Jump to content

What if KSP was sold to EA?


Recommended Posts

I don't think you guys realize how many of the decisions in games are made by the developer, not the publisher. EA has surprisingly little to do with the design/development process other than funding, marketing, HR, and PR, at least as far as I've seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you guys realize how many of the decisions in games are made by the developer, not the publisher. EA has surprisingly little to do with the design/development process other than funding, marketing, HR, and PR, at least as far as I've seen.

Which reminds me that Maxis said their choice for Simcity had nothing to do with EA at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well to correct you, they didn't say it was the graphics load, it had something to do with the all sims in the city being able to be handled by 1 computer and it being linked with other users in the cities.

If I remember it right, Maxis wanted the game "to be able to run on dad's PC".

I have not played Mass effect 3, but I absolutely loved 2. More so then the first.

Did you play the Overlord DLC? That was pretty heartwrenching. And I was pretty disappointed the Hammerhead never showed up again. Having that in ME1 would have made driving much more fun.

As to whether EA and Maxis lied, I'll just put these here.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122654-Maxis-Developer-Denies-Need-For-Single-Player-SimCity-Servers

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122732-EA-Admits-That-SimCity-Could-Have-Been-Offline

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember it right, Maxis wanted the game "to be able to run on dad's PC".

Did you play the Overlord DLC? That was pretty heartwrenching. And I was pretty disappointed the Hammerhead never showed up again. Having that in ME1 would have made driving much more fun.

As to whether EA and Maxis lied, I'll just put these here.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122654-Maxis-Developer-Denies-Need-For-Single-Player-SimCity-Servers

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122732-EA-Admits-That-SimCity-Could-Have-Been-Offline

lol right, but lied or not, not sure why they did. Doesn't really change much. The game does still connect to the servers to do things besides authenticate , so it wasn't just for DRM. Really it doesn't matter anyway, they screwed up, we all know that.

As for the DLC question. No, never purchased a DLC from EA for any game as of yet.

Edit: I am going to head to bed. Tomorrow need to work on some videos -.- yay! lol love making them, hate rendering and uploading them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well to correct you, they didn't say it was the graphics load, it had something to do with the all sims in the city being able to be handled by 1 computer and it being linked with other users in the cities. Also their is no proof they lied. That is speculation. There was a person who was able to get sims working offline, but that doesn't mean every single function is actually working properly or as intended. While I agree the new simcity is a huge flop, I still don't think that justified people out right hating EA as they do. Sure disappointed to me is a more normal reaction, but hatred is just too far.

I have played a few of their recent games, and i can't say the quality really decreased any. To me it's equally comparable to anything I played in the past. Such as Need for Speed Hot Pursuit I enjoy just as much as their past games, but I am disappointed there was no multiplayer o.o. It most certainly wasn't a bad game though. I have not played Mass effect 3, but I absolutely loved 2. More so then the first.

I'm quite sure that if some function of Simcity were to not work, it would be because of the act of cracking the game to work offline and not an actual hardware limitation. I've seen other games that are graphically superior and able to handle more simulations than Simcity, so if hardware was truly unable to run Simcity, EA's game coders need a stiff reach around on how to optimize a game. :I

According to EA's claim, its servers handle a "significant amount of the calculations." Which sounds less convincing when their servers could barely handle something as simple as a login load, let alone a rendering load or calculation load.

This is what a modder discovered when checking the code in the game and dissecting specifically what information was being exchanged to the client and server:

“The SimCity servers are not doing any calculations that could not be done on your PC, even for an entire region single player offline mode, let alone just the city you are in. All the server sends to your client, is some very basic data about each city – how much power they have available, how much spare fire trucks, you know – that sort of stuff. It’s minor, and it’s sent as raw numbers. Your client then just goes ‘oh there’s XXX power spare from city Z.’ It’s that simple.†It’s his belief that the servers aren’t chugging nearly as hard as Maxis say. - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/16/simcity-modder-tells-us-offline-regional-play-easily-done/

Edited by Levelord
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brabbit1987 = advocatus diaboli

Most of us know that EA is run by greedy suits that want to squeeze you and their workers dry. The proof is in the drm, micro transactions, dlc, employee treatment, and the buying of successful companies sinking their fangs in and sucking till the name dies.

That is 90% of business now a days though. It's the era of the Mitt Romney. buy it, squeeze it, gut it, sell it = profit. EA made themselves a lightning rod for gamers all on their own. I have no sympathy for them, they sure as hell have none for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got to agree with the SimCity example, they would really be bad for it. Small independant developers who are focused purely on a smaller portfolio of games are the way forward for better service to consumers. We're seeing example of it everywhere.

IMO EA should really be leagally forced to break up into the previous studios it has absorbed over the years. It would be better for consumers and competition within the industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they will implement weapons, no more fuel consume so even a 3 year old child will be able to build a rocket to anywhere, they will implement teletransport and FTL engines and ionic engines powerful like a rocket to make anything easier change the color of the kerbals to pink and add green aliens to shoot at AND finally a wonderfull and usefull multiplayer to have fun shooting each other crafts to demostrate you are the coolest guy in the world! EA logos anywhere. the drean of a 3 neurons brain. ( 2 are playing cards while 1 is hiding )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical events after EA takeover of Squad:

First - Squad will be renamed to EA [insert location name].

KSP will be released in its current alpha state as a finished game. All later updates will be sold as DLC (moar boosters? $4.99!)

Squad (now EA [insert location name]) is ordered to work on an MMO. EA heavily hypes it, touts it as a game-changer.

New features are revealed, such as full voice acting for EVERYTHING (even struts), choices (Do you want boosters[Y/N])

Amazing (pre-rendered) trailer reveal at E3, monthly subscription detailed.

Game launches to massive disappointment as servers cannot handle the load. New, invasive DRM is required to be able to play the KSP MMO.

The reviews start flooding in. The game is stale, derivative and repetitive. There is a massive outroar within the community. Players finish the game and move on.

In a desperate attempt, EA opens up a cash shop and makes it F2P. Two years later, the last server is shut down. All the original Squad devs are fired.

While all this is happpening, the KSP underground community still thrives. Playing the pre-EA version, mods are added where features are lacking. KSP lives on, and Jeb still lives on.

Just don't let him near your crafts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EA wouldn't buy KSP.

Get real!

It's not a finished product. The circle, of people interested in this kind of games is too small.

The amount of time, to finish this product is too high/cost intensive.

Due to the lack of people playing this game, all future DLCs will not produce a lot of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would add cover based shooting, competitive multiplayer and reprice the game to 60$ for no apparent reason. Of course there would be the always online DRM, so only pirates could play effortlessly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let this be a bit of a warning to Squad, never sell KSP. I used to be a "fanboy" of a certain indie company who made a semi realistic shooter 7-8 years ago. It was the best game I've ever played and the whole community made jokes about implementing crosshairs in the game, laughing how it will never happen, how the game will never be a COD clone. Well 2 years ago they made the sequel to that game and they tried to appeal to a larger audience by implementing a COD mode with crosshairs.

KSP is Squad's game so they can do whatever they want with it ofcourse but I assume we would all greatly appreciate it if they didn't try to appeal to the masses, there will probably be a moment where they have the choice to be loyal to the fans or go for the money, please don't go for the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This will never happen, I belive.

Also I don't think that EA really deserve all this hate, it made few unpopular decisions in game world but it's not that bad ...

EA_sucks_but_you_suck_more.jpg

Yay, another person who agrees with me.

Understanding people seem to be a dying breed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well let this be a bit of a warning to Squad, never sell KSP. I used to be a "fanboy" of a certain indie company who made a semi realistic shooter 7-8 years ago. It was the best game I've ever played and the whole community made jokes about implementing crosshairs in the game, laughing how it will never happen, how the game will never be a COD clone. Well 2 years ago they made the sequel to that game and they tried to appeal to a larger audience by implementing a COD mode with crosshairs.

KSP is Squad's game so they can do whatever they want with it ofcourse but I assume we would all greatly appreciate it if they didn't try to appeal to the masses, there will probably be a moment where they have the choice to be loyal to the fans or go for the money, please don't go for the money.

Question being serious too. What is wrong with crosshairs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

KSP being sold to Ea... the worst event in gaming history.

KSP would probably be stripped to a much simpler game with less content.

50% will return as DLC and 25% will return in a collectors edition.

The other 25% is only going to be used for commercials but never makes it into the real game.

So likes others have said: I'll stick to the last SQUAD released version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite happy with EA for the most part. I do miss the older developers back in the time of development of games for love rather than money, although it's always been somewhat about money. I loved the Sim's series. 'Some of the expansions', tho, seem to be cashing in on stupid popular topics. They do put out some of the best sports games but recently I've been pissed off with Tiger woods and its a shame they beat Links PGA out of the market. EA basically ruined Simcity... but hoping for even a slither of funsies I gave EA my money and played for a month or so, now it sits dormant due crappy DRM/always on/useless multi player (by useless I mean I didn't bloody want it + it's actually useless). Can't argue with ME1-3 really, and when they launched Origin I was sick in my mouth a little, then I had to swallow it because you can't play their games without it. (unless you're a very naughty boy)

We can beat EA all day long I'm sure, but many developers have been guilty of their sins at some point. I do feel though that EA have a uncanny knack of buying up cult franchises and then ruining them in the chase for more money.

Long live Squad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This will never happen, I belive.

Also I don't think that EA really deserve all this hate, it made few unpopular decisions in game world but it's not that bad ...

EA_sucks_but_you_suck_more.jpg

srsly? I have to disagree with that entire statement.... thats like saying "Hey! we are EA, we steal, mug and rape but its FINE, because Exxon and bank of america are murdering everyone" just because its less evil doesnt mean to say it doesnt deserve the hate it gets, it deserves to burn just like anyone other company who lies to its consumer base

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is wrong with crosshairs but that particular game didn't have any, it was one of the first games that solely relied on aiming with your ironsights because your gun never really pointed in the middle if you didn't aim. It was pretty hard to land a hit because there was also no zoom or any other aid but with the sequel they added zoom that felt out of place, movement was speeded up, everyone had pistols, recoil was extremely decreased. The recoil in the original game was unrealistic because it was just waaay too much but that's what kept the balance between SMGs and rifles, you couldn't land a hit if the enemy wasn't a couple of meters away. The battles actually felt like you had to survive instead of run and gun because it was unlikely you were going to hit anyone. That all changed in the sequel to reach a bigger audience, good for the company but they lost most of their loyal fans and that's quite a shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
srsly? I have to disagree with that entire statement.... thats like saying "Hey! we are EA, we steal, mug and rape but its FINE, because Exxon and bank of america are murdering everyone" just because its less evil doesnt mean to say it doesnt deserve the hate it gets, it deserves to burn just like anyone other company who lies to its consumer base

XD If you say so. If that was the case, I think computers you play KSP on wouldn't exist. Microsoft and apple have done just as bad things as EA, if not worse. Actually most major corporations do this crap, it's really nothing new. A company is in business to make money, if you think other wise, you are kidding yourself.

Edit: Also, EA got voted worst company in America, so that statement bares more meaning then you think.

Nothing is wrong with crosshairs but that particular game didn't have any, it was one of the first games that solely relied on aiming with your ironsights because your gun never really pointed in the middle if you didn't aim. It was pretty hard to land a hit because there was also no zoom or any other aid but with the sequel they added zoom that felt out of place, movement was speeded up, everyone had pistols, recoil was extremely decreased. The recoil in the original game was unrealistic because it was just waaay too much but that's what kept the balance between SMGs and rifles, you couldn't land a hit if the enemy wasn't a couple of meters away. The battles actually felt like you had to survive instead of run and gun because it was unlikely you were going to hit anyone. That all changed in the sequel to reach a bigger audience, good for the company but they lost most of their loyal fans and that's quite a shame.

My response above actually fits this fairly well too. Really, companies are going to try and appeal to a broader audience because their main goal is money.

Edited by Brabbit1987
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...