ITT EA makes a good move for the gaming industry
- Thread starter xdarkyrex
- Start date
quietfanatic
Ancient One
/Cue the Imperial March.
Yay, more crappy games delivered straight to your living room for your crappy new system.
Yay, more crappy games delivered straight to your living room for your crappy new system.
The idea is good, and, in theory, I'd be all for it. Having everything on one platform so that I can play whatever game I like without having to worry about making a choice of one console (or no console and sticking solely with a PC) over another and missing out on some thing no matter what I choose. Unless I'm well-off enough to just buy all of them. Which I'm not, and most people aren't either.
However, I don't think that EA buying out every development studio and becoming one huge monolith that controls everything is a good thing, which is what EA really wants. Especially considering the crap they generally publish.
However, I don't think that EA buying out every development studio and becoming one huge monolith that controls everything is a good thing, which is what EA really wants. Especially considering the crap they generally publish.
oho, haha, wow...
quietfanatic
Ancient One
Different equipment will be better at different things, and improve competition as well as diversity. This EA guy doesn't want to create another competing console system under their total control, but rather hopes for a more generic platform that would make it easier firstly for publishers and designers, rather than consumers. Publishers can put money into cross platform versions if they make appropriate deals for rights, although that has its own technical problems too.
The real issue here seems to be estimating the potential importance of the home entertainment hub/server, which would presumably have PC type technology.
The real issue here seems to be estimating the potential importance of the home entertainment hub/server, which would presumably have PC type technology.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
i do agree, a single dev platform for all the consoles would make it cheaper to get the latest halo, but seriously, who cares about consoles.
consoles are to computers as oblivion is to fallout.
its not going to matter soon.
but the biggest problem i see is each console would have to have different controlling inputs due to different controller types.
consoles are to computers as oblivion is to fallout.
its not going to matter soon.
but the biggest problem i see is each console would have to have different controlling inputs due to different controller types.
EA said:
They also charged money to unlock stuff that was already on the game disc and completely ruined nearly every franchise they've gotten their hands on...
No, it wouldn't. Cheaper to develop, yes, but if you seriously think EA would pass that savings on to you, you haven't been paying much attention to their business model for the last decade or so.TheWesDude said:
Um, what?TheWesDude said:
Seriously, especially that last line there. What the hell are you talking about exactly? What's not going to matter soon? Consoles? PCs? Games? Development houses? Little blue men in bad suits?
No, see, that's the whole point. If you had one central platform, there'd be no need of different controller types or inputs or any of that. Not that I'm saying merging everything to one universal console is necessarily a good idea, but incompatibility among peripherals, controllers, input technology and the like would be eliminated, not compounded, if such a thing did happen.TheWesDude said:
As for whether that in itself would be beneficial or baneful, well that's almost an entire topic on its own. There would be some advantages, like the fact that you could buy whatever "cool and shiny" controller you wanted, and know damn well it's gonna work on your system, work with every game, etc... But there would also be some severe downsides. One example that leaps immediately to mind is already very much in play for the PC. Did you know that MS Windows has made a practice of having special, native drivers and libraries that third party developers aren't allowed to use?
That's one of the main reasons why native programs, designed by MS to run on Windows often show better performance and raw results -because the third party developers are forced to use "second string" development libraries, so the comparison from their software to MS' own simply isn't on a level playing field to begin with.
If the game market ever did go to a single platform, it'd *damn* sure better be a *completely* open one. Otherwise, someone somewhere would own all the rights, and only the big boys would be able to afford to license them, so any small company or just group of great guys with an even greater idea would never be able to bring anything to fruition.
Hmm.. that's sounding so eerily familiar it's getting creepy. Moving on...
There was a time, many more years ago than I care to count, when EA (which actually went by ECA in those days) wasn't the big gigantic corporate bastard sponge it's become. I can still remember watching their nifty color-shifting logo while waiting for some pretty cool games to load on my old C-64.generalissimofurioso said:
In the world of today however, no argument. Anything they've touched for at least the last decade and change has turned to (or always was) utter shit. They were also one of the pioneers of the idea of software-based copy protection, which ultimately brought us such *wonderful* ideas like SecuRom. A technology so brilliant and innovative, that while it's about as effective a means of copy protection as a wagging finger and a "Bad gamer. Baaaad." quote, it can really play hell with someone's system -particularly that of the general public who's really not incredibly savvy with the ins and outs of what's going on under the hood in order to find, fix, and remove all the crap this little gem can do.
Yeah, thanks EA. That was a GREAT direction to help us down. Much appreciated.
Oh, and while we're thanking EA for their marvelous past deeds...
Thanks again for killing off Bullfrog. Those guys were cool.
I mean, anyone with the balls to market a game series based on being the 'director' of a shadow-theory, paramilitary organization which abducts any average Joe off the streets, subjugates and brainwashes them, and then forcibly turns them into a cyborg enforcer in order to go out and wage war, gather more warm bodies for more troops, and rake in whatever assets can be recovered from the corporations in power definitely gets a big ol' nod from me.
...And you milked the company responsible for that gem (among others) dry, and tossed them aside like a used tissue. I hope you sleep well when you get that universal console with the big bold EA logo on the top, You heartless bastards.
-Wraith
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
that would mean each program or else the dev platform itself would have to be able to sense the type of controller and the buttons and controller configuration and allow the player to customize everything. you cant guarentee online ability because some people without internet connections or dialup get a console simply because they cant do it on their computer.
that would be a huge nightmare imo.
xdarkyrex said:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7052420.stm
Well, maybe they aren't all bad?
Nice of them to rip off/finally have balls to speak publicly about what was told to them by many of their developers, including Origin, given their chasing of consoles the last 15 or so years. Too bad they won't speak about the "console action causing problems in many game genre developments" issue that developers have spoken to them about, but EA doesn't want to hear. Bullfrog, Origin, Maxis, and many others....
EA, what they can't run into the group and milk now, they will find a way in the future.
Yes, there is a standardized gaming console. It's called the PC. Mac for those who need the computer to think for them. Unfortunately given Microsoft's business tailoring and incompetence with operating systems, it leads to more hardware being required, bullshit and unnecessary complexity of the OS, and of course the hardware companies are in deals with Microsoft. There is a SHITLOAD of price fixing and hardware release schedules designed to force you to upgrade in certain ways, and just after a Microsoft OS release approaches "workable" they release another bloated turd. Now for consoles...Microsoft DOES see itself as being eventually the only kid in town, which is a shame because their X-Brick is a shiny and shitty joke.
WraithUV said:
Yup. Every time you see one of those "Games for Windows" on top of a gaming box, it is proof of this double standard and Microsoft's determined development monopoly on its own OS. Those are the companies given these exclusive libraries and hooks into the OS.
Microsoft has gone back again to the practice akin to initially crippling/making defunct competitor's database programs and spreadsheets as they did with early versions of MS-DOS and Windows.
Remember, the computer games industry is now designed around fraud.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
it just makes you wonder about all the monopoly lawsuits that microsoft went through all over the world and if they are going to be initiated again.
not to mention the big question, who would actually make and get paid for this generic console?
not to mention the big question, who would actually make and get paid for this generic console?
but but but, there's ATI/AMD vs Nvidia? and Intel vs AMD?Roshambo said:
that's like waaaay too hard to code for! we need one platform!
ONE SIZE FITS ALL!
(about the most retarded contradiction in terms i've ever heard btw)
The thing is, though: MS's lawsuits all over the worlds happened because MS is big player on the software market for Operating Systems, which isn't deemed as beeing for kids.
In the public eye, computer & videogames are still only played by 8-12 years, or maybe 8-16 year olds. EA then can get away with much more because of this, since EA really isn't in the public eye as MS is or has been over the years.
I agree about the whole EA wants to make money on the one platform thing. It wouldn't surprise if they have a prototype under development for themselves of this one platform suits all games thingie. That way EA can fulfill their dream of becoming Lord of all the gaming Rings in the world, controlling every gamer's actions --- all over the world.
In the public eye, computer & videogames are still only played by 8-12 years, or maybe 8-16 year olds. EA then can get away with much more because of this, since EA really isn't in the public eye as MS is or has been over the years.
I agree about the whole EA wants to make money on the one platform thing. It wouldn't surprise if they have a prototype under development for themselves of this one platform suits all games thingie. That way EA can fulfill their dream of becoming Lord of all the gaming Rings in the world, controlling every gamer's actions --- all over the world.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
so far the gaming public has pretty much said what they want with their gaming dollars, and there is a reason my yearly gaming budget went from $500 to $50.