gregathit Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 I love consoles. I can play comfortably in my room' date=' with a handy controller, my PS3 is way cheaper than this laptop, and all the other benefits draw me to play on consoles. While PC games might look better or run better, I have the bonus of comfort with consoles, which PCs can't provide. [/quote'] See, I guess I am just old school, because consoles to me are only comfortable or sports or racing games. For all other things they blow chunks for me. They are awkward and clumsy, as I have always been a keyboard & mouse guy. Over the years I have never yet found that a controller player can do diddly against a keyboard\mouse setup. I am sure this is just the crowd\circles that I run in but that has been my experience. Of course, the fairly high end gaming pc that I have, along with surround sound and a 24 monitor (and my 55" sony bravia when I am playing RTS stuff) are probably coloring my perception on this. Frankly I love PC gaming with its flexibility and the ability of installing mods. My PS3 is green with envy of how much time I spend playing on my PC..... Different strokes for different folks. Oh, back on topic....EA sucks hairy balls!
DoctaSax Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Just recently found this article. Damn EA' date=' you really hate your consumers don't you? [/quote'] Right, forcing multiplayer on games that don't need it & THEN shutting down the servers... Brilliant! In an evil Bond villain sort of way.
thesapien Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Regardless of whether another department or even entirely separate company work on it' date=' it still wastes both time and money. ME3 having multiplayer does impact the single player experience because someone from bioware (multiple someones is probably more accurate) had to sit down and write all the tie in coding. Then to make it worse, you actually had to play multiplayer to "get the best ending" which caused a bunch of rage as they had promised that the two were NOT tied together in that fashion. Thankfully, the EC and other patches made this particular problem go away. I see no logical way to tie any kind of multiplayer to DA3 and any attempt to do so will only serve to siphon money away from the single player experience. This of course, they can't afford after the poor showing they had with DA2. I "could" see a coop mode but not a true multiplayer. It would have made more sense to have multiplayer for DA1 where there was a full on blight going on. Some games are really meant to be single player only and to add multiplayer means cutting the budget of the single player experience. As to the thought process that being under EA means a bigger budget.....I don't think that is accurate at all. Perhaps they had a bigger "marketing budget" but certainly not a bigger development one. They did just fine making ME and ME2 and ME3 doesn't offer any more wiz bang in the graphics department than the other two. If anything steps were taken to force you into smaller, narrower, playable corridors and then slap in 2D backgrounds. Plus under EA they had pressure to get the product out the door. Now if a game lends itself to multiplayer or even MMO, I am fine with that. Just don't force a square peg in a round hole. Agree or disagree but I think blanket statements like the one that this ass wipe from ea makes are ridiculous and show just how out of touch they are with pc gamers. [/quote'] It's hard not to agree, especially since I don't play any multiplayer or online games. But I didn't care about ME3 multiplayer and that "best ending" was what exactly? I never missed it and preferred things without it anyway. I don't really know any details of their budgets, marketing costs, etc or if they hire more to do more so that they make more or not. But changing gears, I'm fucking pissed at BioWare for selling to EA. That's my WTF moment. There was no reason to do so, as far as I can tell, since BioWare was on the rise as a successfully independent developer. That's where I start to suspect the real wickedness behind EA. Did EA somehow strong-arm BioWare, threaten them, send thugs. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the gaming industry is quickly becoming as mafia-like as Hollywood and that BioWare was never really given an honest choice. I love consoles. I can play comfortably in my room' date=' with a handy controller, my PS3 is way cheaper than this laptop, and all the other benefits draw me to play on consoles. While PC games might look better or run better, I have the bonus of comfort with consoles, which PCs can't provide. [/quote'] See, I guess I am just old school, because consoles to me are only comfortable or sports or racing games. For all other things they blow chunks for me. They are awkward and clumsy, as I have always been a keyboard & mouse guy. Over the years I have never yet found that a controller player can do diddly against a keyboard\mouse setup. I am sure this is just the crowd\circles that I run in but that has been my experience. Of course, the fairly high end gaming pc that I have, along with surround sound and a 24 monitor (and my 55" sony bravia when I am playing RTS stuff) are probably coloring my perception on this. Frankly I love PC gaming with its flexibility and the ability of installing mods. My PS3 is green with envy of how much time I spend playing on my PC..... Different strokes for different folks. Oh, back on topic....EA sucks hairy balls! I was the same, if not more so. I've never had a modern console, so I had no skills with controllers and any time I tried for a few minutes with a friend, I'd be wasting time just trying to remember what the buttons were called with my eyes spending too much time looking at the controller and not the screen. But then I started having problems with my mouse hand from being on my computer too much. Bad habits, bad posture, pains, and shakes. A friend had bought me a controller to use with my PC some time back that I finally dusted off and set out to master. Long/short of it, I now use the controller for everything on my PC except typing. Since it's my daily desktop mouse, I've even gotten pretty precise with it. Funny, me, who used to argue with that friend who bought me the controller about superior uber-micro with mouse/keyboard, now gets mad when a game doesn't have native support for my controller and I have to program it myself because I'd rather not have to resort to using my mouse/keyboard! Today, I wouldn't say one is better than the other for all games across the board. I certainly wouldn't play Starcraft with a controller. Also, a straight up shooter might have a slight aiming advantage with a mouse. But a game like Dragon Age 2 didn't click except with a controller. Sandbox games, especially with vehicles, or games like Batman and Assassin's Creed with lots of combat without shooting, make a lot more sense for me with a controller. I once tried Skyrim with a keyboard/mouse and was appalled by the results. With a controller in Skyrim, I can move however I want at any speed, my favorite being slow motion while absorbing souls. A keyboard only has fixed speeds and no gradient of speeds; analog vs digital. I felt clunky, robotic, and couldn't enjoy Skyrim the same.
Symon Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 But changing gears' date=' I'm fucking pissed at BioWare for selling to EA. That's my WTF moment. There was no reason to do so, as far as I can tell, since BioWare was on the rise as a successfully independent developer.[/quote'] I have no actual knowledge but it could well have been the usual way companies get sold for 'no good reason'. They approach the current shareholders and make them a fine, short term offer. Shareholders sell, trot off to the bank and the company transfers ownership. Happens all the time. Cadburys was acquired that way. Edit: Wasn't far wrong by the looks of it. They bought 'VG Holding Corp', which owned Bioware, from it's shareholders. Capitalism can be viscous, short term, and to the detriment of many at times.
Mashi Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 PC games are the most in danger because they seem to be going ever further into the realm of digital only' date=' which is an even worse idea than trying to shove multiplayer into everything. [/quote'] Not really. If anything, this is simply good for PC games, because retail stores long ago started cutting PC games out of the retail space a decade ago to shovel in console titles. Honestly, if there's even half a rack of PC titles at my local EB(is it even called that anymore?) I'd be surprised. Heck, I can't honestly remember the last time I went into a store to buy a PC game. Every few months I look and there are fewer PC titles for sale, but digital sales grow between 2-5% a month. Heck, STEAM sees this as such a great thing, they're selling STEAM cards at retail stores for their wallet service, which lets you buy games like that. Though thinking, when did I last buy a physical copy of a game? It was a midnight release party for WoW:The burning crusade because the wife(GF at the time) wanted to go and meet up with some local players from another city. Which was cool in itself. Other than that? Heck even walmart(the three nearest super centres have half a rack) of PC titles. And there are more than that available for sale out. But they have over 40ft worth dedicated to console games. Total pop in these area combined is over 1.3m people. Someone should probably tell Bethesda that single-player only games don't sell. I bet they feel mighty silly having their games be smashing successes all the time. Ahaha yeah. Funny that huh? Some people tried to figure it out, but they're pretty sure that the PC release of Skyrim outsold both the xbox and PS3 versions of the game. But since there are no sale release numbers, no one is sure, and you can bet that both sony and MS have no-disclosure clauses.
ElvenScoundrel Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 Doesn't matter; even if they're making it themselves' date=' Bethesda ius still involved in the Elder Scrolls MMO. I hope it crashes and burns, Final Fantasy XIV style. [/quote'] I hope for the opposite, because I want a good company like Bethesda to thrive and make more ES games, even if their gamed have a shitton of bugs or faults. Part of my huge love for the Elder Scrolls series is not really the gameplay or how modular it is what with mods and the like, but the HUGE amount of lore that just draws you in into this fantasy world that has been carefully crafted for what, 20 years? I'm not sure the ES Online game will succeed if they make it into just another clickfest like the rest of the MMOs out there. If they keep it a 1/3rd person action adventure RPG with the amazing freedom of choice you have in the singleplayer games, it'll succeed. After all, this liberty is what people love the most out of the Elder Scrolls games, I think. But so far, all I've seen is a weird art direction and the videos seemed like it'll be a point & click RPG, in which case you're not really doing an online Elder Scrolls game justice.
thesapien Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 But changing gears' date=' I'm fucking pissed at BioWare for selling to EA. That's my WTF moment. There was no reason to do so, as far as I can tell, since BioWare was on the rise as a successfully independent developer.[/quote'] I have no actual knowledge but it could well have been the usual way companies get sold for 'no good reason'. They approach the current shareholders and make them a fine, short term offer. Shareholders sell, trot off to the bank and the company transfers ownership. Happens all the time. Cadburys was acquired that way. Edit: Wasn't far wrong by the looks of it. They bought 'VG Holding Corp', which owned Bioware, from it's shareholders. Capitalism can be viscous, short term, and to the detriment of many at times. Elevation Partners invested $300 million, then turned around and sold it to EA for $860 million 2 years later. And get this: The CEO of EA is one of Elevation Partners' founders! John Riccitiello! Oh, and the OP's linked to article was just updated after a lot of nasty messages and the interviewed Frank Gibeau saying a little more to try and clarify.
gregathit Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 Oh' date=' and the OP's linked to article was just updated after a lot of nasty messages and the interviewed Frank Gibeau saying a little more to try and clarify. [/quote'] Clearly ea is deserving of the steaming pile of shit award they got this year. They also clearly need some help hiring folks with even a basic understanding of gaming for their upper echelon staff. The so called "clarification" was even more of a slap in the face than the original statement. What a bunch of tools.
Kamen Rider Kuuga Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 PC games are the most in danger because they seem to be going ever further into the realm of digital only' date=' which is an even worse idea than trying to shove multiplayer into everything. [/quote'] Not really. If anything, this is simply good for PC games, because retail stores long ago started cutting PC games out of the retail space a decade ago to shovel in console titles. Honestly, if there's even half a rack of PC titles at my local EB(is it even called that anymore?) I'd be surprised. Heck, I can't honestly remember the last time I went into a store to buy a PC game. Every few months I look and there are fewer PC titles for sale, but digital sales grow between 2-5% a month. Heck, STEAM sees this as such a great thing, they're selling STEAM cards at retail stores for their wallet service, which lets you buy games like that. Though thinking, when did I last buy a physical copy of a game? It was a midnight release party for WoW:The burning crusade because the wife(GF at the time) wanted to go and meet up with some local players from another city. Which was cool in itself. Other than that? Heck even walmart(the three nearest super centres have half a rack) of PC titles. And there are more than that available for sale out. But they have over 40ft worth dedicated to console games. Total pop in these area combined is over 1.3m people. Oh sure, it may look good on the surface; more people getting PC games while the retail market begins to ignore them. Of course, below the surface it gets worse; the all digital thing, in essence, endangers the ability of the user to play the game. Imagine, if you will, there were no more boxed copies of Oblivion out there. Which means I cannot get a physical copy of the game; I have it on Steam, but not the actual disc. Not a bad thing on its own, I don't have to find the disc and keep it in the drive, all the updates are installed automatically if I have to reinstall. But let's say ZeniMax gets a bug up their ass one day and says "Steam can no longer have our catalog!" Instantly, my access to the game is GONE; I may still have the data on my system, but Steam doesn't allow it to launch. That 20 USD I spent on the game is now gone and I have nothing to show for it but useless data on my hard drive. Now if I had a physical copy, this wouldn't effect me; they would have to physically come to my home and take my copy of the game if they ever wanted to deprive me of something I paid money for. THAT IS THE DANGER OF DIGITAL; at any given time, a company can pull their support for a game and that's it. You don't own the game under this system, you simply have a license* and they can revoke it whenever they please. And that's why, whenever possible, I will have physical copies of my games, even if I have to look harder and pay more. * Which is true for disc copies as well, but as I said, they would have to come to your home and physically take the game, so the risk is basically nil.
srayesmanll Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 THAT IS THE DANGER OF DIGITAL; at any given time' date=' a company can pull their support for a game and that's it. You don't own the game under this system, you simply have a license* and they can revoke it whenever they please. And that's why, whenever possible, I will have physical copies of my games, even if I have to look harder and pay more. * Which is true for disc copies as well, but as I said, they would have to come to your home and physically take the game, so the risk is basically nil. [/quote'] This is the reason I still haven't jumped on the "eBook" bandwagon. You do not own the book, you are renting it for an extended period. At any point, the publisher/eBook company can decide the you shouldn't have it, and it can be removed. Yes, there are ways around it, but the potential problem still exists. It has already happened once. I love the idea of the readers: Can have access to multiple books, easy to carry for trips, can adjust the font sizes for people with eyesight issues, etc. Great device, but until they clean up problem with "owning" the book, then I won't get it. At least music has moved on - you can get DRM free music through amazon, itunes, zune, etc. As far as games go, I still try to buy physical copies of the games (I have Skyrim, Witcher, Witcher2, FO3, FONV, plus many others) on disk. However, I have also bought Oblivion, DLCs, etc through Steam, so if there is ever an issue, I will be screwed on those. I should probably get the GOTY/Gold/whatever version of the games so that I have all of the DLC on disk as well, but I don't. I think for me, if steam suddenly decides to stop support for a game, I can get updates directly from the company (in most cases). Or I could just say fuck it and play another game. For some reason, I am not as tied to games as I am with electronic music/books. Go figure...
FusRoDah Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 Oh my. Does this mean every EA game is gonna be like Call of Duty? Well, Shit.
Mashi Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 Oh sure' date=' it may look good on the surface; more people getting PC games while the retail market begins to ignore them. Of course, below the surface it gets worse; the all digital thing, in essence, endangers the ability of the user to play the game. .... * Which is true for disc copies as well, but as I said, they would have to come to your home and physically take the game, so the risk is basically nil. [/quote']Actually on my end this is perfectly fine, perhaps not on your end though. In your case, your CPA/CPL(consumer protection laws/act) needs to be updated to reflect this. For me, it doesn't matter. If a company decides to pull this, it doesn't matter they still have to legally provide me a copy of the game. And actually there have been several cases of companies pulling their games off steam already. But the copies you have remain indefinitely, they can't pull them. The only danger of digital is weak laws, or laws that have failed to keep pace with technology and in turn, fail to protect the consumers adequately. Now just think though, those physical copies you have? What happens to all those versions that use a CDkey check for their authentication(DRM check) every time you start, and those auth servers get shut down? You're in the same boat. Really, there's no difference between the two, none at all. You can say buying a physical copy is protection but if they yank those auth servers, you're in no better shape. In fact, you're in worse shape, because defeating the authentication(via a crack) is a harsher crime, than pirating a 'legally owned copy'. But that's going rather far out of the discussion.
thesapien Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Oh' date=' and the OP's linked to article was just updated after a lot of nasty messages and the interviewed Frank Gibeau saying a little more to try and clarify. [/quote'] Clearly ea is deserving of the steaming pile of shit award they got this year. They also clearly need some help hiring folks with even a basic understanding of gaming for their upper echelon staff. The so called "clarification" was even more of a slap in the face than the original statement. What a bunch of tools. But just imagine their hiring process! The trustees are probably too stupid to realize that a big time gamer should run the company, someone who is likely "unsuccessful" in RL and "waste" time gaming all day. Who is going to hire a 40 yr old virgin with no business experience? I'm also thinking the online push is really a move away from pirating. Actually on my end this is perfectly fine' date=' perhaps not on your end though. In your case, your CPA/CPL(consumer protection laws/act) needs to be updated to reflect this. For me, it doesn't matter. If a company decides to pull this, it doesn't matter they still have to legally provide me a copy of the game. And actually there have been several cases of companies pulling their games off steam already. But the copies you have remain indefinitely, they can't pull them. The only danger of digital is weak laws, or laws that have failed to keep pace with technology and in turn, fail to protect the consumers adequately. Now just think though, those physical copies you have? What happens to all those versions that use a CDkey check for their authentication(DRM check) every time you start, and those auth servers get shut down? You're in the same boat. Really, there's no difference between the two, none at all. You can say buying a physical copy is protection but if they yank those auth servers, you're in no better shape. In fact, you're in worse shape, because defeating the authentication(via a crack) is a harsher crime, than pirating a 'legally owned copy'. But that's going rather far out of the discussion. [/quote'] I hate physical discs. Can I say that? I really hate the sounds they make in my disc tray, aside from having to walk around and handle stuff in order to do something that should be digital. And you make a good point about having to authenticate anyway. One day, soon, it will be hard to find a disc drive anyway. At that time, any games still playable will be super cheap anyway if you really want to get it again, in pure digital form, if not free. And, we all know, having the physical disc doesn't mean you "own" it anymore than having the digital version. It's always just a fair use thing, not actual ownership.
gregathit Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 But just imagine their hiring process! The trustees are probably too stupid to realize that a big time gamer should run the company' date=' someone who is likely "unsuccessful" in RL and "waste" time gaming all day. Who is going to hire a 40 yr old virgin with no business experience? I'm also thinking the online push is really a move away from pirating. [/quote'] ROFL!!! :D:D:D:D:D No, I wasn't insinuating that they hire Newman to run the company. Having "basic" gaming knowledge, is not the same thing as the 400lb loser who refuses to get a job so he can play WOW all day long.... Besides, any "savvy" exec aught to posses the mental capacity to get off his butt and find out what gamers actually "want", rather than what he or his company wants. Perhaps they have done this, and the 12 year old COD crowd is what they really are after. If however, they are just making wild ass assumptions on what the majority of gamers want (cough, Bioware, cough, original ME3 ending, cough) then they may be in for a rather rude shock that could embarrass said exec's into looking rather like that 40 year old virgin..... Life has a way of going full circle on things doesn't it? As in all things, time will tell. EDIT: Ah, yes the great myth of "pirating". Honestly that tired old excuse sounds more like a fart in the wind the more I hear it. The movie industry along with the music industry has been "crying wolf" on this for so long that no one is listening anymore (at least no one that isn't getting paid to listen anyway). Every year those greedy, beady eyed exec's in movies and music post ever higher profits despite losing millions (or is it billions or even trillions now?) to "so called piracy". The piracy claim is so artificially inflated that it is beyond ridiculous. And here comes the little ole gaming industry following along after its older brothers and taking up their rallying cry. Now of course there "is" piracy. No one denies this, however it is also "not" as big, or life threatening as they claim. What actually "is" a more serious deal is "used" game sales (and rentals). This pisses those exec's off like there is no tomorrow, as they get a big slice of zipo out of it. The online component would force the used game buyer to at minimum cough up a user license fee to play online. Which of course is ridiculous. They are essentially getting paid twice for the same thing.
windpl Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 But just imagine their hiring process! The trustees are probably too stupid to realize that a big time gamer should run the company' date=' someone who is likely "unsuccessful" in RL and "waste" time gaming all day. Who is going to hire a 40 yr old virgin with no business experience?[/quote'] What about Sid Meier, Gabe Newell or Peter Molyneux? Well Gabe is a bit fat.
deathparade Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Gabe set up Valve i don't think anyone is gonna tell him to GTFO...
Mashi Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 I hate physical discs. Can I say that? I really hate the sounds they make in my disc tray' date=' aside from having to walk around and handle stuff in order to do something that should be digital. And you make a good point about having to authenticate anyway. One day, soon, it will be hard to find a disc drive anyway. At that time, any games still playable will be super cheap anyway if you really want to get it again, in pure digital form, if not free. And, we all know, having the physical disc doesn't mean you "own" it anymore than having the digital version. It's always just a fair use thing, not actual ownership. [/quote']Sure. I hate them as well, I actually owned a 1st generation CD reader. It used an internal card with a external cable that hooked up to giant box of a machine with a giant "Class 1 laser" warning label on it, I probably got it around here somewhere still. DVD's were kinda better, but honestly I can't even remember the last time I used the one I have in my machine. I've used the same drive from the last 3 computers. Hell, the last time I installed windows I put it on a flash drive. DVD's probably have another 5-6 years left in them, especially since BD media is still so expensive and broadband penetration isn't 100% yet. The closer it gets to 100% the faster you'll see physical media die. But owning it? Well that depends on where you live. Some places you own the media, in other places you don't. It's not considered a license of the product. But rather a purchase of the product, because it's something you use. Not something you rent, even if it's digital. I'm glad I didn't become a lawyer, my head would have exploded along time ago. One reason EA has so much hate NPD is really irrelevant in the terms of things. I do know a few people in the industry still via the wife(who used to work in sales for one of the larger publishers)' date=' and they have nothing good to say. And a few people via forums who are still in, and still nothing good to say about NPD. Mostly because they don't count digital sales. And they don't count sales from services like steam, GMG, or gamers gate either. So their numbers are skewed down. The Online push as you call it has little to do with piracy, they may say it does but that's to shine light away from the money grab. Most video game piracy isn't done by a bunch of 10th graders, it's done by the very people complaining about it. ... But this is a further derailment of the thread. EA.....Nexus....hmmm kind of makes you wonder anyone got a match? Quite right, the online push has to do with making more money. It always has been, if you can cut out not only the wholesale market but the reseller market. You can add nearly 30-40% to your bottom line. And really? Without going into much detail, there was a huuuuuge bust back in europe hmm 8-12 years ago I think it was. The main people in the ring all worked for a major game development house, with people at all levels within the company. They were their own worst enemy. I'll have to see if I can find that story.
Kamen Rider Kuuga Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Sure. I hate them as well [...] but honestly I can't even remember the last time I used the one I have in my machine. You're weird. You weirdo.
Mashi Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 You're weird. You weirdo. Thanks! See the part where I rain doom down upon everyone? That's where it comes from.
Bravo34 Posted September 9, 2012 Posted September 9, 2012 Mother.Of.God.Robin/Head of EA=Same Person.We must fix this,I have some matches Moogie,what's your plan?
Asariphile Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Well' date=' I hope ea and console gamers get along fine because pc gamers just won't stand for this. After the horrible outing of DA2 and more recently with ME3 you would "think" they have realized their mistake. Clearly not. Perhaps they need to just stick to making sports game...... [/quote'] I loved Mass Effect 3, I loved all of them (just check my Avatar) I thought it was the best in the series till the last 10 minutes. I tell you, I am a grown man and there were tears. I was depressed for almost a week. (Not crying the whole time... just day one... I do have some dignity) For that reason alone EA will never get another dime out of me. I felt like 5 years of my live had been ripped out.
Kashiwaba Tomoe Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Well' date=' I hope ea and console gamers get along fine because pc gamers just won't stand for this. [/quote'] Fallout fans said the same thing when Bethesda got the license for the series, I imagine that EA will do like Bethesda and just ignore the old fanbase.
Chbaakal Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 EA has been the scum of the Earth as far back as 2002. I was one of the old Earth and Beyond MMO fans (was in the early Beta Test, back when a Beta Test was actually used for TESTING! the games, not a free trial) that at first thought Westwood had made a smart move getting EA as a publisher. Two years later, EA announced that they were shutting the MMO down (along with Motor City Online) due to losses of revenue. Here's a post I'd read from 2004 that stuck in my mind when I saw this thread: "One thing is for sure, and that is that EA is the worst thing to happen to the computer game market in a long time. They cancelled Dungeon Keeper II, Ultima Online 2, Ultima X, and Earth and Beyond. They are clearly obsessed with making money to the detriment of anything else. At least other companies can claim to love making games, even if they know they have to make money at it to succeed. I will never buy an EA online multiplayer game, because I don't trust the company to let it last. They also claimed that they did this and many other things to focus more on Ultima Online. Really? Well, I have no interest in the game, I did have interest in E&B. I don't have any intention of playing UO, and I almost hope the game dies just to spite EA. What else do they have, The Sims online? That's not even the same kind of game." And this: "This was good, because it shows everyone that Electronic Arts has a) a crapload of financial advisors that should be fired and no reason to be in the MMORPG area. Motor City Online was fun, so was E&B. MCO innovated, and failed to make money. E&B didn't innovate but did make money. They cancel both and run like sissies instead of making them work. I personally will never, ever, ever buy any MMO from EA." I continued to Beta Wow, Eve, and kept my old Anarchy Online account active, but EA had been (and still is) on my shitlist as a useless publisher. Some time ago I had found the Earth and Beyond Emulator, and was actually surprised that the staff was adding the 3 'new' classes that had been in the works by Westwood before the shutdown, along with new areas, loot, and MoBs. Glad someone found a way to flip a bird at EA, however long it took. No matter what game, EA can burn in the fiery depths of Gehenna for their blatantly obvious wallet-gouging 'visions' for their future game titles, and I hope that developers out there don't fall for their corporate LEET-speak when seeking a publisher. Down with the EA Mental Midget Ministry!
Mashi Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 Fallout fans said the same thing when Bethesda got the license for the series' date=' I imagine that EA will do like Bethesda and just ignore the old fanbase. [/quote'] I'm a huge, huge fallout fan. I've put hundreds on top of hundreds of hours into FO/FO2. I had no problems with Bethesda getting the license for the series, you know why? Because it was interplay that murdered Black Isle. The BIS that gave us such awesome games like IWD, IWD2, PS:Torment. And so on. Hell, when Bioware had problems they ran to BIS for help for BG/BG2. In turn when Obsidian did FO:NV, I was ecstatic, there was the BIS team getting their hands back on their baby. Hell Chbaakal mentioned EA being scum, well I posted a threat in the gaming thread about Chris Roberts returning to gaming. He's the guy who created ORIGIN studios, who gave us the Wing Commander/Starlancer/Freelancer and so on series. And apparently now, he's about ready to return and start making games, and I'll be honest. With the Firaxas X-Com remake(with half of the staff from the original Micropose team there), it's almost tasting like a new golden age of PC gaming out there.
Kamen Rider Kuuga Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 EA will die, it's just that first they have to run out of companies and people to eat. Once that's done, EA will starve to death because all their IPs will be burned out, and their answer to making new IPs, which is to eat others, will no longer be valid. Of course, by then Sol will have become a red giant and all life on Earth will be boiled away, but hey; it'll happen.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.