Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.
This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.
I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.
The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.
AAA games are unsustainable, the cost of development have risen to the point where even a hit can tank a studio for not being ENOUGH of a hit.
Do you have any evidence of this?
L.A Noire
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Keep in mind that this isn't just about a publisher closing a studio because one game isn't panning out. Not only was this one game undoubtedly reimagined because the first version couldn't sell lootboxes, but the studio itself was struggling after EA drastically changed Dead Space in order to sell more stuff. This isn't "mean, but that's good business". It's bad business and shifting blame. The age old story of a publisher buying a creative studio, warping their vision into something that they think will make more money, then putting the axe to the studio when the game doesn't make the money they think it will. Because despite the constant refrain of "just doing good business", AAA publishers still fail to realize that good games will mean a more lasting customer base than just bleeding every penny from the players.
This is exactly my issue with the current state of game creation and delivery. AAA publishers are all about squeezing every possible cent from their games. And to be honest, that's kind of their job, so I don't fault them for it. I fault them for how they are going about trying to squeeze every possible cent from their games/players: which is by sacrificing long term gamer enjoyment for the short term draining of their pockets.
I guarantee that they can make money from good games that aren't littered with microtransactions or loot boxes. Will they make as much money from an individual game as they make right now? Probably not. But they will make enough to exist and grow. And by doing this, they will gain a rabid fanbase like Bungie and Blizzard did before Activision and like CD Projekt Red has right now. This leads to a more guaranteed install base from the get go in all future games and it snowballs from there.
The first AAA publisher that sacrifices a bit of money now (by getting rid of predatory loot boxes and microtransactions) will earn the loyalty of the gamer population and will also eventually, as a result, make more money than the AAA publishers that don't.
AAA games are unsustainable, the cost of development have risen to the point where even a hit can tank a studio for not being ENOUGH of a hit.
Do you have any evidence of this?
L.A Noire
That was a critical and commercial success. Team Bondi wasn't shut down because of LA Noire. They were shut down due to controversy from allegations of poor working conditions. Also, it sounds like they burnt some serious bridges with their publisher (R*) which caused them to basically get blackballed by the industry.
Resident Evil 6 sold close to 5 million -- yet it was considered a disappointment as Capcom had set a target of 7 million. Given the lavish production values and the skyrocketing cost of the average AAA game, it's possible RE6 managed to lose money even selling that much. And that was four years ago.
It's no wonder AAA devs are microtransactioning like crazy. Honestly, $60 is an unsustainable price for AAA games given the bargeloads of money required nowadays.
Yeah, I don't buy this. Films still cost more on average to produce than games and the labor involved is more Unionized, which means profit margins are even slimmer. Yet, they manage to get by just fine without a structure than continuously bilks their clientele for additional money after their initial movie ticket.
Do you think if movie studios could figure out a way to extract money after the fact that they wouldn't do exactly that?
Don't know enough about this specific situation to have a strong opinion, but in general I prefer games with a strong, compelling story over mindless grindfests that most microtransaction type games become.
It does seem that the industry is focusing more on hooking people for life with content updates that keep them coming back while encouraging, or outright requiring more purchases along the way. Now, serious question, aside from WoW has that actually worked for anyone else? Destiny is the only other game that comes to mind, and I have no idea how the revenue compares. Seems to me like all the other games that try this model fizzle out pretty fast.
It's possible my tastes are as lazer focused on what I like as Jerry's and I'm missing a lot of the picture.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
To be fair both GTA V and Fallout 4 have extensive paid DLC and micro transactions and also implemented systems recently to deter any free modding attempts in the future...so yeah they aren’t exactly free of nickel and dime fuckery.
Frankly the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes you can make a successful AAA singleplayer game but the margin for error has decreased somewhat and the temptation to Dead Space 3 it is higher than before. And it sucks.
Resident Evil 6 sold close to 5 million -- yet it was considered a disappointment as Capcom had set a target of 7 million. Given the lavish production values and the skyrocketing cost of the average AAA game, it's possible RE6 managed to lose money even selling that much. And that was four years ago.
It's no wonder AAA devs are microtransactioning like crazy. Honestly, $60 is an unsustainable price for AAA games given the bargeloads of money required nowadays.
Yeah, I don't buy this. Films still cost more on average to produce than games and the labor involved is more Unionized, which means profit margins are even slimmer. Yet, they manage to get by just fine without a structure than continuously bilks their clientele for additional money after their initial movie ticket.
Films do also have much bigger revenues to compensate though, which makes comparisons difficult.
Like, in the game world, a million copies is a pretty damn successful game. That's 60 million in gross revenue. In the movie market, a 60 million gross revenue movie is called a total bomb.
Do you think if movie studios could figure out a way to extract money after the fact that they wouldn't do exactly that?[/quote]
But they do. The old model for a movie was 1) release to theaters 2) release on pay per view 3) network TV premier, then 4) VHS.
With some variation, this is still the model. Hell, I just noticed Blade Runner 2049 is available for pre purchase on my PS4. The movie is still in theaters.
It's what drives a lot of people back to "indie" games. Story gets stripped back, but gameplay gets stripped back too. You see this across the board - "is it fun?" often feels like an afterthought. The Binding of Isaac - I got thousands of hours of gameplay out of that and an immense amount of thought provoking "plot" - not plot that you get spoon fed in cutscenes but (especially if you were raised Catholic) a magnificent picture that emerges and prompts reflection as a side-effect of gameplay - the addictive replaying is a key element of the story it aims to tell - it takes a long time to cop that the satirical gun is not as much pointed at religion as it is pointed at escapism and, ultimately, the player. This is an example of how this medium can tell some stories better than other media - games should be well past chasing after being like a film/movie with interactive bits and start thinking about the stories they can tell better by playing to their strengths. Much like books or TV or music or cinema - there will always be big budget crap and there will always be genius to counter it - key point about truly great art: it's incredibly cheap to make. Polishing turds? That's what tends to end up costing a fortune to produce.
I can see loot boxes in a free game. Maybe a cheap one. I've put some money into lockboxes and promo packs in STO and more in ships or other unlocks, and I've thrown probably $30 at various mobile games over the last couple years.
If I'm paying serious money for a game, any extras better be a comparable value. DLC is only occasionally there but loot boxes never are, unless the game itself is so crippled I didn't buy it anyway.
Resident Evil 6 sold close to 5 million -- yet it was considered a disappointment as Capcom had set a target of 7 million. Given the lavish production values and the skyrocketing cost of the average AAA game, it's possible RE6 managed to lose money even selling that much. And that was four years ago.
It's no wonder AAA devs are microtransactioning like crazy. Honestly, $60 is an unsustainable price for AAA games given the bargeloads of money required nowadays.
Yeah, I don't buy this. Films still cost more on average to produce than games and the labor involved is more Unionized, which means profit margins are even slimmer. Yet, they manage to get by just fine without a structure than continuously bilks their clientele for additional money after their initial movie ticket.
Do you think if movie studios could figure out a way to extract money after the fact that they wouldn't do exactly that?
They do rentals and streaming and all kinds of special editions, but a big one with movies is that almost every one is stuffed with advertising.
Seriously stuffed. Like, Superman punches a dude through a Sears? Sears paid for that shit.
I can see loot boxes in a free game. Maybe a cheap one. I've put some money into lockboxes and promo packs in STO and more in ships or other unlocks, and I've thrown probably $30 at various mobile games over the last couple years.
If I'm paying serious money for a game, any extras better be a comparable value. DLC is only occasionally there but loot boxes never are, unless the game itself is so crippled I didn't buy it anyway.
Resident Evil 6 sold close to 5 million -- yet it was considered a disappointment as Capcom had set a target of 7 million. Given the lavish production values and the skyrocketing cost of the average AAA game, it's possible RE6 managed to lose money even selling that much. And that was four years ago.
It's no wonder AAA devs are microtransactioning like crazy. Honestly, $60 is an unsustainable price for AAA games given the bargeloads of money required nowadays.
Yeah, I don't buy this. Films still cost more on average to produce than games and the labor involved is more Unionized, which means profit margins are even slimmer. Yet, they manage to get by just fine without a structure than continuously bilks their clientele for additional money after their initial movie ticket.
Do you think if movie studios could figure out a way to extract money after the fact that they wouldn't do exactly that?
They do rentals and streaming and all kinds of special editions, but a big one with movies is that almost every one is stuffed with advertising.
Seriously stuffed. Like, Superman punches a dude through a Sears? Sears paid for that shit.
Streaming channels you pay for are increasingly including ads as their "pay and then pay again" tactic. I was watching Star Trek: Discovery (on my parents' CBS All Access account, I should clarify) and there were FIVE blocks of ads in the forty-five minute episode. That's as bad as TV! Worse, even, since each ad block played literally the same three ads.
I can see loot boxes in a free game. Maybe a cheap one. I've put some money into lockboxes and promo packs in STO and more in ships or other unlocks, and I've thrown probably $30 at various mobile games over the last couple years.
If I'm paying serious money for a game, any extras better be a comparable value. DLC is only occasionally there but loot boxes never are, unless the game itself is so crippled I didn't buy it anyway.
Resident Evil 6 sold close to 5 million -- yet it was considered a disappointment as Capcom had set a target of 7 million. Given the lavish production values and the skyrocketing cost of the average AAA game, it's possible RE6 managed to lose money even selling that much. And that was four years ago.
It's no wonder AAA devs are microtransactioning like crazy. Honestly, $60 is an unsustainable price for AAA games given the bargeloads of money required nowadays.
Yeah, I don't buy this. Films still cost more on average to produce than games and the labor involved is more Unionized, which means profit margins are even slimmer. Yet, they manage to get by just fine without a structure than continuously bilks their clientele for additional money after their initial movie ticket.
Do you think if movie studios could figure out a way to extract money after the fact that they wouldn't do exactly that?
They do rentals and streaming and all kinds of special editions, but a big one with movies is that almost every one is stuffed with advertising.
Seriously stuffed. Like, Superman punches a dude through a Sears? Sears paid for that shit.
Streaming channels you pay for are increasingly including ads as their "pay and then pay again" tactic. I was watching Star Trek: Discovery (on my parents' CBS All Access account, I should clarify) and there were FIVE blocks of ads in the forty-five minute episode. That's as bad as TV! Worse, even, since each ad block played literally the same three ads.
Making ST:D exclusively available on a platform that you have to pay for, and contains ads, and is apparently shit-tier streaming platform, is what has made ST:D one of the most pirated current TV shows (well that and the fact that Game of Thrones is off season, I assume).
On one hand we have publishers like EA who kills games (and entire studios) on a whim.
On the other we have publisher like Square Enix, who let their games languish in development hell for nearly a decade, whose MMO was dead on arrival but instead tossing it into F2Pdom to die a slow death, spent 2.5 years rebuilding the game to relaunch.
My point? No point. Just thought it was interesting that such different companies can exist.
SquareEnix doesn't care about anything that isn't Final Fantasy though. They will do whatever they can to make sure that brand stays relevant/profitable. Everything else... not so much.
Thank you. This was exactly how I felt as I read that statement. The more he talked the more he pissed me off. Couldn't have been a more evil and souless missive if it was on Satan's personal letterhead.
The only thing baffling to me is why Tycho thought EA would pull anything different. They (EA) have a history of acquiring IP's and running them into the ground to then be sent to a glue factory like a spent horse.
Expecting different of them at this point or even 10 years ago seems inane.
Gabe and Tycho during the height of gamergate: nada
Gabe and Tycho in response to EA doing the same thing EA always does: literal frothing rage
This affected a colleague of Jerry's with whom he made a connection. And before you say "oh so it only matters if it's someone you know" the answer to that question is pretty much "yes". Unfair, right? Welp, that's life, tiger.
"Why aren't you as equally mad about ALL the other injustices in the world?!?!"
Because it's no ones job to be equally mad about this thing over here as they are about this other thing over there.
In fact, it's nearly impossible. But I tell you what, why don't you and I set an example? Let's get outraged about literally every misery and injustice in the world with equal measure all at the same time. So, under that assumption, I'll meet you in Puerto Rico, Las Vegas, London, Paris, Israel, IDP camps in Nigeria, Hollywood, Mexico City, pretty much any PoC community within the southern United States, etc., etc.
Being snarky because you don't think someone is outraged by the right thing or enough things is a little goosey.
I completely understand Jerry's ire, here.
On the other hand, from a business perspective I can understand how a company like EA might look at trying to make more lucrative choices as being a priority over innovation or deviation from the most profitable avenues. Gotta pay your staff; gotta keep the lights on. It's hard for people to imagine multi-billion dollar companies going in the tank but every major organization like EA is one or two gambles away from enormous layoffs. You want to lose some of your best staff? Try telling a dev who's been printing money for your company for years that their bonus got cut in half because the company gambled on another dev team and lost big. He or she is looking for the door unless they're just fiercely loyal.
There's a lot to think about.
I'm an "art for art's sake" person so I'd gamble on the unique and innovative over the sure thing. Then again, that's also why I'm not at the head of a multi-billion dollar company.
This entire situation is just one more troubling example of the gaming industry heading down a path that I personally don't care for. I can see the micro transaction and lootcrate model completely murdering AAA gaming much in the way that the FTP model murdered mobile gaming for me. The simple fact is that a great deal of investors simply don't care about gaming. They aren't going to listen to message boards, or even respected voices like Mike and Jerry. All they are going to listen to is the raw financial data. And as long as that continues to tell them what they want to here, that is the direction AAA gaming will continue to follow.
SquareEnix doesn't care about anything that isn't Final Fantasy though. They will do whatever they can to make sure that brand stays relevant/profitable. Everything else... not so much.
To be fair, Star Wars is a very profitable IP too ...
Also what else does SE have? xD Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and Star Ocean are the only 3 properties that come to mind - and the latest Dragon Quest took quite a while too.
Gabe and Tycho during the height of gamergate: nada
Gabe and Tycho in response to EA doing the same thing EA always does: literal frothing rage
This affected a colleague of Jerry's with whom he made a connection. And before you say "oh so it only matters if it's someone you know" the answer to that question is pretty much "yes". Unfair, right? Welp, that's life, tiger.
"Why aren't you as equally mad about ALL the other injustices in the world?!?!"
Because it's no ones job to be equally mad about this thing over here as they are about this other thing over there.
The idea that it only matters if bad things happen to people you personally know is fucking inane. It's apathy and cynicism masquerading as wisdom.
That's literally the "fuck you, got mine" kind of attitude that peope use to justify all kinds of horrible shit towards others and isn't something that should just be shrugged off and accepted as a fact of life by anyone. And it's not even like it was happening to people far away from them, either. Gabe and Tycho are effectively for all intents and purposes involved in the game industry. They run the biggest game convention in the US several times over. It's absolutely a problem inside their own house, and they decided not to address it. I find that worthy of criticism.
If they didn't say anything about GG only because they didn't have friends personally affected by it then maybe that says something about the company they keep or what they care about in a way that makes this comic extremely eye-rolling.
Furu on
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Tycho did say something about GG, in a newspost on 10-16-2014
It is the height of ridiculousness that I feel compelled to come down on one side or another of the “death threats” issue. Like Danny Glover, I am too old for this shit. One of the ways you know I am too old is that I make references Danny Glover. Here’s what’s going on: a distilled form of Abuse is being iterated on a profound and gruesome scale. Such people cannot be allowed to win. Ever.
You can’t threaten people with death, and I resent very strongly being made to type that out. Not only can you not do that because you can’t fucking do it, it has the power to obliterate everything else you say. In fact, it obliterates everything the people around you are trying to say. That’s what has happened now. I know that this situation is more complex than anyone is willing to enunciate. I know that “Gaming Journalism” is a contradiction in terms. But they’ve broken your banner, now, and you helped them do it. I grieve for the ones who tried to do it right. When your media doesn’t represent you, or actively attacks you as it has here, it’s not your media. You’ll have to make your own, and it’s not impossible. It’s more possible now than it has ever been in human history, and you’re reading an example of it at this moment. Go your own way.
I’ve enunciated a reasonable position though, right? That you can’t threaten people’s lives? Watch me get crucified for it; let my crossbeams be made from two sturdy hashtags.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Tycho did say something about GG, in a newspost on 10-16-2014
It is the height of ridiculousness that I feel compelled to come down on one side or another of the “death threats” issue. Like Danny Glover, I am too old for this shit. One of the ways you know I am too old is that I make references Danny Glover. Here’s what’s going on: a distilled form of Abuse is being iterated on a profound and gruesome scale. Such people cannot be allowed to win. Ever.
You can’t threaten people with death, and I resent very strongly being made to type that out. Not only can you not do that because you can’t fucking do it, it has the power to obliterate everything else you say. In fact, it obliterates everything the people around you are trying to say. That’s what has happened now. I know that this situation is more complex than anyone is willing to enunciate. I know that “Gaming Journalism” is a contradiction in terms. But they’ve broken your banner, now, and you helped them do it. I grieve for the ones who tried to do it right. When your media doesn’t represent you, or actively attacks you as it has here, it’s not your media. You’ll have to make your own, and it’s not impossible. It’s more possible now than it has ever been in human history, and you’re reading an example of it at this moment. Go your own way.
I’ve enunciated a reasonable position though, right? That you can’t threaten people’s lives? Watch me get crucified for it; let my crossbeams be made from two sturdy hashtags.
Wow. Okay, no I wish he had rather said nothing. Nevermind.
At least it passes the extremely low bar of saying "death threats are bad".
Oh man I'm getting a kick out of your comments. Jerry could have said anything and you'd be trying to spin it (I mean once you find out that he did in fact say something since you didn't check yourself, naturally).
Look at Tycho making a big fuss over the stifling of creativity and the potential poverty of hundreds of hard working artists; and taking his focus off of what really matters: that one time awhile back when a lady said a game was good but actually it wasn't good.
Gabe and Tycho during the height of gamergate: nada
Gabe and Tycho in response to EA doing the same thing EA always does: literal frothing rage
This affected a colleague of Jerry's with whom he made a connection. And before you say "oh so it only matters if it's someone you know" the answer to that question is pretty much "yes". Unfair, right? Welp, that's life, tiger.
"Why aren't you as equally mad about ALL the other injustices in the world?!?!"
Because it's no ones job to be equally mad about this thing over here as they are about this other thing over there.
The idea that it only matters if bad things happen to people you personally know is fucking inane. It's apathy and cynicism masquerading as wisdom.
That's literally the "fuck you, got mine" kind of attitude that peope use to justify all kinds of horrible shit towards others and isn't something that should just be shrugged off and accepted as a fact of life by anyone. And it's not even like it was happening to people far away from them, either. Gabe and Tycho are effectively for all intents and purposes involved in the game industry. They run the biggest game convention in the US several times over. It's absolutely a problem inside their own house, and they decided not to address it. I find that worthy of criticism.
If they didn't say anything about GG only because they didn't have friends personally affected by it then maybe that says something about the company they keep or what they care about in a way that makes this comic extremely eye-rolling.
So, how much time do you set aside for each person who suffers? For each death?
There are 7.5 billion people on this planet and about 153,400 die per day, a bit more than 100 per minute, 1.4 per second (approximately) so how are you going to properly respond to all that? That is just the deaths, not the other things that happen.
Furu, stop with the lies about GG threatening people. Its been 3 years and there still isn't any verfiable evidence to support the claims you blindly believe.
EA is an elephant graveyard where studios go to die.
Do not blame EA, blame the studio that sold out to EA. Nobody put a gun to the head of the devs of the studio that took the massive payout so that EA could acquire the IP.
Everyone who sells out to EA knows their studio will eventually be shut down. They are the ones sipping Mojitos on an island resort, it is not like they are unaware of the consequences of their actions. EA just cares about making money, as did those who sold out to them.
I somehow think the workers don't have much say in who the owner sells the company they work at to.
Nah, making video games is a paradise. It's definetly not a sweatshop where you're stuck in a room going over someone elses shitty code for 18 hours a day.
+3
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
They are the ones sipping Mojitos on an island resort,.
yeah, this is definitely the real world that you're living in here
Not for employees, probably the worst industry to code for.
I was referring to those who create their own studio then sell it off to company like EA, who eventually close them down because the titles bomb out or everyone of any worth have already left, basically where Bioware is heading sometime soon and when that happens I am sure Muzyka and Zeschuk will put down their Mojitos long enough to shed a tear.
I had confused Visceral for a different studio, this one was just EA Redwood Shores, so nobody made a fortune selling off to EA this time.
I hear they have been shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic for some time and have moved a lot of mediocre developers and coders to Visceral, including some franchise killers from Bioware. I guess the easiest way to get rid of them was to pile everyone into one bus and drive it off a cliff.
Posts
Just about every Zelda and most Marios.
L.A Noire
That was a critical and commercial success. Team Bondi wasn't shut down because of LA Noire. They were shut down due to controversy from allegations of poor working conditions. Also, it sounds like they burnt some serious bridges with their publisher (R*) which caused them to basically get blackballed by the industry.
Do you think if movie studios could figure out a way to extract money after the fact that they wouldn't do exactly that?
EA is probably pure evil, though.
It does seem that the industry is focusing more on hooking people for life with content updates that keep them coming back while encouraging, or outright requiring more purchases along the way. Now, serious question, aside from WoW has that actually worked for anyone else? Destiny is the only other game that comes to mind, and I have no idea how the revenue compares. Seems to me like all the other games that try this model fizzle out pretty fast.
It's possible my tastes are as lazer focused on what I like as Jerry's and I'm missing a lot of the picture.
Frankly the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes you can make a successful AAA singleplayer game but the margin for error has decreased somewhat and the temptation to Dead Space 3 it is higher than before. And it sucks.
Films do also have much bigger revenues to compensate though, which makes comparisons difficult.
Like, in the game world, a million copies is a pretty damn successful game. That's 60 million in gross revenue. In the movie market, a 60 million gross revenue movie is called a total bomb.
[/quote]
Do you think if movie studios could figure out a way to extract money after the fact that they wouldn't do exactly that?[/quote]
But they do. The old model for a movie was 1) release to theaters 2) release on pay per view 3) network TV premier, then 4) VHS.
With some variation, this is still the model. Hell, I just noticed Blade Runner 2049 is available for pre purchase on my PS4. The movie is still in theaters.
If I'm paying serious money for a game, any extras better be a comparable value. DLC is only occasionally there but loot boxes never are, unless the game itself is so crippled I didn't buy it anyway.
They do rentals and streaming and all kinds of special editions, but a big one with movies is that almost every one is stuffed with advertising.
Seriously stuffed. Like, Superman punches a dude through a Sears? Sears paid for that shit.
Streaming channels you pay for are increasingly including ads as their "pay and then pay again" tactic. I was watching Star Trek: Discovery (on my parents' CBS All Access account, I should clarify) and there were FIVE blocks of ads in the forty-five minute episode. That's as bad as TV! Worse, even, since each ad block played literally the same three ads.
Not to mention how even in a theater, you get paywalled after a few hours and have to buy additional tickets if you want to continue watching.
Making ST:D exclusively available on a platform that you have to pay for, and contains ads, and is apparently shit-tier streaming platform, is what has made ST:D one of the most pirated current TV shows (well that and the fact that Game of Thrones is off season, I assume).
Gabe and Tycho in response to EA doing the same thing EA always does: literal frothing rage
On one hand we have publishers like EA who kills games (and entire studios) on a whim.
On the other we have publisher like Square Enix, who let their games languish in development hell for nearly a decade, whose MMO was dead on arrival but instead tossing it into F2Pdom to die a slow death, spent 2.5 years rebuilding the game to relaunch.
My point? No point. Just thought it was interesting that such different companies can exist.
Expecting different of them at this point or even 10 years ago seems inane.
This affected a colleague of Jerry's with whom he made a connection. And before you say "oh so it only matters if it's someone you know" the answer to that question is pretty much "yes". Unfair, right? Welp, that's life, tiger.
"Why aren't you as equally mad about ALL the other injustices in the world?!?!"
Because it's no ones job to be equally mad about this thing over here as they are about this other thing over there.
In fact, it's nearly impossible. But I tell you what, why don't you and I set an example? Let's get outraged about literally every misery and injustice in the world with equal measure all at the same time. So, under that assumption, I'll meet you in Puerto Rico, Las Vegas, London, Paris, Israel, IDP camps in Nigeria, Hollywood, Mexico City, pretty much any PoC community within the southern United States, etc., etc.
Being snarky because you don't think someone is outraged by the right thing or enough things is a little goosey.
I completely understand Jerry's ire, here.
On the other hand, from a business perspective I can understand how a company like EA might look at trying to make more lucrative choices as being a priority over innovation or deviation from the most profitable avenues. Gotta pay your staff; gotta keep the lights on. It's hard for people to imagine multi-billion dollar companies going in the tank but every major organization like EA is one or two gambles away from enormous layoffs. You want to lose some of your best staff? Try telling a dev who's been printing money for your company for years that their bonus got cut in half because the company gambled on another dev team and lost big. He or she is looking for the door unless they're just fiercely loyal.
There's a lot to think about.
I'm an "art for art's sake" person so I'd gamble on the unique and innovative over the sure thing. Then again, that's also why I'm not at the head of a multi-billion dollar company.
This entire situation is just one more troubling example of the gaming industry heading down a path that I personally don't care for. I can see the micro transaction and lootcrate model completely murdering AAA gaming much in the way that the FTP model murdered mobile gaming for me. The simple fact is that a great deal of investors simply don't care about gaming. They aren't going to listen to message boards, or even respected voices like Mike and Jerry. All they are going to listen to is the raw financial data. And as long as that continues to tell them what they want to here, that is the direction AAA gaming will continue to follow.
To be fair, Star Wars is a very profitable IP too ...
Also what else does SE have? xD Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and Star Ocean are the only 3 properties that come to mind - and the latest Dragon Quest took quite a while too.
The idea that it only matters if bad things happen to people you personally know is fucking inane. It's apathy and cynicism masquerading as wisdom.
That's literally the "fuck you, got mine" kind of attitude that peope use to justify all kinds of horrible shit towards others and isn't something that should just be shrugged off and accepted as a fact of life by anyone. And it's not even like it was happening to people far away from them, either. Gabe and Tycho are effectively for all intents and purposes involved in the game industry. They run the biggest game convention in the US several times over. It's absolutely a problem inside their own house, and they decided not to address it. I find that worthy of criticism.
If they didn't say anything about GG only because they didn't have friends personally affected by it then maybe that says something about the company they keep or what they care about in a way that makes this comic extremely eye-rolling.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
At least it passes the extremely low bar of saying "death threats are bad".
Oh snap! Fact checking ftw!
Oh man I'm getting a kick out of your comments. Jerry could have said anything and you'd be trying to spin it (I mean once you find out that he did in fact say something since you didn't check yourself, naturally).
So, how much time do you set aside for each person who suffers? For each death?
There are 7.5 billion people on this planet and about 153,400 die per day, a bit more than 100 per minute, 1.4 per second (approximately) so how are you going to properly respond to all that? That is just the deaths, not the other things that happen.
Do not blame EA, blame the studio that sold out to EA. Nobody put a gun to the head of the devs of the studio that took the massive payout so that EA could acquire the IP.
Everyone who sells out to EA knows their studio will eventually be shut down. They are the ones sipping Mojitos on an island resort, it is not like they are unaware of the consequences of their actions. EA just cares about making money, as did those who sold out to them.
Nah, making video games is a paradise. It's definetly not a sweatshop where you're stuck in a room going over someone elses shitty code for 18 hours a day.
yeah, this is definitely the real world that you're living in here
Not for employees, probably the worst industry to code for.
I was referring to those who create their own studio then sell it off to company like EA, who eventually close them down because the titles bomb out or everyone of any worth have already left, basically where Bioware is heading sometime soon and when that happens I am sure Muzyka and Zeschuk will put down their Mojitos long enough to shed a tear.
I had confused Visceral for a different studio, this one was just EA Redwood Shores, so nobody made a fortune selling off to EA this time.
I hear they have been shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic for some time and have moved a lot of mediocre developers and coders to Visceral, including some franchise killers from Bioware. I guess the easiest way to get rid of them was to pile everyone into one bus and drive it off a cliff.
Mojitooooo