298 réponses à ce sujet

[DOYOURLABS]

It's my personal opinion that all publishers are evil because they are corporations. Corporations don't care about anything other than profit. It's their nature.

Modifié par DOYOURLABS, 25 mars 2012 - 04:56 .

[Blackmind1]

Aesieru wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

Google Visceral and Dice.

Some of the younger one's in here just don't understand how a business works. If a studio is failing, it needs to be shut down. It's far nicer of EA to liquidate them into the company and allow them to keep their jobs and living than just sac them when their work is failing.

Don't forget that EA has killed numerous developers on their own, then liquidated them because they weren't working out with EA leadership as the boss.

Name me a few. The ones that EA "Killed" likely failed outright because the games they created were not selling anymore. A company doesn't purposefully kill a useful asset unless that asset is already failing. In which case, again, it's far better that EA allow them to keep their jobs, rather than sacking them and leaving them unemployed.

[abaris]

I don't hate EA. In fact, I enjoyed their F1 series very much.

But I don't like them either. They are the harbingers of corporate behaviour and bean counting instead of quality in the game world. Their former long time president openly admitted that he wasn't into gaming and only interested in the market. And it is showing by catering to the lowest common denominator and absolute mainstream.

[Blackmind1]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

It's my personal opinion that all publishers are evil because they are corporations. Corporations don't care about anything other than profit. It's their nature.

That doesn't make them evil. That makes them a corporation, out to make money. It isn't really their fault that you can't grasp that concept. I'm of the mind that your tone would be different if you actually worked for one of them.

Modifié par Blackmind1, 25 mars 2012 - 04:59 .

[ZtalkerRM]

BeefoTheBold wrote...
If you believe a word that comes out of Casey's mouth these days then you lack pattern recognition. Casey has been misleading, lying and spinning for years now. 

"Propagandist" is the nicest thing that I can call him. Just about anything else would get me removed from the forum.

I don't know if it's his mistake per se.
If you look at all the interviews that were posted along the development, he is speaking about stuff that isn't in the game and that has (possibly) been cut due to time constraints. Same is true for Dragon Age 2...the people in charge of both project are fighting an un-winnable war every day.
They know they need more time to create a good product (because they are all experience Bioware veterans who care about games) but there's possiblyy, or even quite probably, an EA executive that's pushing, pushing and pushing him every single day. Eventually, you give up.

I know one of the original dev's left Bioware saying "It's not Bioware anymore."
A link about that is around the forums here somwhere..

[Well]

ZtalkerRM wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...
If you believe a word that comes out of Casey's mouth these days then you lack pattern recognition. Casey has been misleading, lying and spinning for years now. 

"Propagandist" is the nicest thing that I can call him. Just about anything else would get me removed from the forum.

I don't know if it's his mistake per se.
If you look at all the interviews that were posted along the development, he is speaking about stuff that isn't in the game and that has (possibly) been cut due to time constraints. Same is true for Dragon Age 2...the people in charge of both project are fighting an un-winnable war every day.
They know they need more time to create a good product (because they are all experience Bioware veterans who care about games) but there's possiblyy, or even quite probably, an EA executive that's pushing, pushing and pushing him every single day. Eventually, you give up.

I know one of the original dev's left Bioware saying "It's not Bioware anymore."
A link about that is around the forums here somwhere..

Could you post some links to this info.Thanks.

Modifié par Well, 25 mars 2012 - 05:08 .

[ShepardTheHopeful]

Blackmind1 wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...

It's my personal opinion that all publishers are evil because they are corporations. Corporations don't care about anything other than profit. It's their nature.

That doesn't make them evil. That makes them a corporation, out to make money. It isn't really their fault that you can't grasp that concept. I'm of the mind that your tone would be different if you actually worked for one of them.

There's a fine line between how much money a company can make off morals. There's the right way where you make 1 million a year and there's the wrong way where you cut corners and make 2 million a year. EA tends to go for the latter. Rather than finish a product and complete it to the full spectrum that they should they save money by publishing with good marketing. If you hype up a completed game and the game is 90% complete you save a ton of money and no one is the wiser until the news gets out or people find out days to weeks later. EA has always done this have you ever played a sports game by them it's usually the exact same thing tell me the major differences between Madden 11 and Madden 12. But people will buy them every year because it's a sports game and because it's new the one before it will be deemed useless. THis worked well for EA. Really well so they figured if they can make massive money off their own 2 bit pony idea, why not force their will upon others? The CEO of EA even admitted to ruining 3 good companies because they didn't want to follow EA's way and personally EA's way is immoral and doesn't lead to good games. If you look at bioware prior to EA there was never a problem hell I find it hard to find any complaints about bioware pre-EA. Now that they're with EA I see nothing but complaints. It's hard to see as coincidence that EA has to have some sort of responsibility given how greedy they are with EVERYTHING about their games. They even pretty much make it so no game they publish can be bought used if you want to play it online or use it in any fashion (aka that stupid damn anti piracy code) than you'd better buy it new. And the worse thing is. People do it. I honestly agree with some of these protestors I would like to sign a petition not to get Bioware to change the ending but to leave Bioware the hell alone and give them the creative freedom they need and deserve. But like many I'm just looking for a scapegoat. I still think EA has and will always be an evil no-nothing bastard. But eh what ya gonna do that's Capitalism....I had kinda just hoped it would never reach gaming like this.

[mutermath]

ZtalkerRM wrote...



I know one of the original dev's left Bioware saying "It's not Bioware anymore."
A link about that is around the forums here somwhere..

he's a writer right?
I think read something like that somewhere

[Moondoggie]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

It's my personal opinion that all publishers are evil because they are corporations. Corporations don't care about anything other than profit. It's their nature.

A company that wants to MAKE MONEY!? No way that can not possible exist!

[Paulinius]

There's a reason EA is focusing on DLC, microtransactions, cutting budgets, and rushing development times:

[kk777]

ShepardTheHopeful wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...

It's my personal opinion that all publishers are evil because they are corporations. Corporations don't care about anything other than profit. It's their nature.

That doesn't make them evil. That makes them a corporation, out to make money. It isn't really their fault that you can't grasp that concept. I'm of the mind that your tone would be different if you actually worked for one of them.

There's a fine line between how much money a company can make off morals. There's the right way where you make 1 million a year and there's the wrong way where you cut corners and make 2 million a year. EA tends to go for the latter. Rather than finish a product and complete it to the full spectrum that they should they save money by publishing with good marketing. If you hype up a completed game and the game is 90% complete you save a ton of money and no one is the wiser until the news gets out or people find out days to weeks later. EA has always done this have you ever played a sports game by them it's usually the exact same thing tell me the major differences between Madden 11 and Madden 12. But people will buy them every year because it's a sports game and because it's new the one before it will be deemed useless. THis worked well for EA. Really well so they figured if they can make massive money off their own 2 bit pony idea, why not force their will upon others? The CEO of EA even admitted to ruining 3 good companies because they didn't want to follow EA's way and personally EA's way is immoral and doesn't lead to good games. If you look at bioware prior to EA there was never a problem hell I find it hard to find any complaints about bioware pre-EA. Now that they're with EA I see nothing but complaints. It's hard to see as coincidence that EA has to have some sort of responsibility given how greedy they are with EVERYTHING about their games. They even pretty much make it so no game they publish can be bought used if you want to play it online or use it in any fashion (aka that stupid damn anti piracy code) than you'd better buy it new. And the worse thing is. People do it. I honestly agree with some of these protestors I would like to sign a petition not to get Bioware to change the ending but to leave Bioware the hell alone and give them the creative freedom they need and deserve. But like many I'm just looking for a scapegoat. I still think EA has and will always be an evil no-nothing bastard. But eh what ya gonna do that's Capitalism....I had kinda just hoped it would never reach gaming like this.

Nice little wall you've got there. If you expect anyone to take you seriously, use paragraphs.

[Aesieru]

Paulinius wrote...

There's a reason EA is focusing on DLC, microtransactions, cutting budgets, and rushing development times:

Of course their net loss is only that BECAUSE they've been rushing everything. Circular loop there.

[Paulinius]

Also, notice how marketing expenses have increase while research & development and costs of good sold (the money used to create each game) has decreased.

[Aesieru]

Blackmind1 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

Google Visceral and Dice.

Some of the younger one's in here just don't understand how a business works. If a studio is failing, it needs to be shut down. It's far nicer of EA to liquidate them into the company and allow them to keep their jobs and living than just sac them when their work is failing.

Don't forget that EA has killed numerous developers on their own, then liquidated them because they weren't working out with EA leadership as the boss.

Name me a few. The ones that EA "Killed" likely failed outright because the games they created were not selling anymore. A company doesn't purposefully kill a useful asset unless that asset is already failing. In which case, again, it's far better that EA allow them to keep their jobs, rather than sacking them and leaving them unemployed.

EA forced a FPS and a terrible expansion out for Westwood, the reception was poor, the company folded and was liquidated. They then rebooted it with TB3, an expansion, and then 4 and another expansion. These were met horribly and failed, requiring the liquidation of that asset and the reformation of yet ANOTHER attempt several years later called Victory Studios.

That's just ONE of the MANY examples.

[Thetri]

ZtalkerRM wrote...

mutermath wrote...

 People keep bashing EA on this site.
Can some please explain why?
I dont get it.
Some are saying the made bioware rush DA2 and now I see others saying ME3 too.

Bioware has been there since the early 90's and almost EVERY rpg there is got it's inspiration from Bioware's games. You have to understand, pre-EA, Bioware would always make a 'game of the year' or some other insanely inspiring and genre-defining game.
They basically single handedly revived Lucasarts with Kotor, revived hardcore rpg-ing with Dragon Age.

Since they've been with EA, it all went downhill. You need to see it in context: Bioware is a great company, but things have changed. Rushed games (DA2), shoddy programming (FIFA and other sport games), cheap rip-offs (Need for Speed series) are an EA thing, not a Bioware thing. Same with all the DLC controversies: It's the EA way to do things.

Hmm.... Dragon Age Origins was published by EA.... Look at the case/play it. You will see a EA logo. 

[Paulinius]

^This

EA has a trend of taking proven IP's and changing them to "appeal to the mass market (Call of Duty's audience).

That's fine if they want to do that with a new IP. But I have a problem when they pull this on proven IP's with a loyal fanbase. The mass market generally doesn't care and doesn't buy up the game in amounts they hoped for and the fans of the IP generally don't like the game because what made it popular in the first place has been changed/removed.

[Aesieru]

Thetri wrote...

ZtalkerRM wrote...

mutermath wrote...

 People keep bashing EA on this site.
Can some please explain why?
I dont get it.
Some are saying the made bioware rush DA2 and now I see others saying ME3 too.

Bioware has been there since the early 90's and almost EVERY rpg there is got it's inspiration from Bioware's games. You have to understand, pre-EA, Bioware would always make a 'game of the year' or some other insanely inspiring and genre-defining game.
They basically single handedly revived Lucasarts with Kotor, revived hardcore rpg-ing with Dragon Age.

Since they've been with EA, it all went downhill. You need to see it in context: Bioware is a great company, but things have changed. Rushed games (DA2), shoddy programming (FIFA and other sport games), cheap rip-offs (Need for Speed series) are an EA thing, not a Bioware thing. Same with all the DLC controversies: It's the EA way to do things.

Hmm.... Dragon Age Origins was published by EA.... Look at the case/play it. You will see a EA logo. 

It's well known that they bought the company in 2007, but they only really got in to get their name on things, they didn't affect development, didn't have the time. Same with ME 1.

[BeefoTheBold]

Aesieru wrote...

Paulinius wrote...

There's a reason EA is focusing on DLC, microtransactions, cutting budgets, and rushing development times:

Of course their net loss is only that BECAUSE they've been rushing everything. Circular loop there.

Bingo.

Did you ever consider that maybe they're losing more and more money because gamers like me refuse to buy their games new now if they're going to be doing the things they've been doing?

Create shoddy, half-finished products, flood people with nickle and diming crap, target the exact same market as everyone else, etc. and, guess what, people stop buying your game and believing what you say.

Bioware had absolutely no problem being profitable BEFORE EA because they had a loyal, strong fanbase who lapped up everything they created because THEY HAD CONSISTENT QUALITY.

[Heavenly_King]

I think that is because, they think that since Bioware was bought by EA, the quality of BW games have been decreasing.   It might be true in some degree considering DA2 and ME3.  Less places to explore, not so interesting story, less customization, less deep conversation, a lot of automatic dialogue <_<.

I AM SAD

Modifié par Heavenly_King, 25 mars 2012 - 05:44 .

[Paulinius]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Paulinius wrote...

There's a reason EA is focusing on DLC, microtransactions, cutting budgets, and rushing development times:

Of course their net loss is only that BECAUSE they've been rushing everything. Circular loop there.

Bingo.

Did you ever consider that maybe they're losing more and more money because gamers like me refuse to buy their games new now if they're going to be doing the things they've been doing?

Create shoddy, half-finished products, flood people with nickle and diming crap, target the exact same market as everyone else, etc. and, guess what, people stop buying your game and believing what you say.

Bioware had absolutely no problem being profitable BEFORE EA because they had a loyal, strong fanbase who lapped up everything they created because THEY HAD CONSISTENT QUALITY.

I agree 100%.

In the effort to obtain short-term gains, they are hurting their long-term success and viability. I don't want a rushed game nor do I want a game from an IP that has completly butchered the successes and main selling points of the IP.

Cutting a games budget, rushing it out, and trying to appeal to the mass market has failed. Copying CoD and WoW hasn't worked, yet they keep doing it.

[Aesieru]

ACTUALLY I think BioWare was having some financial problems if I recall, but I think that was because they were focusing on too many things at once.

[Turic]

because people want to be angry, being angry is simple. and they hate everybody, but trying to explain their words.

[Kristofer1]

remember goldeneye? great game. one of the best. when EA started making bond games, they were beyond terrible. i couldnt stand them. then ME2 came along and felt a little off. i love the game but some changes didnt make sense. then ME3, gets a delay, but still feels rushed. DA2, good game, but it felt rushed as well. DA:O took ages to create, years. many years. DA:2 felt like it was done very fast. why, EA.

even NHL games got bad overtime with EA. I stopped playing them in like 2002

[Thetri]

I don't hate EA. I don't think I ever will, they gave me The Orange Box, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect on PS3. I never had a 360 or capable PC hardware at the time they brought them to PS3, I thank them for giving me a chance to play them. I do not however support their constant DLC pushing and online passes.

[Blackmind1]

Aesieru wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

Google Visceral and Dice.

Some of the younger one's in here just don't understand how a business works. If a studio is failing, it needs to be shut down. It's far nicer of EA to liquidate them into the company and allow them to keep their jobs and living than just sac them when their work is failing.

Don't forget that EA has killed numerous developers on their own, then liquidated them because they weren't working out with EA leadership as the boss.

Name me a few. The ones that EA "Killed" likely failed outright because the games they created were not selling anymore. A company doesn't purposefully kill a useful asset unless that asset is already failing. In which case, again, it's far better that EA allow them to keep their jobs, rather than sacking them and leaving them unemployed.

EA forced a FPS and a terrible expansion out for Westwood, the reception was poor, the company folded and was liquidated. They then rebooted it with TB3, an expansion, and then 4 and another expansion. These were met horribly and failed, requiring the liquidation of that asset and the reformation of yet ANOTHER attempt several years later called Victory Studios.

That's just ONE of the MANY examples.

lol, come on. I've been in this industry for nearly 10 years and I've been gaming for longer. You're trying to tell me that you know of the "MANY" more, then tell me, who are the "MANY" more.

Modifié par Blackmind1, 25 mars 2012 - 05:54 .