1) As I've said before: "You're whining about one game reviews site over another??? THAT'S your major complaint? If so you COMPLETELY missed the point that was attempted to make. This site, that site, screw it, any site with 20+ reviews from professional reviewers, I don't give a damn, because it's completely and utterly beside the point."
2) Keeping a consistently high average year after year IS a sign of some progress anyway, as consumers would not buy something that was exactly like the previous years version without some substantial changes. The fact that Madden (just as an example) maintains consistently high ratings year after year is indicative of them (Tiburon and EA) doing a good job at adding new interesting features and content year after year.
But none of that as the point anyway...but then again, my point of "at least vaguely check your facts before making broad sweeping statments" is probably fruitless on Slashdot....;)
LOL...this is a joke, right? You've got to be kidding and just trolling now, right?
1) Show me where I used the words "critically acclaimed". Go ahead. I'll wait. Take your time.
2) You're whining about one game reviews site over another??? THAT'S your major complaint? If so you COMPLETELY missed the point that was attempted to make. This site, that site, screw it, any site with 20+ reviews from professional reviewers, I don't give a damn, because it's completely and utterly beside the point.
3) And then you go off on some rant about how you don't like computer games, etc., that just makes you look, well, I'm sorry, silly. You admittedly are alienated from a vast portion of the computer and video games market, missing some of the best titles year after year, and then you start going off on some rant based on your knowledge games?
Ok, so 1) you don't like a game that many others did...
Then, 2) You say it's all brand loyalty...Trust me, it's not. Look at the reviews on Metacritic.com . They're from like 30 different reviewers, this is not just 1 or 2 people saying something, this is a large general consensus on somethings quality (comparable to other games). In any case, players might select games out of brand loyalty, but not reviewers almost at all.
3) You say you haven't even played The Sims (the best selling PC game of all time) or BF1942 (one of the biggest selling and most award winning games of the year), and yet you turn around and say that EA's published all crap. Hmmm...right.
I don't want my life Open Sourced. I don't want many people all starting to stick things into me to make me better. I liked my life closed sourced and with me as the only person with access to the codebase, thank you very much...
- Gamers want good games. - EA wants to make good games because thats what gamers want and then EA will make money. If EA succeeds, people buy their games, and everyone's happy. If EA fails, people don't buy their games and EAs unhappy and out of business, but gamers will turn elsewhere to whoever succeeded in place of EA.
1) So what's "Microsoft-esque tactics"? Making smart business decisions that are mutually beneficial financially between two private corporations? Sorry, but that happen THOUSANDS of times a day.
And not just in the games industry, LOTS of others too...from the food products industries, shipping industries, car manufacturers, phone companies, media networks, dairies, book retailers both online and off...etc.etc.etc.
Doing such is typically just plain smart business practice, where hopefully both parties will benefit (that's the idea, or neither one would agree to the deal!).
2) Haven't produced a decent game?? They haven't? Sorry, beg to differ. They've published most of the best selling games over the past years. Ever hear of Battlefield 1942? Ever hear of Madden 200x, FIFA 200x, NHL 200x? The LotR games... The Sims games...Burnout and Need for Speed...The Medal of Honor games...the SSX games...the DefJam games...
Look on metacritic, how many of EA's games are "in the green"...that comment is just a joke. There's a reason why they sell the most games.
They probably don't want to commit to anything that they don't have to publically, because, you can be damn sure that if they said we DEFINITELY will be doing ThisThing on games A through Z, and a couple years later, they don't for whatever reason on thing L, they're goin to get soooooo many people complaining that they "lied".
Why?...just buying some companies to integrate into a larger makes you a Gates/Borg?
If so, you've got LOTS of others to cover too, from the food products industries, shipping industries, car manufacturers, phone companies, media networks, dairies, book retailers both online and off...
etc.etc.etc.
Doing such is typically just plain smart business practice, where hopefully both parties will benefit (that's the idea, or neither one would agree to the deal!).
In every deal like this there is always plenty of language written in for "this deal will become voided if party A does any other this list of 100 things or if party B does any other this other list".
In every deal like this there is always plenty of language written in for "this deal will become voided if party A does any other this list of 100 things or if party B does any other this other list".
In 15 years, ESPN could have had 40% or more of the market just by developing their own game (or pushing NFL 2k5 and beyond).
ESPN doesn't develop games. They hire people (Sega, Konami, etc.) who hire people (Kush Games, Visual Concepts, etc.) to develop games. The only thing that is different now is they've signed a longer than usual with someone they've hired to hire. Someone with a fantastic track record at doing such, to boot.
Besides, I kinda have more faith in the judgement abilities of the heads of ESPN's licensing division than "an anonymous coward on slashdot".
I guess some of that applies to ESPN too. By taking the deal from EA they are cutting them selves off from Sega and other companies that might be willing to pay for the priviledge of promoting ESPN.
Hiow do you know that the amount that "Sega and other companies" would be willing to pay is larger than that of what EA *has* offered to pay?
1) Do you know how much EA paid? No. 2) Do you have financial models taking into account a number of factors to try to predict what the most beneficial outcome is for ESPN? I highly doubt it.
We all know EA hasn't shown any progression in the Madden games since 2002.
Maybe you do, but don't speak for the rest of us -- the public at large. A quick look at www.metacritic.com yields the following scores (PS2 versions): 2001 - 91 2002 - 94 2003 - 95 2004 - 94 2005 - 91
It helps to do your research before you make sweeping incorrect claims. Score went up, 2003 to 2004.
But what's actually much more impressive is that all the scores are above 90, which is very rare (just check metacritic and look).
Slashdot Mirror
1) As I've said before:
;)
"You're whining about one game reviews site over another??? THAT'S your major complaint? If so you COMPLETELY missed the point that was attempted to make. This site, that site, screw it, any site with 20+ reviews from professional reviewers, I don't give a damn, because it's completely and utterly beside the point."
2) Keeping a consistently high average year after year IS a sign of some progress anyway, as consumers would not buy something that was exactly like the previous years version without some substantial changes. The fact that Madden (just as an example) maintains consistently high ratings year after year is indicative of them (Tiburon and EA) doing a good job at adding new interesting features and content year after year.
But none of that as the point anyway...but then again, my point of "at least vaguely check your facts before making broad sweeping statments" is probably fruitless on Slashdot....
LOL...this is a joke, right? You've got to be kidding and just trolling now, right?
1) Show me where I used the words "critically acclaimed". Go ahead. I'll wait. Take your time.
2) You're whining about one game reviews site over another??? THAT'S your major complaint? If so you COMPLETELY missed the point that was attempted to make. This site, that site, screw it, any site with 20+ reviews from professional reviewers, I don't give a damn, because it's completely and utterly beside the point.
3) And then you go off on some rant about how you don't like computer games, etc., that just makes you look, well, I'm sorry, silly. You admittedly are alienated from a vast portion of the computer and video games market, missing some of the best titles year after year, and then you start going off on some rant based on your knowledge games?
Too funny, my man.
Catwoman, well, yeah....lol...but the very movie was a bad idea from the start...heh.
Ok, so 1) you don't like a game that many others did...
Then, 2) You say it's all brand loyalty...Trust me, it's not. Look at the reviews on Metacritic.com . They're from like 30 different reviewers, this is not just 1 or 2 people saying something, this is a large general consensus on somethings quality (comparable to other games). In any case, players might select games out of brand loyalty, but not reviewers almost at all.
3) You say you haven't even played The Sims (the best selling PC game of all time) or BF1942 (one of the biggest selling and most award winning games of the year), and yet you turn around and say that EA's published all crap. Hmmm...right.
You're basically asking "What's the point of branding?"...
;)
For your answer, go talk to Kleenex or Band-Aid...
I don't want my life Open Sourced. I don't want many people all starting to stick things into me to make me better. I liked my life closed sourced and with me as the only person with access to the codebase, thank you very much...
Why "blame" anyone??
ESPN and NFL made deals which clearly they benefit from, or they wouldn't have made them...
How did "tank" the series and not Westwood?
BTW, smaller companies are bought by larger usually when they start to slip or slide...
Usually companies are acquired by larger ones when they start to slip slide down...
How do EA's interests conflict with gamers'?
- Gamers want good games.
- EA wants to make good games because thats what gamers want and then EA will make money. If EA succeeds, people buy their games, and everyone's happy. If EA fails, people don't buy their games and EAs unhappy and out of business, but gamers will turn elsewhere to whoever succeeded in place of EA.
What makes you think EA buying Westwood is the reason a sequel to Nox wasn't made? Perhaps it was Westwood's decision?
DOJ would be going after Nintendo or Sony long before they go after EA. A vertical monopoly is a lot different than a lateral monopoly.
Just 3 examples from the last 5 years:
SSX
Battlefield 1942
The Sims
Still think that?
1) So what's "Microsoft-esque tactics"? Making smart business decisions that are mutually beneficial financially between two private corporations? Sorry, but that happen THOUSANDS of times a day.
And not just in the games industry, LOTS of others too...from the food products industries, shipping industries, car manufacturers, phone companies, media networks, dairies, book retailers both online and off...etc.etc.etc.
Doing such is typically just plain smart business practice, where hopefully both parties will benefit (that's the idea, or neither one would agree to the deal!).
2) Haven't produced a decent game?? They haven't? Sorry, beg to differ. They've published most of the best selling games over the past years. Ever hear of Battlefield 1942? Ever hear of Madden 200x, FIFA 200x, NHL 200x? The LotR games... The Sims games...Burnout and Need for Speed...The Medal of Honor games...the SSX games...the DefJam games...
Look on metacritic, how many of EA's games are "in the green"...that comment is just a joke. There's a reason why they sell the most games.
They probably don't want to commit to anything that they don't have to publically, because, you can be damn sure that if they said we DEFINITELY will be doing ThisThing on games A through Z, and a couple years later, they don't for whatever reason on thing L, they're goin to get soooooo many people complaining that they "lied".
Why?...just buying some companies to integrate into a larger makes you a Gates/Borg?
If so, you've got LOTS of others to cover too, from the food products industries, shipping industries, car manufacturers, phone companies, media networks, dairies, book retailers both online and off...
etc.etc.etc.
Doing such is typically just plain smart business practice, where hopefully both parties will benefit (that's the idea, or neither one would agree to the deal!).
And you don't think that much of the features of the current 2004mac/2003pc versions aren't going to be directly copied in this?
EA has cranked out some crap this year
Has it? Which?
Let's see, taking a look at EA's sports games 2004/2005, we see...hmm...critically acclaimed pretty much across the board. Lots of "green" scoring there...
In every deal like this there is always plenty of language written in for "this deal will become voided if party A does any other this list of 100 things or if party B does any other this other list".
For example, remember when Activision sued Viacom?
And also, why would it be ESPN to regret this deal?
Many people think EA probably paid ESPN TOO MUCH/A
Don't get me wrong, I agree EA is an evil company
And you think that why??
In every deal like this there is always plenty of language written in for "this deal will become voided if party A does any other this list of 100 things or if party B does any other this other list".
For example, remember when Activision sued Viacom?
In 15 years, ESPN could have had 40% or more of the market just by developing their own game (or pushing NFL 2k5 and beyond).
ESPN doesn't develop games. They hire people (Sega, Konami, etc.) who hire people (Kush Games, Visual Concepts, etc.) to develop games. The only thing that is different now is they've signed a longer than usual with someone they've hired to hire. Someone with a fantastic track record at doing such, to boot.
Besides, I kinda have more faith in the judgement abilities of the heads of ESPN's licensing division than "an anonymous coward on slashdot".
I guess some of that applies to ESPN too. By taking the deal from EA they are cutting them selves off from Sega and other companies that might be willing to pay for the priviledge of promoting ESPN.
Hiow do you know that the amount that "Sega and other companies" would be willing to pay is larger than that of what EA *has* offered to pay?
1) Do you know how much EA paid? No.
2) Do you have financial models taking into account a number of factors to try to predict what the most beneficial outcome is for ESPN? I highly doubt it.
So do not make assumptions otherwise.
We all know EA hasn't shown any progression in the Madden games since 2002.
Maybe you do, but don't speak for the rest of us -- the public at large. A quick look at www.metacritic.com yields the following scores (PS2 versions):
2001 - 91
2002 - 94
2003 - 95
2004 - 94
2005 - 91
It helps to do your research before you make sweeping incorrect claims. Score went up, 2003 to 2004.
But what's actually much more impressive is that all the scores are above 90, which is very rare (just check metacritic and look).
On one hand the evil alliance is getting more powerful by the day
EA is "evil" how?