As mentioned before, I'm okay that they're killing it rather than dragging it to hell.
What is it with EA and making the third in a trilogy "the best time to get new people onboard"?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39807214]This is what I mean by management. Far Cry 3 sold 4.5 million copies in about the same amount of time and Ubisoft considers it a higher-than-expected success. There has to be something wrong at EA, either how resources or allocated or on who is doing the math.[/QUOTE]
They expected way too much like Zedacon said.
I have no idea why do they expect to sell so much. This isnt cod or the multiplayer sensation of the decade that everyone buys.
Just out of curiosity I checked the numbers and from what I gather thinking DS3 would sell 5 million copies was a bit far fetched. I'm a fan of DS games and I enjoyed DS3 for the most part but it is much easier than the previous games. So in the end it suffered unnecessary changes and got canned anyway. Fucking sucks.
This makes me wonder if EA even makes some new IPs in the future seeing how they focus more on money making than anything else.
Well I don't mind really but I know someone who loves the series to death and will be mighty disappointed. That makes me sad. :(
[QUOTE=Legolas;39807342]Well I don't mind really but I know someone who loves the series to death and will be mighty disappointed. That makes me sad. :([/QUOTE]
If they really love the series (I know I did), I think it's better to see it go off on a somewhat good note, than get milked to death and die in a horrible way.
Yeah it ended on a fairly high note. DS3 wasn't as memorable as DS2 but it still had solid design and a mostly engaging story. Trilogies have ended in worse ways for sure.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39807189]1. you can ignore microtransactions
2. co-op is actually a shitload of fun
4. origin really isn't that bad
it's a shame that a genuinely good game probably sold less copies than it deserved, but most of the blame has to be on EA's ridiculous management. Just because a game doesn't outsell it's predecessor doesn't mean you have to shitcan the franchise.[/QUOTE]
1. You can, but the fact that they're there in a game like this just shows EA's greed.
2. It may be, but they used a character that never existed, if you have a used copy for PS3/360 you can't play without buying an activation code (more greed), and it also ruins the SP experience because in the cutscenes where Carver shows up, he just pops up out of nowhere and then vanishes into nowhere when it's done.
4. Steam's better. Origin almost never has sales (guess what, more greed).
I agree that Dead Space 3 is a good game, but it's a horrible [I]Dead Space[/I] game.
feel this is relevant, as they were also victims of EA's knobjockery
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFmbGWeZrAM[/media]
[QUOTE=FpShepard;39807239]Or they are just greedy.[/QUOTE]
That and I think we're in a huge gaming bubble right now. These companies keep inflating the budgets to insane levels, which require more and more sales to sustain them, + profits.
I fear this will become a common thing, namely driving more and more franchises to the grave by publishers like EA.
well at least it's not going to be milked beyond a nice trilogy.
[quote]UPDATE: Dino Ignacio, UI Lead at Dead Space developer Visceral Games, has denied today's story about the end of the Dead Space series.[/quote]
Doesn't look like it's quite done yet.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39807507]Doesn't look like it's quite done yet.[/QUOTE]
[quote]
"While we have not announced sales for Dead Space 3, we are proud of the game and the franchise remains an important IP to EA," an EA spokesperson told Joystiq.[/quote]
Sounds like this was bullshit.
EA has also denied it, which seems stronger than their usual refusal to comment.
If EA, and any developer, keeps expecting Call of Duty sales and keep trying to capture the same audience; not only is EA going to keep crashing (Hopefully), but we're in for some rough times ahead (sadly). What ever happened to budgeting a game based on the size of the playerbase/demand to ensure it's successful?
Dead Space 1 and 2 were great games (Never played Dead Space 3), and while it's nice that we won't be seeing the franchise milked to death, it's still absurd that the only reason they're canning the franchise is because EA is essentially throwing a hissy fit that every game can't sell like Call of Duty.
[QUOTE=i-am-teh-sex;39807075]It seems that EA wants every one of their franchises to become RPGs or Shooters[/QUOTE]
They have an RPG series?
DS3 was pretty fun, there were some flaws but whatever
If they keep fucking ruining franchises they're going to run out.
What is with journalists not checking their sources?
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs"]Yes![/URL] The first step to EA's downfall, since they now realize that they're ruining something like Dead Space (only Dead Space 1 will be worth playing now, a modern classic)
EDIT: Bite me, servants of EA!
"We need to change the series, I don't care what the dev thinks, It'll be better this way"
"Nah the series sucks, can it"
[QUOTE=BenjaminTennison;39807609][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs"]Yes![/URL] The first step to EA's downfall, since they now realize that they're ruining something like Dead Space (only Dead Space 1 will be worth playing now, a modern classic)[/QUOTE]
*snort* yes, the downfall of the evil videogame company EA.......who cares about the jobs of thousands of people who have families to take care of because they make video games that I don't like.....*wipes nose on sleeve*
Action oriented only worked for ME3 because it had horrible combat to begin with.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;39807360]1. You can, but the fact that they're there in a game like this just shows EA's greed.
2. It may be, but they used a character that never existed, if you have a used copy for PS3/360 you can't play without buying an activation code (more greed), and it also ruins the SP experience because in the cutscenes where Carver shows up, he just pops up out of nowhere and then vanishes into nowhere when it's done.
4. Steam's better. Origin almost never has sales (guess what, more greed).
I agree that Dead Space 3 is a good game, but it's a horrible [I]Dead Space[/I] game.[/QUOTE]
do they count as microtransactions if you don't have to spend real money on them? i'm a little rusty on the definition but hey if you don't [I]have[/I] to pay then i'm game for it. also unless you buy the game used you don't have to buy the code, i agree that activation codes are really fuckin dumb but there's basically only a 60/40 chance of actually having to pay for it.
Dead Space 3 was a huge disappointment for me. My friends and I were expecting coop to be a mindfuck experience but instead got a few copy paste missions with a weak story.
As for the main story, it wasn't that good either. I don't even remember the bad guy's name and having to [sp]throw markers at the final boss[/sp] felt like spitting on the series grave.
Just who in their right mind thinks it's safer to invest in adding to an oversaturated market instead of branching out with smaller more distinct titles that might become something huge?
I think it's why Indies and other small titles are gaining more ground. They have to be a good product since they can't rely on extensive marketing, and ideally have a gimmick or gameplay mechanic interesting enough to travel via word of mouth.
AAA games meanwhile invest huge amounts of money into ~realism~ and marketing and as a result need to pander to an audience as large as possible because if it can't sell to X million people, you don't make your money back.
The problem overarching this one is also the sheer size of all the people involved in the creation of a game, from publishers and investors to changing studios to outsourced devs and beyond. Certain publishers and franchises are just too huge and complex to really change.
There's few companies like Valve (I'm a dumbass and have no better example, sorry) that were lucky and smart enough to stick to a manageable team size, have the budget to do what they want and when it comes to art styles invest into art styles rather than realism to make their stuff look pretty, which is way cheaper. And seeing how everyone and their mother has a DOTA2 key now, they don't need to invest a lot into marketing either and can focus their resources on other aspects.
[QUOTE=Cone;39807768]do they count as microtransactions if you don't have to spend real money on them? i'm a little rusty on the definition but hey if you don't [I]have[/I] to pay then i'm game for it. also unless you buy the game used you don't have to buy the code, i agree that activation codes are really fuckin dumb but there's basically only a 60/40 chance of actually having to pay for it.[/QUOTE]
A microtransaction is defined by the ability to spend small amounts of real world money on ingame items. Yes I know the ration packs ingame can be used to pay for stuff in the store, but because the option is there to spend real world money, it is a microtransaction.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;39807831]A microtransaction is defined by the ability to spend small amounts of real world money on ingame items. Yes I know the ration packs ingame can be used to pay for stuff in the store, but because the option is there to spend real world money, it is a microtransaction.[/QUOTE]
well then surely the mere fact that it's a microtransaction doesn't immediately make it bad? it's kinda unnecessary of course but if they were that greedy you would only be able to pay in real money, rather than having a workaround that really isn't that hard to get. the real money microtransactions only appeal to impatient people with more money than sense, you're not scammed into it, you're not coerced or anything like that.
now, i'm not sure if i'm just looking at it the wrong way, but that sounds like a pretty decent deal to me. perhaps a bit heavy handed, sure, but other than that i see no problem with microtransactions being implemented in this way.
[QUOTE=Cone;39807940]well then surely the mere fact that it's a microtransaction doesn't immediately make it bad? it's kinda unnecessary of course but if they were that greedy you would only be able to pay in real money, rather than having a workaround that really isn't that hard to get. the real money microtransactions only appeal to impatient people with more money than sense, you're not scammed into it, you're not coerced or anything like that.
now, i'm not sure if i'm just looking at it the wrong way, but that sounds like a pretty decent deal to me. perhaps a bit heavy handed, sure, but other than that i see no problem with microtransactions being implemented in this way.[/QUOTE]
It's microtransactions in a full price ($60 USD) game. That is what makes it bad. If this were something like an iOS game or F2P MMO, they'd be fine (as long as they weren't Pay2Win of course).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.