Oh a vocal minority spent hours making sure EA would win the polls. Must mean the company is doomed!
Short answer to the question posed: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooo.
That's not the point the article is making. Staying independent and making fewer games would not have been profitable for the company - that's the entire reason they were bought by EA in the first place.
I think you misunderstood (perhaps didn't read my whole post). I never said _all_ gamers are narrow minded, I said we get that reputation because of a very vocal, very sad minority.
The backwards thing is that that minority is the same minority that also shouts they want to be taken seriously and treated as adults.
"Second, this is an online poll that can be easily abused. EA may have won Worst Company thanks to a relatively small amount of people spamming votes using bots and various other means. The poll is in no way a direct correlation to the attitude of gamers because there is no way to verify that every vote was from a legitimate person with legitimate complaints. "
But doesn't a small group of gamers putting a lot of effort into making EA win the online poll prove M...
Pachter stated that the Wii-U would sell out over the holiday but that the hype would quickly die out and the console would ultimately be a failure, losing a lot of third party support in the process , which so far has been proven true 
Furthermore, he only ever criticized Nintendo's hardware strategy, never their software. He hasn't flip-flopped about the Wii-U, you just haven't been paying attention.
 1173d ago 6 agree6 disagreeView comment
As long as they're an option and not a requirement (e.g. as long as they're not P2W) Microtransactions are perfectly reasonable. They also help keep the price of the actual game down, which would've risen significantly without alternative business models such as this one.
Yes, I too would say a balance between the two is appropriate. But a lot of people appear to be saying EA should listen to everything the customer says, which to me just implies a lack of creative freedom in favour of higher profits - which in turn is exactly what a lot of companies seem to be doing.
As companies become more succesfull they also become more corporate. That's what happened to Bioware and Crytek, and what would've happened to them regardless of whether EA was there or not.
Bullfrog failed to make a profit, so it would've been a bad decision to keep it open. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame gamers for not buying their games.
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” - Henry Ford
Blindly following the demands of your customers is not always smart. The problem is that even the customers don't know what they want - a very common problem in Software Engineering.
$5,00 per character is just too much. You should get the stage and the characters for that money, and even then I'm not sure if it'd be worth the investment.
The publisher LucasArts still exists, they just don't develop games anymore. And the article clearly states this in reference to the developer LucasArts, who had nothing to do with 6 of the 8 games in the list.
Most of these games have nothing to do with the studio that was closed, but were merely published or licensed under the same label.
It's not exactly thoughtful to remember a studio's prime years by looking at games they didn't create.
Yeah, because every developer has a few mil lying around to develop, market and publish a game.
Rogue Squadron: Factor 5
Battlefront: Pandemic Studios
Lego Star Wars: Travellers Tales
Thrillville: Frontier Developments
Lego Indiana Jones: Travellers Tales
The Old Republic: Bioware
Only two of the games on that list (republic commando and the force unleashed) were developed at LucasArts. The others were licensed games developed by different companies.
The Developer LucasArts has closed, but licensing under the nam...
I blame EA for this.
It's free and optional.. Why complain?
“Brit Mr House (Andrew House) says the games console due out in October, will feature a raft of new features to broaden its appeal beyond younger male gamers”.
This appears to be a punctuation problem - the sentence does not suggest that Mr House said it. To make it clear, added punctuation gives this:
“Brit Mr House (Andrew House) says the games console, due out in October, will feature a raft of new features to broaden its appeal beyond younger male gamers”...
But it's strange to be disappointed by DLC not being for Single Player upon release when it was clearly stated that the DLC was not going to be Single Player.
I can understand you want more Single Player gameplay, but since Tomb Raiders release we already knew we'd have to wait for the next game to get that.
No, and I agree with the premise that there is too much focus on gunplay in games. Oftentimes it seems completely out of place with the story and the core idea behind the game.
I think it's in part due to the fact that game development budgets are insanely high these days, so developers tend to stick to things that sell. Gunplay is one of them. On top of that, gameplay involving minimal or no gun play can often be more difficult to get right. Aiming and shooting a gun is...
wasn't it stated very clearly that Tomb Raider wouldn't get any Single Player DLC?