EA claims GTA V sucked all the money out of the gaming market.

[xamon]

snip

 

Your whole response is flawed. You assume that because someone buy 1-3 games a year it means that they are either kids or cannot afford more. What about those that actually are extremely busy (have several jobs, have kids, are sick etc) that can only enjoy 1 game every few months.

 

The bigger the company the harder it becomes to make a risky games because if it fails the repercussion are much bigger than an indie outfit. The part where I said to take your opinions out and see a thing objectively? you should do that. The story here is not about anything you wrote. It is just about one company congratulating another one while still saying that even with the success of the other, they still did well. That is it.

 

Your comment about the way games are made is irrelevant. You don't like those games, but the majority do. Also the way website like IGN work is on popularity. If they see one of their article or reviews become popular, they will release a lot more video, if they do not make videos for it then it is not profitable for them and they do not cover it.

 

Your last state is totally fallacious. You again keep assuming that they make those games just for kids (the mean average age of gamers and those who buy games will beg to differ). They make games which tend to be able to resound with the larger portion of the gaming population. Bigger companies put themselves into a corner when they started making games that requires such a high level of financing. When they got there, they needed to see a return. Making a targeted game such as Tribes with the budget of a Battlefield would be disastrous for any company. There is a reason why innovative and/or risky games comes often from the Indie market. That is because they work in an area where they can take those risks.

 

If you do not want the experience brought by bigger companies, do not buy them (I know you already don't from your responses). That is it. Wait for an indie company to do it. The EAs, Ubisofts and such of the world will no be able to do it because of the size they have attained now. They need to maintain that size so they need to continue making those games you do not like. Doing the opposite will reduce their revenue that will bring layoff and restructuring. When what they currently do will stop appealing to the majority they will change but until then, gamers will vote with their money. You taste is subjective. What you like is not what everybody likes and what everybody like will not necessarily please you. If you cannot see past that you will not be able to have any valid criticism.

 

Do we need 50 corridor fps a year? no. Will company continue to make 50 fps a year as long as they get some revenue? yes. Companies will clone and continue to bring the same games over and over until saturation and then they will move away, and that applies to indies as well (see the multitude of DayZ or Minecraft clones).

 

And to reiterate look at the majority of the comment in this thread and look at the main story. How many are actually commenting on what the CFO actually said compared to their own personal opinion of EA. How many actually see that the article is not about EA not selling well but rather GTA V being a disrupting force at the end of last year and the CFO recognizing it. Subjectivity is a plague in communication because it blinds people, it makes them assume things that may not be there. They cannot see that even they believe a game is bad that some may enjoy it (the inverse is also true). EA has done some pretty rotten things in the past and by some account still do some to this day but they are also working to change that. I much prefer to reinforcing a company when they are moving in the right direction than sitting on the sideline and always yelling about how bad they are and how bad they will always be. It solves nothing and doesn't show to other publishers that changing will bring any result.

 

(http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2013.pdf link that shows the mean age of gamers and the mean age of people that purchase games)

 

 

That's one way of looking at it, another way is the fucking whores who call themselves "gaming press" that bombarded the living fuck out of everyone with constant, non-stop coverage of a crappy, unispired game nobody really wanted like Titanfall until somebody actually stats to "Believe the hype" 

And that same press still forces those people to like those games, and buy the dlc, and buy the sequel and buy the collector's edition etc

[Misanthrope]

And that same press still forces those people to like those games, and buy the dlc, and buy the sequel and buy the collector's edition etc

 

You underestimate the power of advertisement and bought press: We're talking mass appeal here and many, many consumers in fact the vast majority, never do any research or follow companies and news closely and just take advertisement and reviews at face value and make purchasing decisions based on them. Not through a fault of their own since you shouldn't need to become a fucking geek to enjoy a game and avoid being cheated out of your money.

[xamon]

You underestimate the power of advertisement and bought press: We're talking mass appeal here and many, many consumers in fact the vast majority, never do any research or follow companies and news closely and just take advertisement and reviews at face value and make purchasing decisions based on them. Not through a fault of their own since you shouldn't need to become a fucking geek to enjoy a game and avoid being cheated out of your money.

You also underestimate those consumers. You think that due to hype alone they will become enamored with a product, something I do not deny happen to some but when a game comes into the multi millions of sales a year and repeat it year after year, maybe there is something more.

[deathjester]

Your whole response is flawed. You assume that because someone buy 1-3 games a year it means that they are either kids or cannot afford more. What about those that actually are extremely busy (have several jobs, have kids, are sick etc) that can only enjoy 1 game every few months.

 

The bigger the company the harder it becomes to make a risky games because if it fails the repercussion are much bigger than an indie outfit. The part where I said to take your opinions out and see a thing objectively? you should do that. The story here is not about anything you wrote. It is just about one company congratulating another one while still saying that even with the success of the other, they still did well. That is it.

 

Your comment about the way games are made is irrelevant. You don't like those games, but the majority do. Also the way website like IGN work is on popularity. If they see one of their article or reviews become popular, they will release a lot more video, if they do not make videos for it then it is not profitable for them and they do not cover it.

 

Your last state is totally fallacious. You again keep assuming that they make those games just for kids (the mean average age of gamers and those who buy games will beg to differ). They make games which tend to be able to resound with the larger portion of the gaming population. Bigger companies put themselves into a corner when they started making games that requires such a high level of financing. When they got there, they needed to see a return. Making a targeted game such as Tribes with the budget of a Battlefield would be disastrous for any company. There is a reason why innovative and/or risky games comes often from the Indie market. That is because they work in an area where they can take those risks.

 

If you do not want the experience brought by bigger companies, do not buy them (I know you already don't from your responses). That is it. Wait for an indie company to do it. The EAs, Ubisofts and such of the world will no be able to do it because of the size they have attained now. They need to maintain that size so they need to continue making those games you do not like. Doing the opposite will reduce their revenue that will bring layoff and restructuring. When what they currently do will stop appealing to the majority they will change but until then, gamers will vote with their money. You taste is subjective. What you like is not what everybody likes and what everybody like will not necessarily please you. If you cannot see past that you will not be able to have any valid criticism.

 

Do we need 50 corridor fps a year? no. Will company continue to make 50 fps a year as long as they get some revenue? yes. Companies will clone and continue to bring the same games over and over until saturation and then they will move away, and that applies to indies as well (see the multitude of DayZ or Minecraft clones).

 

And to reiterate look at the majority of the comment in this thread and look at the main story. How many are actually commenting on what the CFO actually said compared to their own personal opinion of EA. How many actually see that the article is not about EA not selling well but rather GTA V being a disrupting force at the end of last year and the CFO recognizing it. Subjectivity is a plague in communication because it blinds people, it makes them assume things that may not be there. They cannot see that even they believe a game is bad that some may enjoy it (the inverse is also true). EA has done some pretty rotten things in the past and by some account still do some to this day but they are also working to change that. I much prefer to reinforcing a company when they are moving in the right direction than sitting on the sideline and always yelling about how bad they are and how bad they will always be. It solves nothing and doesn't show to other publishers that changing will bring any result.

 

(http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2013.pdf link that shows the mean age of gamers and the mean age of people that purchase games)

 

 

And that same press still forces those people to like those games, and buy the dlc, and buy the sequel and buy the collector's edition etc

 

1) Those studies are completely skewed and probably include mobile games. There are grandma's playing scrabble and candy crush, they aren't playing Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty. Most of these popular games carry a "mature" rating and are bought by kids parents. I have seen bogus studies saying the average Xbox Live gamer is a 20-30 year old female. More like that was the Mom's credit card used to purchase the game and set up the Xbox Live account. These numbers are almost as laughable as Microsoft saying they shipped 5 million Xbox One's. You can ship whatever you want. It doesn't mean you sold anywhere close to that. These "stats" are a joke. Find me a BF4/COD server with half women in it. Good luck with that. The Nintendo online community is probably the only one with a bunch of girls on it. I don't need a BS study to know that.

 

2) Give me a break with EA. This is the same company that puts out complete fabrications and lies like the "ignite engine won't run on PC". Their biggest buyer base is on consoles (because they make the same dumb games that we reject, or completely screw over our ports like these other idiotic companies) and the average players of these games look like this (see picture below). Go sign on Xbox Live and leave voice com without muting half of them, so I can hear all the "mature gamers" playing. Make a youtube video of it.

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/05/22/fifa-14s-next-gen-ignite-engine-wont-be-coming-to-pc/

 

Add to literally withholding game engines from the PC (when these game engines are made on the pc), they refuse to add console support for games like Mass Effect for people who want to make the move to PC. I don't use console controllers for anything but Dolphin Emulator and MXGP, but EA is shady as hell. They care about propping up these turds of a console and they sell to kids, or rather kids parents. They HATE the PC and they hate it because of things like mods, that could replace them changing numbers and names around on a new Madden, where they add nothing worth a damn. Instead of making a really good football game every few years with innovation, they spend that budget on advertising and having sites like IGN kiss their ass. 

 

This is what clowns at  IGN are who might as well be an EA advertising division are up to. Dan Stapleton arguing over .01 points and claiming they were misrepresented when they had "believe the hype"-IGN on Titanfall ads. Maybe EA needs to change their business model from paid off media and advertising like crazy, to investing in making good games. They will make more money in the long run. Do you see Blizzard or Riot advertising non stop? Blizzard does, but nowhere near what EA does. Blizzard will also take a year or longer more then EA would polishing the same titles. Now look at the profits. Who has the better business model? BTW this clown from IGN Dan Stapleton IP BANNED me from IGN forums simply for pointing out that he used a Z motherboard with a non K chip on his "steam machine" where he inflated the price in every way he could to make PC's look expensive. I will never buy an EA game again and like the MAJORITY of people on this thread? I hope the entire company folds and all the talented people that work there go indie and kickstarter. They will make more money than they would under the EA regime, with better working conditions and we will get better games. Consoles die? Good. Let kids go ride bikes or go PC. Their parents will pay less, they will get more, and they won't be a slave to these dumb consoles their entire life.

 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=803517

 

 

 

[Misanthrope]

This is what clowns at  IGN are who might as well be an EA advertising division are up to. Dan Stapleton arguing over .01 points and claiming they were misrepresented when they had "believe the hype"-IGN on Titanfall ads. 

 

You saw that on Angry Joe's twitter? Damn that was infuriating, one of those moments when you absolutely wish you could punch people over TCP/IP to make that clown shut up about his stupid bought IGN reviews.

[deathjester]

You saw that on Angry Joe's twitter? Damn that was infuriating, one of those moments when you absolutely wish you could punch people over TCP/IP to make that clown shut up about his stupid bought IGN reviews.

 

Yup Dan Stapleton.... I asked him if I could give him some advice on his steam article. Posted a PC part picker build, showed where he could cut a HUGE fraction of his price off his steam machine with a bitfenix prodigy etc. Dude literally just banned my IP. I was like wow... His build had a 256 gig SSD (cus all consoles sport this lol), GTX 770, Z motherboard, non K chip and his article made it look like this is what you needed to compete with consoles, and he included 1080p benchmarks (with the PC at Ultra settings) to compare FPS to consoles on the same titles as if they were the same visual quality. Not to mention all of the parts he chose were linked to Amazon (cus they have to get a profit even on a "help" article) and some of the prices were horrible. 

 

I wasn't even rude to the guy. Funny thing is the guy was totally rude to me and Angry Joe said the same. He removed those messages (at Angry Joe) to make it look one sided and then he accused Angry Joe of name calling hahaha. I think the best is when he insulted a youtuber working by himself and trashed the guys internet traffic, as if he is supposed to compete with IGN and it's hundreds of employees.

 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=108510153&postcount=803

 

Same thing that clown did with me. Called me a "pc elitist" when I was just trying to help people build a cheaper machine. I suggested people visit a site like Linus tech tips and people could help them out with a build. I never even attacked the guy. Last time I have visited IGN. I laughed at an article claiming DX 12 would help Xbox 1 when the DX lead said this though. My IP ban is still in effect or I would have posted this. 

 

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2014/3/20/5530420/microsoft-claims-directx-12-will-improve-xbox-one-games-wont-require

 

"When we spoke to Microsoft's Anuj Gosalia after the announcement, though, he downplayed the importance of DX12 for Xbox One titles. Gosalia suggested that DX12 won't necessarily change that (getting higher resolution on titles) or offer any particular new graphical effects. "This just lets you exploit a little bit more of what the hardware can do."

 

http://schedule.gdconf.com/speaker/gosalia-anuj.31699

 

"Anuj Gosalia has spent 18 years at Microsoft working on graphics technology. He spent almost all of this time working on DirectX. Currently he manages the graphics team overseeing rendering APIs, OS infrastructure and the driver model."

 

LOL at EA and IGN. I can't believe people listen to half the stuff that comes out of these companies and their little minions mouths.  Xbox One cant run a side scrolling motorcycle game at 1080p? The headline is "technically demanding game". That entire website is a joke.

[Misanthrope]

That's quite the laundry list there, but certainly believable just from his general attitude towards Joe acting as if he could just walk over him cause he's a youtuber, reminded me a lot of the fucking douche bag major Nelson taking away Joe's mic.

[xamon]

snip

1) This is a study conducted by the ESA, not some random organization.The numbers they have are straight from developers and publishers not retailers. The fact that it may include mobile (which I do not believe it does) is irrelevant. The mean age has been that high for year before mobile existed. Also you base the entirety you are belief that console gamers/people that please military shooters are all kids just by what you hear on Xbox live?

 

2) EA never said that Ignite couldn't run on PC. They said that the average PC would not be able to handle it. Whether this is true or not (i believe it isn't) is irrelevant. They saw that porting the new engine to PC would cut out a lot of the people that buy sports game on pc while still costing a lot of money so they didn't. There are ramification of an increase physics based engine. How many could run a game with physics calculation? Would it require a higher version of Directx that most people do not have? Would it alienate the majority of its player base (which would lead to another protest)?

 

How many games do you believe can survive on crowd funding. How many people can get up and take a risk as big when they have a family and become an indie dev? Do you believe they will still get the benefit they receive from big outlets? You think that consoles are bad and are for kids (again the majority of owners are adults). You may like pc with all the problems and issues that comes with it but it is not for everybody. If consoles disappear, you can say goodbye to a large chunk of the PC market and to a lot of games you like (also those coming from indies).

 

If you believe all these things, all the power to you but your way doesn't bring any constructive change.

[Do-me]

1) This is a study conducted by the ESA, not some random organization.The numbers they have are straight from developers and publishers not retailers. The fact that it may include mobile (which I do not believe it does) is irrelevant. The mean age has been that high for year before mobile existed. Also you base the entirety you are belief that console gamers/people that please military shooters are all kids just by what you hear on Xbox live?

 

2) EA never said that Ignite couldn't run on PC. They said that the average PC would not be able to handle it. Whether this is true or not (i believe it isn't) is irrelevant. They saw that porting the new engine to PC would cut out a lot of the people that buy sports game on pc while still costing a lot of money so they didn't. There are ramification of an increase physics based engine. How many could run a game with physics calculation? Would it require a higher version of Directx that most people do not have? Would it alienate the majority of its player base (which would lead to another protest)?

 

How many games do you believe can survive on crowd funding. How many people can get up and take a risk as big when they have a family and become an indie dev? Do you believe they will still get the benefit they receive from big outlets? You think that consoles are bad and are for kids (again the majority of owners are adults). You may like pc with all the problems and issues that comes with it but it is not for everybody. If consoles disappear, you can say goodbye to a large chunk of the PC market and to a lot of games you like (also those coming from indies).

 

If you believe all these things, all the power to you but your way doesn't bring any constructive change.

Thanks EA marketing team!

 

an ignorant statement from a brony, Why am I not surprised?

 

There's really nothing wrong with Origin. How many times did steam go offline last month? over 60 times by my count, sometimes only for 3-4 minutes, other times up to 45 minutes. I didn't have any of my gameplay interrupted by server outages on EA servers.

 

If you don't like EA, fine. You don't have to, but don't ignore Steams shortcomings while EA provides a completely stable client.

The person you replied to never even mentioned steam.

If you're going to insult someone, atleast bring a good argumen to the table. Are you an intern for xamon?

[Rassilon]

 

Because they still draw a pay check and because none of them are competent at their jobs? Jim Sterling covered this in great details: It's just idiots acting on the advice of other idiots and nobody with any fucking talent or vision ever gets involved in the process:

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9045-The-Unholy-Trinity-Of-Blind-Greedy-Bastards

 

EDIT: Sorry linked to the wrong video.

Jim Sterling is about as trustworthy of a source as anybody on the internet. He started this video off with the worst argument for him not pandering to crowds that I've ver heard of, and still hasn't proven that he isn't. He can come up with as many 'dev' friends as he wants, but the guy doesn't actually have any reliablility when it comes to his opinions.

 

These people are in there jobs for a reason, and they will contoniue to hold their jobs for the same reason, they are good at them. Their job isn't to make good games, it's to be profitable, and they're doing it better than anyone else for all we know. They aren't working in a vacuum, there are equally powerful people around them that would kick them out in a minute if what they did wasn't working, and it seems to be.

[deathjester]

1) This is a study conducted by the ESA, not some random organization.The numbers they have are straight from developers and publishers not retailers. The fact that it may include mobile (which I do not believe it does) is irrelevant. The mean age has been that high for year before mobile existed. Also you base the entirety you are belief that console gamers/people that please military shooters are all kids just by what you hear on Xbox live?

 

2) EA never said that Ignite couldn't run on PC. They said that the average PC would not be able to handle it. Whether this is true or not (i believe it isn't) is irrelevant. They saw that porting the new engine to PC would cut out a lot of the people that buy sports game on pc while still costing a lot of money so they didn't. There are ramification of an increase physics based engine. How many could run a game with physics calculation? Would it require a higher version of Directx that most people do not have? Would it alienate the majority of its player base (which would lead to another protest)?

 

How many games do you believe can survive on crowd funding. How many people can get up and take a risk as big when they have a family and become an indie dev? Do you believe they will still get the benefit they receive from big outlets? You think that consoles are bad and are for kids (again the majority of owners are adults). You may like pc with all the problems and issues that comes with it but it is not for everybody. If consoles disappear, you can say goodbye to a large chunk of the PC market and to a lot of games you like (also those coming from indies).

 

If you believe all these things, all the power to you but your way doesn't bring any constructive change.

 

Highlighted the parts that made me laugh hysterically. The Xbox One GPU is 1.31 TFLOPs with Kinect taking from that 1.31. this puts it slower then a stock AMD 7770 which was like 89 bucks two years ago. It is also slower than a GTX 260 216C I bought for 200 bucks in 2008. When they downgrade these titles they sell less not more. They do it to protect the consoles. 

 

"you can say goodbye to a large chunk of the PC market". Uh huh. Steam Machines could replace these things easily. People will get more for less, without having to hand MS/Sony half the money on each game. In addition the devs will make more not having to deal with used games sales and rentals. If gamestop dies? Good riddance.

 

When the "video game crash" happened in the 1980's guess what? We had awesome games like the Sierra Quest games creating the modern graphical RPG. Companies like Bioware started on the PC not the consoles. FPS games came from the PC not the consoles. Madden debuted on the PC, not consoles. All those Lucas Arts RPG's like Day of the Tentacle, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis were on the PC. I also had awesome flight games that consoles and EA helped kill (thanks EA).

 

Anyways  enjoy the awesome soundtrack to Police Quest made by the guy who did the Miami Vice soundtrack. Cus you know...consoles determine whether we have games or not lol.

 

 

If consoles die? I will laugh not cry. Nintendo will stick around. Don't want my little kids playing GTA V anyways. Sony/MS can go the way of Sega, Intellivision, Colecovision, Atari, Neo Geo for all I care.  Planetside 2 and Everquest are on the PC. Uncharted can be as well. Sony would prob be more profitable as a software company anyways.

 

Oh no I won't get Mass Effect 20, COD 100 and BF10 instead I will get a new fresh game made by devs who aren't owned by people who give them 2 years to make a 3 year title. Unreal 4 is very accessible. Many of these game engines are going that way.  I am not scared of a "video game crash". PC will remain. Companies like Bioware will come out of nowhere just like they did before.

[_wky]

So what they're saying is that buying a game means that you don't have that money to spend on a different game?

Isn't that, kinda obvious?

[xamon]

snip

Do not take me saying these things as defending EA. They are a ton of issues that need to be fixed, the key word here is fixed not wishing death on the company.

 

@deathjester ok.

[Admire]

"Boss, I know the sales numbers are really weak, but its not my fault...I SWEAR! its just that the competition is doing good."

[SOLO_AVENGER]

I think they are trying to say that since lots of people bought GTA V, those people didn't want to buy other games. Therefore devs struggled to make money from the gaming market.

[geogga]

I spent 110 on this game and it sucks