<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jul 25 2005, 05:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jul 25 2005, 05:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When google is bought by EA the world shall end. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the world shall flourish.
<!--QuoteBegin-Shoebox+Jul 26 2005, 03:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shoebox @ Jul 26 2005, 03:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wow EA is gonna completely take over the entire gaming industry. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And yet, according to <a href='http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1133' target='_blank'>this</a> articles, they're losing money, about $24 million of it. Only EA.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Jul 26 2005, 07:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jul 26 2005, 07:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Disney's business plan is comparable to EA's: Carter to the the lowest common denominator, make it colorful, make it emotional, sell it in any avenue you might care to name. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> THAT'S NOT TRUE!
There's...
but..
MY CHILDHOOD HAS BEEN A LIE!!!!! <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
When the Holy Order of Google rallies its forces to defeat the evil monolith that shall be known only as Ea, I'll be one of the first to whip out the old Crusade gear. Except instead of crosses we'd have Gs.
While many people have a lot of valid, morally superior reasons to hate EA, I have only one.
I CAN'T JUST KEEP PUMPING OUT MONEY TO BUY THESE flipping EXASNiON PACKS. SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE ****. COULD THE **** YOURE SELLING IN THE EXPANSION PACKS NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL GAME? **** YOU, ****.
A studio made game where millions can be dumped in development, marketing, distribution, and continuing support for the game. The developers aren't under financial pressure, but they are under time pressure for via deadlines. The marketing campaign would have access to numerous outlets for advertising, and distribution set up for all the major stores as well as smaller game stores. Also the revenue from the game can support the coders that spend time patching stuff immediately.
OR a game that run by people who are on their own dime. Have time constraints due to a demanding community, AND financial constraints due to no corporate funding. Virtually no marketing campaign, other than features on some B-list websites, the occasional magazine interview (IF the game previews are worthy), and word of mouth (Word of mouth is a great form of advertising, but does not spread as fast as print, or video ads). The developers to receive funds would have to do other side projects to fund the game they want to develop, otherwise they could take out bank loans to live off of while striving to develop a product, OR they can ask the fanbase for "investments". This is a considerably bad idea considering that most gamers would not have the cash to front said investment, and there are also NDA breaches that the developers would have to worry about. And if a gamer did have enough money to put up, the development team would have to have enough "material" to show the potential investor before hand. THIS IS SMART BUSINESS. A smart investor wants to see what he or she is investing in before making a business decision. But without the funds it would be tough to generate a preview to show potential investors. In business, you have to spend money to make money. With corporate accountants/marketing staff handling that, the programmers can focus more on developing the product, rather than running a business.
Since these underground people don't want to go with a large company, and have to do side projects, this leaves support for the game (i.e. patches) few and far between, often just fixing bugs to run the game, rarely focusing on game mechanics. So community support (which is THE most important thing, especially to underground developers) would continue to die off as some of the game mechanics if left unbalanced would be unappealing to some of the fanbase.
At the same time that is happening, there are other studio developed games that are advertsing like crazy to get people to buy them and support that community, and they have the funds, and support to back that community.
Obviously there are going to be people that would say to go with the underground developer for pretty stupid reasons, so I'll ignore them. I would be interested in debate that would address my points or bring up new points that could be refutable.
Despite the problems with a large corporation developing a game, it seems to me the only way for a programming team to survive. Unless the development team has the millions it takes to develop a game or unless all of the people working on it are working for free, the large corporation seems to be the only way to go.
<!--QuoteBegin-Drfuzzy+Jul 26 2005, 11:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Drfuzzy @ Jul 26 2005, 11:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> EA is a discrace to the game world, their in it for the money over the enjoyment over the gamers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If that wre true, would they not run themselves out of business?
<!--QuoteBegin-Olmy+Jul 26 2005, 01:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Olmy @ Jul 26 2005, 01:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tolkien must be turning in his grave right now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> More likely is that he rose from the grave only to die a slow and painful death while someone brands his forehead with an EA logo and roasts him over a pyre of his original manuscripts.
Firewater, the gaming world isn't about only having those two choices, so that's really not a realistic decision any of us would need to make. There are games developers who have cash but do have an idea of what the Games Industry is about, and I'm not talking about pushing product placement and pixel perfection over decent stories.
For the most part, I'm not talking about their games, but their attitude to making and <b>marketing</b> games, and to stifling the competition, which is detrimental to an Industry that should thrive on original thought (more minds = more ideas).
Valve understand this, and Epic have come around to the same style of thinking. My examples being the SDK and the 'Make something Unreal' contest. These two companies care about and understand the gamming community, they understand the partnership. With EA it's all about control.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If that wre true, would they not run themselves out of business?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only If the consumers would be more demanding ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Despite the problems with a large corporation developing a game, it seems to me the only way for a programming team to survive. Unless the development team has the millions it takes to develop a game or unless all of the people working on it are working for free, the large corporation seems to be the only way to go.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats all true, but how many truely innovative and renown development teams slipped under the EA curtain and were subsequently squeazed dry and vanished?
Origin, Looking glass, Interplay? Some of them were companies that basically invented video gaming as we know it today.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Drfuzzy+Jul 27 2005, 04:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Drfuzzy @ Jul 27 2005, 04:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> EA is a discrace to the game world, their in it for the money over the enjoyment over the gamers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just like every single form of entertainment media ever. Especially bands.
"We're in it for our fans and screw the man and his ways! ...Now buy our album and pay $35 for our next concert."
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+Jul 25 2005, 02:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer @ Jul 25 2005, 02:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->GOOD LORD NOOOOOOOOOO. When will this stop. Man, who even let EA BUY the rights?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My guess would be the people selling them. It's not like you want a government or industry body regulating whether you can sell permission to use fictional content you've created, right?
I suggest you do some research on what that symbol really meant to the people who lived under it. Do you really feel that mass murder, racism, and the subjugation of entire segments of society are equivalent to running a business with bad HR and QA? Are the people who suffered under that symbol worth so little that they should be made the butt of a joke?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First one up to claim that it's the employees fault to allow this to happen gets a free whack with the reality bat. Believe it or not, but some people have to rely on a steady income to survive<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where's the reality bat, Nem0?
I voluntarily signed a contract that had me working 90 hour weeks at EALA partially because I needed steady income, but also because I chose not to take other available jobs with less stressful conditions. Unemployment in the Northern California tech sectors tripled from '99 to '03, and I was one of the people directly affected by the lack of programming work... but even when I couldn't find other programming jobs there were other ways to put food on the table for my family.
I couldn't match my old salary if I worked retail (ugh), but I could have still had a roof over my head and clothes on my back. So long as employment contracts are voluntary, there will be an employee voice that has the potential to change the corporation. EA did have people quit during MOHPA--the people who stayed, myself included, either preferred the jobs they had to ones that they could get elsewhere or weren't willing to broaden their job searches.
Yes, EA is dictating policies that are frankly dangerous to employee health, and I obviously agree that needs to change. But it's a false dichotomy to suggest the only choices are EA or the unemployment line, and the people who work (and sometimes quit) at EA have entered a voluntary agreement to be there.
<!--QuoteBegin-a third poster+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (a third poster)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Holy Order of Google<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Google is located a magical kingdom of good fairies that can do no wrong. The fact that they're a massive publicly held corporation that recently compromised the security of tens of thousands of their early adopters and made large portions of private content available for public display is irrelavent.[/sarcasm]
Google's product line has traditionally been significantly better than its competitors' offerings, and I use a number of their services now (they are the first thing I see when I open a browser, and I rely on them for both personal and public information streams). They've done good work. That doesn't make them immune to the pressures and problems of large corporations now that they've grown and gone public. They are no longer a two student research team on the Stanford campus.
<!--QuoteBegin-Drfuzzy+Jul 26 2005, 11:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Drfuzzy @ Jul 26 2005, 11:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> EA is a discrace to the game world, their in it for the money over the enjoyment over the gamers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As much as I hate that as well, it is that very reason that EA has become successful as a company.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cagey+Jul 27 2005, 11:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey @ Jul 27 2005, 11:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Where's the reality bat, Nem0? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You asked for it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I voluntarily signed a contract that had me working 90 hour weeks at EALA partially because I needed steady income, but also because I chose not to take other available jobs with less stressful conditions. Unemployment in the Northern California tech sectors tripled from '99 to '03, and I was one of the people directly affected by the lack of programming work... but even when I couldn't find other programming jobs there were other ways to put food on the table for my family. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Very well, but I'll have to point out that your situation in life allows for quite a bit more dynamics than many others:<ul><li>You are married, but have, as far as I'm aware, no children. Not only does this mean that you can sustain yourselves on less net income, it also means that a change of location - or, if times are dire, social station - will be significantly easier to you than others.</li><li>This is me going out on a bit of a limb, but from your statements, you are apparently not deeply established in a community. No house, no neighbourhood friendships that are older than, say, <i>me</i>, no reserved plots on the local cemetery; you see what I'm getting at. I know of enough people who prefer to be unhappy in their jobs to be able not to leave this.</li><li>You are brilliant, as literally any person who ever saw your work and spoke to me attested. It'll be by tendency easier for you than many others to find a job.</li></ul>You, knowing your life better than me, will certainly be able to add more items. Bottom line: You are not the average EA employee.
Your point is that there are ways for EA's employees to fight back, and I think you're aware that I agree, my point is simply that one can not pass the blame to the mass of the affected because a number of people are willing to endure them, for whichever reason.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Jul 27 2005, 04:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jul 27 2005, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If that wre true, would they not run themselves out of business?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only If the consumers would be more demanding ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Despite the problems with a large corporation developing a game, it seems to me the only way for a programming team to survive. Unless the development team has the millions it takes to develop a game or unless all of the people working on it are working for free, the large corporation seems to be the only way to go.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats all true, but how many truely innovative and renown development teams slipped under the EA curtain and were subsequently squeazed dry and vanished?
Origin, Looking glass, Interplay? Some of them were companies that basically invented video gaming as we know it today. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You forgot Bullfrog.
The UK (woo) Games Developer that brought us:
Magic Carpet <i>Theme</i> series Populous Syndicate Dungeon Keeper
which make up some of the most enjoyable hours I've spent playing games.
EA bought 'em and their head, Peter Molineux, left and formed Lionhead Studios, still under the EA banner. Since then Lionhead has produced <i>Black & White</i>, and...
...not much else, and Bullfrog have been wiped off the face of the planet as well as a sizable influence that the 90s gave to the UK Games Development scene; but thanks, anyway, EA.
There are two games that I will thank EA for: Need for Speed and the <i>Battlefield</i> series. I never played Ultima Online, but suffice to say they're not doing everything wrong as far as games are concerned.
The Sims is like Theme Park/Hospital with less thinking and for me is an abomination of a game. The role-playing element of the simulation replaced by the self-important stench of 'normality'. Sounds fun...
---
Just wanted to clarify my opinion on EA as far as their games are concerned.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-BaconTheory+Jul 26 2005, 09:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BaconTheory @ Jul 26 2005, 09:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Shoebox+Jul 26 2005, 03:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shoebox @ Jul 26 2005, 03:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wow EA is gonna completely take over the entire gaming industry. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And yet, according to <a href='http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1133' target='_blank'>this</a> articles, they're losing money, about $24 million of it. Only EA. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's because they are using so much money buying companies out.
It is still damn risky. They don't seem to be slowing down, and if only a few of those deals go sour (say - their sports franchises losing some steam, or Tolkien games turning out to be hard to market to the casual audience with no new movie around), or other costs (such as the humane treatment of their employees) occur, it might well bring them into the same situation we saw with Acclaim and Interplay a while ago.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+Jul 27 2005, 05:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ Jul 27 2005, 05:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Drfuzzy+Jul 26 2005, 11:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Drfuzzy @ Jul 26 2005, 11:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> EA is a discrace to the game world, their in it for the money over the enjoyment over the gamers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If that wre true, would they not run themselves out of business? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As long as they have football players/fans world wide, all they have to do is change the name of madden's last numbers each year and add a new team and you got yourself a everlasting company. Yes, there are people that stupid out there to buy those copy-and-paste games :o
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+Jul 29 2005, 03:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer @ Jul 29 2005, 03:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As long as EA don't buy Bungie or ID Software, I think we'll be ok. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Microsoft already owns Bungie--why do you think Halo 2 was XBox first <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->?
Comments
edit: oh crap they can also make an RPG that isn't super narrow and lacks a lot of diversity ala 3rd Age
this is flipping great.
didnt they burn him?
ahses have a hard time turning
`nuff said!
didnt they burn him?
ahses have a hard time turning <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh <i>he'll find a way.</i>
And Spore is also published by EA. I don't see anyone going "OMGWTH ITS GOING TO BE TEH POOP" about it.
No, the world shall flourish.
long live google
didnt they burn him?
ahses have a hard time turning <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't literal >_>
Replace Cosby with EA, and you got a winner
Better yet
<a href='http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=EA+Games&word2=Google' target='_blank'>EA Games vs Google</a>
GOOGLE WILL SAVE US ALL!
And yet, according to <a href='http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1133' target='_blank'>this</a> articles, they're losing money, about $24 million of it. Only EA.
THAT'S NOT TRUE!
There's...
but..
MY CHILDHOOD HAS BEEN A LIE!!!!! <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
When the Holy Order of Google rallies its forces to defeat the evil monolith that shall be known only as Ea, I'll be one of the first to whip out the old Crusade gear. Except instead of crosses we'd have Gs.
While many people have a lot of valid, morally superior reasons to hate EA, I have only one.
I CAN'T JUST KEEP PUMPING OUT MONEY TO BUY THESE flipping EXASNiON PACKS. SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE ****. COULD THE **** YOURE SELLING IN THE EXPANSION PACKS NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL GAME? **** YOU, ****.
A studio made game where millions can be dumped in development, marketing, distribution, and continuing support for the game. The developers aren't under financial pressure, but they are under time pressure for via deadlines. The marketing campaign would have access to numerous outlets for advertising, and distribution set up for all the major stores as well as smaller game stores. Also the revenue from the game can support the coders that spend time patching stuff immediately.
OR a game that run by people who are on their own dime. Have time constraints due to a demanding community, AND financial constraints due to no corporate funding. Virtually no marketing campaign, other than features on some B-list websites, the occasional magazine interview (IF the game previews are worthy), and word of mouth (Word of mouth is a great form of advertising, but does not spread as fast as print, or video ads). The developers to receive funds would have to do other side projects to fund the game they want to develop, otherwise they could take out bank loans to live off of while striving to develop a product, OR they can ask the fanbase for "investments". This is a considerably bad idea considering that most gamers would not have the cash to front said investment, and there are also NDA breaches that the developers would have to worry about. And if a gamer did have enough money to put up, the development team would have to have enough "material" to show the potential investor before hand. THIS IS SMART BUSINESS. A smart investor wants to see what he or she is investing in before making a business decision. But without the funds it would be tough to generate a preview to show potential investors. In business, you have to spend money to make money. With corporate accountants/marketing staff handling that, the programmers can focus more on developing the product, rather than running a business.
Since these underground people don't want to go with a large company, and have to do side projects, this leaves support for the game (i.e. patches) few and far between, often just fixing bugs to run the game, rarely focusing on game mechanics. So community support (which is THE most important thing, especially to underground developers) would continue to die off as some of the game mechanics if left unbalanced would be unappealing to some of the fanbase.
At the same time that is happening, there are other studio developed games that are advertsing like crazy to get people to buy them and support that community, and they have the funds, and support to back that community.
Obviously there are going to be people that would say to go with the underground developer for pretty stupid reasons, so I'll ignore them. I would be interested in debate that would address my points or bring up new points that could be refutable.
Despite the problems with a large corporation developing a game, it seems to me the only way for a programming team to survive. Unless the development team has the millions it takes to develop a game or unless all of the people working on it are working for free, the large corporation seems to be the only way to go.
If that wre true, would they not run themselves out of business?
More likely is that he rose from the grave only to die a slow and painful death while someone brands his forehead with an EA logo and roasts him over a pyre of his original manuscripts.
Firewater, the gaming world isn't about only having those two choices, so that's really not a realistic decision any of us would need to make. There are games developers who have cash but do have an idea of what the Games Industry is about, and I'm not talking about pushing product placement and pixel perfection over decent stories.
For the most part, I'm not talking about their games, but their attitude to making and <b>marketing</b> games, and to stifling the competition, which is detrimental to an Industry that should thrive on original thought (more minds = more ideas).
Valve understand this, and Epic have come around to the same style of thinking. My examples being the SDK and the 'Make something Unreal' contest. These two companies care about and understand the gamming community, they understand the partnership. With EA it's all about control.
Only If the consumers would be more demanding ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Despite the problems with a large corporation developing a game, it seems to me the only way for a programming team to survive. Unless the development team has the millions it takes to develop a game or unless all of the people working on it are working for free, the large corporation seems to be the only way to go.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats all true, but how many truely innovative and renown development teams slipped under the EA curtain and were subsequently squeazed dry and vanished?
Origin, Looking glass, Interplay? Some of them were companies that basically invented video gaming as we know it today.
Just like every single form of entertainment media ever. Especially bands.
"We're in it for our fans and screw the man and his ways! ...Now buy our album and pay $35 for our next concert."
When will this stop. Man, who even let EA BUY the rights?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My guess would be the people selling them. It's not like you want a government or industry body regulating whether you can sell permission to use fictional content you've created, right?
<!--QuoteBegin-someone else+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (someone else)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EA = Nazi image<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suggest you do some research on what that symbol really meant to the people who lived under it. Do you really feel that mass murder, racism, and the subjugation of entire segments of society are equivalent to running a business with bad HR and QA? Are the people who suffered under that symbol worth so little that they should be made the butt of a joke?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First one up to claim that it's the employees fault to allow this to happen gets a free whack with the reality bat. Believe it or not, but some people have to rely on a steady income to survive<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where's the reality bat, Nem0?
I voluntarily signed a contract that had me working 90 hour weeks at EALA partially because I needed steady income, but also because I chose not to take other available jobs with less stressful conditions. Unemployment in the Northern California tech sectors tripled from '99 to '03, and I was one of the people directly affected by the lack of programming work... but even when I couldn't find other programming jobs there were other ways to put food on the table for my family.
I couldn't match my old salary if I worked retail (ugh), but I could have still had a roof over my head and clothes on my back. So long as employment contracts are voluntary, there will be an employee voice that has the potential to change the corporation. EA did have people quit during MOHPA--the people who stayed, myself included, either preferred the jobs they had to ones that they could get elsewhere or weren't willing to broaden their job searches.
Yes, EA is dictating policies that are frankly dangerous to employee health, and I obviously agree that needs to change. But it's a false dichotomy to suggest the only choices are EA or the unemployment line, and the people who work (and sometimes quit) at EA have entered a voluntary agreement to be there.
<!--QuoteBegin-a third poster+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (a third poster)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Holy Order of Google<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Google is located a magical kingdom of good fairies that can do no wrong. The fact that they're a massive publicly held corporation that recently compromised the security of tens of thousands of their early adopters and made large portions of private content available for public display is irrelavent.[/sarcasm]
Google's product line has traditionally been significantly better than its competitors' offerings, and I use a number of their services now (they are the first thing I see when I open a browser, and I rely on them for both personal and public information streams). They've done good work. That doesn't make them immune to the pressures and problems of large corporations now that they've grown and gone public. They are no longer a two student research team on the Stanford campus.
As much as I hate that as well, it is that very reason that EA has become successful as a company.
You asked for it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I voluntarily signed a contract that had me working 90 hour weeks at EALA partially because I needed steady income, but also because I chose not to take other available jobs with less stressful conditions. Unemployment in the Northern California tech sectors tripled from '99 to '03, and I was one of the people directly affected by the lack of programming work... but even when I couldn't find other programming jobs there were other ways to put food on the table for my family.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well, but I'll have to point out that your situation in life allows for quite a bit more dynamics than many others:<ul><li>You are married, but have, as far as I'm aware, no children. Not only does this mean that you can sustain yourselves on less net income, it also means that a change of location - or, if times are dire, social station - will be significantly easier to you than others.</li><li>This is me going out on a bit of a limb, but from your statements, you are apparently not deeply established in a community. No house, no neighbourhood friendships that are older than, say, <i>me</i>, no reserved plots on the local cemetery; you see what I'm getting at. I know of enough people who prefer to be unhappy in their jobs to be able not to leave this.</li><li>You are brilliant, as literally any person who ever saw your work and spoke to me attested. It'll be by tendency easier for you than many others to find a job.</li></ul>You, knowing your life better than me, will certainly be able to add more items. Bottom line: You are not the average EA employee.
Your point is that there are ways for EA's employees to fight back, and I think you're aware that I agree, my point is simply that one can not pass the blame to the mass of the affected because a number of people are willing to endure them, for whichever reason.
Only If the consumers would be more demanding ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Despite the problems with a large corporation developing a game, it seems to me the only way for a programming team to survive. Unless the development team has the millions it takes to develop a game or unless all of the people working on it are working for free, the large corporation seems to be the only way to go.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats all true, but how many truely innovative and renown development teams slipped under the EA curtain and were subsequently squeazed dry and vanished?
Origin, Looking glass, Interplay? Some of them were companies that basically invented video gaming as we know it today. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You forgot Bullfrog.
The UK (woo) Games Developer that brought us:
Magic Carpet
<i>Theme</i> series
Populous
Syndicate
Dungeon Keeper
which make up some of the most enjoyable hours I've spent playing games.
EA bought 'em and their head, Peter Molineux, left and formed Lionhead Studios, still under the EA banner. Since then Lionhead has produced <i>Black & White</i>, and...
...not much else, and Bullfrog have been wiped off the face of the planet as well as a sizable influence that the 90s gave to the UK Games Development scene; but thanks, anyway, EA.
There are two games that I will thank EA for: Need for Speed and the <i>Battlefield</i> series. I never played Ultima Online, but suffice to say they're not doing everything wrong as far as games are concerned.
The Sims is like Theme Park/Hospital with less thinking and for me is an abomination of a game. The role-playing element of the simulation replaced by the self-important stench of 'normality'. Sounds fun...
---
Just wanted to clarify my opinion on EA as far as their games are concerned.
And yet, according to <a href='http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1133' target='_blank'>this</a> articles, they're losing money, about $24 million of it. Only EA. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they are using so much money buying companies out.
I know what I want for Christmas
Teach 'em a lesson. Maybe someone would have pity and buy them out...
If that wre true, would they not run themselves out of business? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as they have football players/fans world wide, all they have to do is change the name of madden's last numbers each year and add a new team and you got yourself a everlasting company. Yes, there are people that stupid out there to buy those copy-and-paste games :o
Microsoft already owns Bungie--why do you think Halo 2 was XBox first <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->?