130 réponses à ce sujet

[Kanner]

Released unpolished Warhammer

Released unpolished Dragon Age



EA is just the absolute last name you want to be associated with any game, least of all something as complex as an RPG. I have not noticed any change whatsoever over the last two years - EA games are always released in a barely playable state, and I do not buy them unless the title is an absolute must for me.

[Veracruz]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

nah EA arent nearly as bad as they used to be.
activision have taken over the evil mantle.

So true. EA are saints in comparison to Activision.

[Kanner]

What on earth did Activision do?



World of Warcraft and Guitar Hero are rather good, imo.

[Bryy_Miller]

You discounted all old skoolers with your statement as a response to mine. GJ at irony, pal.

No, I just discounted yours.

[Washell]

Dragon Age1103 wrote...

  There used to only be PC sales for 90% of bideo game sales so you can't really convince me they needed to make it for consoles or fall as a company. I understand times are changing but sellign it cross platform are there any solid numbers out there PC in comparison to consoles sales. I mean they sold the console versions for $34.99 & 39.99 for like 2 weeks. Was that to compete with MW2? b/c numbers were not as high as they wished? out of the love they have int heir hearst for their fans! lol yeah right.

Development for PS2/XBOX/Equivalent PC used to 3 to 5 million US dollar per game.

Development for PS3/360/Equivalent PC averages 20 to 30 million US dollar per game. Did the price you pay in stores multiply by 10 too? Or do you really believe they were making just that much profit before? Do you believe the (paying) PC market has multiplied by 10?

Now take into account that both developer and publishers release more than one title, not all make profit or heck, break even. In spite of that, shareholders still want to see black ink in the books and a rising share price. Even if you could make a profit on just the PC market, you'd still want the extra income from the console market.

Nice summary, properly sourced: Videogame costs

As for fail as a company and hard current figures. Europe is traditionally more PC centric when it comes to gaming. MW2 sold 1.7 million units in the UK. 3% of which was the PC version. Surely you don't want to call not shipping to 97% of your market succeeding?

[Dragon Age1103]

Washell wrote...

Dragon Age1103 wrote...

  There used to only be PC sales for 90% of bideo game sales so you can't really convince me they needed to make it for consoles or fall as a company. I understand times are changing but sellign it cross platform are there any solid numbers out there PC in comparison to consoles sales. I mean they sold the console versions for $34.99 & 39.99 for like 2 weeks. Was that to compete with MW2? b/c numbers were not as high as they wished? out of the love they have int heir hearst for their fans! lol yeah right.

Development for PS2/XBOX/Equivalent PC used to 3 to 5 million US dollar per game.

Development for PS3/360/Equivalent PC averages 20 to 30 million US dollar per game. Did the price you pay in stores multiply by 10 too? Or do you really believe they were making just that much profit before? Do you believe the (paying) PC market has multiplied by 10?

Now take into account that both developer and publishers release more than one title, not all make profit or heck, break even. In spite of that, shareholders still want to see black ink in the books and a rising share price. Even if you could make a profit on just the PC market, you'd still want the extra income from the console market.

Nice summary, properly sourced: Videogame costs

As for fail as a company and hard current figures. Europe is traditionally more PC centric when it comes to gaming. MW2 sold 1.7 million units in the UK. 3% of which was the PC version. Surely you don't want to call not shipping to 97% of your market succeeding?

 Sorry even with a nice source not buying it considering how much money is wasted constantly on ads plus our entire system in the US is barrow now pay back later & just repeat until you're dead, someone buys you out, you go bankrupt, or just keep going & handing the business down.
   Plus you still have Blizzard & Valve as a nice big slap in the face of proof that PC companies can stand on two feet. you do not need console numbers, factor in dev costs, time, resources, adds, consoles disc & packaging then count the total console units sold I just do not believe that even combined consoles would outsell PC version of DAO.
  Also MW2 is a terrible example considering they turned their backs on the PC community & suffered sales numbers b/c of it. Everyone knows the countless PC gamers that were outraged by the change in servers. So that was just a bad example. Plus most shooters are directed towards console.
   Some of the best RPGs either started on PC or flurished on PC whether it be tactical, MMO, co-op, action, snadbox, what ever.
   Finally pointing out that costs have gone up well that is just a way of life. Technology advances at our society progresses & costs go up...living expenses, video games, food, gas it applies to all so lost case there as well.

   Oh & releasing more tha  1 title a year is common but how many EA ships out I think  they are finally figuring out how greedy they've been making dozens of games a year that rarely turn a mentionable profit. That is their own fault so you can't factor ina  compies own stupidity into their dev costs they caused that problem for themselves.

[Bryy_Miller]

Wait, you think the publisher cares about how much money your or I have?

[EricHVela]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

The so-called EA-hate has justification with the old-skoolers.

Way to completely write off anyone who says anything otherwise concerning EA.

Back at you.

What I said is that old-skoolers feel justified. I said nothing about whether anyone else have justification or not about their feelings.

You discounted all old skoolers with your statement as a response to mine. GJ at irony, pal.

No, I just discounted yours.

If you say so. Keep telling yourself that.

[Grumblesnort]

Shhesh, this game isn't too botched at all, you want to see a mess, look at Sarced 2 troubleshooting forum, now, that's a nightmare

[Hizoka003]

the ONLY RPGs that were really ever any good that were not PC only were/are the Legend of Zelda games, and the Final Fantasy games BEFORE Enix bought Square

[Hizoka003]

Washell wrote...



Name "any" games with the same sales figures and long shelf lives of Blizzard and Valve games. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean the rule is wrong. Second, name "any big budget triple A" current PC exclusive game where the developer hasn't announced the next title will be console too.

Star Wars: The Old Republic



there you go

[Hizoka003]

oh yeah... on the whole "you must cross plat form idea" the Nintendo Wii has more exclusive titles then PC Xbox360 and PS3 combined yet they own over 60% of the total market share...





there are more Wii owners the xbox and PS3 owner combined.... you do not have to cross platform... you HAVE to make things that do not suck....

[Hizoka003]

Kanner wrote...

What on earth did Activision do?

World of Warcraft and Guitar Hero are rather good, imo.

you never played WoW did you.... play that for a month and then complain about DAO not having polish... Blizzard has had 5 YEARS to polis that game and its got moe bug in it then bob marleys hair

[Dragon Age1103]

lol, ppl get so off topic its funny. This post wasn't about how unpolished other games are. It's about DAO feeling unfinished due to pictures not matching items at all almost ever, the dex glitch for rogues, completely unbalanced magic game play, ppl falling through the floor, characters not coming into your party at the correct time, no stamina potions, unbalanced currency, many over powered abilities & spells, could of been multiplayer like BG2 if it was for PC gamers only, plus all kinds of other bugs that should of been addressed & could of been before launch if console wasn't involved.

As I said before it doesn't really matter for 2 reasons...1 I LOVE the game & they lost their chance for it to be epic 2 EA will most likely run Bioware into the ground & we'll all be screwed so might as well enjoy them while they are still around!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Good point about the Wii, given its like a disney console with a bunch of lame kiddy games but hey it works it makes high sale numbers. Point being I will not be convinced without a compelling argument that games MUST be cross platform to survive.....pretty much only crap games must be cross platform to survive.

Halo, MGS4, Half-Life, Diablo 2, there are tons of examples that games can strive on their on console & nothing else.

Everyone encouraging cross platforming all games are just lsowly destroying the quality of games. All we have left is Starcraft 2 & DIablo 3. I understand not everyone is a hardcore gamer & they do not need a in depth expensive well developed game to be entertained but I want my money's worth instead of these junk cross platform shooters with never ending $15-$20 DLC to milk us for money in an annoying online community. Everything is better on PC to me....lets see Diablo 2 play with friends or just sign online meet some ppl chat it up grind a few levels....xbox live have babies screaming in your ear or toddlers speaking Ebonics, grown men cursing & screaming until their voice is horse. PSN you can't even talk to ppl but on a few select games. Consoles mostly have junk generic games in comparison to PC & the same goes for the community of gamers that make up the console population. Its just sad to grow up on video games only to have it go from fun, being an outlet, finding a passion for RPG's & D7D style game play to these junk titles they try to call games today.

If companies really want to stop losing money compare sales records for movie games & STOP making them!! There is no way in hell they ever turn a profit even half the time. I love transformers...the old tv series is generic as hell but I love it BUT even the games are too cheap & generic for me. Point again wasting money & all other resources...listen to the community learn from valve & blizzard & EA could of made a lot more money even built an online community with a multiplayer feature & kept feeding us expansions, patches & DLC for a few bucks here & there keeping ppl hooked on the online aspect for months or even longer if marketed correctly. Perhaps they'll learn & make DAO 2 a true spiritual successor & implement multiplayer. I'm not saying this is required for fun but would of made it feel like a true successor b/cs it could be enjoyed online or off & wouldn't effect the ppl who don't want to play online at all just would of been one more feature & option.



THis is way too long not even thought out lol just typing...done!

[Washell]

Hizoka003 wrote...

Star Wars: The Old Republic

One, it isn't released yet. Two, it's an MMO. Don't be dense.

As for the Wii, thanks to the less powerful hardware, development costs are halved. So where a PS3/360 title has to sell 500k units to break even. A Wii title only has to sell 250k units, to a market that's twice as big. In addition, it has a unique controller so quite a few games are technically impossible to port. No surprise there's tons of exclusive Wii titles. The guys at Nintendo really used their brains for this one.

Yes, there are a couple of exceptions that can survive and even be profitable on a single platform. But your run of the mill games have to cross platform to be profitable.

Modifié par Washell, 09 décembre 2009 - 11:56 .

[Washell]

Dragon Age1103 wrote...

That is their own fault so you can't factor ina  compies own stupidity into their dev costs they caused that problem for themselves.

Well, if you can tell from the initial design notes or sales pitch whether a game is going to make a profit or fail, apply to EA now. They'll gladly pay you a 7 figure salary because you'll be sparing them 9 to 10 figures in development.

[Dragon Age1103]

Washell wrote...

Dragon Age1103 wrote...

That is their own fault so you can't factor ina  compies own stupidity into their dev costs they caused that problem for themselves.

Well, if you can tell from the initial design notes or sales pitch whether a game is going to make a profit or fail, apply to EA now. They'll gladly pay you a 7 figure salary because you'll be sparing them 9 to 10 figures in development.

ah yes another annoying person on the forums, didn't see that coming. Let see why you should talk...hmm generic movie games for almost any movie whether its a hit or not....good idea...something is telling me no!! Also if Devs spent more time & resouces on plot, qualityl, game length, replay value instead of shiny graphics maybe they would make money......let me predict the future here...i predict even though i find you to be an annoying know-it-all with his head far up somewhere it shouldn't be....i sadly suspect you'll waste your time & respond to me & hopefully I don't return the favor by wasting my tiem & reading your annoying response. Since you seem to know so much though Perhaps you can give me soem figures on how much halo costs their profits...compared to how much transformers revenge of the fallen the game costs to make & what the profit was then compare...let me know how that works out. Super Smash Brothers, Super MArio brothers, Zelda Twilight Princess, World of Warcraft, WArcraft 1-3, Diablo 1-2, Baldur's Gate, Half-Life, Counter Strike, Halo, Metal Gear Solid, Forza 1-3, Starcraft, Unreal Tournament, so many other titles that were exclusive to one console then maybe later spread to others point being all eamples of why you are wrong. Money is barrowed constantly paid  back then barrow...there is always black, red, & green in the books so arguing numbers on 360 only or PC only games is  alost cause. Rare examples a few examples tons of specific console only games or PC only games have sold millions & millions of copies but reading & thinking seem to be pretty hard for you...if you want to come in here with sarcasm then expect a rude attitude or response right back at you. Also feel free to fell stupid. 
   There all opinions there are no hard numbers that companies will release so there are no hard facts one way or the other if you get far enough in depth. The only proof there is for my arguement is that plenty of PC, 360, Wii, or PS3 titles have sold millions & millions of copies with a very solid chance they made a pretty profit from it.

[Khevar]

Or if you'd like it put more simply: Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.

[Bryy_Miller]

ReggarBlane wrote...

If you say so. Keep telling yourself that.

Reggar, if you want people to take you with any grain of salt, please do not imply that you somehow know what they think. It's REAL unbecoming. If I did indeed generalize, you are taking it one step further and way too personally.
"Keep telling yourself that"? Honestly?
It's a video game, dude. Don't get so butthurt.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 10 décembre 2009 - 12:56 .

[enderandrew]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

nah EA arent nearly as bad as they used to be.
activision have taken over the evil mantle.

You've never talked to a developer who worked for EA, or seen the lawsuits against them for forcing developers to work 70-80 hours a week without paying for overtime.

Look at the laundry list of great companies that EA destroyed, and you'll see they are the single biggest villian in the PC gaming industry.

EA is still an industry leader in intrusive DRM policies and poor customer support.

As for Pandemic being no huge loss, their Starwars Battlefront games were incredible. Destroy All Humans was good stupid fun. Merceneries was much better than I expected it to be. And they had a Dark Knight, open-world game that EA decided to cancel and not ship.

http://en.wikipedia....andemic_Studios

That was twelve shades of brilliant.

[OneBadAssMother]

I think people are rather paranoid of EA's past.



Still, I have to admit I find the ingame salesman that you can't pull the murder-knife on; a rather bad way to sell additional content. It would be preferable if immersion-breaking aspects of the game were kept out unless the DLC is already purchased and installed.

[JJM152]

enderandrew wrote...

Matthew Young CT wrote...

nah EA arent nearly as bad as they used to be.
activision have taken over the evil mantle.

You've never talked to a developer who worked for EA, or seen the lawsuits against them for forcing developers to work 70-80 hours a week without paying for overtime.

Look at the laundry list of great companies that EA destroyed, and you'll see they are the single biggest villian in the PC gaming industry.

EA is still an industry leader in intrusive DRM policies and poor customer support.

As for Pandemic being no huge loss, their Starwars Battlefront games were incredible. Destroy All Humans was good stupid fun. Merceneries was much better than I expected it to be. And they had a Dark Knight, open-world game that EA decided to cancel and not ship.

http://en.wikipedia....andemic_Studios

That was twelve shades of brilliant.

To be fair, the reason why Dark Knight got canceled was because it was ****. There were several bad design choices, engine choices, and a crushing time frame exaggerated by hiring poor quality contractors that all lead to its downfall.

Mostly, the problems seem to lay on the management/sales side. They wanted somthing like GTA in spandex, using an engine the parent company owned that was entirely unsuitable for the task and they wanted it in about a year so they could release it when the movie came out. Of course the game was utter crap.

To me, the big deal is that the CEO of EA basically bilked his shareholders on the sale/purchase of Pandemic and pocketed 5 million dollars off it, only to lose shareholder value and close the studio two years later. This man should be put on a rail and run out of town. 

[Washell]

Dragon Age1103 wrote... stuff

One, I let it slip the first time, since the rest of your english is decent, but it's borrow, not barrow. A (wheel)barrow is used to haul manure around.

Two, you can't seem to get it into your thick skull that the past is irrelevant. PS3 and 360 (seventh generation) were released 05/06. The computational and graphical capabilities of this hardware allowed and thus demanded bigger levels, higher poly models, better textures, improved animations, etc, etc. These are all manmade, all drawing salaries. Thus multiplying development costs by a factor of 10. Now check to see when crossplatforming started. Shorter games started. Episodic games started. Almost all games you named are before 05/06.

In addition, there are ~150 million 6th generation consoles on the market (PS2/Xbox) so in comparison the console market has shrunk by a third vs a tenfold rise in development cost.

Your two big favorites, Valve and Blizzard. Valve went episodic, allows recycling of assets and charging $120 total for 3 episodes where they would barely have gotten away with $60 for a single game with the exact same content. PS, HL went crossplatform too. Blizzard went online, both in terms of WoW and battlenet for regular games. Expect SC2 and Diablo 3 to rely heavily on online interaction only available via legal copy. With limited piracy, a big IP and a big name developer, platform exclusive can be profitable.

[Matthew Young CT]

enderandrew wrote...
You've never talked to a developer who worked for EA, or seen the lawsuits against them for forcing developers to work 70-80 hours a week without paying for overtime.

course i have. i know how they were.

Look at the laundry list of great companies that EA destroyed, and you'll see they are the single biggest villian in the PC gaming industry.

used to be. pay attention to the new villain.

EA is still an industry leader in intrusive DRM policies and poor customer support.

er they just backed down on the drm for da.....simple disk check? thats as good as we're ever gonna get.

ea USED to be horrible. theyre still far from good, but theyre not particularly worse than ubisoft or whoever.

[RockGnasher]

I'm not such a big fan of graphics either... I'm more about gameplay and how well everything fits together. Solitaire is a good game. They keep amping the graphics but fewer people are able to drive the games with their older machines. With the crash of the economy maybe we will see game play catch up with graphics as people cannot afford new machines to drive new games.



I think there are a lot of games that do not really need better graphics just more well designed content. That could save a lot of dough, paying the rogue scholars peanuts to come up with interesting stories, if only people running business had any creative integrity left these days.