WTF Humble Bundle?! "Indie" my ass.

[Freaky Lou]

What do I hate about EA? Well;

Bringing out 'sequels' year on year that are only incremental updates, then having the cheek to charge £40 for it.
Popularising the online pass system.
Having adverts like 'Your Mom Will Hate Dead Space 2', which just paints a negative picture of the medium, like game developers are trying to piss people off.
The way the treat their employees and smaller developers.

Don't forget Origin! It's spyware, likes to glitch and double your charges, and locks you out for misbehaving on EA or Bioware forums. On top of that we have their promising copies of Battlefield 1942 to PS3 buyers of BF3, and then just not doing it after the BF3 units had been sold. THEN, of course, offering "early access to DLC" as compensation (note it's just early access; they still had to pay for it) when that early access was already an advertised bonus prior to this debacle.

Trying to beat the competition by making the same game as the competition but worse (*cough* Medal of Honor *cough*).

Medal Of Monor was once a proud military FPS series; it predates Call Of Duty by a good bit and was a lot better back in its day. Did you ever play MoH: Allied Assault on the PC? Or Frontline on Gamecube/PS2? Those were great games! But EA mutated it from its former strong, singleplayer-focused roots into an attempt to directly attack CoD, which they already had Battlefield for.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Hell, I thought this was going to be interesting. I get that EA isn't indie, but what do you have against it as a company? They make sequels because the previous title sold successfully, that's what companies do. Plus, when indie companies get big, it can happen, you'll probably just go and start talking bad about them too.

They supported SOPA, something even Activision didn't do.

 

[Deadagent]

Second time I actually need to post something.

http://twitter.com/#!/klei/

Hopefully this will clear things up

 

[Fishyash]

the fact that they have put "humble" on thease things pisses me off

it comes across as pretentious

I am pretty sure I am not the only one who thinks you somehow managed to interpret the exact opposite message that actively defies the definition of humble.

"Hi, I am nothing special."

"Stop trying to be special! It sounds pretentious."

Please explain yourself. It is not easy to somehow assume the opposite meaning from the word humble. Pretentious is nearly the opposite.

Okay... on topic now.

Oh no! An indie developer (yes, it is an independent developer) is actually getting supported by the big bad EA! How DARE they try and make money from their games. Finally, how DARE they actually put the logo of someone who supported them on their humble indie bundle page!

That's what I got from your first post. I am sorry, you seriously don't understand the concept of selling out and it makes you sound like a total jerk. Someone actually getting money for their games will not be making weaker products. Joining one of the big four shouldn't count as selling out in the music industry, how is an indie developer helping their game get sold by EA count selling out in the gaming industry?

 

[MercurySteam]

''Shank is a 2D side-scrolling beat 'em up developed by Klei Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts.''

Indie developer EA as publisher, no problem there right?

EA's name attached = auto-bad.

Yep, this is pretty much how the OP is thinking. Well the mystery behind this is easy to uncover.

Failure. Of. Logic.

Seriously, automatically hating EA whenever you see their name ANYWHERE is probably the most childish practise that I've seen people participating in this last year. People need to watch this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/3857-BOYCOTT] very carefully, and use as much brainpower as they can muster to determine whether it's justified or not.

Not sure what 2K does anymore besides GTA (never been my bag), and haven't seen a THQ game since Titan Quest. Are they still around?

2K published Bioshock/Bioshock 2 and Borderlands. THQ published Darksiders, Saints Row 2/The Third and Red Faction: Guerrilla. Where have you been lately?

 

[DeltaEdge]

You know what would be great? If EA would keep helping developers like this. Allowing them to get their work done while maintaining creative control. That would be great. Good games and new ideas would flourish. I have absolutely no problem with that. I may not like many of EA's business practices, but this is unquestionably a good one.

Probably the most sensible post on this thread so far. I completely agree.
On a separate note, seeing your avatar directly before reading your post made me think a blood-coated vino crawled down from the ceiling right next to me with crazy eyes reading your post on my computer. That would be flippin' scary XD. And it's still dark in my room so..yeah. And yes, that last part was completely random.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Hell, I thought this was going to be interesting. I get that EA isn't indie, but what do you have against it as a company? They make sequels because the previous title sold successfully, that's what companies do. Plus, when indie companies get big, it can happen, you'll probably just go and start talking bad about them too.

What do I have against EA? Either you're new to gaming, or a BF3 fan... They're the Microsoft of the gaming world (though Sony is trying to catch up in the race to the bottom).

Yo, Microsoft, right now, does not deserve much hate. Windows 7 rocks my boat, so much I even almost forgot all about Vista. They made the XBOX360 to be on par with the PS3 and even their Phone Mongo Mango isn't as easy to hate as I'd like it to be.

On the other hand, explain to me what Apple is doing? Why do they keep selling laptops with well-designed but crappy cheap power supplies that just plain don't deliver enough power or fall apart randomly? Why do they get away with all the crap stunts they've been pulling off lately? Because they claimed to be different last century?

Running a business only makes sense as long as there's a profit, people want more of what you deliver, and like how you do it. Every lie, every broken promise is a risk, a liability. I personally loathe EA, and every time I went weak in the last decade, I felt effed over and ditched in a dark alley. Yeah, thanks for that, EA.

 

[Hazy992]

What do I hate about EA? Well;

Bringing out 'sequels' year on year that are only incremental updates, then having the cheek to charge £40 for it.
Popularising the online pass system.
Having adverts like 'Your Mom Will Hate Dead Space 2', which just paints a negative picture of the medium, like game developers are trying to piss people off.
The way the treat their employees and smaller developers.

Don't forget Origin! It's spyware, likes to glitch and double your charges, and locks you out for misbehaving on EA or Bioware forums. On top of that we have their promising copies of Battlefield 1942 to PS3 buyers of BF3, and then just not doing it after the BF3 units had been sold. THEN, of course, offering "early access to DLC" as compensation (note it's just early access; they still had to pay for it) when that early access was already an advertised bonus prior to this debacle.

Trying to beat the competition by making the same game as the competition but worse (*cough* Medal of Honor *cough*).

Medal Of Monor was once a proud military FPS series; it predates Call Of Duty by a good bit and was a lot better back in its day. Did you ever play MoH: Allied Assault on the PC? Or Frontline on Gamecube/PS2? Those were great games! But EA mutated it from its former strong, singleplayer-focused roots into an attempt to directly attack CoD, which they already had Battlefield for.

I mean the Medal of Honor from 2010. The reboot.

 

[Hazy992]

Hell, I thought this was going to be interesting. I get that EA isn't indie, but what do you have against it as a company? They make sequels because the previous title sold successfully, that's what companies do. Plus, when indie companies get big, it can happen, you'll probably just go and start talking bad about them too.

What do I hate about EA? Well;

Bringing out 'sequels' year on year that are only incremental updates, then having the cheek to charge £40 for it.
Popularising the online pass system.
Having adverts like 'Your Mom Will Hate Dead Space 2', which just paints a negative picture of the medium, like game developers are trying to piss people off.
The way the treat their employees and smaller developers.
Trying to beat the competition by making the same game as the competition but worse (*cough* Medal of Honor *cough*).

Phew! Rant over!

You forgot backing SOPA. ...or were you done... oh shi...

I forgot they were backing SOPA. That's reason enough to hate them.

 

[MurderousToaster]

Oh, cry some more. You are aware that it was made by an indie company, yes? EA don't own them, they just published the game. They're a small-scale company with only a few employees who turned to a big publisher in order to get their game a proper release. Just because it's not made in a cave on a Windows 95 PC by hipsters doesn't mean it's not indie.

 

[targren]

Double post. Mea Culpa

 

[targren]

Because one game is slightly published by a large publisher the entire humble indie bundle, including the other games are no longer indie.

I actually said the exact opposite of that. I specifically said that's why I didn't go change my developer slider to $0.

Oh, cry some more. You are aware that it was made by an indie company, yes? EA don't own them, they just published the game. They're a small-scale company with only a few employees who turned to a big publisher in order to get their game a proper release. Just because it's not made in a cave on a Windows 95 PC by hipsters doesn't mean it's not indie.

How many times does it have to be pointed out... Once you're signed with a publisher, you are no longer an indie developer. By frigging definition. You are then just a small developer. Size is completely orthogonal to whether one is independent or not.

 

[MurderousToaster]

Because one game is slightly published by a large publisher the entire humble indie bundle, including the other games are no longer indie.

I actually said the exact opposite of that. I specifically said that's why I didn't go change my developer slider to $0.

Oh, cry some more. You are aware that it was made by an indie company, yes? EA don't own them, they just published the game. They're a small-scale company with only a few employees who turned to a big publisher in order to get their game a proper release. Just because it's not made in a cave on a Windows 95 PC by hipsters doesn't mean it's not indie.

How many times does it have to be pointed out... Once you're signed with a publisher, you are no longer an indie developer. By frigging definition. You are then just a small developer. Size is completely orthogonal to whether one is independent or not.

Here's the issue - they're still independent. This individual game was published by EA. The developer themselves do not have a contract with EA, nor are they owned by EA. Therefore, while that specific game may not be independent, the developer is. Perhaps you should consider actually bothering to do some research before you come over all exasperated?

 

[esperandote]

So people hate EA for mostly for they dull sequels and now also because of supporting new projects?

Second time I actually need to post something.

http://twitter.com/#!/klei/

Spoiler

Hopefully this will clear things up

It does clear things up.

They used EA for marketing and distro. They're still as independant as if they'd hired Walter Thompson to advertise and UPS to distro. They only difference is that EA allows them to pay as a cut of the profits rather than all up front. They are indie in every sense that matters: creative control, programming, funding, future projects, etc.

This too.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

''Shank is a 2D side-scrolling beat 'em up developed by Klei Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts.''

Indie developer EA as publisher, no problem there right?

EA's name attached = auto-bad.

It's like if you hate Quinton Tarantino you shouldn't watch the film "Hero" because his name is on the poster.

But they had nothing to do with the content of the game apart from it's distribution?

'Shank was announced at Penny Arcade Expo 2009. On March 4, 2010 Klei Entertainment signed with Electronic Arts and were able to finalize which platforms the game would be released on.'

So they worked on it for a year before EA was even involved.

These people will do anything to hate EA, your logic fails to impress them.

 

[veloper]

''Shank is a 2D side-scrolling beat 'em up developed by Klei Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts.''

Indie developer, with EA as publisher, no problem there right?

Here is their website http://kleientertainment.com/ They are definitely indie I'd say.

Indies don't have publishers by definition. They self-publish. Indies don't go to a publisher to borrow money for their project.

I love this sort of argument. On one side, you've got people saying that the best way to get innovation into the industry is to increase the distribution scale of indie games using the money of larger publishers, allowing more people access to the new ideas from smaller developers. On the other side, you've got people saying big companies shouldn't get involved with indie games because they're bad.

It's about on the same level of logical response as "Cos I said so."

I know, some people baffle me. In the case of Shank, the developer made two successful self published indie games in the past, and thus gained the industry credentials to to sign on with a major publisher. This should be a good thing! A small developer getting recognized and rewarded for producing quality content. I don't get these people that assume everyone at the developer immediately loses their soul the second they sign a publishing deal. How dare they try to make money, real indie developers are broke and homeless.

I never said it was morally wrong. It's just not indie.

Indie is for independent. Not being fully owned by a publisher doesn't make an independent developer yet.
Indies simply don't depend on publishers for anything. That's what makes them "independent". The meaning of the word says it all basicly.
Indies self-publish.

The OP is technically correct.