greed and gaming.


(signofzeta) #1

Do you think the video game industry is being taken over by greed? (EA, Activision, Microsoft)

EA makes unfinished games to make some bucks.

Activision makes the same games to make some bucks.

Microsoft says that the game cost that many bucks, but makes you pay more without you noticing it.

Greedy companies don’t care about quality, and creativity. EA is bad for quality, and Activision is bad for creativity.


(WhiteAden) #2

Microsoft is being greedy, period. Licenses for X360 games… **** they’re expensive! add to that Xbox Live fees… and voila… $$$ for Bill Gates…

EA just sucks, I found that out when they got the hang of the roster updates in their Sports series, minor graphics updates and a new set of names / looks… new game! yay!

Activision wasn’t bad… I dunno why they changed… but I suppose they looked at EA’s strategy and copied it… =(


(Nail) #3

They looked at Blizzard, not EA


(darthmob) #4

I wouldn’t say it’s greed it’s just the way business works. Don’t hate the player, hate the game! :slight_smile:


(Tanzverbot) #5

Of course they are greedy. That’s what companies are there for. People don’t put a lot of money and work in a company in order to make you happy, they do that to make more money.


(Coliseum) #6

Greed in this industry will continue to exist, unless you, the consumers, put a stop to it. Let your wallet do the talking: don’t buy games from companies that release unfinished, generic or overexpensive games.


(marber) #7

I would agree with Tanzverbot. Greed is not something perculiar to gaming, and their is no reason why it shouldn’t be there considering the size of the companies i.e. Microsoft
Its also very hard for small games companies to get much out into the big world of console gaming, unless they decide to take apart their old computers and sell gold contained in the wires and things, this might be able to fund em making some more games


(brbrbr) #8

sure.
rationing, monopoly[all companies you mentinoed, is in fact - one big company, for example], lock-out, crush health market development.
improvement, competition, advancement never went this way.
this teach us history, as well as common sense.


(signofzeta) #9

I don’t mind greed, as long as they are churning out quality and creative games. EA is poor on quality. Activision is poor on creativity, after what Bobby Kotick said, he said that he will stick with the same franchise, and wouldn’t even think of adding new franchises, or something like that.

If a franchise is the first of that franchise, Activision won’t accept it. It has to be Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, or Call of Duty, or Superhero games. If it isn’t that, Activision won’t like it. Well billions of people love those games, so they have no choice but to stick with those franchises.


(NJ_Dude) #10

“Greed…is good”

  • Gordon Gekko

(SockDog) #11

I think there is a distinct difference between profitable success and greed. The latter, to me at least, means screwing your customers to maximise your profits, it’s hardly any better than stealing the money out of your wallet.

Activision = Greedy
Google (for an easy example) = Profitably successful

And Google by far overshadows Activision’s profits.


(WhiteAden) #12

[QUOTE=signofzeta;216144]I don’t mind greed, as long as they are churning out quality and creative games. EA is poor on quality. Activision is poor on creativity, after what Bobby Kotick said, he said that he will stick with the same franchise, and wouldn’t even think of adding new franchises, or something like that.

If a franchise is the first of that franchise, Activision won’t accept it. It has to be Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, or Call of Duty, or Superhero games. If it isn’t that, Activision won’t like it. Well billions of people love those games, so they have no choice but to stick with those franchises.[/QUOTE]

billions… I disagree… millions maybe, but billions NO F*ckin way! lol xD

I agree on the rest of what you said :wink:


(signofzeta) #13

[quote=WhiteAden;216180]billions… I disagree… millions maybe, but billions NO F*ckin way! lol xD

I agree on the rest of what you said ;)[/quote]

lol, I kind of overestimated, but the word billion is a generic exaggerated phrase meaning, a lot, even though it is ALMOST THE ENTIRE POPULATION lol.


(Nail) #14

forget about guitar hero, it’s losing money at a rediculous rate


(brbrbr) #15

how about “machinegun hero” mod for ETQW ? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


(marber) #16

agree that i dont care as long as the quality is good. I’ve got some money left over from selling scrap gold, and i am going to spend it on whatever seems to be the best game, i don’t care what the company is or how greedy they may be!

if the quality is bad then its just unfair, like foy news having sucha monopoly but produces sub standard ‘news’


(Stroggafier) #17

Not caring about greed in our single largest instituion, the corporation, is a cry of the helpless. We should all care about the services, how they are provided, and at what cost to our collective selves.

Continuing to announce that the only right we have is the right of a consumer (i.e. vote with your money) and not the right of a person (i.e vote with your voice) is at the least, short sighted and very dangerous to our well being.

The outcome of this approach is that the more money one has, the more one’s vote counts. Since the rich corporation wins that comparison every time, who’s interest is this approach serving?


(tokamak) #18

I don’t think it has ever changed. Twenty years ago shit games got released to make a quick buck as well, the only difference is that big boys are taking part now.


(Tanzverbot) #19

[QUOTE=Stroggafier;216318]Not caring about greed in our single largest instituion, the corporation, is a cry of the helpless. We should all care about the services, how they are provided, and at what cost to our collective selves.

Continuing to announce that the only right we have is the right of a consumer (i.e. vote with your money) and not the right of a person (i.e vote with your voice) is at the least, short sighted and very dangerous to our well being.

The outcome of this approach is that the more money one has, the more one’s vote counts. Since the rich corporation wins that comparison every time, who’s interest is this approach serving?[/QUOTE]

We’re not talking about bakeries, waste disposal companies or water works. We are talking about companies that make video games. I cannot think of a whole lot of things that are less important than that. Either you like what’s being offered and buy it, or you don’t and… um… don’t. I don’t even understand what “vote with your voice” could possibly mean in this context. You want elections held about who is allowed to release which game at which price with which features at which date!?


(SockDog) #20

I think this was directed more at the people who constantly tell you to stop whining and just don’t buy it. Like that will resolve the problem.

In short, yes you can choose which company to support with your money but it also helps to point fingers and shout about them being crap to combat the ignorance of the masses and the millions and millions of dollars these companies spend on convincing their customers to buy the game anyway.