635 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Ah. Well, then for this Origins Systems, the same applies: everything we know about EA says that they let their developers make the game they want to make. Thus EA isn't to blame for decreasing quality there, necessarily.

If there's proof to the opposite, I'd love to see it.

Things were different then.
Letting the studios have a great deal of independence, is something that seem to have gotten emphasis with John Riccitioello, though I can't say the practice didn't start earlier.

Regardless, it's pointless to discuss the past. It's of relevanse only because an unrelenting chain of disasters form a strange kind of curse over EA.
I do not believe the disasters have the same reasons, over the years.

[Cyonan]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Ah. Well, then for this Origins Systems, the same applies: everything we know about EA says that they let their developers make the game they want to make. Thus EA isn't to blame for decreasing quality there, necessarily.

If there's proof to the opposite, I'd love to see it.


As for Day 1 DLC, as I've argued before I feel how ME2 did it, or DA ][, was best--have it free with a new copy of the game. I'd agree that Javik was grey-er in principle, but in practice he didn't have hardly any backstory at all, and he had absolutely zero influence on the plot.

I doubt if anybody can produce anything more than some former employees talking about the conditions working under EA, which is hardly compelling proof of anything.

I didn't get all of the day 1 DLC for DA2 from my purchase on Steam actually. According to the Dragon Age Wiki some of them were more of a pre-order bonuses from only certain stores which was a free upgrade to the "signature edition" which I evidently do not have since I don't have Exiled Prince even though I bought the game new.

It's impossible to have a clear line at which point I can say "Day 1 DLC is bad and should feel bad" though for me Javik was in the area because of the Prothean thing involving the lore. He didn't bring as much as he was expected to, but he still brought it. I call it a grey area because what he brought had to do with Mass Effect lore rather than the completion of the story arc of Commander Shepard which is what Mass Effect 3 was really about.

[Allan Schumacher]

4. This is a controversial issue, with people who are actually in the business, people like Allan (not Allan necessarily, people LIKE Allan) stating quite plainly that Day 1 DLC is stuff that would not be in the base game. If you ever catch them saying otherwise, tell me, because then I'll be happy to blame them for it. But we have no proof.

I understand the cynicism towards this though, especially if consumer trust is shattered. You'll likely not find anyone (anywhere) going "We intentionally ripped this out for the sole purpose of selling it as DLC" even if that were 100% the truth.

The tricky part of DLC is that it's difficult to really prove one way or another. That is, unless you're actually present at the decision making process, it's hard to definitively state "this content would not exist without DLC" or "This content would have existed without DLC, but because DLC is a concept it has been intentionally removed in order to be monetized."

Even if a DLC concept is created during the earliest stages of preproduction for the base game, it still can't really be said if that concept would or would not be in the game if a DLC model didn't exist. Which makes it tricky.

DLC does provide an additional source of revenue, and it does provide a sense justification for allocating resources. If the budget is expected to be entirely used in one aspect, additional funding can be justified to be applied if the expected return lets it be. This expected return can be in additional sales of the base game, or through other revenue streams, for example.

I find it a grey and muddy matter that is very difficult to get an assessment of from the outside. inXile is pretty proud of their "no DLC" type of stance, but at the same time refusing to do any sort of DLC on principle may result in not delivering content that they'd like to deliver, and may result in fans not getting as much content in a game universe that they enjoy that they otherwise would not get.

Now the optics come down to Day One DLC, which is obviously a subset of DLC. This is about examining the line of critical mass for a DLC release schedules, because the inverse correlation of DLC success vs. time since launch is very strong.

[hoorayforicecream]

DinoSteve wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Origin Systems was shuttered in 2004. Westwood was shuttered in 2003. It's been about a decade since those days, and people like Slayer299 are still going to hold this over EA's head. But whatever, I'm sure that there's some stuff from the 90s you could probably drum up to hate EA about too.

Thats all well and good but it still doesn't excuse EA's current shoddy business practices, like microtransactions, day one dlc, and always online DRM not to mention there games decline in quality.

How are EA's microtransactions worse than Activision-Blizzard's, Ubisoft's, Bethesda's, Take Two's, or Capcom's?

How are EA's Day 1 DLCs worse than the other publishers?

How is EA's always-on DRM for SimCity (the only game I know of that requires an internet connection) worse than Blizzard's Diablo 3?

How can you prove that EA is declining in quality, when they were actually ranked higher as a publisher on metacritic for 2012 than Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Warner Bros, Capcom, Ubisoft, Activision-Blizzard, and Konami?

You've got complaints about the industry in general, and that's fine. But I don't really see how industry-wide complaints make EA any worse than the other publishers in the industry these days.

[wafflez]

^ Bethesda has microtransactions?

[Milan92]

Its dumb. This is just EA bashing. 

Modifié par Milan92, 10 avril 2013 - 08:26 .

[HiddenInWar]

I also applaud EA for the LGBT inclusion in their games, and standing up to homophobia within the gaming community. cookies4u.

[hoorayforicecream]

wafflez wrote...

^ Bethesda has microtransactions?

I counted stuff like Horse Armor as a microtrans. You can lump that in with DLC instead, if you prefer.

[Maverick827]

wafflez wrote...

^ Bethesda has microtransactions?

How are you defining micro transaction?

[Annihilator27]

EntropicAngel wrote...

That's hilarious. I feel sorry for any soul who can truly name a luxury company, and not only a luxury company but one who makes video games, as "the worst company in the world."

I think this world needs a little perspective.


Edit: Naming ME3 is very, very stupid. It's quite clear that Bioware, and EA, were not "cashing in" on anything with the game, but were taking a very very unique direction with the story. Say what you want about the game--the story isn't trying to be mainstream.

Of course, most dislike it and as such allow their emotion to cloud the truth.

I cant believe that they beat Bank of America again *facepalm* In other news Greg defends EA
http://www.ign.com/a...915b37518000017
I don't hate EA myself...Give me my Mirrors Edge 2!!! Work it out with DICE dang it.

[Maverick827]

Also, this article gives some more insight on day-one DLC:

http://www.gamespot....dition=desktop' class='bbc_url' title='Lien externe' rel='nofollow external'> http://www.gamespot.com/news/bethesda-defends-day-one-dlc-6406719/

Modifié par Maverick827, 10 avril 2013 - 08:34 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Origin Systems was shuttered in 2004. Westwood was shuttered in 2003. It's been about a decade since those days, and people like Slayer299 are still going to hold this over EA's head. But whatever, I'm sure that there's some stuff from the 90s you could probably drum up to hate EA about too.

Thats all well and good but it still doesn't excuse EA's current shoddy business practices, like microtransactions, day one dlc, and always online DRM not to mention there games decline in quality.

How are EA's microtransactions worse than Activision-Blizzard's, Ubisoft's, Bethesda's, Take Two's, or Capcom's?

How are EA's Day 1 DLCs worse than the other publishers?

How is EA's always-on DRM for SimCity (the only game I know of that requires an internet connection) worse than Blizzard's Diablo 3?

How can you prove that EA is declining in quality, when they were actually ranked higher as a publisher on metacritic for 2012 than Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Warner Bros, Capcom, Ubisoft, Activision-Blizzard, and Konami?

You've got complaints about the industry in general, and that's fine. But I don't really see how industry-wide complaints make EA any worse than the other publishers in the industry these days.

I never said they EA's microtransactions, day 1 dlc and always-on DRM are worse than anyone elses.

The excuse of everyone else is doing it didn't work when I was a kid and it certainly doesn't work now, but EA do have a tendency to exploit these things more than anyone else and they are the poster boy for everything people hate about gaming.

lol metacritic, I prefer to look at how many units of product companies ship and it is no secret that EA is in decline.

lol metacritic this **** is funny.

[Ziegrif]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

wafflez wrote...

^ Bethesda has microtransactions?

I counted stuff like Horse Armor as a microtrans. You can lump that in with DLC instead, if you prefer.

Lol Horse armor.
I remember when they cut the price for Frostcrag and the Stronghold one in half and doubled the Horse Armor DLC price just for the lulz.

Good times.

[bEVEsthda]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

How can you prove that EA is declining in quality, when they were actually ranked higher as a publisher on metacritic for 2012 than Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Warner Bros, Capcom, Ubisoft, Activision-Blizzard, and Konami?

EA don't exactly decline in "quality". On the contrary I think they're very careful about "quality". Unfortunately, they do seem to have inadequate methods and tools for judging a game's "quality". ...Poor judgement, you could also call it.

As for your point on the matter, I think it's enough to say that this particular metacritic spells out ME3 as EA's best received game, with a metascore of 93. That should surely be enough? Obviously, this particular metascore is utterly useless in determining if the audience have a major issue with a game or not.

Obviously, EA will have to do something about their "poor judgement" (...Spore DRM, Spore gameplay, DA2 culture change, Origin EULA, ME3 ending, Sim City launch, Sim City culture change, ToR - the wrong MMO game for the wrong time, various, unfortunate public interview statements on microtransfers...).
This is something they need to give a hard thinkover.
To me, it seems like they are bad at seeing things from the viewpoint of gamers. They lack clear vision. Whenever they put together a focus group, or do any market research, they do something wrong. What, I don't know, but it's obvious it doesn't work.

[Allan Schumacher]

lol metacritic, I prefer to look at how many units of product companies ship and it is no secret that EA is in decline.

Using this metric, ME3 is the best game in the franchise. It may not paint an entire picture either.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

lol metacritic, I prefer to look at how many units of product companies ship and it is no secret that EA is in decline.

Using this metric, ME3 is the best game in the franchise. It may not paint an entire picture either.

Gameplay wise it kinda is the best in the trilogy. But I'd say the vast majority of those sales for ME3 was earned by ME1 and ME2 not ME3.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 10 avril 2013 - 08:59 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Gameplay wise it kinda is the best in the trilogy. But I'd say the vast majority of those sales for ME3 was earned by ME1 and ME2 not ME3.

I think that that is a fair thing to look at. As such, it reinforces my point that simply looking at units shipped may not paint a clear picture.

[Allan Schumacher]

Maverick827 wrote...

Also, this article gives some more insight on day-one DLC:

http://www.gamespot....dition=desktop' class='bbc_url' title='Lien externe' rel='nofollow external'> http://www.gamespot.com/news/bethesda-defends-day-one-dlc-6406719/

"A new challenger has arrived"

I look forward to meeting them in the finals next year!

[LinksOcarina]

Do you guys really care about this arbitrary poll that much?

[hoorayforicecream]

DinoSteve wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Origin Systems was shuttered in 2004. Westwood was shuttered in 2003. It's been about a decade since those days, and people like Slayer299 are still going to hold this over EA's head. But whatever, I'm sure that there's some stuff from the 90s you could probably drum up to hate EA about too.

Thats all well and good but it still doesn't excuse EA's current shoddy business practices, like microtransactions, day one dlc, and always online DRM not to mention there games decline in quality.

How are EA's microtransactions worse than Activision-Blizzard's, Ubisoft's, Bethesda's, Take Two's, or Capcom's?

How are EA's Day 1 DLCs worse than the other publishers?

How is EA's always-on DRM for SimCity (the only game I know of that requires an internet connection) worse than Blizzard's Diablo 3?

How can you prove that EA is declining in quality, when they were actually ranked higher as a publisher on metacritic for 2012 than Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Warner Bros, Capcom, Ubisoft, Activision-Blizzard, and Konami?

You've got complaints about the industry in general, and that's fine. But I don't really see how industry-wide complaints make EA any worse than the other publishers in the industry these days.

I never said they EA's microtransactions, day 1 dlc and always-on DRM are worse than anyone elses.

The excuse of everyone else is doing it didn't work when I was a kid and it certainly doesn't work now, but EA do have a tendency to exploit these things more than anyone else and they are the poster boy for everything people hate about gaming.

I don't understand. Are you trying to hold EA to some sort of different standard than you set for everyone else?

lol metacritic, I prefer to look at how many units of product companies ship and it is no secret that EA is in decline.

lol metacritic this **** is funny.

I'd like to see your proof then. If it's no secret, there should be plenty of documentation on the web. Links?

[wolfsite]

www.gametrailers.com/videos/vard9g/the-final-bosman-the-worst-web-show-in-america

Kinda funny in some aspects.

[Maria Caliban]

Knowing how many units sold for a single game is hard. I'd have no idea how you'd measure it for a publisher's entire line.

If you want to talk about EA's financial health though, they're a publicly traded company. There's probably information on their annual revenue out there somewhere.

Edit: I think I've found it.

2008: 3.67B
2009: 4.21B
2010: 3.65B
2011: 3.59B
2012: 4.14B

EA does not appear to be in decline.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 10 avril 2013 - 09:41 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Knowing how many units sold for a single game is hard. I'd have no idea how you'd measure it for a publisher's entire line.

If you want to talk about EA's financial health though, they're a publicly traded company. There's probably information on their annual revenue out there somewhere.

Edit: I think I've found it.

2008: 3.67B
2009: 4.21B
2010: 3.65B
2011: 3.59B
2012: 4.14B

EA does not appear to be in decline.

The Net Income (Loss) according to that is as follows:

2008: (454M)
2009: (1.09B)
2010: (677M)
2011: (276M)
2012: 76M

According to that (I don't know if it's GAAP or non-GAAP or whatever, the last 4 years has been a positive trend for EA, with 2012 being the first year that a profit was made.  It's possible 2013 (FY 2013 just ended) is a shift downwards, however.