Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:19 am
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote: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: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:37 am
by Malcolm
Click for more insanity. The only part of this article that needs to be read ...
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.
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: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:53 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: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: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:54 pm
by TheCatt
Malcolm wrote:Leisher wrote: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: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:13 pm
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote: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 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: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:07 pm
by Leisher
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.
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.
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: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:43 pm
by Leisher
Innovation, EA style:
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:20 pm
by WSGrundy
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?
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: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:36 pm
by TPRJones
WSGrundy wrote: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.
Edited By TPRJones on 1184096411
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:37 pm
by Malcolm
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.
Edited By Malcolm on 1184096363
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:41 pm
by Malcolm
& 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: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:53 pm
by Leisher
Who is more foolish the fool or the fool who 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!!!)
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?
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:
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: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:28 pm
by Leisher
EA's E3 2007 lineup announcement (from here):
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.
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.
Edited By Leisher on 1184182369
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:55 pm
by GORDON
Bumped for frontpageocity.
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:43 am
by TheCatt
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: Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:50 am
by Leisher
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: Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:30 am
by TheCatt
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: Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:53 am
by Vince
I can never forgive them for Mass Effect 3. They are dead to me <spits>
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:44 pm
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: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?