"Minecraft" creator accuses EA of systematically ruining gaming...

Halo05

Halo05

CAGiversary!
Feedback
9 (100%)
...but like every fucking pretentious piece of shit "artist" who makes videogames, fails to provide any evidence to back up his entirely anecdotal statement.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-destroying-gaming-says-minecraft-creator-6374907

You know what's actually annoying and shitty? Indie developers like Jonathan Blow and Notch fucking up XBLA pricing by releasing their "art" at prices above what the standards had been leading up to that point.

fuck you and fuck your shitty games.
 
[quote name='Halo05']...but like every fucking pretentious piece of shit "artist" who makes videogames, fails to provide any evidence to back up his entirely anecdotal statement.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-destroying-gaming-says-minecraft-creator-6374907

You know what's actually annoying and shitty? Indie developers like Jonathan Blow and Notch fucking up XBLA pricing by releasing their "art" at prices above what the standards had been leading up to that point.

fuck you and fuck your shitty games.[/QUOTE]

Well, Halo said everything I was going to so no need repeating it :D
 
i think capcom is worse

how can you make people buy the ending to a game or release a 4 hour game and lock 50% of it behind dlc hehe
 
[quote name='Halo05']...but like every fucking pretentious piece of shit "artist" who makes videogames, fails to provide any evidence to back up his entirely anecdotal statement.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-destroying-gaming-says-minecraft-creator-6374907

You know what's actually annoying and shitty? Indie developers like Jonathan Blow and Notch fucking up XBLA pricing by releasing their "art" at prices above what the standards had been leading up to that point.

fuck you and fuck your shitty games.[/QUOTE]

Well Halo man. No offense but it's pretty simple why he says what he says. The evidence is there too. "Independent" gaming refers to the fact that they're created and sold wholly by the developers and not highly funded publishers. EA is a highly funded publisher and they're trying to hijack the term for their lower budgeted projects. I thought it was pretty simple to follow.

Also: Braid is good. So is Minecraft. You may hate them but your vitriol is just plain old wrong, cruel, and unclassy. Just because they budget their games out of your price range is no reason to resort to the kind of comments you did. Critically, Braid was among the 20 most highly rated games of 2008 when it came out. Minecraft held the same distinction in 2011. You may have disliked the game but give credit where credit is due: There was a large bloc of people who really liked those games. They just weren't for you.

On Electronic Arts. My perspective is that they're pretty much monetizing every piece of the game industry and they're going to lie through their teeth to get whatever cash they can out of your pockets. If people want to be dumb enough to give them that cash, more power to them. Even more than that, you have nothing to gain from defending EA. The fact you do nevertheless speaks volumes. Publishers aren't your friends. You don't need to leap to their defense. They have people they pay to do that. Unless you're getting a paycheck from EA. In that case, by all means, continue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='VyseArcad1a']No, I'd think that ASStivision & especially Call of Duty are responsible for ruining gaming.[/QUOTE]

Examples?

Because from where I stand, Call of Duty seems to entertain millions and millions of people every year. I don't understand what more should or can be expected from videogames. These are a means to entertain oneself, it's just a fucking hobby.

If your product, be it Minecraft or Call of Duty has people playing and enjoying it, for whatever reason, you have succeeded as a company/individual that makes games.
 
[quote name='TheLongshot']
It does raise a good question. What does "Indie" mean anymore?[/QUOTE]

That's definitely a good discussion to have as the landscape is so rapidly changing.

Personally, I'd classify an indie developer as one who self-publishes their own games but yet isn't a publisher. (funny how only that last bit disqualifies EA though:booty:)

Or maybe it's just like porn where ya knows it when ya sees it.;)
 
[quote name='Halo05']...but like every fucking pretentious piece of shit "artist" who makes videogames, fails to provide any evidence to back up his entirely anecdotal statement.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-destroying-gaming-says-minecraft-creator-6374907

You know what's actually annoying and shitty? Indie developers like Jonathan Blow and Notch fucking up XBLA pricing by releasing their "art" at prices above what the standards had been leading up to that point.

fuck you and fuck your shitty games.[/QUOTE]

Well Halo man. No offense but it's pretty simple why he says what he says. The evidence is there too. "Independent" gaming refers to the fact that they're created and sold wholly by the developers and not highly funded publishers. EA is a highly funded publisher and they're trying to hijack the term for their lower budgeted projects. I thought it was pretty simple to follow.

Also: Braid is good. So is Minecraft. You may hate them but your vitriol is just plain old wrong, cruel, and unclassy. Just because they budget their games out of your price range is no reason to resort to the kind of comments you did. Critically, Braid was among the 20 most highly rated games of 2008 when it came out. Minecraft held the same distinction in 2011. You may have disliked the game but give credit where credit is due: There was a large bloc of people who really liked those games. They just weren't for you.

On Electronic Arts. My perspective is that they're pretty much monetizing every piece of the game industry and they're going to lie through their teeth to get whatever cash they can out of your pockets. If people want to be dumb enough to give them that cash, more power to them. Even more than that, you have nothing to gain from defending EA. The fact you do nevertheless speaks volumes. Publishers aren't your friends. You don't need to leap to their defense. They have people they pay to do that. Unless you're getting a paycheck from EA. In that case, by all means, continue.
 
[quote name='Halo05']...but like every fucking pretentious piece of shit "artist" who makes videogames, fails to provide any evidence to back up his entirely anecdotal statement.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-destroying-gaming-says-minecraft-creator-6374907

You know what's actually annoying and shitty? Indie developers like Jonathan Blow and Notch fucking up XBLA pricing by releasing their "art" at prices above what the standards had been leading up to that point.

fuck you and fuck your shitty games.[/QUOTE]
It's the Wal-Mart theory. Your company is successful on a global scale so you must be evil.
 
[quote name='VyseArcad1a']No, I'd think that ASStivision & especially Call of Duty are responsible for ruining gaming.[/QUOTE]

I don't think gaming is being ruined by anyone.
 
[quote name='silentevil']It's the Wal-Mart theory. Your company is successful on a global scale so you must be evil.[/QUOTE]

Well again. If you don't really understand how Wal-Mart works, you're not really understanding the problem. When Wal-Mart moves into a neighborhood with their cut-slash pricing, they undercut everyone in the neighborhood obviously. Well initially this is good for everyone because now they can buy all their goods for far cheaper than they originally could.

However, the problems is that when all the local stores close-down, that's business your town or city is losing. That's tax dollars gone. That's rent that isn't being paid. And when that money leaves as well, suddenly there isn't as much money to fix the roads. There isn't as much money to pay for your K-12 education. There aren't as many cops on the street. There aren't as many street clean-ups and garbage starts to flood the curbs. There is historical evidence that this consistently happens EVERY time a Walmart moves into a place.

Also consider it this way. All those people that charged you a little more than Walmart, when they get your money, they pumped it back into YOUR economy. They spent it at their local supermarkets. They spend it all local suppliers. And they buy local furniture and what not. So this way your local economy keeps chugging along and things in general aren't so bad. But when Walmart gets your money, they ship all that money into their bank accounts and invest that money into opening stores up in places like India and China, or fighting to open stores in New York City. If you want to pay cheaper prices for goods but live in a shithole, that's your prerogative. But there is damning and consistent evidence that when Walmart moves into a neighborhood, the entire wealth of the neighborhood drops like a brick.
 
How does that logic apply to games though? Big-budget crowd pleasers like Halo and Call of Duty may be major successes, but they're not crowding out stuff like Braid, Minecraft, Fez, Journey, Portal or whatever. Those games are still getting made and they're still making money. There's more choice now than there probably ever was. So what's the problem.
 
The problem comes down to how EA has taken to the practice of selling pieces of games. There is a definite divide in the market when it comes to development and how costumers should be treated. The EA philosophy to monetizing the market comes down to increasing profits at every corner including slashing content into pieces. To a number of developers, that seems wholly unethical. When you sell a game, you sell the entire game. You don't sell a piece of it and use a freemium business model towards a product some already purchased for $60. That's something a lot of people have problems with: myself included. This what Notch is getting at when he refers to systematically ruining gaming. They are "systematically" selling pieces of games and not the entire game itself.

The other side of the coin are the developers who make games like Fez, Braid, Mincraft, and whatever. No. They're not being crowded out. But they practice a very different business model to that of Electronic Arts, and being that they are in the actual development community, the greed of Electronic Arts is clearer to them in a way it's not to us. They know in a way we don't just what it takes to become an independent developer. Electronic Arts hasn't known that pain in 20 years. It's akin to a white guy coming out in black face. It's wholly insulting to the other side.
 
Notch also claimed that, with the purchase of the Minecraft alpha, people would receive all future versions of the game for free in perpetuity and, to some, that includes the XBLA/Android/etc. releases.

So, to the alpha purchases who interpreted the initial wording in that manner, Notch did slice-up Minecraft.
 
[quote name='Fell Open Ian']Notch also claimed that, with the purchase of the Minecraft alpha, people would receive all future versions of the game for free in perpetuity and, to some, that includes the XBLA/Android/etc. releases.

So, to the alpha purchases who interpreted the initial wording in that manner, Notch did slice-up Minecraft.[/QUOTE]

A game in development cannot be sliced up since the game isn't finished yet. Furthermore, Notch did not EVER charge for any new features he implemented into Minecraft after people had already bought a build. He met your claim head on. The notion that he didn't is disingenuous and unethical.

Further, people could not have interpreted the offer for the alpha to include XBLA/Android/etc. releases since such releases had not been announced back in 2009. If they did, then they're like this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
 
Notch touted the fact that alpha purchasers would receive all future versions of the game and has given them access to the Windows, Mac, and linux versions of said game. But when it came to the Android (basically linux) version and the XBLA (basically Windows) version it's suddenly time to charge people again all while fully dismissing that all future versions only really meant computers.

I'm not disagreeing that EA's practices are bad for the industry but rather pointing out that Notch, to some, isn't the indie saint that many pass him off as and went right after those console/mobile/tablet dollars. Hell he even partnered with Microsoft who has also done a lot of harm to the industry. (exclusivity windows, pricing practices, gating away content which is free everywhere else, and so on)

[quote name='Golden Idol']
Further, people could not have interpreted the offer for the alpha to include XBLA/Android/etc. releases since such releases had not been announced back in 2009.[/QUOTE]

How then would you interpret all future versions? The Android and XBLA ports of Minecraft are versions of the game which happened in the future after all. (I don't really care mind you and I know it's a semantics thing but he probably should have done a little more thinking before putting a claim like that up on the internet for all to see while asking them for money)
 
[quote name='Fell Open Ian']Notch touted the fact that alpha purchasers would receive all future versions of the game and has given them access to the Windows, Mac, and linux versions of said game. But when it came to the Android (basically linux) version and the XBLA (basically Windows) version it's suddenly time to charge people again all while fully dismissing that all future versions only really meant computers.

I'm not disagreeing that EA's practices are bad for the industry but rather pointing out that Notch, to some, isn't the indie saint that many pass him off as and went right after those console/mobile/tablet dollars. Hell he even partnered with Microsoft who has also done a lot of harm to the industry. (exclusivity windows, pricing practices, gating away content which is free everywhere else, and so on)

How then would you interpret all future versions? The Android and XBLA ports of Minecraft are versions of the game which happened in the future after all. (I don't really care mind you and I know it's a semantics thing but he probably should have done a little more thinking before putting a claim like that up on the internet for all to see while asking them for money)[/QUOTE]

Who controls the prices on XBLA? Is it Notch? Is Notch running Microsoft? Was Gabe Newell answering to Notch when he complained that he Microsoft wasn't letting him release things for free on XBLA? Is that what you think?

Furthermore, XBLA does not equal Windows. That's an ignorant assertion. You just can't develop something for Windows and just throw it onto XBLA. That's not how it works. The pipeline, framework, and workflow are all completely different.

Listen. Your basic gripe is that he didn't add in the lingo "PC" in the "all future versions" descriptions. But it's also a very petty gripe. Now if you want to be petty, more power to you. But in doing so, you're basically admitting you're incapable of determining the distinction of what Notch meant. Other things you should know that aren't explicitly written down: Don't stick forks in electrical sockets. Fire is hot. Don't stare at the sun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Fell Open Ian']Notch touted the fact that alpha purchasers would receive all future versions of the game and has given them access to the Windows, Mac, and linux versions of said game. But when it came to the Android (basically linux) version and the XBLA (basically Windows) version it's suddenly time to charge people again all while fully dismissing that all future versions only really meant computers.

I'm not disagreeing that EA's practices are bad for the industry but rather pointing out that Notch, to some, isn't the indie saint that many pass him off as and went right after those console/mobile/tablet dollars. Hell he even partnered with Microsoft who has also done a lot of harm to the industry. (exclusivity windows, pricing practices, gating away content which is free everywhere else, and so on)

How then would you interpret all future versions? The Android and XBLA ports of Minecraft are versions of the game which happened in the future after all. (I don't really care mind you and I know it's a semantics thing but he probably should have done a little more thinking before putting a claim like that up on the internet for all to see while asking them for money)[/QUOTE]

Who controls the prices on XBLA? Is it Notch? Is Notch running Microsoft? Was Gabe Newell answering to Notch when he complained that he Microsoft wasn't letting him release things for free on XBLA? Is that what you think?

Furthermore, XBLA does not equal Windows. That's an ignorant assertion. You just can't develop something for Windows and just throw it onto XBLA. That's not how it works. The pipeline, framework, and workflow are all completely different.

Listen. Your basic gripe is that he didn't add in the lingo "PC" in the "all future versions" descriptions. But it's also a very petty gripe. Now if you want to be petty, more power to you. But in doing so, you're basically admitting you're incapable of determining the distinction of what Notch meant. Now if you were capable of understanding the distinction, but others weren't, then you should let them fight their own battles.

If you don't understand the distinction, then let me help you understand what "versions" mean. In game development there are terms usually referred to as "versions" or "builds". These are constantly updated "versions" or "builds" of the game. "Version 0.01". "Version 0.23". And so on. Just like the PSN has "versions" of their firmware. If you check your web browser, you can see which "version" of your browser you are using. He was using the term in the context of "game development".

Other things you should know that aren't explicitly written down: Don't stick forks in electrical sockets. Fire is hot. Don't stare at the sun.
 
[quote name='Golden Idol']Now if you want to be petty, more power to you.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to Wal-Mart and buying an EA game.
 
[quote name='Ryuukishi']How does that logic apply to games though? Big-budget crowd pleasers like Halo and Call of Duty may be major successes, but they're not crowding out stuff like Braid, Minecraft, Fez, Journey, Portal or whatever. Those games are still getting made and they're still making money. There's more choice now than there probably ever was. So what's the problem.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this is essentially what I meant to say but I filled my post with swears instead. My bad.
 
[quote name='blueshinra']Good article; thanks for linking it.

"Indie" is rapidly becoming as meaningless a label for games as it did for movies many years ago.[/QUOTE]

Well, you can't apply "green" to games... so they have to find some other feel-good label.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top