Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

True then again MS hasn't done much with Age of Empires over the years either. AoE 3 is a thing, but they've not touched it since and there was a pretty long gap between 2 and 3. Their HD remakes are doing well though and are overall decent, though their expansions for their Age of Mythology game got a very low reception (I think mostly because it wasn't put together right and was basically a mod that re-used assets rather than trying to add anything new to the core game itself).

 Overread wrote:
True then again MS hasn't done much with Age of Empires over the years either. AoE 3 is a thing, but they've not touched it since and there was a pretty long gap between 2 and 3. Their HD remakes are doing well though and are overall decent, though their expansions for their Age of Mythology game got a very low reception (I think mostly because it wasn't put together right and was basically a mod that re-used assets rather than trying to add anything new to the core game itself).

The HD remake for AoE2 has been a huge development for the franchise though- the original game contained 13 civilisations and 5 campaigns (with one being the tutorial campaign) and the initial Conquerors expansion added a further 5 civs and campaigns.

Since the HD remake, we have received 3 new expansions, for a total of 13 new civs and 15 new campaigns, with a slew of new terrain textures and scenario editor items to spruce up games and represent new areas (including new random maps). That has roughly doubled the content of the original two releases.

Further to this, a 5th expansion will be released in the Definitive Edition remake, providing another 4 civs (and three campaigns apparently). For a 20 year old game, that is a staggering amount of support!

Age 1 has already received a Definitive Edition, and Age III has had one announced. AoE 4 has also been announced.

 Overread wrote:
In fairness many of those companies were likely going to go belly-up anyway.

[CITATION NEEDED]

If that's the best argument you got, then you don't really have an argument.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Overread wrote:
In fairness many of those companies were likely going to go belly-up anyway.

[CITATION NEEDED]

If that's the best argument you got, then you don't really have an argument.

I'm going to agree with this.

Acknowledging that the market is a cruel mistress, I have a hard time seeing any way to separate the demise of Mythic, Visceral, and the tanking of Bioware and Digital Illusion's reputations from EA's executive meddling and shoddy attempts to manipulate the market. The company buried Age of Empires with a god awful money grabber, relegating the franchise to remakes. Same with Command and Conquer. Those things may well have happened anyway, but in the present we can look back and solidly point at EA and say "they did it" so what might have happened is more fan fiction than reality.

It's very similar to the editorial decisions that damned a lot of big events in the comic industries. Sometimes, good writers are basically forced by their boss to make bad stories.

Westwood got shut down because they couldn't fulfil the demand by EA that every game they put out "be a hit". Last games they put out were Renegade and some MMO, so yeah..

Hell if they were given more time and freedom, Renegade could have been a lot better than it was. It wasn't a bad game.

I cannot unsee the GDI POW's rappelling up into the helicopter. That always bothered me the most.

 Overread wrote:
True then again MS hasn't done much with Age of Empires over the years either. AoE 3 is a thing, but they've not touched it since and there was a pretty long gap between 2 and 3. Their HD remakes are doing well though and are overall decent, though their expansions for their Age of Mythology game got a very low reception (I think mostly because it wasn't put together right and was basically a mod that re-used assets rather than trying to add anything new to the core game itself).

Game design is really stagnant right now, it's been that way for several years. What really boggles my mind is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to preform some simple public testing to see what the public is looking for. When FO4 launched, I remember the EA CEO saying via his twitter account that single player games were dead and that DRM-Online games were the future. It only took a few days for FO4 to outsell, by a large margin EA's poster child for online gaming, Star Wars Battlefront game which had also just released. Metal Gear Solid V, for all its faults cost nearly 80 million USD to make, and in three days turned a profit of nearly 200 million dollars. That was a PROFIT of 200 Mil in THREE DAYS.

AOE4 or AOM2 would most-likely bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, but for some reason all the dev community gets to make these days are more bland, uninspired manure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Hell if they were given more time and freedom, Renegade could have been a lot better than it was. It wasn't a bad game.

Renegade was an amazing concept of a game, for a fantastic universe. I probably put 60 hours of game play into that game when it came out. Absolutely adored it, the look and feel of the game at the time was pretty unique, and it felt amazing to drive tanks I'd seen for years from the top down.

 Melissia wrote:
It's very similar to the editorial decisions that damned a lot of big events in the comic industries. Sometimes, good writers are basically forced by their boss to make bad stories.

You can go even further back to early Sci-fi and Weird fiction serials, where many authors produced stories at the publisher/editors request that they didn't even want to write. Some of those actually ended up being pretty good, but in video games it almost seems the opposite. Dragon Age: Origin started as EA letting Bioware make a pity project. They stayed out of the development. It was great. People loved it. Then EA jammed their hands into the soup.

Most of the small companies are pretty sustainable at least for a generation. They'll probably fail the first time they need a full engine revamp to keep up with new hardware and they'll struggle to keep up with the ever growing asset libraries (Assassin's Creed is built on an animation library going back at least as far as Sands of Time). It's not really inherently unsustainable, but there are challenges, particularly if you've made a name based on cutting edge graphics.

It more comes down to why bands sell out. You can scrape by, driving in your van, working constantly to keep things going, but when someone offers you a lifetime of financial stability its hard to pass up. The issue with video game companies is that they're more than just a handful of people and generally only the owners make it big. Most of the buyouts are more along the lines of when they only sign the lead singer, with the rest getting stuck doing back up for Miley Cyrus or something.

 LunarSol wrote:
Most of the small companies are pretty sustainable at least for a generation. They'll probably fail the first time they need a full engine revamp to keep up with new hardware and they'll struggle to keep up with the ever growing asset libraries (Assassin's Creed is built on an animation library going back at least as far as Sands of Time). It's not really inherently unsustainable, but there are challenges, particularly if you've made a name based on cutting edge graphics.

It more comes down to why bands sell out. You can scrape by, driving in your van, working constantly to keep things going, but when someone offers you a lifetime of financial stability its hard to pass up. The issue with video game companies is that they're more than just a handful of people and generally only the owners make it big. Most of the buyouts are more along the lines of when they only sign the lead singer, with the rest getting stuck doing back up for Miley Cyrus or something.

Yeah but at this point most Dev’s should be aware that selling out to EA is hardly a lifetime of financial stability it’s at best 2-3 years of low wages and crunch followed by redundancy. I mean yes the owners make out like bandits but everyone else is fethed, I mean seriously why do people even stay at an EA bought dev as there on borrowed time at best.

A lot of people don't stay, SeanDrake, these days.

And the article: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48908766

SeanDrake wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Most of the small companies are pretty sustainable at least for a generation. They'll probably fail the first time they need a full engine revamp to keep up with new hardware and they'll struggle to keep up with the ever growing asset libraries (Assassin's Creed is built on an animation library going back at least as far as Sands of Time). It's not really inherently unsustainable, but there are challenges, particularly if you've made a name based on cutting edge graphics.

It more comes down to why bands sell out. You can scrape by, driving in your van, working constantly to keep things going, but when someone offers you a lifetime of financial stability its hard to pass up. The issue with video game companies is that they're more than just a handful of people and generally only the owners make it big. Most of the buyouts are more along the lines of when they only sign the lead singer, with the rest getting stuck doing back up for Miley Cyrus or something.

Yeah but at this point most Dev’s should be aware that selling out to EA is hardly a lifetime of financial stability it’s at best 2-3 years of low wages and crunch followed by redundancy. I mean yes the owners make out like bandits but everyone else is fethed, I mean seriously why do people even stay at an EA bought dev as there on borrowed time at best.

Its a hard industry to find a job in, so most people try to hold onto any job they get for as long as they can. The decision is out of their hands and the people making it get to run off and start the cycle all over again.

 BrookM wrote:



And the article: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48908766

I read the article and had to LOL at the oxford professor who felt there need to be more evidence before loot boxes could be called gambling, now I ain’t no Oxford prof but I can use a dictionary so I feel safe in saying loot boxes are gambling we might need more evidence for the impact but meh.

What do you know a quick dictionary search and even if you use the weak argument that it’s not gambling because you don’t win money it meets a further definition of “2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.”

This whole affair reminds of the Gilette commercial debacle where they ridicule men which are their customers by the way. Lesson learned:

Don´t buy from Gilette and EA. Case closed.

 Strg Alt wrote:
the Gilette commercial debacle where they ridicule men

Gillette did not "ridicule men". Their ad attacked harassment, bullying, and toxic behavior.

 Melissia wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
the Gilette commercial debacle where they ridicule men

Gillette did not "ridicule men". Their ad attacked harassment, bullying, and toxic behavior.

You are wrong on all accounts.

Hmmm. I remember that ad and I think Melissia is closer to the truth than you are.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
the Gilette commercial debacle where they ridicule men

Gillette did not "ridicule men". Their ad attacked harassment, bullying, and toxic behavior.

You are wrong on all accounts.

No, I am not. The ad showed images of abusive and toxic behavior, then proclaimed "men are better than this" and that men should always try to be the best they can be.

I suspect you never actually watched the ad and merely allowed yourself to be swayed by angry social media knee-jerk reactions.

Let's stay on topic shall we?

 Strg Alt wrote:
This whole affair reminds of the Gilette commercial debacle where they ridicule men which are their customers by the way. Lesson learned:

Don´t buy from Gilette and EA. Case closed.

Hmm. And yet now I want to go buy razors and still avoid EA.

Though also, funny story- Gillette made a lot of money off that campaign. So did Nike when they put out a commercial deemed 'outrageous.'. Those are actually well thought marketing campaigns that work.

EA has various execs spewing visible nonsense in a panic. It isn't helping.

read the article and had to LOL at the oxford professor who felt there need to be more evidence before loot boxes could be called gambling, now I ain’t no Oxford prof but I can use a dictionary so I feel safe in saying loot boxes are gambling we might need more evidence for the impact but meh.

What do you know a quick dictionary search and even if you use the weak argument that it’s not gambling because you don’t win money it meets a further definition of “2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.”

Ever heard of *leans in* corruption?

Or idiocy? Look the dude might be a professor, truth is most of these are neither digital natives nor aquainted with gaming.

chose your poison, because if A is the case, his whole carreer needs to be called into question.
If B is correct he does not propperly prepare and analyze his statements he gives, which leads to doubt in his works which then leads to scrutiny.

SeanDrake wrote:

 BrookM wrote:



And the article: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48908766

I read the article and had to LOL at the oxford professor who felt there need to be more evidence before loot boxes could be called gambling, now I ain’t no Oxford prof but I can use a dictionary so I feel safe in saying loot boxes are gambling we might need more evidence for the impact but meh.

What do you know a quick dictionary search and even if you use the weak argument that it’s not gambling because you don’t win money it meets a further definition of “2. take risky action in the hope of a desired result.”

Oh it's gambling. No doubt. I hate what it has done to games too, hence why I go out of my way to not support games that feature any of these mechanics.

But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.

But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.

Whilest true, do you really think that will stop EA manipulating with the free trial S of lootboxes as rewards? Or Actibliz?
Also remember this game is rated E, last time i'd checked a three year old or a 12 or even 17 year old don't get access to slot machines, now don't they.

Not Online!!! wrote:

But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.

Whilest true, do you really think that will stop EA manipulating with the free trial S of lootboxes as rewards? Or Actibliz?
Also remember this game is rated E, last time i'd checked a three year old or a 12 or even 17 year old don't get access to slot machines, now don't they.

They'll never stop unless they're forced to or the system becomes unable to stack fat profit for the company.

 Togusa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.

Whilest true, do you really think that will stop EA manipulating with the free trial S of lootboxes as rewards? Or Actibliz?
Also remember this game is rated E, last time i'd checked a three year old or a 12 or even 17 year old don't get access to slot machines, now don't they.

They'll never stop unless they're forced to or the system becomes unable to stack fat profit for the company.

So basically enforce a real standard of age gating / Rating system and enforce lootboxes as gambling aswell as microtransactions as manipulating and Instantly slap an M on it on top of duties for the publishers?

Ya that could work.
Altough government action is really disliked on some places.
Still everything that solves these issues right now is better then more generations of gaming beeing squandered with artificial grind and shity incomplete state.

...
Kinda sad really.
I remember a time were pre order dlc was considered the Epitome of evil in gaming.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

But once again.... be responsible and don't give kids the ability to access your credit card for in-game purchases? In general young kids do not understand the value of money or how to be responsible with it yet, so when you give them access, don't be surprised that something like this happens.

Whilst true, do you really think that will stop EA manipulating with the free trial S of lootboxes as rewards? Or Actibliz?
Also remember this game is rated E, last time i'd checked a three year old or a 12 or even 17 year old don't get access to slot machines, now don't they.

They'll never stop unless they're forced to or the system becomes unable to stack fat profit for the company.

So basically enforce a real standard of age gating / Rating system and enforce lootboxes as gambling as well as micro-transactions as manipulating and Instantly slap an M on it on top of duties for the publishers?

Ya that could work.
Although government action is really disliked on some places.
Still everything that solves these issues right now is better then more generations of gaming being squandered with artificial grind and gakky incomplete state.

...
Kinda sad really.
I remember a time were pre order dlc was considered the Epitome of evil in gaming.

Heh, I remember that too. I can recall having many discussions about the first few times Call of Duty featured DLC packs (I think it started with MW3?) but I don't know. I was going to say parents should parent. I'm not keen on the government getting involved, though that may end up being unavoidable...

But as I see it, there is a rabbit hole here. Once the lootbox controversy either picks up and gets dealt with by the various government and regulatory systems, the hammer won't stop. CCG's are very much in this gray area of gambling too. What happens to those games?

Hmm actually ccg would Fall under gambling.
Actually lootboxes are more like Fraud, considering that the virtual items are literally Un sellable after game x shuts down.

So not only is it gambling but also fraudelent one?
Yikes
Edit: altough cardpacks are not artificial pleasing sensory wise unlike slotmachines or loot boxes.