88390 réponses à ce sujet

[Conduit0]

BasilKarlo wrote...

It was confirmed shortly after the trailer first came out that they're all the using the model of Morrigan from the Sacred Ashes trailer. I'm not sure if you just have terrible vision or if you're looking for an argument but you are wrong. Plainly wrong.

And now you're just plain lying, not surprising though.

[Fast Jimmy]

Besides, the only witches are Flemeth and her daughters, so unless Flemeth has an entire army of children she's kept hidden, the idea that they're all witches doesn't even make sense.

I'm not going to act like an expert, but I believe The Silent Grove insinuated that there are many Daughters of Flemeth alive besides Morrigan. An army? Maybe not. But more than one.

[Steppenwolf]

Conduit0 wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

It was confirmed shortly after the trailer first came out that they're all the using the model of Morrigan from the Sacred Ashes trailer. I'm not sure if you just have terrible vision or if you're looking for an argument but you are wrong. Plainly wrong.

And now you're just plain lying, not surprising though.

Dude, you are wrong. Calling me a liar doesn't change the facts.
When the trailer dropped it was picked apart, frame by frame. Several devs commented on it. It was confirmed that all of the mages in that scene use Morrigan's model from the Sacred Ashes trailer.
But now I'm done with this. You're just looking for an argument despite being wrong.

[Conduit0]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

It was confirmed shortly after the trailer first came out that they're all the using the model of Morrigan from the Sacred Ashes trailer. I'm not sure if you just have terrible vision or if you're looking for an argument but you are wrong. Plainly wrong.

And now you're just plain lying, not surprising though.

Dude, you are wrong. Calling me a liar doesn't change the facts.
When the trailer dropped it was picked apart, frame by frame. Several devs commented on it. It was confirmed that all of the mages in that scene use Morrigan's model from the Sacred Ashes trailer.
But now I'm done with this. You're just looking for an argument despite being wrong.

Than prove me wrong, anyone can say, "I'm right cause a dev said so". Find a link to where a dev amkes that comment and I'll apologize.

[Welsh Inferno]

Conduit0 wrote...

-snip-

You're impossible. 

Im outta this. Derailed the thread enough as it is anyway.

[Commander Kurt]

 What on earth am I reading..? Are people actually suggesting that companies are evil for laying off people? Do you think this is a hobby or something? 

I employ 23 people at the moment, sometimes more and sometimes less. I have to fire good people who are passionate about their job almost on a yearly basis. Thing is, I still employ 23 people, and I find it endlessly amusing that those who would bash companies for laying off people generally employ no one at all.

Funny how that goes.

[Conduit0]

Commander Kurt wrote...

 What on earth am I reading..? Are people actually suggesting that companies are evil for laying off people? Do you think this is a hobby or something? 

I employ 23 people at the moment, sometimes more and sometimes less. I have to fire good people who are passionate about their job almost on a yearly basis. Thing is, I still employ 23 people, and I find it endlessly amusing that those who would bash companies for laying off people generally employ no one at all.

Funny how that goes.

Although I agree that companies don't do layoffs just to be mean, I still can't help but think how many of those layoffs would actually be needed if those companies weren't paying all of their top execs ridiculous multi-million dollar saleries.

[Allan Schumacher]

The executives issue isn't really that easy IMO. It's a different market for a more standard worker, and an executive. It's kind of like a sports athlete, in that they probably don't need to make several millions of dollars per year, but that is what the competitive market for those roles are and on some level if they aren't paid competitive compensation, those players will go play for other teams that will pay that compensation.

Taking it to executives, a prospectful CEO making $100k/yr compared to a position making $1m/yr, that first job is going to need to have some significant advantages to overcome that level of compensation discrepancy.

The prices for executives to drop would essentially require business in general (not just gaming businesses) to universally lower compensation. It's not something that necessarily bothers me perse, but I do agree it can lead to eyebrow raising situations at times.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 11 avril 2013 - 07:27 .

[ShaggyWolf]

I'd like to point out that nowhere in my post did I suggest that EA was evil for laying people off. And I didn't say "OH EHM GEE, THEY FIRED SOME PEOPLE, I WON'T BUY THEIR GAMES ANYMORE!"

I completely understand the necessity of layoffs in the business world, it's a logical move to make. The problem is that EA does it all the time. They cut people so that they have to spend less, or replace the people they let go with cheaper personnel. Most of the time they get rid of people who were with their development studio before EA acquired it.

I'll admit there's a lot of things that happen in the business world that are above me, but I do know that EA does a lot of things that I don't like, and I know that other publishers and development studios manage their business differently and generally produce more satisfactory titles, I would assume, as a result of their different approach.

My other worry is this: Bioware was strained when they developed the last Dragon age game. And now they're losing developers before the game is even officially revealed. Explain how that helps them make a better game now? And what else has EA been doing to manage their situation? Should I assume they stopped at laying off developers? What if they reduced DA3's development budget too? What if they got rid of some of DA3's writers when they were laying people off? Maybe one of you enlightened business-savvy folk can explain to my emotionally-driven and obviously-simple mind how Bioware and DA3 will be just fine, and why I should continue buy EA products when I have so little faith in them. And explain to me how rushing out to buy DA3 on release day or even pre-ordering the game encourages EA to do anything differently.

Edit: I'll even ammend my stance and admit that stating I won't buy DA3 at all was an emotionally-driven and admittedly foolish thing to say at this point. My concern still stands: Everyone at EA and Bioware would ideally want me to believe that Dragon age 3 is going to be a quality title. And believe me, I really want it to be, I love the universe, otherwise I wouldn't be here raging on the forums. I just have a hard time seeing how anything is going to be better or different when I see EA using the same old business strategies that have hurt their game's quality in the past.

Modifié par Valadras21, 11 avril 2013 - 08:11 .

[Commander Kurt]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The executives issue isn't really that easy IMO. It's a different market for a more standard worker, and an executive. It's kind of like a sports athlete, in that they probably don't need to make several millions of dollars per year, but that is what the competitive market for those roles are and on some level if they aren't paid competitive compensation, those players will go play for other teams that will pay that compensation.

Taking it to executives, a prospectful CEO making $100k/yr compared to a position making $1m/yr, that first job is going to need to have some significant advantages to overcome that level of compensation discrepancy.

The prices for executives to drop would essentially require business in general (not just gaming businesses) to universally lower compensation. It's not something that necessarily bothers me perse, but I do agree it can lead to eyebrow raising situations at times.

Well, this is what the business aces state, but I'm not really convinced. The thing it hinges on is the idea that these exec's have a unique gift that is very rare and highly essential for managing a large corporation. I don't buy it. Sure, you need to be smart and dedicated as all hell, but one thing I have learned is that position and ability don't always match.

Recruitment to these types of jobs is done from a VERY narrow pool of talent, not at all like a hockey team looking to invest, and the ones doing the recruiting are all interested in these salaries and benefits being high (because they're in the same pot). Even the owners of large companies are just other large companies whose exec's also have a personal interest in inflating compensations for higher-ups.

I'm pretty sure there is actually lots of equally (or more so) talented individuals who are willing to do the job for less, but why would the ones calling the shots want that? They are paid similar compensations themselves for crying out loud.

As for that money going towards keeping employees who have for some reason become redundant, that would be true in the long term. That profit, if invested wisely, could help the company become more successful, thus increasing the size of the company and its workforce.

[Steppenwolf]

The trend over the last 10 years has been that as CEOs make more and more money, the company makes less and less profit. Obviously that doesn't apply to every business, but it is more common than not. We always here about these massive salaries being necessary to attract the best leaders, but almost no companies stipulate that bonuses be based on performance. Hell, CEOs get massive payouts for being fired.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, this is what the business aces state, but I'm not really convinced. The thing it hinges on is the idea that these exec's have a unique gift that is very rare and highly essential for managing a large corporation. I don't buy it. Sure, you need to be smart and dedicated as all hell, but one thing I have learned is that position and ability don't always match.

I'd be lying if I was sure what sort of skills are necessary to be a business executive. I actually (mostly jokingly, but with a twinge of "hmmmmmm") considering investigating applying for the opening! I agree that position and ability don't always match, but that's applicable everywhere.

Recruitment to these types of jobs is done from a VERY narrow pool of talent, not at all like a hockey team looking to invest, and the ones doing the recruiting are all interested in these salaries and benefits being high (because they're in the same pot). Even the owners of large companies are just other large companies whose exec's also have a personal interest in inflating compensations for higher-ups.

Actually, I'd argue that a professional hockey team has a very narrow pool of talent to choose from. They aren't going to pick me up to play in their game, they need players of exceptional talent levels in order to compete. An NHL team that were to stock its teams with only ECHL caliber players would ultimately fail (epically) and lose support and disappear.

I'm pretty sure there is actually lots of equally (or more so) talented individuals who are willing to do the job for less, but why would the ones calling the shots want that? They are paid similar compensations themselves for crying out loud.

I don't really know what the job entails, so it's hard for me to really state whether or not people would be interested in doing something like that. And I can agree the idea of a small "boys club" is something that can certainly be self-fulfilling, with a public company is does overlook the shareholders. There's been a push for more shareholder activism from the institutional investors (which make up over 99% of EA's investors), and a shareholder group is much less interested in making sure that the executives are paid handsomely for their own benefits.


EDIT: Though this is grossly off topic.  If you want to carry on the discussion feel free to start up a thread in off topic and let me know about.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 11 avril 2013 - 08:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Executives being paid tons of money isn't just a compensation issue, its a strategic one.

Sure, someone could put in a 70-hour week, had the market and business acumen to do the job and be fine with a $250K salary for a Fortune 500 company... but for how long? What would stop a competitor from reaching out and saying "Hey, we will give you double that, no sweat, to be an exec with us... oh, and make sure you bring all of that company inside acumen, future plans and inside information."

Executives have direct access to the plans, projections and overall strategy of the companies they work for. Not to mention they become the "faces" of the companies they work for. When the Doctors left Bioware, people flipped out. When EA's CEO "resigned," people flipped out. If your top execs ever leave, it represents serious risk and mitigation to make that not a huge event.

So the idea is that in order to keep the people who have the most to give your competitors and who the most people will recognize if they left your company is to give them so much money, they won't even DREAM of leaving unless it is to make a full exit of the industry or even retire. It's a security move, not a "come join the rich kids club" move. Asset protection - pure and simple.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 avril 2013 - 08:44 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Valadras21 wrote...

I completely understand the necessity of layoffs in the business world, it's a logical move to make. The problem is that EA does it all the time. They cut people so that they have to spend less, or replace the people they let go with cheaper personnel. Most of the time they get rid of people who were with their development studio before EA acquired it.

I've been in the industry for many years. I've seen (and been in) my share of layoffs, and I'll be the first to say that EA is hardly alone. Everyone does it all the time. The game industry is very volatile, and it honestly kinda sucks. But it isn't because EA does it all the time. Everyone does it all the time. The last time EA had major company-wide layoffs was 2009, when the company lost over a billion dollars. To provide some context, within the past two years or so we've seen THQ and all of its studios go under, LucasArts get shuttered, and Activision close RedOctane, Luxoflux, Budcat, 7 Studios, and Bizarre Creations. Square-Enix also just recently downsized a large number of their Los Angeles office, and even Square-Enix's president is stepping down and being replaced.

I've worked for an indie studio that was forced to lay off workers because our publisher didn't renew our contract, and I've worked for publisher-owned studio that simply didn't have the money to keep paying for the entire team to stay around after the game launched. Sometimes employees of those publishers get shuffled to other studios. Sometimes they quit and strike out on their own. Sometimes they just get hired by another studio. Many times, they get laid off and find work elsewhere.

I'll admit there's a lot of things that happen in the business world that are above me, but I do know that EA does a lot of things that I don't like, and I know that other publishers and development studios manage their business differently and generally produce more satisfactory titles, I would assume, as a result of their different approach.

This is mostly fictional. I've worked for many different publishers (and studios), and they're really not that different. My industry friends have worked for even more than that. EA's titles are about as satisfactory as most other publicly traded publishers' titles. There are a handful of outlier developers/publishers that do buck the trend, but they are almost all privately owned and thus not legally bound to do their best to get their shareholders the best return they can.

[upsettingshorts]

Also confirmation bias. Given a pre-existing dislike for EA, an individual is more likely to remember instances the confirm that perception. Layoff news may not stick with such an individual, but EA layoffs would, and as such contribute to the belief that EA lays off people at a unique or unprecedented rate. This also goes for DLC, DRM, pre-order bonuses, etc. That isn't to say EA does not do those things, but their relative frequency when compared with other companies can be perceived as being greater.

That's not a criticism of the individual, it's just a common error in human cognition that can happen with anyone about anything.

[Steppenwolf]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Also confirmation bias. Given a pre-existing dislike for EA, an individual is more likely to remember instances the confirm that perception. Layoff news may not stick with such an individual, but EA layoffs would, and as such contribute to the belief that EA lays off people at a unique or unprecedented rate. This also goes for DLC, DRM, pre-order bonuses, etc. That isn't to say EA does not do those things, but their relative frequency when compared with other companies can be perceived as being greater.

That's not a criticism of the individual, it's just a common error in human cognition that can happen with anyone about anything.

This is all true.
Plus, we have to take into consideration how in flux the game making process really is. The scope of these games is becoming ever larger, but the timeframes to make them is not. Design teams have become huge and sometimes companies don't realize that they've hired too many people in one area and not enough in another until everything is in full swing.

[Fast Jimmy]

So...




...how 'bout that Twitter?

[Allan Schumacher]

This thread isn't the place for ranting about Peter Moore's blog post, nor the Consumerist's response to it.

[Steppenwolf]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This thread isn't the place for ranting about Peter Moore's blog post, nor the Consumerist's response to it.

Tweet something, for the love of God! Tweet something!

[Allan Schumacher]

Done.

[Sir George Parr]

How's the koala taking to the 'deployment'?.

[Fiddzz]

XM-417 wrote...

How's the koala taking to the 'deployment'?.

He's not deployed yet, but will be in the sprint coming up, we have high hopes for him. 

[Spedfrom]

So... the koala is DA3 and the deployment is the reveal of the game where we will be shown, not told. Right?

[Fast Jimmy]

Spedfrom wrote...

So... the koala is DA3 and the deployment is the reveal of the game where we will be shown, not told. Right?

Whoa there, Kemosabe.

[Spedfrom]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Spedfrom wrote...

So... the koala is DA3 and the deployment is the reveal of the game where we will be shown, not told. Right?

Whoa there, Kemosabe.

Furious extrapolation v1.0