Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AlanL]

You have good points Reasonableman, though I still have a negative view on EA. They conduct practices that in some cases seem to be quite bluntly anticompetitive in nature. Already mentioned is their tendency to buy up smaller studios and then publish the games for their own profit. The cut in resources from this often results in a cut in ambition and a cut in results, and on top of it, they have been known to simply shut down studios that don't sell well the first run. Considering a quite long list of acquisitions and billions spent doing it, I don't think they're looking out for a varied market. In fact, their own market share is huge.

Currently, for the overall game market, EA and Nintendo are competing for the #1 spot in absolute market share, but from what I've seen personally, EA is the dominant publisher for PC games. It's hard to avoid seeing them in several places whenever you walk into a game store. Their market share gives them substantial power. I don't doubt that if they wanted to, they could probably tell a small company to sell out, threatening to run them out of business if they don't. EA's substantial profit margin allows them to 'invest' heavily in the stocks of other companies. EA bought up nearly a fifth of all of Ubisoft's stock, causing the Ubisoft CEO to publicly note this as a hostile act. Any company that releases their stock onto the market is vulnerable to a hostile takeover, and EA is quite capable of using this to gain further market share.

There was even an anti-trust lawsuit filed on June 5, 2008, due to them making exclusive license agreements with the NFL, their players union, the AFL, and the NCAA, which prevented other companies from making similar agreements. The end result of this action was EA driving it's competition out of the sports game arena by getting rid of NFL 2k5, allowing the price of Madden NFL to skyrocket under their control from around 30 dollars to around 50 dollars. It seems the case hasn't been resolved yet.

I don't think all of EA's games suck, but it does seem their games don't live up to the ambition that started them. Really, the difference between unimpeded ambition and ambition limited by a bottom line is in many cases the difference between a true work of art, and just-a-game. DF is an excellent example of what happens when inspiration and ambition are allowed to run freely, and I find DF to be superior to many multi million dollar projects.

Really, it's their outright obsession with the bottom line, limiting of creative processes, and anticompetitive nature that leads me to see not a pioneering game corporation when I look at EA, rather, I see an embodiment of the shortcomings of capitalism.

Until people stop buying EA's stuff, EA will probably just keep expanding it's hold on the market, and the crowd they cater to is a rather large one, so that's not likely to happen soon.

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: AlanL ]

[Reasonableman]

quote:Originally posted by AlanL:
<STRONG>
Until people stop buying EA's stuff, EA will probably just keep expanding it's hold on the market, and the crowd they cater to is a rather large one, so that's not likely to happen soon.

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: AlanL ]</STRONG>

This is, in a way, what I was trying to say. Capitalism's success depends entirely on competency on all levels of the market, both consumer and producer. When people become complacent with poor quality games, they give major companies license to continue making such games. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the company itself is not to blame: it, like any other business, seeks to make money by giving people what they want. If people continue to buy bad games, they'll keep making 'em. What you pointed out, that EA would buy out other companies to prevent competition, is in my mind not in line with capitalist ideals. The entire concept of stock is built around the idea of lending money, which I think is the fundamental problem with the twentieth and twenty-first century economy. You'll notice that throughout history major economic crises are preceded by the collapse of institutions responsible for lending and borrowing money, be they banks, credit card companies, or any sort of stock market system.

Before I go on much more, I'd like to make sure that my understanding of Wall Street is at least relatively accurate. As I understand it, the entire concept of the stock market is that you purchase part of the company or its profits, a "share" in its total worth. So, basically, you're gambling on the success or eventual failure of a company, lending them money to allow them to expand and compete with major companies that are already established. The problem with that is simply that you are giving money to someone without a guaranteed return, which I find immoral and generally despicable, not only because it allows redistribution of wealth according nearly to chance, not ability, but also that it permits such anticompetitive actions as the ones you describe above. Perhaps this is why gambling has (or at least used to have) such a negative stigma?

In any case, I don't think EA is to blame; as I said, they seek to make as much money as possible, both for themselves and their stockholders, however much I may dislike that entire process. In truth, the failure lies in an economic system that allows such takeovers despite the wishes of the people who found and run such companies. I find it annoying when people oversimplify things by saying that EA is a big, evil company and i haet them cuz thay suckzorz. All that does is make your idea seem weak and ill-founded, even if acting according to such an assumption may improve the situation that their practices have created.

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

quote:Originally posted by subject name here:
<STRONG>You sound pretty bitter, do you live near poor people?

On that note, what makes a gaming expert? Are they the corporate Exec's who run the companies or the people who spend 24+ hours playing MMORPGs and pooping into socks?

Aren't experts the people you see on talk shows talking about all the things that are corrupting the youth today?

But feel free to continue with your "LOL HOW DARE I NEED SOMEONE WHOSE EXPERIENCED TO DO A JOB LOL I AM SOUNDING LIKE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT ELITISTS!" rant while completely failing to notice the difference between the two (expert and elitist), you probably copy all your opinions from the Daily Show. Who am I kidding, you clearly do.

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: subject name here ]</STRONG>

I don't really know how well to do my neighbors are but considering that we all live in 'affordable' (read cheaply built) housing they couldn't have been much better off than me.

Experts are people with experience and knowledge.  The Daily Show is not the first thing to point out that people often try to discredit experts with questionable reasoning.  The biggest one is, the "Experts are just people like us."  Which is clearly not entirely wrong.  Just entirely incomplete.  It should say "Experts are just people like us, but with specific knowledge and expertise on a subject."

You accuse me of being unable to tell the difference between Elitist and Expert yet you're the one who said "Aren't experts the people you see on talk shows talking about all the things that are corrupting the youth today?" Which shows that you either don't know what an expert is or are just terrible at making an argument. You don't seem to understand that I'm mocking the very fact that the subject of my mockery considers expert and elitist one in the same... unless they agree with what they already believe.

So who is the video game expert?  The people who constantly play them or the executives who view them as nothing more than another product and only know/care what sells the most?  It's really not a hard question to answer.

Wow, missed a whole page of posts and they were apparently actually well thought out and intelligent... damn.

Reasonableman.  I agree that EA isn't the entirely to blame but I don't agree that it's guiltless.  They could simply be more ethical if they chose.  They actively do immoral and unethical things just to get a bit more profit.  Now if people were less akin to sheep then they would have a much harder time doing that, but you try telling someone that something they enjoy is detrimental to them and things they care about.  They'll just shut you out.  Not even proof works on the most people most of the time.  The only thing that can sway them is a good speech or clever one liner.  It's not really even entirely their fault.  They're trained not to think for themselves that way by the education system.  Then told what they should think instead by the media.

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]

[KrunkSplein]

quote:Originally posted by Reasonableman:
<STRONG>One final point: there are a great many people who are frightened by DWAAARF FORTRESS, not because they are stupid or nubs, but because they feel that they don't have the time to learn the ludicrously complicated system of symbols and such that it is made of. It's entirely plausible that they may not have time, and so they should probably be left alone.</STRONG>

As I may have mentioned earlier in this thread (I don't recall, and I'm sure as hell not rereading this monstrosity), I spent a week or two pouring over the forums and the wiki before ever even downloading the game.  There isn't a learning curve with DF so much as there is a learning cliff.

... but it's soooo worth the effort.

[The13thRonin]

If you defend EA in public you are either:

1. Being paid by or are a part of EA (also known as 'selling out' on your fellow gamers).
2. Criminally Insane and in desperate need of urgent psychological attention.
3. Someone who thinks they understand the gaming market without actually being a gamer themselves (also known as the wider media).
4. In denial (see reason two).

You are liable to receive the following punishments:

1. Being subjected to "Hammer Time" by the Captain of the Guard.
2. Being fed to the giant cave spiders.
3. Having your artifacts destroyed by a falling drawbridge.
4. Looking hard at yourself in the mirror one day and realizing that everything you know, everything you love is a lie.

[Reasonableman]

quote:Originally posted by Ioric Kittencuddler:
<STRONG>
Reasonableman.  I agree that EA isn't the entirely to blame but I don't agree that it's guiltless.  They could simply be more ethical if they chose.  They actively do immoral and unethical things just to get a bit more profit.  Now if people were less akin to sheep then they would have a much harder time doing that, but you try telling someone that something they enjoy is detrimental to them and things they care about.  They'll just shut you out.  Not even proof works on the most people most of the time.  The only thing that can sway them is a good speech or clever one liner.  It's not really even entirely their fault.  They're trained not to think for themselves that way by the education system.  Then told what they should think instead by the media.
</STRONG>

EDIT: Oops, forgot to add content.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that I think we have come to the heart of the matter. No party is truely blameless, but neither are they fully to blame. In all things there is or should be balance. Such is the nature of the universe.

THE END.

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]

[umiman]

Ioric Kittencuddler: Clarification and explanation:

"None of the games". All you mentioned were two. They still published the games. It still doesn't change the fact that EA had a hand in them, and according to this thread, anything that EA touches turns to shit. Contradiction.

There's also plenty of people who would vouch for other EA games like Need for Speed and the assorted sports games since they keep buying them over and over. I can already hear the argument but hold, not all consumers are stupid. You are a consumer. Do you consider yourself stupid? Then why would other consumers make stupid decisions repeatedly to the tune of millions? Perhaps there's something that draws them to buy the games again?

Here's a tip to the lesser folk on these forums intent on starting trouble. Those are rhetorical questions.

Allow me to provide my theory into why everyone hates EA games. I propose that it's because of their slogans and logo which you are forced to listen to every single time you play the games. Hearing "EA GAMES. Challenge EVERYTHING." or "EA SPORTS! It's IN the game!" every single bloody time you turn on the game leads to the subconscious connection between games and that name. So if a game sucked at some point, people would subconsciously make the connection between it and EA GAMES CHALLENGE EVERYTHING... followed by the Nvidia logo. Do they still do that now? I don't remember... It was damn annoying.

[Jamuk]

Actually, not only the consumers and EA share the blame, so do the private companies that sell out to EA.  By ignoring their record of failed projects they also had a hand in their own demise.  So, EA may have its share of failures, but we and the developers of the games we liked let it happen.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

quote:Originally posted by umiman:
<STRONG>Ioric Kittencuddler: Clarification and explanation:

"None of the games". All you mentioned were two. They still published the games. It still doesn't change the fact that EA had a hand in them, and according to this thread, anything that EA touches turns to shit. Contradiction.

There's also plenty of people who would vouch for other EA games like Need for Speed and the assorted sports games since they keep buying them over and over. I can already hear the argument but hold, not all consumers are stupid. You are a consumer. Do you consider yourself stupid? Then why would other consumers make stupid decisions repeatedly to the tune of millions? Perhaps there's something that draws them to buy the games again?

Here's a tip to the lesser folk on these forums intent on starting trouble. Those are rhetorical questions.

Allow me to provide my theory into why everyone hates EA games. I propose that it's because of their slogans and logo which you are forced to listen to every single time you play the games. Hearing "EA GAMES. Challenge EVERYTHING." or "EA SPORTS! It's IN the game!" every single bloody time you turn on the game leads to the subconscious connection between games and that name. So if a game sucked at some point, people would subconsciously make the connection between it and EA GAMES CHALLENGE EVERYTHING... followed by the Nvidia logo. Do they still do that now? I don't remember... It was damn annoying.</STRONG>

I mentioned all three game you did.  Let me repeat.  Rock Band was Developed by Harmonix and Published by MTV.  EA was only the distributer, and thus did not control development.

Burnout 1 and 2 were published by Acclaim.  EA only got a hold of the series for the third game, by that point it had already proven successful and EA has just cashed in.

Dungeon Keeper.  That one is kind of strange.  Peter Molyneux as we all now know is completely insane.  Somehow EA gave him freedom to develop all sorts of original games that weren't necessarily guaranteed hits.  Then they suddenly shut down Bullfrog Productions for reasons I'm still not sure of.  What's even stranger is that PM then started a new company, Lionhead and guess who published their first game?  I really can't say about DK, or any Bullfrog game for that matter.  But considering that EA shut them down I don't see how that really makes them less evil.

I never said everything touched by EA turns to shit.  Those are your words.

The sports games are just a rehash every single year.  They sell because people are obsessed with sports and have to have the latest rosters.  I've never really been into Need for Speed, but last I heard it was in carbon copy land.  In fact, wasn't that the name of the last game?

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Ioric Kittencuddler ]

[Cthulhu]

I haven't heard the Challenge everything thing in at least a year, and I highly doubt it has anything to do with why people hate EA.

Also, on Peter Molyneux's insanity.  What do you mean?  Did he do something crazy I missed lately?  I stopped paying attention to him after BC got canceled and I realized Fable sucked.  Will Wright is my hero now.

EA officially rules.  Space Hulk, a WH40K game produced and published by EA is no longer under ESA protection, meaning it is fully legal to download it.  I've never played it, but it looks awesome.

EDIT: I can confirm.  It's awesome.  You control a squad of Terminators on these derelict ships.  They're full of these aliens called Genestealers, and you have to:  Kill them, purge rooms by fire, get to the exit, find artifacts, or some combination of the four.  You have a big screen for you, and smaller screens for your teammates and you can switch between guys.  The aliens themselves are fast, lethal and very intelligent.  You can see them on your radar, and they stalk you, trying to unnerve you into doing something stupid.  They like to sit right around a bend where you can't hit them, trying to provoke you into coming closer.  Once you're too close to fight them effectively, they rush around the corner and leap on you.  I've also had them use side-passages to try to get behind me.  Sound Effects are awesome, everything is awesome.  You need DOSBox to play it though, but that's not really a problem.  You can get it at Abandonia.

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Cthulhu ]

[Toady One]

I'm glad people are mostly not fighting now.  There's no need to put sharp points on statements or ad hominem if you're interested in having a discussion.

 

quote:Mephansteras
<STRONG>So, I have a question for Toady.

What if one of the forum members who talks about giving you millions to develop the game as you see fit did it? I mean, they won $100 million in the lotto and could actually afford to throw a few million your way, and said something like "Ok, you get $2 million to develop the game. Do as you please, only requirement is that you have to actually complete it."

What would you do? Would you even want to hire some additional programmers, get some artists, any of that? Or would you turn it down? Maybe just take what you'd need to live on for next few years and keep going as you have been, but secure in the fact that you don't have to worry about money?</STRONG>

Regardless of the financing, I'm not really interested in working with anybody.  I'd hate being a manager of peoples, even one peoples, and if there were more than a few I think it would be harder to keep tabs on things to the point that the overall game would suffer for it, although basic improvements would get done faster, so it's a mixed bag.  I like how things are going now though.  If the money has to be spent on developing a company with employees and so on, I can confidently say that I'd reject the offer.  It's just not my thing.

On the other hand, in the even more unlikely scenario that it's just money to support the two of us, it would be silly to say how I'd react to having millions of dollars thrown in my face even with a string attached here and there unless it actually happens -- people only sound self-righteous when they try to make predictions like that, and the uncertainty in my bank account does color my life.  Of course I'd accept the money if the only condition were my continued work on DF, since I'm going to do that anyway, he he he.  The "actually complete it" condition is sort of nebulous the way I have my vague dev list splattered out there, so I'd have to hash that out with whoever, in this wonderful fantasy scenario where I get money and stuff.

edit:  TT and I got the PC Space Hulk back when it first came out, but I don't remember anything aside from the opening animation, if it indeed had one.  I think I remember one...

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Toady One ]

[Cthulhu]

There's an opening animation.  It was actually one of the best ones I've seen for a game that old.

[Qmarx]

So, out of curiosity, who is it that's publishing Spore ATM?

[Reasonableman]

quote:Originally posted by Toady One:
<STRONG>I'm glad people are mostly not fighting now.  There's no need to put sharp points on statements or ad hominem if you're interested in having a discussion.</STRONG>

I'll gladly take all credit for that, thank you very much whether or not I deserve it.

EDIT: Directed at Qmarx: is that some !!sarcasm!! I detect?

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: Reasonableman ]

[MuonDecay]

quote:Originally posted by umiman:
<STRONG>But... but... EA made Boom Blox. And Boom Blox is cool :/</STRONG>

EA was not the maker of that game, but the agent of the maker. The same goes for Maxis games.

EA doesn't make anything at all, EA has no creative talent. That talent is provided by subsidiaries and such. EA itself is just an entrenched venture capitalist firm that happens to specialize in gaming. They are not a game developer, they're just a publisher. EA does not make games any more than Bloomsbury Publishing wrote Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

The best way to look at EA is to think of them as a large pile of money. A pile of money, left alone, cannot make a game. However if you give a large pile of money to a talented creative company, they can make a great game. Alternately if you give a large pile of money to a gaggle of inept and uninspired nitwits, they will usually produce a very crappy game with an expensive graphics engine and an overrun budget and poor sales which will require a second pile of money just to repair.

[ June 12, 2008: Message edited by: MuonDecay ]