"Please explain to me how you got to think I thought Microsoft exploited its employees."
That appears to be the standard argument/analogy made when people decide to yell about how evil EA is, with little reason to single them out other than they are the biggest. Just scan Slashdot comments on any EA story. The EA Spouse stuff gives people a bit more reason to talk badly of EA, but most people don't seem to understand that the problem described by EA Spouse is an industry-wide problem, not confined to EA (and in fact, not even confined to all of EA).
"Nothing leads to believe Microsoft exploits its employees like EA does." Prior to the EA Spouse thing, did you think EA exploits their employees? Probably not. It's likely many businesses all over the world exploit their workers in one way or another, but no one has spoken up as of yet (and possibly, no one ever will).
There's generally a reason companies get bought by other companies when they do. For game studios, it's usually after 1 or 2 failed releases, or a very long time with no release.
"then the game industry will be rotten to the core."
In what way?
And do you mean like the entertainment industry? Or like the OS industry? Or like the general office software industry? Or perhaps radio? Or maybe banking?
Without having looked at any real depth at the research, can someone explain to me how this is different than all other "genetic algorithms/programming" research that's been done for years now?
I feel like I'm missing something...but it isn't apparently obvious.
Didja stop and think to ask why EA's such a big deal before being so critical about Slashdot's feelings towards EA?
The problem, however, is that EA is just an easy target and a quick one to read off the top of a list. Many, if not most, other sizeable game developers have nearly identical practices, but you don't hear their names mentioned. It's easy to pick one target, and pound on it, but when the problem is systemic, the larger picture is entirely missed.
I refuse to give my money to a company that gets away with the slave labor antics and rediculous headcutting that EA has graced us with.
1) What source do you have for those opinions? Give me 3 (I'll even throw you EA_spouse as a freebie, so just 2 more). I'm truly interested in where public perception comes from...
2) And almost all the other game companies don't do the exact same slave labor antics and rediculous headcutting?
So basically EA, fuck you. I'll take my $100 a year that I would have spent on your products and go to one of the two or three remaining competitors left in console gaming.
Go to one of the two or three remaining competitors that are having the exact same problems that EA is?...
- [TakeTwo's] Grand Sweat Shop and SweatShop 2k6 - [VU's] A Bard's SweatShop and Dark Age of Sweat Shops - [Nintendo's] Super Mario Sweat Shop and PokeSweatShop - [Konami's] Sweat Sweat Extreme - [Atari's] Unreal Sweat Shop - [UbiSoft's] Sweat Myst - [Sega's] Super Monkey Sweat
and so on and son on.
Point being, it's not a problem with a single company, it's a problem with an industry.
It is? Why and how? I'd like to hear you back up your opinion...
EA represents the suit-and-tie, corporate-owned, mainstream conversion of the gaming industry
What gives you this impression? Where does this thinking come from? Personal working there? Visiting there?
They represent cheesy CEOs coming over from other failed companies who are only getting into the game industry because they see massive annual revenues from this thing, not because they're into games
Which CEOs exactly would that be? Here's the current list: http://www.info.ea.com/company/company_bios.php
It all spanned multiple genres
Huh?...all the games you mentioned basically "defined" genres, not "crossed" them.
Because that's "underground!"
Just because you don't like a certain type of games does not make them bad.
And as for all the rest of your ranting, I personally somewhat agree, just not in the way you wrote it. However, now you are getting into the business plan of some hardware manufacturers in a paragraph you started off with "EA is evil". Leaped way off track...
Well, then why didn't Sega pay for the NFL license? Perhaps because they had less money to offer? And perhaps they had less money to offer because they didn't make as much money off their NFL games than EA did?
Not saying this is the case, just saying that the competition has been happening, and one company is debatably the short-term victor. Debatably, because most financial institutions are guessing EA overpaid for the NFL license.
How are exclusive rights that prevent others from making games based on real sports teams indicative of competition being "alive and well"?
Um, you don't think there was competition to get those exclusive rights? You think that the organizations involved just said "oh, ok, sure" when one company came to them?
This got modded as FLAMEBAIT?...lol...I was honestly asking a question. I genuinely want to know why people have such animosity towards EA. What their reasons are...
1) Want me to?...Sure I will. I deny it. Wanna know why? WRONG THREAD. See, in language, there's this little thing call context, which you seem not to grasp.
But hey, I'll give you some lee-way and say that: EVEN IF you were correct, do you know what "critically acclaimed" means? Check www.m-w.com and look up both words. It's a meaningless term in most semantic uses.
So you're mistaken times two.
2) Not worth replying to...You are debating about making the first cut of the cake vertically or horizontally, as the best way to wind up with equal squares for everyone.
3) Pretty much the same. You say how bad and terrible computer games are and how everyone who plays them must be rich and so no, you are not going to know about this that and the other thing, then you turn around and say you are not isolated from a larger percent of the games market.
I don't even know how to begin to discuss that, it's so preposterous.
To an extent, sure. But the way you're sort've making it sound is all wrong. It's not like the publisher down from Olympus says, "Yee shall make this now, damnit!" and the studio goes "Oh yes, my gods"...
No, it's much more folks from both sides sit down and say "What would be good to do next? Another Nox game?...eh, I suppose we could, but the last one _______ (insert reason here)...well we could make another C&C game....yeah, that'd probably be better"...
Slashdot Mirror
"Please explain to me how you got to think I thought Microsoft exploited its employees."
That appears to be the standard argument/analogy made when people decide to yell about how evil EA is, with little reason to single them out other than they are the biggest. Just scan Slashdot comments on any EA story. The EA Spouse stuff gives people a bit more reason to talk badly of EA, but most people don't seem to understand that the problem described by EA Spouse is an industry-wide problem, not confined to EA (and in fact, not even confined to all of EA).
"Nothing leads to believe Microsoft exploits its employees like EA does."
Prior to the EA Spouse thing, did you think EA exploits their employees? Probably not. It's likely many businesses all over the world exploit their workers in one way or another, but no one has spoken up as of yet (and possibly, no one ever will).
What if they actually were underperforming?
There's generally a reason companies get bought by other companies when they do. For game studios, it's usually after 1 or 2 failed releases, or a very long time with no release.
?....what if Ubisoft employees already work much longer hours? The "EA Spouse" phenomenon is industry-wide, not a localized to EA problem.
"then the game industry will be rotten to the core."
In what way?
And do you mean like the entertainment industry?
Or like the OS industry?
Or like the general office software industry?
Or perhaps radio?
Or maybe banking?
Just stop what? If you're going to complain, at least make it clear what you're complaining about. :)
Do you think Microsoft employees feel "exploited"? I mean, if you take that as an analogy, of course, which I'm assuming you probably do.
Nah...I don't know many outside Course 6 that owns two PCs.
And everyone uses Windows, for at least one thing: games.
Your point?
Without having looked at any real depth at the research, can someone explain to me how this is different than all other "genetic algorithms/programming" research that's been done for years now?
I feel like I'm missing something...but it isn't apparently obvious.
Well said. The problem really is the "public awareness" you pointed out.
Didja stop and think to ask why EA's such a big deal before being so critical about Slashdot's feelings towards EA?
The problem, however, is that EA is just an easy target and a quick one to read off the top of a list. Many, if not most, other sizeable game developers have nearly identical practices, but you don't hear their names mentioned. It's easy to pick one target, and pound on it, but when the problem is systemic, the larger picture is entirely missed.
I have given attention to some game developer conferences and they don't impress me(a gamer) much.
By definition, they are not designed to.
EA is comprised of many smaller studios. They are a publisher as well as a developer.
For example, at one time they owned:
- Bullfrog
- Maxis
- Westwood
- Origin
- Tiburon
- etc. etc.
So where does the innovation come from?
Also, on a totally different tangent, out of curiousity, do you believe in capitalism?
there are many companies that are "businesses" but don't act the way EA has.
Many other game companies?
personally, i'd never work for or buy products from company that seems to show absolutely no compassion in its business practice or for its employees.
Give me 3 independent sources (I'll spot you EA_spouse) for this? Seriously?
And give me any reputable sources saying that many -- if not most -- of the rest of the game industry does the same?
I refuse to give my money to a company that gets away with the slave labor antics and rediculous headcutting that EA has graced us with.
1) What source do you have for those opinions? Give me 3 (I'll even throw you EA_spouse as a freebie, so just 2 more). I'm truly interested in where public perception comes from...
2) And almost all the other game companies don't do the exact same slave labor antics and rediculous headcutting?
So basically EA, fuck you. I'll take my $100 a year that I would have spent on your products and go to one of the two or three remaining competitors left in console gaming.
Go to one of the two or three remaining competitors that are having the exact same problems that EA is?...
Don't forget the clones:
- [TakeTwo's] Grand Sweat Shop and SweatShop 2k6
- [VU's] A Bard's SweatShop and Dark Age of Sweat Shops
- [Nintendo's] Super Mario Sweat Shop and PokeSweatShop
- [Konami's] Sweat Sweat Extreme
- [Atari's] Unreal Sweat Shop
- [UbiSoft's] Sweat Myst
- [Sega's] Super Monkey Sweat
and so on and son on.
Point being, it's not a problem with a single company, it's a problem with an industry.
you know their executives are going to receive higher bonuses this year for trimming the fat.
You do? How? I don't know that.
And BTW, if it *is* fat, then shouldn't it *be* trimmed? Isn't that a good thing?
Was Starcraft the norm, or an exception?
EA is evil.
It is? Why and how? I'd like to hear you back up your opinion...
EA represents the suit-and-tie, corporate-owned, mainstream conversion of the gaming industry
What gives you this impression? Where does this thinking come from? Personal working there? Visiting there?
They represent cheesy CEOs coming over from other failed companies who are only getting into the game industry because they see massive annual revenues from this thing, not because they're into games
Which CEOs exactly would that be? Here's the current list: http://www.info.ea.com/company/company_bios.php
It all spanned multiple genres
Huh?...all the games you mentioned basically "defined" genres, not "crossed" them.
Because that's "underground!"
Just because you don't like a certain type of games does not make them bad.
And as for all the rest of your ranting, I personally somewhat agree, just not in the way you wrote it. However, now you are getting into the business plan of some hardware manufacturers in a paragraph you started off with "EA is evil". Leaped way off track...
IRC reminds me of USENET. Once upon a time, it was fun and neat and useful. Now it's just filled with crap.
Well, then why didn't Sega pay for the NFL license? Perhaps because they had less money to offer? And perhaps they had less money to offer because they didn't make as much money off their NFL games than EA did?
Not saying this is the case, just saying that the competition has been happening, and one company is debatably the short-term victor. Debatably, because most financial institutions are guessing EA overpaid for the NFL license.
How are exclusive rights that prevent others from making games based on real sports teams indicative of competition being "alive and well"?
Um, you don't think there was competition to get those exclusive rights? You think that the organizations involved just said "oh, ok, sure" when one company came to them?
This got modded as FLAMEBAIT?...lol...I was honestly asking a question. I genuinely want to know why people have such animosity towards EA. What their reasons are...
Ahwell...
1) Want me to?...Sure I will. I deny it. Wanna know why? WRONG THREAD. See, in language, there's this little thing call context, which you seem not to grasp.
But hey, I'll give you some lee-way and say that: EVEN IF you were correct, do you know what "critically acclaimed" means? Check www.m-w.com and look up both words. It's a meaningless term in most semantic uses.
So you're mistaken times two.
2) Not worth replying to...You are debating about making the first cut of the cake vertically or horizontally, as the best way to wind up with equal squares for everyone.
3) Pretty much the same. You say how bad and terrible computer games are and how everyone who plays them must be rich and so no, you are not going to know about this that and the other thing, then you turn around and say you are not isolated from a larger percent of the games market.
I don't even know how to begin to discuss that, it's so preposterous.
To an extent, sure. But the way you're sort've making it sound is all wrong. It's not like the publisher down from Olympus says, "Yee shall make this now, damnit!" and the studio goes "Oh yes, my gods"...
No, it's much more folks from both sides sit down and say "What would be good to do next? Another Nox game?...eh, I suppose we could, but the last one _______ (insert reason here)...well we could make another C&C game....yeah, that'd probably be better"...
etc.