It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)EA? really?... Whatever works, Faust(104 posts)(104 posts)
(104 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
korniatm: So again same question as the OP, is EA really the kind of company that you want to see interacting with GOG?
avatar
StingingVelvet: They're a crappy company for daring to have their own digital store (which they had before anyway) while Valve and CDP are great for having their own digital stores? I don't get it.

This is the funny thing about brand loyalty. People ignore the flaws of their favorite companies and focus on the flaws of companies they dislike for whatever reason. Valve uses DRM, sells their games only through Steam, sell DLC by the shitload now for Portal 2 and TF2 but they're Valve, so this is all okay or even awesome. EA dares to do any of those things and they are the devil.
Yes and no, I already commented that I personally (not backed up by facts but by intuition) see two camps in gaming: Those trying to make good games and those trying to make lots of money.

The ones that are "by gamers for gamers" are companies that I like and defend. The ones that I see as money grubbing I do not.

For example The Witcher 1 has huge technical problems and some very questionable game design choices, Dragon Age II was pick up and play with a super slick presentation. I would have to say that Dragon Age 2 was the "better" game all factors considered. However I feel the money I spent on The Witcher was far better spent because of the motivation behind the product.
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
korniatm: The ones that are "by gamers for gamers" are companies that I like and defend. The ones that I see as money grubbing I do not.
That's true and that's fine, but Valve are certainly in the "we want money" camp. Every supposedly generous thing they do is designed to get your cash.
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
korniatm: The ones that are "by gamers for gamers" are companies that I like and defend. The ones that I see as money grubbing I do not.
avatar
StingingVelvet: That's true and that's fine, but Valve are certainly in the "we want money" camp. Every supposedly generous thing they do is designed to get your cash.
In the sense that "they do something players like, so players become loyal to them and give them money," sure. If you can find a developer that is firmly in the "we hate money and we do everything we can to take losses" camp I'd love to hear it.

Valve is firmly a by gamers for gamers company. Or rather by developers company. They don't operate in a formal structure. They just kind of do whatever the developers within it feel like. Work on games in ways that the developers want to. Not in a way that they think will be most profitable. They are lucrative whimsy.
Post edited June 03, 2011 by Taleroth
Posted June 03, 2011
The best way to conquer the enemy is to slowly convert them!

So I'll certainly buy EA's games on GOG and support this step that they've taken.

So THANK YOU EA !!!!!
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
korniatm: The ones that are "by gamers for gamers" are companies that I like and defend. The ones that I see as money grubbing I do not.
avatar
StingingVelvet: That's true and that's fine, but Valve are certainly in the "we want money" camp. Every supposedly generous thing they do is designed to get your cash.
I would not agree with that but I can understand why you would feel that way. It is less of a problem with Valve though since it is their company policy to only publish 1 game every 8 years :)

PS- I read that the Witcher 2 patch 1.3 will unlock all of that exclusive pre-order gamestop junk for everyone. EA would see that as giving away $29.99 worth of DLC for free (gasp!)
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
Taleroth: In the sense that "they do something players like, so players become loyal to them and give them money," sure. If you can find a developer that is firmly in the "we hate money and we do everything we can to take losses" camp I'd love to hear it.
I just mean they give away DLC for years and then start charging. They say Steam is for your benefit but then they're cutthroat about banning accounts and not allowing publishers to make Steam optional. Little things like that.

When Gabe gets on stage and talks about facebook and games as a service he is basically telling me to fuck off, because I think games are better for consumers as products.
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
Taleroth: In the sense that "they do something players like, so players become loyal to them and give them money," sure. If you can find a developer that is firmly in the "we hate money and we do everything we can to take losses" camp I'd love to hear it.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I just mean they give away DLC for years and then start charging.
They still give away DLC. Portal 2 DLC is free. Are you upset about hats? Most of those have free avenues, too.
They say Steam is for your benefit but then they're cutthroat about banning accounts and not allowing publishers to make Steam optional. Little things like that.
They're actually pretty darn lenient about banning accounts. I've seen PMs going back and forth (from the person who got banned) between users and support where they simply asked nicely and got their account back.
When Gabe gets on stage and talks about facebook and games as a service he is basically telling me to fuck off, because I think games are better for consumers as products.
You take stuff way too personally.
Posted June 03, 2011
EA coming on board in the first place is a huge step, and I applaud everyone at GOG for finally breaking them down and helping them see the light. My big nerdy heart was racing when I first saw Privateer in their teaser video on UStream yesterday.

That being said, finally receiving these 10+ old year games WITHOUT the expansions feels like one-half of a game being sold, especially when fans of these games are used to the expansions being bundled with the main games after all these years (Dungeon Keeper Gold, Wing Commander: Privateer CD-ROM with everything on it, etc.), and games that are already on here getting the special treatment with oodles of extras included.

I'm holding out hope for the EA games included that they can release the missing pieces eventually when all the legal issues get sorted out, as has happened with other titles.
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
Taleroth: You take stuff way too personally.
Or maybe I was just using a colloquialism and don't actually think he is telling me to fuck off.

The point is his priorities are based on monetizing games as a service model. If you don't see it that way then we agree to disagree.
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
Taleroth: You take stuff way too personally.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Or maybe I was just using a colloquialism and don't actually think he is telling me to fuck off.

The point is his priorities are based on monetizing games as a service model. If you don't see it that way then we agree to disagree.
The point of his idea of a service model is constant updates. As opposed to the fire and forget model adopted by many others.
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
Taleroth: The point of his idea of a service model is constant updates. As opposed to the fire and forget model adopted by many others.
Diablo 2 has had like 12 patches in 10 years and never had to be a service tied to a client to do it.
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
EternalSonata: That being said, finally receiving these 10+ old year games WITHOUT the expansions feels like one-half of a game being sold, especially when fans of these games are used to the expansions being bundled with the main games after all these years (Dungeon Keeper Gold, Wing Commander: Privateer CD-ROM with everything on it, etc.), and games that are already on here getting the special treatment with oodles of extras included.
Fair point!

But I'm still happy as I've bought & played all the Wing Commander games other than Privateer (and WC1). The same with all the Ultima games (& Alkabeth) with the exception yet again of the two Underworld games.

In fact, I've never got my hands on any of the 6 games that are currently being offered. So I'm happy to buy them as they are.

Of course, I'm holding out hope too that they add the expansions you mentioned.
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
Taleroth: The point of his idea of a service model is constant updates. As opposed to the fire and forget model adopted by many others.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Diablo 2 has had like 12 patches in 10 years and never had to be a service tied to a client to do it.
Are you familiar with the concept of "The exception that proves the rule"?
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
StingingVelvet: Diablo 2 has had like 12 patches in 10 years and never had to be a service tied to a client to do it.
avatar
Sielle: Are you familiar with the concept of "The exception that proves the rule"?
And it seems that Battle.net is not service at all?
Posted June 03, 2011
avatar
keeveek: And it seems that Battle.net is not service at all?
Back in the days of Diablo 2, Battle.net wasn't required to play the game.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)EA? really?... Whatever works, Faust(104 posts)(104 posts)
(104 posts)