EA: Some Gamers Just Don't Like Change

[maxben]

"I can filter out hate, vitriol, rants, it's cool to rag on EA, it's cool to rag on Zynga, it's cool to rag on Bobby Kotick, it's cool to rag on Peter Moore," he added.

Oh, this very thread proves him so very right.
I'm fine with EA and DLC and so on because I understand that large game companies are businesses that need to make money.
Above all, however, I am fine with all of that because I still enjoy EA's games, which really is all that matters. Enjoyment.

"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You owned the game. You sat down. You owned the game. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. And you owned the game. It was all on the disc. That you owned."

There, I fixed that quote for you, Mr. Moore.

You're welcome.

It's not that gamers "fear change" it's that they fear donkey-helmets like you trying to rip them off, which you seem to be doing more and more often these days.

By that logic, you should hate Steam, because you don't own your Steam games. Which is why Steam can take your games away if you don't agree to the new TOS. The games are not your property.
And I don't think this is a bad thing. This is the future.

Some of us DO hate steam. An online system to purchase games that are then downloaded to your hard drive and then become your property is hardly impossible. Hard drive space is cheap and will only get cheaper. I really dont understand why your future scenario is necessary. The only reason for them to own the game instead of you would be if they gave you extra functionality like OnLive to play games that you wouldnt normally be able to, but then they should and would be charging subscription rather than making you purchase a game.
Or maybe Im misunderstanding, and if so enlighten me.

 

[theultimateend]

-CLOWNS!!-

This one's better...


Seriously, they must be doing SOMETHING.

I was skeptical if I should check the reply because I rarely come back to threads.

So glad I did...

Man was that funny...

Change? EA never changes. They brought about as much change as... well you guys can play "Guess the President" if you want.

I know you are running with buzzwords but technically Obama didn't invade 2 new countries permanently (and no, nothing he's done is comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan).

He also didn't create a new package of tax cuts to broaden debt gaps >_>.

He just isn't the "amount of change" people wanted, even beyond getting technical he's most certainly change. Still, Gray Johnson I think is the guys name, probably a much better choice. Just disingenuous to say Obama is the root cause of any lacking of changyness.

 

[FalloutJack]

[HEADING=1]"Ah, screw it. Our company is just plain stupid."[/HEADING]

There, I fixed that quote for you, Mr. Moore.

You're welcome.

It's not that gamers "fear change" it's that they fear donkey-helmets like you trying to rip them off, which you seem to be doing more and more often these days.

There, did a little fine-tuning that fix job, Mr. Olrod.

I prefer the direct approach.

 

[Scorpid]

anc[is]

Yeah, the difference was we never got the DLC in the first place.

Give me one good reason that having extra gameplay available for purchase is somehow worse than not being able to get that gameplay under any circumstances.

No, don't go into your fantasy about how if DLC wasn't a thing, developers would have totally included the content just for kicks, stick with reality.

Except we did, they were called expansion packs. It was a good time, when we got more than cheat codes or skin packs for our money. I even hear tales of when map packs were not called map packs, they were just new maps, and they were free.

MYTHS AND LEGENDS I SAY! Go back to your Dragons and Camelot fantasy world! Away with you crazy man!

 

[snekadid]

All i can say is EA obviously doesn't watch Jimquisition Because jim already told them why we hate them and did it well.

 

[FalloutJack]

All i can say is EA obviously doesn't watch Jimquisition Because jim already told them why we hate them and did it well.

If EA ever watched an episode of Jim or Yahtzee, say, they'd probably be dumb enough to sue.

 

[Josh123914]

This douchebag can go get fucked and die slowly of cancer.

Mass Effect 3 had an ending locked out unless you played multiplayer or their iOS app.

Both multiplayer and the iOS app cost extra money.

couple of things wrong with this:

1. You don't need to play mutliplayer to get all the endings.

2. the multiplayer doesn't cost any money at all.

Before the EC(which you needed online to download) the best Destroy ending needed 4000 EMS, but without multiplayer the highest you could reach was 3700 assuming you did every fetch quest and did everything right since the first game. Oh, and if you're on an xbox it does cost money, plus the whole ''1.49 for a new pack'' thing.

 

[chadachada123]

Change? EA never changes. They brought about as much change as... well you guys can play "Guess the President" if you want.

I know you are running with buzzwords but technically Obama didn't invade 2 new countries permanently (and no, nothing he's done is comparable to either Iraq or Afghanistan).

He also didn't create a new package of tax cuts to broaden debt gaps >_>.

He just isn't the "amount of change" people wanted, even beyond getting technical he's most certainly change. Still, Gray Johnson I think is the guys name, probably a much better choice. Just disingenuous to say Obama is the root cause of any lacking of changyness.

Oh boy! A chance to flex my political muscles in a video game thread!

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. He's who I will be voting for this coming election, since he's the only candidate that supports not butting into the business of other countries, especially when we aren't wanted and particularly when we do it without the consent of Congress (which we are required to have, but don't anyway).

I could go on and on about what I think about Obama, but I'd like to actually comment on the issue at hand: EA sucks. Pretty damn hard. After seeing a press release from DICE two years ago saying that they will NEVER charge players for maps, it's obvious that at least one company, among several, should die in a fire in the most unpleasant way possible.

 

[Old Father Eternity]

Aahm ... NO. It is not that we do not like change it is that (as some have said here and I have said in the Gen2 thread) we do not like change that takes things we have come to know and like and turns them into something they are not.

 

[I.Muir]

Of course I fear change
Or specifically some change

I fear half finished games + bucket loads of dlc
I fear increasingly retarded and restrictive drm
I fear favoring constant conscription services which we would have other wise received for free
I fear increasing drops in game quality and variety
I fear the death of video games

I look forward to a gaming renaissance
It's cool to rag on EA because they want all of the above to happen, or trying to do all of the above as we speak and I would feel strongly enough to firebomb their offices if I thought it was worth it and would achieve anything - it isn't and it won't

 

[Bloodstain]

By that logic, you should hate Steam, because you don't own your Steam games. Which is why Steam can take your games away if you don't agree to the new TOS. The games are not your property.
And I don't think this is a bad thing. This is the future.

Some of us DO hate steam. An online system to purchase games that are then downloaded to your hard drive and then become your property is hardly impossible. Hard drive space is cheap and will only get cheaper. I really dont understand why your future scenario is necessary. The only reason for them to own the game instead of you would be if they gave you extra functionality like OnLive to play games that you wouldnt normally be able to, but then they should and would be charging subscription rather than making you purchase a game.
Or maybe Im misunderstanding, and if so enlighten me.

First of all, I myself was enlightened by this fellow:

You don't own the game even if you have a physical copy. Unless its from like the 80s or very early 90s, most TOSes say that while you own the physical disc, you do not actually own the game but are merely leasing it from the company for a one time payment. This is mainly to protect them legally from your tinkering with and reverse engineering code.

This makes sense. So yeah, you could effectively hate every game retailer that exists, if it floats your boat.
And as Mycroft Holmes pointed out, there are crucial advantages to the game still belonging to Steam, Origin or whomever else: That way, you can't just change a few lines of code at your will and publish your own version of the game -- in the worst case, asking money for your altered version. There's a reason why not every game is open source.

And what advantage would you have my legally owning your games? What do you want to do other than play or resell your games (the latter of which is now legal in Europe even with digitally purchased games)? Unless you really do want to tinker and republish the games, you have no reason to own it.
At least I, personally, am absolutely sure that no company will one day simply say "Oh, you have our games? You know what, I'm taking them away again and you can't do anything about it, because fuck you." -- no company in its right mind would do that, since it will cost them tons of money and users and credibility. And maybe lawsuits, regardless of what the TOS say. Hmm.
If you have any other reason why you want to own your games legally, feel free to tell me -- maybe I'm simply not seeing something important.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

And as Mycroft Holmes pointed out, there are crucial advantages to the game still belonging to Steam, Origin or whomever else

Don't get me wrong; I like steam(and GOG) but I do not like Origin. Digital distribution is the right way to go, and so long as the companies don't deprive me of my ability to play the games I 'buy' I will have no problem with the rules as they are. Which in my opinion seems like the way things will play out with CD Projekt and Valve. Both have reputations as companies that care about their customers, leaving me with no reason not to use their services.

EA however has a history of ruthless businesses practices. They killed several of my favorite gaming companies (OSI and Bullfrog.) And more importantly to the subject at hand: you only get like 3 installs of a game on origin. Which is completely ridiculous; a company of that size should be able to have server bandwidth to spare and allow people to download the game that they bought whenever they want. That coupled with the trouble they got in for making origin spyware, and the horror stories I hear about people getting double charged for games and then having their origin accounts banned for complaining paints a very bad picture for EA.

Which is somewhat funny because the immediate points of contention I have against them are so easily solvable and inexpensive but it's like they want people to hate them. My only experience with EA customer support was actually quite well handled, they fixed my problem quickly and were nothing but courteous. They at least seem like they legitimately don't want Bioware to die. And I've never had a problem with DLC even day one DLC. Hiring extra programmers to make extra content costs money and I enjoy added value when it's done right(LotSB was under EAs watch). But the fact yet remains that EA has no idea how to run digital distribution and as a consequence Origin is a piece of garbage to be avoided.

Origin is actually the sole reason I have not bought BF 3, ME 3, and DA 2; all of which are games which I would like to have. So more money lost for them I suppose.

 

[Josh123914]

Before the EC(which you needed online to download) the best Destroy ending needed 4000 EMS, but without multiplayer the highest you could reach was 3700 assuming you did every fetch quest and did everything right since the first game. Oh, and if you're on an xbox it does cost money, plus the whole ''1.49 for a new pack'' thing.

they announced before the EC that you only needed 2800 to get all the different endings.

and Xbox live costing money is totally not something under EA's control, if you wanna complain about it costing money take it up with microsoft.

And the packs could be earned by playing the game, and you didn't even need to buy them to play.

I'm not complaining, I'm on PS3 but bottom line is Bioware said that you wouldn't need to play multiplayer to get every ending but you did for about 3 months even when a large portion of their fanbase called them out on it.

 

[Trek1701a]

I like change. I like my quarters, my dimes, my nickels, even my dollar coins (although it gets heavy if you carry too many of them), pennies however aren't as useful as they once were, but you can save them up.

 

[TallanKhan]

EA: Some Gamers Just Don't Like Change
Technology is enabling that. Hardware is enabling that. Different game experiences like open world experiences are enabling that, and we're trying to react to what we believe is what gamers want."
Permalink

Somone clearly not familier with the idea that just because you can do something, that doesnt neccessarily make it a good idea to do it.

I have no obejection to DLC or multiplayer in games. However i have a problem when every game has to have dlc "because thats what games have" rather than because the developer thinks it will really enchance the experience. I have a problem when multiplayer is made integral so those who choose not to participate are made to feel they are missing out on an essential part of the game.

I didnt hate Dragon Age 2 because it was different, I hated it because it was boring, buggy, poorly written and it shamelessly and lazily reused every environment in the game 50 times a piece.

With ME3 i didnt even hate the game, i was just dissapointed. Throught the last two games we were promised a climax to the trilogy where, by virtue of it being the last installment, storylines could "wildly diverge" and where all your choices would have impacts and results. Instead we got, well, the same as every other RPG for the last 10 years, everything decided in one final battle and where charachters you have interacted with get a mention in the epilogue, if were lucky.

I dont hate EA, Im just dissapointed, and its not some irrational reaction to change, its a response to lazy design choices and promises that they have failed to deliver on. The fact of the matter is, however they dress it up, the games coming out of EA are just not meeting the same standards they used to and whatever excuses you use, if quality is suffering, something, somewhere, has gone wrong.

 

[maxben]

By that logic, you should hate Steam, because you don't own your Steam games. Which is why Steam can take your games away if you don't agree to the new TOS. The games are not your property.
And I don't think this is a bad thing. This is the future.

Some of us DO hate steam. An online system to purchase games that are then downloaded to your hard drive and then become your property is hardly impossible. Hard drive space is cheap and will only get cheaper. I really dont understand why your future scenario is necessary. The only reason for them to own the game instead of you would be if they gave you extra functionality like OnLive to play games that you wouldnt normally be able to, but then they should and would be charging subscription rather than making you purchase a game.
Or maybe Im misunderstanding, and if so enlighten me.

First of all, I myself was enlightened by this fellow:

You don't own the game even if you have a physical copy. Unless its from like the 80s or very early 90s, most TOSes say that while you own the physical disc, you do not actually own the game but are merely leasing it from the company for a one time payment. This is mainly to protect them legally from your tinkering with and reverse engineering code.

This makes sense. So yeah, you could effectively hate every game retailer that exists, if it floats your boat.
And as Mycroft Holmes pointed out, there are crucial advantages to the game still belonging to Steam, Origin or whomever else: That way, you can't just change a few lines of code at your will and publish your own version of the game -- in the worst case, asking money for your altered version. There's a reason why not every game is open source.

And what advantage would you have my legally owning your games? What do you want to do other than play or resell your games (the latter of which is now legal in Europe even with digitally purchased games)? Unless you really do want to tinker and republish the games, you have no reason to own it.
At least I, personally, am absolutely sure that no company will one day simply say "Oh, you have our games? You know what, I'm taking them away again and you can't do anything about it, because fuck you." -- no company in its right mind would do that, since it will cost them tons of money and users and credibility. And maybe lawsuits, regardless of what the TOS say. Hmm.
If you have any other reason why you want to own your games legally, feel free to tell me -- maybe I'm simply not seeing something important.

Thats a deflection and you know it. You were making the claim that this is the future and you've put up no defence for why it should be so. I can go on and on about why I think owning a game is important, but that is not the issue at question. My question to you is, why is it necessary that we DONT own the game? Needless to say, its important to ME, and I dont see the point of losing that functionality. You have to have a reason to remove a feature. As for the reason outlined in the TOS, thats hardly legitimate because I can scribble inside of a book and resell it, or pull out pages and resell it, or add pages (if I have some way to rebind it) and sell it. I cant see why video games deserves protection that other forms of media do not have. In fact, people have, for example, redone the Star Wars prequel trilogy to better reflect what they thought should or should not be in it. AND, if they do need that protection they can just say that you cannot mess with it and sell it, but it should be perfectly alright to mess with the code and NOT sell it. The two arent necessarily related.
Laslty, the "everyone does it therefore its ok/a good thing" is hardly a logical argument.