Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Warhammer Online Failed — an Insider Story

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the truth-or-dare dept.

Games 235

sinij writes "An EA insider has aired dirty laundry over what went wrong with Warhammer and what could this mean for the upcoming Bioware Star Wars MMORPG. Quoting: 'We shouldn't have released when we did, everyone knows it. The game wasn't done, but EA gave us a deadline and threatened the leaders of Mythic with pink slips. We slipped so many times, it had to go out. We sold more than a million boxes, and only had 300k subs a month later. Going down ever since. It's 'stable' now, but guess what? Even Dark Age and Ultima have more subs than we have. How great is that? Games almost a decade [old] make more money than our biggest project." The (unverified) insider, who calls himself EA Louse (named after the EA Spouse who brought to light the company's excessive crunchtime practices) says similar trouble is ahead for the development of Star Wars: The Old Republic. EA has not commented yet. God of War creator David Jaffe has criticized the insider for having unrealistic expectations of working in the games industry.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1st post? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890524)

Clueless yes-men put in charge.
This is the unfortunate rule rather than the exception these days.

Re:1st post? (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#33890562)

Honestly I think it's part of the life-cycle of corporations. The people with the authority to promote tend to lose their objective view of their subordinates, and end up promoting people that they LIKE rather than the people most suited for the job. Repeat this for a few cycles and you end up with the "good old boys/girls" club at the top, who are all best buddies but who are far less competent than their jobs demand. This reinforces apathy down below, since what's the point in busting your butt for a dumb-ass? Initiative and effort don't get rewarded (or worse, get penalized by jealous managers), and the rot sets in.

This is why large corporations can lose money, lose focus, engage in some amazingly ridiculous ventures and go bankrupt. I guess it's only human nature, but nothing lasts forever.

...EA (5, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | about 4 years ago | (#33890582)

Yet EA is still - overall - making buckloads of money. Many of the best shops have been bought out by them, trashed (as seems to be this case), put to cranking out rapid-fire shit, and then eventually canned.

Look at what happened to the C&C series. They ripped out some of the most fun parts, and the initial release of - for example - Tiberium Wars was a huge buggy piece of shit. I can't count how many times the thing de-synced and crashed during online play within the first 6 months of patch-cycles, not to mention the bugs that often left single-player missions somehow unfinishable.

It's all push push push to release a product, which means a shitty product, which ends up killing the once-good franchises they've bought out.

EA were also the ones to start pushing the locked-to-an-account model. Sadly, the competition has smell money like sharks smell blood in the water. So now we have other companies like Blizzard adopting the same shit.

Re:...EA (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#33890644)

Yet EA is still - overall - making buckloads of money.

      Of course. Because they are such big publishers and have a finger pretty much in every genre of game (through acquisitions), they dominate the market. Especially since games are a wonderful impulse buy - pre-teens and teens who "have to have" the game because whats-his-name at school got it, or because it's version 3 in a series, or because of the bright colors on the packaging. Mature gamers who remember what EA used to be, and hope that a company as old and (once) respected as EA will stand behind their products and patch them ASAP if there are any problems.

      It takes a long time to absolutely destroy a reputation, especially when you're in a dominant position. But I can't help but notice that every company franchise they buy out gets destroyed, dumbed down, and processed so much it stops being fun.

Re:...EA (1)

mikael_j (106439) | about 4 years ago | (#33890884)

You actually got Tiberium Wars online play to work? I must say I'm amazed, after going through EA's online help database and contacting their tech support I found out that in order for me to run it as a client, NOT a server I would have to have roughly half of all available ports forwarded to my desktop.

Oh, and when that didn't work they told me that it was because I was using a "Linux router" (a FreeBSD box actually) and that I should connect my desktop directly to the internet and disconnect the rest of my network from the net while playing...

Re:...EA (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 years ago | (#33891422)

Oh man, how EA is able to completely take such wonderful series and then piss on them and set them on fire. Lets be honest folks, as long as they have the cash cow known as exclusive NFL license to print money via Madden they are just gonna keep on sucking. Another good example of their destructive behavior is sitting in a box right in front of me...the Medal of Honor series, or MoH for short. I bought the 10th Anniversary pack and it is just sad to play them one after another and watch them fall from greatness to shit. It goes from great (original and expansions) to good (Pacific) to absolute shit (Airborne) and by the end they've turned it into a completely lame arcade console shooter complete with fricking power ups like it is Painkiller or something! WTF! Way to destroy the immersion assholes!

That is why I only buy maybe one or two AAA list titles (last was Bioshock II, and surprise! Ruined it, bad imitation of the original) and spend the majority of my money at Good Old Games [gog.com] where I can get games that are FUN to play, don't have to spend time dealing with SecuROM and Starforce bullshit (loooove how their installers and removal tools don't work more than half the time on x64!) and the games are cheap to boot. But as long as EA has the license to print money that is the NFL license (I know guys that have a fricking standing order at Gamestop for EVERY Madden game for EVERY system they own so it will ALWAYS be at their door on release day) EA can continue buying up and destroying the greats, whether in house or bought and crushed EA never met a series they couldn't ruin. I just hope when the license comes up for renewal the NFL refuses to grant them exclusivity, then maybe we might actually get football games that don't suck too!

Re:...EA (1)

pitchaxistheory (844824) | about 4 years ago | (#33891604)

They ripped out some of the most fun parts, and the initial release of - for example - Tiberium Wars was a huge buggy piece of shit. I can't count how many times the thing de-synced and crashed during online play within the first 6 months of patch-cycles, not to mention the bugs that often left single-player missions somehow unfinishable.

You DO mean Tiberium Twilight (CnC4) don't you? Tiberium Wars (CnC3) came out in '97.

Re:1st post? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33890714)

I can't exactly say I got statistics to back it up, but I don't know of many I'd consider stupid and very high on the corporate ladder. I think the biggest downside to being huge is that you spend a lot of time streamlining the process of what you are doing, which tends to cement the process to do exactly and only what you do today. Often you keep thinking the good old days will return so you keep on pushing ahead thinking this is only a dip in the market when it's really disappearing.

The other is that like a person that got really fat then went on a big diet will not be as lean as the person that stayed slim the whole time, companies often expand but as they downsize they don't lose all of it. Broken bones that didn't set quite right won't fix themselves, you'd have to operate to make it right. That kind of introspection is hard, it's a lot easier to manage growth where you have to have a really good business case than it is to manage slack and redundancy. It's a lot easier to limit raises than it is to do pay cuts. It's a lot easier to evaluate purchasing decisions than to replace old and overly expensive systems. Particularly systems that have served a large purpose, but for various reasons is now used for much less and isn't cost justified anymore.

Finally, and this is also a big one: It's a lot easier for a small company to find a new niche than it is for a huge company to find a new cash cow. Huge also means huge expenses, if your main market is heading for the brick wall, then you can't squeeze a 100,000 employee company into a 10,000 employee niche and going in ten different directions to make up the total is probably also not going to work. Even if you got good ideas and a healthy business as such the existing cost structure will just overwhelm you.

Re:1st post? (3, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 4 years ago | (#33891380)

I can't exactly say I got statistics to back it up, but I don't know of many I'd consider stupid and very high on the corporate ladder. I think the biggest downside to being huge is that you spend a lot of time streamlining the process of what you are doing, which tends to cement the process to do exactly and only what you do today.

True, large corporations rarely are very nimble. The problem might be a different one though; I haven't come across a lot of truly stupid top managers in large corporations, but I did often find them very myopic when it came to making business decisions.

Many managers run their companies by the numbers... the numbers in the quarterlies, that is, and the pretty red, yellow and green "dashboard" spreadsheets that are sent up from the departments down below. These sheets rarely tell the whole story, but they do give the manager a false sense of being informed, and so they will make decisions instead of delegating the decision or asking for advice. And more importantly, once that decision has been made, it is set in stone. No matter how wrong it turns out to be later. In other words, many managers are actually very poor decision-makers.

In the case of Warhammer, perhaps it is just the simple mistake of blindly applying a tried-and-true project management tool to a project that was running late: timeboxing (or sticking to the deadline). It's often a good way to manage delayed projects and ensure you still get something within budget and on time, after which you can decide what to add in updates and at what cost. However in case of MMOs, having a feature-poor or buggy launch is an extremely dangerous thing to do in today's market with plenty of competitors, especially if you count on your customers to pay you each month for the privilege to play. Once you disappoint an MMO player with a buggy or boring game, it is extremely hard to win them back.

But the megacorp that is EA is not alone in this; Age of Conan suffered from the same rushed release... when the game launched, the bank/auction NPC didn't even work! Funcom sold a million copies IIRC and the game got rave reviews, but they were forced to spend the subsequent 2-3 quarters fixing bugs instead of working on new content. By that time, many people had left due to frequent crashes, buggy quests, etc.

Re:1st post? (2, Interesting)

pspahn (1175617) | about 4 years ago | (#33890762)

For what it's worth, I worked at EA briefly after high school in phone support. Not long after starting, I think it was observed that I was of higher skill than most of the other employees and was given new opportunities to grow that were outside my then current role. I am certainly not an ass-kisser; I just did my job and did it well. You can bet your ass this caused some jealousy among coworkers.

Now, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just stating that from personal experience, EA does in fact (or did, it's been some time) promote quality employees. Maybe I should have stuck around, but the Bay Area commute eventually got to me and I decided it was time to leave California and move somewhere with a higher quality of life.

Re:1st post? (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | about 4 years ago | (#33891552)

It's not the bottom ranks that's the problem in larger corporations. As the crowd thins towards the top and the roles are primarily managerial, the temptation to promote those you like becomes more prevalent.

Down the bottom, the people are still relatively new and actual performance and capabilities are easier to gauge. Promotion generally comes in the form of more challenging roles, possibly with the opportunity to assist and supervise less skilled hires. Again, due to the shear numbers of transients at the bottom layers, skill is safer to reward than random short lived friendships.

Re:1st post? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 years ago | (#33890908)

The people with the authority to promote tend to lose their objective view of their subordinates, and end up promoting people that they LIKE rather than the people most suited for the job.

In fairness, it not easy to always choose the person most suited for the job. Which is probably why it degenerates like that so often.

Re:1st post? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33890956)

The people with the authority to promote tend to lose their objective view of their subordinates, and end up promoting people that they LIKE rather than the people most suited for the job.

You mean there's a phase where they don't do that?

Re:1st post? (1)

sosume (680416) | about 4 years ago | (#33891018)

Can I refer to your post as The Law of Dunbal? It seems to hold not only for most large corporations, but also for government, politics, small companies, non profit organisations, heck almost any kind of structored organisation I know. If you like, I will appoint you for the Nobel prize

Re:1st post? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 years ago | (#33890794)

I'd be suspicious that that's not the case at all. To be honest, this guy seems like someone who got far to into office politics and not enough into just making a bloody game. He seems to declare decissions to be bad, simply because he dislikes the people who made them, and gives no objective view on exactly which decissions were bad, and why.

It may well be that EA breeds this sort of office politics by making it a very dog-eat-dog world, but ultimately, it sounds like the project failed, because everyone was concentrating on their personal success, rather than the game's.

Really? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890546)

So what is new?

David Jaffe is full of shit (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 4 years ago | (#33890554)

Since when was hoping your boss an unreasonable expectation? Jesus. Makes me question his competency.

Re:David Jaffe is full of shit (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 4 years ago | (#33890610)

The guy in TFA sounds full of shit too. Honestly, it just comes off to me as a guy who's bitter that he's getting let go, and taking the opportunity to blast people who he didn't like.

Maybe there's truth to it. I don't know. But I sure as hell stopped reading about halfway through because with so many personal digs, it destroys his credibility in my eyes.

Ya pretty much (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33890724)

I'm sure there is some truth in there. Most people don't just make shit completely up. I mean he's right in that Warhammer wasn't all that good of a game. However there's a ton of bitterness there. That is going to cloud judgment and the truth. I'm going to guess the people aren't quite as incompetent as he pretends. I've rarely found it to be true when someone just goes off on their boss as being worthless. Not saying there aren't bad managers, but they aren't the abysmal problems many people pretend.

Also it does really smack of what Jaffe said: The guy thinks his opinion is more valuable and everyone should be listening to him. No not necessarily. For damn sure the problem with Warhammer wasn't one of not having dancing. It was mostly a balance issue, and also one of the leveling system being too grindy and not interesting enough. Warhammer was not a horrible MMO, it just wasn't all that great and had some issues. However that is hard to pull off when you've got WoW as competition, and even Mythic's own DAoC. These days with an MMO, you are mostly stealing players from another MMO, usually WoW. Means that your game has to compete favourably to that, and WoW is pretty good. So you might be ok, but ok doesn't cut it.

At any rate, way too much hate in there for that to be at all objective. He lost his job and he's furious, so he's lashing out. I just can't take what is said in a situation like that seriously.

Re:Ya pretty much (2, Interesting)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 4 years ago | (#33891156)

How do you know that what he is saying is not 100% objective and true? Being furious and lashing out does not mean he's not truthful and objective.

Re:Ya pretty much (4, Interesting)

pipedwho (1174327) | about 4 years ago | (#33891588)

This kind of reminds me when an employee resigned and in their letter of resignation gave their reason (basically pointing out how corrupt, dishonest and incompetent our manager was). Of course, the next layer up just ignored it as "that person no longer works here, and therefore their observations will not be considered". After hearing about what was written, we all thought that it would be certainty that the manager was going to be replaced. Long story short, they just blamed the guy that left.

Needless to say, two months later the entire engineering team (all five of us) resigned in the same way. All five letters were put on this guys desk within the space of 30 seconds. The look on his face was priceless. This was years ago, and that guy is still working there.

Re:Ya pretty much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33891684)

"These days with an MMO, you are mostly stealing players from another MMO, usually WoW. Means that your game has to compete favourably to that, and WoW is pretty good. So you might be ok, but ok doesn't cut it "

^^ up this
MMO are design to consume ur time. Given that each person has a limited amt of time, being okay just dun cut it unless u have specialized/unique feature that other MMO product lack.

Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33890558)

The problem is that PC gaming is dying as online console gaming gains ground.

Most new exciting games are being released for consoles. There are only a few really hot titles for the PC.

Warhammer just doesn't have the namepower that something like Starcraft has, and so a minor game on a dying platform is simply a losing tactic no matter when they release it.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#33890578)

The problem is that PC gaming is dying as online console gaming gains ground.

      I've argued this before, and I will argue it again:

      PC games will never die. Simply because the "barrier to entry" for PC game development is so low. No specialized equipment is needed. No specialized software either (you can download a free version of Visual Studio directly from Microsoft). All you need is a basic knowledge of programming, and the desire to build a game.

      So while the big studios try to lock up the market on proprietary consoles, or charge huge up-front fees for "Software Development Kits", and buy out any upstart before he ever gets a chance to publish; the creative talent, the innovation, the new ways of doing things - will always be seen first on a PC.

      While sure, some guy on a PC can never code the same eye-candy as a $50 million team or compete with version 5 of a highly successful franchise, the PC is destined to be the platform for new concepts not seen before in the game industry. And as we've seen before with games like Doom, Darwinia, etc, you can go from no-name to best seller in a matter of months, thanks to the internet. Frankly, I'm not worried.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890978)

...you can go from no-name to best seller in a matter of days...

FTFY. For instance, Minecraft.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33891270)

The problem is that PC gaming is dying as online console gaming gains ground.

      I've argued this before, and I will argue it again:

...

thx for you have mentioned that!

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (2, Funny)

houghi (78078) | about 4 years ago | (#33891274)

No specialized software either (you can download a free version of Visual Studio directly from Microsoft). All you need is a basic knowledge of programming, and the desire to build a game.

Then all we need is something like Visual Studio for Linux and there will be a shitload of games for Linux. Right?

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (5, Informative)

mykos (1627575) | about 4 years ago | (#33890594)

The problem is that PC gaming is dying as online console gaming gains ground.

Most new exciting games are being released for consoles. There are only a few really hot titles for the PC.

I'm only 31, and this is the second decade in which I've heard this claimed.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (3, Insightful)

MagikSlinger (259969) | about 4 years ago | (#33890638)

Mod parent up. :-)

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (0, Redundant)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33890656)

Shutting your eyes to the tide won't make it ebb of flow to your liking.

Internet connectivity is, as it was for the PC, a true game (natch) changer.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (2, Funny)

fake_name (245088) | about 4 years ago | (#33890778)

I'm only 31, and this is the second decade in which I've heard this claimed.

That's because Linux has poor game support and it's the Year Of The Linux Desktop.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (2, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 years ago | (#33890882)

Naw, it's really timing. He's right that it shipped too soon. It had a huge "omg, this will finally be the WoW killer" vibe going (just like the star wars one has), and a month later it was "omg, this game sux". It has nothing to do with being a PC game.

Problem is, these games are massively expensive to make. And so the investors and producers are pressuring to ship while they think they can still make a profit. This problem has hit a lot of the MMOs that people predicted would be great. You can't just backfill the content later and hope players will accept it.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33890966)

Personally I don't see why, but it seems no console wants to take up the fight with the keyboard/mouse. You have buttons and sticks and motion sensors but nothing comes remotely close to the accuracy of the mouse allowing you to pinpoint targets a few pixels big in no time and the vast number of hotkeys on the keyboard. Obviously the downside is that you need a desk or table to use it well, I guess it just doesn't fit the "use case" of the box being hooked up to the TV and people using a lounge chair with the controller in hand.

The lead computers have had in graphics took a huge step up going from NTSC/PAL to 720p. Yes, I know computers had this resolution in the 1980s. The point is that the next generation is likely to be full HD, and 1920x1080 is very close to the maximum "normal" people have today as 95%+ of all gamers play at 1920x1200 or below and 16:10 monitors seem to be disappearing from the market. Sound? I expect full 7.1 with bitstreaming to be supported on the next generation, as all the latest generation graphics cards support it. The PS3 BluRay is already bigger than most DVD games for PC.

In short, I don't think hardware-wise the next generation consoles will in any meaningful way be performance limited. The biggest question is if someone wants to pick up the glove and really push FPS, RTS and MMORPG games for consoles using keyboard/mouse. Imagine for example if one of them managed to secure an exclusive console license for WoW then that would be a huge, huge seller. I don't know why it's not happening, I think the consoles have spent so much time selling themselves as not a PC that they can't imagine themselves being the PC.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (1)

iainl (136759) | about 4 years ago | (#33891356)

I'll take the argument that the mouse is still the best device we have for pointing and clicking on things, sure. But I still fail to see how spreading three of my fingers across four movement buttons on a keyboard is a better experience than moving an analogue pad with my thumb for most things. They're really only any use if you've designed your RTS to require umpty-thrumpty buttons, rather than a more streamlined experience.

Fundamentally, though, outside the rhythm-action genre developers are rightly terrified of releasing a game that DEMANDS a non-standard controller, because unless you ship it in the box it massively restricts your audience.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33891138)

To be fair, the first decade was just last year.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (3, Insightful)

VJ42 (860241) | about 4 years ago | (#33891302)

The problem is that PC gaming is dying as online console gaming gains ground.

Most new exciting games are being released for consoles. There are only a few really hot titles for the PC.

I'm only 31, and this is the second decade in which I've heard this claimed.

Indeed. I'm younger (28), and I recall it being said in the '90s, repeated ad nauseam this decade ('00s), and I'm sure someone will repeat it next year making it three decades I've heard it in before I'm even 30.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890622)

It's not that the PC is dying as a game system, it's that the PC is dying, full stop.

People are more and more moving to iDevices and other portables. In a few years, your pocketable cell phone will be able to wirelessly display thing on a large monitor, if you're near one, and use a keyboard wirelessly if you're near one of those, but it will BE your computer. People no longer want to be tied down to a single desktop or even laptop system.

Yeah, yeah, someone will point out that some high end CAD tasks or whatever will always demand a desktop PC, and this is true, but it misses the point: the masses are moving off the PC platform and onto (a) portables and (b) game consoles, and gaming will follow them to those two platforms.

We've seen previous head-in-the-sand behavior from, say, the Unix workstation people as PCs ate *their* lunch. This is no different, and anyone who is very smart is looking to this future and preparing for the time, not so long from now, where the PC is no longer a significant platform.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (2, Insightful)

caerwyn (38056) | about 4 years ago | (#33890772)

This is pretty much complete BS.

Netbooks, tablets, iDevices, etc *are* taking a lot of people's computing time and interest away from the PC. However, there remain a huge number of tasks- any sort of content creation whatsoever, really, some few app examples notwithstanding- that simply are not suited to that sort of form fact. People's computing will always have, in the background, some sort of general purpose device.

Now, you may say that portables, tablets, etc will evolve to the point that this is no longer true. But if that happens, then it actually proves my point, because such devices will have *become* general purpose computing devices, and therefore the "PC" and its associated games will still be around.

If and when the tablets "win", it will only be because they have become what they defeated.

Mod up (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | about 4 years ago | (#33890990)

Absolutely - people will always need to do [stuff], and will always need devices that support [stuff] applications, ie personal computers.

Christ, I'm so sick of hearing the GP's argument (maybe I should get off /.) It only ever makes sense to people who think of these things in terms of "devices" and their inherent capabilities, rather than "functions" and their supporting devices.

...which pretty much defines most console fanatics.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (1)

jjohnson (62583) | about 4 years ago | (#33890664)

2001 called, it wants its market prediction back.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33890744)

http://pc.ign.com/articles/820/820692p1.html [ign.com]

PC gaming only constitutes a third of the total gaming market. Consoles constitute the rest.

That's not a prediction, that's just a fact.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890854)

Except that if you look at the total gaming market, there are four main platforms: x360, PS3, Wii and PC.

Having one of those platforms (PC) constitute a third of the market is hardly a sign it's dying as a platform.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33891310)

That, coupled with the fact that the size of the market today is huge compared to what it was even ten years, and certainly twenty years ago. Not to mention the barrier for entry for the alternatives is so low in comparison to the desktop PC (it used to be a big deal to a family laying down a couple hundred quid on a console, now it's pretty normal for families to own two or even all three of the current generation consoles, and maybe even a portable or two) - the very fact that, in the face of such competition, it can still make up a third of the market is pretty impressive.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | about 4 years ago | (#33890678)

It may not have the same namepower as Starcraft, but it still sold 1+ million copies. So that's namepower enough.

Their problem is they didn't retain enough subscribers.

If you want to know why it failed, ask the subscribers why they left, and then pick out the common points.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (1)

bersl2 (689221) | about 4 years ago | (#33890720)

On which platform do newer developers have a much easier time gaining entry into the market? For now, at least, one has a significantly better shot at making a name for oneself out of nothing by creating games for the general-purpose computers, rather than for consoles which require paid-for SDKs and physical media. That said, digital distribution and creative pricing may ruin even this.

And yet, I'm still going spend my time and money on products to be used outside those saccharine ghettos of gaming which the newer consoles have created, and I'm hoping that there will be enough devs who avoid it as as their exclusive (primary) platform too.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33890752)

I agree, but for the most part the game market works similarly with the book market. Games and game ideas are shopped around to various publishers in the hopes that someone provides some financial backing.

The concept of a couple developers pounding out code in a garage is certainly romantic, but it doesn't reflect anything but the least adept and amateurish "game programmers" out there.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890808)

The problem is that PC gaming is dying as online console gaming gains ground.

It's funny, but didn't MineCraft make 10,000 smackers a day on average?

Isn't that a PC game? And yes, while it's an outlier, and that's not sustained income... isn't it interesting that a "dying" field can still make money for one person?

Crazy, huh?

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (1)

incognito84 (903401) | about 4 years ago | (#33890890)

The problem is that PC gaming is dying as online console gaming gains ground.

Most new exciting games are being released for consoles. There are only a few really hot titles for the PC.


I'm going to start from the assumption that you know very little about modern PC gaming and work my way back.

If you were to say: "major titles being PC exclusives" I'd agree with you. That is relatively true. A combination of a large console market with the fact that most major titles are released on the PC as ports has a lot to do with it. A big part of the reason for this is that PC games are pirated so often that developers don't seem to put much effort into creating a unique PC experience anymore. Consoles are squarely in the spotlight here.

I'd only say PC gaming loses out to console gaming in this one area. Consoles get all the "big" titles. PC gaming, on the other hand, gets all the user-made content (modding), the community, MMOs (very few on consoles) and most developers who will one day make games for consoles start out on the PC. I guess a valid analogy would be between Hollywood blockbusters and independent/Cannes films. If the consoles get all of the former then the PCs get most of the latter.

PC gaming has only lost out to console gaming in the sense that it doesn't generate nearly as much revenue. Creativity wise, PC gaming kicks console gaming's ass.

Also, take a trip to Korea or China. Notice how those countries produce a ton of PC games for the domestic market and in both countries, consoles have hardly made a dent. PC gaming is far from dead, it's just adapting.

Re:Maybe it wasn't timing, but milieu (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33891032)

Last I checked, Minecraft is on PC, Mac and Linux only.

AoC (1)

KevMar (471257) | about 4 years ago | (#33890570)

I guess they did not learn anything from Age of Conan.

Re:AoC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890588)

Since Age of Conan is not an EA product, I can't see how they would learn anything from its development cycle. Regardless, AoC is more successful than Warhammer: Online is, as it fits a niche. Disappointingly is that they seemed to have not learned at all from their own games, and now Warhammer has a smaller subscription base than their significantly older MMO; DAoC.

However, EA has been ruining games for quite some time now. Hellgate:London anyone? That game had so much potential but was ruined because of how rushed it was.

Summary not so good (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33890576)

We shouldn't have released when we did, everyone knows it. The game wasn't done, but EA gave us a deadline and threatened the leaders of Mythic with pink slips. We slipped so many times

Just reading the summary, you'd think it says "we shipped too early". Only the few words I emphasized mentions the main point of the article, which is that the project was horribly mismanaged, had slipped many deadline and that more time would not have helped at all. It wasn't done but it was never going to get done, EA simply cut their losses and decided to stop throwing good money after bad. The rest is just seeing what could be salvaged...

Re:Summary not so good (1)

noidentity (188756) | about 4 years ago | (#33890692)

Come on, if they had waited until it was finished, it would have been good. Just look at Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:Summary not so good (1)

xtracto (837672) | about 4 years ago | (#33890712)

Come on, if they had waited until it was finished, it would have been good. Just look at Duke Nukem Forever.

ough now that was too easy!

Re:Summary not so good (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 4 years ago | (#33890846)

Dont know about Duke Nuken Forever, but it took about 7 or 8 years for them to release Team Fortress 2.

TF2 has succeeded because it was released when it ready, and has been extremely well maintained.

Its an example of why gamers should manage gaming companies.

Re:Summary not so good (1)

noidentity (188756) | about 4 years ago | (#33891314)

Dont know about Duke Nuken Forever,

Surely you jest. It's been in development since 1997, and still hasn't been released [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Summary not so good (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33890972)

EA simply cut their losses and decided to stop throwing good money after bad. The rest is just seeing what could be salvaged...

If it was launched and sold to the public under these (now documented) circumstances, with known bugs, that sounds like a pretty damning class action case right there.

Re:Summary not so good (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 4 years ago | (#33891078)

Great plan! Then the sharedholders can sue the board, and they can sue the producer, and he can sue the code and crayon monkeys! Lawyers can fix anything!

Re:Summary not so good (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 4 years ago | (#33891278)

Fair point. Honestly though, as long as customers get their money back, or some part of their money back, to discourage this from happening again, I don't really care who's sued within the organisation.

A lot of people would buy anything Mythic made (3, Interesting)

Rix (54095) | about 4 years ago | (#33890586)

Myself included, even if we had no intention of investing the time required to play an MMO anymore.

Warhammer's real problem was that it learnt all the wrong lessons from WoW, and tossed out the superior RvR design from DAoC. The silly instanced RvR bled off too many people from the in world zones because it was easy to just jump into. Rather than the back and forth of DAoC's RvR where you'd sometimes be outnumbered and have to mount a last stand at an important keep, there was bland, perfectly balanced by numbers twitch RvR.

Of course, even numbers doesn't mean balanced. If your pick up group got matched with an opposing guild group, you had no real chance.

Still, I might play from time to time if they made it f2p.

Re:A lot of people would buy anything Mythic made (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890626)

A lot more people would have bought anything Mythic made, had they not single-handedly ended Dark Age of Camelot with the ill conceived Trials of Everquest Lite expansion. The mass exodus that shortly followed was gut wrenching, if not somehow morbidly hilarious, to watch.

WAR was doomed from the start, with or without EA's involvement.

Re:A lot of people would buy anything Mythic made (1)

Barny (103770) | about 4 years ago | (#33890700)

Damn it, its been what, 5 years? That horse is not only dead its decomposed, they have all but publicly apologised for it, you can now have all the ToA stuff done and completed in a day or two.

Please go back to VN.

Re:A lot of people would buy anything Mythic made (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33891166)

Ooo. I can do ToA stuff in a day or two now? So, how much grinding do I have to do to get a decent number of players in the game? How about my guild? My alliance?

Fanboy all you want - nothing will change the fact that Mythic is a shortsighted group that not only failed to understand their player base, but failed to understand the MMO market itself.

And sorry - the catastrophe they inflicted upon DAoC is very relevant, when you have an anonymous troll whining about how EA is entirely responsible for the death of WAR, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Re:A lot of people would buy anything Mythic made (3, Informative)

Kindgott (165758) | about 4 years ago | (#33890634)

It is free to play, and I still couldn't stick to playing it for more than a week. The fact that free play is restricted to Empire vs Chaos Tier 1 may have been a factor, but probably not the deciding one.

It seems mostly bland and uninspired to me, where it doesn't seem thrown together or buggy.

Not really (1)

Rix (54095) | about 4 years ago | (#33890734)

Free to level 10 is an evening or two of play. It's more of a more rational demo strategy.

ETP! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890616)

outstri4S

EA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890642)

wouldn't be the first game that got "killed" by EA's moneymiling....

that's why i stopped buying games published by EA.

I feel dirty whenever I play a game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890654)

Tom says:
October 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm
I worked for mythic for about 8 months. I had to leave because I felt very uncomfortable when I used the restroom. Rob Denton used to follow me in to the Men's room and watch me pee. When i confronted him about it he just said that he took an interest in all aspects of his employees lives as any good employer does.

Reference: http://ealouse.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]

I don't think I'll be able to buy a video game again, knowing that I would be exploiting the repression of game developers by doing so.

Just buy indie (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 4 years ago | (#33890828)

Jeff Vogel does pretty well for himself.

I hope they don't ruin this game (1)

tehtehteh (1857208) | about 4 years ago | (#33890676)

I want to play this game but if its sucks I'm not subscribing.. I would rather wait till the game is amazing before its released...

Re:I hope they don't ruin this game (1)

Fross (83754) | about 4 years ago | (#33891468)

if you're referring to Warhammer, it's been out what, 2 years? I doubt it's going to change much anymore.

Anyway, the first tier is free to play, so get it and have some fun.

I wanted to be a game programmer... (4, Insightful)

MetalFlow (1430151) | about 4 years ago | (#33890708)

but then I read articles like this one that made me realize that I had just idealized this job as somehow different from the rest of the cubicle farms...

Re:I wanted to be a game programmer... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890856)

Independent game design can be a good portion of that idealized vision you have of game design, so long as you accept the uncertainty of a paycheck or health insurance, have the patience to grow slowly on small projects, and have supreme amounts of confidence in yourself and your team. If you're a part of the "industry" though, it's just your standard corporate bullshit and politics with a "game company" skin laid over it. They will use and abuse the talent exactly the way the music industry does, and promote the bland, boring, two-faced corporate assholes in charge when they're done firing all the real brains behind the product.

If you must work in the games industry, do it to get some experience for a resumé, then leave with some patient friends to start a little shop and have some fun. That or start the shop off your own ideas and spare time while working a real job. Sticking with "the industry" will chew you up, spit you out, sap your soul, and generally make you hate life.

Re:I wanted to be a game programmer... (5, Insightful)

fadir (522518) | about 4 years ago | (#33891306)

Not all studios are run by EA or the way EA runs their studios. There are some sane people out there that are actually interested in long term goals and not only in short term revenue, especially independent studios with own funding (like the one I work for). Instead of playing poker and betting everything (or even more) on the next title those studios plan carefully and have realistic expectations and goals. They might not (ever) make the headlines like WoW & Co - but they make a decent living in their niche market(s) with a pretty solid business plan, without the fear to lose your job next month. They payments are not stellar but fair - a pretty good deal I'd say.

Ship it w it's done, stop it when it's shit (4, Interesting)

fadir (522518) | about 4 years ago | (#33890718)

I'm working in the games industry for quite a few years now, meanwhile as a project manager (just for a small, independent studio) and those are some of the lessons that I have learnt so far:

- Have a plan and and be ambitious - but have realistic expectations.
- Ship it when it's done.
- Stop it when you see you will never reach your goal.
- Don't release crappy software, it will hurt you in the long term.
- Be honest to yourself and the people around you (in that order!)

So stuff like Warhammer, Age of Conan, Hellgate London, etc. should have never been released the way they got released.

Re:Ship it w it's done, stop it when it's shit (1, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 4 years ago | (#33891088)

Where does "Spout obvious generalities in bullet points" fit into your list of bullet points? Powerpoint can fix anything!

Re:Ship it w it's done, stop it when it's shit (1)

fadir (522518) | about 4 years ago | (#33891096)

It doesn't seem too obvious to even big studios and publishers.

Re:Ship it w it's done, stop it when it's shit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33891568)

That must be why EA consistantly fail to generate an annual profit... oh, wait.

Re:Ship it w it's done, stop it when it's shit (2, Interesting)

MORB (793798) | about 4 years ago | (#33891214)

[i]"Ship it when it's done."[/i]

There were more than 110 people working full time on AoC at the time I left funcom, most of them working in Oslo with salaries adjusted for the high cost of life there. That's expensive as hell.

Unless you're blizzard and swimming in money, you have to rely on external sources of funding for that kind of project, and if you need to push the release back, you have to convince them to pour in more money instead of cutting their losses and pulling out.

Re:Ship it w it's done, stop it when it's shit (2, Insightful)

fadir (522518) | about 4 years ago | (#33891264)

"stop it when it's shit" would be the better option then. It doesn't make sense to ship something that's not done. Yes, you might cut your losses because you still get some customers to pay for the crap that you call a game but what is in fact an early beta at best. But in the long term this customer will think twice if he'll buy your next game.

If you aren't Blizzard, don't attempt a project as big as Blizzard's titles. "Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten" is an old German proverb, meaning "stick to what you are able to handle". Being too ambitious doesn't help anyone and will just end up in a disaster - happened many times, especially in the gaming industry.

I really don't understand why even medium sized studios with medium or low funding attempt to build AAA-titles. And while Mythic is definitely a good studio - they are simply not big enough to compete with Blizzard & Co. It's suicide.
It wouldn't make me wonder if Mythic would get shut down by EA or at least merged with/into another studio sooner or later. It's common practise for this publisher.

Re:Ship it w it's done, stop it when it's shit (3, Insightful)

MORB (793798) | about 4 years ago | (#33891312)

"If you aren't Blizzard, don't attempt a project as big as Blizzard's titles. "Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten" is an old German proverb, meaning "stick to what you are able to handle". Being too ambitious doesn't help anyone and will just end up in a disaster - happened many times, especially in the gaming industry."
Well, AoC's failure was not caused merely by a funding problem. After all we did have 5 years, and a lot of good people. I think it was mostly a combination of being shy on some things, like not being willing to rewrite the engine and tools from scratch instead of reusing the crap from anarchy online.

And there was also kind of a poor philosophy of trying to add too many feature in the game right at release instead of doing fewer things but doing them well (like blizzard originally did with WoW).

For instance, the guild city raid thing should have been cut from release (it just wasn't ready) and released in a polished form in an expansion pack imo.

Re:Ship it w it's done, stop it when it's shit (2, Interesting)

fadir (522518) | about 4 years ago | (#33891378)

Still kind of proves my point. If you don't have a producer/manager/whateverheistitled that has the balls and the authority to call the shots and cut features when it's getting out of hands then you aren't capable of handling such a project.

Developing a game is much more than having a bunch of good programmers. Someone needs to keep the strings in his hands and have a plan and a schedule to follow - and the ability to make people (all of them) follow his lead.

It was a fun game... (5, Insightful)

CougMerrik (1221450) | about 4 years ago | (#33890746)

The game was actually really fun up to a point. They did a great job with the low level experience. Once the game got to the high end, and especially once keep runs or city seiges were the norm, the game became as much fun as actually pursuing an extended siege on a castle. Not so much RvR as RvDoor. I think most of their gameplay systems were great -- expanding tactics slots, passive vs. active talent points, etc. The problem was with the content, largely devoid of alternatives to RvR at the high end, repetitive PQs and their strange and arcane reward systems which turned into a grind for gear that ended up being just really bad compared to stuff you could get just as easily from other places. In the end, once they started flailing wildly in patch after patch to try and make their content fun, I knew it was probably over.

Re:It was a fun game... (4, Interesting)

DaAdder (124139) | about 4 years ago | (#33891030)

The game actually is quite a lot of fun and it's finally been going in the right direction for the last 8 months or so. They've focused entirely on the PvP/RvR experience though, so those looking for updates to the PVE aspect of the game should probably look elsewhere. As for the dull keep-taking in T4, that's being overhauled in the patch that's currently on the test server. They did a similar overhaul of the end game that's city invasion which turn out to be quite good. They're definitely on the right track these days, but it be too little too late. I know me and my friends will stick around for a while longer though, there's simply no pvp experience that gets close elsewhere.

Maybe because it sucks... (0)

toffi (1417827) | about 4 years ago | (#33890796)

... at least for me. Here a few things i didn't like about WAR:
- No consistent gaming world
- Open-PvP is boring
- HighEnd PvE content instead of more PvP or RvR content
- Some severe balancing issues ( I know there will never be a perfect balanced game, but at least they could try)
- Some leveling holes ("what to do next?"-moments)
- No crafting (Ok maybe some, but that was pointless)
an im saying this as someone who jumped rather late on the WAR-Bandwagon. The game itself was rather stable and the Battlefields were
fun but you can't base a whole mmorpg on that.

just don't let SOE incharge of... and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33890812)

SoE(sony online entertainment) ruined Star Wars galaxies

I grew up with video games and building puters... always getting outdated and the microsoft tredmill of upgrades.
I am tired of that, PC gaming is virtually nill for me now.

I do have my gaming consoles... much much easier on the pocket book

Online games I have played: Mr Muds/Merc/Diku muds, Dark Sun online, Drakkar, Everquest, Ultima online/beta, Dark Age of Camelot, Shadowbane, Eve online/beta,
Star Wars galaxies, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, Conan online, Warhammer online, Champions online, Tabulsa Rasa.... im sure I am forgetting some...

In Game Voiceovers (3, Interesting)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about 4 years ago | (#33890834)

"And you know what they’re most proud of? This is the kicker. They are most proud of the sound. No seriously. Something like a 20Gig installation, and most of it is voiceover work."

Maybe I'm shallow, but this is one of the biggest reasons I'm interested in The Old Republic. Full voiceovers on an MMORPG implies someone was actually interested in the plot and user experience, and is trying to deliver something on par with a single player game.

And 20 gigs of space? C'mon now. That's not much these days. Hell, I remember when I have a 100 meg hard drive, and my full install of Warcraft 2 was 80 of that. I've dealt with worse.

Re:In Game Voiceovers (2, Insightful)

Kindgott (165758) | about 4 years ago | (#33890880)

Voiceovers for quest text is just something I'll be skipping because I've already skimmed through the obligatory, "Sand people attacked my land cruiser while I was en route with a shipment of unobtanium for the port in Mos Eisley, and the crates with my valuable cargo are littering the deserts. Without the money, I can't afford the medicine for my sick daughter, and I'm incapable of traveling and/or fighting; would you please find 50 crates and return them to me?" I'll be already heading in the vague direction the quest NPC has sent me on, trying to get my next level/item/skill and some in-game currency.

Heck, I have friends who refuse to play Borderlands with me because I won't read the quest text before charging off in the direction of my next waypoint.

To each their own, I suppose.

Re:In Game Voiceovers (1)

Splab (574204) | about 4 years ago | (#33890910)

Voice overs can be nice, but not in a MMORPG. It's so fucking frustrating to stand around and wait for the big boss to end his dialogue before you embark on your next spectacular wipe.

In WoW some dialogues can take several minutes, which will make you lose focus and get you agitated since it's wasting precious raid time. LK for instance will give you a solid 2-3 minutes worth of speeches, add run time buff time etc. you are wasting more time getting to the fight than the actual fight (most groups won't make it beyond 60% health which doesn't take more than 7-10 minutes).

Re:In Game Voiceovers (1)

troc (3606) | about 4 years ago | (#33891108)

Personally, I use the LK speech/cut scene to /grab another beer/take a quick bio break/briefly stand up and juggle a bit for exercise/ before the main event starts and I have to concentrate. I rather like it. The Sauerfang one on the other hand annoys me something rotten as the fight is rather easy and doesn't require much concentration by anyone (it was only ever a gear check anyway). Even when we were training LK, I still didn't mind as it gave everyone a minute or two to make sure they had their game face on, or make silly comments in vent.

I think WoW mostly gets the cutscenes right - the only seriously annoying waste of time aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh one was at the Argent Tournament and they allow you to skip that one now anyway :)

Re:In Game Voiceovers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33891452)

"YOU have found your way here, because YOU are among the few, gifted with TRUE VISION, in a world CURSED with BLINDNESS. YOU can see through the fog that hangs over this world like a SHROUD and grasp where TRUE POWER LIES..." continued ad nauseum until wipe.

Gah, I do hope Cataclysm brings an end to this. It's annoying the second time you hear it. It's really annoying after the hundredth time. Makes me wish for the great days of the Crusader's Coliseum and Wilfred Fizzlebang - last year's annoying voiceover. And oh, what heaven it would be to only have to listen to "Thorin, my lord. Why else would these invaders have come into your sanctum but to slay you?"

This is EA (2, Interesting)

TranceThrust (1391831) | about 4 years ago | (#33890888)

I already did not expect anything else. Look at Dragon Age. Good game, but bugfest galore when it comes to DLC. And who'd you think is primarily concerned with that specific part: Bioware or EA? And do you think EA even cares, or even puts up half able people at their service desk?
More recent then: Dragon Age: Awakenings, expansion of the aforementioned game. I have never played a game which was more blatantly unfinished. Characters were rushed in, options were butchered-out. How do you know? Well, because they didn't even have the time to properly remove all traces. I realise this has been getting the norm for more and more games nowadays. But it's affecting more and more potentially really good games. Civilisation 5 anyone? Or Neverwinter Nights 2 back in the day?

My only hope is on consumer power. I will not buy any product, specifically EA products, before I *know* it is proper. I will not buy at launch. I will sit and wait until the bugs have been fixed, or until I forget about it. I hope many will do the same and companies will again produce only products which are *finished*, and developers regain their pride and tell publishers to sod off when they have to.

But thanks to the insider speaking out, confirming once again rushing is the norm nowadays.

Re:This is EA (1)

Kagura (843695) | about 4 years ago | (#33891596)

Ever played a Paradox Interactive game? Notoriously awful at release, and only truly living up to its potential sometimes years after.

That's why I quit playing (1)

SendBot (29932) | about 4 years ago | (#33890950)

I bought warhammer as a digital download and though I felt it had a lot of promise, I was really disappointed that I had bought something that just "needed more time in the oven". Compared to WoW, it used twice as much ram, and I couldn't alt-tab in and out quickly at all like I could with WoW when consulting online references. There were never enough players around for the group quests, which were a cool idea but a COMPLETE waste of time because finishing one was obviously not going to happen for me. Some of the game concepts were not well explained, and I felt like I had passed up some important stuff early because there was no clear way to know about it. I didn't even play out the month that came with the game purchase it was that bad. I figured I'd come back to it at some point after it had time to mature, but the interest has long since faded. Oh, and I vaguely recall something about one of the classes not being available yet. Don't really remember what it was by now.

So yeah, I pretty much agree with the article summary as one who got in early then dropped off.

Re:That's why I quit playing (1)

Fross (83754) | about 4 years ago | (#33891514)

They've actually fixed a few of those issues (make sure you play on a high population server), particularly with the learning curve. Give the free trial a go. Still has some serious problems, but it's good for a couple of weeks of casual play.

I can't wait for PC gaming to "die" (3, Insightful)

primerib (1827024) | about 4 years ago | (#33891070)

When people talk about the "death" of PC Gaming, they're talking about the major game publishers pulling out of the platform. Honestly, I can't wait.

The lack of big name heavy-hitters with huge advertising budgets is creating a vacuum that's being filled by innovative Indie developers who would've never had a chance at mainstream commercial success in a "strong" PC gaming market.

It's not the death of a platform, it's a changing of the guard that has the potential to help normalize the gaming industry as a whole. I wait anxiously for more and more Minecrafts, Dwarf Fortresses, Amnesias and World of Goos as the EAs of the industry find the PC platform more and more unsuitable for their $150 million summer blockbusters.

This isn't me saying that big companies always make bad games or telling major publishers to gtfo, this is me saying that we have an opportunity to deflate and normalize the video game industry before a repeat of the Crash of 83.

That's a tricky one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33891116)

Scratches head. Gazes into the distance.

Is it because it was a pile of fucking shite?

EA Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33891208)

EA screwed up a game? No way!

OTOH... (1)

Phydeaux314 (866996) | about 4 years ago | (#33891510)

On the other hand, big studios do sometimes put out good games, as well. Mass Effect springs to mind as a well-done game, with a better-done sequel, and DLC I'd actually pay for. Plus, you can't hire that many voice actors of that caliber on an indie developer's budget.

I guess I'm saying that while the "CHURN OUT SEQUELS FOR MONEY BAIL ON RISKY GAMES" isn't helping the industry, there are certainly excellent titles that have come out of that same system.

Not the best rant I've ever read. (1)

Burnhard (1031106) | about 4 years ago | (#33891608)

This rant would have been entertaining if it actually contained any substance or analysis.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?