Replies: 455 (Who?), Viewed: 58212 times.
Page 3 of 19
Scholar
#51 Old 22nd Sep 2018 at 6:16 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.

IIRC, there was a video where Lucy Bradshaw and Rachel Franklin bragged about not hiring psychologists. One of them has a bachelor's in psychology, can't remember which one.

It was bad enough that mobile games have become addictive. Now they want to reduce mainstream gaming to the same addictive product.

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
#52 Old 22nd Sep 2018 at 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChillgood
IIRC, there was a video where Lucy Bradshaw and Rachel Franklin bragged about not hiring psychologists. One of them has a bachelor's in psychology, can't remember which one.

It was bad enough that mobile games have become addictive. Now they want to reduce mainstream gaming to the same addictive product.


I missed that one.

A person couldn't pay me to play a live service game with a 10-foot pole from any gaming company. Not only are they addictive for those that are inclined ( I'm not one them), but EA patented how to manipulate their games which in turn manipulates players. Even in their own patent, they talk about how getting players to spend more is essentially the bottom line via means of removing fair matchmaking.

For a company that boasts about creating games that are fun, fair and how they have moral compass, their own patents tell a completely different story. Blech! It legit makes my skin crawl.
Field Researcher
#53 Old 23rd Sep 2018 at 4:00 PM
EA is awful. Should go back to look how Sims 2 was and make changes of Sims 4, ect. Overpriced for little content.

View all My Sims 4 Creations here https://kiarasimsfourmods.home.blog/

Patreon here www.patreon.com/kiarasims4mods

KiaraSims4Mods Discord - https://discord.com/invite/TykFPkY
Test Subject
#54 Old 2nd Oct 2018 at 8:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyWingPhoenix
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.


I have been playing a Steam title (not by EA) called "I Can't Believe Its Not Gambling". In this game, ALL you do is open loot boxes. Unfortunately, due to the ruling in Belgium, the makers of that game made it unplayable (including to players in the United States who are not bound by any anti-loot box laws) by changing it to "Belgium Waffle Edition". I miss that game, because of the WAY it did loot boxes. For one thing, you pay only once for the game. No microtransactions. (At least none I remember: at least none I participated in for sure). You get a certain number of loot boxes a day. Each loot box is shaped differently, and based on its shape, it has different contents. The game is about collecting items. I tend to like collecting stuff, so I enjoyed the game.

So, I think loot boxes in themselves are not completely bad BUT certain limits should be imposed on them. (1) It is important that the number of loot boxes available each day be limited. (2) It is important that players not pay ANYTHING ($0!) extra to obtain loot boxes, unless the game is advertised as a gambling game, and subject to gambling game restrictions. (3) Loot box availability as a reward for gameplay might be permissible if daily loot reward boxes are limited in number. (4) Items should not be available exclusively in loot boxes - there should be other ways to obtain them.
Field Researcher
#55 Old 2nd Oct 2018 at 6:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simsilikesims
I have been playing a Steam title (not by EA) called "I Can't Believe Its Not Gambling". In this game, ALL you do is open loot boxes. Unfortunately, due to the ruling in Belgium, the makers of that game made it unplayable (including to players in the United States who are not bound by any anti-loot box laws) by changing it to "Belgium Waffle Edition". I miss that game, because of the WAY it did loot boxes. For one thing, you pay only once for the game. No microtransactions. (At least none I remember: at least none I participated in for sure). You get a certain number of loot boxes a day. Each loot box is shaped differently, and based on its shape, it has different contents. The game is about collecting items. I tend to like collecting stuff, so I enjoyed the game.

So, I think loot boxes in themselves are not completely bad BUT certain limits should be imposed on them. (1) It is important that the number of loot boxes available each day be limited. (2) It is important that players not pay ANYTHING ($0!) extra to obtain loot boxes, unless the game is advertised as a gambling game, and subject to gambling game restrictions. (3) Loot box availability as a reward for gameplay might be permissible if daily loot reward boxes are limited in number. (4) Items should not be available exclusively in loot boxes - there should be other ways to obtain them.


Good ideas about loot boxs, but that would kill the way EA and others want to make money, they need the microtransactions it is about 60% of there income. Might work with a company less greedy then EA.
Mad Poster
#56 Old 30th Oct 2018 at 12:16 PM
Quote:
KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Evan Wingren cut his rating on Electronic Arts Inc. EA, -5.23% shares to sector weight from overweight on Monday, writing that he sees a "lack of positive catalysts" and has concerns about the company's ability to execute in the next 12 months. "We have been wrong, as [EA's stock] has corrected sharply from its highs and underperformed," Wingren wrote of his prior bullish rating. "Despite this correction, visibility remains low, we expect negative estimate revisions, and we have diminished confidence in the pipeline, which is likely to continue to limit valuation expansion in the near term." Wingren said that both "Battlefield V" and "Anthem" have witnessed the departures of crucial leaders, and he has "low visibility" on the potential for live services within these titles


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/e...banc-2018-10-29

Whoops! The 'important people' are not happy with EA. It is a rare sight to see investors admit they've been wrong. He isn't kidding about the correction though. EA's stock went from $151.00 to $91.00 as of this morning before opening bell.
Smeg Head
#57 Old 30th Oct 2018 at 1:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inge Jones
Companies at the top of the market generally have a lot of naysayers. I am sure they're really no better or worse than any other successful game company.


I'm late to this thread, just reading it for first time and got as far as Inge's post before I felt the need to contribute.

When the same guy keeps winning the World Poker Championships consecutively year after year, it's not because he's lucky at cards and unlucky in love (as the old myth goes). He's got some genuine skills. When the old nana keeps winning the baking competitions every season with her delectable pies, it's not because she's lucky at breaking eggs. And when EA finds themselves continually voted the worst on two major lists, for worst in the gaming industry for their practices (greed and shitty customer services.) and worst as a business overall, always floating between the second and top slot year in and year out, it's not because they have the occasional bad day like all the others you mention, and not because there's a relentless army of naysayers eager to do them in. It's because they are that fucking bad, "tho,", period.

"Become a government informer. Betray your family and friends. Fabulous prizes to be won!" Red Dwarf - Back to Reality.

Find all my TS4 mods and lots here: Main Website - simsasylum.com My Section - coolspear's Mods & Lots
Mad Poster
#58 Old 30th Oct 2018 at 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolspear1
...when EA finds themselves continually voted the worst on two major lists, for worst in the gaming industry for their practices (greed and shitty customer services.) and worst as a business overall, always floating between the second and top slot year in and year out, it's not because they have the occasional bad day like all the others you mention, and not because there's a relentless army of naysayers eager to do them in. It's because they are that fucking bad, "tho,", period.


Instead of throwing shade at Rock Star / Take Two Studios who are hardly angelic by any definition of the word, EA should still take notes. Maybe just a few, on a pad of Post It Notes.

Quote:
YongYea @YongYea

Red Dead Redemption 2 crushed sales records by having the biggest launch weekend in entertainment history, raking in $725 million in just 3 days, or over 10 million units sold.


https://twitter.com/YongYea/status/1057352621692985344

The first note, written with a bright red sharpie: Single player games are not dead.
Second note, written with the same sharpie: We (EA) are morons for saying such a stupid thing to begin with.
Mad Poster
#60 Old 31st Oct 2018 at 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
Tbh I think Rockstar's monetization is worse. At least EA faced the shit storm with their loot boxes and is dealing with the consequences, whereas the "Grinding vs Shark Cards" driven model of GTA Online is so good at playing to people's stupidity and addictive tendencies that they'll never be outlawed or receive nearly enough backlash to warrant a change. They've bamboozled people into thinking they're getting free DLC when in fact all they've done is give them a choice: pay with money, or pay with labor. (or cheat if you're on PC)

Price is steep either way.


I guess you missed the part where I said Rock Star isn't angelic.

As for EA dealing with the consequences for loot boxes, what consequences? They haven't faced any...yet.
Mad Poster
#62 Old 31st Oct 2018 at 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
They'll never face real consequences....


Do you have something to share with the class regarding the EA vs Belgium lawsuit? I haven't heard anything about it and there is no shortage of others that are waiting to hear something about it as well.

As for EA itself, while the issues as of late have had nothing to do with loot boxes, there has been no shortage of EA being thrown under the bus and it hasn't been from suspects such as yours truly.

https://investorplace.com/2018/10/f...stock-not-game/

https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ra...ent=ticker_page

https://247wallst.com/media/2018/10...ion+Partners%29

This of course the the end result of allowing the stock market to run a business, but all that aside, it would be a real kick to the head if EA lost the loot box issue as well across the pond. Only time will tell if Karma will deliver on that front.
Mad Poster
#64 Old 1st Nov 2018 at 1:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
The fact that they are being investigated by Belgian authorities and their stocks are dropping as a result of the bad press is itself a consequence.


No, that is not that is not why EA stocks are tanking. If you read the the stories within the links you would know what the issues are.

You're trying really hard to twist this on Rock Star, but the fact of the matter is, if EA loses in the Belgium lawsuit, all the other gaming companies that sell products that contain loot boxes will also lose revenue if they sell their games in the 16/ 17 countries that are putting up a stink about.

Have fun ranting about Rock Star.
Mad Poster
#65 Old 1st Nov 2018 at 1:30 AM Last edited by lil bag2 : 1st Nov 2018 at 3:43 AM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
Tbh I think Rockstar's monetization is worse. At least EA faced the shit storm with their loot boxes and is dealing with the consequences, whereas the "Grinding vs Shark Cards" driven model of GTA Online is so good at playing to people's stupidity and addictive tendencies that they'll never be outlawed or receive nearly enough backlash to warrant a change. They've bamboozled people into thinking they're getting free DLC when in fact all they've done is give them a choice: pay with money, or pay with labor. (or cheat if you're on PC)


The Shark Card thing may be a slightly dirty move on Rock Star's part but I'd hardly count it as anything that makes them worse than EA. Especially when money is sooooo fucking easy to make in GTA without ever needing to resort to a Shark Card. Seriously. If you have a rubber band and one other person with you, you can make at least a million a night. And even if you didn't wanna exploit the game like that, they give you SO many opportunities to make money with a little patience, you can't help but wonder why people buy the Shark Cards in the first place. There's nothing wrong with grinding to reach the top in these games but if you wanna buy your way there, you have the option to do that too. It's not like a loot box system where you're only paying for the chance to win something. At least you know what you're buying xD

The Receptacle still lives!
Mad Poster
#66 Old 1st Nov 2018 at 1:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lil bag2
It's not like a loot boxes system where you're only paying for the chance to win something. At least you know what you're buying xD


Isn't that the truth. In FIFA 18, there is less than one percent of getting a top player. What is even worse is people don't know what the exact number is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSU...eature=youtu.be

I wonder the odds are on mobile game like Sims Mobile? I'm willing to bet a doughnut they are not much better for those hoping to get what they want.
Mad Poster
#67 Old 1st Nov 2018 at 3:48 AM
Yeah. Meanwhile, the only thing I can fault Rock Star for is how ridiculously expensive they make a lot of their DLC items....but then, you only need to pay with in game currency which is super easy to make. You can literally make millions in your sleep

I'll take a couple of in game expensive items as long as the DLC, itself, continues to be free.

And then you have EA, who are so dead set on their assertion that "gambling is the future of gaming" that they're willing to go to Belgium court when it would just be easier to...you know...cut out all this deceptive loot box nonsense.

The Receptacle still lives!
Mad Poster
#68 Old 1st Nov 2018 at 7:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lil bag2
Yeah. Meanwhile, the only thing I can fault Rock Star for is how ridiculously expensive they make a lot of their DLC items....but then, you only need to pay with in game currency which is super easy to make. You can literally make millions in your sleep

I'll take a couple of in game expensive items as long as the DLC, itself, continues to be free.

And then you have EA, who are so dead set on their assertion that "gambling is the future of gaming" that they're willing to go to Belgium court when it would just be easier to...you know...cut out all this deceptive loot box nonsense.


Earning things in game is one thing. I don't play GTA personally, but I know plenty of people that do and they've never bought Shark cards.

I've read all the arguments from people that feel the need to defend EA. They will say anything.

"EA needs loot boxes / micro-transactions as games are expensive to make." That's fine, but making quality games also brings in lots of revenue. $725 million earned in 3 days with the new Red Dead makes that point. EA is a multi-billion dollar company, they can handle it.

"EA needs loot boxes / micro-transactions to stay competitive." If EA becomes the poster child in this whole issue and they lose, the competition is going to lose money as well as countries develop their own laws and rules regarding gambling in games. It isn't just Belgium and the Netherlands that are pissed about about this whole thing.

From this point, the discussion goes down hill. The comments about being a hater and all that other junk starts to bubble to the surface. If these same people are then reminded that a CEO and his henchmen do not need to give themselves bonuses to the tune of 30 plus million a year, they get their noses bent out of joint about that. Oddly enough, many of these same people spend much of their time trolling the internet complaining about capitalism. What EA is doing is engaging in crony capitalism, but who needs details. I don't understand how people can defend EA's behavior while complaining about crony capitalism at the same time, but I've learned to walk away at that point. The headache that comes with trying to use logic with many of these people isn't worth it and I'm not that desperate to win a argument.

At the end of the day, EA has bigger problems brewing. They are losing revenue due to their own behavior and their overlords on Wall Street are not happy. The overlords want more loot boxes and micro-transactions while people are getting sick and tired of them. It is a fight that EA is going to have to have. They choose to remain a publicly traded company, so let the fur fly. The overlords are not complaining about TS4, they don't care about sims. What they do care about is FIFA, Anthem, Battlefield V, ect... Comments on YouTube or in this case, a sims forum that odds are said overlords have probably never heard of are not the problem.
Mad Poster
#69 Old 1st Nov 2018 at 1:18 PM
That whole "we need loot boxes because games are expensive" kinda falls flat when EA is one of the only big name developers that abuses the system to this extent. And they are the one of richest ones so they REALLY have no excuse. They can afford to make these games just fine. They just want more money. They don't need it. Which wouldn't normally be a bad thing...if it didn't involve, you know, tricking people into gambling. Regular old paid DLC was just fine. Customers know what they're buying and EA gets their money.

The Receptacle still lives!
Mad Poster
#71 Old 1st Nov 2018 at 9:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
Last I checked you were the one who brought up Rockstar. Between that and how obviously irritated you are by my views on them I'm starting to see a pattern.

Have fun ranting about EA, 'cause we haven't heard anyone doing that in a while. /s




Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
Complete. Utter. Nonsense. You must either be r/gtaonline regular or you've never actually played GTA Online to be this far in denial.

Look, my brainwashed friend. Currency in GTA Online isn't easy to make, alright? It's called "grinding" for a reason. It's work. Tedious, time consuming work, the kind people normally get paid to do. Games are supposed to be a form of recreation, the only people who consider grinding in a videogame to be "fair" or "normal" are the ones who only live and breathe that game. You know. The unemployed, obese, neck beard like a reverse afro, still living with their parents kind. Everybody else is essentially asked to pay the price of the entire Sims collection just to be able to afford a few cars!

As for your rubber band, the passive methods of making money require that you actually grind a lot first in order to be able to afford the "business" associated with them. Even then they're only profitable if you let your computer idle overnight, essentially turning electricity into $GTA.

You know what you're buying alright, you're buying access to content that you already paid for when you got the game. Content that will give you a massive advantage over anyone who can't afford Shark Cards, practice commonly known as pay-2-win. How is that any better than EA's model?


Title of thread... "why is ea so bad tho?"

Isn't it great when you talk about a scenario and people are more than willing to make your point while throwing in a bunch of insults to go along with it, because that always wins are argument.
Mad Poster
#73 Old 2nd Nov 2018 at 2:52 AM Last edited by lil bag2 : 2nd Nov 2018 at 3:05 AM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably

Complete. Utter. Nonsense. You must either be r/gtaonline regular or you've never actually played GTA Online to be this far in denial.

Look, my brainwashed friend. Currency in GTA Online isn't easy to make, alright? It's called "grinding" for a reason. It's work. Tedious, time consuming work, the kind people normally get paid to do. Games are supposed to be a form of recreation, the only people who consider grinding in a videogame to be "fair" or "normal" are the ones who only live and breathe that game. You know. The unemployed, obese, neck beard like a reverse afro, still living with their parents kind. Everybody else is essentially asked to pay the price of the entire Sims collection just to be able to afford a few cars!

As for your rubber band, the passive methods of making money require that you actually grind a lot first in order to be able to afford the "business" associated with them. Even then they're only profitable if you let your computer idle overnight, essentially turning electricity into $GTA.


Damn. So because I don't mind how GTA Online is run and have fun grinding, I gotta be a brainwashed, unemployed, obese, neckbeard, etc? That's a lot of unnecessary insults and generalizations to hurl at someone who did nothing to you. Instead of all that, wouldn't it be possible that I just...oh I don't know...enjoy the game? This ain't 4Chan, the official forum, or the comment section in a political yahoo article. But you have a bad habit of treating this forum like is. Grow up.

That said, I'm not entirely sure what you want from them. GTA Online is essentially an RPG. You gotta work to get to the top in those games. And sometimes that can take a while. Especially in the online ones. That's just how they are and how they've always been. There are ways to circumvent that and get your instant gratification, but if you wanna get to that point you gotta pay. That's not unfair at all when every single update is free and they're giving you an alternative that isn't unreasonable. If that's too much to ask, then it just isn't the game for you. Even when you're starting out, money is really not that hard to come by. Especially if you do what one normally does in an online game, and play with other people. There are entire forums and discord servers dedicated to players helping each other earn money. Find some friends to play with, do the heist missions, work your way up until you can run some businesses. It won't happen right away, but it's far from impossible (or even difficult) to become rich in that game.

Also, the missions I'm talking about don't require you own a business to do it. Like I said, you just need one other person and a rubber band. You do have to leave your console on overnight, but I usually do that anyway when I'm using the streaming services. If that ain't for you, that's cool. Like I said, it's the best method but it's not the only one.

The Receptacle still lives!
Mad Poster
#75 Old 2nd Nov 2018 at 8:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsearchably
It wasn't aimed at you but, you know... if the shoe fits...


You straight up called me brainwashed and then accused anyone who doesn't mind grinding of being a gross loser. I'm not sure how else you thought I was gonna take that but don't try to spin this shit like I'm the one with a chip on my shoulder.


Quote:
1. GTA Online isn't and never was an RPG.

if we wanna be technical about it....it could be considered one just by every definition of RPG I've found. But whether or not people consider it to be is still argued, so for the sake of everyone's sanity, I'll just call it a game with RPG elements to it.

Quote:
2. RPG's aren't and never were about grinding, they have a progression system which is something completely different.

They're not specifically about grinding but they're still a present enough force in a lot of RPGs and MMOs to consider it a big part of what makes those games what they are. How prevalent they are in said games may vary but I haven't played too many RPGs with a leveling system, where I didn't have to put in at least a little bit of grind. But hey, that's just me.

Quote:
What you're thinking about are MMO RPG's. It's true that GTA Online is technically an MMO at this point, but newsflash: MMO's are free to play, GTA V isn't. Hell, it's MSRP didn't even drop until recently.

I've never said the game itself is free to play. But I still assert that its updates are. And I honestly prefer that over free to play games. I'd rather outright pay for the game and get free updates over time than get the game for free and then have to keep making payments on it to progress. That's why I hate most mobile games.

Quote:
3. GTA Online updates aren't free, you're simply given the option to pay with cash (microtransactions) or with labor (grinding) but either way it isn't cheap

So updates where the only way you don't have to spend money...is to play the game? That sounds free to me. But then again, I like playing the game.

Quote:
despite the fact that the quality of the updates leaves to be desired.

Well that, we can agree on. Makes me happy most of their updates are vehicles and I have zero interest in getting the fanciest, tricked out cars, or the immobile yachts that are just million dollar water apartments

Quote:
4. GTA Online money isn't easy to make, again, you fail to see that because you live and breathe GTA Online so all of that seems normal to you.

There you go with the childish assumptions about me again. I enjoy the game and don't mind the grind. It has nothing to do with my social status or how much time I have on my hands. It's just a game. Like for most people, it's just something to do when I'm not at work. Like the Sims. But I don't "live and breathe" it any more than I do my other interests. I'm not sure what you get out of talking down to people who don't agree with you but it's obnoxious as fuck. Is there any legitimate reason why we can't have a conversation about this without you being unnecessarily hostile?

Quote:
Also I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by posting a link to a clickbait channel but I'd appreciate a warning next time. Some of us don't want channels like this or MrTossFTW appearing in our recommended, just saying.

Not exactly clickbait if the method presented in the video works

But, again, it's not the only way to make money. Still plenty of methods that don't make you resort to hacking or cheating. You just gotta be willing to work with others. Which shouldn't be that big an issue since...well I don't know why else you'd be interested in an Online game if you're completely opposed to being around other players.

The Receptacle still lives!
Page 3 of 19
Back to top