EA's Cyberpunk 2077

+
That was pretty damn funny.... it definitely had a Idiocracy vibe to it...which sums up pretty much everything EA has done for the last decade...


I remember when they used to make a halfway decent game...
 
It's all fun and games but someone has to ask this question: are you people five years old or what? Games are business. There are real people making them. They have families they have to support, lives they want to live. Games have to make monies, otherwise people lose jobs. It sucks that suits rarely are being held responsible for snafu, but that's just the way it is. I'm pretty sure most of us don't think about it when telemarketer calls with some "awesome" promotion. We're angry at those people, not the actual state of affairs. As long as EA stays afloat and does respond to abuses and what not (think: EA spouse) there's no need for buckets of venom. It's amazing how gamers simply love to cut the branch they're sitting on (and love sitting on to begin with).
 

Yngh

Forum veteran
@up Oh, please, this is no excuse for some of the stuff the EA is doing. Obviously, some gamers are overreacting, but seriously, the EA is hardly a good model to follow.

Competetion is the best answer here. If there are no publishers who don't treat their customers like ***, then the EA will prosper and flourish. However, if more publishers follow the CDP's route, then it will benefit industry as a whole. If somebody likes the EA and doesn't have a problem with their practises - fine, but gamers need to have a choice here.
 
It's all fun and games but someone has to ask this question: are you people five years old or what? Games are business. There are real people making them. They have families they have to support, lives they want to live. Games have to make monies, otherwise people lose jobs. It sucks that suits rarely are being held responsible for snafu, but that's just the way it is. I'm pretty sure most of us don't think about it when telemarketer calls with some "awesome" promotion. We're angry at those people, not the actual state of affairs. As long as EA stays afloat and does respond to abuses and what not (think: EA spouse) there's no need for buckets of venom. It's amazing how gamers simply love to cut the branch they're sitting on (and love sitting on to begin with).

Did.... did you just go all "Leave Brittany alone!" over EA Games?
 
It's all fun and games but someone has to ask this question: are you people five years old or what? Games are business. There are real people making them. They have families they have to support, lives they want to live. Games have to make monies, otherwise people lose jobs. It sucks that suits rarely are being held responsible for snafu, but that's just the way it is. I'm pretty sure most of us don't think about it when telemarketer calls with some "awesome" promotion. We're angry at those people, not the actual state of affairs. As long as EA stays afloat and does respond to abuses and what not (think: EA spouse) there's no need for buckets of venom. It's amazing how gamers simply love to cut the branch they're sitting on (and love sitting on to begin with).

Yeah, well EA murdered more franchises and dev studios than helped so yeah, it is reasonable to hate them.
 
This is about as convincing an argument as saying “Think of all the poor Wehrmacht soldiers and their families that would be put out of work if we were to topple the Third Reich” during World War II.

Yes, I forced Godwin’s Laws and went overboard, what are you gonna do about it :p ?
 
Haha, I can almost see this being a real trailer. I remember in the Mirror's Edge promos how EA refused to use anything but the electronic remixes of Still Alive.
 
lmao that was ridiculous.
for a moment when I saw the title i was like wtf but then this xD
 
Did.... did you just go all "Leave Brittany alone!" over EA Games?
Pretty much, yeah. I'd rather thing of my rant as something akin to this though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVWIELHQQY

Yeah, well EA murdered more franchises and dev studios than helped so yeah, it is reasonable to hate them.
As long as you keep your eyes closed to the fact that more Activision studios work on CoD series than on other games and more studios are struggling outside of corporate structure like Activision/EA than within it.
 
@ Dominik D :

The real question is :
- Does a game developer want job security by working for a big publisher ?
- Does a game developer want to make a game he's proud of ?

Nowadays, both things are incompatible (you're fooling yourself if you think the contrary)
Why is it incompatible ? Because the big publisher doesn't just want to make money. He wants to make money as much as he can, even if this kills the reputation of prestigious studios it has acquired (talking about Bioware, with ME3 or SWOTOR, games that have triggered ones of the most negative buzz of the game industry history, because players felt betrayed not having quality from the older games made by Bioware).

In the first case, yes the developer will have job security... for a few years. But his game will have no savior, because he will be formatted as the publisher commands (even if the publisher doesn't know a thing about players expectations and/or doesn't care). 20 years ago, even big companies cared about making quality products. That's not true anymore. Quality is an obsolete parameter in their mind. Only making money on short term counts. And this is a short-sighted vision. Because destroying its own reputation is a slow (but sure) suicide (for the publisher and the developer). So yes, in this case, the game developer will have work for a few years. But he must except that luring the players with a popular license while making tedious work for a sequel will trigger the anger of passionate players.

In Short :
Working for a big publisher : (temporary) job security / no quality game / expect hatred from the players.

In the second case, yes, the game developer will have work insecurity, limited ressource, but he will be free to make the game he wants (and he will be most likely to make the game as the players expect it). That's why more and more developers are turning their back to the big publishers and use the "Crowdfounding" model.

In Short :
working without a big publisher : insecurity / quality game to be proud of if well managed until the end / Supported by players (free advertisement by positive buzz).

All in all...
Which situation is best ?
My opinion : the second one. At least you feel to be alive.
Even with a family, insecurity can be anticipated and planned by putting litte amounts of money aside for bad luck times.
Moreover, job security under a big publisher is an illusion.

P.S : I'm working in the Video Game Industry.
 
EA and Activision are just horrible video game giants.

Why do people make videos on just EA a lot of the time. Do some on Activision!
 
EA and Activision are just horrible video game giants.

Why do people make videos on just EA a lot of the time. Do some on Activision!

Guys you have to understand those guys make 50x more money then any other publisher in the world. Its all about making profits for them. Why do you think same NFL or NHL was coming out every year.
They could earn trust of players by giving some stuff for free and very cheap dlc etc. But that would cut the profit and they dont want to do that.
 
Top Bottom