EA 'didn't give a sh*t' about System Shock 3

[mortiz]

Because EA represent everything that's screwed up with the games industry. They represent the very height of the "corporate whore" mentality and pre-packaged BS with little to no creative vision behind it.

EA are the death of: The small guy, innovation and taking risks.

EA are the birth of: "Guarenteed profits", Developer exploitation on a grand scale and the "development factory".

 

[zioburosky13]

Because EA represent everything that's screwed up with the games industry. They represent the very height of the "corporate whore" mentality and pre-packaged BS with little to no creative vision behind it.

EA are the death of: The small guy, innovation and taking risks.

EA are the birth of: "Guarenteed profits", Developer exploitation on a grand scale and the "development factory".

Sounds like the old Sierra....

So no more maxis? Damn....

 

[Sander]

Because EA represent everything that's screwed up with the games industry. They represent the very height of the "corporate whore" mentality and pre-packaged BS with little to no creative vision behind it.

EA are the death of: The small guy, innovation and taking risks.

EA are the birth of: "Guarenteed profits", Developer exploitation on a grand scale and the "development factory".

Yes, but as you said, not buying their products won't make a damn difference. So I still don't see how you can ignore their good products.

In fact, if you buy their *good* products you'll be encouraging them to buy more of those, so I can only see something good about that.

 

[slamelov]

But... there is not many good products from EA in this moment. At least, I do not know anyone. Spores may be, but is still being developed. Ultima Series are dead since Origin was killed. Is there any good game from EA?.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

In fact, if you buy their *good* products you'll be encouraging them to buy more of those, so I can only see something good about that.

That's like saying "If you buy candy and lemonade from the Nazgul, it'll encourage them to produce more candy and lemonade". They're still the Nazgul, dude, so part of the profits from candy and lemonade sales probably goes into construction of child incinerators and such.

 

[Sander]

But... there is not many good products from EA in this moment. At least, I do not know anyone. Spores may be, but is still being developed. Ultima Series are dead since Origin was killed. Is there any good game from EA?.

Some would say the distribution of Half-Life 2.
I wouldn't, because I think the game sucks.
In any case, yes, Spore comes to mind. The EA Big division has made some really fun extreme sports games as well.

That's like saying "If you buy candy and lemonade from the Nazgul, it'll encourage them to produce more candy and lemonade". They're still the Nazgul, dude, so part of the profits from candy and lemonade sales probably goes into construction of child incinerators and such.

Now that's just plain silly. EA isn't some evil group of people, it's a corporation. And corporation always want to make as much profit as possible. Hence, if you buy their quality games, you're encouraging them to continue that, since it's more likely to get them profit.

 

[Vox]

Sander, it's rather like with beer and the americans.

Their beer tastes like catpiss and they still buy it! And they even drink it!

So they go on with breeing this shit because they know poeple will still buy it.

 

[Sander]

Sander, it's rather like with beer and the americans.

Their beer tastes like catpiss and they still buy it! And they even drink it!

So they go on with breeing this shit because they know poeple will still buy it.

Where I did I claim they'd stop creating games that are already succesful?
I only claimed that they'd be more inclined to make good games if the good games sell well.
If suddenly Budweiser stopped selling but, say, some better flavor of Bud would start selling, they'd more inclined to make that second flavor of Bud.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

EA isn't some evil group of people, it's a corporation. And corporation always want to make as much profit as possible. Hence, if you buy their quality games, you're encouraging them to continue that, since it's more likely to get them profit.

If it were any other corporation I wouldn't question your assertion, but this is EA we're taking about. I'm pretty sure their executives are Satan's servants on Earth, and if not that, they surely must have somehow merged into a soulless collective bent on subjugating the entire humanity.

On a more serious note, by buying EA products, good or bad, you support their harmful business model. Though this model somehow manages to generate an impressive number of suprisingly gratifying games, it is also responsible for the worst erosion of creativity, integrity and developer and customer dignity in the history of the gaming industry. So, in light of the countless excellent development teams they wrecked, merciless exploitation of employees through 90-hour work weeks, squandering developer talent on unimaginative and derivative titles, milking customers with an endless stream of overpriced add-ons and fucking over thousands of players by cancelling MMOs for idiotic reasons, I intend to continue boycotting *all* their products indefinitely, regardless of how good they might be.

 

[mortiz]

Because EA represent everything that's screwed up with the games industry. They represent the very height of the "corporate whore" mentality and pre-packaged BS with little to no creative vision behind it.

EA are the death of: The small guy, innovation and taking risks.

EA are the birth of: "Guarenteed profits", Developer exploitation on a grand scale and the "development factory".

Yes, but as you said, not buying their products won't make a damn difference. So I still don't see how you can ignore their good products.

In fact, if you buy their *good* products you'll be encouraging them to buy more of those, so I can only see something good about that.

Half-Life 2 isn't perhaps the best example to use since EA had no input what-so-ever into the development of HL2, money wise or other. Whatever Half-Life 2 sells will be down to Valve and not EA, Valve could have gone to any publisher to distribute Half-Life 2. In other words EA won't be able to take anything out of HL2 sales.

Innovative games coming out of EA are so rare that it not only fuels my opinion of them it doesn't bother me so much that I try to avoid EA games. The only reason Spore got off the ground is because of Will Wright's success with The Sims and his own publishing company, Maxis (which EA bought). I'd like to see what EA would have told a smaller, lesser known developer if they'd approached EA with the same idea.

There was a time when EA would take risks, those days are long gone.

 

[Vox]

Sander, it's like with Nuk... Coka Cola and Cherry Coke.

They THINK people like it because they buy it (because it's something they knew but with some new extras), then they realize everyone is disappointed.

Then they bring back Coka Cola Classic and everything is normal again.

But that's actually not the way it works with computer games.

 

[Sander]

Half-Life 2 isn't perhaps the best example to use since EA had no input what-so-ever into the development of HL2, money wise or other. Whatever Half-Life 2 sells will be down to Valve and not EA, Valve could have gone to any publisher to distribute Half-Life 2. In other words EA won't be able to take anything out of HL2 sales.

Innovative games coming out of EA are so rare that it not only fuels my opinion of them it doesn't bother me so much that I try to avoid EA games. The only reason Spore got off the ground is because of Will Wright's success with The Sims and his own publishing company, Maxis (which EA bought). I'd like to see what EA would have told a smaller, lesser known developer if they'd approached EA with the same idea.

There was a time when EA would take risks, those days are long gone.

Why do you keep on supporting my statements yet claim to disagree with them?
Look at what you just wrote. The reason Spore is being made because the last innovative game from the same hand sold very well. In other words, the fact that people bought a good game made EA decide to let him do another innovative and possibly good game.
So, this only supports my position that buying good games encourages the company to make more of those good games.

Sander, it's like with Nuk... Coka Cola and Cherry Coke.

They THINK people like it because they buy it (because it's something they knew but with some new extras), then they realize everyone is disappointed.

Then they bring back Coka Cola Classic and everything is normal again.

But that's actually not the way it works with computer games.

I love how people continue to support my point.
Indeed, sales influences the corporate position on the product.

 

[Vox]

No sander. I did exactly the opposite of supporting you.

 

[Sander]

No sander. I did exactly the opposite of supporting you.

No you didn't.
You gave a perfect example of customer feedback affecting corporate actions.
Of course, you then said, completely out of the blue, that that isn't the way it works without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

So, in effect, your example supported my position. You may not have, but stating something like that has essentially no meaning at all. It is completely unconvincing.

 

[Vox]

Evidence?

Rereleasing old games never was a good thing. ("coka cola -> coka cola classic" example)

From your point of view it maybe was supportive to your oppinion, but from my, it was an example how to screw shit up.

 

[Sander]

Evidence?

Rereleasing old games never was a good thing. ("coka cola -> coka cola classic" example)

Yes, which is something that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my point.
Besides that, that's a ridiculous argument because it basically states that trying to improve something is stupid, because it will then sell less. This is, obviously, wrong.

The reason that New Coke sold less was because people were used to the taste of Coca Cola and didn't *want* anything new. This is an entirely different situation from the series of games EA is creating, quite simply because people do want a new FIFA installment each year, just to get to play the updated rosters.

And if that was your point, you did a remarkably poor job of conveying it, and picked a very flawed example as well.
Now that I'm re-reading it, you seem to believe that the company went back because people were disappointed. This is untrue. The company went back because sales were much lower than with the classic formula.

From your point of view it maybe was supportive to your oppinion, but from my, it was an example how to screw shit up.

I don't recall ever claiming that EA didn't create shit games like the FIFA series. I was arguing that supporting their *good* games would influence their corporate decisions, which is exactly what you demonstrated, because by not buying New Coke, people influenced the corporate set to produce a good product instead of the 'worse' New Coke.

So, in conclusion, the story of Coca Cola Classic is a perfect example to illustrate my point of influencing corporate mentality with purchasing decisions.

 

[Vox]

Sander, let's make love.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Now that's a mental image I didn't need.

 

[slamelov]

Some would say the distribution of Half-Life 2.
I wouldn't, because I think the game sucks.
In any case, yes, Spore comes to mind. The EA Big division has made some really fun extreme sports games as well.

HL2 was developed by Valve, it's not an EA game. And they published the "case" game because Half Life it's a profit franchise (I also think that the game sucks).

Anyway, I agree if you buy the good EA games, EA will point their target to good and inovative games. The problem is that there is few good games made by EA actually. May be NHL Hockey, but it's a sport game, tnere is not much innovation on that,

EA is not good for the videiogames industry, they killed some of the best franchises: Ultima, Dungeon Keeper, System Shock, Jane's... they had good games in the past, but now those companies are death.

EA has a lot of money, they could make a divission for innovatime games, something to give them lost prestige. That's could be good, but it will never happen.

Regards

 

[Sander]

HL2 was developed by Valve, it's not an EA game. And they published the "case" game because Half Life it's a profit franchise (I also think that the game sucks).

Yes, I know that. Note the fact that I said 'distribution'.

Anyway, I agree if you buy the good EA games, EA will point their target to good and inovative games. The problem is that there is few good games made by EA actually. May be NHL Hockey, but it's a sport game, tnere is not much innovation on that,

Well, Spore. NBA Street is a fun game, although its AI seems horribly balanced (I have encountered the AI giving me a decent challenge in the beginning, I then run out to a huge lead, and then the AI seems to adapt and I can't get a single point until they're almost level with me), as is that snowboard series they have out.
They have some more 'fun' games, but most revolve around brands to sell, and not gameplay. They surely have a lot more crappy games than good ones.

EA is not good for the videiogames industry, they killed some of the best franchises: Ultima, Dungeon Keeper, System Shock, Jane's... they had good games in the past, but now those companies are death.

EA has a lot of money, they could make a divission for innovatime games, something to give them lost prestige. That's could be good, but it will never happen.

Regards

It probably won't. Origin supposedly had some freedom initally, but squandered it. Heh.