I wonder how much worse EA, or one of the other companies, has to become to upset people enough that they put some real effort into organizing some kind of boycott.
When is the last time you have seen a boycott influence change in ANY industry? We live in a world of fragmented consumers and individualism where things like socialism and unionization are not just dirty words, they are words that could get you killed. .... And I promise I'm not going to get any more political than this, I'm just trying to say that corporations have actively been fighting against consumer protections for a long time now, and we just go along with it. Mandatory binding arbitration comes to mind.
I wonder how much worse EA, or one of the other companies, has to become to upset people enough that they put some real effort into organizing some kind of boycott.
When is the last time you have seen a boycott influence change in ANY industry? We live in a world of fragmented consumers and individualism where things like socialism and unionization are not just dirty words, they are words that could get you killed. .... And I promise I'm not going to get any more political than this, I'm just trying to say that corporations have actively been fighting against consumer protections for a long time now, and we just go along with it. Mandatory binding arbitration comes to mind.
Soccer games have competition, from a lot of sources. Competition breeds better product. So it makes sense that FIFA would maintain high standards, where Madden just gets to skate by.
And yeah... Ubisoft isn't nearly as bad as Activision or EA, as they haven't done anything to directly screw over people and make games unplayabl--- Oh, wait, that's right, I was fully planning on buying Rayman: Legends the second it came out (before I knew about Need for Speed: Most Wanted). But now I can't, which is a fair bit worse than anything that is going on with SimCity. Even the developers were in protest over that one.
The licensing is the whole reason Madden gets to dominated the entire market. Soccer is played everywhere, there's a billion different leagues and they're mostly in every soccer game. American Football is only that big in the US and it's exclusively licensed to EA.
Soccer games have competition, from a lot of sources. Competition breeds better product. So it makes sense that FIFA would maintain high standards, where Madden just gets to skate by.
And yeah... Ubisoft isn't nearly as bad as Activision or EA, as they haven't done anything to directly screw over people and make games unplayabl--- Oh, wait, that's right, I was fully planning on buying Rayman: Legends the second it came out (before I knew about Need for Speed: Most Wanted). But now I can't, which is a fair bit worse than anything that is going on with SimCity. Even the developers were in protest over that one.
The licensing is the whole reason Madden gets to dominated the entire market. Soccer is played everywhere, there's a billion different leagues and they're mostly in every soccer game. American Football is only that big in the US and it's exclusively licensed to EA.
Yeah, outside of the US nobody really gives a shit about American football. Soccer however, enjoys international attention.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I wonder if there will be some real long term consequences like a boycott of EA products or some kind of legal action.
Well, I am not going to buy Sim City, but then I never was because I am completely against always on DRM. At the same time, I don't let this effect other games from EA that I enjoy. I bought the DLC for Dead Space 3 for example quite happily and I knew what they were doing with Sim City at the time. I guess it's an interesting question as to when their overall practices become so bad that I outright wouldn't buy anything they make. I mean, DS3 doesn't have always online DRM and the whole transactions fiasco was an irrelevant side show in the actual game. I would rather make their products I do like and that don't have widely terrible anti-consumer measures like Sim Cities DRM a success instead of making everything they publish fail (because EA does make good games).
I guess I would wait and see if they would dare be stupid enough to repeat this fiasco with Sim City again. Probably the next opportunity will be the Sims 4, which could very well follow exactly the same model as Sim City. If we (as consumers overall) let them get away with it again I will be extremely disappointed.
EA are also rescinding keys from Anazon for those who complained, accusing them of making a charge back. Amazon will give a new key and refund if this happens to you.
Holy shit what.
What's a word for when something goes beyond being farcical?
I first noticed this when @jdarksun posted about his game disappearing from Origin in the Sim City thread, where he was able to get a refund and a new code out of it. I wondered if anyone else was having the same experience and then I found this thread on reddit: Warning: Origin disabled my legitimate sim city key.
I will say I was inaccurate the first time, it doesn't appear you had to have made any complaint about the game to EA, it seems to just be some random problem occurring to Amazon customers. The result is always a happy one though: New game key and a full refund. So nobody gets screwed here, it's just another example of how utterly bizzare and stupid this situation has become.
At this point though, depending on how widespread this is, you could view EA as being some kind of Scooby Doo level villain. Unmasked and caught out by the inquisitive gaming public, they are shaking their fists declaring "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you damned meddling servers and your little modders too!"
I am not even sure if this being just any random potential amazon customer rather than those who specifically complained makes the situation better or worse.
I'm not really sure where the blame lies - EA says Amazon initiated the charge back, Amazon says they didn't. But Amazon is the one who gave me a new key and a refund, implying they were at fault and making me not give a shit if they were in the process.
Amazon has been fairly decent with regard to customer complaints. Mainly because they're so big they can absorb any losses rather than a considered effort to be 'good'.
Soccer games have competition, from a lot of sources. Competition breeds better product. So it makes sense that FIFA would maintain high standards, where Madden just gets to skate by.
And yeah... Ubisoft isn't nearly as bad as Activision or EA, as they haven't done anything to directly screw over people and make games unplayabl--- Oh, wait, that's right, I was fully planning on buying Rayman: Legends the second it came out (before I knew about Need for Speed: Most Wanted). But now I can't, which is a fair bit worse than anything that is going on with SimCity. Even the developers were in protest over that one.
The licensing is the whole reason Madden gets to dominated the entire market. Soccer is played everywhere, there's a billion different leagues and they're mostly in every soccer game. American Football is only that big in the US and it's exclusively licensed to EA.
Yeah, outside of the US nobody really gives a shit about American football. Soccer however, enjoys international attention.
Us Canadians love the CFL, but no one is ever going to make a football game about that, so NFL really is the only league that matters as far as games go.
EA are also rescinding keys from Amazon for those who complained, accusing them of making a charge back. Amazon will give a new key and refund if this happens to you.
Do we have an actual source for this?
EDIT: @Bastable: Like I said, we don't know what terms Sony was offering. And given that Nvidia was supplying them for the last seven years, at the very least they're going to have a good idea of what they want for the next gen, and what did and did not work out for them last time as a result. Steady profits doesn't mean much if you're either getting a pittance or aren't making as much as you could be, and Nvidia are the only ones that can really make that call. Calling it a bad move can't really be done without further information.
Back in 2011 Nvidia were working on APU 64bit (Project Denver) and were working with Sony and/or Microsoft. So apparently spending billions on a project focused on consoles and Telsa is judged to be a poor opportunity cost when you are not selected. . .
They spent all this money on a project scoped on Consoles/Telsa/hedge-that-win8-would-go-ARM only to decide not to supply consoles because of "opportunity cost." Yeah right.
Seriously Nvidia started investing in ARM based APU's, Sony/Microsoft decide to build consoles based on APU's only they decide on x86 APU's designed by AMD. Sounds like a "I never loved her anyway" story.
What the head of Nvidia said in 2011 concerning next gen consoles
Q: And can you predict when it will be in terms of how many years from now?
A: We will build one of them, right. And the reason for that is because the world doesn’t have enough engineering talent for anybody to build three of them at one time. It takes the entire livelihood of a computer graphics company to build one of them. And every single time they build one, my life is in danger. You build it once every five or seven years, but you have to build it all in a very short time. That’s because they wait and wait and then they say, ‘Can I have it next week?’
Yeah they never wanted a bit of that pie at all . . . especially when all three "next gen" consoles turn out to be AMD chipped.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
EA are also rescinding keys from Amazon for those who complained, accusing them of making a charge back. Amazon will give a new key and refund if this happens to you.
Do we have an actual source for this?
EDIT: @Bastable: Like I said, we don't know what terms Sony was offering. And given that Nvidia was supplying them for the last seven years, at the very least they're going to have a good idea of what they want for the next gen, and what did and did not work out for them last time as a result. Steady profits doesn't mean much if you're either getting a pittance or aren't making as much as you could be, and Nvidia are the only ones that can really make that call. Calling it a bad move can't really be done without further information.
Back in 2011 Nvidia were working on APU 64bit (Project Denver) and were working with Sony and/or Microsoft. So apparently spending billions on a project focused on consoles and Telsa is judged to be a poor opportunity cost when you are not selected. . .
They spent all this money on a project scoped on Consoles/Telsa/hedge-that-win8-would-go-ARM only to decide not to supply consoles because of "opportunity cost." Yeah right.
Seriously Nvidia started investing in ARM based APU's, Sony/Microsoft decide to build consoles based on APU's only they decide on x86 APU's designed by AMD. Sounds like a "I never loved her anyway" story.
What the head of Nvidia said in 2011 concerning next gen consoles
Q: And can you predict when it will be in terms of how many years from now?
A: We will build one of them, right. And the reason for that is because the world doesn’t have enough engineering talent for anybody to build three of them at one time. It takes the entire livelihood of a computer graphics company to build one of them. And every single time they build one, my life is in danger. You build it once every five or seven years, but you have to build it all in a very short time. That’s because they wait and wait and then they say, ‘Can I have it next week?’
Yeah they never wanted a bit of that pie at all . . . especially when all three "next gen" consoles turn out to be AMD chipped.
Even if they were reluctant to work on the next gen systems, If the contract was right, Nvidia would still have jumped on the opportunity to further push its brand name especially if its powering the entire next console generation. However, as you have said, Nvidia will have been wary of investing so much if the money isn't right and Nvidia having so much control of the mobile market this time around and has enough power of influence to strong arm a better deal out of Sony or walk away without loss.
Need for Speed will be the first EA game I've bought since Origin was released. But I'm an anomaly.
I haven't bought a game published by EA in about 5 years because of their awful business practices. I was starting to think they'd turned it around and considered buying some stuff before they brought in their utterly awful always-on DRM. I won't buy anything they publish while they do that shit. I nearly didn't buy Diablo 3 for the same reason (and wish I hadn't because it is nothing like D2 and awful).
EA are also rescinding keys from Amazon for those who complained, accusing them of making a charge back. Amazon will give a new key and refund if this happens to you.
Do we have an actual source for this?
EDIT: @Bastable: Like I said, we don't know what terms Sony was offering. And given that Nvidia was supplying them for the last seven years, at the very least they're going to have a good idea of what they want for the next gen, and what did and did not work out for them last time as a result. Steady profits doesn't mean much if you're either getting a pittance or aren't making as much as you could be, and Nvidia are the only ones that can really make that call. Calling it a bad move can't really be done without further information.
Back in 2011 Nvidia were working on APU 64bit (Project Denver) and were working with Sony and/or Microsoft. So apparently spending billions on a project focused on consoles and Telsa is judged to be a poor opportunity cost when you are not selected. . .
They spent all this money on a project scoped on Consoles/Telsa/hedge-that-win8-would-go-ARM only to decide not to supply consoles because of "opportunity cost." Yeah right.
Seriously Nvidia started investing in ARM based APU's, Sony/Microsoft decide to build consoles based on APU's only they decide on x86 APU's designed by AMD. Sounds like a "I never loved her anyway" story.
What the head of Nvidia said in 2011 concerning next gen consoles
Q: And can you predict when it will be in terms of how many years from now?
A: We will build one of them, right. And the reason for that is because the world doesn’t have enough engineering talent for anybody to build three of them at one time. It takes the entire livelihood of a computer graphics company to build one of them. And every single time they build one, my life is in danger. You build it once every five or seven years, but you have to build it all in a very short time. That’s because they wait and wait and then they say, ‘Can I have it next week?’
Yeah they never wanted a bit of that pie at all . . . especially when all three "next gen" consoles turn out to be AMD chipped.
Even if they were reluctant to work on the next gen systems, If the contract was right, Nvidia would still have jumped on the opportunity to further push its brand name especially if its powering the entire next console generation. However, as you have said, Nvidia will have been wary of investing so much if the money isn't right and Nvidia having so much control of the mobile market this time around and has enough power of influence to strong arm a better deal out of Sony or walk away without loss.
Point is in 2011 the head of Nvidia was confident enough to state that they would be "building" one of the consoles. This is the exact opposite of being reluctant to work on next gen systems.
Most likely thing is that Sony and Microsoft found that Nvidia's ARM based APU was going to be weaker than even the low end Jaguar x86 APU that AMD was selling. I'm guessing if there was an opportunity cost it was that Nvidia had not even a road map for a x86 APU or an amazingly powerful ARM APU that could actually compete; Nvidia could not afford another project on top of Denver, and certainly not a crash program starting late 2011/early 2012.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Need for Speed will be the first EA game I've bought since Origin was released. But I'm an anomaly.
I haven't bought a game published by EA in about 5 years because of their awful business practices. I was starting to think they'd turned it around and considered buying some stuff before they brought in their utterly awful always-on DRM. I won't buy anything they publish while they do that shit. I nearly didn't buy Diablo 3 for the same reason (and wish I hadn't because it is nothing like D2 and awful).
It just takes a bit of willpower, that's all.
Oh believe me, I'm only buying NFS: MW to send a message; otherwise I'd get it used when the price drops. But I'm deliberately trying to send a message to EA that "Hey, if you let devs actually have time with the hardware, you can make awesome things happen." Sure, it means I'm buying a game way past its prime.. but the Wii U needs 3rd party support, and the only way it'll get it is if people buy the 3rd party games that are put out for it. This one happens to be a good version of the game at that.
For a time it did appear that EA was trying, they did put out some games. Problem was some of those games like Mirrors Edge didn't really pay off, when they're good they seem to be unable to make it work. Maybe being evil is just how they get results.
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
For a time it did appear that EA was trying, they did put out some games. Problem was some of those games like Mirrors Edge didn't really pay off, when they're good they seem to be unable to make it work. Maybe being evil is just how they get results.
I thought it was that the shareholders saw them as making less profit because being good to the customers was more expensive, so they changed course.
For a time it did appear that EA was trying, they did put out some games. Problem was some of those games like Mirrors Edge didn't really pay off, when they're good they seem to be unable to make it work. Maybe being evil is just how they get results.
I thought it was that the shareholders saw them as making less profit because being good to the customers was more expensive, so they changed course.
Someone else might know better but pretty sure most of the games that came out around a few years did not live up to the expectations they wanted. Again ME might be beloved but it's to a small fanbase and didn't get the results expected or desired. Other games around the time didn't live up to what they wanted either, hence the change in direction. If I recall right there was even talk the failures might cause the guy in charge to be removed, didn't happen but it was speculated.
Need for Speed will be the first EA game I've bought since Origin was released. But I'm an anomaly.
I haven't bought a game published by EA in about 5 years because of their awful business practices. I was starting to think they'd turned it around and considered buying some stuff before they brought in their utterly awful always-on DRM. I won't buy anything they publish while they do that shit. I nearly didn't buy Diablo 3 for the same reason (and wish I hadn't because it is nothing like D2 and awful).
It just takes a bit of willpower, that's all.
Pff if I had willpower I wouldn't have triple dipped on Skyrim after my 360 broke and then my PC broke. I'm stuck with the PS3 version now and it's a whore but I love me some Skyrim.
I find it pretty dang easy to not buy any EA games.
+2
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I'm still waiting for EA to put out a new version of Chuck Yeager's Air Combat.
In all seriousness, EA is one of the biggest game developers out there.. and they didn't get there by providing product that people didn't want. As much as I hate their exclusivity and practices, as long as they keep turning a profit that have little reason to change course, and as long as they have the franchises they do they have little cause to worry about not turning a profit.
For a time it did appear that EA was trying, they did put out some games. Problem was some of those games like Mirrors Edge didn't really pay off, when they're good they seem to be unable to make it work. Maybe being evil is just how they get results.
I thought it was that the shareholders saw them as making less profit because being good to the customers was more expensive, so they changed course.
Someone else might know better but pretty sure most of the games that came out around a few years did not live up to the expectations they wanted. Again ME might be beloved but it's to a small fanbase and didn't get the results expected or desired. Other games around the time didn't live up to what they wanted either, hence the change in direction. If I recall right there was even talk the failures might cause the guy in charge to be removed, didn't happen but it was speculated.
Yeah, EA did make a stab at being a decent company for a few years. Unfortunately, they still doggedly held on to the idea of every game needing to be a mega-hit, so even though they came out with some great properties in that time, they weren't really happy with any of them because they didn't sell ultra-millions of copies.
I just don't get how these big companies can just completely forget that breakout hits for new games are extremely rare and the vast majority of successful IPs started a lot smaller than where they are now. Building mega-hits right out of the gate every time is such a fantastic recipe for failure, yet they still keep banging their heads against the wall instead of producing a bunch of quality, lower-budget games to see which ones actually end up good.
+1
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
Yeah. While the crown of worst AAA gaming company seems to rotate between Ubisoft, Activision, and EA depending on the latest outrage, EA is pretty much bulletproof. Their bread and butter game, Madden, will never slow down in popularity thanks to the almost trust-like exclusive licensing deal (Seriously, the government should take a look at THAT more than anything). Despite how much people complain, games like Dead Space 3 continue to sell despite all the complaints. SimCity sold well enough on PC-only that it basically crippled EA's ability to support the product. EA's shareholders are not gamers, are not internet savvy, and are the type to listen to Pacther and trust his judgement rather than looking into matters themselves.
The only way EA will improve is if the stockholders feel that there is more worth in enforcing the company core values company-wide. While I'm willing to bet the majority of the development studios follow the creed, I don't believe the management, support, and marketing infrastructures do. That's why we see disconnects like Vsolve having pretty awesome things to say about his chunk of the company, followed by actions that look like EA are mustache-twirling villains. (I'm placing the unfinished-feeling gameplay issues of SimCity on Maxis, and the fact that things were allowed to ship in that state/the response since the news got out on EA. Maxis set out with an amazingly ambitious, awesome idea for a Simcity game, found they couldn't do it, and likely re-engineered things in the middle of development while still keeping in line with their original goals.
Ubisoft were never anywhere near the shittiness of Activision or EA. And at their lowest point did a complete about-face and abandoned their DRM, listened to their customers and put out quality games we all enjoyed.
They've definitely had their troubles, and flirtations with terribleness, but I think they've turned it around and are fairly decent. I mean, they're no Valve or Bethesda, but they're so much bigger with a completely different corporate mentality that I'm surprised they're not far, far worse as a company.
Also, just to note for Americans who don't play real football: say what you will about EAs churning of their annual franchises, but FIFA has been consistently good for years now. Naturally, unofficial titles have improved gameplay in many areas, but as a complete package it's hard to beat. And a sales juggernaut.
One thing I will say though is that Ubisoft has consistently had one of the douchiest and snobbiest booths at E3 every single year. They are literally the living embodiment of the snooty superior French waiter stereotype.
About Ubisoft (and related to the Might and Magic X news)
They recently let a Might and Magic fan project live on which I found really cool. (Just demanded a name change)
The Might & Magic team as a whole is honoured by the time and energy you and your team are putting in the Children of the Void project. It is truly delightful and humbling to see fans hard at work to continue the tradition of the past Might & Magic games and universe...That being said, using the name “Might & Magic X” for your project is unfortunately an issue with Ubisoft. The name would imply your game is an official Might & Magic product, which could be misleading for the community. Also, there’s always the possibility a Ubisoft-produced Might & Magic X is released in the future...We have no issue however with you continuing the previous storylines or using the pre-Ashan characters. Mentioning the name Might & Magic is also OK as long as the “fan-produced” and “unofficial” nature of the project is obvious.
Well we're talking about them scooting close to a line that's doing consumers wrong, and we've got protections (well, they're not the best but they exist) for consumers in America. It's really uncomfortable to see.
Do government protections extend to a private forum, though? I mean, they are providing methods of support, such as live online chat. I know someone said finding the support number on the website is hard, but isn't the support number published in every "manual" for every game, ever? I though that was part of the 2 pages that people print as an insert anymore, because you need that number for warranty purposes and all games have at least a basic warranty on them. All EA would have to do is point to that, claim that the forum moderation is to prevent spamming of the call centers by malcontent and harassing people who don't own the game, and voila - BBB avoided.
It's a bullet-point in a growing list of greivences. Alone, no judge will give a shit about that. But if it's item 5 on a 12 point list, it paints a pattern of consumer disenfranchisement. The question is if there is enough stuff to even make a list.
Totally sad there's not a "Dark Messiah" in front of that Might and Magic.
Undead Scottsman on
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
I got off the SimCity train months ago when they announced that online-only shit and when it became clear they wanted to turn the game into a microtransactions hellhole, and frankly it's at that point that I personally wouldn't have a problem with buying EA titles from this point on. It helps that there's pretty much no EA title/franchise that really interests me anymore. Whether that's because I genuinely don't care for them or because the way EA does business taints my entire perception of them is up for debate.
In the end, my lack of patronage doesn't mean diddly to their income stream, and I'm cognizant of it, but knowing I'm haven't plopped $60 bones for the privilege in partaking in this simulation city boondoggle is fine enough.
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I got off the SimCity train months ago when they announced that online-only shit and when it became clear they wanted to turn the game into a microtransactions hellhole, and frankly it's at that point that I personally wouldn't have a problem with buying EA titles from this point on. It helps that there's pretty much no EA title/franchise that really interests me anymore. Whether that's because I genuinely don't care for them or because the way EA does business taints my entire perception of them is up for debate.
In the end, my lack of patronage doesn't mean diddly to their income stream, and I'm cognizant of it, but knowing I'm haven't plopped $60 bones for the privilege in partaking in this simulation city boondoggle is fine enough.
I really love Simcity games, but the early, small scaled previews kept me far away from considering it. That it has turned into a debacle does not suprise me in the least. And I'm in the same boat - Outside of the aforementioned NFS and Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, about the only things that would make me buy more EA product after this fiasco is a newly announced Mirror's Edge 2 or a version of Mass Effect 3 on Steam so I could avoid Origin.
There's speculation it is the new Obsidian contract (and there's a chance even), but I personally have my doubts.
I wonder if there's any chance that they could get the old New World Computing team back for Might and Magic 10. I know that they probably can't get the series creator back since he's working on the new Command and Conquer but maybe they can get some of the other developers.
Although, it would be great if Ubisoft hired Obsidian since they have to best chance to make Ashan not suck.
Pff if I had willpower I wouldn't have triple dipped on Skyrim after my 360 broke and then my PC broke. I'm stuck with the PS3 version now and it's a whore but I love me some Skyrim.
Hahaha! I like it--I've been on the fence about Skyrim, but I really want to try it out. First, I've gotta do some serious upgrading to my computer though hopefully I can string the cash up for it and the rest of my wishlist soon!
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
How popular was/is the Might and Magic series? Despite the games generally receiving great reviews, I don't think it was that popular even among RPG's.
Ubisoft doesn't seem to have drawn in too many new fans either.
Might and Magic IX was basically a pre-alpha build (one of the developers actually said that) that was rushed out because 3DO was going bankrupt. Heroes 4 was a bit better but it was still pretty much in early beta when it was rushed out.
Might and Magic IX was basically a pre-alpha build (one of the developers actually said that) that was rushed out because 3DO was going bankrupt. Heroes 4 was a bit better but it was still pretty much in early beta when it was rushed out.
Might and Magic IX was basically a pre-alpha build (one of the developers actually said that) that was rushed out because 3DO was going bankrupt. Heroes 4 was a bit better but it was still pretty much in early beta when it was rushed out.
That actually explains quite a lot.
It does. Heroes 4 was still pretty great, though. Not as good as 3, certainly but still really good.
And yea, I don't think Might & Magic was ever terribly popular, certainly not on the level of Ultima or Wizardry anyway. I could be wrong, but there was little interest in the titles when they hit shelves.
Might and Magic IX was basically a pre-alpha build (one of the developers actually said that) that was rushed out because 3DO was going bankrupt. Heroes 4 was a bit better but it was still pretty much in early beta when it was rushed out.
That actually explains quite a lot.
It does. Heroes 4 was still pretty great, though. Not as good as 3, certainly but still really good.
And yea, I don't think Might & Magic was ever terribly popular, certainly not on the level of Ultima or Wizardry anyway. I could be wrong, but there was little interest in the titles when they hit shelves.
Well M&M propers heyday was well before gaming really was even remotely what it is today. Among PC gamers in the 90's anyway, I can't say I ever met any who played that sort of game who doesn't have fond memories of some M&M. Isles of Terra and the Xeen games were my favorite, though I quite enjoyed VI and VII too. I didn't like the departure of VIII with the smaller party that wasn't really 'yours'.
But anyway, no doubt Ubisoft is hoping the success of the Elder Scrolls games will cause folks who didn't play the M&M games way back when to take a second look.
But we'll see what they do with it. I'd be happy with a more 3D Skyrim-esque game, as long as it still was party based; but at the same time something simpler and more true to the older games in the style of Legend of Grimrock would be pretty awesome too.
Might and Magic IX was basically a pre-alpha build (one of the developers actually said that) that was rushed out because 3DO was going bankrupt. Heroes 4 was a bit better but it was still pretty much in early beta when it was rushed out.
That actually explains quite a lot.
It does. Heroes 4 was still pretty great, though. Not as good as 3, certainly but still really good.
And yea, I don't think Might & Magic was ever terribly popular, certainly not on the level of Ultima or Wizardry anyway. I could be wrong, but there was little interest in the titles when they hit shelves.
Well M&M propers heyday was well before gaming really was even remotely what it is today. Among PC gamers in the 90's anyway, I can't say I ever met any who played that sort of game who doesn't have fond memories of some M&M. Isles of Terra and the Xeen games were my favorite, though I quite enjoyed VI and VII too. I didn't like the departure of VIII with the smaller party that wasn't really 'yours'.
But anyway, no doubt Ubisoft is hoping the success of the Elder Scrolls games will cause folks who didn't play the M&M games way back when to take a second look.
But we'll see what they do with it. I'd be happy with a more 3D Skyrim-esque game, as long as it still was party based; but at the same time something simpler and more true to the older games in the style of Legend of Grimrock would be pretty awesome too.
Just you wait till it ends up an MMO and you cry tears.
Posts
When is the last time you have seen a boycott influence change in ANY industry? We live in a world of fragmented consumers and individualism where things like socialism and unionization are not just dirty words, they are words that could get you killed. .... And I promise I'm not going to get any more political than this, I'm just trying to say that corporations have actively been fighting against consumer protections for a long time now, and we just go along with it. Mandatory binding arbitration comes to mind.
Chick-fil-a, kind of?
The licensing is the whole reason Madden gets to dominated the entire market. Soccer is played everywhere, there's a billion different leagues and they're mostly in every soccer game. American Football is only that big in the US and it's exclusively licensed to EA.
Yeah, outside of the US nobody really gives a shit about American football. Soccer however, enjoys international attention.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Well, I am not going to buy Sim City, but then I never was because I am completely against always on DRM. At the same time, I don't let this effect other games from EA that I enjoy. I bought the DLC for Dead Space 3 for example quite happily and I knew what they were doing with Sim City at the time. I guess it's an interesting question as to when their overall practices become so bad that I outright wouldn't buy anything they make. I mean, DS3 doesn't have always online DRM and the whole transactions fiasco was an irrelevant side show in the actual game. I would rather make their products I do like and that don't have widely terrible anti-consumer measures like Sim Cities DRM a success instead of making everything they publish fail (because EA does make good games).
I guess I would wait and see if they would dare be stupid enough to repeat this fiasco with Sim City again. Probably the next opportunity will be the Sims 4, which could very well follow exactly the same model as Sim City. If we (as consumers overall) let them get away with it again I will be extremely disappointed.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Us Canadians love the CFL, but no one is ever going to make a football game about that, so NFL really is the only league that matters as far as games go.
Back in 2011 Nvidia were working on APU 64bit (Project Denver) and were working with Sony and/or Microsoft. So apparently spending billions on a project focused on consoles and Telsa is judged to be a poor opportunity cost when you are not selected. . .
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/3/8/nvidia-project-denver-is-a-64-bit-arm-processor-architecture.aspx
They spent all this money on a project scoped on Consoles/Telsa/hedge-that-win8-would-go-ARM only to decide not to supply consoles because of "opportunity cost." Yeah right.
Seriously Nvidia started investing in ARM based APU's, Sony/Microsoft decide to build consoles based on APU's only they decide on x86 APU's designed by AMD. Sounds like a "I never loved her anyway" story.
What the head of Nvidia said in 2011 concerning next gen consoles
http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/04/qa-nvidia-chief-explains-his-strategy-for-winning-in-mobile-computing/
Q: Do you think there will be another round of consoles coming?
A: Oh, no question about it.
Q: And can you predict when it will be in terms of how many years from now?
A: We will build one of them, right. And the reason for that is because the world doesn’t have enough engineering talent for anybody to build three of them at one time. It takes the entire livelihood of a computer graphics company to build one of them. And every single time they build one, my life is in danger. You build it once every five or seven years, but you have to build it all in a very short time. That’s because they wait and wait and then they say, ‘Can I have it next week?’
Yeah they never wanted a bit of that pie at all . . . especially when all three "next gen" consoles turn out to be AMD chipped.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Even if they were reluctant to work on the next gen systems, If the contract was right, Nvidia would still have jumped on the opportunity to further push its brand name especially if its powering the entire next console generation. However, as you have said, Nvidia will have been wary of investing so much if the money isn't right and Nvidia having so much control of the mobile market this time around and has enough power of influence to strong arm a better deal out of Sony or walk away without loss.
http://might-and-magic.ubi.com/universe/en-US/x.aspx
There's speculation it is the new Obsidian contract (and there's a chance even), but I personally have my doubts.
It just takes a bit of willpower, that's all.
Point is in 2011 the head of Nvidia was confident enough to state that they would be "building" one of the consoles. This is the exact opposite of being reluctant to work on next gen systems.
Most likely thing is that Sony and Microsoft found that Nvidia's ARM based APU was going to be weaker than even the low end Jaguar x86 APU that AMD was selling. I'm guessing if there was an opportunity cost it was that Nvidia had not even a road map for a x86 APU or an amazingly powerful ARM APU that could actually compete; Nvidia could not afford another project on top of Denver, and certainly not a crash program starting late 2011/early 2012.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Oh believe me, I'm only buying NFS: MW to send a message; otherwise I'd get it used when the price drops. But I'm deliberately trying to send a message to EA that "Hey, if you let devs actually have time with the hardware, you can make awesome things happen." Sure, it means I'm buying a game way past its prime.. but the Wii U needs 3rd party support, and the only way it'll get it is if people buy the 3rd party games that are put out for it. This one happens to be a good version of the game at that.
I thought it was that the shareholders saw them as making less profit because being good to the customers was more expensive, so they changed course.
Someone else might know better but pretty sure most of the games that came out around a few years did not live up to the expectations they wanted. Again ME might be beloved but it's to a small fanbase and didn't get the results expected or desired. Other games around the time didn't live up to what they wanted either, hence the change in direction. If I recall right there was even talk the failures might cause the guy in charge to be removed, didn't happen but it was speculated.
Pff if I had willpower I wouldn't have triple dipped on Skyrim after my 360 broke and then my PC broke. I'm stuck with the PS3 version now and it's a whore but I love me some Skyrim.
In all seriousness, EA is one of the biggest game developers out there.. and they didn't get there by providing product that people didn't want. As much as I hate their exclusivity and practices, as long as they keep turning a profit that have little reason to change course, and as long as they have the franchises they do they have little cause to worry about not turning a profit.
Yeah, EA did make a stab at being a decent company for a few years. Unfortunately, they still doggedly held on to the idea of every game needing to be a mega-hit, so even though they came out with some great properties in that time, they weren't really happy with any of them because they didn't sell ultra-millions of copies.
I just don't get how these big companies can just completely forget that breakout hits for new games are extremely rare and the vast majority of successful IPs started a lot smaller than where they are now. Building mega-hits right out of the gate every time is such a fantastic recipe for failure, yet they still keep banging their heads against the wall instead of producing a bunch of quality, lower-budget games to see which ones actually end up good.
They recently let a Might and Magic fan project live on which I found really cool. (Just demanded a name change)
It's a bullet-point in a growing list of greivences. Alone, no judge will give a shit about that. But if it's item 5 on a 12 point list, it paints a pattern of consumer disenfranchisement. The question is if there is enough stuff to even make a list.
Totally sad there's not a "Dark Messiah" in front of that Might and Magic.
In the end, my lack of patronage doesn't mean diddly to their income stream, and I'm cognizant of it, but knowing I'm haven't plopped $60 bones for the privilege in partaking in this simulation city boondoggle is fine enough.
I really love Simcity games, but the early, small scaled previews kept me far away from considering it. That it has turned into a debacle does not suprise me in the least. And I'm in the same boat - Outside of the aforementioned NFS and Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, about the only things that would make me buy more EA product after this fiasco is a newly announced Mirror's Edge 2 or a version of Mass Effect 3 on Steam so I could avoid Origin.
Fucking definition 2 bullshit.
I wonder if there's any chance that they could get the old New World Computing team back for Might and Magic 10. I know that they probably can't get the series creator back since he's working on the new Command and Conquer but maybe they can get some of the other developers.
Although, it would be great if Ubisoft hired Obsidian since they have to best chance to make Ashan not suck.
Kinda weird to have M&MX without ever having a IX :whistle:
Still though that news is making the blood flow.
Down there.
I don't want to get my hopes up but man I can just imagine a party based skyrim-esque game that doesn't use gamebryo and all I can do is smile.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Hahaha! I like it--I've been on the fence about Skyrim, but I really want to try it out. First, I've gotta do some serious upgrading to my computer though
?
Ubisoft doesn't seem to have drawn in too many new fans either.
I see nothing there.
Nope.
Nothing at all.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
That actually explains quite a lot.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
It does. Heroes 4 was still pretty great, though. Not as good as 3, certainly but still really good.
And yea, I don't think Might & Magic was ever terribly popular, certainly not on the level of Ultima or Wizardry anyway. I could be wrong, but there was little interest in the titles when they hit shelves.
Well M&M propers heyday was well before gaming really was even remotely what it is today. Among PC gamers in the 90's anyway, I can't say I ever met any who played that sort of game who doesn't have fond memories of some M&M. Isles of Terra and the Xeen games were my favorite, though I quite enjoyed VI and VII too. I didn't like the departure of VIII with the smaller party that wasn't really 'yours'.
But anyway, no doubt Ubisoft is hoping the success of the Elder Scrolls games will cause folks who didn't play the M&M games way back when to take a second look.
But we'll see what they do with it. I'd be happy with a more 3D Skyrim-esque game, as long as it still was party based; but at the same time something simpler and more true to the older games in the style of Legend of Grimrock would be pretty awesome too.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Edit: Whoops wrong damn thread.
Just you wait till it ends up an MMO and you cry tears.