TR Forums

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HII5BcUVSuU

/sigh

The Sith ain't got nothing on Darth Mouse.

If EA make Star Wars games people want to buy and play -> great!

If EA make Star Wars games that suck and people don't buy them -> they go bankrupt

I don't see a problem?

Game_boy wrote:

If EA make Star Wars games people want to buy and play -> great!

If EA make Star Wars games that suck and people don't buy them -> they go bankrupt

I don't see a problem?

Unfortunately you forgot the third option:
EA makes craptastic abominations of Star Wars (think Jar-Jar on Ice) and still manages to make money for years by slowly draining the blood from the carcass of what was once a great story.

Like LucasArts was? Awesome.

Frankly I'm disappointed for a completely different reason...before this I liked EA. Now I need a new favorite publisher o.o

chuckula wrote:

Game_boy wrote:

If EA make Star Wars games people want to buy and play -> great!

If EA make Star Wars games that suck and people don't buy them -> they go bankrupt

I don't see a problem?

Unfortunately you forgot the third option:
EA makes craptastic abominations of Star Wars (think Jar-Jar on Ice) and still manages to make money for years by slowly draining the blood from the carcass of what was once a great story.

If they sell, then they're good games. Star Wars succeeded because of the entertainment to the masses, not just niche appeal to a hardcore market segment. Oh and notice the prequels also got $$$ at the box office, they were also a success and millions of people enjoyed them. Just not Star Wars core fans.

Living up to the Star Wars name means bringing something new and exciting to a mass audience. The last games to truly do that were probably Wii Sports, Skyrim and Minecraft. EA should do that, instead of chasing the small pool of AAA dollars.

.

clone wrote:

If they sell, then they're good games. Star Wars succeeded because of the entertainment to the masses, not just niche appeal to a hardcore market segment. Oh and notice the prequels also got $$$ at the box office, they were also a success and millions of people enjoyed them. Just not Star Wars core fans.

it's been said and said better elsewhere but even George Lucas was pissed off at the box office performance of the prequels, he even went so far as to talk openly about how annoyed he was that TPM wasn't going to outgross Titanic.

never confuse a profit as the indicator of success or failure, a success is a product that comes close to meeting and or exceeds the projected profits.

That's a failure of expectations on the part of the creator, then. I'm sure any major production company would be glad to get the performance he had.

Game_boy wrote:

If EA make Star Wars games people want to buy and play -> great!

If EA make Star Wars games that suck and people don't buy them -> they go bankrupt

I don't see a problem?

My take:

EA makes good Star Wars games that sell well -> good
EA makes bad Star Wars games the sell poorly -> bad (prevents future Star Wars games)
EA makes good Star Wars games that sell well, but get bogged down by pointless **** like DRM that renders them unplayable -> UGLY

Actually, there are other scenarios, too. Battlefront 2 was an amazing game, but if EA is just going to pump out a sequel just for the sake of making a sequel, that would be horrible. Honestly, this could go for anything Star Wars directed by the big money. The Star Wars games have lasted because they have some compelling stories, and big money has a tendency to drain the soul out of any franchise it can get it's hands on.

As a Disney shareholder, I fully approve. Got to get that ROI. I honestly never cared too much about Star Wars games, Ep IV-VI are all I know well although I've seen I-III, and all the other stuff like the Revenge of the Clones animated series I just know that they exist.

As for the particular publisher or even developer...meh. There isn't one major publisher that hasn't, sometimes deservedly but sometimes just because, gotten hate from the gamer crowd. It's a fickle bunch but it's also a bunch that has proven time and again they will buy stuff even if it's 'bad' or 'worn out' or 'from that evil company whose products I'll never buy again'.

So, although I probably won't play any of the games, I say at least wait until they're out before passing judgment.

I just hope that Bioware learned that people want KotOR and not TOR. Hopefully we see a KotOR 3 in the next couple years.

Also, for those of you who really liked the Battlefront games, were you playing the Battlefield games at the same time? I personally could not enjoy Battlefront 2 after playing the greatly superior Battlefield 2. The Battlefront games felt like a cheap knock-off in my opinion.

chuckula wrote:

Game_boy wrote:

If EA make Star Wars games people want to buy and play -> great!

If EA make Star Wars games that suck and people don't buy them -> they go bankrupt

I don't see a problem?

Unfortunately you forgot the third option:
EA makes craptastic abominations of Star Wars (think Jar-Jar on Ice) and still manages to make money for years by slowly draining the blood from the carcass of what was once a great story.

Jar-Jar on Ice made me shudder...oh god the mental image

Crap about EA's crap business model aside, I'm looking forward to ANY star wars game from any of the three studios mentioned. In particular, Battlefront using Frostbite 3 engine (already mentioned by some Frostbite folks on Twitter).

Been a Battlefield franchise player since 1942 (including 1942, Vietnam, BC, BC2, 2, 3), also played Battlefront and Battlefront 2 (which was sadly based on original 1942 engine).

EA: Soon your journey to the crapfest, rehashed-side will be complete!

Savyg wrote:

...before this I liked EA. Now I need a new favorite publisher o.o

Wait what??? Ok this is entirely your opinion and I wont argue that. But I do want to understand why you feel that EA was even remotely 'good' let alone to be your favorite publisher. You are certainly in the minority when it comes to EA which leaves me scratching my head. I mean this EA, the same company that got the award for worst company in America......TWO YEARS IN A ROW!

tanker27 wrote:

Savyg wrote:

...before this I liked EA. Now I need a new favorite publisher o.o

Wait what??? Ok this is entirely your opinion and I wont argue that. But I do want to understand why you feel that EA was even remotely 'good' let alone to be your favorite publisher. You are certainly in the minority when it comes to EA which leaves me scratching my head. I mean this EA, the same company that got the award for worst company in America......TWO YEARS IN A ROW!

The way they do business sucks, as does the way they treat their customers, at least in the past few years... but they've still made some really good games over the years. This may come as a surprise, but there are a lot of people who don't actually care as much about the **** side of it and just enjoy the games.

cphite wrote:

The way they do business sucks, as does the way they treat their customers, at least in the past few years... but they've still made some really good games over the years. This may come as a surprise, but there are a lot of people who don't actually care as much about the **** side of it and just enjoy the games.

I would counter that with SimCity...a game where the very people who enjoyed the game got screwed the most.

Sure, they might publish good games, but that doesn't excuse hurting fans. In fact, I would say that it makes matters worse, because the backlash against BS in games is more likely to hurt the developer who actually made the game than EA who inserted and pushed for the features that customers hate.

.

clone wrote:

That's a failure of expectations on the part of the creator, then. I'm sure any major production company would be glad to get the performance he had.

everyone was disappointed with the results, everyone expected more from the prequels, it was just luck that I happened to watch video of George himself openly complaining about it.

you are correct if the prequels hadn't been Star Wars based everyone involved would have been thrilled.... but... .unfortunately for everyone involved they were based on Star Wars and everyone expected more, not just the creator.... everyone, the entire film industry altered their production schedule around the launch of TPM only to find out it was totally unnecessary.... even the competition was shocked.

Jeeze...I'm starting to remember all the marketing that went into that, too. Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut were all running related promotions (collect tokens for prizes), and that's on top of the toys, LEGOs, and video games. Actually, I loved Episode I: Racer, and talking about this makes me really want to break out some of my old LEGO sets.

superjawes wrote:

cphite wrote:

The way they do business sucks, as does the way they treat their customers, at least in the past few years... but they've still made some really good games over the years. This may come as a surprise, but there are a lot of people who don't actually care as much about the **** side of it and just enjoy the games.

I would counter that with SimCity...a game where the very people who enjoyed the game got screwed the most.

The fact that they screwed the proverbial pooch with SimCity doesn't negate the fact that they've delivered good games over the years. And again, despite the problems, a lot of people are still buying SimCity even after the debacle launch.

Sure, they might publish good games, but that doesn't excuse hurting fans.

Well, it's not like the folks leading EA are sitting around a table in a smoke-filled room thinking of ways to hurt their fans. They screwed up. They drastically underestimated the server load they would experience, and that was made worse by some halfassed design. But once the smoke cleared, people continued to buy the game, and people continue to play the game. Some of them, rumor has it, are actually having fun while doing so.

I'm not defending the actions of EA leading up to this particular debacle; nor am I defending their general behavior over the past few years. I'm simply saying that it's okay to continue buying from - and even liking - a company that is far from perfect. Each person has to decide for himself if what they're getting is worth whatever aggravation comes with it.

In fact, I would say that it makes matters worse, because the backlash against BS in games is more likely to hurt the developer who actually made the game than EA who inserted and pushed for the features that customers hate.

I really haven't heard all that much backlash against Maxis; it seems almost exclusively against EA. And frankly, the whole "backlash" thing gets blown out of proportion... EA has been widely criticized for years now, and they're still selling games. SimCity itself, for all the negative press it's had, is still selling.

Like someone said in the article comments- there isn't anyone better than EA to get this ball rolling in the right direction again. I mean, seriously, you've got Bioware for KotOR 3, DICE for Battlefront 3, and Vanguard to properly finish 1313?

You can bitch and whine about Origin (and someone will, if that hasn't happened yet), but Origin works, and I'm actually looking forward to the results of this deal.

cphite wrote:

The fact that they screwed the proverbial pooch with SimCity doesn't negate the fact that they've delivered good games over the years. And again, despite the problems, a lot of people are still buying SimCity even after the debacle launch.

You have yet to cite any of these "good games".

Airmantharp wrote:

Like someone said in the article comments- there isn't anyone better than EA to get this ball rolling in the right direction again. I mean, seriously, you've got Bioware for KotOR 3, DICE for Battlefront 3, and Vanguard to properly finish 1313?

You can bitch and whine about Origin (and someone will, if that hasn't happened yet), but Origin works, and I'm actually looking forward to the results of this deal.

I am actually optimistic and have the same view. Bioware, Dice and Vanguard are very good devs regardless of their slip-ups here and there. And as for Origin I have it, used it, and while I may complain about its lack of features it does what it was designed to do.

tanker27 wrote:

Wait what??? Ok this is entirely your opinion and I wont argue that. But I do want to understand why you feel that EA was even remotely 'good' let alone to be your favorite publisher. You are certainly in the minority when it comes to EA which leaves me scratching my head. I mean this EA, the same company that got the award for worst company in America......TWO YEARS IN A ROW!

The first publisher to push DX10/11. (The real reason they're 'the worst company in America' is that they said "Screw Windows XP.") They said a 64 bit Frostbite game is coming this year too, but unofficially so that may not still be the case. We'll see.

Dragon Age, Mass Effect, BF3, The Sims, Burnout Revenge and Paradise, Need for Speed, I even like Simcity. Dead Space is alright, don't know if I'll finish 3 though. Crysis 3 was great. Too bad 2 was such a gigantic bore. Battleforge was pretty good but a money pit.

Don't care about their sports stuff at all so not much to say there.

I liked Command and Conquer but wasn't particularly impressed with much recently, especially on the main storyline. Loved Red Alert 3 though. The upcoming one could be awesome.

Origin is actually pretty damn good, it just has load issues on a major launch.

I liked many of the EA Partners games too (The Secret World especially.) Not much else I can say.

You do know that most of the games you cite were NOT MADE or Developed by EA and that other studios made them, EA just PUBLISHED it. And by that I hope you do know the difference and relationship between Developer and Publisher.......right?

tanker27 wrote:

You do know that most of the games you cite were NOT MADE or Developed by EA and that other studios made them, EA just PUBLISHED it. And by that I hope you do know the difference and relationship between Developer and Publisher.......right?

You do know EA is a publisher, not a developer, right? They fund the games being published so they do have a say in what features those games target.

tanker27 wrote:

You do know that most of the games you cite were NOT MADE or Developed by EA and that other studios made them, EA just PUBLISHED it. And by that I hope you do know the difference and relationship between Developer and Publisher.......right?

You do know what a publisher does, right? Let me recap for you... I said EA has delivered a lot of good games. You asked for a list. Savyg gave you a list.

Whether or not EA developed all, some, or none of the games on his list is not the point; they published the games on his list. Therefore, they have a say in, and indeed are responsible for, how those games are delivered. In the past few years, how they've delivered some of their games has been questionable. But it doesn't change the fact that they've delivered some great games, and have been doing so for decades.

As I said before, it all falls down to what you, as the consumer, are willing to pay for. If you find their methods of delivery, or their DRM, or their requirements for play to be something that you cannot put up with, the solution is simple: Don't buy their products. Or, at least, don't buy the products that include features you don't like. If enough people do that, they'll change their practices. No, really - they will. They are savvy enough to know that if something is hurting their bottom line, they ought not do it.

The thing is, these practices aren't really hurting their bottom line. Not really. For all the outcry on various forums, and for all the negative press, and being voted the worse company etc... they're still making loads of money. Their response to the SimCity fiasco was to give away free games - and guess what, for the most part it worked. People kept buying the game.

Because at the end of the day, if people want to play the games that EA offers, they're going to put up with the crap that comes along with it. They may gripe about it, but they're still going to buy. And from a business perspective, that's perfectly fine as far as EA or any other publisher is concerned.

Dragon Age, Mass Effect => BioWare => Bought by EA in 2007
Battlefield 3 => (EA) DICE => Bought by EA in 2004
Sims, SimCity => Maxis => Bought by EA in 1997
Burnout => Criterion Games => Bought by EA in 2004
Need For Speed => Criterion and several other EA holdings
Dead Space => Visceral Games => EA in-house team
Crysis => Crytek => Partnered but not owned by EA
Battleforge => EA Phenomic => Bought by EA in 2006

So yeah, all but one of the cited games was in fact made by one of the many faces of Electronic Arts. Very few American developers remain independent of one of the Big Six Five. A long time ago I actually interviewed for a fairly well-known game developer, and during the interview process it was made clear that the publisher/owner (THQ) would ultimately decide whether the developer would take me on as a junior level whatever. That's your developer autonomy right there, fellas.

The list of good EA games is the ones that made them money.

.

I'd consider it a privilege to still have enough money on hand to make another video game, yes.

Somewhere between being pioneering developer 'Electronic Arts' and being megacorporation 'EA' they forgot that.