• EA COO Peter Moore: 'We will do better'
    49 replies, posted
[url]http://www.shacknews.com/article/78596/ea-coo-we-will-do-better[/url]
You got your work cut out for you, EA, if you plan on changing.
I'm a bit surprised that he admitted they had done things wrong, i would of expected him to try to defend it all.
That's coo'
NOW you open your eyes EA?
He thinks they did Battlefield 3 right, so don't raise your hopes up here.
He also think FIFA was a good thing, you know the games that were exactly the same except for rosters names that are different.
[QUOTE=dgg;40173744]He thinks they did Battlefield 3 right, so don't raise your hopes up here.[/QUOTE] They didn't do it wrong though. That's the thing. The game is still good, it's playable, and the post-launch content has all been good (a bit iffy in the case of CQ and AK, but not awful). If anything BF3 is one of the few games they've done right recently. Don't tell me you're still hung up on the lack of mod tools? That's not a metric to judge a game on, if it were all games on console would be classed as "shit".
Isn't this their new COO? He seems like he might be able to hammer some sense into EA.
That, and Origin isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. The client itself works great, and the prices in Europe are [I]much[/I] lower than Steam's. Seriously 60 euro for a game, get fucked. I can get it retail for less than half that
[QUOTE=hexpunK;40173840]Don't tell me you're still hung up on the lack of mod tools? That's not a metric to judge a game on, if it were all games on console would be classed as "shit".[/QUOTE] Not having mod support, lying about why they can't have mod support, forcing Battlelog to get in a server. I personally think they did pretty badly. Then of course the singleplayer being absolute shit. The multiplayer is a dumbed down version of Bad Company 2 with less destruction, less map variety and less well designed maps altogether. They've got a lot of corridor design in their maps despite waving their dick around about their 64 player multiplayer maps which didn't count for that many maps. They focused on graphics and becoming CoD to the point where it seems like they several times during the development process must of forgotten that it was called Battlefield.
At this point I really don't care EA. It's like hearing "I'm not gonna cheat on you again, I promise" from a girl who rode every stick in a 10 mile radius.
I'd be pretty fucking impressed if this guy manages to turn the company around all by himself. Seems like a stretch for a big-time publisher.
comments are comedy gold. it's like you get the worst guys from neogaf, /v/, and facepunch and watch them all fight over who can leave the most passive aggressive condescending shit ever. [img]http://i.imgur.com/1W9Rvs6.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/yA0MTvi.png[/img] this is seriously one of the only times i've legitimately felt that an EA representative was like "fuck wow what the hell" and was straight up. why can't people just believe that he means well? it's not like EA is incapable of telling the truth. hell, even fucking hitler told the truth once in a while, so why is his videogame equivalent railed on so much?
[QUOTE=dgg;40173917]Not having mod support, lying about why they can't have mod support, forcing Battlelog to get in a server. I personally think they did pretty badly. Then of course the singleplayer being absolute shit. The multiplayer is a dumbed down version of Bad Company 2 with less destruction, less map variety and less well designed maps altogether. They've got a lot of corridor design in their maps despite waving their dick around about their 64 player multiplayer maps which didn't count for that many maps. They focused on graphics and becoming CoD to the point where it seems like they several times during the development process must of forgotten that it was called Battlefield.[/QUOTE] I don't want to get in a massive debate about this because it goes in circles where you won't listen because of your preformed opinions that EA are Satan, and I won't budge because I've done research and am okay with what I paid for. They didn't exactly lie about their reasons for not having mod support, they haven't given us a straight answer, but some of the DICE team have given us vague ideas as to why it's not there, and they are totally valid reasons. But it shows they kinda developed Frostbite a bit shitty. BattleLog is only a problem if you make it one, if anything it's quicker than any server browser DICE have ever produced, it works 99.999% of the time, and we get good warnings when it's going down. It's not a bad service at all, but yeah, it can make changing server a pain as you do have to close down the game. But the game starts quickly enough anyway so fuck it. The SP was shit, I won't argue against that. Buggy, uninteresting and just there to show off the engine more than anything. But the multi-player today has a lot more to it than BC2, which was the base of it if anything. At launch the MP was pretty much BC2 with a new engine and remapped classes. There is most certainly more destruction than in BC2 with the addition of later map packs though, saying otherwise is just silly. As for map design, I can count on one hand the number of vanilla maps that are corridors. Metro, Sienne and whatever that market one was. In the expansions the map variety increased quite a bit, with CQ being the only pack to be 100% corridor hell and Aftermath being slightly corridor like (if anything it is comparable to Karkand in infantry only). Please, do try again though. It was fun telling you how incorrect most of that post was.
[quote] This week, we’re seeing posts on conservative web sites urging people to protest our LGBT policy by voting EA the Worst Company in America.[/quote] are this this fucking daft? like holy fucking shit
[QUOTE=dgg;40173917]Not having mod support, lying about why they can't have mod support, forcing Battlelog to get in a server. I personally think they did pretty badly. Then of course the singleplayer being absolute shit. The multiplayer is a dumbed down version of Bad Company 2 with less destruction, less map variety and less well designed maps altogether. They've got a lot of corridor design in their maps despite waving their dick around about their 64 player multiplayer maps which didn't count for that many maps. They focused on graphics and [b]becoming CoD[/b] to the point where it seems like they several times during the development process must of forgotten that it was called Battlefield.[/QUOTE] somebody please explain what this means, i seriously have no idea. does it have to do with more tight gunplay? ironsights? class system? hitmarkers? if it's any of the above, that's not even a thing because BF2 had that shit long before the internet started to complain about call of duty.
[QUOTE=dgg;40173917]Not having mod support, lying about why they can't have mod support, forcing Battlelog to get in a server. I personally think they did pretty badly. Then of course the singleplayer being absolute shit. The multiplayer is a dumbed down version of Bad Company 2 with less destruction, less map variety and less well designed maps altogether. They've got a lot of corridor design in their maps despite waving their dick around about their 64 player multiplayer maps which didn't count for that many maps. They focused on graphics and [B]becoming CoD[/B] to the point where it seems like they several times during the development process must of forgotten that it was called Battlefield.[/QUOTE] You are fooling yourself if you actually think that it's just now becoming "cod" except with larger maps and vehicles. Unless removing that commander thing from older games immediately transforms battlefield to cod.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40174162]somebody please explain what this means, i seriously have no idea. does it have to do with more tight gunplay? ironsights? class system? hitmarkers? if it's any of the above, that's not even a thing because BF2 had that shit long before the internet started to complain about call of duty.[/QUOTE] In [url=http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/13/call-of-duty-red-orchestra-2-interview/]this article[/url] it is discussed on what makes a CoD-like game. Mostly the fast-paced, don't-think-just-shoot sort of gameplay is what CoD games go for.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40174162]somebody please explain what this means, i seriously have no idea. does it have to do with more tight gunplay? ironsights? class system? hitmarkers? if it's any of the above, that's not even a thing because BF2 had that shit long before the internet started to complain about call of duty.[/QUOTE] I would assume it would mean simpler, more corridors, less open spaces and overpowered perks. [sp]Although I haven't played BF3 or CoD so don't take my word on it.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Untouch;40174154]are this this fucking daft? like holy fucking shit[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/06/anti-gay-campaign-targets-ea[/url] [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/09/ea-fights-back-against-anti-gay-boycott-with-help-from-stephen-fry-and-yoda/[/url] [url]http://kotaku.com/5895181/family-values-group-rails-against-hypothetical-transgender-darth-vader-video-game[/url] don't dismiss my info just because the sources may be normally be fucking terrible, but for once they're not based off of dumb rumors. they're not making this shit up. the anti-gay protesting may have less of an effect than angry 15 year old PC gamers, but it's still an issue that should be brought up.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40174223][url]http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/06/anti-gay-campaign-targets-ea[/url] [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/09/ea-fights-back-against-anti-gay-boycott-with-help-from-stephen-fry-and-yoda/[/url] [url]http://kotaku.com/5895181/family-values-group-rails-against-hypothetical-transgender-darth-vader-video-game[/url] don't dismiss my info just because the sources may be normally be fucking terrible, but for once they're not based off of dumb rumors. they're not making this shit up. the anti-gay protesting may have less of an effect than angry 15 year old PC gamers, but it's still an issue that should be brought up.[/QUOTE] Every one of those articles is from 2012. If they cares so much, why do you have to pay to be gay in SWTOR? I'm not saying there aren't people against what EA's trying to do, but they're trying to shift blame and imply anyone against them is only against them because of the LGBT stuff they do.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40174223]don't dismiss my info just because the sources may be normally be fucking terrible, but for once they're not based off of dumb rumors. they're not making this shit up. the anti-gay protesting may have less of an effect than angry 15 year old PC gamers, but it's still an issue that should be brought up.[/QUOTE] Yeah I don't know why some people are against letting other people do something that will harm nothing and bother no one (except homophobes).
[QUOTE=hexpunK;40173840]They didn't do it wrong though. That's the thing. The game is still good, it's playable, and the post-launch content has all been good (a bit iffy in the case of CQ and AK, but not awful). If anything BF3 is one of the few games they've done right recently. Don't tell me you're still hung up on the lack of mod tools? That's not a metric to judge a game on, if it were all games on console would be classed as "shit".[/QUOTE] $120 for the whole game is inexcusable bullshit, not to mention the joke of a server browser, lack of ingame VOIP or tools/encouragement for teamwork, and extremely dumbed down gameplay and it absolutely doesn't help that they flat-out lied about modding and insisted the playerbase was too stupid to use any sort of SDK
[QUOTE=etrius0023;40174211]I would assume it would mean simpler, more corridors, less open spaces and overpowered perks. [spoiler]Although I haven't played BF3 or CoD so don't take my word on it.[/spoiler][/QUOTE] there's only three cases of corridors i can think of in BF3's multiplayer off the top of my head: metro, grand bazaar, and all of close quarters. with that being said, there's almost two dozen non-linear maps, like everything in b2k, ak, eg, and most of the vanilla maps. there's also no overpowered perks on par with shit like call of duty perks like juggernaut, stopping power, oma. perks are just little squad bonuses, the only bad ones i can think of are the perks that give you extra explosives, and maybe the squad supression ones. the only real similarity between mw and bf3 is uhh.... modern gun shooter guy shooting at russians, holding the right click to aim, pressing the button to knife dudes, running through fucking afghanistan, and a lot of dirt and bloom. [editline]5th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Untouch;40174241]Every one of those articles is from 2012. If they cares so much, [b]why do you have to pay to be gay in SWTOR?[/b] I'm not saying there aren't people against what EA's trying to do, but they're trying to shift blame and imply anyone against them is only against them because of the LGBT stuff they do.[/QUOTE] [quote]The new options to romance "companion" NPCS will be restricted to one planet, itself part of the content only available to paying customers rather than those taking advantage of the game's free-to-play sections,[/quote] this isn't an issue with EA/bioware deliberately segregating gay people, it's a problem with TOR itself. you can't do SHIT unless you pay. if you're an f2per in TOR, you have a LOT more to complain about than having your own special gay planet.
[QUOTE=cccritical;40174271]$120 for the whole game is inexcusable bullshit[/QUOTE] [sub][sub]Uuuuuuuuuu[/sub]uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu[/sub]uuuuuuuuuuugh. How entitled do you get. You pay 60 bucks for the game you get the game for 60 dollars. You aren't entitled to [I]anything[/I] past that for free. Someone decides to release content for free on another game? Good for them. If someone wants to charge for an addon to a game made after development? Good for them! Unless the files are literally on the disk you got what you paid for. I played vanilla BF3 for over a hundred hours while there were like 3-4 DLC packs on the market. The game that I paid 60 dollars for. EDIT: Instead of just hiding behind ratings like pussies why don't you just come out and post why this is dumb. You can rate me dumb all you goddamn want but that won't do anything towards your argument or position of "we are entitled to free content updates because.................. Valve does it and we love valve long live valve"
They fucking promised same sex marriage since the game launched and ding, you have to pay extra for it. Also it was literal segregation, they literally made a "gay planet".
[QUOTE=cccritical;40174271]$120 for the whole game is inexcusable bullshit, not to mention the joke of a server browser, lack of ingame VOIP or tools/encouragement for teamwork, and extremely dumbed down gameplay and it absolutely doesn't help that they flat-out lied about modding and insisted the playerbase was too stupid to use any sort of SDK[/QUOTE] post-game content like BF3's is completely acceptable, as they're enormous packs with huge-ass maps and extra vehicles every 4 months or so. BF3's packs are nothing like the stereotypical "day 1 on disc cut from main game DLC."
[QUOTE=cccritical;40174271]$120 for the whole game is inexcusable bullshit,[/QUOTE] whole game lol this guy [QUOTE=cccritical;40174271]not to mention the joke of a server browser,[/QUOTE] no worse than any in-game browser [QUOTE=cccritical;40174271]ack of ingame VOIP or tools/encouragement for teamwork, and extremely dumbed down gameplay[/QUOTE] yeah thats true I suppose [QUOTE=cccritical;40174271]and it absolutely doesn't help that they flat-out lied about modding and insisted the playerbase was too stupid to use any sort of SDK[/QUOTE] they didn't - you probably heard (and believed) one of the weird interpretations of it
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40174115]why can't people just believe that he means well? it's not like EA is incapable of telling the truth. hell, even fucking hitler told the truth once in a while, so why is his videogame equivalent railed on so much?[/QUOTE] The reasons why I don't believe in a single word ea says are that they lie constantly and they might win some sales if they say something like that. There's absolutely no reason not to say something like that for them. It's just another false promise. Give me a reason why should I believe them this time. Because it's not 100% certain that they're lying? Is that the best reason you can come up with?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.