumbed down for the console kiddies."

 

When I was a teenager 12 hour marathon game sessions were a weekly occurrence (often both weekend days), and never mind summer holidays from school.  I'm still single and I don't have as much time for gaming, just because I have a lot of other stuff going on in my life as well.

 

I can understand the idea of someone trading time for money (that's why Facebook games are successful).  It's just not something that I do.  That might be different if I was a lot more affluent.

Are you finding yourself in a hurry to complete the games as you get older? If not, then I don't really see the logic in this notion. Who cares that you have to take more breaks to complete the game.. that you have to do it in 10 sessions instead of one 12-hour marathon session.

[BBMorti]

Tale, the thread title itself is a dig at EA, even though it doesn't use the word evil.  It isn't an uncommon sentiment around here, so I'm not sure where you are going with this. I've also said that I fully support criticizing EA for legitimate reasons like DRM or handling developers badly.  But they are a business, and I think criticizing them for making money off their products is silly.    

This logic only makes any sense if you think it should be standard practice to make money at any cost, making money of their products can be done in many ways. When a company picks a certain way of making money they open themselves up for criticism they might not receive were they going for a different approach.

Edited March 1, 2013 by BBMorti

[Darkpriest]

 

Well, as I've gotten older I definitely find myself having a lot less time for gaming (especially compared to my teens).  I actually dislike the notion that games are "dumbed down for the console kiddies."

 

When I was a teenager 12 hour marathon game sessions were a weekly occurrence (often both weekend days), and never mind summer holidays from school.  I'm still single and I don't have as much time for gaming, just because I have a lot of other stuff going on in my life as well.

 

I can understand the idea of someone trading time for money (that's why Facebook games are successful).  It's just not something that I do.  That might be different if I was a lot more affluent.

Are you finding yourself in a hurry to complete the games as you get older? If not, then I don't really see the logic in this notion. Who cares that you have to take more breaks to complete the game.. that you have to do it in 10 sessions instead of one 12-hour marathon session.

 

Well in my case it's a case of getting sucked in again into the game. If I make a save and get out of the game, and leave it for say 2-3 days, it's sometimes hard to get back to it. It has to be really awesome to get back my attention, and that usually means good plot line, or excellent tactical/strategy challange vs gameplay ratio.

 

I used to have time to complte a full new RPG in one weekend going into some unhealthy marathons now it's not really a case. I like DotA, good RTS, and good TBS, which get my attention for 1-3h in which I can complete a scenario/match or 3. Other kind of games need to have excellent plot lines and story telling experience. That's why I hate sandboxes... I have hard time getting into them and even worse after some break.

[Malcador]

I just find it an unusual thing to be proud of.  I'm proud of getting a University degree, proud of myself for exceeding my fundraising goals, becoming financially independent from my family, buying my own home, and so forth.

 

But fair enough, it's not my place to pass such judgments.

 

I'm not convincing people to not buy Ubisoft products though.  In fact, I hated that groups DDoS'd other people to prove a point.

Well I'm not privy to the example you are, I'm just imagining it as people posting it online without some sheepish or guilty tone as 'proud'. Also people who say they'll personally boycott a product deal with cheap shots about how gamers have no balls when it comes to such things so people disproving that are probably proud of the fact.

[alanschu]

 

This whole direction that many gamers find abhorrent. So it's natural for these people to wish this practise makes them crush and burn, because if they are succesfull and make money this way, the others will follow EA. Its not about the "evil" EA but a hope that the direction of the intustry will lead it to a dead end,forsing it to change. I don't care about the EA games, so i don't give a rat's ass what EA does to their customers.  But if that leads to others copying EA practices to making business, then it becomes my problem. So i would prefer if every attempt to milk their customers backfire spectacularly.

 

If there's enough people that dislike this (and it seems like there is), then that means there's a market for games that don't treat games as a service.  Look at Kickstarter and so forth.

 

 

 

Are you finding yourself in a hurry to complete the games as you get older? If not, then I don't really see the logic in this notion. Who cares that you have to take more breaks to complete the game.. that you have to do it in 10 sessions instead of one 12-hour marathon session.

 

When I leave a game for some time and come back to it, it's very different.  Especially if I don't get much of an opportunity to play it for some time.  Even a decade ago, when I had to stop playing Morrowind for a month, when I came back I was disinterested in trying to figure out what exactly I was doing and so forth, and that's when I had more time for games.  I just stopped playing Morrowind.  I knew how long it took for me to get where I was, and wasn't really interested in going through all that again (which i suppose is a testament to what I thought of the game)

 

 

I have had several games of War in the Pacific (a hardcore strategy game) peter out before I have won (or lost) because it's a game that effectively takes months of time to complete (fortunately it's an awesome game so I can keep coming back).  An advantage it has, however, over a story based RPG is I don't need to remember the story.  I can load the game up a long time later and, even if I don't remember my plans months ago, I can at least formulate a new plan.

 

 

It should be noted, however, that I was drawing an analogue.  I don't buy MTX to speed my way through games, so your critique is a bit off.  For someone that has much less time than I, but loves the story of the game they are playing, if they want to MTX their way to getting through the content faster, I don't really care.  It'd be the same as me chastising someone for using a cheat code to get past content they weren't finding interesting.

 

And before people talk about how the addition to MTX games will just encourage developers to add more grind, in my opinion grind has already existed *a lot* for years and decades even.  Especially in RPGs.  So if a game has "grinding" in it, I'm skeptical that it's sole existence is attributed to the presence of MTX.  Grinding in large part exists because gamers have already been quite vocal in stating how important length is for their game.

[Zoraptor]

I wish people would be a little bit more consistent in their criticism. Paradox releases a bunch of cheap games, often of rather... questionable quality, which are basically "throw ideas at wall, see which stick" trying to replicate the success of Magicka, and they are effectively glorified dlc front ends. By and large they get away with that strategy with little criticism, yet it is hardly a million miles from EA's. They both do it for the same reasons, the sort of people who buy awesome robe and staff dlc for Magicka/ appearance pack 212 for The Sims are easy to sell to, as opposed to discerning consumers of good taste, refinement and breeding, who are hard to sell to, and it is inherently easier to get people to spend small amounts of money. All businesses love their customers being easy to sell to, so that is what they aim for. The inconsistency is really obvious on a site like RPS where they mine hits by OMG EA! Ubi! Acti! headlines about every week knowing that there'll be a Pavlovian response, but if a smaller company decides to do something like mine dlc for cash it doesn't even rate a mention in their "here's the latest shovelware" release news. And if Valve were ever to start doing microtransactions or frivolous dlc, or randomised drops sold for cash with a share going to Valve in an auction house, in that purely theoretical universe I'm sure they'd be crusading against that as well*.

 

I quite often find I don't end up finishing games any more because I cannot play them for a few days, or a week or two and simply lose the thread of what I was doing. It's happened to me at least three times in both Gothic 2&3 neither of which I have finished despite enjoying both. In contrast, I finished BG2 in 5 days when it came out despite being in uni- and just prior to exam time, too.

 

*Not specifically a dig at Valve (want to take it as such, go to the Steam suxxors! thread) who are after all just monetising markets like EA do, more so at the double standards even the more highly rated games journalists and especially the internet at large have.

 

[1000 posts on vaguely on topic stuff, party time!]

Edited March 1, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Rostere]

I love paying for DLC for products I support. A prime example of this is the array of DLC/ digital expansions for CK2 and other Paradox games (I find myself immensely enjoying small, banal things like additional game music, for example).

 

If PE is the old-school RPG I hope it is, I will look forward to pay for heaps of additional content for it as well.

 

In games such as SC2, I fully support the practice of releasing customization stuff like skins to buy if it's financially sound for Blizzard. D3's auction house however is a travesty. 

 

Now this system of paying to get an in-game advantage in singleplayer (or even worse, in multiplayer) is ****. I won't pay a single penny for a game employing that principle.

 

EA and the other "usual suspects" mentioned in this thread only produce **** nowadays anyway, so I don't care a lot about what they do. Actually, I also haven't bought any Bioware game since the disappointment that was NWN. I'm pretty strict about not buying from companies I don't like. On the other hand, ironically, I buy all Bioware's new games on console as christmas presents for my younger brother, in the vain hope that he will one day become a CRPG fan and get into the older, classy games.