Watch as EA ignore this and slowly withers and dies.
EA doesn't decide anything, the stockholders do.
You're writing to the wrong people.
[QUOTE=Untouch;39989812]EA doesn't decide anything, the stockholders do.
You're writing to the wrong people.[/QUOTE]
this is so, sadly true
[quote] There was a time when EA made bright, fun, intricate games that appealed to everyone: games like SimCity 2000, or Magic Carpet.[/quote]
I didn't realize EA published 2000. I thought they got on board right before 3000.
Nice article, but overly naive.
EA has a bad case of "let's copy Activision".
If the latest Medal of Honor doesn't sell, they won't accept this as proof that copying Activision doesn't work. They believe it's a problem with HOW they copied Call of Duty, so they try again next year, maybe change the name to Battlefield 5 or some shit.
EA is not in the business of making good games, they're in the business of making money. They'll just replace Riccitiello with someone they think will make them more money.
[QUOTE]but has found itself mired in some strange world where you’ve stopped doing sensible things and decided to do the oddest or worst thing possible.[/QUOTE]
It's shocking how true this is. Seems like every time someone from EA makes an announcement you just sit back and think "holy shit, why do you think that's a good thing?"
Seemed like an interesting article till I was the Fifa part.
What a load of utter shit.
I have been playing Fifa since I was a little kid. I must have thousands of hours on it more than any other game. I play it most evening with my mates.
It is shit. Every year there is a new exploit that half breaks the game. The other half of the game is broken by stuff that they dont even bother fixing. Offline is so dull I cant play it more than an hour and online you go through no development, be it your VP or your club whatsoever. The 'divisions' are a poor excuse for a league system.
And then there is Ultimate Team. Microtransaction heaven. Im pretty sure EA make 10fold more on this part of the game than game sales themselves.
Its rubbish. You are conned into buying packs in hope of getting 5 near impossible to find cards. All other players are so piss easy to get they are worthless and so EA keep reeling you in $$.
- Near Post OP Shots
- Rubbish Defending AI
- Rubbish Goalkeeping AI
- Rubbish Striker AI
- Rubbish Manual Controls (Not even propper manual)
- Stupid Assisted Controls
- Dull Offline Campaigns
- Lack of Depth Online Campaigns
- Pro Clubs woeful Charachter development
- Lack of Interesting Statistics
- Ultimate Team pack chances create profit for EA when they should provide better experience
Just to name a few problems in this years game.
Hopefully next years will be better
I have a strange question: What if a company goes completely against its stockholders and somehow does better than if they were to of listened?
You know what I don't get? Instead of grubbing all this negative press towards EA why not just... not post anything they do? The less we hear about it the less others do, so then people won't hear about this new game and buy it, regardless of the shit going on. If there's nobody there to hear it, then... well it just fades away quietly into obscurity, naming and shaming doesn't work any more with EA, in fact, merely benefits them.
So why not just stop talking about them?
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;39991791]You know what I don't get? Instead of grubbing all this negative press towards EA why not just... not post anything they do? The less we hear about it the less others do, so then people won't hear about this new game and buy it, regardless of the shit going on. If there's nobody there to hear it, then... well it just fades away quietly into obscurity, naming and shaming doesn't work any more with EA, in fact, merely benefits them.
So why not just stop talking about them?[/QUOTE]
Because as long as there are people making money from informing and reviewing games there is no point.
[quote]
They are all rubbish. Every single one. SimCity Social was so bad I nearly slit my wrists. Social games demean both us and you. Stop it. [/quote]
New EA CEO's response:
"Fuck you, social gaming is the future because Zynga made fucktons of money off of games that cost them almost no money or effort! We want in on that shit!"
If the guy I listen to about the game industry's prediction is right, you guys are apparently going to hate the new CEO even more.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;39997908]If the guy I listen to about the game industry's prediction is right, you guys are apparently going to hate the new CEO even more.[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=SataniX;39997916]Why?[/QUOTE]
Because he's predicting Peter Moore.
my letter would be powerful but concise
[editline]22nd March 2013[/editline]
dear boss man
don't be a dick head
[editline]22nd March 2013[/editline]
xoxoxo
[QUOTE]The Sims began life as an idea within EA. You can do it again. [/QUOTE]
Yes, It's not like Maxis actually made it or anything :downs:
Army of Two isn't a bad game, why does he call it a bad game?
[editline]22nd March 2013[/editline]
His opinion is stupid.
The problem is that EA, and many other publishers, don't really care about games. Where we see art and enjoyment, they see a "product".
People want that product. The developers somehow make that product. We'll give them money, but not too much since the product is going to be finished anyway. Cut features? What do you mean? Well will the product complete? In that case I don't see any reason to give you more money. Or time. You have enough time, to make a product. Maybe not enough to add extra features, or whatever magic you are talking about, but that doesn't matter, right? People buy that anyway. It's merchandise, it doesn't matter if it's better or worse if people keep buying it, right? No, I don't know what it really is you are doing, Developer. I know that selling it brings me money, and you too. For me there's no difference if it's a game, other software, hardware or clothing. It's something we sell. It bring us money. Does anything else matter?
[QUOTE=proch;39998288]The problem is that EA, and many other publishers, don't really care about games. Where we see art and enjoyment, they see a "product".
[/QUOTE]
That's how every creative industry works if it's trying to be profitable. Even Valve. This is real-world capitalism, not 'we do nice things for other people because we are a nice company'.
The difference is that Valve held on to their indie status and doesn't have shareholders up their butt pulling at their strings
To bad not even the openest of open letters can bring westwood studios back.
You know most of the time I can at least get how EA thinks their going to get/save money by doing something, but there's one pattern that just doesn't make sense to me:
-Bioware was hostile toward the people who complained about ME3's endings, coining the term "gamer entitlement". They very strongly implied that as the developers only their opinions mattered.
-Later, DICE was hostile towards people who used a mod that removed BF3's filter, then refused to add an option to do so officially. Their reason was that it went against "their vision".
-Still later, Maxis was hostile towards the guy that created an offline mod for SimCity, and again refused to add an option to do so officially. They gave exactly the same reason as DICE.
It's hard to believe that three EA devs having very similar outbursts towards the people who bought their own games over a relatively short span of time is just a coincidence. But what does EA even theoretically have to gain from this? The games were never "their vision", and more options isn't going to make less people buy the game. Did Bioware's handling of the ME3 ending fiasco just inspire DICE and Maxis to be dicks to modders or something?
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39998308]That's how every creative industry works if it's trying to be profitable. Even Valve. This is real-world capitalism, not 'we do nice things for other people because we are a nice company'.
The difference is that Valve held on to their indie status and doesn't have shareholders up their butt pulling at their strings[/QUOTE]
Valve does love gaming and their community as a whole because they put actual effort and money INTO it with sometimes gaining no profit at all. They aren't always fixated on money (then again their experiment in F2P gaming made them all filthy rich)
EA is like "if there is no profit, don't even think about it or be fired."
I wish EA can do a full 180 and start making some good games again. I used to play their games like battlefield 2 and 2142 and some of their need for speed games until the day they become dull, and infested with bad DRM, and microtransaction that sounds like it's more play 2 win kinda deal. I've stop playing their games the more bad reputation that company has.
I don't know what's EA's own motive going to be after the CEO is out of office in 8 more days, half of me think might be good, and half of me say it's going to be the same bad company no matter what. I wish for good things to happen, but we live in a wicked world where evils seems to prevail the most then good people do in these dark days.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;39998470]You know most of the time I can at least get how EA thinks their going to get/save money by doing something, but there's one pattern that just doesn't make sense to me:
-Bioware was hostile toward the people who complained about ME3's endings, coining the term "gamer entitlement". They very strongly implied that as the developers only their opinions mattered.
-Later, DICE was hostile towards people who used a mod that removed BF3's filter, then refused to add an option to do so officially. Their reason was that it went against "their vision".
-Still later, Maxis was hostile towards the guy that created an offline mod for SimCity, and again refused to add an option to do so officially. They gave exactly the same reason as DICE.
It's hard to believe that three EA devs having very similar outbursts towards the people who bought their own games over a relatively short span of time is just a coincidence. But what does EA even theoretically have to gain from this? The games were never "their vision", and more options isn't going to make less people buy the game. Did Bioware's handling of the ME3 ending fiasco just inspire DICE and Maxis to be dicks to modders or something?[/QUOTE]
Because gamers are entitled asses at time. They'll constantly tell companies to make games for the sake of making games but when the game isn't what they want they'll demand it be changed or to receive a refund.
Bring back spore but make it less awful. If they could pull that off I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39999080]Bring back spore but make it less awful. If they could pull that off I'd buy it in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE]
I would just love a more refined, standalone version of the space stage
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;39999079]Because gamers are entitled asses at time. They'll constantly tell companies to make games for the sake of making games but when the game isn't what they want they'll demand it be changed or to receive a refund.[/QUOTE]
I'd hardly take that as a valid reason for something like the postprocessing overlayed in BF3, they would have had loads of positive feedback over doing something like that for little effort.
The Maxis thing I can understand, because it's a bigger undertaking and probably not something they want to do after the game has been released.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
