CnC Dev team layed OFF?????!!!!????? [Archive]

zgtrman97

11-11-2009, 04:18 PM

Just read on this very sight that almost the entire command and conquer dev team was give the news of their lay off after CNC4 release. :tantrum:

First Dave Silvermen was reassigned...now I read greg kasavin is no longer with EA ...NOW APOC reassigend..Jason Bendor,Raj Joshi,Greg Black...and others have been given the boot...is this the "Epic End" of the CNC tiberium series we have heard all along? :chin:

Now that this news is out it poses multiple questions about the future of CnC.

1. Is EA still going to serve CnC4 or are they going to go back to LAMESPY? :grumpy:

2. Is this the end of the CnC series? :sadwave:

3. Will the community step in and save what we have? :looklive:

Please chime in with your thought?

starscream007

11-11-2009, 11:24 PM

Source please

Derek

11-12-2009, 12:10 AM

EA hasn't been doing too well lately, and the economy has made it worse. Therefore, a sizeable number of people have been (or will be) laid off, and several unannounced projects were cancelled. However, I have heard no word that the CNC team has been affected (though it wouldn't be too surprising, tbh).

EDIT: Ok, so apparently a bunch of rumors were posted on CNCDEN that the CNC team has been hit hard. Although it seems that CNC4 will be released fine, it may be the last CNC for awhile.

ArmoredBear

11-12-2009, 11:41 AM

Well, CNC4 was already the most "controversial" CNC game so far. I was OK with the attempt to make some changes to the core formula, but I still was going to wait and see what others had to say about it before possibly buying it (especially since now it may release around the same time as SC2, which is way above CNC4 on my most wanted list). Now, I'm not even sure if I'll bother doing that. One of the big complaints about all the prior games released over the years has been post launch support. And I'm not sure how that's going to happen seeing how EA has lowered the boom on pretty much everyone at EALA...

truefeel

11-12-2009, 11:49 AM

Statalyzer

11-12-2009, 02:40 PM

it may be the last CNC for awhile.

I'd rather RA3 be the last C&C for awhile. So maybe this is the first step in that direction.

ill-lushtrator

11-13-2009, 09:57 PM

That has always been the problem with EA: they produce great games with alot of potentional, but much of that potentional never sees the daylight due bad aftermarket support. I predicted it when they announced Kanes Wrath; I told my concerns that they would drop support for CNC3. Then mister community man APOC jump saying they would keep supporting CNC3. Result? After KW was releases they only brought one more patch for CNC3 and that was that, not to mention the very bad support for KW.

EA just does not know how to appreciate the loyal customer basis they have, the customer basis that handed over bags of money to EA. They were in problems way before the economic crisis and if they keep up their pattern of drop-and-forget-games it will get far more ugly for them.

Based on some discussions among my friends about corporations and "customer loyalty", I don't think customer loyalty is something that EA would commit to very strongly, as I believe that attaining the greatest profit margin from selling their games - C&C series or Need for Speed and etc., is in their most ideal interests. For instance, my elder brother has been following his Internet service provider PacNet for about 10 years or so, but consistently and only recently did the Internet speed and customer service dropped in standards. That's what customer loyalty does; corporations do take advantage of the customers' emotional support to a certain extent, and then manipulate their mindsets into purchasing their goods and services despite the not-so-great quality.

Speaking of C&C4, I think the main problem could be due to taking too many changes, taking too many steps in such a too short a time. Hence, players do feel quite uncomfortable from these changes to the standard C&C game formula. The changes are considered quite radical, perhaps in order to conform to the current trends of gaming as a sport and placing more emphasis on fast-paced, speedy and mobile base-forwarding in RTS games - as opposed to traditional base-building and turtling gameplay strategy.

Derek

11-13-2009, 10:35 PM

as opposed to traditional base-building and turtling gameplay strategy.
I hate to burst your bubble, but thats not the traditional RTS style of play.

Frost Phantom

11-16-2009, 01:27 AM

traditional RTS = eco boom + rush
should all be over in 5-10minutes, unless you hit a stalemate or the other player stalls

they're just doing everything they can to hopefully stop the experienced RTS players from absolutely raping the newbies like in every other C&C3 game. but hey, if they're gonna build their tech center first without building any units and relying purely on one or two towers for defense, im obviously not gonna let them pump out 50 mammies before going in.

Thumper

11-16-2009, 01:58 AM

the #1 issue is match making. people of similar skill against eachother. i hated going online only to just have gotten my warfac up and already have 6 enemy tanks taking out both of my harvesters.

Derek

11-16-2009, 02:13 AM

Now if you had been playing a good game you would have been able to watch the replay afterwards to figure out what he did :p [/ra2stab]

Frost Phantom

11-16-2009, 09:07 AM

yeap, thats how i learnt.
when i first started playing online in ra2, i was an absolute noob, used to build pp, then ref, then barracks, etc in the order of appearance... learnt after that first game that infantry are actually useful against humans! was only a matter of time when i started watching the tournament replays and learning how to do the whole ecoboom through building and selling refs for the extra harvy and how to effectively expand to new ore fields.

its really not that hard if your like me and the OCD for winning kicks in :P

zgtrman97

11-18-2009, 03:40 PM

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/pandemic-closure-confirmed-core-ip-relocated-to-eala/

Avapodnaught

11-19-2009, 08:41 PM

I just doubt major changes will be made... (Crawler Twinges)
I remember a few months ago some pages of information Ghostface linked to were all too early to judge, but now it may be too late if they still plan to launch the game in 2010...

206UE

11-21-2009, 11:04 PM

The creators of Command&Conquer games have crazy skills that are somehow overlooked. I was overconfident when I attempted to edit Tiberian Sun. Hey look, the graphics are so simple. Then I come across the Titan's shp file and now I'm terrified. There is no way I could understand how complex Command&Conquer4 is.

Frost Phantom

11-22-2009, 10:01 AM

206UE

11-23-2009, 12:45 AM

EA isn't that bad, They made 'Desert Strike', and they had part in making 'Tiberian Sun' You see Westwood all over the case of 'Tiberian Sun' but when you load the game you see that EA helped.

truefeel

11-23-2009, 03:16 AM

The game was created by westwood studios. The only thing EA did was funding the whole project.

Frost Phantom

11-23-2009, 03:30 AM

^^
the C&C games which EA created are C&C3 and RA3, and both paled in comparison to their predecessors

206UE

11-23-2009, 05:56 AM

That makes sense, I guess RTS just isn't EA's strong point.

truefeel

11-23-2009, 06:21 AM

No, EA can make good RTS games. RA3 is RTS-wise one of the best games. The problem though is that they have problems creating decent storylines and their sloppy aftermarket support. CNC games are games which need years of patching to get a decent balance. EA ussually supports the main game for 1 year, maybe 2 and the expansion pack like half a year. That is by far not enough to create a even a slight form of balance. Why EA does that? They have a "policy" of cranking out games in a rapid pace, just to get tons of money. You could say EA views CNC as a cow: first you suck all the milk out of it and then you bring it to the slaughterhouse.

A good opposite example would be starcraft: a game heavily supported by its developper. It still received patches 10 years after it was created. Furthermore, they are working at Starcraft for a couple of years now, unlike EA which only wants to put one year of development at max in its games. Starcraft is still relatively massively played, after more then 10 years.

ArmoredBear

11-23-2009, 06:15 PM

you do realise that the original developers of C&C have long left the series...
this team that just got fired was like the 3rd team to develop C&C games!
the last true westwood C&C game was RA2 and even that was heavily influenced by EA because they had just bought out westwood studios.

nothing will ever beat RA1 for me =]
^^
the C&C games which EA created are C&C3 and RA3, and both paled in comparison to their predecessors

The original developers haven't worked on the series for awhile, but the current group isn't bad or anything, they just don't ever have enough time (and now they won't have jobs either it seems.) As mentioned above, the original Starcraft took years to make, got delayed numerous times, and underwent major changes and because they actually put effort into the game, it became one of the biggest successes of all time, and SC2 will be the same way. Blizzard still patches WC3 and SC to fix weird bugs/exploits/occasional balance issue too. Meanwhile, I remember when EA started to lose me; when YR was rushed out (yes, that was WW that made it, not EALA) with all sorts of issues (Yuri was ridiculously OP, WWOL got overrun with cheaters, etc.) and just one patch was put out to address a handful of the issues the game had before it was completely abandoned because EA had WW move on to their next project. Ended up totally killing RA2 for me.

Doesn't matter who works on the games, whether it's WW or EALA or whoever is up next since almost everyone at EALA got axed. Until EA one day learns to give their developers some time to develop a game and allows them to improve their games after release, they'll always fail.

Oh, and I always thought WW was a little overrated anyway (probably will get me flamed to death but oh well).

Derek

11-23-2009, 06:30 PM

Oh, and I always thought WW was a little overrated anyway (probably will get me flamed to death but oh well).
Its true. In hindsight their games advanced little since the first CNC and by the time of RA2 were using outdated mechanics. And WW never had great online support either. I won't even start on the RA2 story and cutscenes (TS had a very good story and cutscenes though). Thats why Generals was the best thing for the CNC series since the original, it was a fresh start, but was soon abandoned.

206UE

11-24-2009, 12:04 AM

The hours that I wasted playing Generals...I had to actually lock the game away, so that I didn't become a hermit. I can't play it now though, it's my brother's game and he moved away.

Frost Phantom

11-25-2009, 01:08 AM

lol generals SUCKS!!!!
:P

the only cool part about generals was the fact that you could build multiple super weapons. i got bored once and built 15 of each then wiped out all the AI within a minute... it wasnt as satisfying as i thought it would be =[
particle cannons were the coolest, then scuds, nukes damn near froze my pc for some reason :S

truefeel

11-25-2009, 11:11 AM

lol generals SUCKS!!!!
:P

You just bought yourself a one way ticket to Derek's paradise of rage:wave:.

206UE

11-25-2009, 06:23 PM

I didn't intend to say 'wasted' more like 'utilized to bring me great joy' (not going to mention anything about similarity to girlfriends).

Derek

11-25-2009, 08:02 PM

You just bought yourself a one way ticket to Derek's paradise of rage:wave:.
Bah, its not my fault he doesn't know quality when it slaps him in the face :p

Dracaveli

11-27-2009, 11:17 AM

I'd rather RA3 be the last C&C for awhile. So maybe this is the first step in that direction.

probably will be the nail in the coffin for C&C, EA is competing against itself by being a acquisition based company they release products which in turn compete against other EA products to a limited consumer base...the causual gamer will only buy 1 - 2 vid game titles in a given shopping season while the hardcare gamer will stick to his/her field, be it madden and another sports title or a rts title like RA3 and its expansion -or lack thereof- (in store not online).

Problem is both games Madden/CNC are made by the same company, so they are at a loss if the consumer buys one and not the other.

EA posted a 2.2 billion net loss for the 08 year

EA had a 350 million dollar net lost in the recent 3quarter of 09, though revenue was up the amount they spend of production, promotion, contracts (NFL etc) not to mention payroll will dwarf the sales gain by a strong sports title since it's the only one of their products going at or relativity near the suggested retail price...heck RA3 on black friday is price at 7 dollars.

EA is shifting its focus to facebook platform games which has a larger audience then console/pc gamers so It's a fair bet to say this will be the last CNC game, unless you count a possible facebook style CNC game...EA had one for AOL on their game site a while back, basically a upgraded model of Desert Strike with CNC logo slapped on it.

aha123

11-29-2009, 12:01 AM

Now in general i hate ea with their crappy support their ea download manager and some porly made games which should not be released untill finished but the one thing they have done right is command and conquer i'm only talking campaign and skirmish, rarely played online but when i did i had real issues connecting staying connected and finding games because of ea's shody servers and services (i had a great ISP).

I meen com'on they were all great from westwoods originals to ea's babyish RA3, atleast they supported them for a while by bringing out patches, but who needs patches the campaigns are better without them. Ah the days of RA1 on PS1.

And anyway i thought they were supposedly bringing out generals 2???
But if EA fires them thats a huge loss especial with all the console releases they do nowere days my theory is they are fed up with EA's crap.
I mean they can still make potential millions.
:|:|:|

Dracaveli

12-04-2009, 01:14 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/6716836/Online-gaming-is-the-future-says-EA.html

Just a little article about EA's CEO plans for the near future.:sadwave:

Statalyzer

12-04-2009, 10:45 AM

He didn't say much there, just that they'll be making slightly fewer games than before and that they lead in quantity but didn't say anything about quality.

:chin:

truefeel

12-04-2009, 11:25 AM

Derek

12-04-2009, 12:28 PM

Does anyone know the profits of other major game-developers, like Rockstar, Blizzard, Ubisoft,... ? I would like to see what sells best: quantity or quality.

EDIT: ubisoft earned 68.8 million net income in the 3th quarter of 2009. seems quality sells better then quanity, yet EA desperately keeps hanging on rushing out games. EA is doomed to fail.
EA gave up the quantity over quality strategy several years ago, instead positioning themselves as a risk-taker, publishing new IPs such as Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, and Brutal Legend.

Response from gamers? Ignore them and buy Guitar Hero and Call of Duty, both of which are series that have had at least one game every year for several years now. (I chose Activision series because Activision is the leading video game publisher now)

It seems that quantity wins out in the end after all.

Really, EA developed a bad reputation during the early 2000's that they are still suffering from, as you yourself demonstrated, coupled with the poor response to their attempts to develop new IPs, which has put them in a bad spot. I much prefer EA to Activision right now. Their games have improved substantially, but their image has not and thats what they're trying desperately to fix.

I would also hardly call Ubisoft an adherent to quality, I struggle to think of recent AAA releases from them, though they don't abuse quantity either, more so they just seem to consistently release A and AA titles, without ever going for the extraordinary. Blizzard and Valve are the only developer/publishers that I would say consistently focus on quality above all else. Blizzard makes a ****ton of money from WoW, but has pretty much no other source of income right now. Valve on the other hand probably doesn't have a huge income (though I don't know, they might make a lot from Steam). The large publishers can't afford a strategy of focusing on AAA titles, they take too long to develop, so they have to pad out their lineups with lower caliber games between major releases.

truefeel

12-04-2009, 12:53 PM

EA gave up the quantity over quality strategy several years ago

I do not see any of that quality. I only see potentional to be a high quality game, unused.

It seems that quantity wins out in the end after all.

Not really. If they make a game that earns a good reputation and give it a sequel, that sequel will always sell good, good or bad quality. On the long run however people will stop buying that new games at that series. A good series however will sell well, but you have to take the time and resources to turn each new game into the selling basis of the next in that series. More time inbetween 2 games also builds up tention and demand, turning the new game into a selling cannon
And launching completely new games is quite risky. EA should had been carefull and developped a better marketing campaign then what they have done until now. If not you always have chance your game gets put aside by the gamers.

Yes, EA does suffer from an image problem, but put that aside and you will see they still use the same strategies from 10 years back, for example Yuri's Revenge verses Kanes Wrath: games both with potentional, but b/c EA dropped support it turned out only to be mediocre games.

Statalyzer

12-04-2009, 03:19 PM

I would like to see what sells best: quantity or quality.

Quantity of games sold is how you measure what sells best.

truefeel

12-04-2009, 03:24 PM

Stat, you really are a dry sucker :p. Quantity as in the amount of different games, not as in the amount of the same game.

Frost Phantom

12-04-2009, 08:30 PM

EA has a fairly stable FPS gaming market. The BF series has always been a steady earner for them with plenty of dedicated fans. BFBC2 coming out next year with Frostbite2.0 engine is a highly anticipated game amongst FPS players.

Blizzard is part of Activision publishing, so is Rockstar, Treyarch, Infinity Ward and plenty of others lesser developers. Money really isnt much of an issue in game development for them considering GTA4 smashed the previous first week profits by over $100million, and MW2 just recently smashed the record set by GTA4 by over $100million again.
EA publicly acknowledged that BFBC1, although released as a full game with heavy marketing, was really just a huge ass beta for their Frostbite engine. They really didnt give a damn about how well it sold as all they wanted was feedback on how the engine ran. If a company is able to throw around that sort of money just to see how their new toy works, i doubt money would be an issue in game development for EA either.

The biggest difference in Activision and EA games is the after market support. Activision games usually have fairly decent support in terms of patches, banning of cheaters, responding to community feedback, etc. EA's after market support is usually just to set up a problem reporting page in the game's website that basically says "We're working on it". and they happily ignore all the feedback.

truefeel

12-05-2009, 04:44 AM

EA has a fairly stable FPS gaming market. The BF series has always been a steady earner for them with plenty of dedicated fans. BFBC2 coming out next year with Frostbite2.0 engine is a highly anticipated game amongst FPS players.Yes, I might have been too quick to jump conclusions; I don't really know how well EA does on the fps market.

Blizzard is part of Activision publishing, so is Rockstar, Treyarch, Infinity Ward and plenty of others lesser developers. Money really isnt much of an issue in game development for them considering GTA4 smashed the previous first week profits by over $100million, and MW2 just recently smashed the record set by GTA4 by over $100million again.Wow, is Rockstar a part of activision:wtf:? I never knew that.

EA publicly acknowledged that BFBC1, although released as a full game with heavy marketing, was really just a huge ass beta for their Frostbite engine. They really didnt give a damn about how well it sold as all they wanted was feedback on how the engine ran. If a company is able to throw around that sort of money just to see how their new toy works, i doubt money would be an issue in game development for EA either.But money is an issue for EA! Just look at what they "achieved" this year: only losses and had to fire people.

The biggest difference in Activision and EA games is the after market support. Activision games usually have fairly decent support in terms of patches, banning of cheaters, responding to community feedback, etc. EA's after market support is usually just to set up a problem reporting page in the game's website that basically says "We're working on it". and they happily ignore all the feedback.And If I am correct, the studios under Activision take alot more time to develop new games. How long did it took for them to develop GTA4? 3-4 years? That's alot, and a good quality game came out of it. Not to mention their aftermarket support: they are still patching it, and not the way EA does it. EA just makes a quick patch which fixes a number of errors and balance problems, but Rockstar goes way deeper then that. Result of both the long development and the good support in patching? They have almost made GTA4 bugfree and are working now to make the game even more "userfriendly".

Do not think I am another EA-hateboy either; they got the talent there and their games show good potentional. It is just pitty that they are not willing to the same effort in their games as for example Rockstar does in its big selling cannon.

Frost Phantom

12-05-2009, 09:40 AM

EA puts the effort in for making the game, my issue with them is the lack of after market support. I mean seriously, they built the Frostbite engine from scratch and its the first FPS engine that allows for a 99% destructible environment! and best part is, things dont just suddenly explode, they've allow for micro damage. ie if you're trying to break down a wall, first it will show cracks, then some small chunks of it will fall off, then part of it will collapse, and finally the whole thing would collapse. no other company has ever done this which is why i think EA's main selling point is gonna be in coming up with something new that other companies dont have.

Although i'll admit, i have my doubts about their new ideas for RTS games like C&C4. there are some things that should just be left as they are.

apple23

12-05-2009, 12:56 PM

EA has always done fine on the FPS market, as you have said, but what we discuss here is RTS, on which they have been steadily declining over the years. First they released YR after removing the WW logo and just taking over development themselves (you guys realise that WW was a trademark of EA since CNC95?), and YR was a total bust because they totally rush-released it, had little-to-no balance testing, and 1 small measly patch for a few minor bugs and a couple cost edits.

The Generals came along, and got relatively decent patch support... relatively meaning good for EA's standard. Still not very good overall, and ZH came out, they dropped generals like a rock, and then dropped ZH like a rock after releasing a patch that was still very unbalanced and not very much fun to play IMO.

After dropping ZH they worked on CNC3, which got some relatively decent patch support (this one really wasn't bad, but the big problem here is that after 9 patches they couldn't fix the runaway economy because they refused (or just didn't think of) putting the exponential growth system that was supposed to be in the game in the first place (EA rush-releases all their CNC games and botches them...). The KW came out, and after promising that CNC3 would get patch support regardless, they dropped CNC3 like a rock and provided minimal patch support for KW that included making refineries 3000$ and taking up 15 power points instead of actually fixing the root of the economy problem.

Then they actually made massive advancements on all fronts with RA3, including economy, depth, strategy, unit design, everything pretty much, and they are still supporting it, with the 13th patch comming out sometime soon that should fix a lot. RA3 is EA's chance to really come back from years of bad support and bad reputation.

Unfortunately, as it looks so far, EA is going to completely screw up CNC4 and go so far off base that the old CNC fans won't be able to relate, and they are making the game with the purpose of making it noob-friendly. They even specifically stated that they were making the game based around dulling the effects of skill differences, specifically stating that they wanted new players to be more equal to the advanced players so they could have more fun. This game (the way it's going) seems like it's going to be a game where everyone picks it up, gets good at it, then realises that there's no point in getting better since the game is so focused on making skill differences less significant, and then drop it and never play it again.

truefeel

12-05-2009, 01:08 PM

Then they actually made massive advancements on all fronts with RA3, including economy, depth, strategy, unit design, everything pretty much, and they are still supporting it, with the 13th patch comming out sometime soon that should fix a lot. RA3 is EA's chance to really come back from years of bad support and bad reputation.

Yes, RA3 is RTS-wise one of the best games that recently came out. Although storyline, actors and graphics were negative points, the gameplay feels right and good. Still, I fear they will drop or already have dropped support now that they are developping CNC4, and they certainly will do so when it is released. Heck, the 13th patch for RA3 is not certainty, since EA makes a habit of making promises and never forfill them.

Frost Phantom

12-05-2009, 04:49 PM

yep, still waiting on that next KW patch that was suppose to come out like last year.....

i know they've always done well on FPS, but im just saying time doesnt always correlate to effort. other companies manage to release games with the same frequency but they do better cuz of the the after market support.

truefeel

12-05-2009, 06:06 PM

yep, still waiting on that next KW patch that was suppose to come out like last year.....

And a mod SDK for KW they promised.
And a worldbuilder that has no bugs anymore.
And a new patch for CNC3.

I am also still waiting for the 1.002 patch for Yuri's Revenge EA promised, but since then their only answer was "we will get into it when we have the resources". Translated that means: "you can kiss our asses and say goodbye to that patch".

Also, EA shows their expertise at ignoring those "difficult" questions. You would be very lucky if they answer you about things they will not forfill.

Frost Phantom

12-05-2009, 07:22 PM

yeah, but i have to give the dodging hard questions award to Activision and Infinity Ward. In an interview prior to the release of MW2 regarding the PC version of the game
Q: "What kind of pings should gamers expect using the matchmaking making system and will it be able to compete with the 25-50ms pings for dedicated servers?"
A: "We have balanced the game and made it more fun and easier to join games"

but this one still takes the cake!
Q: "Is this just a console port, and will the PC version have any additional features?"
A: "No, the PC version is very different, it has keyboard and mouse control as well as ingame chat!"
like z0Mg! I never expected teh PC version to come with keyboard and mouse control!!

zgtrman97

12-16-2009, 04:25 PM

And a mod SDK for KW they promised.
And a worldbuilder that has no bugs anymore.
And a new patch for CNC3.

I am also still waiting for the 1.002 patch for Yuri's Revenge EA promised, but since then their only answer was "we will get into it when we have the resources". Translated that means: "you can kiss our asses and say goodbye to that patch".

Also, EA shows their expertise at ignoring those "difficult" questions. You would be very lucky if they answer you about things they will not forfill.

Point of Order...sad as it is but EALAs track record is .."promised patches" have an expiration date attached to them...which is when they announce the next new game.
So don't hold your breath for any patches to past titles .. despite what Mike Verdue PROMISED in a VIDEO and despite what APOC states.

I have heard all the excuses:
1. We are working on it
2. We feel your pain
3. We are developing a "Live Team" to address that
4. As soon as the resources become available
5. That has top prioriety immediatly following the ladder season
6. <insert your own here>

So I fear that CNC4 will suffer from no patches because there will be no one left to patch it...so CNC4 will be what you see is what you get.:irked:

aha123

12-16-2009, 04:52 PM

Dracaveli

12-16-2009, 06:33 PM

A good opposite example would be starcraft: a game heavily supported by its developper. It still received patches 10 years after it was created. Furthermore, they are working at Starcraft for a couple of years now, unlike EA which only wants to put one year of development at max in its games. Starcraft is still relatively massively played, after more then 10 years.

1 reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft_professional_competition

Starcraft has litterally made ppl (mainly koreans) millionaires, the amount of revenue they generate to blizzard gives them the voice and clout to receive such patces ten years later....CNC products just doesn't have the devoution to really garnish patches after a certain point when pricing falls from the original suggested retail price. At that point EA would be losing money by paying workers to support x y and z game when sales, fanbase and tourney's don't generate enough revenue to turn a modest profit.

Heck with CNC 3 virtually unplayable with an AI ally NOD (in skirmish) due to the harvester bug which kills any real AI ally -even after several patches released:wtf:...) I don't see CNC every becoming worthy of late market support as blizzard has with SC1 and will have in the upcoming sequel.

apple23

12-16-2009, 08:52 PM

Like I said in another support thread:

"EA is great at making games, but they are by far and away the worst at supporting the games and thier customers"

Pretty much sums up this entire discussion here.

Seriously, someone should go to EALA headquarters and kick EVERYONE there in the balls, really freaking hard, and keep doing it until they start supporting thier (and our) games. That is the extent of my frustration with this company.

like z0Mg! I never expected teh PC version to come with keyboard and mouse control!!
I was afraid they would try to make it with a USB PS3 controller... phew what a load off my mind that was when I saw that!

Statalyzer

12-17-2009, 05:50 PM

At that point EA would be losing money by paying workers to support x y and z game when sales, fanbase and tourney's don't generate enough revenue to turn a modest profit.

They are also losing money because fewer people want to buy their games b/c they know that the game will be unsupported very soon after.

Derek

12-17-2009, 06:45 PM

They are also losing money because fewer people want to buy their games b/c they know that the game will be unsupported very soon after.
TBH phenomenal support does not generate a significant number of sales. Most people buy a game, play it for a few weeks at most, then never touch it again, regardless of the support the game receives.

aha123

12-17-2009, 06:52 PM

TBH phenomenal support does not generate a significant number of sales. Most people buy a game, play it for a few weeks at most, then never touch it again, regardless of the support the game receives.
Yeah but for the players who play again and again support helps.
They get better reputation, more sales because people won't play if there's no support and well that's all i can think of... guess E.A. has the money making idea right...

ArmoredBear

12-17-2009, 10:47 PM

TBH phenomenal support does not generate a significant number of sales. Most people buy a game, play it for a few weeks at most, then never touch it again, regardless of the support the game receives.
I think this is definitely true, but I think since EA has such a bad history of supporting games and releasing games that aren't plagued with issues at release, fewer people end up buying their games (at least in regards to CNC). It's a reputation they're going to have to deal with for a long time anyway, even if they do improve and release better games with fewer problems.

Statalyzer

12-18-2009, 10:52 PM

TBH phenomenal support does not generate a significant number of sales.

Right, because by the time you figure out if the support is awesome or not you've already got the game. The effect is felt down the line for later games.

truefeel

12-19-2009, 05:12 PM

TBH phenomenal support does not generate a significant number of sales. Most people buy a game, play it for a few weeks at most, then never touch it again, regardless of the support the game receives.

Maybe not on the short term, but on long term people will realise that the game will turn into crap b/c the needed aftermarket support is not there, and when they do that, they will not buy the game.

EA is trying to get too much money out of its big selling guns on the short term. They are sucking their cows too dry. They just can't put their bets on new, excellent but relative unknown games. Getting new games known requires alot of rep, which you can only build by heavy marketing or a strong series of that game.

EA is also sloppy on building tention: part of for instance the succes of the GTA series is simply by letting people wait so long for the next GTA game. That builds up desire for that game, whereas EA is bringing out CNC games like every 2 years, which makes that a quite a good share of the potentional market rather wants to wait for the game after the one that
still has to come out.

In short, EA is able to create good games with loads of potentiona. but they make several structural mistakes. Put a gamer with a business education at the top of EA and you'll see things will go much better.

Derek

12-19-2009, 05:38 PM

But most gamers don't care about aftermarket support. It doesn't affect them. They buy the game, play it for a few weeks, and then never touch it again. What do they care about balance? The only time most people care about aftermarket support is for multiplayer-only games, where they realize that they are expected to continue playing the game, and therefore expect continued support. But as long as RTS games have singleplayer campaigns, the majority of people are going to buy them for the campaigns only and won't care about aftermarket support. And as long as that is the case, the quality at launch is far more important than the quality of support later.

EA is also sloppy on building tention: part of for instance the succes of the GTA series is simply by letting people wait so long for the next GTA game. That builds up desire for that game, whereas EA is bringing out CNC games like every 2 years, which makes that a quite a good share of the potentional market rather wants to wait for the game after the one that still has to come out.
GTA3: 2001
Vice City: 2002
San Andreas: 2004
Liberty City Stories: 2005
Vice City Stories: 2006
GTA4: 2008
GTA4 DLC: 2009
Chinatown Wars: 2009

Thats almost one every year. Where is the tension in that?

truefeel

12-19-2009, 05:59 PM

I do mean complete new games; the GTA stories games are basicily copies if their originals with a new storyline and it is really irrelevant to bring those up. A relevant tension building would be between GTA SA and GTA4 (and for your info, the GTA4 DLC are nothing more then expansions, not a new sequel on their own); GTA china wars are developped for an other market, and I think developped during the same time GTA4 was developped. it did not went to be a huge succes either.

About the aftermarket support: it is all about reputation. You do that and you just give your series another good image. And like you said, RTS is still mainly multiplayer; many people who even play it for a few weeks do not even bother to play the campaign and go straight to online.

Derek

12-19-2009, 08:32 PM

About the aftermarket support: it is all about reputation. You do that and you just give your series another good image. And like you said, RTS is still mainly multiplayer; many people who even play it for a few weeks do not even bother to play the campaign and go straight to online.
No its not. There is no reputation to be gained from people who don't pay any attention to support. And you're wrong on the second point too, if someone plays it for just a few weeks, the one thing that they will play is the campaign.

Frost Phantom

12-20-2009, 03:32 AM

derek is right, about hwo most RTS players play it just for the campaign.

Activision has a much better marketing department than EA which is why their games seem to build up much more hype than EA games. Then again, that comes back to the fact that Activision has a much higher level of community involvement than EA.
as Derek pointed out, the GTA series pump out a game a year, compare that to the 5+ years between tib sun and C&C3, EA had far more time to build up anticipation, but they choose to develop their games in secrecy. Activision usually broadcasts it's advancements in the development of new games through regular press release that dont actually tell you much about the game, but constantly reminds players that the game is coming soon.

Activision also has games with massive gaps during sequels such as it's Blizzard games, ie Warcraft, StarCraft, Diablo. even though very little detail has been release regarding the content of the next game in those series, they are much more anticipated than C&C4 which has so much of its contents revealed already. Simply because EA sucks at marketing (their bad reputation amongst gamers doesnt help their case)

truefeel

12-20-2009, 08:49 AM

No its not. There is no reputation to be gained from people who don't pay any attention to support. And you're wrong on the second point too, if someone plays it for just a few weeks, the one thing that they will play is the campaign.

Not always. Someone who is buying the game just to play others online, will ussually skip the campaign, regardless how long he plays the game.

No its not. There is no reputation to be gained from people who don't pay any attention to support. And you're wrong on the second point too, if someone plays it for just a few weeks, the one thing that they will play is the campaign.Oh, but it does. It gives the game a glance that the developper puts alot of efford in the game. I am not saying that good aftermarket support (automatically) makes a game excellent, but it does give a good impression. A good company image helps selling games.

as Derek pointed out, the GTA series pump out a game a year, compare that to the 5+ years between tib sun and C&C3, EA had far more time to build up anticipation, but they choose to develop their games in secrecy. Activision usually broadcasts it's advancements in the development of new games through regular press release that dont actually tell you much about the game, but constantly reminds players that the game is coming soon.

Euh, not complete new games. Example: the huge gap inbetween GTA SA and GTA4 (and like I said before, you can't possible include the GTA Stories games: old games with new missions), which was a deliberately strategy to get huge sellings and they also bought themselves alot of time to develop a gstrong, good game. I do not know why there is such a huge gap inbetween Generals and CNC3, but that was not marketing (contrary to GTA4, in which Rockstar declared development of the game at a very early stage, effectively building up tension throughout the years). I think they putted the CNC series aside for a long while. They also did not used those 5 years to develop CNC3 like Rockstar used its 4 years to develop GTA4. That would be at heighest 2 years that EA developped CNC3. Still, the delay of 5 years did worked accidently into EA's hands. What they do? They accelerate the development of KW and more importantly, RA3. EA got blinded by the dollar marks and did not see that a longer delay would had helped them much more.

For your information: this is a marketing technique to draw out customers; a more recent technique. Delaying a highly anticipating game does end up with more sells. Like you said, EA is behind concerning marketing.

Frost Phantom

12-21-2009, 10:29 AM

EA delays their game releases too, and so does Blizzard to a certain extent, but neither of those attempts work to the advantage of the the developers simply because of the way they do it. EA promises too much and then cant deliver, so they either push the date back (which pisses off gamers who were planning to play the game during a certain time of the year when they werent busy), or they just release it in its unfinished and dodgy form (which they do very often and pisses off gamers that way). Blizzard doesnt issue an exact release date but constantly says the game will be ready next year (every year it's delayed) so gamers end up waiting for 3+ years for games which they promised would be out years ago.
On the other hand, you have Rockstar which announces it's game release years in advance but only release info about the game slowly without giving away anything really, letting the suspense build as players try to guess what will be in the game. IW although releases games very regularly, does so with precise timing (always just before thanksgiving) so gamers have gotten used to expecting a game at that time of the year, the fact that their games exceed expectations just helps them further build their reputation.

^^so overall, the length of time developers make gamers wait for a game doesnt matter too much as long as the marketing department has an effective strategy to sell this time gap to the gamers.

as for company image, EA has a **** one amongst most gamers and they just dont seem to care because they own so much of the market they know players will have to buy their games soon or later anyways. and if another company does really well, they'll just buy it out if they could and leech off their reputation for a while.