No it's not quite, but EA most likely will or have learned from past mistakes, although I guess I should wait and see what the monetization options will be like for Generals 2 before making such a statement.
And are you really that annoyed about sex in videogames? It's awkward as hell to watch and I disapprove of it as much as the next person, but EA aren't the only publisher to do it.
I don't know how you read my post, but what I wrote and meant to say is importance of a company AS a company should be taken into consideration of what they do, instead of how they work and how much they think of themselves.
What I mean is, there are plenty of companies that are either Physical based or Charity based, their job is kinda more important in what they do in the scheme of life, so EA being in the that importance and forgiveness isn't exactly fine by any standard.
I mean you could close an eye to what they do, but saying "They're just a company making money", again, yes they are, but every other company is too, and their 'product' level (which are games) hardly makes it justifiable for them to pull stunts where they're going against the consumer and charging 60$ for sometimes an unplayable product riddled with MicroTrans. and then blaming it on the consumer.
And the sex part was there for hyperbole expression, what I meant by that was "games in which you play has a hardened space marine and end up noodling a couple of alien babes is hardly the epitome of a money making business".
The same that happened with Diablo 3 happened with Diablo 2. And with Starcraft 2 Heart of the Swarm, the same, servers were collapsed.
We have the same on the first weeks with games such as Tera, Guild Wars 2, and a huge etc.
Most online games have this issue and I agree, When the D3 expansion is announced I'll be impatiently awaiting it. I still find myself going back and playing it from time to time.
I think that when your company gets as big as EA, the way you run it is going to change. The sheer size of EA and the fact that it is a publicly traded company means they're going to make choices based on what they think will be big returns for investors and that is going to conflict with gamers from time to time. They put out a number of games I won't touch but they also put out Mirrors Edge, Dragon Age, and Most of the Mass Effect series.
My only issue with EA is that sometimes after a game is successful they tend to meddle thinking they're improving the game when in fact they sometimes will remove what made the game enjoyable to begin with. That and sometimes it feels like bigger companies have a square peg approach to making studios work on game types that those studios are unfamiliar with. That goes for Activision as well though.
I have a hard time taking this pole seriously as who is more likely to vote online? Someone who has had their home foreclosed upon or is just upset with Exxon or BOA, or someone who is online playing games? While I don't have any huge love of EA, I can't believe that they are even on this thing.
Out of curiosity - not to derail from the typical bashing of successful companies here - but how is an opinion from David Jaffe, a guy with actual industry credit, for the "lulz" but Kotaku, a website that just talks about games and speculation, is super valid?
Just to clarify - I'm not saying I agree, just thought it was an interesting response
Thats what stopped me from reading further and what stopped me from caring about hes opinion. Yes I understand that not every company should be granted billions of dollars and endless time to develop their games, but saying that all of the companies that got pushed by the publisher to hurry up and release the game got what they deserved? But making that statement makes him sound like a complete idiot and a douche bag. I couldn't care more if hes worked in the industry for a billion years, that don't mean that everything he says is true.
Everyone should be treated equally until they have proved otherwise, that is to say. Everyone is an idiot until proven not.
Replies
I don't know how you read my post, but what I wrote and meant to say is importance of a company AS a company should be taken into consideration of what they do, instead of how they work and how much they think of themselves.
What I mean is, there are plenty of companies that are either Physical based or Charity based, their job is kinda more important in what they do in the scheme of life, so EA being in the that importance and forgiveness isn't exactly fine by any standard.
I mean you could close an eye to what they do, but saying "They're just a company making money", again, yes they are, but every other company is too, and their 'product' level (which are games) hardly makes it justifiable for them to pull stunts where they're going against the consumer and charging 60$ for sometimes an unplayable product riddled with MicroTrans. and then blaming it on the consumer.
And the sex part was there for hyperbole expression, what I meant by that was "games in which you play has a hardened space marine and end up noodling a couple of alien babes is hardly the epitome of a money making business".
I will buy it on its day one :P
The same that happened with Diablo 3 happened with Diablo 2. And with Starcraft 2 Heart of the Swarm, the same, servers were collapsed.
We have the same on the first weeks with games such as Tera, Guild Wars 2, and a huge etc.
Most online games have this issue and I agree, When the D3 expansion is announced I'll be impatiently awaiting it. I still find myself going back and playing it from time to time.
I think that when your company gets as big as EA, the way you run it is going to change. The sheer size of EA and the fact that it is a publicly traded company means they're going to make choices based on what they think will be big returns for investors and that is going to conflict with gamers from time to time. They put out a number of games I won't touch but they also put out Mirrors Edge, Dragon Age, and Most of the Mass Effect series.
My only issue with EA is that sometimes after a game is successful they tend to meddle thinking they're improving the game when in fact they sometimes will remove what made the game enjoyable to begin with. That and sometimes it feels like bigger companies have a square peg approach to making studios work on game types that those studios are unfamiliar with. That goes for Activision as well though.
I have a hard time taking this pole seriously as who is more likely to vote online? Someone who has had their home foreclosed upon or is just upset with Exxon or BOA, or someone who is online playing games? While I don't have any huge love of EA, I can't believe that they are even on this thing.
http://criminalcrackdown.blogspot.com/2013/04/you-are-not-as-good-as-you-think-you-are.html
Just to clarify - I'm not saying I agree, just thought it was an interesting response
Thats what stopped me from reading further and what stopped me from caring about hes opinion. Yes I understand that not every company should be granted billions of dollars and endless time to develop their games, but saying that all of the companies that got pushed by the publisher to hurry up and release the game got what they deserved? But making that statement makes him sound like a complete idiot and a douche bag. I couldn't care more if hes worked in the industry for a billion years, that don't mean that everything he says is true.
Everyone should be treated equally until they have proved otherwise, that is to say. Everyone is an idiot until proven not.
And no I do not like Kotaku, infact I hate them.