Abramul Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 First off, it seems Slaiv is turning British. A norteamericano spelling "favor" with a 'u'...I mean, really!We don't want your sh*t. You're flooding the market with terrible games. If you continue with your current "taking-over" strategy, you'll kill gaming altogether. Once you get a monopoly on nearly all games, you won't have to make any quality games. [Like you do anyway.] Nobody will want to play them, and then you'll be sorry.Agreed, monopolies do decrease quality, normally. However, they do have an upside. People will not have quality games to compare the products of Fecal Matter Gaming, Inc. to, and therefore will consider carpgames to be high quality, or will read industry-sponsored magazines, and parrot their opinions. Eliminate the competition---and the masses forget them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaiv Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 Yes, but that still doesn't change the fact that the games suck - it just means that people will be used to ,horrible games, and as such, will not have any higher quality wishes for games. Kind of like beating the consumers into submission. Update on the Ubisoft story - the French government is intervening. According to IGN: France versus EAThe French Government is about to challenge everything.By Jeremy Dunham January 3, 2005 - According to a report from Yahoo! UK Finance, Ubisoft Entertainment could soon be receiving support from the French government in its bid to combat a takeover from US videogame monolith, Electronic Arts. Yahoo's article was inspired by a piece that French newspaper La Tribune ran over the Holiday Break. Though the sources for the Tribune item were never disclosed, it claimed that the French government has been watchful of gaming studios based in its country for months. Particularly in terms of how likely they are for a takeover. Ubisoft owns almost 20 of these studios and the heads for most of them are said to be very weary of a potential EA buyout. The reason? An EA takeover would supposedly mark the end of French-based decisions in the videogame industry. Ubisoft officials have gone on record by saying that it has not had talks with EA "at present" about its 19.9 percent purchase of its capital. Furthermore, it was said, "In light of recent news spread by the press, Ubisoft's board of directors reiterates that, in the absence of information from Electronic Arts regarding its intentions, the latter's acquisition of the group's capital is unsolicited and currently considered hostile. Moreover, there are no negotiations between the two parties at present." Newspaper Les Echos reported on December 29 that Ubisoft would gather some of its largest shareholders later this week in an effort to convince them not to give support to Electronic Arts. Furthermore, Ubisoft is considering various options to defend itself should the need arise. Increasing the holding of the Guillemot family, for instance, is among one of its chief tactics. As the Guillemot's have 17.5% of the shares and 26.6% of the voting rights. We'll keep you updated as thing obviously huge story continues to develop. Oh, and about the "favour" thing - I have many British friends, and I read many British novels/literature, mainly for school. So I give up on trying to make sure things are spelled the "American" or "British" way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunedain Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 This is just sick what EA is doing where do they get all their money... :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaiv Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 They just flood the market with entirely crappy games [any EA Bond game, any EA LOTR game [excepting possibly TBFME], etc...] in hopes that they'll sell. And, sadly, ignorant jack*sses actually fuel this rampant drive by purchasing these underdeveloped, low-quality games.That, and the fact that EA has exclusive rights to several series, such as the LOTR Films, and the NFL. So people have no other choice. If EA would keep to itself, it wouldn't be so bad. They'd have to produce competant, quality products to keep ahead of the competition. They wouldn't lowere the overall quality of other game companies' products. They'd realise the true insanity of their expectations of their employees, and the near-imposisble deadlines they set. Hopefully, they'd rectify this situation. EA Big has produced a few good games - SSX Tricky, while slightly flawed, was fun nevertheless. SSX3 was incredible. Westwood made great games - Command & Conquer: Red Alert, Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun, Nox, and more. And EA decides to eliminate Westwood studios. Brilliant. So, while EA has great potential, they are so far off the track to realizing that potential that I'd be surprised to see an increase in quality for a long time. Hopefully, some of EA's recent "aquisitions" will help with this. Free Radical, many employees who worked on Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. Now that these employess finally have the Bond licence within reach, we may see a good Bond game. Timesplitters Future Perfect looks amazing. Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath looks promising. Hopefully... <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunedain Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Have u ever looked on gamespot and seen a game in the all pc games list or ps2 list and so on and wondered who the hell buys that game, how does the company that made that game make profit. Then you realise the same company has made like 4 sequels for the game....someone must be buying that game lol :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaiv Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 Or the developers have nothing else to do... *Cough*Postal 1 & 2*Cough* Seriously- the worst games ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Ahh, Gamespot. That was a good website back in it's early days. I remember when you never had to pay for a walkthrough or demo DL (no membership period). It was all open content and 100% open to the public. Then it went corporate and now you have to subscribe to the site. But what EA is doing is frightening. So long as they stay away from Bethseda then I'm fine. But man, seriously, this whole "EA pulling a Rockefeller" is scaring the hell out of me. I wish they would just take their crappy games and disappear. It's no less than what Eidos did to Thief 3, when Looking Glass studios went under and Eidos took the helm (then they fired the head guy of Thief 3 for having a difference of opinion, i.e the game wasn't ready to be released when it was). So now you have a Thief game that was aimed at console players, and turned into a console game (when it was originally a strict PC game), I mean, in T: DP and T II: TMA, you could at least swim in water. In Thief 3 you can't swim because of the physics engine. Oh well, I hope the anti-trust laws find the throat of EA, or at least the rest of the international gaming industry gets fed up with EA's bull-s.hit hostile takeover scheme. Even if it is about the money (which it is) at least they could have some tact or make half-way decent games... EA is the McDonalds of the gaming industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 EA isn't in it for the games. They're in it for the money. These greedy b*stards don't care about the quality of the games. They just flood the market with entirely crappy games [any EA Bond game, any EA LOTR game [excepting possibly TBFME], etc...] in hopes that they'll sell In a somewhat related note, how many people here have played Battle for Middle Earth and thought the 'Lord of the Rings' name was totally misused? I mean, yes, some of the events in the books and films were in the Good campaign, but it seemed that the developers had to kind of twist the natural progression of the game a bit to get them in there, and, due to the very nature of the game, they had to depart from the story of the books and films fairly significantly, most especially in the secondary objectives (saving Boromir from being killed at Amon Hen, anyone?). As for the Evil campaign, you may as well forget the books were ever written, or the films ever made. Back to the topic at hand, I do agree EA seem more concerned with how much money they can make rather than anything like the quality of their products or fairly competing with any other company. As that is the case, I think it would more appropriate to say they're doing a Microsoft rather than anything else. :grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaiv Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 At this point, I've given up on America. And EA has officially made Timesplitters: Future Perfect rated "M". For no reason other than so they can put the word "girlfriend" on some chick's T-Shirt in-game. That's just a stupid reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hlaalu Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 At this point, I've given up on America. And EA has officially made Timesplitters: Future Perfect rated "M". For no reason other than so they can put the word "girlfriend" on some chick's T-Shirt in-game. That's just a stupid reason.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Don't you mean you've given up on EA games? Give up on America, and we might not be there to save your rears in World War II...... :rolleyes: But, if your self-esteem has dropped so low over there that you have to bash America, I guess I'll accept it :) Besides, doesn't Tony Blair support the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.