Does this mean no console before the PS1 and N64 existed? o_o
There are a lot of people who won't even touch a game older than Super Mario 64, so it only goes to show that some revisionism is required to make points.
EDIT: Not to say this poster is, I meant in general.
“A thing may be too sad to be believed or too wicked to be believed or too good to be believed; but it cannot be too absurd to be believed in this planet of frogs and elephants, of crocodiles and cuttle-fish.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Fanboy will find a reason to rant, no matter how unimportant it is.
Also, to call something next gen, it has to be able to do what other console haven't done before in terms of graphics and creativity.
The Wii U lets you play your games on the toilet, I guess thats as creative as this gen of Nintendo is gonna get.
For you, the day LordJumpMad graced your threads, was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday. [url=http://www.backloggery.com/jumpmad]Unive...
"Additionally, EA isn’t grouping the Wii U as part of its “Gen 4″ roadmap, which includes next-gen consoles."
insert random comments about how EA sucks, EA knows nothing, I who post on NintendoLife know more about the industry than EA and I say that the Wii U is next gen, etc etc
Every time I read your posts I want so badly to like you, man, but this just seems openly hostile. Take a chill pill and check the ol' blood pressure.
Only time will tell. If Nintendo does well and the Wii U really starts to take off, then I'm sure EA will start singing a different tune. If EA doesn't, then EA doesn't. I think this coming holiday season, assuming the other consoles launch, will be a very telling time for the future of the console gaming industry.
It definitely isn't a good publisher if that is the case. Most of its sports games have changed almost nothing about themselves from iteration to iteration (with one literally not changing a thing), it has standardized putting a $10 online pass in every game it puts out (even in games that have no online components), and it has almost ludicrously high sales expectations for its current games which will most likely not be achieved (example; Dead Space 3). And let's not forget EA is now adding microtransactions to Dead Space 3, a game that already costs $60 get access to.
1) EA has been doing a lot with the FIFA series in recent years including an entirely new physics model. Just because the Wii U port was minimal (not worth doing much more than that with such a low install base, frankly) doesn't mean the series itself is stagnant
2) The Amalur Online Pass was for DLC quests etc. I'm certain that EA's not the only one doing DLC.
3) I'm also not sure how escalating production costs are EA's fault. Call of Duty needs to sell bucketloads to generate a return on investment, too. Throwing in optional microtransactions/ DLC makes a lot of sense to me, since EA surely knows that Dead Space 3 isn't going to make a fortune solely on retail sales.
A) I wasn't referencing the Wii U version at all. The link I posted was to the Wii version of FIFA 13, which was a near duplicate of the 2012 FIFA game.
B) True, the Amular online pass was mainly for a future DLC, but it also locked some on-disc quests that were 100% ready by the time the game shipped. The fact that EA tried so desperately to find something which they could lock behind $10 is a grotesque testament to EA's obsession with locking content that they consumer already payed for.
C) Looking at the sales figures that are publicly available, it is clear that Dead Space 2 actually sold less than the original Dead Space. So why in the world does EA think the Dead Space 3 will sell nearly as good as both games combined? And on the subject of the microtransactions, they fundamentally altered the gameplay of the crafting system in Dead Space 3 so that EA could attempt to sell more things while you play the game that you already bought for $60.
EDIT: Also, thinking about this thread, what's the point of it? Not only were you being smug with the main post, but you're actively insulting a user-base because you can.
Thanks given to Xkhaoz for that one avatar. Please contact me before using my custom avatar!
A (Former) Reviewer for Digitally Downloaded.net
My Backloggery: http://backloggery.com/v8_ninja
It definitely isn't a good publisher if that is the case. Most of its sports games have changed almost nothing about themselves from iteration to iteration (with one literally not changing a thing), it has standardized putting a $10 online pass in every game it puts out (even in games that have no online components), and it has almost ludicrously high sales expectations for its current games which will most likely not be achieved (example; Dead Space 3). And let's not forget EA is now adding microtransactions to Dead Space 3, a game that already costs $60 get access to.
1) EA has been doing a lot with the FIFA series in recent years including an entirely new physics model. Just because the Wii U port was minimal (not worth doing much more than that with such a low install base, frankly) doesn't mean the series itself is stagnant
2) The Amalur Online Pass was for DLC quests etc. I'm certain that EA's not the only one doing DLC.
3) I'm also not sure how escalating production costs are EA's fault. Call of Duty needs to sell bucketloads to generate a return on investment, too. Throwing in optional microtransactions/ DLC makes a lot of sense to me, since EA surely knows that Dead Space 3 isn't going to make a fortune solely on retail sales.
A) I wasn't referencing the Wii U version at all. The link I posted was to the Wii version of FIFA 13, which was a near duplicate of the 2012 FIFA game.
B) True, the Amular online pass was mainly for a future DLC, but it also locked some on-disc quests that were 100% ready by the time the game shipped. The fact that EA tried so desperately to find something which they could lock behind $10 is a grotesque testament to EA's obsession with locking content that they consumer already payed for.
C) Looking at the sales figures that are publicly available, it is clear that Dead Space 2 actually sold less than the original Dead Space. So why in the world does EA think the Dead Space 3 will sell nearly as good as both games combined? And on the subject of the microtransactions, they fundamentally altered the gameplay of the crafting system in Dead Space 3 so that EA could attempt to sell more things while you play the game that you already bought for $60.
1) Play FIFA 2011. Play FIFA 2013. It's a different game.
2) EA didn't lock any content away from paying customers. If you bought the game new, you got access to the locked content without any further cost. There was a code included in each game box.
If, however, you bought the game second hand then you didn't pay EA at all. So, no, you are not a paying customer of EA's. Given that you're playing EA's investment, however, I don't see how any person could suggest that EA is being unethical there. It's entitled to make money from its investments.
3) It's the laws of escalation. Fans wouldn't tolerate a third game in a series that was not a functional improvement on the second. So budgets need to get bigger, which means the game needs to sell more copies to make money.
The alternative is that there is no Dead Space 3. So, which would you prefer?
This breaks mt heart... Haha. I think EA is giving up. Their FIFA game on Wii U shows no support at all. We'll see what they do. Maybe Bioware should buy EA, haha...
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
EA's market cap is $4.6 billion. I don't think Bioware has quite that much spare cash lying around
Ya, for sure... Well, EA can do whatever I guess, they just probably want to continue killing necromorphs as realistically as possible on PS4/Xbox 720. I'm picking up Madden 14 if it's a good one.
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
EA didn't lock any content away from paying customers. If you bought the game new, you got access to the locked content without any further cost. There was a code included in each game box.
If, however, you bought the game second hand then you didn't pay EA at all. So, no, you are not a paying customer of EA's. Given that you're playing EA's investment, however, I don't see how any person could suggest that EA is being unethical there. It's entitled to make money from its investments.
But someone did pay EA for that game. For any used game to exist, it must have been bought as brand new by an individual. Ergo, that investment has already been payed for and thus EA is compensated for. What EA is trying to do is say that their investment is void immediately when that product is transferred to a different user and thus that new user cannot access the full contents of the product despite that product being compensated for. And console games are not like DVDs and CDs, which can be ripped; if you do not have the game disk, you cannot play a game. Movie companies and music-producing companies would have killed to be in that situation years ago.
It's the laws of escalation. Fans wouldn't tolerate a third game in a series that was not a functional improvement on the second. So budgets need to get bigger, which means the game needs to sell more copies to make money.
The alternative is that there is no Dead Space 3. So, which would you prefer?
You're assuming that I care about Dead Space, which I don't. Also, last I checked microtransactions gave no "Functional Improvement" to anything.
Thanks given to Xkhaoz for that one avatar. Please contact me before using my custom avatar!
A (Former) Reviewer for Digitally Downloaded.net
My Backloggery: http://backloggery.com/v8_ninja
What I read is that you can get more content by buying the game new (where did you get $10 from?). I don't think that's a bad thing, just an incentive to buy the game new instead of used
The deal with the online pass is that every new copy of an EA game comes with a brand new code that can be used to play that game online. However, once that code is used, that code is gone forever. If the first buyer sells their game and another gamer buys that copy of the game second-hand, that second purchaser has to pay EA $10 to get another online code so that they can play that copy of the game online.
And the problem is?
I'm with Waltzy on this one. I don't see the problem with this. If the publisher wants you to buy things new, they'll give you an incentive to buy it new. The online pass is a bonus for paying full price for the game. They don't HAVE to give you online if you didn't buy it new.
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
The thing is, is that Sony and Microsoft develop new tech to use in gadgets in the first place. Nintendo makes games, and they just simplify current tech to their liking. The better tech Sony and Microsoft come up with next gen will automatically 'sync' Nintendo back up to new standard in their next gen, and add their own touch on top of that. Maybe if/when Microsoft and Sony show their consoles and Nintendo sees neccessary features in hardware or other features, Nintendo will copy them like they(Sony/Microsoft) did last gen with motion controls. It's only fair IMO.
I'm just eager to see which one blocks used sales. That should be interesting.
“A thing may be too sad to be believed or too wicked to be believed or too good to be believed; but it cannot be too absurd to be believed in this planet of frogs and elephants, of crocodiles and cuttle-fish.”
― G.K. Chesterton
But someone did pay EA for that game. For any used game to exist, it must have been bought as brand new by an individual. Ergo, that investment has already been payed for and thus EA is compensated for. What EA is trying to do is say that their investment is void immediately when that product is transferred to a different user and thus that new user cannot access the full contents of the product despite that product being compensated for. And console games are not like DVDs and CDs, which can be ripped; if you do not have the game disk, you cannot play a game. Movie companies and music-producing companies would have killed to be in that situation years ago.
Pardon the triple post (I am lazy), but tough. Also, when can you rip DVDs? They have copyright protection on them. EA doesn't have to treat you like a customer if you didn't pay for the game. It doesn't matter who bought it. Similarly, Apple and other companies shouldn't have to care if I bought their products second-hand.
It's the laws of escalation. Fans wouldn't tolerate a third game in a series that was not a functional improvement on the second. So budgets need to get bigger, which means the game needs to sell more copies to make money.
The alternative is that there is no Dead Space 3. So, which would you prefer?
You're assuming that I care about Dead Space, which I don't. Also, last I checked microtransactions gave no "Functional Improvement" to anything.
Don't like them? Don't buy them. It's that simple.
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
"So, couple of things. First, you never count Nintendo out. They've got some of the best IPs in the game industry, when their marquee titles show up, that's when you usually see the bounce. I'm deeply respectful of the achievements they've had over the last several years, and so yeah, never really count them out.
Having said that, I wouldn't say that we see much correlation between the results that Nintendo have just shown with the console debut of the Wii U and what we see coming. We see a pretty sharp distinction and unfortunately I'm unable to go any further than that.
Ours is an industry where a lot of devices come in and represent themselves as the next generation or the next generation after that. You know in many ways, we would argue that the gen— what we're describing as "Gen 4", is yet to come — and it's that we're excited about, and that's what we're investing in, and frankly we've been quite consistent with that for some time, recognising the frustration our inability to articulate precisely why, causes for you."
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
^Yeah, thanks for that. They sound much more coherent, now, and again, I agree.
What's the point of playing a game you got secondhand online anyways? Chances are, by the time you got it, no one's playing it anymore. The online passes are really just there to stop people from buying a game used for $5 less when the game came out a week ago.
I totally agree with EA. I don't find a system that comes with a controller with a screen on it truly ''next-gen''.
What the heck does "next-gen" mean anymore? If a console's out, then it's technically "current gen"
Current gen when it comes down to marketing it based on its competition.
Next generation hardware is what Knux is saying. Wii U is barely stronger than Sony's Playstation 3, which isn't necessarily next generation hardware, but rather, last generation.
EA is right people. Not from a general meaning but by a hardware point of view.
Just for you. "I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear." - Freddie Mercury
Would be interesting to see what happens "next gen" considering the state of the industry right now. Is it worth developing for high-tech systems? Time will tell by next year
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
But someone did pay EA for that game. For any used game to exist, it must have been bought as brand new by an individual. Ergo, that investment has already been payed for and thus EA is compensated for. What EA is trying to do is say that their investment is void immediately when that product is transferred to a different user and thus that new user cannot access the full contents of the product despite that product being compensated for. And console games are not like DVDs and CDs, which can be ripped; if you do not have the game disk, you cannot play a game. Movie companies and music-producing companies would have killed to be in that situation years ago.
No, what EA is doing is standing up for its rights as the owner of some intellectual property to charge people to access that content.
EA's not stopping you selling your disc. EA couldn't really care less about the physical disc. That's not what EA spent money on. What EA invested in is the game itself, and it is well within its rights to charge each person once to access that game content.
People need to realise that the days in which the content and the physical media are considered to be the one product are over. The law recognises the difference between the physical product, and the content that's on it. And, frankly, there's nothing unethical about insisting on being paid for your work.
You're assuming that I care about Dead Space, which I don't. Also, last I checked microtransactions gave no "Functional Improvement" to anything.
It was a hypothetical question. The point was that if there weren't microtransactions or a big development budget, there would likely be no Dead Space 3. I know there are a lot of gamers out there that would be disappointed by that.
You would think that with all these game studios closing down because of one game failing to break even, consumers would be waking up to the basic reality that if game companies don't earn money they tend to disappear. But, no, there remains so much hostility towards the very idea that these companies - that people claim to be fans of and therefore should want to see succeed - making money.
Forums
Topic: EA doesn't count Nintendo as next gen
Posts 41 to 60 of 188
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.