What if KSP was sold to EA?

[Tw1]

No offence, but that is a biased opinion. .

Isn't that the nature of opinion?

I suspect you mean view, and in that case, what you say is true. Everyone has their own biases. Everyone.

[Captain Sierra]

They have made a lot of choices that resonate very badly with their customers. THAT is why they earn so much hate.

[Captain Sierra]

I could tell you exactly why they made the call they did on C&C4, it'd only make you hate them more. I can also give my interpretation of what EA will do with what used to be Generals 2.

(**note, The second one is an opinion based of EA's greedy track record, bias likely)

[Brabbit1987]

Isn't that the nature of opinion?

I suspect you mean view, and in that case, what you say is true. Everyone has their own biases. Everyone.

I guess that could be so, but the definition of bias is "Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair." Meaning not every opinion can be considered a bias, as an opinion could be a fair evaluation.

However, his statement was "EA pretty well destroys the franchises it buys." That is an unfair assumption based on his own experiences with a few games of a series he liked, while ignoreing the 100s other games EA does that tons of fans love.

They have made a lot of choices that resonate very badly with their customers. THAT is why they earn so much hate.

This is true, however, I at least like to understand why they made the choices they made. When you know this much, it stands to reason their choices where based on good intentions not bad intentions. This is something I can look past. Unlike most customers, I know better to hate them based on choices they do that I do not agree with. I rather hate them for legitimate concerns. Like making crappy games, which just isn't the case. Though that is my opinion.

I could tell you exactly why they made the call they did on C&C4, it'd only make you hate them more. I can also give my interpretation of what EA will do with what used to be Generals 2.

(**note, The second one is an opinion based of EA's greedy track record, bias likely)

Well you can go ahead and tell me, I will listen. But keep in mind, they have plenty of games that are really good, and you can't judge a company sorely based on a single game or on a few poor decisions. ... Well you could, but it wouldn't be well founded.

[Custard Donut (In Space)]

I have to hold up my hands and say i don't know why they do what they do, you got me there Brabbit, my opinion is it's greed but of course that is only an opinion, i can tell you why i personally dislike them however, a company called Pandemic which i really liked went right down the pan after being taken over by them, they made games like Mercenaries, Destroy all Humans and Star Wars Battlefront, but as soon as they were bought out the quality of their games suffered immediately and they closed down soon after, that's my biggest reason for disliking them, there are others, i feel they used to go after competition just to close them down, and i feel that is a crummy business practice, a poor corporate culture that lacks authenticity, i think i have every right to feel that way and quite obviously many other people do too, although they are far from being the only company i won't do business with though, that's true.

[Brabbit1987]

I have to hold up my hands and say i don't know why they do what they do, you got me there Brabbit, my opinion is it's greed but of course that is only an opinion, i can tell you why i personally dislike them however, a company called Pandemic which i really liked went right down the pan after being taken over by them, they made games like Mercenaries, Destroy all Humans and Star Wars Battlefront, but as soon as they were bought out the quality of their games suffered immediately and they closed down soon after, that's my biggest reason for disliking them, there are others, i feel they used to go after competition just to close them down, and i feel that is a crummy business practice, a poor corporate culture that lacks authenticity, i think i have every right to feel that way and quite obviously many other people do too, although they are far from being the only company i won't do business with though, that's true.

Well I also can't argue with you there, some of their business practices in buying out companies most certainly does suck. However, you have to remember, those companies allowed it to happen. A company can't buy another company just cause, it has to be up for sale first XD. Unless I am wrong about that o.o, but that is always the way I thought it worked.

I will say, I also am not a fan of EA, but it doesn't mean I can't at least step in their shoes and try and understand them. From a business and financial stand point, they have very good reasons to do what they are doing. From a consumer and moral standpoint, they suck lol. I still do like a ton of games they make, and as a gamer, that is the only reason I need to purchase a game.

[Panichio]

I have to hold up my hands and say i don't know why they do what they do, you got me there Brabbit, my opinion is it's greed but of course that is only an opinion, i can tell you why i personally dislike them however, a company called Pandemic which i really liked went right down the pan after being taken over by them, they made games like Mercenaries, Destroy all Humans and Star Wars Battlefront, but as soon as they were bought out the quality of their games suffered immediately and they closed down soon after, that's my biggest reason for disliking them, there are others, i feel they used to go after competition just to close them down, and i feel that is a crummy business practice, a poor corporate culture that lacks authenticity, i think i have every right to feel that way and quite obviously many other people do too, although they are far from being the only company i won't do business with though, that's true.

That... Is all one sentence! :0

By the way, relevant.

[Fractal_UK]

Is it really so unreasonable that EA is widely hated? They have been one of the main drivers of highly restrictive DRM in the industry, a concept that effectively implicitly assumes that all of their customers are thieves and need to have their activities restricted, including being unable to install or play a game that you've already paid for, except within the criteria they set. Those who actually pirate their games are totally unaffected by the restrictions meaning that loyal customers pay for an inferior product.

This certainly suggests that the company actively treats the consumer as an annoyance and potential liability. I don't know how many people here have encountered EA customer services personally but all of my experiences so far have been negative, they have no desire to help and would rather you just went away.

Combine this with their modus operandi of buying studios that have produced popular and successful games, then releasing spinoffs and successors often of drastically lower quality as well as such wonderful concepts as day 1 DLC and you wonder why this is a hated company?

I actually have a lot of sympathy for game developers and to some extent the publishers as well because traditional pricing models don't work as well as they used to for computer games, piracy is no doubt a cause of loss of profits too but the way in which a company attempts to tackle these problems determines how that company will be seen. I want to support developers to create the sort of games that I want to play but in the case of EA doing so comes with way too many negatives so I refrain from giving them my money.

I'd rather fund games in a similar manner to KSP or perhaps similarly via kickstarter or equivalent. Front loading the funding means that I get to encourage the production of the kind of game I want to play and the studio has ready access to capital to get through the development process.

[jfx]

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.

Yeah because squad have a long history of making great RTS with a singleplayer focus and tons of cinematics.

Right?

[rpayne88]

I could be wrong, but I think I remember something about in EA's terms of service, you agree not to take legal action against them. It's a dirty move, but I think it'd let them get away with doing something like that.

This can be summed up in three words: ex post facto. Or "after the fact." Under the law, at least in the U.S. where I live, I can not be charge for a crime or a violation of a contract for something committed or violated before it was a crime or breech of contract. This is why people who drank true original recipe Coke (the kind with cocaine) in the early 20th century can not be charged for drug use. It was still legal for them to do that at that time. Applying ex post facto to KSP, EA would still have to honor my agreement with Squad since I signed Squad's agreement, not EA's. I am almost 100% sure that all free countries have some form of ex post facto, meaning that regardless of where a person plays KSP, they still fall under some form of this law.

[Brabbit1987]

Is it really so unreasonable that EA is widely hated? They have been one of the main drivers of highly restrictive DRM in the industry, a concept that effectively implicitly assumes that all of their customers are thieves and need to have their activities restricted, including being unable to install or play a game that you've already paid for, except within the criteria they set. Those who actually pirate their games are totally unaffected by the restrictions meaning that loyal customers pay for an inferior product.

This certainly suggests that the company actively treats the consumer as an annoyance and potential liability. I don't know how many people here have encountered EA customer services personally but all of my experiences so far have been negative, they have no desire to help and would rather you just went away.

Combine this with their modus operandi of buying studios that have produced popular and successful games, then releasing spinoffs and successors often of drastically lower quality as well as such wonderful concepts as day 1 DLC and you wonder why this is a hated company?

I actually have a lot of sympathy for game developers and to some extent the publishers as well because traditional pricing models don't work as well as they used to for computer games, piracy is no doubt a cause of loss of profits too but the way in which a company attempts to tackle these problems determines how that company will be seen. I want to support developers to create the sort of games that I want to play but in the case of EA doing so comes with way too many negatives so I refrain from giving them my money.

I'd rather fund games in a similar manner to KSP or perhaps similarly via kickstarter or equivalent. Front loading the funding means that I get to encourage the production of the kind of game I want to play and the studio has ready access to capital to get through the development process.

Well for the first paragraph, it's not just about piracy it's also about used games. Also, EA isn't the only company to use these DRM tactics, they just happen to be the most hated for it.

Never had to deal with the customer service myself, so I have no comments on that.

As for the rest of your post, I agree, I still do not think it's enough reason for a person to no longer buy games for them. Again it's not like they do this to purposefully piss off their customers.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[Brabbit1987]

This can be summed up in three words: ex post facto. Or "after the fact." Under the law, at least in the U.S. where I live, I can not be charge for a crime or a violation of a contract for something committed or violated before it was a crime or breech of contract. This is why people who drank true original recipe Coke (the kind with cocaine) in the early 20th century can not be charged for drug use. It was still legal for them to do that at that time. Applying ex post facto to KSP, EA would still have to honor my agreement with Squad since I signed Squad's agreement, not EA's. I am almost 100% sure that all free countries have some form of ex post facto, meaning that regardless of where a person plays KSP, they still fall under some form of this law.

I am pretty sure, they can find a way around it. Such as giving refunds to people who do not agree with the new terms, thus nullifying any possible law suits against them for that matter. Then if you want the game again, you would need to agree with their terms instead. Basically if you want to keep the game you would have to agree to the new terms in other words, or just get a refund for what you payed.

[jfx]

If EA brought KSP, I would, in order...

1. Rip the E and A keys of my laptop and burn them

2. Uninstall KSP

3. Take out my hard drive, smash it, and nuke the remains

4. Launch what's left into the Sun

As you can tell, I'm an extremest!

Or...

Cry in a corner.

Normal

Head to /r/gaming, become a hero

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

Yeah right or even better WHAT IF we reinstuted the draft world wide and everyone would have to serve 24 months in the ministry of silly walks.

As for the rest of your post, I agree, I still do not think it's enough reason for a person to no longer buy games for them. Again it's not like they do this to purposefully piss of their customers.

It is 1/3 of /r/gaming unless a major title is released "DAE hate EA" -> instant 2k karma.

Its so childish alas I have long since unsubscribed from that place. But as we know from the age survey not long ago now the KSP forums have a similar demographic.

[Flixxbeatz]

Sir Debates-A-Lot in the house. Topic essence lost. Unsubscribing thread.

*poof*

[Fernbhoy]

You'd have no mod/no mod support and every rocket part would be DLC

[Brabbit1987]

Sir Debates-A-Lot in the house. Topic essence lost. Unsubscribing thread.

*poof*

lol if that is about me, first of all, not sir. Second, good day to you too =^.^=

I only debate things that I feel needs to be debated. If people don't want me to debate, then I think people should be a little bit more reasonable and do a little bit more research before stating an opinion that has no bearing on what is actually occurring. Also, this a forum, can't always expect everyone to agree.

[Levelord]

Well I also can't argue with you there, some of their business practices in buying out companies most certainly does suck. However, you have to remember, those companies allowed it to happen. A company can't buy another company just cause, it has to be up for sale first XD. Unless I am wrong about that o.o, but that is always the way I thought it worked.

I will say, I also am not a fan of EA, but it doesn't mean I can't at least step in their shoes and try and understand them. From a business and financial stand point, they have very good reasons to do what they are doing. From a consumer and moral standpoint, they suck lol. I still do like a ton of games they make, and as a gamer, that is the only reason I need to purchase a game.

Companies can be bought over whether they like it or not when their stocks are publicly traded, then this is where hostile takeovers happen with aggressive buying of company shares to reach majority stake. Truth be told, most games you enjoy from EA are very likely to have been close to completion before EA bought over the parent company. Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins were almost ready for release, which gave EA no room to interfere with the development process when they eventually took over Bioware. The same happened with CnC Generals and CnC 3.

The time when the games sucked was when the new games within the franchise are made from scratch while under the control of EA. This includes CnC4, and DA2 for example.

Developers like Bioware are only called Bioware by name. None of the original staff that were responsible for Bioware's quality and success are there anymore. They either left, were transferred or have been replaced by other people. So it boggles my mind why people would still defend a developer when it's run by a totally different set of people that share none of the vision the original founders had.

Another thing is that even if developers were allowed to keep their staff, they rarely are allowed to work independently and are constantly pressured by the games publishers to add things into the game to maximize profits. The thing is, publishers know next to nothing about how to make a game, all they know how to do is to throw money at something to fund it, and how to monetize something. Which is at complete odds with developers trying to make a game with artistic merit. Pure business goals from publishers interfere with artistic integrity, which is what games depend on in order to sell. For some retarded reason, EA doesn't understand this. So they try other business-like tactics like limiting the consumer's freedom of ownership of a game, nickel and diming game assets and blaming their failures on the consumer instead of themselves.

One of the reasons why KSP does so well is that Squad is actually an advertising company, and being an advertising company they don't know a great deal about making money from video games. Fortunately, they recognize this and so they allow people like Harvester, to have the freedom to decide on the game's development.

What do we get out of it?

A game free from DRM, sold at early access at a reasonable price, given free updates, a demo to allow us to make an informed decision to purchase, a development team that interacts directly with the community, a game totally unlocked for modding to our hearts content (which we hardly see in games since the late 90's/early 00's). Oh and Jeb.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Levelord

[j-tk]

I'd uninstall it and immediately burn the hard drive it was installed on.

That pretty much sums it up lol

[Brabbit1987]

Companies can be bought over whether they like it or not when their stocks are publicly traded, then this is where hostile takeovers happen with aggressive buying of company shares to reach majority stake. Truth be told, most games you enjoy from EA are very likely to have been close to completion before EA bought over the parent company. Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins were almost ready for release, which gave EA no room to interfere with the development process when they eventually took over Bioware. The same happened with CnC Generals and CnC 3.

The time when the games sucked was when the new games within the franchise are made from scratch while under the control of EA. This includes CnC4, and DA2 for example.

Developers like Bioware are only called Bioware by name. None of the original staff that were responsible for Bioware's quality and success are there anymore. They either left, were transferred or have been replaced by other people. So it boggles my mind why people would still defend a developer when it's run by a totally different set of people that share none of the visions the original founders had.

Another thing is that even if developers were allowed to keep their staff, they rarely are allowed to work independently and are constantly pressured by the publishers to add things into the game to maximize profits. The thing is, publishers know next to nothing about how to make a game, all they know how to do is to throw money at something to fund it, and how to monetize something. Which is at complete odds with developers trying to make a game with artistic merit. Pure business goals from publishers interfere with artistic integrity, which is what games depend on in order to sell. Which is what EA doesn't understand, so they try other business-like tactics like limiting the consumer's freedom of ownership of a game, nickel and diming game assets and blaming their failures on the consumer instead of themselves.

One of the reasons why KSP does so well is that Squad is actually an advertising company, and being an advertising company they don't know a great deal about making money from video games and they recognize this. So they allow people like Harvester, to have the freedom to decide on the game's development.

"None of the original staff that were responsible for Bioware's quality and success are there anymore." Sadly this ins't just an EA thing, this is a thing with just about every game developer I can possibly think of. Sadly the game industry is a really hard industry to work for, because when you are done with a game project, you may need to look for another job.

As for buying out the competition, well hey, again EA is not the only one. Actually many companies do this. A good example is Disney. It's competition. So if it happens, it happens. Though if I remember correctly, by putting your company in the stock market, it's pretty much putting your company up for sale. You don't need to put a company into the stock market, thus you do not have to worry about being bought out unless you choose to.

Even if some of their games suck, a lot of their games are great. This can easily happen to any company and you honestly can't say for sure it has anything to do with EA directly. This would assume every single person at EA doesn't know how to properly make a game, and yet they are all real game developers working there, no different then any other company out making games.

Pressured by publishes is a thing for most if not all developers.

As for KSP, I would like to see whre you get your proof on that. Show me that is actually the reason KSP is doing well. Could have sworn it's doing well because it's ... a good game.

[Levelord]

"None of the original staff that were responsible for Bioware's quality and success are there anymore." Sadly this ins't just an EA thing, this is a thing with just about every game developer I can possibly think of. Sadly the game industry is a really hard industry to work for, because when you are done with a game project, you may need to look for another job.

This isn't true because developers tend to stay together for as long as possible working on different projects together, Bethesda and Blizzard are a prime example, and its is mainly because they publish their own games. No developer in their right mind would want to disband their top talents just because one game was completed.

As for buying out the competition, well hey, again EA is not the only one. Actually many companies do this. A good example is Disney. It's competition. So if it happens, it happens. Though if I remember correctly, by putting your company in the stock market, it's pretty much putting your company up for sale. You don't need to put a company into the stock market, thus you do not have to worry about being bought out unless you choose to. Even if some of their games suck, a lot of their games are great. This can easily happen to any company and you honestly can't say for sure it has anything to do with EA directly. This would assume every single person at EA doesn't know how to properly make a game, and yet they are all real game developers working there, no different then any other company out making games.

Pressured by publishes is a thing for most if not all developers.

Some developers are forced to put their companies up for public trading because they unfortunately don't have funding, so publicly trading is a way for them to get investment to fund their game development. Normally small groups of people invest in the company and allow the developers to do their jobs with the funding because nobody has a majority share. However, once in a while a behemoth with money dripping out their pockets come by, and buys everything in order to dictate to them how to do their jobs. Often the wrong way to do their jobs. Let's entertain your claim that EA does make a good game once in a blue moon. This however doesn't offset the disadvantage of having a draconian DRM, poor DRM servers unable to maintain login loads, game content cut out for DLC, and poor customer service. EA has yet to provide me with a game that can outweigh those disadvantages.

You're aslo ignoring the fact that between EA and Disney, EA is a publisher known to take shortcuts, overcharge their consumers, poorly pay their employees and issue impossible deadlines for game releases. While Disney is a company that is well known for producing quality animation releases from classics of Snow White, Aladdin, to more modern productions like Toy Story, Wreck it Ralph, to the Incredibles. Disney knows enough to keep their top animators like Glenn Keane around to maintain that level of quality (although Keane recently retired, he's gotten very old) and Disney as a whole are the global leaders when it comes to 2D and 3D animation. Any company they buy over invariably benefits from the better animation training and CV recognition they provide to their employees.

So it's not difficult to see how which company actually does a better job at benefiting the parent company they buy over.

As for KSP, I would like to see whre you get your proof on that. Show me that is actually the reason KSP is doing well. Could have sworn it's doing well because it's ... a good game.

If KSP was a financial failure, this game would not be still under development. KSP never needed to go to kickstarter to get their funding, they did it on their own site and still had enough money to hire extra staff from the pool of community modders. Then they offered future expansions for free (at least to the early buyers). This doesn't sound like a development team that is strapped for money does it?

KSP gives you the advantage of being a good game plus all the other advantages of not having to deal with unreasonable DRMs, and the knowledge that the developers are doing something they enjoy without the insane pressures of deadlines (must be released in one year!!!!) or being paid insufficiently.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Levelord

[The509]

All this EA hate is wonderful...

Also, this image^^ is ripe for kebal editing.

[Brabbit1987]

This isn't true because developers tend to stay together for as long as possible working on different projects together, Bethesda and Blizzard are a prime example, and its is mainly because they publish their own games. No developer in their right mind would want to disband their top talents just because one game was completed.

Some developers are forced to put their companies up for public trading because they unfortunately don't have funding, so publicly trading is a way for them to get investment to fund their game development. Normally small groups of people invest in the company and allow the developers to do their jobs with the funding because nobody has a majority share. However, once in a while a behemoth with money dripping out their pockets come by, and buys everything in order to dictate to them how to do their jobs. Often the wrong way to do their jobs. Let's entertain your claim that EA does make a good game once in a blue moon. This however doesn't offset the disadvantage of having a draconian DRM, poor DRM servers unable to maintain login loads, game content cut out for DLC, and poor customer service. EA has yet to provide me with a game that can outweigh those disadvantages.

You're aslo ignoring the fact that between EA and Disney, EA is a publisher known to take shortcuts, overcharge their consumers, poorly pay their employees and issue impossible deadlines for game releases. While Disney is a company that is well known for producing quality animation releases from classics of Snow White, Aladdin, to more modern productions like Toy Story, Wreck it Ralph, to the Incredibles. Disney knows enough to keep their top animators like Glenn Keane around to maintain that level of quality (although Keane recently retired, he's gotten very old) and Disney as a whole are the global leaders when it comes to 2D and 3D animation. Any company they buy over invariably benefits from the better animation training and CV recognition they provide to their employees.

So it's not difficult to see how which company actually does a better job at benefiting the parent company they buy over.

If KSP was a financial failure, this game would not be still under development. KSP never needed to go to kickstarter to get their funding, they did it on their own site and still had enough money to hire extra staff from the pool of community modders. Then they offered future expansions for free (at least to the early buyers). This doesn't sound like a development team that is strapped for money does it?

KSP gives you the advantage of being a good game plus all the other advantages of not having to deal with unreasonable DRMs, and the knowledge that the developers are doing something they enjoy without the insane pressures of deadlines (must be released in one year!!!!) or being paid insufficiently.

I will ignore the fact that most of your post is made up considering Blizzard no longer has any original WoW developers. I work in the game industry, you don't know what your talking about in this area. Most companies replace staff, and many staff go onto other companies to work on new things. It's stupid to think a company keeps its staff totally intact. It's no different then any other company in existence.

"Let's entertain your claim that EA does make a good game once in a blue moon." Really, if that was true, then why are they still around and why is their company so large? If they where that bad at making games, customers would probably stop buying them. This whole EA hate thing only started up in recent years or at least to the proportion it is at now. Which has little to do with bad games, and more to do with their decisions.

"EA is a publisher known to take shortcuts, overcharge their consumers, poorly pay their employees and issue impossible deadlines for game releases." Proof?

"If KSP was a financial failure" Sounds like you didn't read what I said, because I certainly did not say that. Also DRM has little to do with a good game or not, or a companies financial stability. Again .. you are talking ... but you not only provide little proof to back your claims, but you clearly have no idea either. You also seem to put words in my mouth.

I will link you to http://www.gamesindustry.biz as I did to someone else. Please do you research before you reply back.

[CobraA1]

Yikes, multiple pages - but I'm still gonna respond to the post that responded to my post . . .

So ... they are purposefully doing this so their customers hate them?

No, they're doing it for the money. Probably because Wall Street said so.

and the answer is because people simply do not accept the answer

So? Whether some people accept the answer or not, they should give it.

And maybe, just maybe, if people aren't accepting an answer - maybe, just maybe - the answer really is inadequate, and they shouldn't be doing things that way.

The DRM always online, isn't about piracy entirely it's also about used games which these companies make nothing off of at all.

So tell the likes of GameStop to either give them a cut of the pay or get cut off from selling the latest games. Actually, I think that's inevitable at this point - Steam is picking up steam, so to speak, and digital sales are taking off. As soon as digital sales have enough power, I think it's inevitable that physical sales are gonna get cut if publishers and devs don't get a cut of used sales.

I don't think that harsh DRM is a good way of handling used sales.

Another thing people do not realize, is this is why steam works as well as it does.

Except it doesn't. I has a perfectly functioning offline mode. If Steam can do it, why can't other platforms?

[Sathurn]

If they where that bad at making games, customers would probably stop buying them. This whole EA hate thing only started up in recent years or at least to the proportion it is at now. Which has little to do with bad games, and more to do with their decisions.

You hit the nail on the coffin there. In the last five years or so, EA has gone form a company I eyed with suspicion to one I outright Boycott. Which has everything to do with how those business decisions translate into bad games.

[Brabbit1987]

lol I give up. You all think what you want. XD