The fallout of the SimCity DRM debacle hit somewhere rare: review scores. The game showed how much review scores did not matter as troubles continued. So what does that mean ultimately?
Today Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson provided a look into his ideas for the use of generative AI in the company's development processes.
EA is still a shady shitty company even with or without the help of Skynet. All they will use AI for is new ways to milk loot boxes and come up with the same sports title with a different year on the label. They are one company I truly do hate with a passion. They single handedly ruined some great franchise with their death touch. ME, Dead Space, Alice Returns, Dante's Inferno.
EA layoffs followed by 'Generative AI to Drive Monetization'
I knew it. Wonder what AI salary looks like? Nothing.
And take away creativity, and people's jobs as we've been seeing. Got it.
No thanks. I want my games created by people, not AI.
EA doesn't want to lose their title of worst gaming company ever, always trying their best to remain the champs!
What's sad is that they have so much potential to be a decent publisher.
SSX Tricky / SSX 3
Def Jam Vendetta / Fight for New York
NBA Street
NFL Steet
Mirror's Edge
Bad Company
Burnout 3 / 4 / 5
Remember when EA used to be awesome? It's all over with now. Unpolished, if not out-right broken games these days. Endless monetization and gambling in their sports games, and let's not forget wasting hours of your life trying to unlock characters or equipment using "surprise boxes!"
Gareth, Justin, and JoeyZ look at Layoff news for EA and Sony and reasons behind the downturn in the industry and more.
EA CEO Andrew Wilson writes: "In this time of change, we expect these decisions to impact approximately 5 percent of our workforce. I understand this will create uncertainty and be challenging for many who have worked with such dedication and passion and have made important contributions to our company. While not every team will be impacted, this is the hardest part of these changes, and we have deeply considered every option to try and limit impacts to our teams. Our primary goal is to provide team members with opportunities to find new roles and paths to transition onto other projects. Where that’s not possible, we will support and work with each colleague with the utmost attention, care, and respect. Communicating these impacts has already begun and will be largely completed by early next quarter."
All the big ones doing the same stuff. Terrible. I just hope that all these people are able to get a new job as soon as possible, God know that it is horrible to be left jobless when you have your kids or your parents depending on your financial help
The point I feel is problematic about all of this is that focusing on Owned Ip means more sequels, remasters and more of what was selling last year.
Just thought I'd copy and past the comment I made on the website in response to a user in the hopes that it might spark an interesting discussion. Love to hear your thoughts, boys and gals!
"To me a review is always based upon the product handed to the reviewer at time. While the reviewer can mention that the flaws within the game can be patched, the reviewer cannot rely on fixes that may or may not even arrive, and so their opinion must be formed on what is in front of them at the tme
When I read a review, I assume it's based upon the product that the reviewer had in his or her hands at time of writing, not what it could potentially be in the future.
For example, let's say I reviewed XCOM: Enemy Unknown. I do write game reviews, but never had the time to cover it when it first release. Still, it's a good example, I reckon. In the game there's quite a lot of glitches in regards to line of sight etc. that can cause some unfair loses and general irritation. Now, if I was reviewing it at the time of launch, I could have simply ignored those problems because, "They'll likely be fixed within a week or two" and never mentioned them. The problem is, they were never fixed, which would have rendered the review rather untruthful as I failed to mention a fairly annoying problem. Of course XCOM isn't a perfect example as those problems wouldn't be enough to make me give it a low score, but still, you get what I mean.
Or how about Amy? That's the worst game I've ever played. I could give it a 5/5, saying that it'll be great when they've released a couple of dozen patches! Except it isn't, and never will be.
To me, a review is based upon the product handed to the reviewer, not upon what the product could potentially be some time down the line.
Hopefully I got my point across in a decent manner. If not, I've had not sleep in three days - have mercy :D"