What if KSP was sold to EA?

[spikeyhat09]

what if every country decided to go socialist with EA as their "vendor" or something so that everything you buy would have to be bought from EA

[Agent30632]

Oh god no.

I'd rather have 2K buy KSP. EA would:

Only a Command Pod Mk 1, LV-1, RT-10 SRB, and Fl-T200 Tank. All other parts cost $0.49 each. A bundle with all parts which has all parts cost $8.99 each when divided.

Ads galore!

"Out of fuel? Refill your tanks for $0.99 each tank!"

[Sathurn]

No demo, no purchase.

I have spent far too much money on finished, EA games, that have more bugs than KSP. If EA publishes it, I won't buy. Been my rule for about 2-3 years.

[CobraA1]

1. Do I like DRM? No.

2. Do I like it that EA bashes WII U? No.

3. Do I like paying extra for DLC's and game perks? No.

4. Do I want Squad to sell out to EA? No.

Do you want these behaviors to change? No?

Just a side note, several of those games you list were not made or published while the parent company was under the control of EA. Example, Maxis was not under control of EA until 1997.

-Lego

Indeed. I enjoyed SimCity 2000 - back when it was just Maxis. I never bought the most recent SimCity. I was excited - until I learned about the terrible launch and the always-on internet requirements. Not the game for me, and I'm not going to support future games with similar requirements.

Not because I just hate EA - but because I don't want to support their current behaviors.

You can't get a business to change their behaviors simply by continuing to buy their products.

[Brabbit1987]

Do realize that Squad is an advertising company that randomly let a programmer who worked for them (Harv) pursue a project to make a game about a bunch of little green men making a space program because why not, only for the resulting game's popularity to explode. I'm not entirely sure how Squad is run and the actual scope of the larger company, and so far they've been pretty hands off with the games development. Of course, given that the company is probably publicly traded and appears to be fairly small, it would be trivial for EA to make a hostile takeover if they really wanted to for some reason, and since the rights to KSP don't belong the development team-unlike the rights to say Minecraft-the possibility of someone in the company's hierarchy getting greedy and selling them to a publisher for a quick buck and justifying it as "video games aren't our business" is a bit scary.

Of course, that's all conjecture, since I have no idea how Squad is actually run/how much control the development team has over the rights to the IP, and since Squad's website is in Spanish, I really can't be sure about what I'm saying, since its been a while since I took a class in that language. I also take heart in the fact that big publishers aren't particularly interested in anything outside the "mainstream" dudebro crowd's choice of games, which mainly consist of shooters, casual games, and sports games.

Pretty crazy, I never even realized Squad was an advertising company and not specifically a game developer company until you mentioned it and I looked into it. lol Learn something new everyday.

Do you want these behaviors to change? No?

Indeed. I enjoyed SimCity 2000 - back when it was just Maxis. I never bought the most recent SimCity. I was excited - until I learned about the terrible launch and the always-on internet requirements. Not the game for me, and I'm not going to support future games with similar requirements.

Not because I just hate EA - but because I don't want to support their current behaviors.

You can't get a business to change their behaviors simply by continuing to buy their products.

Despite what everyone thinks, the DRM fiasco has been done countless time for good reasons. The issue is the game companies are not sure how to go about fixing the issues with out some sort of DRM, which customers hate. While I am not sticking up for what EA has been doing, I do honestly think people over react and don't actually understand what is going on and why they are doing what they are doing.

The customer decides they hate something a company does with out actually finding out why the company did it. The difference between other companies and EA, is EA is able to actually take the risks and try these things. While other companies sit back and watch XD.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[CobraA1]

Despite what everyone thinks, the DRM fiasco has been done countless time for good reasons.

I don't think the reasons are particularly good. And note that I didn't really mention DRM anyways - I just don't want future versions of SimCity to be multiplayer-only online-only games, period.

I do honestly think people over react and don't actually understand what is going on and why they are doing what they are doing.

Hey, you know what? If EA wants to explain things a bit more, they can. But they aren't. All we got for an explanation of the online always requirement for SimCity was "but our vision! We had a vision! How dare you say we stray from our vision!"

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

The difference between other companies and EA, is EA is able to actually take the risks and try these things.

I disagree. Mojang took a big risk with its different business model (sell the game while it's still in alpha / beta, increasing the price to the release price over time). Kickstarter has made taking risks easier, as well as Steam's Greenlight. There are lots of risks being taken with indie businesses now. Risks that frankly, EA is not willing to take.

EA doesn't take risks - they just make anti-consumer decisions. The decisions are actually very safe because they know they'll make millions regardless. I would not confuse these decisions with "risks."

[Levelord]

What if KSP was sold to EA?

Quite literally the scariest creepypasta I've read all month :I

[Brabbit1987]

I don't think the reasons are particularly good. And note that I didn't really mention DRM anyways - I just don't want future versions of SimCity to be multiplayer-only online-only games, period.

Hey, you know what? If EA wants to explain things a bit more, they can. But they aren't. All we got for an explanation of the online always requirement for SimCity was "but our vision! We had a vision! How dare you say we stray from our vision!"

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

I disagree. Mojang took a big risk with its different business model (sell the game while it's still in alpha / beta, increasing the price to the release price over time). Kickstarter has made taking risks easier, as well as Steam's Greenlight. There are lots of risks being taken with indie businesses now. Risks that frankly, EA is not willing to take.

EA doesn't take risks - they just make anti-consumer decisions. The decisions are actually very safe because they know they'll make millions regardless. I would not confuse these decisions with "risks."

First of all, you are comparing indie developers to EA? Sorry but that is a horrible comparison and you know it.

Second, you don't think EA is taking risks? So ... they are purposefully doing this so their customers hate them? That's kinda odd, when did businesses start working like that? Safe? ROFL How is it safe when they are LOSING money! You don't know what your talking about at all.

[Sapphire]

EA's not trying to make their customers hate them. They're trying to maximize their profits and "appeal to a broader audience". They just have a real jerk-ish way of doing it.

[Brabbit1987]

EA's not trying to make their customers hate them. They're trying to maximize their profits and "appeal to a broader audience". They just have a real jerk-ish way of doing it.

Well they are trying to solve issues in the industry, and yes make money. They are not trying to be a jerk about it, it just happens to come off that way. No company does these things on purpose. There is always a reason behind it.

Also, some people ask why they do not explain themselves and the answer is because people simply do not accept the answer, even though it is a legitimate problem. Games cost more and more money to develop since people want more and more. You can't please a customer with the same thing over and over gain. So you try to push the boundaries which sadly requires more money.

This is why Free to Play looks so amazing to some developers, they are willing to take that risk because it isn't cheap to make games. Indie games are able to be successful because they appeal to an entirely different audience. So you really can't compare the two. Unless you think everyone who plays Call of Duty also plays indie games? Sure, they might but that doesn't change the fact people who like these FPS games, high end graphics, and so on and so fourth costa lot more money then an indie game does.

The industry is hitting a bit of a wall when it comes to making money. You now have to sell a ton of copies to even break even. The DRM always online, isn't about piracy entirely it's also about used games which these companies make nothing off of at all. Some people have used the excuse, someone already payed them for that copy, but that isn't the issue. The issue is now you have 1 copy of the game which was previously owned by 2 or more people, which if used games didn't exist that person probably would have purchased a new copy. So instead of a company selling 800,000 copies, they may only sell 500,000. It's a huge difference. Course those numbers can vary greatly.

Another thing people do not realize, is this is why steam works as well as it does. This is also why steam is able to do the sales they do.

Again, EA has done some stupid crap, but really ... does anyone honestly think they are doing just to do it? If so, you should do some research.

[Tarrow]

Every year they'd release a new KSP version (KSP 2014!) which'd consist of last years game with some new character skins, some name changes and nothing else. After all it worked for the forty eight separate releases they did for The Sims. And pretty much their entire range of sports games.

On the upside EA would have their first product that's actually worth buying since the days of system shock II.

[Aladran]

Seeing how EA is going to bankruptcy, It would be less surprising to see SQUAD buying EA, hehe.

But who want to buy rotten fruits...

[Custard Donut (In Space)]

Well they are trying to solve issues in the industry, and yes make money. They are not trying to be a jerk about it, it just happens to come off that way. No company does these things on purpose. There is always a reason behind it.

I think the reason is greed, same as Microsoft, when temptation for money exceeds the will to keep ones dignity the resulting mindset is one of, "yes i'm eating your cookies, yes you caught me, yes i look undignified, but it was worth it."

In the most recent debacle with the new Xbox and it's appallingly restrictive terms and conditions a very rare thing happened, the public had had enough and simply said "No."

Edited July 22, 2013 by Custard Donut (In Space)

[Tw1]

Seeing how EA is going to bankruptcy, It would be less surprising to see SQUAD buying EA, hehe.

Haha, that would be awesome. Imagine SimCity done with the Squad team's careful approach. It'd end up with all the features I needed mods for, yet be simpler to use.

Or, imagine having to build semi-realistic power grids and water systems, with sub-stations and everything... I'd enjoy that.

[Brabbit1987]

I think the reason is greed, same as Microsoft, when temptation for money exceeds the will to keep ones dignity the resulting mindset is one of, "yes i'm eating your cookies, yes you caught me, yes i look undignified, but it was worth it."

In the most recent debacle with the new Xbox and it's appallingly restrictive terms and conditions a very rare thing happened, the public had had enough and simply said "No."

How is the reason greed if they lose money by doing what they are doing and not gain money? If you thin kyou are right, then show me proof it has to do with greed. Show me how it is they are making more money by LOSING customers.

also the Xbox had nothing to do with Microsoft and greed. That was actually the publishers. But that just shows how much you know. In what way would microsoft have benifited and made any money with those restrictions? The answer is, they couldn't. Those restrictions was so the publishers could make more money, not microsoft.

[Custard Donut (In Space)]

How is the reason greed if they lose money by doing what they are doing and not gain money? If you thin kyou are right, then show me proof it has to do with greed. Show me how it is they are making more money by LOSING customers.

If they are losing customers, of which i have heard nothing of the kind by the way, then my opinion is it is a direct result of them seeing how far they can push things and they have found their answer, Xbox found out how far they could go only recently and it cost them, not just money but a lot of goodwill, i have watched EA ruin series i loved for over a decade and i'm guessing so have many other gamers, all the negativity adds up in the end.

[AlternNocturn]

The game would probably be exactly the same. They might make Squad develop a sequel with multiplayer and/or charge for DLC (like every company does), but that's about it.

I just don't get this massive EA hatred. It's not like they kicked your dog, they just publish video games. Granted they do some questionable things but it's really not that serious.

[OopsThatNotWork]

I would be glad as hell i paid only 15 bucks for it, cause if I can help it I'm not giving EA another penny after messing up so many sequels to some of my fav games.

Edit: Btw, anyone from EA who reads this thread realize this unpopular trend is a pretty good indication of the general consensus of your company now.

Edited July 22, 2013 by OopsThatNotWork

[Brabbit1987]

If they are losing customers, of which i have heard nothing of the kind by the way, then my opinion is it is a direct result of them seeing how far they can push things and they have found their answer, Xbox found out how far they could go only recently and it cost them, not just money but a lot of goodwill, i have watched EA ruin series i loved for over a decade and i'm guessing so have many other gamers, all the negativity adds up in the end.

"which i have heard nothing of the kind by the way" ... well let me think .. all the negative comments are not a hint? The mass people who say they will never buy another EA game again ... is not a hint?

Or are all of you just trolling and still plan to buy their games?

Again if you learn to do research you would actually know why microsoft did what they did. But guess you will never know if you decide not to do your research. It had nothing to do with greed at all.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/ - this is always a good place to start to learn about the industry.

Edit:

Actually pretty funny http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-07-19-gamestop-exploiting-developers-and-consumers-says-ready-at-dawn-boss ... here is an article of exactly what I am talking about.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[Aladran]

*KSP Sequel, Multi-player Fist person Shooter on XBOX and PS3, poorly ported to PC.

(The main story is happening on Duna)

You said you wanted Multiplayer? EA delivers

[Cooly568]

EA HAS made some good games, they are just far and few in between for me.

Oh god, I can only imagine the "time saver" DLC.

Congratulations! You landed on the Mun.

If you pay 4.99$ you can instantly be teleported to Minmus!

[frizzank]

What if a satellite landed on me? What if I won the lottery? What if I sold my house?

Not seeing how random speculation is even remotely helpful or insightful.

[Captain Sierra]

EA pretty well destroys the franchises it buys. I reference Command and Conquer. If Squad took over C&C, Oh thank Jesus! That'd be the best day for C&C fans since Tiberian Sun: Firestorm came out.

[OopsThatNotWork]

The customer decides they hate something a company does with out actually finding out why the company did it.

Yea we sometimes do that, its not about not finding why they did something, sometimes its we just dont care. I for one hate what they did to the C&C series in C&C 4. They decided to completely veer off a cliff from what their previous games had been. I don't give a ______(insert your word of choice here) why they did it, I just hate them for taking the next game in the series I like and making it (as far as gameplay is concerned) my least favorite game in the series by completely destroying the gameplay the series was known for. And dont even get me started on cancelling Generals 2 for some MMO-esk type game.

[Brabbit1987]

EA pretty well destroys the franchises it buys. I reference Command and Conquer. If Squad took over C&C, Oh thank Jesus! That'd be the best day for C&C fans since Tiberian Sun: Firestorm came out.

No offence, but that is a biased opinion. I have enjoyed plenty of EA games that where bought out.

Yea we sometimes do that, its not about not finding why they did something, sometimes its we just dont care. I for one hate what they did to the C&C series in C&C 4. They decided to completely veer off a cliff from what their previous games had been. I don't give a ______(insert your word of choice here) why they did it, I just hate them for taking the next game in the series I like and making it (as far as gameplay is concerned) my least favorite game in the series by completely destroying the gameplay the series was known for. And dont even get me started on cancelling Generals 2 for some MMO-esk type game.

You also have every right, however, it's your opinion, and people really need and should keep their opinion as their opinion instead of acting like EA is the worst company ever, which mind you they are seriously considered the worst company in the US for the second time ... really people? Worst? That is just sad and really uncalled for. I can almost certainly say there have got to be a heck of a lot worse companies out there than EA.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Brabbit1987