[QUOTE=Raidyr;39447671]CoD is a decent game at it's core, it's just become far too iterative and the year to year releases are killing it's sales momentum.[/QUOTE]
Black ops 2 was pretty good though
I want you to be back like you used to be EA; Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, "2" and etc.
Saying "LOL FUCK EA" is a bit simple, they have a lot of talented people but the people who run that tent? Greedy cunts simple as that.
And this happens to the best, think of STALKER 2 for example.. that shit got plugged and the devs where all like fuck it and started Survivarium or some shit.
Meh..
[QUOTE=arthuro12;39450184]Saying "LOL FUCK EA" is a bit simple, they have a lot of talented people but the people who run that tent? Greedy cunts simple as that.[/QUOTE]
I think generally speaking people are refering to the top dogs in the company when they are criticising EA. It's a lot easier to say "fuck EA" and "EA is greedy" than to say "fuck the people who are making the decisions in EA" and "the people who are making the decisions in EA are greedy" all the time.
The Sims 3 is a good example. It was very well made and is a great game. I take my hat off to the devs. But, that said, I shouldn't have to buy an expansion pack to access something that was in the Sims 2 base game.
To me this is the best BF game
[video=youtube;E6etKViSQVg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6etKViSQVg[/video]
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;39447690]Wow the people in this thread makes me sick. Just because you don't like the company you wish they would go out of business? What about the thousands of people employed there who honestly just want to make a great game?[/QUOTE]
yea guys stop hating on companies like BP, Bank of america, Shell, etc. while your at it. They hire people who want a honest living so anything they do is perfectly ok
[QUOTE=Best4bond;39447561]The devs at EA owned dev companies are great, its sad that they have to be imprisoned in that horrible place.[/QUOTE]
They were the ones who let EA buy them.
The average person would have no idea how bad EA is, though. EA is popular, so you'd imagine a good time working there.
[QUOTE=ironman17;39448905]Fuck yeah; crash and burn you sons of bitches!
Sure it's only a "small" loss, but I dearly hope it snowballs as dumbshit investors pull out and end up reducing the publisher's value by exponential amounts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I can't wait to see a shit ton of people go jobless.
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;39451151]Yeah I can't wait to see a shit ton of people go jobless.[/QUOTE]
If EA is suffering continued losses under the same CEO, it'd be more wise for them to ditch their current CEO and replace him with someone who can do the job well. If someone isn't doing their job, they'd get fired without a doubt. No one should expect any different, regardless if they work a minimum wage job or a CEO position.
[QUOTE=DruggedEllis;39448161][video=youtube;vg0Tmydj29M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg0Tmydj29M[/video]
I like this one better.[/QUOTE]
No no no no no no
[video=youtube;rX-3b1DK-4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX-3b1DK-4s[/video]
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
and with Battlefield 3 they just turned such an epic theme into static.... so sad :(
[QUOTE=RichyZ;39452554]ea is robbing america i am the 99%[/QUOTE]Well, they were voted as the worst company in Consumerist's poll, beating Bank of America in the final round.
[QUOTE=Ermac20;39450144]Black ops 2 was pretty good though[/QUOTE]
I like the game I just can't get myself to play it. I'm sitting at about 40 hours which isn't terrible but I played Black Ops 1 much more than that. I think the CoD series just released too fast for me personally.
[QUOTE=Wii60;39450517]yea guys stop hating on companies like BP, Bank of america, Shell, etc. while your at it. They hire people who want a honest living so anything they do is perfectly ok[/QUOTE]
You are exaggerating. Nobody ever said everything EA does is perfectly okay, just hoping that the largest video games publisher goes under, taking hundreds/thousands of workers down with it and millions in capital just because they make overpriced DLC and occasionally mediocre games is extremely shortsighted. Not to mention comparing the company that releases video games to the company that purposefully sold toxic mortgages to people who wouldn't be able to pay them, then betting against their own customers, helping to create a housing bubble and fueling one of the worst worldwide economic recession in decades.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39452587]Well, they were voted as the worst company in Consumerist's poll, beating Bank of America in the final round.[/QUOTE]
All that really shows is how ignorant people are. A video game publisher should never win a worst company contest because they [I]publish fucking video games. [/I]
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;39448335]Valve are a special case, they should never be brought up in these discussions because they are more retail store than an actual game company. Their development costs are covered by selling other people's games, without having to worry about physical distribution.[/QUOTE]
Yeah doesn't have anything to do with making about 4 of the most popular PC games ever.
Valve was doing terrible until steam started doing mass distribution!
[QUOTE=Jackald;39447541][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T_LT8-uuX4[/media][/QUOTE]
I have a feeling this video is always going to make me smile
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;39448040]AAA video game companeis fail because they cant grasp the concept of creating market stability or customer gratitude, Let alone the top of command being completely clueless about the medium.
For the millionth time, look at valve. They spend as much of their time reaching out to the community as they do making games, (if not more....) They comb the community for talented individuals, give us tools to proove ourselves AS talented individials. And through their pure understanding of the functions of the medium, they keep reinventing the way it works.
for not to mention, their complete and utter dedication to making the value best for the consumer, not nescessarily themselves.[/QUOTE]
Let's be honest here - one of the core income streams for valve is Steam which allows them to experiment much better than virtually any game company.
[QUOTE=Psychopath12;39451198]If EA is suffering continued losses under the same CEO, it'd be more wise for them to ditch their current CEO and replace him with someone who can do the job well. If someone isn't doing their job, they'd get fired without a doubt. No one should expect any different, regardless if they work a minimum wage job or a CEO position.[/QUOTE]
They actually make annual profit. It seems like though, that this is usually their weakest quarter. Notice that they changed their earnings to some 3billion.
[QUOTE=Harry3;39452535]No no no no no no
[video=youtube;rX-3b1DK-4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX-3b1DK-4s[/video]
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
and with Battlefield 3 they just turned such an epic theme into static.... so sad :([/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0456vAP8Dn0[/media]
Edit: I don't know why it plays in reverse at the end.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39453774]Let's be honest here - one of the core income streams for valve is Steam which allows them to experiment much better than virtually any game company.[/QUOTE]Steam was itself a very risky experiment that just panned out in an unbelievable way.
EA doesn't realise that the Command and Conquer fans haven't disappeared, they've just retired. Anytime somebody posts something CnC related, you get this tsunami of nostalgic comments saying how much they enjoyed the game (with exception of [I]the one[/I]).
If they drop the F2P concept and advertise (maybe also a formal apology for [I]the one[/I]) the upcoming game a bit more, I bet all those veterans will come back to the ranch in hordes.
EA falling would be massively damaging to the industry. People wishing it to happen are moronic to do so. EA are one of the biggest publishers (Activision is their only rival of note to be honest). If they collapse, their studios would have to either be sold, or destroyed. And any IP they have would also require selling.
Now, other than Activision, who are known to destroy a studio to create some weird, blobbish CoD development studio when their games don't sell well, is going to be able to take most of these studios and IPs off of EA, and still have the money to get them pumping out good games? Every other major publisher (barring Valve, who aren't exactly major) has worse business practices in some areas than EA. Activision charge loads for very little, Ubisoft slap DRM on everything to an obscene degree, THQ...uhhh, 2K? Nope, Square Enix, u 'avin a giggle m8?
While EA have some questionable business practices, they are hardly the worst. All they really need to do is get a management team who actually listen to the feedback from fans (to some extent, listening to everything the fans say would ruin you), and are willing to take risks. EA do make good games, but sometimes those games have questionable design choices. It doesn't stop the game being good, it just detracts from it slightly.
"Shit, we're losing money! More gray and brown! More microtransactions!"
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39453210]Yeah doesn't have anything to do with making about 4 of the most popular PC games ever.
Valve was doing terrible until steam started doing mass distribution![/QUOTE]
They were doing fine in a time where a 50 dollar game was enough to cover the costs of development with no problems. Different time.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39447885]You think those people are better off under EA? The company that pushes crippling and borderline inhumane work hours, inadequate pay for non-management employees, destroys entire development studios just to cannibalize their IPs into other studios to cut down on employee payments while forcing others to continue working previously stated grueling work hours? In a field where, unless you are a major name in the industry/management, you may not even be kept to the end of the project? Given the success of smaller studios and Indie devs, if they genuinely have a passion for the field, there are plenty of places for them to go and virtually all of them better by no small margin. And with these devs going separate ways and heading to other studios, it means the recipients will be getting a wealth of fresh new talent and creativity.
Would it hurt for everyone in the short-term? Of course. Would it be better for everyone in the long-term? Absolutely.[/QUOTE]
I hope you realize that this can apply to literally ANY developer under a publisher.
Development teams are fucking hell during crunch time.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=ironman17;39448905]Fuck yeah; crash and burn you sons of bitches!
Sure it's only a "small" loss, but I dearly hope it snowballs as dumbshit investors pull out and end up reducing the publisher's value by exponential amounts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, fuck all of those developers who want to make great games.
I hope they all lose their jobs because hurr durr rip westwood i wish all games were like valve
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;39449934]COD was good. Why am I like the only one in SH who liked the games? (Except MW3, which was really bad.)[/QUOTE]
It's more of a bandwagon thing.
The only truly bad cod game, as you said, was MW3.
Fun at times, but mostly just crap. Nothing feels right. Graphics somehow are horrible due to whatever filter rape they did to them, sounds are complete rehashes (they switched the deagle sound to the .44mag) and just sound extremely bad, maps have THE worst design I've ever seen, and the singleplayer was so boring that I didn't even finish it.
Best cod was the old ones and CoD4, MW2 aswell if you can get past its problems, which I did and honestly got a lot of fun out of it, even got sad that it had such a short lifespan. Blops are ok aswell.
What really killed the MW series was being turned into a yearly release and releasing MW3, where there was little to nothing new and things somehow looked and sounded worse. Contrary to the usual bandwagon where "everything is bad".
Now that I mentioned it, I really wish they had done a proper job with MW2. Giving it dedicated servers, proper gamemodes like cod4 had...
To me, the only truly bad part of EA is EALA, which ruined TONS of games (I.E C&C 4)
[QUOTE=icemaz;39447712]Call of Duty came out in 2003 while Battlefield 1942 came out in 2002. Medal of Honour didn't really get good until Allied Assault again in 2002.
Medal of Honour kinda deserved to die in the 00's, they milked it to shit.[/QUOTE]
wrong
pacific assault
[QUOTE=ironman17;39448905]Fuck yeah; crash and burn you sons of bitches!
Sure it's only a "small" loss, but I dearly hope it snowballs as dumbshit investors pull out and end up reducing the publisher's value by exponential amounts.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/429/974/78b.gif[/img]
If EA goes down the impact on the industry will be catastrophic, you should go see a list of IPs and dev studios under EA and tell me those won't impact us in the slightest.
[QUOTE=Linkmister;39455615][img]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/429/974/78b.gif[/img]
If EA goes down the impact on the industry will be catastrophic, you should go see a list of IPs and dev studios under EA and tell me those won't impact us in the slightest.[/QUOTE]
no dude, ironman is right
if the "eldritch horror evil" (actual words said by ironman in past ea threads) EA goes down the shitter, then all indie developers and lower-level publishers will rejoice, and be [b]assured that the game industry is a safe place to make money in after the single most successful publisher went under[/b]
clearly dude
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;39455080]They were doing fine in a time where a 50 dollar game was enough to cover the costs of development with no problems. Different time.[/QUOTE]
That is such a terrible argument. While video games cost more to make on average now, they also sell far, far more copies than they used to.
Take Medal of Honor Warfighter (since that's what the article references). Fairly cutting edge; probably had high development costs, but it was a totally shit game. It was a flagrant cash-grab attempt at the modern warfare shooter market and it blew up in their faces because it was a flaccid game with a tired shtick. The developer and publisher have nobody to blame but themselves. It doesn't indicate that the game market is changing, it just indicates that they are spending a lot of money to make crappy games.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;39456105]no dude, ironman is right
if the "eldritch horror evil" (actual words said by ironman in past ea threads) EA goes down the shitter, then all indie developers and lower-level publishers will rejoice, and be [b]assured that the game industry is a safe place to make money in after the single most successful publisher went under[/b]
clearly dude[/QUOTE]
Obviously not so successful anymore.
They challenged too much.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.