96 réponses à ce sujet

[displayname]

EA winning Worst Company in America is such a joke, they neither trade in food shortages, don't employ children nor sweat shops, don't speculate with customer money, etc.

The ire of the consumer base your products sell towards is typically something most companies strive to not have. EA seems to be rather enamored at times with how far they can push the envelope of making their own consumer base angry with them. 

 

And they did deserve it. The flaw with the Worst Company in America is that its relegated to a single company when it should be a minimum top 5. 

[Schreckstoff]

The ire of the consumer base your products sell towards is typically something most companies strive to not have. EA seems to be rather enamored at times with how far they can push the envelope of making their own consumer base angry with them.

And they did deserve it. The flaw with the Worst Company in America is that its relegated to a single company when it should be a minimum top 5.

It doesn't even deserve top 5. They don't even have a near monopoly they take advantage of like comcast.

There are so many worse business practices than what EA employs. It just shows that gamers are the most whiny group.

[Fast Jimmy]

It doesn't even deserve top 5. They don't even have a near monopoly they take advantage of like comcast.
There are so many worse business practices than what EA employs. It just shows that gamers are the most whiny group.

Why did I bring this up?

[Fast Jimmy]

Jimmy i got spare gun u need?

Jimmy's got a gun... Jimmy's got a gun...

<I feel the need to clarify that is an Aerosmith parody, for all you young whippersnappers>

[addiction21]

Jimmy's got a gun... Jimmy's got a gun...

<I feel the need to clarify that is an Aerosmith parody, for all you young whippersnappers>

 

 

Almost 10 million hits in 5 years it can't be that unknown and stop making us feel old please. Also on a Aerosmith binge now because of you.

 

But, yes you should of known better to drag out that bs award.

[Fidite Nemini]

The ire of the consumer base your products sell towards is typically something most companies strive to not have. EA seems to be rather enamored at times with how far they can push the envelope of making their own consumer base angry with them. 

 

And they did deserve it. The flaw with the Worst Company in America is that its relegated to a single company when it should be a minimum top 5. 

 

 

No, they didn't deserve it.

 

There are many other companies that deserve to be called the worst and EA isn't even near anything remotely deserving of that compared to companies that destroyed thousands of lifes.

 

EA getting the worst company "award" is the epitome of first world problems and I can assure you any of the people that suffered from those companies that deserve that "award" would tell you in no uncedrtain terms just exactly how utterly ridiculous it is to even START thinking EA deserved it. But you won't hear from those people in here, because, what a shock, they have no money for the luxury of buying consoles, or PCs to buy videogames for and are busy working just to make a living. That is of course only for those that didn't commit suicide.

 

 

 

I understand perception bias, but trying to talk about this topic without having even an idea of the scope of misery caused by other companies is nothing short of ignorance.

 

 

 

 

Had to post this because this whole "EA is worst company" nonsense is a sham and is making me sick.

 

With that, I hope we can consider this particular topic CLOSED before the entire thread gets locked for being A.) political and B.) offtopic, neither of which the OT is deserving.

[displayname]

It doesn't even deserve top 5. They don't even have a near monopoly they take advantage of like comcast.

There are so many worse business practices than what EA employs. It just shows that gamers are the most whiny group.

Yes, gamers by precedence of the BSN, and other gaming sites such as battle.net or kotaku, etc, do prove that gamers are whiny. They also prove that gamers can be excessively vocal when banded together. Which is why EA earned the worst company in america award. Constantly making your consumers angry with your company doesn't magically go away. Not when those consumers are gamers, or when its supported by site like 4 chan.

No, they didn't deserve it.

 

There are many other companies that deserve to be called the worst and EA isn't even near anything remotely deserving of that compared to companies that destroyed thousands of lifes.

 

EA getting the worst company "award" is the epitome of first world problems and I can assure you any of the people that suffered from those companies that deserve that "award" would tell you in no uncedrtain terms just exactly how utterly ridiculous it is to even START thinking EA deserved it. But you won't hear from those people in here, because, what a shock, they have no money for the luxury of buying consoles, or PCs to buy videogames for and are busy working just to make a living. That is of course only for those that didn't commit suicide.

 

 

 

I understand perception bias, but trying to talk about this topic without having even an idea of the scope of misery caused by other companies is nothing short of ignorance.

 

 

 

 

Had to post this because this whole "EA is worst company" nonsense is a sham and is making me sick.

 

With that, I hope we can consider this particular topic CLOSED before the entire thread gets locked for being A.) political and B.) offtopic, neither of which the OT is deserving.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. The Worst Company in America Award isn't relegated to any specific aspect of global business , nor is it relegated to being a First, Second or Third World problem. To put context in comparative clarity: Read any threads on the BSN pertaining to sexual orientation, representation of minorities and a thousand other first world specific problems, or any consideration of Tumblr, or even the complaint that EA isn't deserving of an award like the worst company in america award because of your own disparity of consideration for others and you have the exact same rhetoric you are espousing.

 

But I do appreciate being called ignorant. Its always charming to see such splendid candor when people chose to ignore the meaning or context of the written language of English to impose their own self righteous indemnification. 

[Allan Schumacher]

How is it any different then the "episodic content" that was added to say ME3 from that DLC? All DLC is essentially episodic content. So how can having minor content or story driven content in a game like DA or ME as DLC be so different then releasing fragmented story arcs that culminate to tell a complete and different story, then what each individual component story offers?

 

How many dependencies does ME3's DLC have between each other?  Does Citadel require data from Leviathan to work properly?

 

 

If you're releasing a story in piecemeal chunks that's fine.  It's whether or not there's anything from one DLC that requires anything from another piece of DLC.  So the difference between an episodic game, and an episodic DLC that is sold piecemeal, is that an episodic game is more like selling a game with several sequels where you can import in your data, whereas DLC for our game is not.

 

So it depends on the amount of overlap required.  If the DLC is all self-contained, it seems like Microsoft and Sony have less of an issue with it.  Once there's dependencies on other DLC, things seem to get murkier.  Since Telltale games are not DLC, the comparison isn't really applicable.

[displayname]

How many dependencies does ME3's DLC have between each other?  Does Citadel require data from Leviathan to work properly?

 

 

If you're releasing a story in piecemeal chunks that's fine.  It's whether or not there's anything from one DLC that requires anything from another piece of DLC.  So the difference between an episodic game, and an episodic DLC that is sold piecemeal, is that an episodic game is more like selling a game with several sequels where you can import in your data, whereas DLC for our game is not.

 

So it depends on the amount of overlap required.  If the DLC is all self-contained, it seems like Microsoft and Sony have less of an issue with it.  Once there's dependencies on other DLC, things seem to get murkier.  Since Telltale games are not DLC, the comparison isn't really applicable.

I still don't see how its an issue for Microsoft or Sony. When it comes to the multiplayer CoD and Battlefield, or any FPS (Halo) have no issues when it comes to the DLC they have that operates in the same way that DLC for any Bioware product would. It still and extension of content that requires compatibility between a base and an secondary component(s). You don't need to have Battle-suit 1,2,3,4 to play the game with an iteration or combination of those would be DLC's, yet the base product and those DLCs are all compatible. 

[Allan Schumacher]

I still don't see how its an issue for Microsoft or Sony. When it comes to the multiplayer CoD and Battlefield, or any FPS (Halo) have no issues when it comes to the DLC they have that operates in the same way that DLC for any Bioware product would. It still and extension of content that requires compatibility between a base and an secondary component(s). You don't need to have Battle-suit 1,2,3,4 to play the game with an iteration or combination of those would be DLC's, yet the base product and those DLCs are all compatible. 

 

I'm not sure if we're still talking about the same thing, so I'll try to reset this.

 

There's nothing stopping us from making a story and spreading it across several different DLCs.  However, based on things such as an explanation as to why he couldn't just patch in the changes that he made for Fallout New Vegas due to interdependency issues, I'm inferring that there's something that First Party doesn't like about DLCs requiring other DLCs to be present in order to work properly.

 

I don't actually know the answer, but I do not consider something like Telltale's games to be analogous.  They are different products.

 

So while I imagine that there'd be no issue if we made a story spread across several DLCs, if we made it so that explicit programmatic/code/data references depended on a different piece of DLC, things get murky.  I am reasonably certain, however, that you cannot have a DLC depend on another DLC.  What that means in terms of technical requirements, however, is something that I don't know.

 

 

Are there DLCs out there that effectively "import" data from other DLCs to do more things?  If so then it's reasonably easy to disprove my hypothesis.

[In Exile]

I'm not sure if we're still talking about the same thing, so I'll try to reset this.

 

There's nothing stopping us from making a story and spreading it across several different DLCs.  However, based on things such as an explanation as to why he couldn't just patch in the changes that he made for Fallout New Vegas due to interdependency issues, I'm inferring that there's something that First Party doesn't like about DLCs requiring other DLCs to be present in order to work properly.

 

I don't actually know the answer, but I do not consider something like Telltale's games to be analogous.  They are different products.

 

So while I imagine that there'd be no issue if we made a story spread across several DLCs, if we made it so that explicit programmatic/code/data references depended on a different piece of DLC, things get murky.  I am reasonably certain, however, that you cannot have a DLC depend on another DLC.  What that means in terms of technical requirements, however, is something that I don't know.

 

 

Are there DLCs out there that effectively "import" data from other DLCs to do more things?  If so then it's reasonably easy to disprove my hypothesis.

 

To answer your question directly, Dishonoured sort of does it, by importing the save from that old DLC. But it does DLC#1 - save on hard-drive - DLC#2, which might make all the difference. Not to mention it being just a save.

 

So all of this is to say that you'd have to, I think, work it out like Dishonoured: each DLC is technically stand alone but has a save import feature. Which I'm sure could be a catastrophic pain. It's worth noting that the Dishonoured DLC is a standalone, in the sense that there is a different protagonist and it does not overlap with the main game. Not knowing anything about game design, I'm not sure if that radically changes the technical obstacles to overcome in releasing episodic story DLC. 

[Allan Schumacher]

I was giving it a bit of thought on the way home, and I was wondering if the restriction was mostly on patches.  Because the idea that patches requiring DLC seems hella bad, or even patches that only apply to those that own some DLC and it could get messy.

 

Though at the same time, it doesn't explain why FONV has a special Anti-Materiel Rifle denoted with a (GRA) that accepts the mods that GRA DLC provides, while Sawyer's mod ends up removing the distinction.  In the base game with GRA, you cannot mod the default AMR.

[Fast Jimmy]

I was giving it a bit of thought on the way home, and I was wondering if the restriction was mostly on patches.  Because the idea that patches requiring DLC seems hella bad, or even patches that only apply to those that own some DLC and it could get messy.
 
Though at the same time, it doesn't explain why FONV has a special Anti-Materiel Rifle denoted with a (GRA) that accepts the mods that GRA DLC provides, while Sawyer's mod ends up removing the distinction.  In the base game with GRA, you cannot mod the default AMR.

On the other hand, a game like Crusader Kings 2 has mods which require DLC to fully utilize. The famous Game of Thrones mod has different features which can only be accessed with specific DLC, such as the requirement of having the Old Gods Viking/Pagan DLC to fully utilize the Dothraki features. Without the system hooks provided by the DLC features , the mods themselves can't utilize the content provided in their own mods.

[MattH]

I really liked Legacy, I'd be happy to see something along the lines of that again.

[Fidite Nemini]

 

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. The Worst Company in America Award isn't relegated to any specific aspect of global business , nor is it relegated to being a First, Second or Third World problem. To put context in comparative clarity: Read any threads on the BSN pertaining to sexual orientation, representation of minorities and a thousand other first world specific problems, or any consideration of Tumblr, or even the complaint that EA isn't deserving of an award like the worst company in america award because of your own disparity of consideration for others and you have the exact same rhetoric you are espousing.

 

But I do appreciate being called ignorant. Its always charming to see such splendid candor when people chose to ignore the meaning or context of the written language of English to impose their own self righteous indemnification. 

 

Comparing personal preferences to personal suffering isn't context.

 

I had mentioned perception bias (which is the disparity of consideration you mentioned), but I had also made abundantly clear that it's not you or anyone else thinking EA deserves it that makes the ignorance, it's the attempt to make that comparision when you or anyone else doesn't know exactly what magnitude of problems were caused by those that actually deserve the title.

 

Just to make a short list:

 

War profiteering.

Large scale Insurance frauds.

Severe environmental damages.

Billions of dollars in economical damage.

Causing/excarbating the financial crisis of the last decade.

 

With personal results for individuals being:

 

Loss of job.

Loss of savings.

Loss of their houses.

 

Did you know that suicide rates in 2008 and 2009 climbed significantly? Thousands (!!!) of people couldn't handle the stress of unemployment and other mentioned losses and killed themselves. Up to 5000 suicides were recorded*. So yes, I say it's ignorant to compare around 5000 dead people (that's just those that couldn't handle the stress, the number of people who still had insane difficulties is MUCH higher!) to people who don't want this or that fictional character to be gay/lesbian/bi, be black or have big lips.

 

This isn't just disparity of consideration, this is disparity of value of human life and existance values that we're talking about.

 

 

The problem with the award itself is that it's internet election. That means even today there's only aminority of people who are at ease with this medium, the pool for votes is small and that very vocal minorities, like say gamers who feel unsatisfied, can have a big impact on those votes. And that people with no interest but to troll can make a large impact too. It's a system that benefits the most vocal, not the most interested!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also want to apologize profusely to anyone not interested in this particular discussion and for derailing this thread, but this is a topic with a lot of sentimentality for me. It may or may not fall on deaf ears, but I simply can't stand idle with this topic. I'm sorry.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm not sure why you'd think that though.  The most fundamental difference is that one is attached to a different product that is required.  The other is not.  That doesn't strike me as trivial.

To my eyes, that would slant the bias against TellTale, not towards it. Having a base game that has made it way throug certification as being proved stable on the console in question would be evidence of a solid platform I would think. Having all game content being modulized, downloadable and interacting with each other would be viewed as a bigger risk (in my eyes) than content of similar scope, size and length that was connected to a base game.

But I'm (obviously) not overly familiar with the certification process, specifically as to what might be different for downloadable content versus a full game, or where TellTale's model falls in the scheme of both.

[LPPrince]

I would prefer larger DLC packs to smaller ones, like the olden day expansions.

 

Like DA:Awakening, only better this time.

[bairdduvessa]

back when i reviewed da2, my biggest complaint was the lack of an expansion ala awakening.  however, i understand the amount of time and resources the company would need to put in and thus do not mind if they chose not to.

[Kelthahir]

What I wouldn't give for a true expansion to an RPG nowadays. Back in the day, "Throne of Baal" was perhaps the most epic expansion of all time and still is. I hate the DLC plague with a passion ... especially different character skins and weapon/armor models. The fast food of the gaming industry.

[Danoniasty]

You guys discussing here expansion while complaining DLC's.

Now there is twice more threads that already discuss what DLC should game have so I would say this Is not EA/Bioware or any developer fault that we have tons of DLC's instead of one, big expansion.

People buy It so people need It.