Replies: 455 (Who?), Viewed: 58212 times.
Page 2 of 19
Forum Resident
#26 Old 17th Sep 2018 at 5:13 PM
Why are people so triggered by "political correctness" - fundamentally it's about allowing every human being of every race, gender, orientation and ability to feel like a complete human, and be represented and allowed to exist without nameless bigots whining because they kiss their partner. GET A GRIP. It does not in any way impact your personal rights to exist either -despite the fact that some of the sentiments in this thread are so odious as to be completely unpalatable. You still get to exist. And be represented. As a complete human. If you don't like something, there's NO NEED for you to absorb it and witness it, and play with it, and whine about it - just ignore it, like you do all those other issues that 'don't impact you'. It's fine. It's less damaging than coming in here and literally calling someone's existence a 'political agenda.' Did you forget that there are people out there at the other end of this? Human beings like yourself?

And it's so clear that some folks have never set foot in a corporate office in their lives. "Corrupted by greed?" Really? Look: if you hate EA, don't buy their products. Don't sit here in a forum that exists because of a game series they made and complain that other people are buying their products. Vote with your own money, and respect the right of others to do the same with theirs. I'm sick to death of seeing this crap - there are kids in this forum, why make them feel bad about liking something just because you don't like it? Do you think that makes you better than them? Or that all of us want to wade through page after page of complaints and whining only to be slammed with 'political agenda' at the end? One more time for the folks in the back: GET A GRIP.
Instructor
#27 Old 17th Sep 2018 at 5:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by terula8
Why are people so triggered by "political correctness" - fundamentally it's about allowing every human being of every race, gender, orientation and ability to feel like a complete human, and be represented and allowed to exist without nameless bigots whining because they kiss their partner. GET A GRIP. It does not in any way impact your personal rights to exist either -despite the fact that some of the sentiments in this thread are so odious as to be completely unpalatable. You still get to exist. And be represented. As a complete human. If you don't like something, there's NO NEED for you to absorb it and witness it, and play with it, and whine about it - just ignore it, like you do all those other issues that 'don't impact you'. It's fine. It's less damaging than coming in here and literally calling someone's existence a 'political agenda.' Did you forget that there are people out there at the other end of this? Human beings like yourself?


Did you even read any of the posts on this subject? It's manipulative. Not a single person here has said they have something against other races, genders, orientations or abilities, but rather money motivates these messages on their behalf and the goal is to try and keep people involved in the game via a political alliance. As I said: years (since Sims 3's release) of silencing ANY disabled community member who requests disabled sims, but at a time when toddlers were the #1, #2 and #3 demand, they released a transgender patch at a moment when transgender politics were all over the mainstream news. That's not about inclusion, that's about pulling on people's heartstrings and manipulating said heartstrings to persuade people to cough up $50.

I find that motivation disgusting, because it means tomorrow if transgender people were hunted and persecuted by 99% of the population, EA/Maxis would quickly switch sides and probably support that too. It's disgusting because they're sending a message of "we're your friend, we've got your back!" when the underlying motivation is taking their money. Just ask the disabled community: they sure haven't been eager to even let us speak, and interestingly a good chunk of their community has always seemed to frown upon the disabled. (viewing them as something to be pitied and nothing more, saying such tragedies should be kept away from a game people play to escape and relax) It's as if EA/Maxis' political alignments always seem to align with the majority of their fanbase or something!!
Mad Poster
#28 Old 17th Sep 2018 at 6:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle Cat
The longer this stuff in the headlines, the more of a ripple effect we're going to see. Every country has a right to protect their citizens from predatory practices whether it be the gaming industry or otherwise. People at EA think they're above the law. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Would be an interest If every other European country, one of which includes mine, would start following those two's footsteps.

P.S. Sorry for my bad english.
Scholar
#29 Old 18th Sep 2018 at 2:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by terula8
Why are people so triggered by "political correctness" - fundamentally it's about allowing every human being of every race, gender, orientation and ability to feel like a complete human, and be represented and allowed to exist without nameless bigots whining because they kiss their partner. GET A GRIP. It does not in any way impact your personal rights to exist either -despite the fact that some of the sentiments in this thread are so odious as to be completely unpalatable. You still get to exist. And be represented. As a complete human. If you don't like something, there's NO NEED for you to absorb it and witness it, and play with it, and whine about it - just ignore it, like you do all those other issues that 'don't impact you'. It's fine. It's less damaging than coming in here and literally calling someone's existence a 'political agenda.' Did you forget that there are people out there at the other end of this? Human beings like yourself?


I agree with you, but when a public company (not just EA) sends those messages, it is pure manipulation. It is PR to get more popular, so to get more sales. A big company will always have a more popular moral stance for this reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by terula8
And it's so clear that some folks have never set foot in a corporate office in their lives. "Corrupted by greed?" Really? Look: if you hate EA, don't buy their products. Don't sit here in a forum that exists because of a game series they made and complain that other people are buying their products. Vote with your own money, and respect the right of others to do the same with theirs. I'm sick to death of seeing this crap - there are kids in this forum, why make them feel bad about liking something just because you don't like it? Do you think that makes you better than them? Or that all of us want to wade through page after page of complaints and whining only to be slammed with 'political agenda' at the end? One more time for the folks in the back: GET A GRIP.


I never see a company as evil, but their actions can be seen as morally wrong, or in this case short sighted at the cost iof a franchise that I love. Every commercial company has the same goal, making money. But there can be a big difference in how they can go about it. And in EA's case I don't like how their game development seems to primarily evolve around monetization as opposed to good gameplay. They act more like an investment bank that funds start ups. By just looking at the return on investment.

'Voting with your wallet' rarely works in the case of games with big advertisement budgets. In the case of the sims franchise and the many years between each version, this does not work. If someone is new to the sims and only know TS4 because of that, how will they even know there were better versions if everyone keeps silent? I am sure that EA's PR department would like to make all critizism about TS4 vanish. I don't know anyone here that wants to make TS4 players feel bad. If they feel bad because others are critizising TS4 and they take that personal, it is their own fault. Why would you as potential customer not want to know that former sims versions would give you more bang for the buck? Should professional games reviewers also stay silent about the older sims versions when reviewing TS4? Are they allowed to compare?
Instructor
#30 Old 18th Sep 2018 at 8:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyWingPhoenix
Would be an interest If every other European country, one of which includes mine, would start following those two's footsteps.


Give it time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGJx_QwN4S8

The thing to realize that if EA is choosing to fight this issue, it means:

1) Legal litigation and legal fees are more cost-effective than simply throwing in the towel.

2) Loot boxes are a huge part of their profit and therefore must be protected or the company will be seriously hurt.

Everything that company does is cold and calculated. If loot boxes go, then I have no doubt that a bunch of their investors would jump ship, for example. What EA's fight here announces to us is that EA is decently invested and decently dependent on loot boxes as a cornerstone of their business.

A couple times I've stated I believe we've been viewing the beginning of the end of EA ever since Sims 4/Mass Effect Andromeda. Looks like the end might come sooner than expected. EA hasn't had a well-received title in years, and both Battlefield V and Anthem are looking like they'll bomb too. They've forgotten how to make good games and they're completely dependent on exploitative practices at this point. Unluckily for them, the world is slowly moving towards banning those exploitative practices. Each country added to the list is another million customers EA will never get back.
Mad Poster
#31 Old 18th Sep 2018 at 11:02 AM Last edited by Gargoyle Cat : 18th Sep 2018 at 12:37 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyWingPhoenix
Would be an interest If every other European country, one of which includes mine, would start following those two's footsteps.


As noted in the case for Finland, while they have gambling laws and what they will and will not allow, they don't have specific legislation for loot boxes and card packs, like those sold in FIFA. It isn't just Finland that is grappling with this, but the fact that they have recognized this issue and are willing to start the process of dealing with it with legislation is a good thing.

People around here like to get mad at me because I slam on EA, but the fact of the matter is, all the big gaming companies have been pushing their boundaries with this issue and many others. When multi-billion dollar companies start begging customers to contact their governments to bend a countries laws in the name of profit which 2K has done, it is breath taking to say the least. Also when companies of any kind feel as though they have gotten away with something, they will always try to find something else to get away with. Welcome to the world crony capitalism. If a small, privately owned company did these kinds of things, they'd be dragged to court, fined, and eventually forced out of business, at least here in the US anyway.

EA's mothership is here in the US. There is zero appetite to deal with this problem from a legislative point of view for one simple reason; people that write the laws also profit from EA's behavior. That being said, those same people will think nothing of printing billions of dollars and claim that they are going to end the problems associated with gambling. Like with most things, they never actually deal with the source of the problem, they just tack on more federal debt and expect a clap on the back for doing something. It doesn't matter what political stripes one wears on their sleeves, all of them do it. There isn't a single corner of the Banana Republic that isn't corrupt, but that is a whole other issue.

EA was warned that these problems where coming, they chose to ignore the warnings. How this story turns out for Europe has yet to be written. In the meantime, Andrew Wilson will spending much of his time being spread thin as he tries to keep the company he runs out of headlines while also dealing with legal issues that he has brought on himself. If at some point he starts asking for sympathy, I will be more than happy to tell him where to find it in the dictionary.

EDIT:

EA's Defiance Backfires as 16 Countries Sign Agreement to Fight Loot Box Threat

Will EA drag all these countries to court? A single state in the US does not constitute as the whole US. Each state has their own gambling laws. In order to deal with this problem as a whole, there needs to be federal action, of which there is none.
Instructor
#32 Old 18th Sep 2018 at 1:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle Cat

EA's Defiance Backfires as 16 Countries Sign Agreement to Fight Loot Box Threat

Will EA drag all these countries to court? A single state in the US does not constitute as the whole US. Each state has their own gambling laws. In order to deal with this problem as a whole, there needs to be federal action, of which there is none.


I think you miss the point. Federal action would be welcome, but it's not needed here. EA is doomed regardless.

If EA is taking Belgium to court, it's because it was cost-effective to do so. Potential losses from legal fees and fines were likely nothing compared to potential profit losses from removing loot boxes. EA acted as they did because it was still profitable to do so.

Even if there's no federal level ban on such practices, every country and every state that joins in with this legislation is another place EA cannot profit. And as we've seen via Belgium's example, one quickly snowballs into many. Two weeks ago it was Belgium, now it's 18. In the same way that EA carefully analyzes if it's cost-effective to oppose Belgium, eventually they'll hit a point where it isn't cost-effective to make games designed around loot boxes when X% of their consumers live in countries or states prohibiting such games. Eventually it'll force them to back off because it simply isn't profitable to continue.

A federal reaction would be nice, but it's not neccesary. Loot boxes are gonna die one way or another. Another plus is that EA has probably just pissed off everyone else in the industry since it was EA's fault that this entire discussion started. Counter Strike, Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch are just some other games that have non-predatory loot boxes offering cosmetics only. I'm sure plenty of their playerbase are more than happy to know those games are sustained off of such a system that allows them to be free or a one-time-charge, with cosmetics funding the server costs otherwise. NOW those games are in jeoprady because of EA, and I bet companies like Valve, 2k, Activision and Blizzard aren't too happy with EA because of it.
Mad Poster
#33 Old 18th Sep 2018 at 1:40 PM
Sweeeet. EA has some whooping to endure. That brat finally got the taste of its own medicine backfired.

P.S. Sorry for my bad english.
Mad Poster
#34 Old 18th Sep 2018 at 2:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeservedCriticism
I think you miss the point. Federal action would be welcome, but it's not needed here. EA is doomed regardless.



You underestimate how much of a fight Senators and Representatives in the House on the federal side ( this also means influencing the states they represent) of the US will fight to protect the companies that bolster their stock holdings. With that, do you really believe CA is going to let one of their most profitable tech companies in the state go up in flames without a fight? CA has no money for such battles, but they'll find some. Some budget (s) will be cut somewhere...

With this new news doesn't bring new laws, it's a discussion at this point. As for the rest of it, why would Blizzard and the like be happy that EA won't keep their mouths shut? EA is exposing not only themselves but everybody else that engages in the this same crap. While what they are doing isn't funny, the unintended consequences of EA thinking their bullying meant something is hilarious.

Nobody would be complaining if loot boxes could be earned in game by means of doing quests, reaching accomplishments, ect... which would then allow loot boxes to be used for cosmetic upgrades, but that isn't what this is about. Having such a system doesn't rake in profits and since these companies won't fix the problem themselves, they are having their hands forced.
Instructor
#36 Old 19th Sep 2018 at 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle Cat
You underestimate how much of a fight Senators and Representatives in the House on the federal side ( this also means influencing the states they represent) of the US will fight to protect the companies that bolster their stock holdings. With that, do you really believe CA is going to let one of their most profitable tech companies in the state go up in flames without a fight? CA has no money for such battles, but they'll find some. Some budget (s) will be cut somewhere...


That's my point though.

Say it unfolds as you say. Senators and the House refuse to put a ban on such an act and call it fair play, but states like Washington go through with banning the practice on a state level. I highly doubt states such as Maine and Vermont wouldn't follow suit. Meanwhile, let's imagine it goes down like you said and California insists loot boxes are fine and should be allowed.

What motivation do states like Texas, Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania have to not ban the damned things? Yes, California is a lot of customers, but so is everywhere else that has no vested interest in protecting EA. Every single day the walls close in a little more and every single day, EA is losing potential customers for a lootbox system.

If California protects loot boxes, that's 40mil customers EA can still sell lootboxes to. If Belgium, Spain, France, Poland, Latvia, The Netherlands, Isle of Man, Jersey, Gibraltar, UK, Portugal, Norway, Washington State, Austria, Malta, Finland and Ireland all refuse to support such a platform, that's 288 million customers EA can no longer solicit their lootbox games to. Do you believe the profit accrued from lootbox games being sold to 40 million people outweighs the profit of selling normal $50 titles to 288 million customers? Those 288 million customers provide 14 billion dollars in revenue just from a normal purchase. For the lootbox consumers to compete, each one needs to spend $353 dollars on average. Eventually it hits a point where that simply doesn't happen and skipping the lootboxes would yield more profit. Hell, even if the entirety of the USA save for Washington state were to say lootboxes are fair game, with those European countries alone, EA has lost almost half of the USA's entire consumerbase population-wise. Their revenue is gonna drop, and I find it no coincidence their stock does not seem to be recovering from a downturn like it did after the Battlefront 2 debacle. It continues to drop as investors back out and prepare for the inevitable.

See the problem? Eventually it hits a point where it's simply more profitable to sell normal games with a $50 pricetag to ALL markets than it is to sell lootbox games that have greater profit, but can only be sold to a fraction of the market. The walls are closing in. EA is acting in defiance now because it's still profitable to do so. Eventually though, it'll cease to be profitable and they'll cave. And once they cave, I do question if EA even remembers how to make a video game. EA is in trouble here, they just don't seem to know it yet.
Mad Poster
#37 Old 19th Sep 2018 at 1:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeservedCriticism
That's my point though.

Say it unfolds as you say. Senators and the House refuse to put a ban on such an act and call it fair play, but states like Washington go through with banning the practice on a state level. I highly doubt states such as Maine and Vermont wouldn't follow suit. Meanwhile, let's imagine it goes down like you said and California insists loot boxes are fine and should be allowed.

What motivation do states like Texas, Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania have to not ban the damned things? Yes, California is a lot of customers, but so is everywhere else that has no vested interest in protecting EA. Every single day the walls close in a little more and every single day, EA is losing potential customers for a lootbox system.

If California protects loot boxes, that's 40mil customers EA can still sell lootboxes to. If Belgium, Spain, France, Poland, Latvia, The Netherlands, Isle of Man, Jersey, Gibraltar, UK, Portugal, Norway, Washington State, Austria, Malta, Finland and Ireland all refuse to support such a platform, that's 288 million customers EA can no longer solicit their lootbox games to. Do you believe the profit accrued from lootbox games being sold to 40 million people outweighs the profit of selling normal $50 titles to 288 million customers? Those 288 million customers provide 14 billion dollars in revenue just from a normal purchase. For the lootbox consumers to compete, each one needs to spend $353 dollars on average. Eventually it hits a point where that simply doesn't happen and skipping the lootboxes would yield more profit. Hell, even if the entirety of the USA save for Washington state were to say lootboxes are fair game, with those European countries alone, EA has lost almost half of the USA's entire consumerbase population-wise. Their revenue is gonna drop, and I find it no coincidence their stock does not seem to be recovering from a downturn like it did after the Battlefront 2 debacle. It continues to drop as investors back out and prepare for the inevitable.

See the problem? Eventually it hits a point where it's simply more profitable to sell normal games with a $50 pricetag to ALL markets than it is to sell lootbox games that have greater profit, but can only be sold to a fraction of the market. The walls are closing in. EA is acting in defiance now because it's still profitable to do so. Eventually though, it'll cease to be profitable and they'll cave. And once they cave, I do question if EA even remembers how to make a video game. EA is in trouble here, they just don't seem to know it yet.


In order for anything to get passed on the US federal side of the ledger, it has to through the House and Senate. While Senators and Reps from the House can write bills all day long, that doesn't mean such bills will ever see the light of day. A lone Rep from Washington State isn't going to get far if 100 Senators and over 400 members of the House decide that something else is more important. It is a election year, they don't care about loot boxes.

As far as individual states go, I know my own home state wouldn't put a end to loot boxes simply because when people go to the store to by a game even if it is just to get a code that has to registered with Origin or Steam, that purchase means tax revenue. I have yet to hear about any state that collects sales tax scream about how they make too much money from sales tax.

We haven't heard from countries such as Germany and their thoughts regarding this whole mess. The UK which brings in piles of cash for EA and doesn't consider loot boxes gambling, nor does New Zealand. The only definitive countries at the moment where EA is in violation is Belgium and the Netherlands.

Australia did a study in regards to the connection between loot boxes and gambling. EA & ESRB Lies Shut Down as Australia Study Finds Loot Boxes Are Psychologically Gambling. EA has been lobbying the ESRB like crazy as a means to justify what they are doing as I'm sure the rest of them have been as well.

The findings from the study didn't reveal anything that we didn't already know. Their suggestions of how to deal with this problem may work for Australia, but I'm not convinced that they'd work here in the US. Parents mindlessly buy games for their kids without spending 5 minutes to research what they are buying and flashing a warning on a screen stating that a game has a adult rating doesn't mean much either. Twitch is full of subscribers of underage kids that are not supposed to be there regardless of the rating of the game the streamer is playing. Ratings are pointless if nobody bothers to read them and or follow them. Age restriction also doesn't mean anything because mindless buying from parents, siblings, grandparents, ect...

Speaking of ratings, the ESRB has had all tools needed to at least get information to the public and to start getting the ball rolling to rein this problem in. Instead of doing the right thing, they opted to whistle past the graveyard. There is a whole lot of monkey business going on every front and until people get serious about all the sources of said monkey business, it is going to be along time before we see the end.

Yes, the more money that is taken away from EA means less profits, I'm not debating that. However, we're talking about the gaming industry here. While all of this stuff going on, there is no saying that there isn't some other form of a pay mechanism in the works. I've read comments on Yong's videos about how gaming companies will simply pile on more DLC to make up for the losses of loot box revenue. As a sims player, I'm fully aware of how that trap works as does anybody else that plays sims.

If EA's demise is in the cards, it is going to be a slow death which is my point. The EA empire isn't going to collapse any time soon. I've been watching EA's stocks and while they've bounced around, they've been doing that for awhile. The recent drop was because of the delay in the release of Battlefield, not because of the loot box chatter. At this point I'm more curious about whether Andrew Wilson will keep his job or not. Only time will tell how much of a shit storm he can cause before investors start thumping the backs of their chairs demanding that he needs to go.
Scholar
#38 Old 19th Sep 2018 at 10:19 PM Last edited by mithrak_nl : 19th Sep 2018 at 10:21 PM. Reason: typomania
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
Well it's helped neither their public perception nor their sales and they've been at it for a while. That being said they have to be true believers to keep it up this long despite all the hits they're taking... either that or really stupid. My money's on both.


Well, I don't think they are stupid (some of the gurus maybe are in a naieve kind of way), but more that the decision makers have a very different take on this. Top level EA and their shareholders probably don't care about your sentiment. Making the shareholders happy is what it is about. Everything on the top level with EA becomes this abstract scenario about return on investment and their predictions for the coming years. Not unimportant details (in their eyes) whether TS4 gameplay is good enough, or how their fanbase is annoyed with the direction that the sims franchise is heading. On the top level they look at monetization and change course based on that.

This is what I meant with how EA tends to act more like an investment bank instead of a gaming company. They cut their losses and give franchises a slow death if they think it is financially necessary and they can also defend that to the shareholders. This is also why guru's communication about TS4 to us, is basically meaningless if it comes to trying to predict whether TS4 will recover etc. The TS4 devs have to deal with the resources (budget and developers) they get assigned, which is based on past profits and whatever business strategy they turned to for the coming years.

So it could've gone like this. TS3 was highly popular and a financial hit. But EA decides to focus on multiplayer and mobile gaming, because that is where the money is at in their eyes. So they want to turn TS4 into an online game because of this. This got a huge backlash from community. So they had to scrap that idea if they get the impression that online TS4 would not sell well. But this (not being online game) also hits their predicted revenue. A way to financially deal with that, is by cutting costs. With as result, a minimal budget and small amount of time to salvage what they already had for TS4, and thus a sure way to make TS4 kind of limited compared to TS3. What does this mean for TS5? Their focus is still on monetizing online games and mobile games. If TS5 will happen and stay singleplayer, I don't expect a big budget. Instead I expect again a small budget and again more fragmentation of features and content, so they can nickle and dime us to hell and back.

Singleplayer games and EA is not a good combo atm.
One Minute Ninja'd
#39 Old 19th Sep 2018 at 11:02 PM
In a sense EA did call things correctly in its movement in the direction of mobile gaming. That call is even clearer now than four years ago when TS4 launched and the few years prior when development started. Bottom line is that a greater percentage of the population are viewing their connected mobile devices as their primary computer. The market didn't look quite like that 7 years ago. Consumers have gotten on board with free to play in app purchases and it's pretty silly to believe a large public gaming company would ignore that out of some desire for artistic freedom in developing new games.

EA should have left this iteration alone and released it as an online game as intended. The engine was built for that purpose and has translated poorly into a single player experience. That online model would have kept revenues up, and if market studies indicated a large enough audience for a single player iteration in the vein of the predessors that should have followed on a separate track.

As to the politics or morals of the company, I cannot see any decisions in game development of TS4 that were driven with those as primary motivations. Other business practices in other products from EA may reflect on the tenor of its leadership, but I have a tough time seeing in what concrete manner that influenced the choices made in this franchise.

Oh, and mental illness was already done in this franchise back with the insane trait in TS3. I don't recall any moral outrage at the use of the pejorative of insane in describing those with mental illness.
Mad Poster
#40 Old 19th Sep 2018 at 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskie227

EA should have left this iteration alone and released it as an online game as intended. The engine was built for that purpose and has translated poorly into a single player experience. That online model would have kept revenues up, and if market studies indicated a large enough audience for a single player iteration in the vein of the predessors that should have followed on a separate track.

As to the politics or morals of the company, I cannot see any decisions in game development of TS4 that were driven with those as primary motivations. Other business practices in other products from EA may reflect on the tenor of its leadership, but I have a tough time seeing in what concrete manner that influenced the choices made in this franchise.

Oh, and mental illness was already done in this franchise back with the insane trait in TS3. I don't recall any moral outrage at the use of the pejorative of insane in describing those with mental illness.


EA had other ideas when it came to the mobile market and the sims. Sims Mobile is free to play, but if a person wants to advance in the game, they have to pay out by means of micro-transactions and loot boxes as DeservedCriticism and I have been talking about. It is a game that can drain a persons' wallet faster than they can shake a stick if they are not careful. Sims Mobile uses assets from TS4, how convenient.

TS4 is not like TS1, TS2 or even TS3; I don't mean that in a good way. There is a whole different mentality being put forward. When gurus freak out over dog houses and state that dog houses are a form of abuse, there is stuff going on that goes beyond skin deep. As far as the mental stuff goes, there were nods to this in TS2 as well when sims had a breakdown. There was no outrage then either. As a FYI, the former insane trait was changed to 'Erratic' for TS4, but they left the icon which symbolizes insane. Go figure.

I know you've been away for awhile. You have missed lots of drama...
One Minute Ninja'd
#41 Old 20th Sep 2018 at 12:54 AM
So I have. Although the drama seems pretty close to what I remember back in the day. This franchise probably generates more emotional reactions than others due to its basic premise, a life simulation. Other games and their followers can get quite emotional over game play and balance issues, but typically not to the extent this franchise does. Let's face it, nothing will hit closer to home than a simulation of people's behaviors.

As to the issues of mobile microtransactions and the free to play in game purchase model, well, it works. Players buy it. They might bitch about it but they'll still vote with devoting commuting times and dollars to keep a game going. If they didn't it wouldn't rule the app store.

I remember a wonderful golf simulation from EA for iOS back in the iPhone 3 days from EA of Tiger Woods golf. Really well done and you bought it and played it. No additional in game begging for money to advance your ability. Just flat out great single player golf.

It no longer exists. Why? Multi-player and in app purchases took over game development. Not one of which is of as high quality as that game was. Now if an updated anything came out with the same well designed game play I'd buy it outright. The problem is there aren't enough of me's out there for a company like EA to make it profitable. Folks like to feel they're getting a good deal. And that's what free to play caters to. EA and all the other publishers are well aware only a minority of free to play users will be drawn in and invest their time and money in the game du jour. But that's OK, the minority more than make up for any retention losses they will have, so long as the minority is sufficient, and if not it's simply an unsuccessful game that will disappear.

It's not that long ago people were willing to buy all sorts of stuff in MMORPGs because they wanted to advance but didn't have the time or attention span to do it themselves. What's happened with in app purchases is that amateur grinding out and selling the assets by individuals has gone corporate. And you can't blame a company for not doing what folks were already paying for to some third party to do for them. And some of that stuff got real expensive on eBay, so it didn't take a wild leap of imagination for companies to take advantage of a revenue source that already validated itself.

To be clear I'm not saying any if this is great stuff for the gaming world. My personal opinion is it sucks, lowers development quality, and rewards whoever designs the best fly trap for gamers with dollars willing to go with the model . But I can't blame the industry for monetizing transactions that already appealed to a subset of gamers.
Mad Poster
#42 Old 20th Sep 2018 at 1:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskie227

It's not that long ago people were willing to buy all sorts of stuff in MMORPGs because they wanted to advance but didn't have the time or attention span to do it themselves. What's happened with in app purchases is that amateur grinding out and selling the assets by individuals has gone corporate. And you can't blame a company for not doing what folks were already paying for to some third party to do for them. And some of that stuff got real expensive on eBay, so it didn't take a wild leap of imagination for companies to take advantage of a revenue source that already validated itself.

To be clear I'm not saying any if this is great stuff for the gaming world. My personal opinion is it sucks, lowers development quality, and rewards whoever designs the best fly trap for gamers with dollars willing to go with the model . But I can't blame the industry for monetizing transactions that already appealed to a subset of gamers.


EA is currently being criminally investigated for being in direct violation of gambling laws in Belgium. EA was warned, they think they are bigger than law. Yes, I will hold their feet to the fire. May the consequences of their actions set a example to the rest of the gaming industry.

As for the dog house nonsense, I've spent well over 20 years rescuing abused and neglected animals. I don't need lip service from a lead producer of a video game telling me that a dog house is abuse. Animal abuse is ugly and I do not appreciate his cheapening of the cause because he has emotional issues of things made of wood or plastic.
Top Secret Researcher
#43 Old 20th Sep 2018 at 3:19 AM
Frankly, this US House and Senate can't pass much of *anything*. Even if "encouraged" by "corporate donors." Most dysfunctional Congress I've ever seen. We'll have to see if it's more functional after the Nov. elections, but I'm not keeping my hopes terribly high.
Lab Assistant
#44 Old 20th Sep 2018 at 3:39 AM
I love how this went from ranting about Sims 4 to some kind of political topic XD Welp better than people being salty about Sims 4.
Scholar
#45 Old 20th Sep 2018 at 4:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMT13
I love how this went from ranting about Sims 4 to some kind of political topic XD Welp better than people being salty about Sims 4.

Actually I don't really like salt all that much. I prefer it plain with ketchup on my french fries.
Mad Poster
#46 Old 20th Sep 2018 at 6:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMT13
I love how this went from ranting about Sims 4 to some kind of political topic XD Welp better than people being salty about Sims 4.


Title of thread -----> why is ea so bad tho?

In case you haven't noticed, ShadowMT13, there is more to EA than TS4. Welp, don't let that stop you from twisting the conversation out of context or anything though.
Mad Poster
#47 Old 20th Sep 2018 at 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle Cat
EA is currently being criminally investigated for being in direct violation of gambling laws in Belgium. EA was warned, they think they are bigger than law. Yes, I will hold their feet to the fire. May the consequences of their actions set a example to the rest of the gaming industry.

As for the dog house nonsense, I've spent well over 20 years rescuing abused and neglected animals. I don't need lip service from a lead producer of a video game telling me that a dog house is abuse. Animal abuse is ugly and I do not appreciate his cheapening of the cause because he has emotional issues of things made of wood or plastic.

I'll take a guess the crew was more than lazy to mesh that object since well that object is well-3D looking, rather his over-emotional self that took over his decision. To further back up my theory, just look at pet beds: their freaking mats of two tissues. He had to think of some kind of excuse.

Also, on a related to-the-thread side of note, I'm gonna put this out: EA & ESRB Lies Shut Down as Australia Study Finds Loot Boxes Are Psychologically Gambling.

P.S. Sorry for my bad english.
Scholar
#48 Old 22nd Sep 2018 at 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
- Their idea of PR consists of...milking tragedies like the Jacksonville shooting

In EA's "defense", the shooting happened at an event for one of their products. No company - not even EA - deserves that kind of baggage associated with their product. And from what I heard about the shooter, he wasn't even angry at EA (so they can be self-righteous even in their rightful victimhood), just losing, it seems.

But the rest of EA PR - especially all the lip service to diversity - is hollow virtue signalling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle Cat
What gets me about this whole so-called politically correct ordeal is they do things then turn around and contradict themselves. They removed the insane trait ( while leaving the insane icon) because it was deemed offensive, but adult sims can push and shove kids. What kind of messaging is that? Last time I checked, it has never been politically correct for adults to walk around pushing kids around. This of course is just one example.

EA's idea of wholesome family moments is DaddyOFive.

1/8/2016: New avatar! Pre-censored for EA's approval.
3/19/2015: Teens are too close to YAs. EA needs to either shorten the teens, or add preteens and make YAs look older.
Mad Poster
#49 Old 22nd Sep 2018 at 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChillgood

EA's idea of wholesome family moments is DaddyOFive.


I was watching a video the other day about Halo which I don't give a fig about. However, what did catch my attention was there was mention of how Microsoft hires psychology experts so the devs can put things in game to pull on a players heart strings. I almost immediately thought of this thread and wondered what type of psychology experts EA hires that believe that adults bullying children is okay. Calling this matter disturbing is a understatement. Video is here if anybody wants to watch it.
Scholar
#50 Old 22nd Sep 2018 at 6:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle Cat
I was watching a video the other day about Halo which I don't give a fig about. However, what did catch my attention was there was mention of how Microsoft hires psychology experts so the devs can put things in game to pull on a players heart strings. I almost immediately thought of this thread and wondered what type of psychology experts EA hires that believe that adults bullying children is okay. Calling this matter disturbing is a understatement. Video is here if anybody wants to watch it.

Wow video game companies these days are really getting desperate.
Page 2 of 19
Back to top