My whine about cheaters

[Hoppity]

I'd like to have a great big whine about the vast numbers of cheaters which are currently ruining many people's experience of C&C3 on-line.

It's because of you ****tards that C&C3 is falling apart. In less than 4 months, the average number of people playing has dropped below 1,000. You care waaay too much about your rank. There's more to life than making the top 100 you friggin losers. You ****s are so weak that you can't take a loss, and learn from it.

And you know what else? EALA isn't helping! EALA have barely done anything about cheaters. I think they've banned TWO people. TWO in 4 months! That is slack. You're so busy counting your money that you forgot to add a fricking ban list to your set-up! You gutless ****s had better turn your act around soon! Or I swear, I'll start making empty threats! Something to do with mammoth tanks rolling over your accounts...

[Rolk]

ps. It's spelt Kane.

[Derek]

ps. It's spelt Kane.
In the original Bible quote (which is what his quote is) it is spelt "Cain".

[Daishi]

Or I swear, I'll start making empty threats! Something to do with mammoth tanks rolling over your accounts...
The irony here made me lol. :lol:

The best we can do is hope 1.07 makes the game worth playing. In the meantime, I'm going to stick to Zero Hour, which is suffering much more from lack of support.

[Nod Fanatic]

It isn't just C&C3 that EA gives crap support for, it's just about every single game they've published. All they want is money, and once a game has been bought, the online portion doesn't make anymore money so they neglect it to make MORE money. Unfortunate fact of capitalism.

[Nod Fanatic]

Except if people buy a game for online play, and the support there sucks, the idea is that people stop buying the games so the company faces the risk of losing money unless it shapes up its behavior. So long as people continue to buy the game, you're right, EA gets its money regardless of their complaints afterwards. If people thought it a bit more thoroughly, they might decide not to buy games they want to play online if they know they're going to get crap support for it. It's not as though EA has suddenly done this out of the blue, it's been a problem for a good while.

All you need is a more proactive consumer here and maybe something could be changed. Capitalism can avoid this fault if the consumer base were educated enough or cared enough to do something about the flaws of a company's policy rather than just talk about it. If EA knows people will continue to act like lemmings and all charge towards the newest game in a series it cranks out, where's its incentive to change?
Thing is that intelligent people are almost always going to be in the minority. Now, maybe if we had a system where the developer gets paid for how long the player plays the game (Yes, I know it sounds like a nightmare to have to pay for each hour you play in a SP game. :p) then they would be more inclined to aim their games towards being a deep experience. Hell, take a game like say, Fallout (Which is awesome, go buy it now. :wave:) where the game didn't sell oodles, but it spawned a hardcore following where people play the game through over and over again: Developers with the aforementioned system would be inclined to develop that type of game. Of course that system would be quite harmful to the consumer, so what do you think would be a good way to change the financial model?
Edit: Time travel double-posts, FTW!!!

[CrowRbot]

Except if people buy a game for online play, and the support there sucks, the idea is that people stop buying the games so the company faces the risk of losing money unless it shapes up its behavior. So long as people continue to buy the game, you're right, EA gets its money regardless of their complaints afterwards. If people thought it a bit more thoroughly, they might decide not to buy games they want to play online if they know they're going to get crap support for it. It's not as though EA has suddenly done this out of the blue, it's been a problem for a good while.

All you need is a more proactive consumer here and maybe something could be changed. Capitalism can avoid this fault if the consumer base were educated enough or cared enough to do something about the flaws of a company's policy rather than just talk about it. If EA knows people will continue to act like lemmings and all charge towards the newest game in a series it cranks out, where's its incentive to change?

[Doh004]

Except if people buy a game for online play, and the support there sucks, the idea is that people stop buying the games so the company faces the risk of losing money unless it shapes up its behavior. So long as people continue to buy the game, you're right, EA gets its money regardless of their complaints afterwards. If people thought it a bit more thoroughly, they might decide not to buy games they want to play online if they know they're going to get crap support for it. It's not as though EA has suddenly done this out of the blue, it's been a problem for a good while.

All you need is a more proactive consumer here and maybe something could be changed. Capitalism can avoid this fault if the consumer base were educated enough or cared enough to do something about the flaws of a company's policy rather than just talk about it. If EA knows people will continue to act like lemmings and all charge towards the newest game in a series it cranks out, where's its incentive to change?
To add to Crow:

Because of EA's immense size, if you start boycotting all EA games that they "release" (generally made by an independent game company), then you'll be missing out on 40% (made up number, not sure) of the games out there. Sure a large portion are crap, but there's still a series or two that they do well.

[Jester Kirby]

Lets all boycott the expansion pack untill they give us some support. :rolleyes:

too bad no one would go along with that. or not enough anyway.

whatever happend to good ol westwood, I missed that news update.

[Avapodnaught]

Lets all boycott the expansion pack untill they give us some support. :rolleyes:

too bad no one would go along with that. or not enough anyway.

whatever happend to good ol westwood, I missed that news update.
U bet they wouldn't

What ever happened to good ol' westwood? Of course, EA bought em out...

I am fortunate not to meet cheaters, I meet pitbull spam when I play nod, I also c much much much nubism... I guess Im lucky..

[SgtRicko]

To add to Crow:

Because of EA's immense size, if you start boycotting all EA games that they "release" (generally made by an independent game company), then you'll be missing out on 40% (made up number, not sure) of the games out there. Sure a large portion are crap, but there's still a series or two that they do well.

The Burnout series is actually a pretty good example of a title that has kept it's high standards of quality intact throughout most of its incarnations, and they practically started around the time the EA execs started getting really profit-hungry.

[apple23]

Fortunately we can all find refuge on the XWIS servers for the older games. XWIS actually gives somewhat of a crap about the community. As for Generals and CNC3, well we will have to make an extremely large fuss about thier crap support to get them to get off their lazy asses and actually do something about the dying community of CNC3. They might as well turn them over to XWIS as well and get back to counting thier money.

[Statalyzer]

XWIS actually gives somewhat of a crap about the community

Somewhat.

[SirSnake]

Any boycott of real gamers wouldnt work anyway, if any actual games are boycotted, EA can always fall back on their sims line,


release after release of crappy add-ons to a crappy "game", and about 4 of the top 10 selling games every month (in the UK at least) on average are sim related.

Therefore as far as money goes, EA doesnt even really need the CNC series, but they know the fanbase for it will buy the games regardless of quality or customer service, so bothering to sort things out is a unnecessary action for them.

I for one opt the route of giving my money to other companies (enamely developers that care, ie devopers that are their own publishers) and not getting EA games.
And as im in dire need of money just to meet my rent at the moment, losing out on those 40% (or whatever :p) games is actually quite an easy choice!

[Nod Fanatic]

I'm just glad it ain't published by 2k. No SM2.0 on an engine that supports it? 2 installs? (I know they changed it to 5, but it's still a WTF? moment)

[Lazzars]

The Burnout series is actually a pretty good example of a title that has kept it's high standards of quality intact throughout most of its incarnations, and they practically started around the time the EA execs started getting really profit-hungry.

even though burnout revenge was realy really bad

though burnout 3 was the first EA takeover game and i loved that to bits, best racing game i own

[Cylon Crusader]

Like I have always said, it all went downhill from generals.

[SgtRicko]

even though burnout revenge was realy really bad

though burnout 3 was the first EA takeover game and i loved that to bits, best racing game i own

Actually, I liked Revenge. They got rid of the annoying radio announcer, allowed you to mix the car types in the races (no more muscle vs. muscle only!), and made the crash mode even cooler, if that was even possible.

[Rolk]

This is the Flamerz corners. Not Spammers.