<!--quoteo(post=1671023:date=Feb 20 2008, 03:07 AM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Feb 20 2008, 03:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671023"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I only play games that had the time taken out of the day to build it correctly and treat their game as their baby (see: valve, blizzard, iD)
EA can make good games, but their mostly ######ty on the support side and have no modder/community and are aimed towards retarded/noob gamers. I miss the early days of half-life when i could play online without hearing 'YO DAWG THAT ###### WAS TYTE' over a microphone from everyone suddenly wanting to be a gamer. Hearing this news might make me actually think about putting in a application one day, maybe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should play Project Reality or Point of Existence 2 or Forgotten Hope 2 or Battlefield Pirates 2. Nobody ever says "yo dawg" in any of those. And, yeah, they happen to be mods aimed towards harcore gamers, especially Project Reality.
<!--quoteo(post=1671053:date=Feb 20 2008, 04:51 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Feb 20 2008, 04:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671053"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nobody ever says "yo dawg" in any of those. And, yeah, they happen to be mods aimed towards harcore gamers,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Isn't that what he was getting at?
<!--quoteo(post=1671056:date=Feb 20 2008, 10:04 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Align @ Feb 20 2008, 10:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671056"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Isn't that what he was getting at?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He said he misses the early days of Half-Life where nobody said stuff like that. I replied that if he wants he can get that in the BF2 mods too. That was also in response to when he said EA has no "modder/community" which I took to mean EA games don't have many mods.
<!--quoteo(post=1670229:date=Feb 11 2008, 11:27 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Feb 11 2008, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670229"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Could you give me an example of a big name publisher that DOES keep patching regularly after a few months?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Stardock is the only reasonably large publisher I can think of that acctually promotes patching. Patching isn't as feasable in the capitalist market. It's something we grow to depend on heavily in free market because it allows a project to grow with it's community. But in capitalistic development, once your dollar is spent there isn't much reason for a developer to be contractually bound to you any more... The exception being games like WoW, where you will stop paying monthly subscriptions if you stop playing the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1671096:date=Feb 21 2008, 12:55 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 21 2008, 12:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671096"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Stardock is the only reasonably large publisher I can think of that acctually promotes patching. Patching isn't as feasable in the capitalist market. It's something we grow to depend on heavily in free market because it allows a project to grow with it's community. But in capitalistic development, once your dollar is spent there isn't much reason for a developer to be contractually bound to you any more... The exception being games like WoW, where you will stop paying monthly subscriptions if you stop playing the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a very simplistic view of "capitalism" that assumes that patching is always going to result in a net loss of money. I wouldn't disagree that you're probably more or less right about that, but that's not some sort of tenet of capitalism. It's just a circumstance of the facts.
<!--quoteo(post=1671098:date=Feb 21 2008, 02:22 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Feb 21 2008, 02:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a very simplistic view of "capitalism" that assumes that patching is always going to result in a net loss of money. I wouldn't disagree that you're probably more or less right about that, but that's not some sort of tenet of capitalism. It's just a circumstance of the facts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well... in the capitalist market if we're assuming a one time purchase anyways... Of course we can modify the contract and that will modify the terms of action on the part of the developer, and there is always the scenario where someone selling something broken has their reputation negatively affected. But generally, if a game at least mostly works to it's specified state, there really isn't any reason to improve the game for free after the fact.
<!--quoteo(post=1670986:date=Feb 19 2008, 10:10 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Feb 19 2008, 10:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1670986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay, yeah, now how many of those 245 games does Valve patch more regularly than EA? 3?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can say for a fact that Valve had a patch for defcon that fixed numerous exploits and it wasnt patched for at least 4 months. Introversion had however handed valve the patch at the time it was released on their site for boxed copy owners.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
Fact:
EA is becoming a better publisher.
Fact:
Hardcore Gamers still skeptical about their future.
Fact: I played more EA games in the last 6 months than any other Publisher.
Fact: Some of the above games are Crysis, skate., Rock Band, Burnout Paradise, and more that I am not remembering right now for some reason. And those are just the games they had a hand in funding(I could include Orange Box otherwise).
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
As we're playing the 'Fact' game Quau.... <!--quoteo(post=1671606:date=Feb 28 2008, 03:53 AM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Feb 28 2008, 03:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fact:
EA is becoming a better publisher.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Incorrect. A single, but influential individual at EA is suggesting they'll try to become a better publisher. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fact:
Hardcore Gamers still skeptical about their future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That entirely comes down to how you define hardcore gamers. No argument here, I know the NS forums could quite fairly considered such, but we're skeptical because we're the ones that most see the effects of their prior behaviour. The XBL 'LOL' masses have made them significant sums of cash, and their expectations (having not been into gaming as long) have been set quite low.
Are the hardcore gamers skeptical because they're naturally skeptical of everything that comes from Publishers, or are they skeptical due to past experience? If the former, why?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fact: I played more EA games in the last 6 months than any other Publisher.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fact: This is because (as they themselves noted) they have bought and dissolved most of the alternatives, and certainly any major competition outside of Ubisoft. (Who I don't think are altruistic angels either, but haven't the same public track record.)
Absolutes in debate are not good, no matter what stance they take.
<!--quoteo(post=1671620:date=Feb 28 2008, 02:58 AM:name=Shockwave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shockwave @ Feb 28 2008, 02:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671620"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Absolutes in debate are not good, no matter what stance they take.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's an absolute.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1671646:date=Feb 28 2008, 05:02 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Feb 28 2008, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671646"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's an absolute.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What a twist!
<!--quoteo(post=1671620:date=Feb 28 2008, 03:58 AM:name=Shockwave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shockwave @ Feb 28 2008, 03:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671620"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Absolutes in debate are not good, no matter what stance they take.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Absolutes in debates shouldn't take stances... but in this case they didn't, so they are ok.
If quan were to state "The sky is blue right now" that is an absolute, but it doesn't reflect an opinion, it just reflects a reality. There's nothing wrong with stating fact in a debate as long as it is accurate. Absolutes just don't belong with anything subjective. IE, you should not have absolute opinions.
Now, the evidences quan produced could be used to argue that EA isn't acctually all that bad a company. But that was never explicately stated, and certainly not absolutely stated.
The only thing really broken was "Fact: EA is becoming a better publisher". That's extremely subjective. Even with this bigwig's statements, we've seen no evidence that the changes he wants to make won't acctually make EA a worse publisher overall.
EA is consuming better companies making better games and passing them off under the EA label to appear a better publisher.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1671698:date=Feb 29 2008, 12:08 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 29 2008, 12:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671698"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Absolutes in debates shouldn't take stances... but in this case they didn't, so they are ok.
If quan were to state "The sky is blue right now" that is an absolute, but it doesn't reflect an opinion, it just reflects a reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Incorrect - strictly speaking, it reflects a perception and/or a generally accepted assertion and/or nomenclature. Someone with an eye stigmatism of some sort may see the sky as what someone else would term 'green'. Furthermore, they may come to accept that the sky is 'blue' and this is simply how their eyes interpret the colour blue, but that would mean it is possible for two completely different interpretations of a colour to share the same name and significance.
If you take this argument further, you can argue that colour in vision is purely personal. It is possible for two people with 'perfectly normal' eyesight to look at the sky, one seeing black and one seeing red, and for them both to believe they are looking at blue. This possibility is feasible provided the changability of colours from one to another (e.g. mixing two colours together to make another) is consistent. It doesn't matter what colours you see, so long as they have the same name and they link to the rest of the world in the correct way.
(damn, Swift already said this...) For Quan's claims to be validated as 'FACTs', they would need further explanation. E.g. how do you define a 'good publisher'? Is it one who makes a big profit? Is it one who publishes lots of games? Or is it one who manages to do one or more of those while also gaining (sorry, let me clarify here: <i>earning</i>) the non-financial support of its consumers. Without a clear definition, 'better' can easily be perceived as an opinion. In fact, I'd wager that's exactly what EA are banking on: if they don't want to be a 'better publisher', they can at least paint themselves the image of one.
Or, perhaps they are genuine this time. I just needed to clear up that point about reality versus perceived reality.
Sight is the ability to perceive light hitting certain specialised cells. Black is the absence of light, or the absorption of equal amounts of light across the visual spectrum. Therefore, even if colours are perceived differently by different people, blue would still not be seen as black by anyone. Furthermore, since we cannot externally verify this (since we all agree that the sky and the grass is green), it doesn't matter, as it has no effect whatsoever.
<!--quoteo(post=1671779:date=Mar 1 2008, 10:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Mar 1 2008, 10:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671779"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sight is the ability to perceive light hitting certain specialised cells. Black is the absence of light, or the absorption of equal amounts of light across the visual spectrum. Therefore, even if colours are perceived differently by different people, blue would still not be seen as black by anyone. Furthermore, since we cannot externally verify this<b> (since we all agree that the sky and the grass is green)</b>, it doesn't matter, as it has no effect whatsoever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, the sky is nether green, unless you let aurora borealis count.
Comments
EA can make good games, but their mostly ######ty on the support side and have no modder/community and are aimed towards retarded/noob gamers. I miss the early days of half-life when i could play online without hearing 'YO DAWG THAT ###### WAS TYTE' over a microphone from everyone suddenly wanting to be a gamer. Hearing this news might make me actually think about putting in a application one day, maybe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should play Project Reality or Point of Existence 2 or Forgotten Hope 2 or Battlefield Pirates 2. Nobody ever says "yo dawg" in any of those. And, yeah, they happen to be mods aimed towards harcore gamers, especially Project Reality.
He said he misses the early days of Half-Life where nobody said stuff like that. I replied that if he wants he can get that in the BF2 mods too. That was also in response to when he said EA has no "modder/community" which I took to mean EA games don't have many mods.
If you have BF2 you should really try it out. It can be intimidating at first though.
Stardock is the only reasonably large publisher I can think of that acctually promotes patching. Patching isn't as feasable in the capitalist market. It's something we grow to depend on heavily in free market because it allows a project to grow with it's community. But in capitalistic development, once your dollar is spent there isn't much reason for a developer to be contractually bound to you any more... The exception being games like WoW, where you will stop paying monthly subscriptions if you stop playing the game.
That's a very simplistic view of "capitalism" that assumes that patching is always going to result in a net loss of money. I wouldn't disagree that you're probably more or less right about that, but that's not some sort of tenet of capitalism. It's just a circumstance of the facts.
Well... in the capitalist market if we're assuming a one time purchase anyways... Of course we can modify the contract and that will modify the terms of action on the part of the developer, and there is always the scenario where someone selling something broken has their reputation negatively affected. But generally, if a game at least mostly works to it's specified state, there really isn't any reason to improve the game for free after the fact.
I can say for a fact that Valve had a patch for defcon that fixed numerous exploits and it wasnt patched for at least 4 months. Introversion had however handed valve the patch at the time it was released on their site for boxed copy owners.
EA is becoming a better publisher.
Fact:
Hardcore Gamers still skeptical about their future.
Fact: I played more EA games in the last 6 months than any other Publisher.
Fact: Some of the above games are Crysis, skate., Rock Band, Burnout Paradise, and more that I am not remembering right now for some reason. And those are just the games they had a hand in funding(I could include Orange Box otherwise).
<!--quoteo(post=1671606:date=Feb 28 2008, 03:53 AM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Feb 28 2008, 03:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1671606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fact:
EA is becoming a better publisher.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. A single, but influential individual at EA is suggesting they'll try to become a better publisher.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fact:
Hardcore Gamers still skeptical about their future.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That entirely comes down to how you define hardcore gamers. No argument here, I know the NS forums could quite fairly considered such, but we're skeptical because we're the ones that most see the effects of their prior behaviour. The XBL 'LOL' masses have made them significant sums of cash, and their expectations (having not been into gaming as long) have been set quite low.
Are the hardcore gamers skeptical because they're naturally skeptical of everything that comes from Publishers, or are they skeptical due to past experience? If the former, why?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fact: I played more EA games in the last 6 months than any other Publisher.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fact: This is because (as they themselves noted) they have bought and dissolved most of the alternatives, and certainly any major competition outside of Ubisoft. (Who I don't think are altruistic angels either, but haven't the same public track record.)
Absolutes in debate are not good, no matter what stance they take.
That's an absolute.
What a twist!
Delicious, isn't it? Of course, Tycho would recognise it quickest. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Absolutes in debates shouldn't take stances... but in this case they didn't, so they are ok.
If quan were to state "The sky is blue right now" that is an absolute, but it doesn't reflect an opinion, it just reflects a reality. There's nothing wrong with stating fact in a debate as long as it is accurate. Absolutes just don't belong with anything subjective. IE, you should not have absolute opinions.
Now, the evidences quan produced could be used to argue that EA isn't acctually all that bad a company. But that was never explicately stated, and certainly not absolutely stated.
The only thing really broken was "Fact: EA is becoming a better publisher". That's extremely subjective. Even with this bigwig's statements, we've seen no evidence that the changes he wants to make won't acctually make EA a worse publisher overall.
EA is consuming better companies making better games and passing them off under the EA label to appear a better publisher.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fixed.
If quan were to state "The sky is blue right now" that is an absolute, but it doesn't reflect an opinion, it just reflects a reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Incorrect - strictly speaking, it reflects a perception and/or a generally accepted assertion and/or nomenclature. Someone with an eye stigmatism of some sort may see the sky as what someone else would term 'green'. Furthermore, they may come to accept that the sky is 'blue' and this is simply how their eyes interpret the colour blue, but that would mean it is possible for two completely different interpretations of a colour to share the same name and significance.
If you take this argument further, you can argue that colour in vision is purely personal. It is possible for two people with 'perfectly normal' eyesight to look at the sky, one seeing black and one seeing red, and for them both to believe they are looking at blue. This possibility is feasible provided the changability of colours from one to another (e.g. mixing two colours together to make another) is consistent. It doesn't matter what colours you see, so long as they have the same name and they link to the rest of the world in the correct way.
(damn, Swift already said this...)
For Quan's claims to be validated as 'FACTs', they would need further explanation. E.g. how do you define a 'good publisher'? Is it one who makes a big profit? Is it one who publishes lots of games? Or is it one who manages to do one or more of those while also gaining (sorry, let me clarify here: <i>earning</i>) the non-financial support of its consumers. Without a clear definition, 'better' can easily be perceived as an opinion. In fact, I'd wager that's exactly what EA are banking on: if they don't want to be a 'better publisher', they can at least paint themselves the image of one.
Or, perhaps they are genuine this time. I just needed to clear up that point about reality versus perceived reality.
Furthermore, since we cannot externally verify this (since we all agree that the sky and the grass is green), it doesn't matter, as it has no effect whatsoever.
Furthermore, since we cannot externally verify this<b> (since we all agree that the sky and the grass is green)</b>, it doesn't matter, as it has no effect whatsoever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, the sky is nether green, unless you let aurora borealis count.
Oops. >_>
--Scythe--