Topic: even fucking idiots are correct sometimes
started by: Malcolm
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2007,07:45
< Front paged here. >< I still hate him, though >.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 09 2007,08:40
Too much emphasis on graphics, not enough on gameplay.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 09 2007,09:10
Which is why like I've said before... I'll be happy when we reach photo realism in games, so developers will start focusing on other areas of game making, besides graphics.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2007,10:32
(The following post was put on the front page-G)Bull-fucking-shit.
That article is fucking infuriating. John Riccitiello needs to be publically bitch slapped for making such a stupid fucking statement.
What's the saying about the devil? "The greatest trick he ever pulled was to make you believe he didn't exist"??
Innovation in gaming isn't dead. Corporate monsters like EA just do their best to make sure it never sees the light of day.
Anyone remember < Origin Systems? > They made a few games you may have heard of like Autoduel, Wing Commander, Crusader, Times of Lore, System Shock, and some little series of games with "Ultima" in their title. Then EA came along and bought them. All those series are now dead. All their smartest people are gone, including Lord British himself.
Innovation 0 - EA 1
Anyone remember < Bullfrog Productions? > They didn't make anything of note, except maybe: Populous, Syndicate, Theme Park, and Dungeon Keeper. Then EA came along and bought them.
Innovation 0 - EA 2
Anyone remember < Westwood Studios? > They made some games like Dune, Lands of Lore, and Command & Conquer. Then EA came alone and bought them. Only C&C still stands and it took years for a sequel to finally hit. Then EA's president shits on it.
Innovation 0 - EA 3
Ever heard of < Maxis? > They made games nobody ever heard of like SimCity and The Sims. Then EA came along and bought them.
Innovation 0 - EA 4
There are more, go look them up. Anytime you see a small publisher that gets a single hit game EA or Microsoft or someone comes along and gobbles them up. Then THEY fucking release sequel after uninspired sequel rather than spending some of their billions in profit on a little bit of innovation.
Look at EA's sports line. They haven't made a new game in well over a decade. All their do is rehash the same shit over and over and the moronic console players eat that shit up despite the gaming press calling them on it every single year.
Say whatever you want about Steam, but one of the reasons I defend it is because it was born out of the idea that power should be taken away from publishers like EA. Valve and Steam have given the independent game maker a central place where their game will be seen by consumers and be advertised without having to sell their souls to a corporate wasteland like EA.
I don't mind entities like EA, but I do mind that they do everything in their power to purchase these little innovative guys and then stifle them. Take a fucking chance and let these smaller teams make something unusual. Unusual can work, there are a million examples of new things selling. Every genre had to start at one game that someone took a chance on to introduce a new way to play.
The problem I have with EA's president is that he'll easily spend $30 million making and marketing the new Madden, but won't give a smaller team $1 million to make something different. That's not "lower risk", that's being greedy. You know where that $1 million is going and as long as assholes like that are running the show, there won't be innovation. No, he and his cronnies are content to sit back and reap the rewards from their bonuses and stock options, all the while complaining that innovation is dead. They have the power to allow for innovative games to be made, but they won't risk their cash to let it happen.
You want to see innovation? Get on Steam. Get on the web and search. Pick up PCGamer or OGFWM (formerly known as CGW) and check out the single page articles they have about innovative titles they've found on the web. The games, ideas, and innovators are out there, they just aren't allowed a chance to shine because of publishing giants like EA.
P.S. The article is even fucking stupider as it contradicts itself. Innovation is dead! But hey look at Guitar Hero and the Wii.
Anyone who thinks innovation in gaming is dead just isn't looking hard enough. The problem just lies in getting the mainstream public to see the products.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 09 2007,11:18
Excellent counterpoint.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 09 2007,11:19
You should contact the author of that article with your points. See if he can get EA CEO to respond, especially to the "everything they take over turns to shit" point.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 09 2007,11:28
(TheCatt @ Jul. 09 2007,14:19)
QUOTE
You should contact the author of that article with your points. See if he can get EA CEO to respond, especially to the "everything they take over turns to shit" point.
But we should front-page it, first.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2007,11:30
Yea, EA used to be a good place. Just like Interplay used to be a good place. I still remember names like Bioware & Black Isle working in conjunction w\ them. Where the fuck is Looking Glass Studios when I wish they'd come back to life?
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2007,12:01
Thanks Catt. I just might do that. Maybe if Gordo front pages it first, I can just send a link to the author and see if he wants to get EA's response?We'd have to check the legality of what I said though as we'd be risking the ire of a big name company. I am pretty sure that I'm allowed to call his statements bullshit and I'm allowed to call him an asshole. (Thank you Penn & Teller!) Not sure if anything else I said could be considered libel or slander.
Go ahead and front page it Gordo.
QUOTE
Yea, EA used to be a good place. Just like Interplay used to be a good place. I still remember names like Bioware & Black Isle working in conjunction w\ them. Where the fuck is Looking Glass Studios when I wish they'd come back to life?
Exactly Malcolm. Those companies wanted to make good games, not cash cows.
As an example, Origin made a kick ass game called Autoduel way back int he 80s. It was light years ahead of it's time. Picture living as Mad Max from a top down perspective. Living on the lonely roads, running from town to town doing missions, fighting outlaws on the roads, selling the scraps from their cars, etc.
This was Grand Theft Auto before Rockstar was even formed. In the late 90s, rumors were swirling that it was being resurrected and remade. People were psyched. Then EA turned it into a MMO and it was released to little fanfare. Now it's dead.
That sums up a publisher like EA. Instead of sticking with a product that will do fantastic with a certain segment of the market, they decide to screw that segment and go after everyone's money. Thus, all interest in the game was lost.
Score one for corporate greed!
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2007,12:08
Here's another bit: Why is it that all the new innovative games that people are truly excited about like Hellgate London and Bioshock come from new game studios formed by people who used to work for studios that were bought out by the mega publishers like EA?
It's because companies like EA are only interested in established properties. They don't even want the people who created those properties, right Richard Garriott?
(Gordon, if you're front page posting, try and work this bit in.))
Posted by WSGrundy on Jul. 09 2007,12:42
Even though I enjoy some of EAs games I won't disagree that they follow are cookie cutter approach to much of what they make.I don't agree that EA is the one deserving the most scorn from gamers though. No one put a gun to origins head or westwoods or anyone elses to force them to become part of EA.
I can see giving origin or whoever was first to join up with EA a little slack but the other companies haven't noticed that when EA buys an established property it turns to shit.
I'm more pissed at the companies that take a great product that they created and then turn around and sell out to EA and turn their games to shit for more money.
How many of these companies would still be making kick ass games if they would have just not signed up with EA?
EA makes/publishes shit but they still need others help.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 09 2007,12:45
Well, part of it is that the personalities who invent and come up with great ideas don't want to be under the control of others. And, I would think, fully know what they are worth and want to reap the rewards of their own great ideas, and not have them be diluted through a large corporation.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2007,13:30
QUOTE
Even though I enjoy some of EAs games I won't disagree that they follow are cookie cutter approach to much of what they make.
I don't agree that EA is the one deserving the most scorn from gamers though. No one put a gun to origins head or westwoods or anyone elses to force them to become part of EA.
I can see giving origin or whoever was first to join up with EA a little slack but the other companies haven't noticed that when EA buys an established property it turns to shit.
I'm more pissed at the companies that take a great product that they created and then turn around and sell out to EA and turn their games to shit for more money.
How many of these companies would still be making kick ass games if they would have just not signed up with EA?
EA makes/publishes shit but they still need others help.
I don't agree that EA is the one deserving the most scorn from gamers though. No one put a gun to origins head or westwoods or anyone elses to force them to become part of EA.
I can see giving origin or whoever was first to join up with EA a little slack but the other companies haven't noticed that when EA buys an established property it turns to shit.
I'm more pissed at the companies that take a great product that they created and then turn around and sell out to EA and turn their games to shit for more money.
How many of these companies would still be making kick ass games if they would have just not signed up with EA?
EA makes/publishes shit but they still need others help.
There's an important factor you're forgetting...cash.
All of these studios have financial troubles. Many had to sellout just to pay bills.
Ask any small business owner how quickly bigger companies/corporations pay their bills. You'll be lucky if you see a check from them in any given year. (But that's a whole different topic.)
Remember, they pay for the game to be developed and then have to give up a large portion of their profits to a distributor (like EA) just to get their product on shelves. All before they saw a dime in profit.
Yes, the distributor will pay for the cost of development sometimes, but that comes with it's own problems. Once the developer has it's money involved, it knows becomes a decision maker. That's why some games are put out in buggy states with the developers apologizing online for it being in the shape it's in.
It would be VERY hard to argue that distributors want anything more than cash. They do not give a shit if they're churning out buggy products or Madden 974. They just want to make money. That's their purpose. They are typically not the artists. That's the developer's job.
And that's the danger of a company like EA buying up all the developers. Their purpose does not mesh well with the purpose of a developer. Thus, innovation dies.
So for EA's president to make a statement like that means he is either lying or knows nothing about his own industry.
Posted by WSGrundy on Jul. 09 2007,13:38
(Leisher @ Jul. 09 2007,13:30)
QUOTE
So for EA's president to make a statement like that means he is either lying or knows nothing about his own industry.
I agree with that statement but I don't believe that Origins, Westwood, or Maxis were having issues getting UO, Wing Commander, Ultima 1-10, C&C, Sim City, etc sold before they joined up with EA.
Yeah a little guy needs EAs money and assistance but that isn't who EA is interested in.
Origins, Westwood, and Maxis ruined their products by making a deal with the devil.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 09 2007,20:21
QUOTE
but I don't believe that Origins, Westwood, or Maxis were having issues getting UO, Wing Commander, Ultima 1-10, C&C, Sim City, etc sold before they joined up with EA.
Ultima Online was built under EA and then ruined when EA stooges took control of the project and Garriott left.
QUOTE
In 1998, Westwood was acquired by Electronic Arts (EA). In response to what was perceived as an unwillingness to maintain the Westwood brand and independence from EA, many long-time employees quit over the next few years.
QUOTE
After the immense success of SimCity, Maxis attempted to go into new areas. However, their new games, including The Crystal Skull and SimCopter, were commercial failures. They also acquired Cinematronics to create a game called Crucible. Heavy losses and lack of direction led Maxis to begin considering acquisition offers.
Like I said, financial concerns forced these developers to "sign a deal with the devil." Remember in the 90s EA was buying up everyone they could. As I stated earlier, due to developers being the first to spend money and the last to see it returned, it made staying in business tough unless you signed with a publisher. Very few survived that era. I think only Blizzard, id, and 3DRealms did so successfully.
QUOTE
Yeah a little guy needs EAs money and assistance but that isn't who EA is interested in.
Considering they bought everyone they could in the 90s, I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. Unless I'm misinterpreting your statement?
QUOTE
Origins, Westwood, and Maxis ruined their products by making a deal with the devil.
If you can honestly blame these developers for making deals they felt like they were forced to make considering the state of the industry at the time, that still isn't a good defense for EA destroying their IPs with poor business decisions.
Look at Ultima X and how buggy it was when it shipped. The entire development team fought to try and prevent the game from being shipped, but EA pressed the issue because they wanted a return on their investment and didn't give a damn about the quality of the product. They figured it'd sell based on the IP's rep and didn't care if it was damaged.
Feel free to continue scolding the developers for selling out in a tough time for the industry, but don't try to turn it into a defense for EA's slash and burn tactics with their IPs. That sin is all on EA.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 10 2007,04:53
Game production has become strangely analogous to movie production to me. Games take a lot of coordinated effort and money to make. Some games are large hits that spawn franchises, others die a quick, unpopular death.The reason I find this strange is that I would think tech's constantly falling prices and increased capabilities would counter a fair amount of the movie-fication. I know that I can write games for the XBox 360, using software that's pretty much free. There are tons of flash games out there. But I guess there will always be extra resources needed to do the new stuff (1080p games, photo-realism, networking, etc).
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 10 2007,05:11
Leisher, here's the < original article (Wall Street Journal) >
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 10 2007,06:56
QUOTE
Game production has become strangely analogous to movie production to me. Games take a lot of coordinated effort and money to make. Some games are large hits that spawn franchises, others die a quick, unpopular death.
Budgets have skyrocketed for understandable, but totally avoidable reasons. For example, I haven't seen a ton of difference between fire effects in Duke Nukem 3D and fire effects today, but I know millions have been spent improving them.
If an effect doesn't directly affect gameplay, is it really needed?
Look at the upcoming Crysis and how every preview is devoted to the technology behind the game. That's great and all, but if the game isn't fun and/or a good story isn't told, who gives a shit? Doom 3 had lots of new effects courtesy of it's new graphics engine, but the game was simply "ok" and id's rep took a bit of a hit because of it.
Too much time, money, and effort are put into pushing the limits of technology and not enough is put into the story, level/character design, or gameplay.
It's funny that the gaming industry keeps getting compared to the movie industry because I think they're both suffering from the same problem right now. They both rely on technology too much, not only in terms of how much they put into their products thinking it makes them better, but also their mistaken impression that the audience craves it.
How important is cutting edge technology to gaming? Well, let's see:
-Mobile gaming is huge right now and those games aren't even up to Nintendo DS standards for music, graphics, and content.
-Pogo.com usually has 100,000+ people online at any given time. (9:55 am on a Tuesday and there are 131,833 on right now.)
-Before the ignorant law banning online gambling, poker sites were immensely popular.
-Sites dedicated to web based games are everywhere and are popular enough that people can make a living running them.
-Every "Top games ever" list known to man has games at the top that revolutionized storytelling and game design in terms of gameplay. No games are listed for the new shading technologies they brought to the table.
-The VAST majority of people who play any given game will NEVER see the effects the developers spent so much time and money on because their PCs can't handle them.
That list could continue, but I think the point is made.
But that's not the only place money is wasted during game development...
I don't need Billy Dee Williams, Michael Ironside, and other random B-listers to appear in FMV to make my game entertaining. The FMV moments in C&C:TW actually hurt the player's level of immersion. How many units sold specifically because those people were involved? Not too many I'd bet. So was their involvement worth it? What did they bring to the table that was worth the money spent on them?
That's not to say decent voice acting isn't worth it at times. Look at Splinter Cell and what a great job Michael Ironside does there. The series wouldn't be the same without him.
Developers need to pick the perfect opportunities for these cameos and be sure they make sense. Patrick Stewart making an appearance in a Star Trek game makes sense and will help sell units. Patrick Stewart doing the voice of the king in Oblivion doesn't sell a single copy.
To be fair, developers have made better choices with music than they have actors. Yes doing the title song on Homeworld was fantastic. GTA:Vice City's soundtrack bordered on brilliant because it blended with a perfectly designed city that made everyone who played it think they were actually in the 80s.
But then, nobody is expecting to sell a game based on the music...except for the Journey game, which sucked.
To sum it up, developers should focus on the story and the gameplay. Anything else they can throw in is a bonus, but not necessary. No actor, song, or graphic technology has ever sold a game to the mass market.
Instead of making the graphical effect of looking into the sun more realistic perhaps developers should try spending more time making PC gaming more accessible to the average PC owner. Now that would be money well spent.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 10 2007,07:03
QUOTE
Leisher, here's the original article (Wall Street Journal)
What do you think? Should I just send Nick Wingfield a link here or should I send him a more "professional" email detailing my points?
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 10 2007,07:15
(Leisher @ Jul. 10 2007,09:03)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Leisher, here's the original article (Wall Street Journal)
What do you think? Should I just send Nick Wingfield a link here or should I send him a more "professional" email detailing my points?
Depends how much you want to rock the boat.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 10 2007,07:19
(Leisher @ Jul. 09 2007,22:21)
QUOTE
Look at Ultima X and how buggy it was when it shipped. The entire development team fought to try and prevent the game from being shipped, but EA pressed the issue because they wanted a return on their investment and didn't give a damn about the quality of the product. They figured it'd sell based on the IP's rep and didn't care if it was damaged.
That was IX. Now, too be fair, Origin had the little software quirks that came standard w\ their products. The fucking Voodoo memory manager for Ultima VII spring to mind. & there were always more mysterious glitches in their games than anyone else's. That being said, things like Privateer made me look the other way on those, even Privateer II having a DOS exclusive release. And even Ultima VII was enough of a trade for Voodoo.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 10 2007,07:37
< Click for more insanity >. The only part of this article that needs to be read ...QUOTE
Electronic Arts' CEO John Riccitiello has fired a warning to publishers that yearly sequels and increasingly difficult games are alienating customers.
The head of the world's largest games publisher, whose own company is renowned for its annual updates of hits such as FIFA and Madden, was speaking to the Wall Street Journal when he made the surprise statement.
The head of the world's largest games publisher, whose own company is renowned for its annual updates of hits such as FIFA and Madden, was speaking to the Wall Street Journal when he made the surprise statement.
Emphasis mine. All of EA's sports titles have essentially turned to shit, but they'll still move millions of copies & do much to make EA the 800 billion pound gorilla that it is.
A suit at EA bitching about too many sequels being produced is one of the most head-exploding things I can imagine. Even Uwe Boll doesn't go around undercutting his own films saying that vid games aren't good cinematic material.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 10 2007,09:53
(Leisher @ Jul. 10 2007,10:03)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Leisher, here's the original article (Wall Street Journal)
What do you think? Should I just send Nick Wingfield a link here or should I send him a more "professional" email detailing my points?
I'd send an email, asking him to contact the CEO on your behalf with some questions/rebuttals. And include a link here to a more detail discussion of how gamers are upset at the CEO's ignorant comments.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 10 2007,09:54
(Malcolm @ Jul. 10 2007,10:19)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Jul. 09 2007,22:21)
QUOTE
Look at Ultima X and how buggy it was when it shipped. The entire development team fought to try and prevent the game from being shipped, but EA pressed the issue because they wanted a return on their investment and didn't give a damn about the quality of the product. They figured it'd sell based on the IP's rep and didn't care if it was damaged.
That was IX. Now, too be fair, Origin had the little software quirks that came standard w\ their products. The fucking Voodoo memory manager for Ultima VII spring to mind. & there were always more mysterious glitches in their games than anyone else's. That being said, things like Privateer made me look the other way on those, even Privateer II having a DOS exclusive release. And even Ultima VII was enough of a trade for Voodoo.
Privateer 2.
I went through so much hell trying to get that thing to run. It was DOS-only, and, iirc, required 620k of your 640k of your non-extended memory, or some crap.
Crashed all the damned time.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 10 2007,10:13
(TheCatt @ Jul. 10 2007,11:54)
QUOTE
Privateer 2.
I went through so much hell trying to get that thing to run. It was DOS-only, and, iirc, required 620k of your 640k of your non-extended memory, or some crap.
Crashed all the damned time.
I went through so much hell trying to get that thing to run. It was DOS-only, and, iirc, required 620k of your 640k of your non-extended memory, or some crap.
Crashed all the damned time.
I believe I got it to run long enough to beat it a couple times. It certainly wasn't as difficult as the first one. But it's got Clive Owen, Mathilda May, & John Hurt, I think, as well as Chris Walken. 'Twas enjoyable. The trading, escorts, & all that other crap were done up, too. But the number of missions was way too small & they started repeating too often. Particularly the ones that were supposed to have one-time implications, e.g., getting some dude's daughter killed during a mission seemed to have no effect upon her getting put in the exact same ransom scenario by the same villain.
Link for DOS to Winblows conversion for Privateer II. < Linky >.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 10 2007,11:07
QUOTE
That was IX.
That's right. And while every game has it's bugs. No Origin game ever saw bugs like U IX. The first released version was impossible to finish due to game crashing bugs.
QUOTE
All of EA's sports titles have essentially turned to shit, but they'll still move millions of copies & do much to make EA the 800 billion pound gorilla that it is.
QUOTE
I'd send an email, asking him to contact the CEO on your behalf with some questions/rebuttals. And include a link here to a more detail discussion of how gamers are upset at the CEO's ignorant comments.
*Thinking*
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 10 2007,11:43
Innovation, EA style:
Posted by WSGrundy on Jul. 10 2007,12:20
Who is more foolish the fool or the fool who follows. For me it is the one that follows.
I still blame the developers even with the finacial argument. These people had Wing Commander, C&C, Sim whatever, and they couldn't get by without help? They were either greedy sellouts or had fucking idiots in charge. Either way it isn't EA's fault.
EA's strategy is to churn out sequals and movie licensed games yearly. If that isn't something you are interested in the don't sign with them.
You can't tell me that there was no one else out their with money that wasn't interested in the Sim and other maxis games. At the time westwood made the deal C&C there wasn't anyone else who would have been interested in helping sell the most popular franchise at the time?
QUOTE
Considering they bought everyone they could in the 90s, I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. Unless I'm misinterpreting your statement?
They bought everyone that was popular. I am saying that EA doesn't go and buy the makers of Geometry Wars before the game is made they wait until the game is a huge hit and then they show an interest. So I don't really buy the developer needing money argument. EA doesn't invest and create they buy established names with popular games that sell well and established names with popular games that sell well don't need EA's help to survive. They can use EA's help to make even more money though.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 10 2007,12:36
(WSGrundy @ Jul. 10 2007,12:20)
QUOTE
You can't tell me that there was no one else out their with money that wasn't interested in the Sim and other maxis games. At the time westwood made the deal C&C there wasn't anyone else who would have been interested in helping sell the most popular franchise at the time?
Yes, at the time there was no one else out there with money that was interested. Just EA. Remember most of this happened before the internet boom and before everyone had a computer. Gaming was still fringe, and EA was the only big pot of cash in the market. Plus they hadn't earned their bad reputation yet, they were still known for their innovative game development from the late 80s.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 10 2007,12:37
Once a studio gets its "hit" game out the door, the formula seems to be to make "Hit vX.0" where X just keeps getting incremented by one every year. Many of the aspects that made the same software cool three years ago turn to shit if they are allowed to stagnate. Come to think of it, the gaming industry does parallel the movie industry very well. 1) Initially decent concept done on a small to moderate budget becomes a tremendous smash.
2) Some company w\ assloads of cash thinks, "If they invested $ and made $$$$$$$$$$, think how much they I could make if I invested $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in their product!"
3) Rehash of the concept almost invariably sucks, falls short of the original, etc., pissing off everyone, including the investors who were looking forward to pulling off the rate of return that the original concept yielded, only now they think they can do it ad infinitum.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 10 2007,12:41
& hell, EA is still around. If you want a place that I believe epitomizes the fall from grace we're talking about here, the < Interplay > saga is worth mentioning again. That place is nigh bankrupt now. & they use to be a fucking powerhouse.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 10 2007,13:53
QUOTE
Who is more foolish the fool or the fool who follows.
For me it is the one that follows.
For me it is the one that follows.
Exactly, so can the console jackasses please stop supporting EA by running right out and buying the latest Madden the day it ships? I call out console people here because they're an easy target being that EA made it's name in sports games and because sports games don't sell well on the PC. However, PC people are to blame for EA's strategy too. Ditto for console players who don't play sports games. Anything "EA" is tainted. Right Cakedaddy? He's the only person I know who has boycotted their stuff for years. (For something stupid, but still!!!)
QUOTE
I still blame the developers even with the finacial argument. These people had Wing Commander, C&C, Sim whatever, and they couldn't get by without help? They were either greedy sellouts or had fucking idiots in charge. Either way it isn't EA's fault.
EA's strategy is to churn out sequals and movie licensed games yearly. If that isn't something you are interested in the don't sign with them.
You can't tell me that there was no one else out their with money that wasn't interested in the Sim and other maxis games. At the time westwood made the deal C&C there wasn't anyone else who would have been interested in helping sell the most popular franchise at the time?
EA's strategy is to churn out sequals and movie licensed games yearly. If that isn't something you are interested in the don't sign with them.
You can't tell me that there was no one else out their with money that wasn't interested in the Sim and other maxis games. At the time westwood made the deal C&C there wasn't anyone else who would have been interested in helping sell the most popular franchise at the time?
I'm thinking that perhaps you haven't read the whole thread because your point doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You're blaming developers (4 to be exact) from the early to mid-90s for selling out to EA because they should've known what they were getting into even though they all were purchased prior to EA's strategy of sequels and yearly updates. Keeping in mind that EA did a lot of it's purchasing prior to the industry really taking off the way it did as has been stated here previously.
And, on top of all that, you're also saying that it's those same developers and NOT EA's fault for the decline in innovation in gaming. Even though none of those entities has been in business for at least 8 years.
Well, that's just insane.
Listen, I get the points you're trying to make, but you're ignoring a lot of facts to make them. Most developers (and yes, it was a lot more than you think, the 4 listed are a short list, and no they weren't all studios with big hits) struggled during that time frame. As we have stated that was not a banner time for PC game sales and these were all PC developers. I have already gone through the facts of how the industry worked back then, so I won't do so again, but it bugs me that you're ignoring all that. They're FACTS, not opinions. They can't be ignored. You cannot run a business without cash flow no matter how good your product(s) are.
It is a fact that the best and brightest of those companies left EA as quickly as they could because they believed EA WAS KILLING INNOVATION IN GAMING.
And even IF these small developers were run poorly, what the fuck does that have to do with the perceived death of innovation in gaming? Remember, that's the reason this chain was started. The death of innovation in gaming as declared by EA's president. My contention was that EA is a huge part of why innovation is suffering. You defended EA, but you've only done so by blaming developers that have been out of the game for years upon years. How is that a defense?
Then you make statements like this:
QUOTE
EA's strategy is to churn out sequals and movie licensed games yearly.
I honestly don't know what you're debating since you're making our points for us.
Please don't take this post an an attack, I'm just really confused about your position here. One second you're defending EA and blaming the developers EA bought for the perceived death of innovation in gaming and the next second you're pointing out EA's strategy of not making anything new and instead relying upon sequels and yearly updates.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 11 2007,12:28
EA's E3 2007 lineup announcement (from < here >):QUOTE
Electronic Arts will be showcasing a wide variety of its upcoming titles at this year's Electronics Entertainment Expo, the company announced today. These will include a mix of new and established IP, and a bevy of new casual games titles.
Games on show at the Barker Hangar will include EA Sports popular franchises Madden NFL 08, NBA Live 08, NASCAR 08, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08.
Driving game Burnout Paradise will also be playable in the hangar. Other titles include SimCity Societies for the PC, Valve's Half-Life 2: The Orange Box, Mercenaries 2: World in Flames, Crysis, and Hellgate: London. The new Simpsons game will also be demoed on three platforms, along with around 12 other titles including third person co-op shooter Army of Two, Boogie, MySims, The Sims 2 Castaway, Medal of Honor: Airborne, Need for Speed ProStreet, Skate, and Rock Band.
Games on show at the Barker Hangar will include EA Sports popular franchises Madden NFL 08, NBA Live 08, NASCAR 08, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08.
Driving game Burnout Paradise will also be playable in the hangar. Other titles include SimCity Societies for the PC, Valve's Half-Life 2: The Orange Box, Mercenaries 2: World in Flames, Crysis, and Hellgate: London. The new Simpsons game will also be demoed on three platforms, along with around 12 other titles including third person co-op shooter Army of Two, Boogie, MySims, The Sims 2 Castaway, Medal of Honor: Airborne, Need for Speed ProStreet, Skate, and Rock Band.
Let's count them up, shall we? There are 19 games total listed in that article. So of the 19...
-4 are sports games that have taken the revolutionary step of simply changing the year in their title. (It should be noted that EA's FIFA franchise was not listed, but it's not a huge seller and generally comes out in the spring)
-11 of the games listed are sequels or based on established IPs (The Simpsons, SimCity, Metal of Honor, Rock Band (Rock Star), The Sims (2 games based on this), Need for Speed, Crysis (Far Cry), Half-Life 2, Burnout, and Mercenaries 2.)
-Hellgate: London is Diablo II in a new setting and has recently been getting some negative press due to some pricing decisions that are examples of EA's greed. (I believe it was PCGamer who just did a feature story on how those who buy just the game and nothing more will really be handicapped when trying to take the game online. Those who want the extra features have to pay a fee.)
-Army of Two is just a co-op first person shooter and actually seems to be a very blatant rip off of recent co-op "modern shooters" that have been heavily marketed for the 360.
-Boogie is a complete rip off of DDR. Use the Wii control to dance around instead of the dance mat. How innovative!
-Skate. I don't need to say anything as I'm sure everyone in the world has heard of Tony Hawk.
In the name of all that is holy, would someone please stop EA from all this innovation before they kill someone?!?!
P.S. If anyone is wondering how a few of those games got on the EA list, remember that EA is a publisher too.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 14 2007,13:55
Bumped for frontpageocity.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 30 2014,01:43
So, did you ever send that email Leisher?At any rate, here's Electronic Arts' 12 YTD stock performance, relative to the S&P 500
Posted by Leisher on Dec. 30 2014,06:50
What email?And of course EA does well. They sell sports games to console players and FPS games to people too dumb, lazy, or uncoordinated to figure out that they're superior in every conceivable way on the PC.
Plus, they distribute meaning they don't really make shit aside from their sports games, which are often accused of being lazy annual rehashes.
But they do actually design and make something, so I guess that gives them a leg up on Apple who also does well...
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 30 2014,07:30
You said they were going to email the author of the EA article that you were responding to. Or were thinking about email him.
Posted by Vince on Dec. 30 2014,07:53
I can never forgive them for Mass Effect 3. They are dead to me Posted by Leisher on Dec. 30 2014,09:44
(TheCatt @ Dec. 30 2014,10:30)
QUOTE
You said they were going to email the author of the EA article that you were responding to. Or were thinking about email him.
If I don't do so immediately, I get bored and move on.
Honestly, I have no idea if I did or not. I might have as it's ringing a bell, but who knows?