Can't say I'm necessarily surprised but all the same, fuck you EA. Really just want them to burn at this point. Any talent they may have would be better served elsewhere.
worst timeline
People that think that they will ever change so long as the current CEO is running it are insane
This will only end when EA stop making money from their games, as we saw from battlefront 2 they're making money even without the microtransactions. Bad PR and poor reviews doesn't affect their sales, at least not to a meaningful extent yet.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53033221]People that think that they will ever change so long as the current CEO is running it are insane[/QUOTE]
Things won't change much under a different CEO, I reckon. EA has money grubbing stories dating back to their founding.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;53033330]This will only end when EA stop making money from their games, as we saw from battlefront 2 they're making money even without the microtransactions. Bad PR and poor reviews doesn't affect their sales, at least not to a meaningful extent yet.[/QUOTE]
Still one of the people who isn't buying it, the campaign being shit put me off any possible future sale purchase.
[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;53033373]Things won't change much under a different CEO, I reckon. EA has money grubbing stories dating back to their founding.[/QUOTE]
CEOs have an incredible amount of influence on the company. People said the same thing about Games Workshop when their CEO was stepping down, that the new one would be just as bad.
Well, he's been fantastic. Prices have been slashed, the lore is getting more love, and necessary restructuring has happened. A ton of GW's shitty practices have come to an end. And he's the dude who got Creative Assembly to work on Total War: Warhammer.
[editline]7th January 2018[/editline]
And by the same token, the gigantic push for loot boxes in gaming over the past bunch of years is in large part due to EA's current CEO. Get rid of him and hopefully someone less scummy will take his place.
lol the last two EA games I bought were Battlefront (1), and I think the console port of one of the L4D's.
[QUOTE=Yummy Pie;53033199]worst timeline[/QUOTE]
It's only the worst timeline if everyone accepts this, it flourishes, and other companies star doing the same thing.
It's still pretty awful though, goddamn.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's been happening forever. Battlefield 1 has a ton of players but it genuinely feels like the matchmaking is just mega fucked
Honestly, monetization tactics of this degree make me think that there's a second (probably American-centric) video game crash coming.
At least EA has backpedalled on BF2 until they monetize it better(for themselves). Actibungie just says "fuck you, pay me" and continues to fuck their remaining playerbase in the ass and thinks more monetization is what's needed to keep them
[QUOTE=Dr.C;53033768]At least EA has backpedalled on BF2 until they monetize it better. Actibungie just says "fuck you, pay me" and continues to fuck their remaining playerbase in the ass and thinks more monetization is what's needed to keep them[/QUOTE]
I'm willing to bet that EA only backed down because Disney was pissed that they were making a Star Wars controversy
[QUOTE=Dr.C;53033768]At least EA has backpedalled on BF2 until they monetize it better. Actibungie just says "fuck you, pay me" and continues to fuck their remaining playerbase in the ass and thinks more monetization is what's needed to keep them[/QUOTE]
God fuck Bungie, that game is actively getting [I]worse[/I]
I don't think a crash can happen in the industry with the way things are but man I'd give my left nut if it meant the industry had a downsizing. Like have publishers and shareholders chill the fuck out, chill out with bloated budgets and these insane advertising campaigns, knock it off with the nickle and diming microtransactions, and ease up with the preorder pressure.
But that's all massively optimistic and naive thinking.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;53033330]This will only end when EA stop making money from their games, as we saw from battlefront 2 they're making money even without the microtransactions. Bad PR and poor reviews doesn't affect their sales, at least not to a meaningful extent yet.[/QUOTE]
Its easy to fall into pessimism but Battlefront 2's commercial and critical failure was a needed victory for the consumer. Their use of the Star Wars license has objectively been a disaster and Disney took notice. Battlefront 2 made them some money yes, but falling short of its goals is a serious blow as it shakes shareholders confidence (the only people they care about) and they plan future projects based on projected income which wasn't met.
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kegan;53033882]I don't think a crash can happen in the industry with the way things are but man I'd give my left nut if it meant the industry had a downsizing. Like have publishers and shareholders chill the fuck out, chill out with bloated budgets and these insane advertising campaigns, knock it off with the nickle and diming microtransactions, and ease up with the preorder pressure.
But that's all massively optimistic and naive thinking.[/QUOTE]
Our best bet is to hope the independent sector continues to push the envelope and fills our desire for quality games. CRPG's and space games where basically dead until they came along, their is a possibility they can fill the void for lower budget AAA titles without any BS.
The frustrating part is that we will never get a Star Wars game that isn't anything other than a cash in built on an assembly line until EA loses the license.
Late, but holy shit that CoD WW2 lootbox opening and co-cheering is outright dystopian to look at. Gotta get those endorphins flowing amirite!?
Don't activision already have this in place?
You are matched with players with better skins and weapons in order to make you want to buy those skins and weapons
I just don't understand, even if said player pays for something cause they're doing crap, that person that killed them time and time again is still going to be better, in turn making people stop playing..? right, if i'm understanding this right
[QUOTE=SoUl_ReApEr2;53035205]I just don't understand, even if said player pays for something cause they're doing crap, that person that killed them time and time again is still going to be better, in turn making people stop playing..? right, if i'm understanding this right[/QUOTE]
The system isn't going to necessary going to rematch them. For example, after a purchase it could match the buyer with weak players so that they'll likely win and feel good about themselves.
If they bought power, they will clearly see a link and be satisfied with their purchase working as intended. But even without a clear link it will probably lead to higher retention of users that are big spenders, since they win more frequently and thus are probably having more fun. Players don't spend anything on the other hand are undesirable, but can have some value as filler for the teams that are supposed to lose. If they stay, they're valuable victims; if they quit, the system just got rid of a "leech". That can work as long as the system isn't so extreme that the overall player population plummets and the whales move on to greener pastures.
Didn't Activision also patent something similar?
This video is crap
He is so focused on dissing EA that everything listed almost automatically has something to do with manipulating players into spending money; a single word "spending" demonize the entire research.
Figuring out how to make better games should only involve one word and that is fun? Dynamic difficulty adjustment a la Left4Dead's Director means they are trying to shove players into paying because it is EA? A research trying to prove that strictly fair skill matchmaking might not be the best style of matchmaking for engagement retention means EA is trying to hook players onto something? Going as far as quoting an isolated interview statement made few months ago to spin the semantic of a word?
Give me a break. Stick to reading articles, please.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;53035415]This video is crap
He is so focused on dissing EA that everything listed almost automatically has something to do with manipulating players into spending money; a single word "spending" demonize the entire research.
Figuring out how to make better games should only involve one word and that is fun? Dynamic difficulty adjustment a la Left4Dead's Director means they are trying to shove players into paying because it is EA? A research trying to prove that strictly fair skill matchmaking might not be the best style of matchmaking for engagement retention means EA is trying to hook players onto something? Going as far as quoting an isolated interview statement made few months ago to spin the semantic of a word?
Give me a break. Stick to reading articles, please.[/QUOTE]
I would definitely agree with you if this wasn't EA and the AAA gaming industry, but unfortunately it is and it's not a hard stretch to see where this could go. That said, I DO agree that the video title is a little sensationalist.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;53035415]This video is crap
He is so focused on dissing EA that everything listed almost automatically has something to do with manipulating players into spending money; a single word "spending" demonize the entire research.
Figuring out how to make better games should only involve one word and that is fun? Dynamic difficulty adjustment a la Left4Dead's Director means they are trying to shove players into paying because it is EA? A research trying to prove that strictly fair skill matchmaking might not be the best style of matchmaking for engagement retention means EA is trying to hook players onto something? Going as far as quoting an isolated interview statement made few months ago to spin the semantic of a word?
Give me a break. Stick to reading articles, please.[/QUOTE]
Well, Activision iirc patented a system that did exactly that...
[QUOTE=Zeos;53033573]I wouldn't be surprised if it's been happening forever. Battlefield 1 has a ton of players but it genuinely feels like the matchmaking is just mega fucked[/QUOTE]
I use the server browser on PC. The day EA gets rid of that feature in favor of matchmaking entirely is the day I abandon the series.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;53035415]This video is crap
He is so focused on dissing EA that everything listed almost automatically has something to do with manipulating players into spending money; a single word "spending" demonize the entire research.
Figuring out how to make better games should only involve one word and that is fun? Dynamic difficulty adjustment a la Left4Dead's Director means they are trying to shove players into paying because it is EA? A research trying to prove that strictly fair skill matchmaking might not be the best style of matchmaking for engagement retention means EA is trying to hook players onto something? Going as far as quoting an isolated interview statement made few months ago to spin the semantic of a word?
Give me a break. Stick to reading articles, please.[/QUOTE]
I do agree that Yong is stretching it, especially with the difficulty paper, but I don't think he's wrong about the matchmaking one. We already know that this is the current state of the western games industry, so the intention behind the matchmaking paper is pretty obvious.
We already saw it in Activision's patent; they literally patented a matchmaking system geared toward frustrating players into spending money. The language didn't even sugarcoat it, and now here we have EA saying in plain, black-and-white terms that unfair matchmaking is better than fair matchmaking for player retention.
You said yourself that [I]fun[/I] should be the only word involved in making better games, and they aren't using that word here. They're worried about player [I]retention[/I], and I think the logical conclusion to reach from that is that they want to retain players so that players are more likely to spend money. They don't care about whether or not the game is [I]fun[/I] (because I'm sure many people would agree that unfair games are not fun), they just want you to keep using their product (and giving them money).
In fact, this actually just seems like a response to Activision's patent, like a roundabout way of finding a method to do the same thing without violating the patent. I didn't check the date on EA's paper, though.
[QUOTE=Shugo;53036608]You said yourself that [I]fun[/I] should be the only word involved in making better games, and they aren't using that word here. They're worried about player [I]retention[/I], and I think the logical conclusion to reach from that is that they want to retain players so that players are more likely to spend money. They don't care about whether or not the game is [I]fun[/I] (because I'm sure many people would agree that unfair games are not fun), they just want you to keep using their product (and giving them money).[/QUOTE]
The 'fun' statement I made was rhetorical. The term "fun" is excessively ambiguous "positive feedback I'd like to receive more of", a buzzword when we couldn't concisely describe why a game or mechanic got hold of us. That word have no place in any credible research.
All those sinister-sounding business keywords have their place. Are they wrong to figure out how to keep their players in a competitive market? In an alternate timeline where run-of-the-mill RPG system is just being discovered now they would be treated as work of Satan, Skinner Box, needlessly prolonging playtime that has no place in games (also to make players more likely to pay for microtransactions because they spend more time exposed to the game!). If I'm a dev making a game and is struggling to figure out why, despite thinking that my game is engaging enough, couldn't get random strangers to stay and play my game? I have to turn to those articles for clues.
Although, I would admit that "fair competition doesn't make for the most engaging matchmaking" is a little dubious, but it is an interesting thought. What if we are wrong, and that somewhat personalized matchfixing is the way to go for overall enjoyment? (Or, to hell with enjoyment, we just want you to suffer longer, haha! Now pay up) I actually did start to suspect some games already have this system in place, recalling at times, matchmaking can wildly fluctuate. Getting stomped isn't fun, but it is a refreshing peek towards better coordination and performance, or a break from a winning streak, as odd as that may sound. It can be beneficial if done right.
In the end, as long it isn't bright as day that they are deliberately designing a system to cash in, we shouldn't be so hasty to accuse them. Heck, previously on Activision's patent, that accounted for teammates. Earning envy through getting carried by a 'veteran' isn't entirely evil, right?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
